Talk:"I AM" Activity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Occult Portal "I AM" Activity is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Copyvio 2 Merging 3 Plagarism 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.1.1 Survey - Support votes 4.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 4.2 Discussion 5 Intro is confusing 6 Dead link 7 Revision 8 Edits to correct factual inaccuracies 9 Attempts to deprive religious liberty through the courts 9.1 undue weight given to the court cases 10 Improper use of a "Los Angeles Magazine" article that is full of factual errors 11 my revert 11.1 Fairness regarding the Supreme Court comments in the Ballard case 12 fact-checking 13 Removed cult references

[edit] Copyvio

This is a copyvio from [1] despite that the contributor cited the metareligion site, there's no evidence that the text has been released under a suitable license. Matt 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio have been deleted and replaced by a rewrite. --Sherool (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I think that the group isn't notable enough to have 2 pages. One would be sufficient to achieve encyclopedic breadth of the subject and it will counter having 2 mid quality articles. Lincher 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagarism

The charge of plagarism which I tagged {{fact}} needs a specific citation at that point. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Intro is confusing

Can someone explain "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters and the Individualized "I AM" Presence of each person." for a layperson. I think both of those terms should be explained - ascended masters and individualized i am presence --AW 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ascended Masters" is defined on the Ascended Master page, and "Individualized I AM Presence" is defined in this article under the "Beliefs" section. Aburesz 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think a brief thing would be useful in the beginning. It doesn't mean much to a random person on this page. Something like "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters, who are... and the Individualized "I AM" Presence, which is a type of... of each person. --AW 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the definitions as requested. Aburesz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.flexi.net.au/~perovich/Ballards/Psychic%20Dictatorship%20in%20America.htm
  • In "I AM" Activity on 2007-07-05 19:57:30, 404 Not Found
  • In "I AM" Activity on 2007-07-16 00:56:17, 404 Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [3]. --EchoBot 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I've made substantial changes to the article. The previous version had serious WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NOTABILITY problems. An extensive newspaper search (via Lexis Nexis) and Google Scholar search turned up very few reliable, independent sources covering this organization/movement. It is most notable for it's involvement in Ballard v. U.S. (1944), a First Amendment Supreme Court decision. The article therefore should present this movement in that context. The details of the movement's doctrine themselves do not appear to be notable, and so they do not warrant more than a gloss. Fireplace (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Making "substantial changes to the article" without discussion or reaching a consensus is not the best editing technique on Wikipedia. Small changes such as grammar or punctuation corrections do not need to be discussed. However substantial changes should be discussed and a consensus reached. Arion (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is an appropriate way to tackle articles with substantial NPOV and reliable sources problems, especially on articles that are not widely watched, and especially on walled gardens such as this one. Fireplace (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By relying on a sloppily researched newspaper article that gives completely inaccurate information about the beliefs of The "I AM" Activity, you have distorted this article to the point that it is a mess of inaccuracy and an attack on a minority religious belief. And the portrayal of the court case is extremely POV distorted, missing the issues at hand.

• The landmark Supreme Court case that was part of this story established once and for all that someone may not be prosecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs, since that is a violation of the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

• Ballard NEVER claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Arion (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to correct factual inaccuracies

There were factual inaccuracies placed in this "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I made just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action? Arion (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

More POV language insertion has just been inserted into the article by User:Fireplace. He has just tried to use the "authority" of the Los Angeles Times to keep the perjorative (in today's language connotation) word "cult" to describe this religious organization with centers in many cities and in various nations. He has also changed the heading of the United States Supreme court case section to "Fraud trial (1940 to 1944)" to especially push the POV that this entire religion is a fraudulent con game.

Here are edits that I had made to correct factual inaccuracies (that Adam Cuerden immediately reverted. Although I am not a member, I have studied this religious organization (as well as many other "new religious movements" since 1972 (so I should know the history and facts about them):

The landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) established the United States legal precedent that: "The preferred position given freedom of religion by the First Amendment is not limited to any particular religious group or to any particular type of religion but applies to all."^[1][2]

This organization believes that their instruction has been given to humanity by the Ascended Masters, which allegedly include Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Maitreya, and thousands of others.^[3] These are believed to be humans who have lived in physical bodies, became immortal and left the cycles of "re-embodiment" and karma, and attained their "Ascension."

