Talk:Benjamin Creme/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of Maitreya as Antichrist

My recent post of the idea of Maitreya as the Antichrist keeps being removed by KKrystian. This is a valid opinion with a solid argument (At least as solid as the idea of the whole idea of Benjamin Creme & 'the Christ')& is directly relevant to the subject . As a democratic web site, this should be included as information regarding this idea

KKrystian keeps removing this area with no explanation apart from 'This crap is not to the point'. 'Crap' is not a respectable, nor rational word to use in such commenting, particularly used by a spiritual person as he claims to be and lends nothing to the reasoning behind the deletion. It appears only to be his POV. Furthermore, the section is quite to the point. If you can give me more ideas I am happy to reword it in order for it to fit what KKrystian feels it is lacking in requirement. Be more specific about what you feel is required for it to be suitable in your eyes. Your quote "this section is unencyclopdeic cause it has little to do with the subject of the article and should not be placed here" is not correct. I am discussing specifically Maitreya & parallels as world leader to the Antichrist. This is much more relevant to the topic than Saith Baba for instance (which I removed as it was clearly irrelevant)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthant (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not claim to be a spiritual person; your comment was clearly malicious. THe section is unencyclopedic because it is about Maitreya and not about Benjamin Creme. If you want you can write an article about Maitreya (the Benjy Creme one) (perhaps we already have one, um not sure) and add it to that article. But you would have to provide references to sources and make sure that the criticism comes from at least one notable person/organization/group of people and you would also have to write that article in accordance with NPOV rules. About the Sai Baba section - this fragment discussess Creme's views on Sathya Sai Baba and not the person therefore ir should stay. Your repeating of my edit description and removasl of that section was ęvidently malicious. -- Kkrystian (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kkrstian, Thank you for (finally) responding so that we may discuss this. I have read your points & agree on principle, generally. Firstly, as a convert to Hinduism, you must forgive me for making the mistake of tagging you as a 'spiritual person'. I too am a vegetarian & practitioner of Hatha yoga & follow certain Eastern traditions including Zen (I live in Japan) & Christianity. I consider myself a spiritual person. If you are not, that's fine. My apologies for such an assumption.

I have agreed to your point. This page is about Creme, not directly about Maitreya, so I have moved it to the appropriate page involving Cremes Maitreya, (not Gautama's future incarnation). As for criticism. The belief that Maitreya is possibly the Antichrist is not criticism. It is how one looks upon it as to whether it is criticism or not. As for NPOV, it is definitely a widely held concept & not mine alone. It stands on its own as a simple comparison with Biblical scripture & Shares own material clearly shows parallels. It is almost as though Creme has specifically modeled Maitreya from the descriptions of the Antichrist in the Bible. Which is possible considering the Anti Christian bent that the New Age & Age of Aquarius followers have. Creme himself has spoken of Lucifer on many occasion.

And finally, this whole idea of Maitreya is all ultimately speculation based on Cremes own POV . He may draw from other traditions but in the end it's his invention. If all this is reliant on the 'proof' of 'descended spiritual masters' that 'channel' this information to him, what more can you say, this is hardly a place where references & sources come into play. In the end, all I am doing is juxtaposing references from the Bible with claims that Share itself make. Both are ultimately non provable. I hope this is a suitable resolution for you.

Biography

Shoudn't there be more precise biographical facts like place and date of birth, death(?).. ?

I don't know whether there SHOULD be, however, feel free to add it. Sethie 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Esoteric?

I have removed the assertion that Benjamin Creme is esoteric (secret) because all his teaching are on the Share international website. Andries 18:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The current version describes the Share International faith as if it were a matter of fact. Hence the NPOV warning. Andries 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Esoteric' does not mean 'secret,' especially when it is used to discuss the Theosophists.

Esoteric can mean secret. From the Wikipedia article Esoteric "Esoteric knowledge is knowledge that is secret or not generally known. " So I recommend not using this term unless the article explicitly states what is meant with it here and in this context. Andries 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What's with the POV warning?!

While some aspects of this article seem overly pro-Maitreya Project, I don't really think it ought to have the warning. It's short enough so it shouldn't be too difficult to rewrite, and I will promptly do so and remove the warning. Theshibboleth

I admit that the re-write is easy, especially if you use what I and others had already about him (check the history), but please remove the NPOV warning after the re-write, not during or before it. Andries 08:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I now agree that this article is definitely POV. Its content is basically taken directly from Mr. Creme's website. Because information in this encyclopedia is supposed to be verifiable, I'll email Creme and see if he can provide any sources. In the meantime, I am going to shorten the encyclopedia so it only deals with his relationship with the Maitreya. Also, no matter how nonsensical, there are a lot of people who think the Maitreya is the "Anti-Christ". There should probably be a links here to groups that oppose Creme's views. Theshibboleth 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added bibliographical references of independent accounts, one from a retired US diplomat, confirming Creme's information. IC, 3 September 2005.

