Talk:Abd-ru-shin

World Library

Emmisgood (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Provided World Public Library Article Id: WHEBN0002666422 as a source of citations & references to further subject matter related articles. These articles are independantly created and developed and undergo independant peer review processes not associated with the authors of the article.

It fails both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. See for details http://www.ipad-library.net/article/whebn0002666422/abd-ru-shin . Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's worthless as a reliable source. It's fool's gold, don't use it anymore inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Another source for checking that Article Id: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/abd-ru-shin . Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not have peer review in any meaning that would be germane to Wikipedia (WP:IRS). Neither is it independent, since it could have been written by just everybody, including people having a conflict of interest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion of verifiable information

The issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_214#The Messiah Abd-ru-shin. It is now archived, so do not edit the discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

According to WP:UNDUE majority views should not be presented as minority views. According to WP:ASSERT facts should not be stated as opinions. The WP:SPA editor who claimed that it would be debatable that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he is the Messiah provided no WP:SOURCE stating the either that Abd-ru-shin did not claim that or that it would be debatable that Abd-ru-shin ever claimed something like that. So, for Wikipedia purposes, it has not been shown that it would be a debatable fact, instead of established fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Another source would be Introvigne, Massimo (2006). "Grail Traditions in Western Esotericism". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. pp. 436–438, 1183. This source neither affirms nor denies that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he was the Messiah, and it is written by the same Massimo Introvigne already cited in our article; Introvigne has not retracted in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers in all countries published reports of the mysterious “castle” on Vomperberg, of which I was supposed to be the owner! I was described as “the Messiah of the Tyrol” or “the Prophet of Vomperberg” with great and prominent headlines, even in the leading newspapers which wish to be taken seriously! There were weird and mysterious accounts of numerous underground tunnels, of temples, of knights both in black and silver armour, of an unheard-of cult, also of great parks, automobiles, stables, and whatever else could be invented by the diseased brains that can report such things. Details were quoted, some based on beautiful phantasy and others so disgustingly filthy that anyone giving a little thought to the matter could not fail immediately to recognise the lies and malevolence behind it!

And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports!

— Abd-ru-shin, Vol. III 7. The distorted tool

He did not say "And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports! I have changed my mind: I am not the Messiah." Or "And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports! I have never claimed that I would be the Messiah and I hereby publicly deny that I am the Messiah." Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

— WP:NPOV

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

References

From the horse's mouth

EPILOGUE

Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen

IMANUEL,

the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.

Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!

— Abdruschin, In the Light of Truth. GRAIL MESSAGE. GREAT EDITION 1931

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers in all countries published reports of the mysterious “castle” on Vomperberg, of which I was supposed to be the owner! I was described as “the Messiah of the Tyrol” or “the Prophet of Vomperberg” with great and prominent headlines, even in the leading newspapers which wish to be taken seriously! There were weird and mysterious accounts of numerous underground tunnels, of temples, of knights both in black and silver armour, of an unheard-of cult, also of great parks, automobiles, stables, and whatever else could be invented by the diseased brains that can report such things. Details were quoted, some based on beautiful phantasy and others so disgustingly filthy that anyone giving a little thought to the matter could not fail immediately to recognise the lies and malevolence behind it!

And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports!

— Abd-ru-shin, Vol. III 7. The distorted tool

Not a word of truth about the Messiah of the Tyrol? Seriously? Just compare the two quotes! He lied through his teeth, err, fingers. Yup, journalists have read what he wrote. That way they knew about his messianic claims. I did not read the claims about knights in armor, but those could have been sarcasm (satirical). Since he wrote he is the Messiah, they must have thought this man is crazy, let's make sport of him! The journalists were deriding him and they let him know it. That's why he complained in the Message of the Grail that he was crucified through ridicule. The journalists noticed that he made larger than life claims about himself. One man's religion is another man's laughing stock.

Note: in EU his book is public domain, and in the US the use of quotes falls under fair use. So, of course, I own the book: in my country everyone owns it. That's what "public domain" means: all the public owns it. If you don't like it, your sole remedy is to never set foot in the EU. Since if you had set foot in the EU you have recognized my intellectual property of the book. I own the copyright for the book, same as every other EU inhabitant. There's no need to pay me money for it, since you can always find an EU inhabitant who is entitled to donate this book to you. Should I say sarcasm warning? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of name Abd-ru-shin

The etymology of this guy's messianic name or nom de plume or whatever is incorrect. Abd, عبد, in Persian means slave and comes from Arabic; ru-shin is meaningless (roshan/rushan means shining or on, like the light is on), ru means on (preposition on) and shin on its own can mean a number of things including the letter ش. The source in the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism simply says "Abd-ru-shin ("Son of Light" in the Persian language)." It cites no dictionary or etymological source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

