Talk:Rama computer cult
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-03. The result of the discussion was No consensus, default to keep. |
Jenniferflynn89, I think you may find this article generates some controversy. I may try my hand at making some changes in a day or two but first some thoughts.
There was already an article devoted to Frederick Lenz whose existence I assume you know about because you linked to it. Presumably this article would be more about the group whereas Frederick Lenz would be more about its leader. This would be a reasonable distinction that would avoid the need to merge the two articles, although right now the content in both articles is something of a mixed bag (each article is a mix of info about the group and info about the leader). This probably needs to be cleaned up.
It is understood, in the appropriate Wikipedia article about the term Cult and elsewhere, that this term is somewhat pejorative. It is hard to be neutral when using the term Cult. On the other hand, as distinct from other groups perhaps, there was no clear term used consistently to describe this group over the years. "Rama students" is the term former members use to describe themselves most frequently, and I would recommend favoring this term over Cult. The actual Wikipedia article about the term Cult is careful to used qualifiers like "alleged" or "purported" when naming specific groups sometimes considered to be cults--I would recommend similar caution regarding terminology here.
Going through the article, some specific points:
"destructive" cult--again, it is difficult to be objective when using a term like "destructive"
physical threats--I have read all the criticism of Rama over the years but have never heard this one before. Do you have a reference to back up the claim that physical threats were made? Certainly there was sometimes a fear of negative spiritual repercussions but I do not recall ever hearing about overt physical threats.
present versus past tense--Rama died in 1998. Although the group arguably has continued to exist, generalizations which might have arguably had some validity pre-1998 definitely are no longer true today. Many statements here would be true, or at least closer to the truth, if the present tense were replaced with the past tense.
colours--Rama was an American and the great bulk of his teaching was done in America. The American spelling "color" would seem more appropriate.
martial arts--All members of the group were encouraged to study martial arts. This definitely included the women, not just the men.
LSD--he denied the use of LSD or other illegal drugs. This claim has been made a great deal but always without proof.
sex--he had sex with many women followers. Whether this was exploitative or not could be debated. To maintain neutrality either delete the exploitative part or document very specific instances of women being harmed by the experience.
history--it seems to stop around 1990 whereas the history of the student body has continued up until the present day
methods and doctrine--he used both the carrot and the stick. I think this section places too much emphasis on the stick, which he did use, but not to the exclusion of the carrot.
LSD and cocaine--these two drugs have COMPLETELY different effects. It is hard to imagine his behavior being consistent with the use of both drugs. This sentence sounds poorly researched.
raped--again, a very strongly negative term used without strong evidence. It should be backed up with solid evidence or deleted. I am not aware of even Rama's harshest critics referring to sex with Rama as 'rape'.
senior members--I am not aware of a distinction being made on the basis of five years of membership at any time during the group's history. Certainly there were always some in more favor than others but Rama tended to reinvent himself so often that it is hard for me to imagine him giving any credence at all to five year old events like membership.
criminal activities--again, some evidence should be cited or this highly negative innuendo deleted. The evidence, if qualified with terms like "alleged", might not be strong enough to warrant conviction in a criminal court, but it should at least say who specifically alleged criminal activity and why they were in a position to know. Absent such evidence the comment should be deleted.
--Dash77 07:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noted all of your concerns in relation to the terms used in this article that sound biased. I have edited most of the article and hope that it is a lot more objective now. Thanks for your input. I am not sure if I should change the location or page name of this article and I don't know how I should go about it either. Should it be moved/renamed? And how would I do this?
Jenniferflynn89 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi...thanks for the changes. Regarding the change of name for the whole article, it is possible to put in a redirect so that the article is, in effect, known by multiple names and all such names point to the same actual article. However I'm not sure what specific formal name should be used. It is a somewhat tricky issue because I continue to think that "cult" is rather perjorative but at the same time the formal names under which Rama taught tended to be various companies--Power Trips Inc, Interglobal Seminars, Infinity Plus Consulting--that were really just vehicles for teaching (Rama's opponents would call them mere fronts which I guess is true in one way but it is unclear what exactly they were a front FOR at least from a formal sense). The particular companies are long since defunct and referring to the 'clients of Interglobal Seminars Inc', while a formally correct way to describe Rama's students, simply doesn't capture the meaning as effectively as the much more informal 'Rama computer cult'.
The term used within the group to describe the students is 'Rae Chorze Fwaz'; however that term is unlikely to be known outside the group.
