Jump to content

Talk:Raj Patel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2009

[edit]

The citation tags here seem entirely random. I have therefore removed them and, instead, added a stub tag requesting work on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.153.166 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation requests don't seem random to me -- they appear to focus on the degree of Patel's political activism. I've restored them. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Antechrist

[edit]

There was one sentence mentioning maitreya and Raj Patel being him(it?). This sentence also stated that this would mean Raj Patel is the “antechrist of the christian bible”. I removed this sentence, because it was neither sourced nor did it state any additional information except the personal judgement of it's author. Arguri (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is opinion that there are too many external links. But I found them very usefull. It's like having good starting point to research the person and his work. My opinion is that we keep them. --Jonson22 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praise Him! Accept Him!

[edit]

He is the messiah! Praise his Eminence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.182 (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone write something about him being accused of being the messiah. He gave an interview on the Colbert Report on 3/15/10 talking about it. Theres was also an article on the NY times about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.193.206 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was not accused being the messiah. It was just concluded by one youtuber that HE MAY BE the Maitreya. And that's all. So simple. Just by one youtuber. And of course (as expected), the masses of people instantly believe in every religious claim. Because of one youtuber.., people now creating "panic like atmosphere".
On Colbert report (the first show Raj Patel was on) was not spoken about any religious claim. But it was written on NY Times blog about that topic. But that's all.
Probably all this situation is inflated, so it would be wisely to wait about adding that information in his biography here. We should be respectfull to the Raj Patel. --Jonson22 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, you said it. 'The Raj Patel,' you even admit he is the one. Just come out and say it, then put it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.28.30 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this episode of Colbert: [1]? He was definitely accused to be a religious leader. Also see Benjamin Creme and Share International. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw this episode. But you can't take his claims as a fact. This is Colbert report - comedy central.
  1. Colbert says that Share-international is a religious group. He can call them like that, but Share-int. is an organization with wider specter of operation.
  2. Colbert says that Benjamin Creme is a religious leader. But this is not true. Benjamin Creme is esotericist. He is not leader, nor master. BC did not organize a religion. This was not his intention.
  3. BC never said that Maitreya has dark skin, was born in 1972, travelled from India to London 1977 and that he sometimes stutter. No argument from Colbert report is a true.
  4. Colbert was right when he told that internet gossip speculated that Maitreya may be the Raj Patel. That is true.
Colbert is funny man and I like him, but his show and his claims cannot be used as source of facts about this subject. --Jonson22 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is a fluff story, it's a nice little anecdote to include in his bio. It's cited through the NYtimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/us/05sfmetro.html), so shouldn't be a problem including it. Benspigel (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you look it as anecdote, but many other people do not. It's still too fresh and this "anecdote" is connected with religious fanatism, so better we should leave it out of his bio until some time will pass. We should be wise here. Look how much problems they have with Sathya Sai Baba article. Better leave it out, because this information will, like magnet, attract many fanatics out there. --Jonson22 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: I deleted last sentence in the Biography because it's not correct. And because I already explained the reasons before why not to include such a informations in living person biography.

  1. NOBODY claim that Raj Patel is Maitreya. It's just presumptions by some religious oriented persons for whom there are not any evidence to which religious or group they belong.
  2. Benjamin Creme never said nothing about Raj Patel. People did themselves. Actually it was just one youtuber and everybody believed him. Especially christian fundementalist who actually believe Maitreya is the antichrist.
  3. Share international is not a cult (being precisely), but it's registered as a non-profit organization. It's like you would say that Barack Obama is a cult consistent from believers for "better world". People spontaneously believe how and what they want to believe. Share international is not registered as religion organization.
  4. Share-international does NOT claim that Raj Patel is Maitreya. There is no evidence to that. Just rumors, but no factual evidence. Some people believe, but they're not affiliated with share-international (no evidences of that).
  5. Maitreya is NOT like the messiah to Share-international. That is disinformation. It's just not true.
  6. Newspapers and Colbert report (comedy central) cannot be used as valid factual information in way how it was presented in biography section. --Jonson22 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, This is clearly WP:NOTABLE and we have a good number of WP:RS that discuss this ad nausium. I've included a brief paragraph with extensive sourcing. WP:VERIFIABLE - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Outback the koala (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert report is more for comedy and it cannot be taken as reliable source.
  • stutter
  • dark skin
  • born in 1972
  • travelled from India in 1977
All this ARE DISINFORMATION. All media talking about it took this information from RUMORS and not from reliable source which is nobody else but Benjamin Creme. He never claimed any of this informations.
Wikipedia is enciclopedia and as such should deal with only RELIABLE SOURCE. Colbert report cannot be taken as reliable source, no huffington post, even no NY Times who have article about it and has taken information from the gossip. Simply, because only reliable source is Benjamin Creme. All this information about this topic comes from BC. But he never stated any of this information. So simple. All media unprofessionaly took those information from internet gossip. But those gossip have no reliable source either.
This section is from here:
Reliable sources
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections (see above).
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, by an otherwise-reliable media source, and then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.
All this information are gossip and have nothing with Benjamin Creme claims. Also this information about Raj Patel being called Messiah is not relevant at all (for now) so it's not needed to use it in his biography.
It's wise to allow the events to mature. This is too fresh event. --Jonson22 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Patel wants to leave him alone

