Talk:New Acropolis

NPOV
The article as it currently stands promotes an overly positive view of the subject, when it should be more neutral Aspening (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is borderline promotional. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to remind the unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Giladsom your unfounded accusations can be considered a personal attack, which are against Wikipedia policies and I could report you. In any case, all the information I added has more than enough neutral, objective and verificable sources, problem is first you're never happy with any kind of critical information about the organization, you add templates requesting something and then get upset because that something was added for the templates you requested. You requested citations, I gave it, then you said the sources were "not enough" or biased, then I answer with sources from the organization itself that confirmed what the first sources said, then you said that was original research, then I added direct quotations to let the reader make his mind, and now you say is "handpicking selected phrases out of context". It seems that no mattar what I add if is critical of NA or makes it look in a bad light you find something differnet to say about, is almost like if you don't want this information to be public. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, my comment was not intended to be a personal attack, if it felt so, then I apologize. I do not have any problem with the criticism of organizations like New Acropolis, although I'm generally in favor of the work they do, I do believe it's important to display the criticism, so every person can make their own analysis. This is what Wikipedia is about. However, these criticisms should be impartial, to the point, and not based on the editor's personal research. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but from my side it seemed that your presentation of the criticism and the sources you relied on are based on a personal agenda or grudge against this specific organization. Are they? If not, I'll be happy to work together to make the page more balanced and less chaotic than it is right now. TruthisHigher 07:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs)
 * I was only answering to what you requested. You requested unbiased sources, when I use the organization itself's sources including their own secret handbook, you said they were original research, when I then use the direct quotes from the text you said they were out of context and handpicked. So, what should I do? You object any editions and when your request is granted you complain again. How do you define impartial sources? It seems that all sources that does not shows it in a good light are impartial for you. In any case, that's not what Wikipedia's policies say, I recommend you to read Neutrality of sources especially: Reliable sources may be non-neutral and Reliable sources are never neutral.
 * I have no particular feelings toward this organization, tho I do suspect is a cult I have never came across with it in my life. For what I read that Livraga himself wrote like the Manuel del Dirigente I really don't have the best opinion as I'm very liberal and anti-authoritarian, however that's not my motive. I wasn't the only one who notice that this article is too flatering. I can't say for sure if the organization is truly para-militar, but I can say for sure that most of Livraga's biography is fake and that NA had continue to spread such falsehood knowingly and that make me even more distrustful of it. But in any case, I accept your apologies. I suggest the section may be returned to a previous version without the long quotations but without the "original research" template either. How about that? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Dereck, I appreciate you willing to work with me, I consider myself a liberal as well, and I'm sure we probably have even more in common. The truth is I know some people in New Acropolis and it amuses me to link them to any para-military or far-right ideas. But, as you said, criticism should have its place in Wikipedia. I agree that sources don't have to be neutral, but I do think that the presentation of the editor should be as neutral and objective as possible. I also agree to what you suggested, but I would like to add a few more points. You built a section about structure and organization, which is great, but it seems to rely only on a certain partial document from the 70's, which was written by Jorge Livraga, but I don't think we can be sure it is still used, or that it is official today, it would be probably better described as an internal/official manual from 1976, written by Jorge Livraga. Organizations change a lot in 40 years. I would start the section with some lines from the current official view that you can probably find on the official website, in this way the people could see both the current official position and the indications of Livraga. This doesn't change the content of the document, but it puts it in context. Also about the last criticism you added about the professor who taught racist ideas in school, I read the article, and the professor himself says he visited New Acropolis 5 times in 10 years. That hardly makes him a member of the organization. Also, even if he was a member, I'm not sure that his personal activities necessarily represent the organization. The thing is that most English readers in Wikipedia will not be able to read the original in Spanish, and even if they can I'm not sure they'll even bother, so I think it's important to present the information as objectively as possible. What do you think about these arguments? Do they make sense to you so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I don't remember to ever read that the professor only visited NA five times in 10 years but I will remove the mention, howver I will kept the news as source for the accusation of cult which is something that the text says. I have no problem with specifying the year the Handbook was written and to describe the current structure, but I have no idea what is the current structure system of the organization, feel free to add it yourself. I will return the text of discordia to a previous version that was more neutral and had less quotes.
 * Now as a quid pro quo you should also review some of the extremely flattering or promitional content which was user Aspening's original worry when opening this thread. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for my late reply, thank you for being flexible and for making the changes. I will look into the structure. Would you mind pointing out what you think is promotional or too flattering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see what mentions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the Aims and Teachings sections do not represent a balanced view of the subject. Aims is largely based in information from the organization itself; I'd like to see some third party commentary on what the organization does. In other words, it's too reliant on primary sources, which can introduce bias. Teachings is too reliant on direct quotes, and most of those appear to portray a positive view of the subject. Reception and Criticism is also largely positive in tone; a lot of it is focused on refuting anti-New Acropolis viewpoints and talking about how great the organization is, with little mention of its critics. Aspening (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