--Dash77 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new article, Rae Chorze-Fwaz, which initially just redirects to this one. I think that this article as it exists right now is fairly accurate in terms of how others see the group, but there needs to be more in terms of how the group sees itself and what the Rae Chorze-Fwaz is. Like I say, Rae Chorze-Fwaz was Rama's term for the student body but the term is so little known outside the group that some explanation is needed. Ultimately I think that this article should redirect to Rae Chorze-Fwaz but not until I've had a chance to make these changes.
--Dash77 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a section on the name of the group to the main article.
--Dash77 08:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Deletion of the article??: only 61 google hits
I do not agree with the proposed deletion of this article. For one thing, Rae Chorze-Fwaz, which redirects here, has 221 google hits for a total of 282 google hits. But more significantly, as I believe was already discussed in the article, this group was known by many, many names over the years and, as such, any google search for any particular name is only going to produce a minimal number of hits and is not an accurate measure of the significance of the subject in this case.
As someone with a favorable opinion of this group, I do not want to draw too much attention to the press coverage this group received, which unfortunately was mostly negative. Yet the press coverage--albeit largely negative in nature--surely is indicative of the significance of this group. The group was discussed in articles or television programs in Wired Magazine (2.01, again in 7.09), Psychology Today, Dateline (August 1996 and March 1997), New York magazine, Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, Santa Fe Reporter, Philadelphia Inquirer, Portland Oregonian, Gannett Suburban Newspapers, the LA Weekly, and the Hartford Courant. As noted, the press coverage was mostly negative, although the New York magazine did declare Rama to be one of the 100 smartest New Yorkers.
With this level of local and national coverage, surely it must be agreed, even if there is controversy as to the accuracy of that coverage, that the subject is significant. --Dash77 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If Rae Chorze-Fwaz is creating more google hits then it might make more sense to rename the article using that name. The "Rae Chorze-Fwaz" name is technically more accurate because it's a name that the group used for itself and it eliminates the somewhat biased "Cult" reference in the article name. Jimc234 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The article on Frederick Lenz contains an extensive background of the group. Does it make sense to include a short description of the group here and reference the longer text under "Frederick Lenz" for a more complete picture? -- Jimc234 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that, Jimc234, for several reasons: 1. The article Frederick Lenz is already longer than the optimal size recommended by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia recommends it possibly being broken out into smaller pieces. 2. I'm not sure the description of the group is actually that extensive on Frederick Lenz. A description of what Frederick Lenz advised the group to do is not the same thing as a description of what the group actually did. 3. Frederick Lenz died in 1998 whereas the group has continued to exist. --Dash77 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent changes (deletions) by 69.181.230.101
I originally tagged this article for lack of neutrality, and I think there are still some issues with the article although it has been improved from the original version.
However, I do not agree with wholesale deletions of content as being an appropriate remedy for any lack of neutrality. Most of the claims made in the deleted content have at least some basis in fact. Edits to the article to improve neutrality should involve presenting additional information that might tell a more complete story, not deleting information that is at least partially correct.
Absent any reaction by either 69.181.230.101 (who deleted the content) or Bushcarrot (who claimed to have, but apparently did not, revert 69.181.230.101's changes) I will probably restore the deleted content in about 24 hours.
--Dash77 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the changes made by 69.181.230.101. I then amplified and reworded many of the 'common characteristics' to give the article a more positive slant--I also added some more positive 'common characteristics'.
--Dash77 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original research issue
This article contains numerous statments of fact with no source information. it reads like one long essay by a single author or a small group of authors and looks like original research. The statments of fact may well be true but they need to be sourced properly. The article could also do with some trimming with regards to the sentences devoted to describing what a cult is or isn't in the opinion of the author. It would be sufficient to link to other wikipedia articles that cover the topic of alleged cults and new religious movements. You could say :
-
- "Person X has stated that this group is a personality cult (then put citation and link to article where you found that allegation)". You could then say, "Person X further states that the group is a cult because they observed......"(citation)
It shouldn't be too hard to find that kind of thing. If one person aynwhere on the planet has ever called a group a Cult, Rick Ross's page should have a link to the article. This article has potential, it just needs a more neutral point of view, proper sourcing and a judicious trim.Lisapollison 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title
The title "Rama computer cult" is extremely biased. If there are no objections, I will be moving it to "Rama computer group" (unless someone has a better suggestion) Sfacets 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