Thousands of messages from 1932 to 1972, claimed to be from Ascended Masters, Elohim, and Archangels, were recorded and published by their "Saint Germain Press".^[3]

I removed this patently false quote from that spurious Los Angeles Magazine article that stated:

Written in "living letters of Light" only King and his wife, "Lotus," could see, the words expressed love for the devoted audience members and hatred for their numerous enemies. Then Godfre and Lotus led their disciples in the chanting of decrees, sometimes beseeching their gods for "ONE MILLIONDOLLARS IN CASH! TAX-FREE!"

I replaced the erroneous information about Guy Ballard's passing that was also quoted from that Los Angeles Magazine article, and replaced it with the factually correct (with reference cited):

On December 29, 1939 Guy Ballard passed away and since January 1, 1940 was considered by the membership to now have become an Ascended Master^[3]

I hope this clarifies the issues involved. Arion (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another factually inaccurate quote has just been inserted (with derisive language):

"As of 1998, "a tiny remnant of the sect lingers in the shadow of Shasta, their own holy mountain." This is simply not true, as there are centers in many cities in the United States and various cities in other nations. Arion (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to deprive religious liberty through the courts

• Placing information about "fraud" trials (the modern equivalent of "witch trials") in the lead paragraph is unacceptable, since it poisons the entire article for the reader who is then led to believe he is at an article about some fraudulent "con game" masquerading as a religion. The founders and the members believed in this set of beliefs as their religion, and members throughout the world, both in this organization and in the dozens of organizations that developed from this foundation, also believe them. By devoting so much space to the court cases, which were during 6 years of the 75 year history of the "I AM" Activity, the article has in effect become an "Anti-I AM Activity" article.

• For those unfamiliar with the United States Constitution, there is an inviolate guarantee of "Freedom of Religion". These 2 series of court cases, ending with the United States Supreme Court not upholding those lower court decisions, were a disgraceful dark period in the United States jurisprudence system from 1940 - 1946.

• These 2 series of court cases were a blatant attempt by unbelievers and "skeptics" to eliminate this religion using the fallacious premise that this was obviously a bogus religion, since no one could possibly believe such beliefs. (I personally consider the belief by most Christians that there is "eternal damnation" to be irrational and contrary to logic, yet I would never seek to limit someone's freedom to believe whatever they want.)

• • The United States Supreme Court, in the first series of cases, stated that the United States Constitution guarantees to every person the right to any religious belief he or she chooses, including the right to hold no religious belief. This case is taught in law school as a landmark case that set the legal precedent that religious groups may not be prosecuted on the basis that their particular religious beliefs could not possilbly be true.

• • In the second series of cases, there was another attempt to eliminate the "I AM" Activity by using the tactic of accusing them of "mail fraud" - on the grounds that they could not possibly believe their stated beliefs. Therefore they made the outlandish claim that the "I AM" Activity, by mailing out (using the U.S. postal system) their monthly publication and their books, were somehow guilty of "mail fraud"! Using this ridiculous argument, you could therefore say that any religion that sends out their literature or books using the U.S. postal system would be guilty of "mail fraud" in the eyes of others who did not believe in their beliefs. The Supreme Court never got around to considering this issue (which was another attempt at denying Consitutionally protected "Freedom of Religion") since they threw out the case because the jury had excluded women. No one ever again (in the United States of America) tried to prosecute a religion on the basis of their doctrines or beliefs. Arion (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] undue weight given to the court cases

I concur with the above editor that undue weight has been included in the article regarding the court cases. Google and Google Books show an order of magnitude greater number of hits to the "I AM Activity" as compared with the same search also including the word "court".

This organization is not mostly notable for its court case. The case should be mentioned in a section of the article, but it should not occupy the first half of the lead and 75% of the article, as it does in the current version.