---

If a link is put in to the religious fanatics than think that Maitreya is the anti-Christ, then there should also be a non-religious definition of the word "anti-Christ" - which states that it is not an individual, but a very cruel & destructive energy that has worked through Roman emperor Nero, through Hitler, and through the warmongering, genocidal maniac, George W. Bush. [User:JON]

Hi JON, I think the definition antichrist deserves its own space and not on this page. If need be, a link would suffice.

Hey Jon.

Feel free to link it in, or describe the Ageless Wisdom's take on the Anti-christ. btw, you can sign your comment by placeing 4 ~'s at the end, like 'Sethie 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)' peace, Sethie 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Jon: Not intending to patronize you with the following quotes, but your offered "non-religious" definition of the word "anti-christ" is in fact Creme's definition of antichrist [[1]]. It is stated in his and the wider Theosophical movement's teachings that the Antichrist is a force opposed to the Hierarchy released by Hitler. I have read this in many other comments by Creme and other Ageless Wisdom teachers besides the one cited above but I thought it might be good to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Might I add that some Ageless Wisdom teachers claim it was a necessary event for the evolution of mankind. Just some background information, but for accuracy's sake perhaps you should place your definition in an article labeled Antichrist_(Share International). - 71.234.228.206

conspiracy theories

Hey 69.242-

So I like the combination MORE... and I guess given that this is an encylopedia article, I would like some quasi- main stream sources that cite those theories.

Let me know your thoughts.

peace, Sethie 06:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

69.242- I am afraid there are no true "main stream" sources for this information (I guess because the constituency that is concerned over this is a great minority). Again, these are facts about opinions, these are not facts in of themselves (I am not saying that Creme is affiliated with any of these organizations, I could say he is a bit oppertunistic, creating a religious movement either to further his socialist political agendas, which I am not really against myself, or for the old "bottom line", I did not put these down because they would have sounded even worse).

I can give you some two sources:

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=1620 Paragraph: 120 and something from Sean David Morton's Delphi Associates called | Dark Prophet (though, to be fair, Sean David Morton is second to Ed Dames in having the worst hit-ratios of any Remote Viewer and is himself a general scam artists, see http://www.ufowatchdog.com/morton1.html for negative info on him).

Again, I am only talking about beliefs held by people in certain demographics, not about facts. This is simply to inform people and make them litterate in the different views being tossed around about this indevidual. I do not think I am concerned about Creme, in of himself. I am concerned about theosophy in general because it seems to at least interpret the Hindu varna system in a racist way that suggests a form of apartheid as practiced in South Africa and the pre-sixties South-Eastern USA, and I am a Christian, but Creme is just one in a million when it comes to that. To see my views on both subjects: [2], [3](This is initially about Fundamentalist Christianity, however it also includes the new age also, I tend to view the Fundamentalist Evangelical movement as philisophically pagan anyway, bordering on henotheism, see also: [4] four columns down, The Cult of Christians Who are Not Christian WARNING: Needs adobe acrobat). In short, I think religion is a means of control, the enemy (I think they are a group of European aristocrats) wishes to confound the world with it so as to set up a form of Feudalism.

69.242- (AKA: [[5]] Roybot).

Heya-

I hear that you want to give people as wide a berth for exploring Benjamin Creme as possible, and your concern about Theosophy (which I hope you raise on the theosophy page. You're not the only one to make these charges against him and alice bailey.)

With that said, I guess I am unclear why we would use a known "scam artist" as a refference, or other fringe sources. I am not opposed to this info being on Wikipedia, my question is: where does it belong? I am wondering if this info isn't better suited under the conspiracy theory section?

I concur it is our job to make people litterate about a subject, however.... what are the tools we weill use to do that? I personally don't think conspiracy theorists with low to no credibility are the way to do so.

Thank you for your offers for further info, I am going to pass on that for now

Just as for any other article, without a credible source, I say we take the info out. peace, Sethie 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ex-member of the Aetherius Society?