[edit]

"Unlike some who have the greatness thrust upon them, though, Patel's greatest hope is that Share will leave him alone so that he can get back to normal life." Source: Guardian (last sentence)
This topic about mr. Patel being called Messiah is irrelevant topic for wikipedia's biography about living person mr. Raj Patel. --Jonson22 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Mr Patel is or is not the messiah is irrelevant. The fact that some deluded people think he is, is established in several reliable news sources. Wikipedia should neutrally report this phenomenon and not take a side or censor it. Lumos3 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Lumos, if it's been reported by a wide range of news sources then it meets our inclusion criteria. btw, I don't think anyone here is suggesting, other than random IPs above, that Raj is actually the messiah. Outback the koala (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. It's not everyday that somebody calls someone else a messiah and therefore it should be covered in the article in some form. Smartse (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I do when there are many of you thinking differently. But still (I was exploring this subject since mid late of January) there is pretty much a lot of gossip inside articles and on Colbert report. You can recall several examples when newspapers took wrong information from Wikipedia and then Wikipedia used this as reference. Regarding the quality: I don't advocate the idea of verifiability with reliable sources without verifiability of information itself. But how can you prove that someone didn't say something (and BC really didn't) but yet newspapers published it?
I followed that topic and a lot of gossip from religious fanatics was used as fact in so-called reliable sources. Unfortunatelly this world function in that way: too much tempered emotions and almost no savvy exploration (that journalist should do).
And anyway: Colbert report for me can't be reliable source for encyclopedia.
But at least I can write it here:
  • Benjamin Creme at 14. January annouced that Maitreya gave his first interview on TV (16. January share-international informed subscribers through e-mail about that information and 18. January they published video).
  • One youtuber published this video: Was this the first Maitreya Interview ?.mp4 on 18. January
  • Same youtuber later explains he was the first one to link these two (Share-international annoucment and Raj Patel interview) and why he though so (video).
  • People who followed that kind of information (those who follow share-international, but mostly fundemental christians and muslims and others) started to see signs where there were no signs at all and created new assumptions, distorted informations, fears, connections with bible, qur'an and other unsourced claims. They also published their own videos and explanations why Raj Patel is Maitreya, antichrist, beast and so on... (well, actually this all is funny)
  • Raj Patel responded on 25. January on his own blog on his humorous way after receiving tons of e-mail questions and accusations.
Benjamin Creme said about Maitreya following statements:
  • Maitreya has been expected for generations by all of the major religions. Christians know him as the Christ, and expect his imminent return. Jews await him as the Messiah; Hindus look for the coming of Krishna; Buddhists expect him as Maitreya Buddha; and Muslims anticipate the Imam Mahdi or Messiah.
  • Preferring to be known simply as the Teacher, Maitreya has not come as a religious leader, or to found a new religion, but as a teacher and guide for people of every religion and those of no religion.
  • At this time of great political, economic and social crisis Maitreya will inspire humanity to see itself as one family, and create a civilization based on sharing, economic and social justice, and global cooperation.[2]
  • ...in 1972, Creme began a period of arduous training under his Master's direction to prepare him for his coming task: announcing to a skeptical world the emergence of the World Teacher,...[3]
  • Descending from his mountain, Maitreya stayed some days on the plains in Pakistan to acclimatize himself. On the 19th of July 1977, Maitreya entered London, England, where he still lives (as to 1996) as a member of the Asian community of that city.[4] --Jonson22 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The media report on this because it has an entertainment factor, but this does not mean that this bizarre claim by adherents of a fringe religious group should dominate his biography. Patel has always denied this claim, so I think some of the contents should be moved to Share International. Andries (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. And I edited your entry to more neutral view. --Jonson22 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Patel is "Maitreya", he could be the incarnation of Ahriman (Antechrist)

[edit]

Rudolf Steiner says in "Lucifer and Ahriman", that there was an incarnation of Lucifer in China in 3000 BC, there was an and just one incarnation of Christ in Palestinia in 0 - 33 AC, and it will be an incarnation of Ahriman at the beginning of the third millenarium (since 2001)in Occidental World.

The philosph Vladimir Soloviev shows what will happen with the Antichrist in this book "War, Progress, and the End of History: Three Conversations, Including a Short Story of the Anti-Christ".

The writer, Ira Levin, with "Rosemary's Baby" and "The son of Rosemary" is in the same way.

(in french : http://ahrimanmaitreyaenlumiere.blogspirit.com/)

Another question, why is it impossible to have the complete birthday of Raj Patel ? He is born in 1972, but no day, no month anywhere, strange... 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.145.146 (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Patel Know Kore Than 3 Languages

[edit]

This is the page of Raj Patel on LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rajkpatel . This man know more than 3 languages. Specially asian languages. Maybe he is simply not borned in United States as the article states. He seens Indian actually. Thanks. --189.18.166.102 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raj Patel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raj Patel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raj Patel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raj_Patel&oldid=1211115646"