Discussion after setting POV tag 2005-10-19

It seems that the battle to control this Wikipedia article rages on. I guess the only lesson to be learned here is that you cannot trust anything Wikipedia says about cults, atleast if that cult has members who know how to use a computer.

Another thing that strikes me is how quickly the world forgets. Yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's prime minister. Likewise yesterday's crazy cult is tomorrow's respected mainstream religion. How many people today remember about the early Mormons and their "Avenging Angels" or the "Death Angels" of the Nation of Islam who killed over 70 people in the 70'es? Apparently starting your own religion is the best way for a megalomaniacal criminal to become practically untouchable. --BirgerLangkjer 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too positive in that I don't know of many other religious movements on Wiki that lack a segment on criticism or disapproval. (Although I added one it's just Babelization of the German Wiki) Also many segments of it amount to one sentence so should be merged in some way if possible. However the talk segment makes me think it could easily also turn to being too POV negative. I think you people need to look for some kind of ground. Expecting the article to either call them an evil cult or praise them as the best thing since slice bread is inherently POV. Unfortunately I know too little of this group to help.--T. Anthony 11:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the german article is already provided by the standard interwiki mechanism. I've removed your section together with other fluff in a first attempt of cleanup. --Pjacobi 11:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sensible idea--T. Anthony 12:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User BirgerLangkjer is clearly biased and contradicts his own role as a christian, as christianity and all other big religions at present were, in the past, also considered as cults or sects, were prosecuted and its members also target of obscene charges. I (member of Ananda Marga), and as T. Anthony very well suggested, am searching for some neutral ground here and did some edit in the Criticism section of this article. Let's do a constructive work on this and not be extremist like BirgerLangkjer. --Atmanji 22:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically all new religions start out as sects and only much later become mainstream religions. However this doesn't mean that we should expect every crackpot cult to eventually grow up and become a pillar of society and and therefore readily allow them to bury their seedy past. When I first saw this very biased article I tried to add some critical information (most of it on the Talk page, since I did not want to deface Wikipedia), I was incensed to see how obvious Ananda Margiies arrogantly deleted everything I had written - even from the Talk page. Clearly these people accept no criticism what so ever. Their answer to everything is: "It's a lie, it's slander etc." followed by ad hominem attacks on my person. Hardly very constructive. --BirgerLangkjer 15:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to show your disrespect to NRMs. While its sure unprobable that all NRMs (cult or sect has a negative significance and should not be used sistematically to characterize all NRMs) will turn to mainstream religions, your posture of putting all of them in the same bag is not, in my view, an adequate one. It shows lack of respect even for your religion (christianity) that was also, in the beggining, target of speculative criticisms. The more revolutionary a spiritual movement is, the more prone it is to such attacks, that are done by those whose power is threatened. Ananda Marga has improved life conditions of several thousands of indian people, with cooperatives, agriculture, PROUT, etc. and has chalenged lots of the Indian's culture status quo (challenging the cast system, empowerment of the women, economic decentralization, etc). This has led to persecution by Indian government and also other governments in the world and also certain members of widespread religions that fear to loose their influence and power.

What defines Ananda Marga is the ideology which is present on the books of its founder: Prabhat Rainjain Sarkar. I challenge you and any other Wikipedian to find any instigation to violence on his work. Any violent episodes that may have happenned in the past done by persons who declare to be Ananda Margiis, by definition (violent) break one of the most basic principles of Ananda Marga (non violenve) and so don't represent the ideology and nor the organization. They will be either unbalanced persons who didn't read or respect the philosophy or persons (slave to the interests i referred above) that falsely declare them selves as Ananda Margiis to discredit Ananda Marga.