The article as it is currently presented gives a non-neutral view of the organization. I'm not involved with this topic, and not getting into editing it at this time, but I'm posting this comment to indicate my view of the matter under Wikipedia policy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a very widely cited Supreme Court decision, so I think the amount of coverage given (in terms of word count, not percentage) is correct (also, be careful of the Google test). More content about the movement should be added, but reliable sources about I AM are hard to come by. I've found a couple in the library and will be adding more content shortly. Fireplace (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My "Google test" was not for showing notability, it was just to compare the results for the basic topic and the court case element. Also, the more important part of it is the Google Books result. Using just the search term of the name of the article, there are ten times more books that mention the religious movement or the organization than that mention the court case. On the other hand, if the name of the court case is searched, then the number of book references goes way up. But that is not the topic of this article, the court case names Ballard, not the "I AM Activity". If the term "I AM Activity" is added to the Google Books search on "United States v. Ballard", then only one book remains.

I agree with you the court case is important, and I have no objection to including significant coverage of it in the article. Maybe even a quarter of the article. But it is not the main topic of the article, and placing it such prominence in the lead, and such large proportion of the words, is not WP:NPOV about the topic of this article, it's WP:Undue weight. It gives the initial impression that the people are crooks who somehow got away with it. It doesn't say that, but by putting a court case in the first paragraph, that's the impression, and it's biased.

The organization's religious movement itself had presence that enough to bring the court case into prominence, and this article is about the religious movement, not the case. The court case was indeed notable, as you've indicated. And, rightly so, it has its own article at United States v. Ballard.

The material about the case that's in this article is valuable info. I suggest it be moved to the court case article, with a shorter summary here and a link, and let this article tell the story of this unique historical and possibly still active cult that existed since the 1930s and influenced many people - a few million students according to some accounts (I have not vetted that information, but I do know the number was large and the idea widely known). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, more content is coming. Since this case was a major, national event with long-term impact, I don't think it's necessary to truncate it. Fireplace (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper use of a "Los Angeles Magazine" article that is full of factual errors

• The use of the Los Angeles Magazine April 1, 1997 smear article by Fireplace to engage in a POV attack on the reputation and legitimacy of the I AM Activity is disgusting. Even after I have pointed out that it is full of factual errors and language that shows the author's contempt for the subject, the tag team of Fireplace and Adam Cuerden have been reverting my attempts to rectify the situation. The author of that Los Angeles Magazine article obviously knew practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and was obviously only interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject, using derogatory terms like "two-bit alias", "a bizarre rite", and "one of the kookiest cults"

• Just some of the factually incorrect statements from this article which should never have been used as a source document:
  • "claiming to be a reincarnation of St Germain" - Ballard never claimed to be a reincarnation of Saint Germain
  • "the words expressed love for the devoted audience members and hatred for their numerous enemies" - there never were words of "hatred" expressed
  • "beseeching their gods" - this group does not "beseech" "gods" for money, but believes in a concept of "decrees" (positive affirmations, spoken with accompanying thought (law of attraction) and feeling aligned with the words (somewhat similar to Science of Mind and Religious Science)
  • ""a witch's cauldron of the inconceivable" - another attempt at derision

• The landmark Supreme court cases should be included, but only briefly (with links to the text of the Supreme court decisions). These should not occupy the first half of the lead and 75% of the article, as it does in the current version. This creates the impression that the founders were convicted criminals that were guilty of some type of wrongdoing. The facts are that they never served any probations nor were required to pay any fines, and their so-called "convictions" were overturned by the United States Supreme Court. That six year period (1940 - 1946) out of their 75 year history was an example of one of the worst abuses of the U.S. judicial system to engage in blatant religious persecution that is not allowed under the Constitution of the United States of America. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my revert