I read that Creme was an ex-member of the Aetherius society. Are there reliable references for this? Andries 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of it.... if you find it and it's relevant, put it in. Sethie 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I couls see that, given some of his "Martians" statements. 69.248.43.27 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that comes from Theosophy and Alice Bailey. Sethie 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious

Share International is a religious organization, and Benjamin Creme is its religious leader. There may be those, sympathetic to Share that deny this, claiming that he is only a "distributor of information" (about Maitreya). But Share fits any definition of religion there is. There have been attempts to edit this away (delete it) from this article. Meditation, belief in couter-intuitive abilities, counter-intuitive powers, millenial changes, and unseen metaphysical levels of existence is religion, as it is perceived and defined by most outsiders. Any founder, coordinator or keeper of such occult knowledge, powers or 'activa' is a religious leader per se.

hmmmm..... maybe.

It certainly is a "spiritual" organization, however, religion has many, many connotations. Sethie 03:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

) You provided a link to the religious article. Read the sprituality and esotericism sections. Sethie 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will. But seriously, define spirituality versus religion. One should not re-conceptualize just because the original word has unwanted, or unfavourable connotations. --Yanemiro 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well a start is that religion shares a root with relic, while spirituality shares a root with inspiration... religion is systematised and dogmatic to a greater extent than spirituality, spirituality is more personalised and open-ended. Religion is more external, spirituality is more internal. User:Pedant 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag should be removed

All of the references are listed in the further reading section. If someone has access to those books, it would be a good project to add references in a form that might be more accepted by the wikipedian community. User:Pedant 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:inline references Andries 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism deleted¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

there is obviously so much to doubt about this man ,but someone has been deleting the criticism section over and over again¡¡¡¡ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.240.46.164 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

If you are able to find a repubtable criticsm, not something off of a personal webpage or blog, it is very welcome here.

Also for clear discussion, Sethie asks that you point to specific examples, instead of making broad statements. Which specific criticisms do you believe have been deleted?Sethie 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Virtually the only sources in this article are primary sources, namely the subject of the article (Creme) and one or two of his followers. That is not normally acceptable in Wikipedia articles. It also implies a possible lack of notability (WP:N). See: [6] and WP:VERIFY. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• The editors who created this article must add reliable sourcing [7]. If this is not done, I will eventually start to remove unsourced sections of the article -- which is, in this case, just about the entire article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In this case, lack of sources indicate laziness of the Wikipedia editors, not lack of notability. Andries (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one -- calls him obscure.[8]--Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mick Brown calls Creme's claims outlandish. But what would surprise many is that Creme more or less agrees with Brown. Andries (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'd believe such a comment more from someone who agreed with him than a skeptic. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually Brown became or remained a skeptic, but he was fascinated by the charming Creme. We have now two sources (Joseph Szimhart and Mick Brown) that describe Creme as friendly/charming (which is I think part of Creme's appeal) and I think this should be added to the article. Andries (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Here is an excerpt in Dutch from University Press article about the relationship between Sathya Sai Baba and Creme. I was topic banned by the arbcom regarding Sathya Sai Baba because they think that that I have a conflict of interest, so I cannot edit in. I will translate later. Source: De Sai Paradox by Alexandra Nagel Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland, 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29. Published by Free university of Amsterdam press.

"Vroon schreef verder over Maitreya, waar Benjamin Creme al jarenlang de verkondiger van is. Creme beweert dat in 1977 de nieuwe wereldleraar, Maitreya genaamd, in Londen is gearriveerd. Deze zou ook een avatar zijn, degene die de aarde zal helpen de geestelijke revolutie welke naar zijn zeggen gaande is, te begeleiden. Het is een revolutie die liefde als middel en als doel heeft. Maitreya belichaamt in dit gebeuren het planetaire liefdesaspect, Sai Baba het kosmische. Volgens Creme staat Sai Baba hoger in de 'hiërarchie der meesters' dan Maitreya en is hij op aarde gekomen om Maitreya te helpen bij zijn werk.13 De relatie tussen Sai Baba en Maitreya werd door Vroon niet vermeld, maar deze informatie verscheen prompt via een ingezonden brief in de krant."

Andries (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial English translation "Vroon wrote further about Maitreya whose apostle is Benjamin Creme. Creme claims that in 1977 de new world teacher, call Maitreya has arrived in London. He would not only be an avatar, the one who will help earth in it spiritual revolution that is according to Creme taking place. The revolution has love as its aim and methhod. [....]According to Creme, Sai Baba is on a higher level in the "hierarchie of Masters" than Maitreya and he has come on earth to help Maitreya with his work. [..] "

Dear fellow editors. I made some additions to this biography, including pictures and a bit more information about him being an artist. I know Benjamin Creme personally, so know for a fact that most of the information is true, so I dont think the warning is necessary. I can try to contact him for more references, if noone has been able to contact him yet. Excuse me for acting quickly to change, I did not see this discussion sections before as I am new to wikipedia.

