Talk:Zendik Farm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-10-25. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] re: Overall page NPOV problems
Maybe there could be a section of the main article that addresses critics of the Farm. It could be handled similarly to the pages on OSHO, which given the passions both ways with him, could be handled fairly.
People who are interested in Zendik Farm should be able to come here and find what they're about, what their ideology and practice is, and what their intentional community is all about: structure and practice. There is a lot of community-as-central-focus (isn't this fascism?) as well as typical methods used to get disaffected youth to join a "movement." The whole "warrior" motif jumps out at a casual observer. Overall, I don't think it's as clearly written, and I'm glad it has the dispute messages on it. Aasgaard (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is very little - good or bad - that we can properly include here because there don't appear to be any decent reliable sources. As an encyclopedia we really aren't the place to hash out a debate between critics and supporters. If there were some well respected points of view on either side they could go in, but in the past all that's really come up are self published blogs and the like. The article is pretty much a stub because there seems to be little reliable material to build anything else from. Zendik wasn't nearly as big a figure as Osho. (And fascism is a little more extreme than community-as-central-focus). -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Heffron LiveJournal quote
I can see I might be stepping into a contentious area here, so I don't want to inflame any issues. The whole article seems to be based (on both sides) on some very woolly sources and a lot of original research. I just noticed one piece that quotes a livejournal blog as a source for a quote from John Heffron - blogs are rarely reliable sources and I can find no good reliable connection that shows the journal is written by someone who was at Zendick Farm. The block itself seems to be a response to Wikipedia in general, making it as close to Original Research as we can get without it simply having been written on the Wikipedia servers. This doesn't seem like suitable content for an encyclopedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: John Heffron lj quote
I agree with you. It's actually a fact that this livejournal didn't show up until after the "Cult Allegations" section of this Wiki was added, and if you look at it, you'll see that there's only two entries, both of which have been used as sources. I'm of the opinion (this is after having spent months giving Jyre/John Heffron a "good faith" benefit of the doubt) that the journal was created specifically to provide a source for this wiki.
I don't know if you know this, but John Heffron is Jyre, a person who edits this page frequently and has been busted vandalising both the wiki and the talk page by blanking sections of the wiki and deleting entries by others on the talk page.
I know you didn't want to step into a contentious area, and I'm sorry you have, but I'm not the only editor here that has a major issue with Jyre's input on this wiki. Perhaps he wasn't enlisted by the Zendiks themselves, but I agree that his livejournal should not be used as a source on this wiki. No other livejournals are. - Rashaun 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
My livejournal entry was used as a source, as was helen newmans livejournal entry, so there should be no problem there. Meanwhile, I don't vandalize wiki. The only person who has a problem with my edits is Rashaun, because he wants to negatively portray Zendik farm. I want this article to be NPOV and a good wiki article. The info that Rashaun and two other editors are putting in this article come from just two people. Helen and Brandon. These two people have both published their 'story' online, as have I... I'm fine either way about livejournals being used as a source. For awhile now, I've watched the article get screwed around with and I believe there's only two or three people adding all the specious crap that just portrays Zendik Farm in a cartoonish cult type of light. Obviously personal smear attempts. Not encyclopedia content. I think at least a balance is neccessary so I'll help with that, but meanwhile I'm looking into blocking Rashaun and getting protection for the article, and attention from administrators. Jyre 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rashun isn't the only person who has a problem - I have a problem with it. LiveJournal sites are not reliable sources for an article like this. In particular your journal is a response to this Wikipedia article and that makes it pretty much a clear case of pushing original research into the article. I don't see another livejournal reference on the page - but I find it extremely unlikely I'd support it either. These can not be considered good sources for an article like this. It needs to be written using good secondary sources, not a bunch of hearsay and personal accounts. I don't mean to imply you are the only one using poor sources - the piece you just removed that referenced this talk page was at least as bad. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Live Journal entries are definitely not reliable sources on Wikipedia. I have removed them an a lot of other material from the article that was original research, unsourced, composed of weasel words or otherwise inappropriate. Note that, for example, quoting this talk page in the article itself is not appropriate. Please could I ask all editors working on this article to be very careful in citing reliable sources when they add any information to the article. Thanks, Gwernol 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] THANK YOU Gwernol and SiobanHansa
I'm happy to leave this article alone now if it means that good editors that are aware of Wikipedia guidelines will bring this article up to standards. And you have, and that's great!