A more detailed response to my reversion... (1) Sections should, when possible, be longer than a paragraph -- I don't think it's necessary to break apart the first history section. (2) Be careful with the references. The Los Angeles Times ran a piece on this, and so did the Los Angeles Magazine. (3) I don't think it's controversial that many followers were left in debt because of this movement -- there's a reliable source, it's part of the subject of the fraud trials, and there's no source disputing it. Same with the claim that Ballard's early death was a blow to the movement -- that's sourced and apparently uncontroversial as well, and I can add more sources if necessary. (4) I think the description of the event at the Shrine Auditorium should stay -- remember, this movement *does* face derogatory press, and *has* been called a sham by sources from the LA Times all the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, so it's appropriate to give an example of how the group's activities are described by the outside world. BUT, I agree the quote should be put in context. (5) "Relocation to Santa Fe" is too narrow. Fireplace (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Supreme Court cases, I've already explained why they deserve detailed discussion. The first case was an important First Amendment case, and therefore this is an aspect of the group that gives them a lasting importance in the history of the US. Fireplace (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, your appeal to WP:UNDUE is understandable (given the word "undue"), but I think misplaced: UNDUE says that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." That is not what is at stake here. Fireplace (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A few other tidbits... "stored up" and "received" don't mean the same thing. The government audit didn't find that they allegedly did xyz, it found that they did xyz. Fireplace (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for discussing rather than immediately reverting again. I'm not going to work on this in great detail. My purpose in those changes was to create a version of the article for the page history that shows, in general, an example of a more NPOV and balanced page, fairly, without WP:UNDUE weight given to negative publicity taken from one or two obviously biased LA Times pieces, and a couple anti-cult books. I won't debate the meaning of the undue weight part of the NPOVpolicy here, that's a straw man and a red herring. We both know that it means the article should fairly show all valid points of view about the topic and that one point of view should not pop out and squash the others unfairly.

I'm not saying that those references should not be used, but I am saying that it is unfair to the topic to stuff the article with information only from those sources. It makes it seem like the entire article is an indictment, and that is not the purpose of NPOV writing.

The court cases were important, and they have an entire separate article because of that, and that separate article is linked directly from this one. The information I removed from here about the cases, is now in that article.

So, some of what you wrote in your reply here may be correct, and if you have more sources, sure, let's use them. But the tone of the article must be NPOV. An example of this is the many times "fraud" and "conviction" were in the article previously. Once the Supreme Court overturns a conviction, then it's not a conviction any more, the word only applies to the initial case, and afterwards, the person is not a criminal. The article needs to use words like "alleged" when it mentions the accusations or indictments, to avoid the appearance of bias.

As far as the headings being too close together, that's a style detail, I've seen many articles with small sections, and I find them readable and in some cases appropriate. The section headings also need to avoid undue weight. WIth four headings about the trials and only two about their other accomplishments, that was not NPOV.

I am not a follower of their beliefs, and I knew nothing about them before I was drawn here from the unfair fringe noticeboard reports that misapplied the WP:FRINGE guideline to articles about religion.

Let's work this out in a friendly manner and come up with a truly unbiased report of the history of this organization. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this note after seeing that you did revert again, so I stuck through my "thanks for not reverting" note above. You reverted all the work I did after unilaterally telling me I was wrong. That's not "discussing", that's edit-warring. It's not 3RR, it's only 2RR, but it is edit-warring, and it is absolutely non-productive and non-collaborative. If you found, as you wrote in your edit summary, that I made a mistake on a source, then go ahead and fix that, sure. But mass-reverting all the work I did is antagonistic and not in the spirit of working together productively. I'll leave it at this. I'm not reverting you. There is no reason for the court case, which is important on its own, to take so much of this article. It has its own article to address why its important. You've now made it very clear that you have an agenda for this article, and that you will fight to defend it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for other editors reading the above conversation: here is the version of the article with my changes, and here is the diff of the revert. The removed information has been moved to this article: United States v. Ballard. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) The two books I cited are not anti-cult books. In fact, the Partridge one was suggested to me by Arion 3x3. (2) It's appropriate to have duplicative content on multiple articles. But "hiding" the details of the Supreme Court case in another article is a WP:POVFORK. This isn't a WP:SUMMARY STYLE article, and there's no need to deleted the sourced, relevant, important content. (3) I'm fine with tweaking language surrounding "convictions" and "fraud", but let's make sure it reads well and doesn't create inaccuracies (e.g. government auditing finding allegations). (4) Regarding your claim that I have an agenda... remember to assume good faith. Of all the editors involved in the various discussions that have been going on, I'm one of the few who has remained civil, calmly cited relevant policy, taken steps to research, find, and add content from reliable sources. I appreciate that you spent time on those edits, but they contained some questionable edits and some flat-out mistakes (incorrect attributions). That's why I reverted a second time. Fireplace (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