We follow WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism is not a dictionary of a language, it is an encyclopaedia of concepts and by no means a definitive or reliable etymological source. I will amend the main page to include the proper meaning of his name in Persian ('slave on the letter shin') and cite the Dehkhoda dictionary (University of Tehran, 1958), which is published by the University of Tehran and is, in fact a definitive source of the meaning of a word in modern Persian. Furthermore, the person who wrote the article in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism has absolutely no credibility as a scholar of the Persian language, and a throwaway comment (that is itself not cited) in a text should not be the basis of any statements of fact on Wikipedia regardless of its inclusion in what one may think is a credible source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

Modern Persian? Says who that it must be modern Persian? Also, providing your own translation is prohibited by policy (WP:OR). All we could do then is remove the bad translation, if you fulfill the WP:BURDEN for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also scoured the decisive Middle Persian dictionary Mackenzie, D.N. (1971) A concise Pahlavi dictionary, London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, as well as what little we have remaining from Old Persian which is published in Kent, Roland G., 1950, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, American Oriental Series XXXIII, New Haven / Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Unfortunately, abd cannot even form a functional Persian word before Modern Persian because the letter ع (the first letter of Abd) is an Arabic loan-letter and therefore by definition is already Modern Persian. The individual whom you believe is a respected source on the Persian language, Massimo Introvigne, is in fact most notably the Italian director of the Transylvanian centre for Dracula. Including his opinions on the etymology of a Persian name is academically irresponsible. Please refer to proper dictionaries in the future, as according to WP:SOURCE, the creator of the work is also a factor that must be taken into account regarding the reliability of the source. Also, it is not prohibited by WP:OR because as I'm sure you are aware, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." And I have just cited three published sources that back up my etymology, or at the very least contradict Introvigne's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

I have no access to those works. As I said, all we can do is remove the bad translation. You cannot posit a translation like "slave on the letter shin", because it sounds odd and contrived. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to provide you with access to these works, but I know some are available online, and your local university library should have access to those that are not. It is your responsibility to prove that either: a) Massimo Introvigne is a credible authority on the etymology of Persian, or b) that either the Dehkhoda, or the Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, or Kent's Old Persian Grammar (or any other dictionary of the Persian language) indicates that Introvigne's definition is accurate. Furthermore, can you provide me with the Wikipedia rule prohibiting one from entering dictionary-factual evidence due to its being odd and contrived? I can't find any record of that. I suggest the bad translation be removed immediately and can do so myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

Our own translations are covered by WP:OR, especially if contentious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have talked to an Iranian, he said that "abd" does not exist in Persian, only in Arabic, where it means "son of". Iranians say "pessar" for "son". He could not comprehend "ru-shin", but said that "roshan" means "(to) light, (to) shine". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Silly edit war

The charge of the edit warring IP is that Wikipedia spilled the beans about a fact... that is publicly known since 1931 from the work published by Abd-ru-shin himself. Isn't that silly? See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Haile Selassie have publicly denied that they were the Messiah. Abd-ru-shin has never done that, he has never retracted his claim of being the Son of Man, who brings to Word of God before the Final Judgment. He deleted it from his book, but that is not the same as a retraction: he has never apologized for calling himself the Son of Man, who restores WP:THETRUTH after the failed mission of Jesus Christ. In his opinion, the Word of God is Abd-ru-shin's own book, the Bible being thoroughly antiquated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Il y a par exemple cette directive que l’auteur donna en 1937 à l’occasion du transport d’un stock de livres de la grande édition du Message du Graal, de la Suisse au Vomperberg en Autriche :

" Je vous demande encore une chose : avant l’expédition, faites enlever, dans tous les livres, quelque soit la langue en laquelle ils sont imprimés, la feuille qui se trouve avant l’Appendice et qui comporte l’indication au sujet de IMANUEL !

C’est très important, car, ainsi, le Message sera beaucoup plus facilement propagé et devra être considéré plus objectivement. Il sera alors intangible, pour les ennemis aussi. L’indication directe ferait surgir involontairement, chez tel ou tel lecteur, une opposition, parce que le genre de l’esprit humain est ainsi.

Si cette feuille ne s’y trouve plus, le Message sera reçu plus facilement. Mais il ne faut la retirer que dans les exemplaires qui sont vendus maintenant, parce qu’elle pourra, plus tard, s’y trouver de nouveau. "

La feuille dont il est question ici est intitulée « Mot de la fin ».

Copy/paste from fr:Discussion:Message du Graal#Une page "délicate" dans la grande édition de 1931.

So, even among Abd-ru-shin's believers there is a conflict between the loyalists of the great edition and the loyalists of the edition of last hand. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emmaueze: You should not engage in silly edits wars. This is our encyclopedia, you obey our rules or you're out. We offer true believers no license to break the rules with impunity. See WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Subjecting the article to whitewashing (censorship) is a violation of WP:NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)