recent changes

Dear fellow editors. I made some additions to this biography, including pictures and a bit more information about him being an artist. I know Benjamin Creme personally, so know for a fact that most of the information is true, so I dont think the warning is necessary. I can try to contact him for more references, if noone has been able to contact him yet. Excuse me for acting quickly to change, I did not see this discussion sections before as I am new to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaworld (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "esotericist"

According to the OED, an esotericist would be one with "a tendency toward esoteric thought or language, obscurity". This is a description that may be mentioned in the article (as sources have used the term) but this is not a neutral description for the first line of the lead text.—Ash (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Another example of the problems of dictionaries. He is commonly described as an esotericist - Shareinternational should be a reliable enough source for you "In this prophetic book, esotericist and international lecturer Benjamin Creme" -- this is clearly an authorititative source, but also see [9] [10], [11], []http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DOEReNY6s5UC&pg=PA179&dq=Benjamin+Creme+%2Besotericist&ei=9n6rSpqmI6niyQSy3PiXCg#v=onepage&q=Benjamin%20Creme%20%2Besotericist&f=false and I could go on. It's an adjective his organisation applies to him, others apply to him, and as such clearly should be in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I do not dispute that his own website uses the word and other publications have re-used it because he (apparently) uses it to describe himself. In this article the meaning of the word as an unqualified adjective is not clear or neutral as it could be read to mean that either nobody knows what he's talking about (obscurity) or that he has exclusive "special knowledge" in which case we would have to explain what that knowledge was. If you have a source in relation to him that explains the word clearly then perhaps we could reduce it to Plain English so the lead would be understandable to the common reader. For example Aphex Twin has described himself in the press as a liar and irritating, but we would not use these terms in the lead without qualification as they are not neutral.—Ash (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read our article on it? We could add 'religious' before the word, we could add a section on his esotericism, etc. But I don't want to do it myself, I just put the word back because I knew it was appropriate, correct, and neutral (as it didn't mean what you thought it did). Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I still don't think anyone would seriously declare its use as Plain English as in practice it is such a rarely used term. As for the word not meaning what I think, it's not what I think that is the principal point here but what a normal Wikipedia reader (who might check the word in an ordinary dictionary, not Wikipedia) may think the unexplained use of the word means. From your reply, it sounds like there is no disagreement that the usage here would be aided by some qualification. If nobody gets to grips with it, I suggest using {{peacock-inline}} to highlight the issue.—Ash (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously need Source

The paragraph I've listed below SERIOUSLY needs to be sourced or removed. These are fairly bold claims, they definitely need to be sourced. I just read this article and just something about the way some of it is written seems like it's biased in favor of this guy.

"Between 1989-91, Share International magazine published a lengthy series of forecasts given to two journalists by an associate of Maitreya, which came true with uncanny accuracy. These forecasts included the fall of the Berlin Wall, the ending of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, the release of Nelson Mandela and the ending of Apartheid in South Africa, the release of kidnapped prisoner Terry Waite, the premature resignation of Margaret Thatcher, and many more. These predictions were distributed as news releases to world media and were included in a book published by Share International Foundation called ‘Maitreya’s Teachings – the Laws of Life’. Despite the open disclaimer as to their source, these forecasts are sometimes misattributed to Benjamin Creme as a means of questioning his character." Tainted Entanglement (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

what or who is an associate of Maitreya? Did Creme channel these messages? Andries (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Tainted Entanglement (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://share-international.org/background/bcreme/bc_main.htm. It was added in July 2005; archives confirm their prior publication. There is no visible notice on the webpage or website confirming compatible license. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits and removal of all critical sourced material

Recent single purpose accounts have been created under the names ShareIntUK (talk · contribs) and Sioffice (talk · contribs) in order to manipulate this article. In effect this has removed the entire body of article text and replaced with Share International promotional text. Correctly sourced material has been replaced by material cut and paste from other websites, a direct copyright violation. This is transparent conflict of interest and manipulation using sock puppets. It has been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShareIntUK.—Ash (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of above accounts has been blocked, I have reverted the page to a version before reliably sourced information was removed.—Ash (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is very biased against Mr. Creme. It consists mostly of negative opinions and insignificant details. It is character assassination. That too will pass. The truth will not be hidden for much longer. 72.177.95.213 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the matter, did you create the Sioffice account or make any claim to represent Share International?—Ash (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Hello & Thank you for responding to my concerns.

I'm definitely not any sort of representative of SI. I've read several of Creme's books and have read the SI magazines & newsletters regularly for 15 + years. I also rely on WIKI for lots of information and was very disappointed to see the blatantly incorrect & misleading information about Benjamin Creme here. I have noticed over the years that Creme is often attacked by good people, with good intentions, but dreadfully myopic views.

