Talk:New Acropolis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Acropolis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] Site of Miguel Martinez

Please, see this edit and this. Without this comments this link is false. John Barley 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear John Barley, Please don't delete any verifiability facts. Everybody can verify of Miguel Martinez' article which published in reputable newspaper.--NewAcropolis 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear NewAcropolis! Of course you can see comments about information in reputable newspaper. Without this comments this link is false. This fact is verifiability. John Barley 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear NewAcropolis! This commentis very important. Without this comments this link is false. Best regards, John Barley 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

In this edit [1] NewAcropolis write: "The title of article must be in - → Reference" Why? This is spam, I think. John Barley 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Martinez vs CESNUR

[edit] Critical links to CESNUR

[edit] MIGUEL MARTINEZ CRITICIZES CESNUR

[edit] CESNUR CRITICIZES MIGUEL MARTINEZ

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm http://www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm http://www.cesnur.org/testi/lavage.htm

The quote above doesn’t refer to the article of New Acroplis. Please put it in appropriate article. --NewAcropolis 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions vs Facts

Please make sure you state your OPINIONS inside the discussion TAB (this page). The Article should be restricted to verifiable and unbiased facts.

Papers and articles released by official institutions, academic bodies and verifiable legal organizations are always welcome and will be retained (see CESNUR) as part of the article content, otherwise it will be deleted (please note: Newspapers are NOT considered verifiable sources).

As stated below Wikipedia is not an Advertising media - this remains true for both parties: for those who sympathise with the institution and for those who oppose it.

[edit] Critics comments

It is clear that the benefetors of the New Acropolis Organization was editing this pages. If there is criticism about it, Let the readers judge for themselves, give them the links as tools. Since it's the discussion page I'll feel free and will tell that a close friend of mine joined it a couple of years ago. Slowly but surely he dismentelled all his previous social connections. He is still in touch with his family, whom are worried about him. Now that we are clear - the Organization has it's critics and the article in wikipedia should reflect it. If it's done in the proper way - under a different section, It's very needed.

[edit] Critics References

Dear ENGER, Please don't delete any verifiability facts.
Everybody can verify following articles which published in reputable newspapers.

  1. Sheila Gostick, Confidence For Dummies. // NOW (Toronto, Canada), 1-7.01.2004
  2. Nick Cohen, The GM Jeremiahs. // The Observer (UK), 11.05.2003
  3. Barrett Hooper, What is the Matrix? Good Question. // The National Post (Toronto, Canada), 14.12.2001
  4. Rory Carroll in Rome, Satanists threaten the Pope's party. // The Guardian (UK), 18.12.1999
  5. Bomb hits Paris cult bookstore. // Associated Press (Paris, France), 14.08.1996
  6. Miguel Martínez: Story of an Emperor

NewAcropolis 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This articles are shady transaction G Bruno 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

These articles were published in reputable newspapers. So we can trust them. NewAcropolis 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 "... So we can trust them."
  • It is obvious the so called "NewAcropolis" user wants to confuse the readers: Many of these articles are just opinion articles, not periodistic investigations.
Now I am looking for it. Does anybody know newspaper investigations of New Acropolis in English or other languages? NewAcropolis 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Critics or Useless Opinions?

I have read the article from The Observer.

The only line about New Acropolis, in an article 4 screens long, just states that New Acropolis avenges "an obscure philosopher" named Giordano Bruno.

How can anyone claim such a source is reliable? Any respectful academic or scholar knows who was Giordano Bruno and why was he burned.

The campagin New Acropolis championed using his figure was about Freedom of Conscience and Thought.

It is obvious that the author of that article has no knowledge about this, or that he has his own obscure agenda.

The above list of links are just a shamefull pack of lousy opinions of people trying to discredit something they just don't know.

[edit] NA sympathiser comments

The Wikipedia should be a source of facts and knowledge, yet the authors of this article insert pseudo-facts, using well known journalistic techniques, as well as reports made 10 years ago, mainly in France, where almost every group, religious or not, not belonging to one of the known churches is included.

Phrases like "some say", "according to" fill every media accusation made against the organization; and each time they try to define or defend themselves, their responses are used in a twisted way to ridicule them, stating supposed “religion experts” or the like, which have an interest conflict in the case, to say the least.

Yet, no single legal sue has ever flourished against them.

If any of the accusations were true, the judges at Europe or Israel would have closed them. But this has not happened.

On the contrary, the labor the organization does on more than 40 countries, a figure that increases each year, prompts praises both from its members' personal circle, because of the personal growth they show, as well as from the media and the institutions that do join projects with them.

As one propagandist once said, tell a lie a thousand times, and people will start believing it.

Those who have ideological grievances against New Acropolis and the knowledge they foster, as well as envy for their capability to summon volunteers, are behind this well orchestrated mass media defamation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_Acropolis_3fa9.html"