Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Raëlism/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raëlism

[edit]

Assessment p.l.z. Kmarinas86 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date or general time of founding should be in the intro, probably in the first sentence. The mention of "Eve" should include something about skepticism; as I understand it the Raelian announcement hasn't been substantiated by proof of any kind. Kaisershatner 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

[edit]

Needs lots of work

  • Raëlians are mentioned in the first paragraph but only explained in the second. Their beliefs are split between the two.,
Fixed
  • Link Brigitte Boisselier in first mention
Done - links to Clonaid
  • The first, elohim painting, image doesn't cite a source, and is likely not WP:FAIR use (the article doesn't talk about the image). I haven't checked the others, but suspect this of them as well
Now cited

This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art

  • for critical commentary on
    • the work in question,
    • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
    • the school to which the artist belongs
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

      • So which is the fair use justification, critical commentary on the work, the genre, or the school? I don't think any of the three are appropriate for this article, which is about the religious/philosophical/social movement, it's not an artistic movement. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The work. It is obviously a work, even if not affliated with a specific school or genre of art. As for critical commentary, the image speaks for itself. Saying it out loud would make unencyclopedic "critical commentary" and would be interpreted as vandalism.Kmarinas86 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't buy it. By that logic, you could put any image anywhere and claim the image is critical commentary on itself. Unless you have at least a few sentences about this particular painting, you don't have critical commentary on the work. I'll make you an alternate suggestion - is there a main house of worship of Raelism you could photograph? Is there an iconic symbol associated with it? Is there an iconic artwork displayed in most ceremonies? Any of that could be appropriate to put a few sentences about, and an image. But not as is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • achiveing - misspelled
Fixed
  • mastery several sciences - of?
Fixed
  • "In each of the six personal meetings was " - clumsy, rephrase
Fixed
  • "among which are" - including?
Fixed
  • Why is the Northern Buddhist calendar mentioned? Why not any of a thousand other less common calendars?
Deleted - it's on Raël
  • "love involves mating with different varieties and possibilities" - huh? What does that mean?
changed to "love involves experiencing different varieties and possibilities"
    • Still not clear, stop dancing around the subject. In black on white, does or does not the religion support and/or encourage marriage, monogamy, bisexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, and/or group sex? Don't dance around the issue, the questions have been explicitly asked, and need to be answered. They've also been accused of outright endorsement of pedophilia - that also needs to be discussed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See your quotes of Susan J. Palmer below. I've responded to those.Kmarinas86 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticisms and Allegations concerning Raelian views on cloning" Fixed
  • Check grammar of quotes: "must be treated as sceptical" is that really the correct phrasing?
Yes - http://www.google.com/search?q=baby+girl+has+been+born+must+be+treated+as+sceptical+without+proper+confirmation
  • "Religions which Raelians interpret as being catalyzed by intervention of extraterrestrial elohim" - huh?
Section material moved to another section. Section title deleted.
  • Criticism section? For a highly controversial religion, the criticism section should be fairly large.
Not done. Scholarly criticism is limited. Tabloid criticism focuses almost entirely on Clonaid which has ample criticism. Not many english-language have criticized the love, elohim, and scientific creation compenents. The vast majority of media attention and so-called criticism of "Raelians" (as if that referred to the Religion) is on criticism of statements of Rael, Brigitte Boisselier, and "Clonaid". Other alleged criticisms of "Raëlism" includes mentions of Raël hair style and so-called "star trek" clothing - hardly worth mentioning (and an unencylopedic criticism). Actions recieved more criticism than beliefs. In the media, Raelian beliefs are usually just described (as claims). Most do not say that it is impossible either.
    • With all due respect ... there's a lot of criticism. Just a few minutes searching on Google: "Cult leader Rael denied residence in Switzerland" - Agence France-Presse. " Rael preaches a doctrine of "complete sexual liberty" and believes parents should show their children how to obtain sexual pleasure, "which by its nature can lead to sexual deviance with under-age children," the authorities said in a statement." - that's pretty severe stuff, and it's criticism of "doctrine", which is appropriate for the article. The "Real Deal" article by Palmer which you cite in the article is full of controversial and critical stuff:
"Before 1991, the media tended to treat the Raelians as harmless nuts. Rael became adept at deflecting the insults and insinuations of TV hosts. Appearing on "Geraldo" in late 1991, he seemed oblivious to host Geraldo Rivera’s habitually aggressive and derisive manner. Then a French journalist signed up for the week-long nudist Sensual Meditation Camp, and covertly taped couples making love in the tents. This was played over the radio, and subsequent news stories presented the Raelian Movement as an unbridled sex orgy where brainwashing was perpetrated and perversions were encouraged.
This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph belongs in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now Rael became a classic "big bad cult leader," portrayed in news stories as a sexual libertine enjoying a luxurious life at his followers’ expense. Raelians were stigmatized by the French media as fascists, satanists, pedophiles, and even as anti-Semites (although Rael clearly states that Jews are more intelligent with superior DNA because they are a cross-breed of Elohim and mortal women). In the daily faxes that ADFI, France’s powerful anti-cult organization, sends out to every major newspaper in France, the Raelians are a primary target.
This paragraph belongs in the Raëlism article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rael retaliated in 1992 by establishing FIREPHIM, an organization dedicated to fighting "religious racism." Journalists who indulged in ad hominem attacks on Rael suddenly had hundreds of Raelians demonstrating outside their offices. Like Scientology, the Raelian Movement International (as it is known in Europe) launched a string of libel and defamation suits against journalists, newspapers, and publishers—and occasionally won.
This paragraph belongs in the Raëlian Church article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Swiss newspaper that called Raelians "rat heads" was sued for defamation. Another suit was brought against journalist Stephane Baillargeon for writing in the Montreal daily Le Devoir that the Raelians defended pedophiles and that certain ex-Raeliens claimed the "gourou" liked very young girls. (After some negotiation, Le Devoir published a letter from Rael condemning the charge as "ignominious defamation" and asserting that the Raelian Movement had "always condemned pedophilia and promoted respect for laws that justly forbid the practices that are always the fault of unbalanced individuals.") In 1996 Rael won a judgment of $6,300 against two French journalists who claimed he preached racism.
This part I italicized for you is quoted in the History of Raëlism article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of this paragraph belongs in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest media brouhaha arose in 1992 when Rael appeared on the French TV talk show "Ciel mon Mardi," hosted by the popular journalist Christophe Dechavanne. Towards the end of the show (where Rael’s liberal views on sex were critiqued by a priest, a social worker, and a psychologist), an ex-Raelian suddenly appeared and unleashed a diatribe claiming that Rael was holding his wife and children prisoner, had engineered the breakup of his family, and personally presided over child sacrifice and pederastic orgies at the Sensual Meditation camp.
This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This apostate, Jean Parraga, was elegantly dressed and played the role of the concerned father and heartbroken husband. What was not mentioned was his criminal record as a drug dealer and car thief, and his attempt to shoot Rael to death in August 1992."
This part I italicized for you is quoted in the Raël article.Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now if you don't mind, I will quote everything else in this which hasn't been quoted yet, just to satisfy you. Right now, copyright issues about doing so mean nothing to me... Kmarinas86 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Kmarinas86 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of seriously controversial heavily media covered stuff you're leaving out. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spelling - if the name officially uses the diacritics, why is "Raelian views on cloning", and other uses within the article?
Good point. Fixed.
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Raëlism/archive1&oldid=151283900"