Jyre, man, cool your jets. I've finally gotten what I wanted out of this, and that was for SERIOUS Wikipedians to take to this article and shape it up per Wikipedia guidelines. I can't claim to have been the best editor ever working on this page, and neither can you, but I think that SiobanHansa and Gwernol have done more of a service to this page than either of us ever could have. The simple fact is that we're both biased. You can try to get me blocked but it won't work, and that's a fact. That's because I'm not blanking entire sections over and over again and saying that people who had negative experiences at Zendik Farm are delusional. All of my edits fit Wikipedia guidelines and that's the reason that you won't be able to get me blocked.
I think that the best thing that both of us could do is to just leave this page alone. Now that serious Wikipedians are editing it, I feel that this page is in good hands.
Personally, I'm hoping that Arol will declare Wikipedia evil sooner or later so that you, Siah, and all the other supporters will just leave the page alone. Me? I have a life to live. I'm so happy to not have to be concerned with this page anymore. - Rashaun 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks admins
Glad to see sanity restored and a neutral base for this article. Thanks for your attention... Jyre 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Now it's even better! Thanks again Gwernol, for your help... I'm interested in getting a proper image up to show the Marlinton Zendik farm, but I'm having a heck of a time figuring the licensing part out, and how to choose an image to use. Most of the best choices are from Zendik.org and while I have their permission to post, I've tried that but they've been deleted because I failed to properly tag and license the image. Jyre 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Images basically need to be released under the GFDL or similar license, or fit in with our fair use policy. Since it should be possible to get a GFDL image, it's unlikely the fair use policy would apply to most images. You need to get Zendik.org to agree to release of an image under a free license and to send their acceptance to the Foundation so it can be archived. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more details on how to do this properly. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Living Therapy
I added a fact tag to this because the reference that describes it doesn't use that term. But if there's no controversy over the definition (even if there's controversy over whether it's a good thing or not), I don't personally feel we actually need to burden the text with minuscule pointers to things like this. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the Joe Tarr article from the external links section (http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2001/1122/t_gamut.html article by Joe Tarr) which quotes the term "Living Therapy" in the context of the Zendiks practice of group therapy so that's an reference citation. I'll add the link. Jyre 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] added info should be included on Living Therapy
a large part of the social glue on Zendik Farm. Zendiks openly discuss very intimate details of their lives, including sexuality, amongst the entire membership, sometimes even at meals. This part of the Zendiks' lives seems to be one of the most controversial aspects of living there. In the process of Living Therapy, one may be expected to reveal their “guts” to the group. This is seen as an invasion of privacy to many outside critics, but from the Zendik perspective it is a way to become free of the past and of devastating lifelong patterns.
This phrase or at least most parts of it (it can be 'worked on') is pretty helpful info about the topic, revealing real life details that are not biased. It is supported by the articles referenced (2 & 3) so should be included. It's pretty concise, and neutral, presenting a critical and a praising view relevant to both the criticism section and the philosophy section. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
[edit] my recent edit + archiving
I put the Criticisms section back - that's a naughty Jyre! - and edited the paragrah that asserted that Zendiks were free to be in relationships. The Criticisms section directly contradicts that, so I made sure that that was expressed.
Also, I archived the old discussions. I'm sick of all that scrolling! - Rashaun 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
good job, me 2 Jyre 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rashaun, that section comes from an article in the post and i left it as written, and I think it's a neutral POV. If the other article quotes someone who says something you think contradicts that and it's referenced there, that's also neutral POV. please don't tinker with the article to skew it negative. the section you tinkered with is from an article that is a sourced reference. Jyre 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Jyre, please. I am NOT skewing this article, and you'd be able to see that if you cared to actually look at the edits I'm making instead of projecting your own ideas upon them. Here is exactly what I did: I removed the names of current Zendiks because it was not relevant; just the information that they change their names is enough. Then I changed the "wherever love may take them" sentence (because it was not scholarly) to "Members are free to form relationships, though this has been disputed by former members." That's not a negative slant at all. It basically says the same thing that you wrote there, except that some people haven't had that experience. So I reverted your changes because there's no real difference in our edits at all when you really look at it neutrally. Which you're not. If you need to edit the page further then please refrain from reverts, as some of the messed up code in your edits makes half of the "Criticisms" section disappear. - Rashaun 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Bluejay?
Rashaun = Michael Bluejay? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Maybe, maybe not.
[edit] Michael Bluejay.
Michael Bluejay? Very likely indeed. Same language and attitude. He is known to those who should know, and can be shared with those who need to understand. Wikipedia discussions are not the place for now.
- Pet my kitty! - Rashaun 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] There are many....