For example, Creme is not a self-proclaimed esotericist. The use of the words "self-proclaimed" in the description of anyone, are very negative and disrespectful, and it is used in the first sentence about him.

Furthermore that first sentence also falsely claims that Creme is the "owner" of Share International. He is the chief editor of the magazine & author of many books, but not the owner. There is no "owner". Share International is a non-profit organization with offices in London & Amsterdam, plus several affiliated non-profit groups in the USA, Canada, Japan, Germany, Spain, & France.

Wiki says in the seventh sentence that Creme's predictions "have failed to come true, leading to him being considered a figure of amusement in the press."

The fact of the matter is that most of Creme's predictions have come true, and are in the process of coming true. When Benjamin Creme said thirty years ago: "very soon", some people incorrectly assumed that he meant a few weeks or years. Those who paid attention to the man and gave him the benefit of the doubt know that he said that this is a 30+ year process." The words "very soon" obviously have a different meaning for different people.

“In speaking about the re-emergence of the Hierarchy, one is speaking about an event which is scheduled to take place over some thirty years. It is not a sudden event, nor does it take place without due preparation being made.” Creme - (1979) in The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, p.199-200.

It is true as noted that a couple of reporters have more or less joked about him, but they don't know what's going on. They work for and defend the status quote. They are the blind who lead the blind.

"The return to the everyday world of Maitreya, the World Teacher for the New Age, and the Masters of Wisdom – the Elder Brothers of humanity – is an ongoing process for which humanity has been prepared since 1875 by the Ageless Wisdom teachings. In various stages, these teachings have been released in many publications, notably those of H.P. Blavatsky, Alice A. Bailey, the Agni Yoga series, and most recently the books by Benjamin Creme." source: http://www.biblioteca-ga.info/50

Cheers 72.177.95.213 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out. Note that Wikipedia aims to create encyclopaedic articles that are based on reliable sources. This means that information is not normally added without reliable sources and information is not excluded that is backed up with reliable sources. Obviously self-published sources are not suitable reliable sources for an article (unless one is including particular claims or quotes from an individual that the article is about and then such inclusions should be clearly qualified to show they are not independently sourced). Unfortunately the source that you gave above (biblioteca-ga.info) is not a reliable source as on inspection, the public registration of the site is to Gerard Aartsen who also writes for Share International. For the corrections you suggest to replace the current text (particularly where currently based on reliable sources), they should be backed by third party sources.

I note you are contributing from an anonymous IP address, you may find an account useful to contribute from. The benefits are described at WP:WHY.—Ash (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

GMEF

GMEF (talk · contribs · logs · block log) appears to another single-purpose account intent on removing critical material and replacing it with the viewpoint of Share International without any discussion. I have no idea if this is the same person but I suggest all such edits are reverted. It appears that the article is undergoing a systematic and sustained campaign of attack.—Ash (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the article is quite hillarious as it is. We should of course protect the criticisms, but letting them crackpots add statements from Share International Inc., will only make the article more amusing. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the most negative and biased account of Benjamin Creme I have ever seen. A fair amount of skepticism is understandable and appropriate, but this piece goes overboard with it's baseless cynicism. This should win a prize for being part of the very "worst" of wiki. In three or fewer years, everyone except for a few hard-hearted fundamentalist Christians (who think that everyone except for them is going to spend eternity in "hell") will have an entirely different view of Benjamin Creme. To be great is to be misunderstood, but only for a while. "Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras, was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh." Ralph Waldo Emerson 72.177.95.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

August 6 2010 changes

I have made several recent changes dated August 6 2010 in order to make the BLP of Benjamin Creme more up to date, neutral and factual according to Wikipedia standards . As a personal disclosure, I am a volunteer with Share International and also have a background in Philosophy, Comparative Religion and Esotericism. I will list the recent changes I have made to the article and explain why these changes were instituted:

1. Added "Glasgow" - historical accuracy
2. Removed "self-proclaimed" - this is an irrelevant statement and can be taken as a derogatory reference. See discussion above.
3. Changed "owner of Share International" to "editor of Share Intenational" - this was an erroneous claim. Benjamin Creme does not "own" Share International, although he is the editor and makes editorial decisions on its content.
4. Removed "newsletter" and inserted "magazine" - Share International has published a magazine since 1982.
5. Added "...the World Teacher" after "Maitreya" to specifically qualify the reference term that Benjamin Creme uses in all of his materials when referring to Maitreya. This is clearly explained in the next sentence that follows the addition.
6. Added "...since 19 July 1977." - this is a historical point of reference for accuracy.
7. Added "...from a Master of Wisdom." - this point is a clarification to specify the source of Benjamin Creme's claimed telepathic receptions.
8. Large edit: I removed the following statement and its references - "These have failed to come true, leading to him being considered a figure of amusement in the press." It is clear that in the spirit of Wikipedia's standards for Living Biographies, this statement is simply a matter of opinion and attempts to ridicule Benjamin Creme. The references do not cite credible instances which would lead, on a whole, to making such statements and to repeat them on Wikipedia does not make it true. A clear analysis of his forecasts, which were all printed in successive issues of Share International magazine in the late 1980s before they came true, demonstrate the error of the above statement. Some of these forecasts include the ending of Apartheid, the fall of the Berlin wall, the premature resignationof Margaret Thatcher, the release of Terry Waite, and more. While significant evidence could be brought to bear on citing multiple instances of successful forecasts, I felt it was best to simply remove the erroneous and slanderous statement to make the article more neutral.
9. Removed the statement "...when he left due to disagreements." While it is true that Benjamin Creme left the Society after serving for some years as its Vice President, there is no evidene to support the claim that he left "due to disagreements". The citations do not suggest that and simply referencing a page number is not sufficent in this instance. I would like to see a quote that states that his departure was due to disagreeemnts. Otherwise, the statement does not really have a place here and only further endorses the slanderous tone of the article as a whole.
10. Large edit: I removed this section of statements:

    On some of his radio show interviews, he generated controversy by alleged positive remarks about Lucifer. Creme explained that he was not endorsing the Devil but pointing out a misinterpretation in terminology, he stated "Lucifer is the name of a great Angel, not an upstart in heaven who revolted against God and was put down into the nether regions as the Devil. That is a complete misinterpretation. Lucifer means light, and comes from the Latin lux, lucis, meaning light. It is the name of the Angel Who ensouls the human kingdom..."[11] Some Christian Evangelical sources have accused Creme and his claims regarding Maitreya of being a satanical conspiracy.[12]

    This is an erroneous focus on a small aspect of literally thousands of hours of talks and printed materials which seems bent on specifically painting Benjamin Creme in a certain negative light to Christians. One has to seriously ask what reklevance this statement has other than to highlight a statement which is particularly sensitive to fundamentalist sects within the Christian tradition. To Esotericists or scholars in Comparative Religion, for instance, this is a perfectly acceptable statement by Mr Creme and so what value does it play here other than to further disparage Benjamin Creme in the eyes of a very narrow sect of religious adherents? To make the article more neutral, this statement is best removed.
11. Title change from "1982 onwards and 1997 failed television broadcasts from Christ" to "1982 onwards". There is probably a better title for this yet, but this at least servbes to remove what sounds like a biased and disparaging, if not outright rude, reference to Mr Creme's activities for this period of time. It is also the case, as will be seen in subsequent edits below, that the term "failed" is also erroneous. The nature of the bias, and a need to disparage Mr Creme, seems quite obvious.
12. I removed the statement "...and that he would do that on Monday, 21 June 1982." This is a false statement and can be proven by the original ads. A detailed search of all Benjamin Creme literature will show that he has never made a specific claim as to a time or date of Maitreya's future appearance on television. Under wikipedia protocol, the onus is on the original editor to reference the actual quote by Benjamin Creme. Instead, the editor who insterted this point has referenced to an Evangelical hate-piece against Benjamin Creme which, in itself, does not provide a quote or reference substantiating the claim. This is therefore a claim by heresay and needs removal.
13. Removed another large statement:

    This created a sensation within some New Age groups, and even among some Evangelical Christians; but, when the promised television broadcasts of the Maitreya/Christ failed to occur, most of Creme's followers lost interest. This, he said, was because Maitreya had seen the time was not right for his general acceptance, at the level necessary, for his work to be successful.

    This statement followed on the previous erroneous claim in item #12 above. It is therefore irrelevant. It is referring to a "promised television broadcast" which, erroneously, had never been promised at all. This statement seems to be propaganda, and has no basis in truth. It also continues in the negative portrayal of Benjamin Creme by using opinion and bias to generate malice.
14. I have added:

    Creme, who claims that time is now very near for Maitreya's emergence, does not receive any money for this work or royalties from his 14 books, and has for over 30 years given lectures around the world by invitation only. A worldwide network of volunteers work with Benjamin Creme to inform the public of this information.

    
    and removed:

    is independently wealthy and continues to fund newspaper advertisements and press conferences, as well as to fund his journal and websites.[13][14]