←I did not say you have not remained civil, you have, and I appreciate that. But you did not need to second-revert my edits, you could have corrected the errors you found and selectively restored some of the material you think should be there. By completely reverting everything I did, twice within a short time, you do not indicate collaborative spirit, you indicate WP:OWN. Sorry to say so, but that's how it appears when you don't allow someone else to make reasonable changes.

Also, it is not "hiding" the details of the Supreme Court case to put them in its article and link it. No sourced relevant content was deleted, excessive detail was moved to a more appropriate article, and a clear summary left in its place, with sources and a link. If you want another sentence or two in the summary of the cases, that could be OK. But when someone looks at this article, the court case should not be the overwhelming content they see.

By using the heading "Fraud Cases" rather than "Court Cases", that also shows bias, because the word "Fraud" pops out when someone views the table of contents. If the convictions had not been overturned, then that would make sense, because that would mean that the court system determined them to be guilty. However, that is not what happened. The convictions were overturned - both of them - so, after all those convictions, it is completely unfair to label them as fraud-felons. That is biased, plain and simple.

Not only that, but you have the headings for all the court cases as "Fraud Cases". That's not even accurate, because the Supreme Court cases were not about fraud, they were about due process.

It's particularly poignant that this argument about how to label the court cases is happening on this article, because the substance of the Supreme Court overturns of the convictions, both times, were about due process and fairness not being applied to the cases that convicted them. The results should be fairly represented, which is: the convictions were overturned, they were judged not guilty.

You've done a lot of work checking out the sources. I applaud you for that. Now, I respectfully suggest that you examine your motivations and your NPOV writing technique. See if you can write the article in a way that does not use Wikipedia policy to support your personal viewpoint. Dig deep and ask yourself the hard questions. Show us an article that is impeccably NPOV, not one that seems to be but has bias in its wording. How about starting by using the word "alleged" when referring to charges that have not been proven, or that have been reported only in editorial puff-pieces that are roasting a small religious cult to get a laugh from their readers? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for other editors reading the above conversation: here is the version of the article with my changes, and here is the diff of the second revert. The removed information was moved (prior to the revert) to this article about the court case: United States v. Ballard. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I've explained why I don't consider the Supreme Court details excessive. It was an important case, directly relevant to the long-term notability of this group. (2) These weren't due process cases. Due process is about notification and other stuff. (3) "Court cases" is too broad, as there were other notable court cases (e.g., the tax-exempt issue). I changed it to "Fraud convictions and Supreme Court reversals" which I think is apt. The government was actively trying to convict the Ballards of fraud for 6+ years, so "fraud" is important -- and the Supreme Court vacated the convictions twice, so "reversals" is important. (4) Regarding the WP:OWNership claim... that's not a fair description of events. More accurate is: Bold, revert, discuss which is exactly what has happened, and is exactly how the process is supposed to work. Fireplace (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've written pretty much all of what I wanted to communicate to you. You'll either accept the core of my message, or not, as you will. Someday,... maybe this will look different to you in retrospect. I might enter some comments here or make a few edits over time, but I'm not going to rebut your points one by one or try to perfect the article in contention with you. I've shown my idea of a fair way to present the topic, and now, I hope that you and other editors will move ahead and make this a fair and unbiased article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness regarding the Supreme Court comments in the Ballard case

(Continued from discussion with Fireplace from the above section): I just wrote my comment above (23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)), intending not to write more for a while, but now I find I need to add one more note, since it's so clear and important. Here is a simple direct example of bias in the way you chose to present the Supreme Court decision in the article, when you reverted my edits:

The court overturned the conviction 5-4. You quoted one paragraph from the majority opinion and you quoted two separate paragraphs, one from each of two dissenting judges. I don't see a problem having a quote from a dissenting opinion. But it's clearly biased to give the dissenting opinions twice as much space as the majority opinion. Doesn't that seem a bit off to you? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, why not use some of these quotes from the Supreme Court decision?

Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into religious persecution.

I would dismiss the indictment and have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths.

All schools of religious thought make enormous assumptions, generally on the basis of revelations authenticated by some sign or miracle.

Some who profess belief in the Bible read literally what others read as allegory or metaphor, as they read Aesop's fables.

If we try religious sincerity severed from religious verity, we isolate the dispute from the very considerations which, in common experience, provide its most reliable answer

William James, who wrote on these matters as a scientist, reminds us that it is not theology and ceremonies which keep religion going. Its vitality is in the religious experiences of many people. "If you ask what these experiences are, they are conversations with the unseen, voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways."

If religious liberty includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his judges are likely not to understand, and are almost certain not to believe, him.

-- all of the above, quoted directly from the opinions of the court. Some of this wisdom is directly applicable to the editing of this article, and to the recent mis-application of WP:FRINGE by several editors to Theosophy-related religion articles as well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that comment or this one are helpful ways of reaching agreement. We're in the "discuss" phase of Bold, Revert, Discuss, and some points of agreement have already emerged. Now, to address your question about why I gave each of the two dissents a paragraph but the majority only one: the dissents took opposite views. The Chief Justice's dissent (joined by 2 others) was that the conviction should stand. Jackson's dissent was that the whole case should be thrown out. The majority took a middle ground. Fireplace (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't find my comments helpful; they were intended to be helpful. But if you don't want to receive the message I was trying to convey, then you won't. There is nothing I can do about that.

You say we're in the "discuss" phase of the process. But you reverted my careful NPOV work twice in a short time today, and then again when another editor supported the edits I had made. That's not discussion, that's edit-warring, no matter how many words you add to the talk page at the same time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fact-checking

For the public record, when it comes to wild accusations that people were left in debt, it is always better to check on your facts. The policy, and the practice, of the "I AM" Activity has always been to provide events, classes, and quarterly conclaves FREE with no charge. I had personally investigated them back in the 1970s and found that policy strictly carried out. A recent check bore out that this policy is still in force. Most spiritual organizations charge for their events, but the "I AM" Activity never has. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aburesz, I'm perfectly happy to work with you, but your comments need to fit into the framework of Wikipedia policy. "Personal investigation back in the 1970s" is original research. If the claim is controversial, cite a reliable source saying as much and we can go from there. Fireplace (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I had just gone through dozens of copies of their monthy publication The Voice of The "I AM" - from their first in 1936 through issues in the 1970s and 1980s and 2007 - and the consistent fact is that there is not a single mention of a charge for attending any of their religious events and no requests for donations. That's conistent over 70 years of their publications. Try to find that with any other spiritual organization or church. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there seems to be some controversy, I've put the source into the article text. Fireplace (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is not only controversy, there is no consensus among the other editors. What you need to realize is that an article that has been written with contempt and derision and as an attack on a religion cannot be considered a source article for the subject of the Wikipedia article on that religion. That is simple common sense. And your repeated attempts to add the negative connotation word "cult" into the article is noted and seen for what it is intended to do to the reader. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has been called a "cult" by Bible fundamentalists innumerable times over the years, yet there is no mention of that in their well-done NPOV Wikipedia artticle.

I hope you don't try to insist that I prove a negative. I can not prove something does not exist in "I AM" Activity publications if it does not exist. Appeals for donations, and charges for religious services and religious conferences, never occured. I could quote the official policy from their publications, if you still do not believe me.