There are many lost souls living vicarious lives through the internet. They are seeking scapegoats for lives they lack directly, honestly, and intimately. Very few would choose Zendik as their personal scapegoat. It may be obvious who has been tinkering with this page, but it simply does not matter. Neither here nor in life.
[edit] Is it possible to ban Talmon6 from editing this article?
He has constantly changed the name of the entry from "Zendik Farm" to "Zendik Cult". His other changes are worth challenging as well but for now, isn't vandalizing the name of an entry enough to ban an individual from that entry? For instance, you can't go change the entry on "Ike Turner" to "Ike Wifebeater" just because you don't like him or think he is a bad person.
[edit] The DaZendik Code
Wow, you guys are excellent detectives because I happen to be a twentysomething female living on the eastern seaboard and not some jackoff named Michael Bluejay. Y'all have thought I was a dude from the get-go and I just love it. I wanted to see how long y'all could fail to properly identify me because you were too busy projecting your own idea of what an assertive person should be - male.
Oh, I just don't give a shit about this page anymore. I was looking up something else and decided to take a gander at whatever was going on here. Looks like I didn't leave anything very interesting.
The Zendiks almost got me when I was a 20 year old rebel dying for something to define myself with. I never made it to Zendik Farm because my friends ridiculed me endlessly about it, and while that might seem harsh at first, I feel like their harassment was a blessing. I'm now friends with a former Zendik who stayed for five years and got nothing from them except genital herpes. It's important for me to be vocal about the dangers of Zendik because I truly feel that the group is a cult and is harmful to the wellbeing of the people who seek membership. But there's no need for me to even bother with this wiki anymore because you all seem to be your own worst enemies. Peace out, turkeys.
And could we PLEASE sign our entries, people?! - Rashaun 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jackette.
For every Jackoff creeping through the internet there is a Jackette equally creepy. Gender has little to do with motives on wikipedia. And Rashaun's problems have little to do with being her being "assertive" If your existence revolves around launching online conspiracy theories- and parroting the conspiracy theories of a few others to validate them, do not use Zendik as your scapgoat. It is good you never went to Zendik. Maybe good for them as well as you. If the chosen lifestyle of others does not suit you, relax. Don't ask to join them as they are not looking to kidnap you. Zendik has never given anyone herpes. Sex can- there or elsewhere for the same reasons.... 24.155.246.8-Cosmic Garbonzo ( from Austin's main public wireless access locale)
Please stop this off topic discussion. If you are not focused on changes that can improve the article please just stop posting. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No detectives needed
No-one was playing detective nor cares to. The Bluejay issue was just a speculation- though a well founded one.
24.155.246.8 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Texan Sympathizer
[edit] More sources and stories from people that lived at Zendik Farm
There is a very long thread about Zendik Farm at Hip ForumsHip Forums with many people contributing that have actually lived at the Farm. It brings a different view of the place from the inside and it should remain with the article. Jyre has already deleted it once because he wants to present Zendik Arts through only his perspective which is bias to say the least. Here is the link to the Hip Forums thread about Zendik Farm: http://www.hipforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4937-p-17.html There are to many people that have lived at Zendik Farm participating in this thread that have different opinions than Jyre and for this reason the link should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.211.205 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Forum threads don't fly, just like livejournal entries...
This article is so short because there are few creditable, published, wiki-guideline-acceptable sources. This link is just being posted by an axe grinder who won't even identify himself. Not a legitimate source of information. Jyre 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Past residences of Zendik Farm speak
Stop acting like a child, Jyre.
At least 6-7 past residences and at least two current members of Zendik Farm have participated in the Hip Forums thread about Zendik Farm. Jyre is afraid of the people reading others accounts of living at Zendik Farm and the reality of their time there. If this is to be an realistic article of Zendik Arts then people should have the chance to hear about the place from people that actually lived there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.211.205 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Really Jyre
You should know better, Jyre. Let the link stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyroZendik (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Again, this article is not the place to argue about Zendik. It is a source of information with a neutral point of view. Enough said...
Jyre 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
YOU are the only one arguing, Jyre. I didn't copy and paste anything from that thread, just provided a link, big difference. Let me say it again. I didn't copy and paste anything from that thread, Jyre. IT is a link to a thread that members of Zendik Farm past and present participated in. The link should remain. there is enought controversy over this article. I think it should be deleted because Zendik Farm just wants it here for advertisement being that they have you here making sure it only has favorable content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyroZendik (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That link, and the way it is presented is not encyclopedic. It fails our reliable sources and external links guidelines. I've removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I move to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyroZendik (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