    The addition is simply a point of factual information which presents the current situation in a neutral way adn is widely broadcast in all of the literature and website (i.e. obviously, the website and magazine continue to be published and updated regularly by a large group of volunteers from around the world). The section that I removed is erroneous. Mr Creme is not "independently wealthy" but lives off of a modest income from his paintings as an artist. He receives no money at all from the sale or publication of the magazine, the website, or his books. He receives no funds from his lectures. This can be verified online through the IRS records for Share International USA which is the printer and distributor of his materials. A further search of the IRS records will show that the ongoing work of advertiseing and press conferences is funded entirely by private donations to the publically registered nonprofit organisation Share International.
    Once again, the statement that was posted in this article was both erroneous and slanderous, neccessitating removal.
15. Added a large edit:

    On 14 January 2010 Benjamin Creme announced that Maitreya had given his first televsion interview on US television. Soon afterwards several people in the USA, with no connection to Share International, made a false assumption that several clues revealed by Creme led his followers after Creme identify British-American journalist and author Raj Patel was Maitreya. After newspaper articles around the world wrote about this story, Benjamin Creme explained that Raj Patel was not the coming World Teacher in an article in The Guardian newspaper called “Raj Patel is not Maitreya, but the World Teacher is here – and needed.”

    and removed an erroneous statement:

    Patel's stumbling over a few words during an interview on The Colbert Report seemed to clinch it, although Creme himself has made no statement on his followers' conclusions.[17]

    The addition above is a correction of information and re-written to refelct a more factual and neutral tone. It also clarifies the record, which is again erroneously repeated in the last short section that I removed. The original poster made a reference to a biased article originally written by Scott James in the New York Times, February 4, 2010 . However, that ariticle was factually incorrect and based on heresay. James did not confirm his information with Share International or Benjamin Creme before he went to print, thus creating a huge problem for both Share International AND Raj Patel. The orignal editor of the erroneous statement in this article referenced the erroneous heresay article written by Scott James. However, I have corrected the record by inserting an accurate historical rendering and included a reference to the article written by Benjamin Creme, and published in The Guardian paper of London on 20 April, 2010, clarifying the position of Benjamin Creme and Share International. This unfortunate misunderstanding could have been completely avoided had Scott James double checked his facts before printing. The follow up phone call between Scott James and Benjamin Creme further clarifies the erroneous claims made by Scott James.
16. Further, in the last paragraph, I have removed the work "...newsletter" and substituted "magazine". This is simply a correction of fact.

I think the changes that I have made represent a shift in the tone of the article as a whole from being erroneous in the many places I have described - and even overtly slanderous - to being factual and, most importantly, neutral in tone. I welcome any discussion on the points and changes that I have made here. Todd Lorentz 07:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edits. I agree that there was a problem with the overall tone of the article, and with some sources that didn't meet Wikipedia standards. However, we shouldn't "throw out the baby with the bathwater". I see that you deleted a number of reliable sources as well, including major mainstream newspapers, and deleted other material apparently sourced to reliable references, such as the clause about leaving the Aetherius Society due to "disagreements". That assertion is sourced to a reliable source, so simply deleting it is not the best solution. The same source, Bartlett, was used as a citation for this line: "Some Christian Evangelical sources have accused Creme and his claims regarding Maitreya of being a satanical conspiracy." It may be that the Christian Evangelical sources are wrong, but that isn't our concern. The fact we're concerned with is that this assertion is reported in a reliable sources, and that it's relevant. Our job is to present it in with the neutral point of view, not to judge whether it's accurate. Further, you seem to have deleted almost all mention of the 1982 prediction. I just did a quick search in a newspaper archive and that 1982 news conference was very well-attended and reported, and the subsequent failure of the Maitreya to appear is credited in the press with the exodus of 2/3 of Creme's following. So it certainly sounds like a significant event that deserves significant coverage in this article. Also, you removed a whole section on crop circles that seems to have good sources.

On Wikipedia, we don't try to report the "TRUTH". Rather, we try to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If sources disagree then we report all significant views, with weight proportional to their prominence. If a "reliable" source has reported something about Creme that you believe false, the instead of deleting it the right solution is to post a well-sourced rebuttal alongside it.

For those reasons, about half of your deletions should probably be restored.   Will Beback  talk  12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for making those edits which improved the article, like correcting "magazine" to "newsletter".   Will Beback  talk  12:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the edits I made. They are very helpful in trying to develop a good approach to this biography. If you are okay with holding off on restoring any of the previous article for a week or two, I would like to go through the article again, make some restorations and adjust the text with more citations, proper rebuttals, and some more detailed descriptions so that we can bring this article more in line with your recommendations. This first attempt at corectig the text was only that - an attempt - and your perspective was helpful toward steering my efforts in the proper direction. I will try to adjust or correct what you have indicated above as soon as possible. Thanks again.142.59.199.143 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, take a week if you need that. I've posted a welcome message on your user talk page that includes some links to important policies.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

August 8 2010 revisions

I have begun to reinsert the references removed two days ago, but with a more neutral and balanced context.