Summarizing, the key issue here is: if there have been acts of violence, they were commited either by unbalanced persons (and certainly not following superior orders) or by persons following third party interests. Besides the two situations that are now in the Criticism section on the article, I challenge BirgerLangkjer to report here in the discussion, other situations reported by credible sources and I'm sure I can demonstrate that again they are based on speculations or disputed facts. --Atmanji 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Birger that criticism should rarely be removed from the Talk:Page. I would be unwilling to remove even blatantly anti-Catholic sentiments from talk pages on articles concerning the faith. Because that is what that person believes and silencing it seems wrong. I would only do it if the individual advocates violence against members of a faith or group. At the same time the article shouldn't be solely negative. There is enough criticism in valid sources that this deserves mention, but there's also valid positive views. Ideally it should just give a balance and not overly weighted either way. This is difficult to do on any religion, I'd concede, and it's part of why religious articles are among the most challenging and challenged articles at Wiki. Lastly I doubt a Wiki article will persuade anyone to join or leave Ananda Marga, or any other group, so both sides seem a bit overheated on how important this is in reality.--T. Anthony 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to the removal of criticisms from the talk page, it's highly suspicious the fact that BirgerLangkjer recovered only parts of the previous discussion, after some anonymous user had erased it all. Looking at the history of this talk page, one can see that on 07:59, 12 August 2005, IP 194.152.215.117 completely erased the discussion. Only about 5 hours later, BirgerLangkjer took action and Reinstated discussion leaving only his negative and speculative POVs, saying this in the begining:

I'm a little disappointed that my whole discussion with Andries was deleted by some unknown person. I was hoping that some of it would find its way in to the main article, but right now I don't have the time to clean it up. I would like to repeat my main reasons for why Ananda Marga was a dangerous cult and a terrorist organization - atleast in the past

The phrase "right now I don't have the time to clean it up" clearly shows 2 things: (1) instead of simply putting exactly the same content that existed before the deletion he was considering to "clean it up" that is, to at least change its content, which shows his tendency to distort things (2) to say that he didn't had the time is blantaly false, as it would take much less time to simply copy/paste the discussion as it was before being deleted, than entering new reordered content as he did.

I think this is enough proof that user BirgerLangkjer is not an ethical Wikipedian, because he only recovered the content of his interest. Also there's a high degree of suspicion that he was the supposdely anonymous user that deleted the whole discussion, as he reinstated it only 5 hours after the deletion, while in average, he takes at least a few days to react to new content in this article. Some Wikipedia administrator should check if BirgerLangkjer was on IP 194.152.215.117 when he reinstated the discussion.

I don't know enough about either of you to take sides. That said this doesn't change my opinion. Whoever blanked the talk page was wrong. Birger's being ethical or not is something of a non-sequitir. Unless you are suggesting he blanked the page. Anyway my agreement was on the blanking being wrong not whether any or all behaviors by him are correct.--T. Anthony 00:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did not log in as an anonymous user and delete the contents of the Talk page. 1) When I was talking about "cleaning up" I meant the article, not the Talk page. I did decide not to reinstate the whole disussion but only a basic summary of my claims, since the whole discussion had become rather lenghty and confusing. 2) When you have an article on your watchlist, you can quickly see when changes are being made to it, so there is nothing suspicious about the 5 hours between the deletion and my reinstating parts of the disussion. I usually spend the first hours of my working day answering email and whatever and turn to Wikipedia in the afternoon. 3) Besides, if I log in as an anonymous user, my IP is 86.52.53.8 (atleast it was when i tried it right now, but my service provider probably has DHCP or something, so it might wary from session to session). --BirgerLangkjer 14:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining T. Anthony's phrase: "There is enough criticism in valid sources that this deserves mention". I would like you please to enumerate which valid sources are those? 2 of them are already mentioned in the main article, and if there are more I would like to analyze them. --Atmanji 23:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is valid sources critical of almost any religion or faith system, but especially in the case when the movement is new. Also I found a couple on my own initiative. Don't be defensive I don't enough of your group to have any view either way. Much of what I found sounded positive with a few criticisms.--T. Anthony 00:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga Testimonial

I am a US Christian. My sister and her husband have been margis for over 25 years (has it really been that long!?) They have two wonderful grown daughters (my nieces) who are also margis. I've meditated with them and their friends. We've had long talks about our respective faiths and beliefs. ("Tell me again why you can't eat onions?")

Whatever truth there may be in the accusations of violence discussed on this Talk page, I have found none of that in the way my sister, her family or their friends have lived their lives. That's not to say that there aren't violent margis, but I'm more inclined to believe it is because those individuals are violent people, not because Ananda Marga is a violent religion. The margis I've known have had a deep love and respect for their neighbors and have strived to serve them when they can, even at great personal sacrifice to themselves. --Nowa 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]