Talk:Divine Truth

Branch of the Bible Study movement?

While it is truth A J Miller was a Jehovah Witness, which is a branch of the Bible Study movement, I'm not sure if what he teaches is a branch. From what I've seen it includes of a lot of psychology of 'new age' ideas. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

non neutral language

In the paragraph entitled "Accusations of cultism", a lot of non neutral, attacking language is used.

I'll illustrate a number of problems with that paragraph:

There is no doubt whatsoever that Alan John [A.J.] Miller is the leader of a cult, and a dangerous cult at that. (opinion not fact) Miller puts his followers in physical and/or emotionally disturbing situations (no reference or evidence), and attempts to reduce their problems, or issues, down to one simple explanation, which he will then repeatedly emphasise and focus on. Using his charisma, along with carefully planned routines, he gives his followers unconditional love [also known as 'love bombing'] and acceptance, along with a new unique identity within the group environment (factually untrue, no such thing as new identity). Miller rigidly controls the information his followers have access to (untrue, unsubstantiated), and keeps them isolated from friends, family, and the mainstream culture of the outside world (untrue). In short, he uses well known cult methodology to get vulnerable people into his cult and keep them under his control. He has set himself up as the leader of this cult, cut it off from the outside world, and given that he has made numerous doomsday predictions, most cult experts (who?) fear that his cult will end like numerous others, tragically.

In short this is a paragraph unworthy of encyclopedia standards, and basically a persons opinion containing a lot of unsupported claims that are in fact untrue. One striking fact lacking in this paragraph is that AJ Miller denies that what he does is in any way similar to (leading) a cult. For sources from AJ Miller himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFsfEkb4DzY&index=32&list=PLE-RF2VTnr9jwVXv7l2OX-mp3VVBh_MAW

— Preceding unsigned comment added by K2AA72 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

for A.J. Miller:

Off topic post

You said: "Just because I am saying I am Jesus, doesn't automatically make me a cult leader." That is right! but if you look like a cult leader, if you speak like a cult leader, and if you act like a cult leader, then it is possible that a large fraction of the population will think you are a cult leader. Moreover, if is possible, if you act as if you were a messiah, talk like a messiah, that a very small number of (fragile) people will see you as a messiah. That wouldn't make a messiah of you? Would it? However that would make you responsible for their well being in the face of the society (and God). Quite a burden... You dont want that, do you? It looks like like this is an impossible mission for you. I guess your best choice would be to become a "messiah in hiding"; not reveal your Holy status, and leave your followers go back into the real world. Here is I the true will of God: Leave your followers in peace; away form you... This is your true heavenly mission on earth... 69.158.173.197 (talk)

Divine Truth article needs to be cleaned up

Hi Lulifaber, I've noticed that you have made a lot of edits lately on the Divine Truth article, but you have not been providing credible sources for your edits. You need to go back and remove all information that is not backed up by reliable sources. Specifically, you need to use reliable secondary sources. Also please note that you need to write from a NPOV. Thanks Exazonk (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Exazonk

This page was created several years ago, and contained very limited information about the spiritual movement Divine Truth. Recent adjustments have updated the page to contain detailed and verifiable information that is accurate and contains a complete picture of the spiritual teaching. It is not biased and gives a neutral and factual point of view. There are many other spiritual movements that are also on Wikipedia, therefore it is appropriate for this movement to also be on Wikipedia.

The sources cited are mostly primary, because as explained in the article the secondary sources, which are media articles, have proven to be unreliable. The primary sources have not been interpreted, but rather directly stated as facts, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The links give an opportunity for any third person to asses the primary source.

Thanks Luli amygdala 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This page was created several years ago, and contained very limited information about the spiritual movement Divine Truth. Recent adjustments have updated the page to contain detailed and verifiable information that is accurate and contains a complete picture of the spiritual teaching. It is not biased and gives a neutral point of view. There are many other spiritual movements that are also on Wikipedia, therefore it is appropriate for this movement to also be on Wikipedia. The sources cited are almost entirely first hand, as specified by the Wikipedia guidelines. --amygdala 11:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)

This page needs a major cleanup or a reversion prior to Lilifaber's edits as nearly all the references refer to material from the Divine Truth site and thus the information is not credible. Reliable secondary sources need to be used, eg Newspaper articles. Once again, please either clean up the article or revert it back. Thanks Exazonk (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited are mostly primary, because as explained in the article the secondary sources, which are media articles, have proven to be unreliable. The primary sources have not been interpreted, but rather directly stated as facts, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The links give an opportunity for any third person to asses the primary source. Luli amygdala 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)

The reversion to the previous edit by Exazonk is not a neutral point of view. It only sources material from media reports, which have been disputed by the person who the article is about. The person who the article is about has stated that there are factual errors in the media reports, and therefore it is not reliable to only include the disputed information on an encyclopedia's page, since this is meant to be comprehensive in its coverage. By only putting forward one side of the information - the media sources - this is not neutral because it is only giving half of the information. In my edit both sides are put forward - the side of Divine Truth, as well as the side of the media. Therefore this is neutral. The edit by Exazonk also does not include any information about the content of the teachings of Divine Truth. This means that the article is lacking in important information about the topic and it is distorted through omission of information. It is a neutral point of view to include all information so that any reader can view all of the facts. If you disagree with me, Exazonk, I propose that we seek a third opinion to resolve the issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion). amygdala 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Luliamygdala 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs) --amygdala 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You must meet the criteria for reliable verifiable sources. Since the Divine Truth website is not one of these sites then you cannot use it as a reference. Please remove all references to Divine Truth and replace them with credible sources. Exazonk (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I contest that a website that is written by the people that the article is about is a reliable source on the people that the article is about. It is more reliable than third party reports about that person. I am going to submit a third opinion request to resolve the issue.--amygdala 04:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Is the Divine Truth website a reliable source? ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Divine Truth and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The Divine Truth website is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:IRS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Divine Truth website does not meet these criteria (it is a primary, non-third party self-published source which creates a potential conflict of interest). Slugfilm (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in with my opinion: With regards to explaining teachings and claims made by AJ Miller or Divine Truth, primary sources should be acceptable and preferable to secondary sources, where the chance of distortion is higher. K2AA72 April 18th 2015

For user with IP 176.27.61.178

To the user with IP 176.27.61.178, please do not make cult accusations about Divine Truth unless you can reference them with a good secondary source.