1st edit: I included a large section of text in the first section of the article which had previously inlcuded three skeptics references, but no balanced opinon. I have therefore included a greater comntext for these criticism for a fairer approach to the topic. I did find a link to the third of those three skeptic's references and modified that rference to include the link. I have also added two more references to public television programs (video recordings) which are archived on the Share International website. These two refrences are to show that serious commentators have made an effort to examine the story objectively. Unfortunately, the two links are on a page which contains several videos and I was unable to separate those two video interviews out specifially. So I included in each reference the name of the program and interviewer so that anyone going to that link could find the correct video.

2nd edit: I re-added the reference that was previously located in the Biography section, and have provided a more balanced context for the information. This is in the second paragraph of the Biography section, although I may need to move this to a mroe relevant section in the article eventually for better continuity. That would only be a minor edit.

3rd edit: I added a few sentences in the third section of the article to simply expand the basic inforamtion in that section.

I am continuing to edit this article and have access to many primary source materials which I will add as references Todd Lorentz 16:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)in the very near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLorentz (talk • contribs)

Primary source does not sound very okay, though not always forbidden to use. Here in Wikipedia we tend to use reputable third party secondary sources i.e. not from Creme or Share international. Andries (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources, such as Share International, should only be used for assertions that are about the subject and that are not self-serving. Technically, Maitreya probably counts as a living third party, in which case we should not use Creme's self-published comments about him. However I think it's reasonable to treat him as a part of Share International for the purposes of this article.

There is some non-neutral language. Critics are described as being "few" in number, and are not identified even though some of them are notable individuals. OTOH, those who give credence to the predictions are called "credible" and there are said to be "many" of them. However the only source for these supporters is Share Intl.

There are some unsourced claims, including that Share Intl. predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall. We need to either provide the original sources that made these predictions, or, even better, secondary sources that make the claim.

I'm not sure what to make of this citation: The Tara Press (Jun 03, 1982). "Advertisement". The Times. p. 6. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). Is it an advertisement in The times of London? What is The Tara Press? If it's an advertisement then we should attribute it. Something like, "In an advertisement published in June 1982 in The Times, Creme said..." Is there a way we could see a copy of this ad?   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I added some references needed. In further sentence is clearly stated that all these predictions were chronologically published in the Share-international magazine and can be checked to validate the reference for previous claims. And also that these claim were distributed as news releases to world media, so more deep research is needed. Jonson22 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could this quote from one of BC's books be added to this page?

Could this quote from one of Creme's books be added to this page?

"The people of the world are beginning to make their needs known... demanding their right to eat, to work, to bring up their children in peace and in decent circumstances. These demands will grow. Maitreya will... stimulate and potentize these demands of the people until there is no government on Earth which can stand against these demands for freedom, justice and right relationship... It can only be brought about when people make it happen. It is not an idea which automatically takes place."

The Great Approach by Benjamin Creme (published in 2001)

Jon2233 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Creme asserts that the energies of the Anti-Christ worked through Adolf Hitler..."

The first half of the following sentence has been changed to accurately reflect what Creme has said:

From: "Creme asserts that Adolf Hitler was the Anti-Christ..." To: "Creme asserts that the energies of the Anti-Christ worked through Adolf Hitler..."

If there are any questions regarding the accuracy of this assertion, Mr. Creme discusses the matter in more detail here: http://www.share-international.org/background/faq/faq_main.htm#anchor9

Thank you Jon2233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Extensive whitewashing

Looking over the revision history of this article, it's apparent that numerous single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest have scrubbed this article, removing reliably sourced material critical of Creme that wasn't in violation of any BLP guidelines. I'll have to go over it more thoroughly with a 'fine-toothed comb' when I can, to see what's worth restoring, but it appears this sort of redaction has been a fairly constant problem on this article for several years now, unfortunately. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the whole thing is starting to look like a POV apologetic. If it cannot be permanently resolved, the article should be deleted. JohndanR (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just revert to a much earlier version. As far as I know article about a notable subject in Wikipedia does not get deleted if good versions in the article history are available. Andries (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Creme. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511202947/http://www.share-international.org/background/printed/books.htm to http://www.share-international.org/background/printed/books.htm

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)