The Wikipedia policy page you pointed out to me states that one should not be "using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship." and "editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited"

I having meticulously pointed out the error in those articles you quoted from, and that those derogatory smear articles you have quoted from have been discredited. I always try to assume good faith on the part of other Wikipedia editors. It is important to respect the other editors of this article. We have repeatedly pointed out the POV anti-"I AM" Activity article you have created, and you have repeatedly reverted our attempts to get it back to NPOV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to engage with you in discussion when almost every comment you make, on every article you edit, starts out by accusing other people of acting in bad faith. You made two substantive points, which I'll respond to: (1) When the LA Times and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court call an organization a cult, those are notable events that merits inclusion in the article. Doing so is not a violation of WP:NPOV. If you have issue with the LDS article, you may raise it there. (2) You say that appeals for donations never occurred, and that's fine. I understand the difficulty of proving a negative, but we also have to deal with WP:V and the fact that we have a reliable source that says the Ballards sought donations. How do you suggest we phrase it? Fireplace (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "I AM" Activity has never asked for donations. That is a fact. They have been stating it for 70 years in their publications. Do you think they could get away with going against their own statements, repeated every month for 70 years?

Edit warring to maintain malicious material in this article is not constructive and does not lead to harmonious cooperation with other editors. The authors that you have quoted had taken the disgraceful route of just looking up past articles that were full of inaccuracies, copying the inaccuracies, and then passing those on to the next sloppy lazy article writer.

I commend you for finding the links to the Supreme Court cases. The inclusion of a short summary of the Supreme Court cases is helpful since it shows how easily a special interest group was able to subvert and misuse the U.S. Justice System and turn it into a tool for persecution of a minority religious group. That should be an object lession for all of us when dealing with minority groups.

This article cannot be turned into an attack upon an entire religious group - and by extension upon the dozens of "off-shoot" esoteric and philosophical groups that devloped from the "I AM Activity into the 21st century. If you think their beliefs are impossible, then are you also prepared to unleash a campaign against the Judeo-Christian religions since they believe that "the sun was stopped from crossing the sky" for an entire day by one of their prophets?

This is a slippery slope. If you are allowed to quote from "hate speech" malicious articles, then where will it stop? Hate speech against homosexuals and transvestites - quoted because it was published in some publication? How about hate speech published in so called "reliable journals" directed against other religions or politial parties? Where will it end? Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from The Voice of the "I AM" Number 1, March 1936. page 27:

"We never, at any time, allow anyone giving forth This Work to charge a fee of any kind and the individual who does so will not have the Radiation of Jesus, Saint Germain nor any other of the Ascended Masters; for This Work has been given as a Glad Free Gift of Love from the Ascended Masters and at no time is there ever to be a charge made for it.

"This is stated unmistakably plainly in the Discourses, for Saint Germain said in the very beginning, that This Teaching must never be commercialized for private profit; and we do not, never have and never shall consent to anyone ever making a charge for it; or using the students under This Radiation for any commercial scheme. We ask all students to keep this Activity Free from all intrusion of those whose motives are selfish and commerical.

• A front page story in the October 8, 1938 edition of the Chicago Herald and Examiner noted that the Ballards "do not take up collections or ask for funds".

I hope this clarifies their policy, established from the very beginning. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed cult references

In 1983 when the Saint Germain Press applied for copyright renewal on various titles, the Library of Congress responded with a new category in the cataloging process. It recognized the "I AM" Activity as a "religion", not a cult or sect. The distinction deserves consideration. A religious movement that endures long after the demise of its founder is defined as a religion. The significance is that the followers give reverence to the tenets of the teaching, not unquestioning adulation to a living leader, which is a cult. Emery (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The content you deleted from the article doesn't state that the movement is a cult, but that it has been called a cult by two prominent sources -- a fact which isn't changed by the label the Library of Congress uses. The material is sourced to reliable sources -- please stop deleting it. Fireplace (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you consider it so important to include in an encyclopedia article that a particular religion has been called a cult? Please stop adding it. Emery (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Emery, the use of the word "cult" in that way does not belong in the article. It's not NPOV to cherry-pick one word without context. Looking at the sources: the LA Times article was not a fact-checked analysis, it was a fluff piece making fun of people's non-mainstream beliefs. And Justice Jackson used the word only in passing, not as an admonition. He also used the words "sect", "religious" and "faith" in that same opinion. There is no NPOV reason to pick the word "cult" out of that document to mention it here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)