To end edit warring
I hope my changes may please both sides as much as possible. I tried to be as neutral as possible. If that is the case then consider removing the labels of advert and NPOV if you wish. Greets. --TV Guy (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will agree with the changes done, however I still think some parts are too promotional, however in order to avoid an endless edit warring I will consent to this version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you TV Guy, I appreciate your edit, it much clearer and organized now. However, I continued to edit the organization and structure section in accordance with the principles you presented in the Teachings section. I believe I didn't remove the essence of the information. I still think it's pretty biased against the organization, but I accept that in regard to existing organizations and living figures, Wikipedia will probably always have some bias, as all of us editors are human beings at the end of the day. It is unfortunate, but it is the reality. Thank you again and all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it. However the situation is very difference in structure than in teachings. The problem in teachings was excess of quotations, not the case in structure which just presents detailed information which is ok. --TV Guy (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Registration in Belgium
"NA has been registered in Belgium as an international non-profit assocation since 1981, number 3/12-941/S."

I could not verify this following the two later links. I could only find registry entries for ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE NOUVELLE ACROPOLE under association number 1338190. Anyway, if there is a secondary source stating that Organisation Internationale Nouvelle Acropole is registered in Belgium since 1981, we could replace these 3 references with that, and drop the registration number. --MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I dropped that supposed registration number. It seems it is a Decree number, and not an Association number. --MarioGom (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Biased Editing?
This page is currently very problematic and shows bias by editors against the organization. Here is a list of only a few of the problems on this page -

1. Sentences are extracted in a biased manner from sources to create a certain impression of the association - For example, from the text of Clarke: "New Acropolis teachings are based on such diverse sources as the Greek philosophy of Plato (428/27–347 BC), the Theosophical ideas developed by Madame Blavatsky (1831–91) (see Chapter 5) and those of René Guenon (1886–1951) on the theme of the philosophia perennis. One of this movement's main beliefs is in the advent of the Age of Aquarius, which, it warns, will give rise to great pain and suffering at the outset. Like the Escuela Cientifica Basilio the New Acropolis has also become an international movement with a presence in some fifty countries." Only one sentence is extracted to indicate what is NA: "will give rise to great pain and suffering at the outset." This is just one example of many.

2. Most of the information about the organization is based on defectors' blogs. This is like writing an article on someone based on their ex's opinion.

3. To describe the organization's structure, some partial document from 50 years ago is used, which apparently is attributed to the founder, although no evidence is presented. This document looks like a fax scan, from which most pages were taken out, and is apparently a personal contribution of one of the editors because it doesn't appear in any library or reliable source. It's may not be a reliable source and even if it is, once again sentences are extracted based on the editor's bias.

4. Very few reliable academic sources.

5. Unless it is convenient for the editors' agenda, no reference to original writings of New Acropolis writers is made to present the organization's ideas - so it's kind of a one-sided trial with no room for the defendant to testify.

Wikipedia's purpose: The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.

If editors are unable to treat the topic neutrally, in an unopinionated manner, then either stop editing, or perhaps it is even better to delete the page until more objective editors come along. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.120.178 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This text is overly wrong
1 - It looks like the text was written by a lover of socialism: say everything is fascism, neo fascism, nazism, ultra right wing..

2 - There are homosexual in NA.

3 - The races are from Blavastsky teachings

It's indeed very silly text. Should be restarted from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.176.123.208 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 22 May 2020
Hello, I am not a member of this organization, but this article is extremely biased and negative.

"Reception and Criticism"

This title has very little to do with the content of the section. It has more to do with the international actions of this organization. It seems like a specific attempt to make it seem more negative.

____________

"The Escépticos blog claims that NA believes the white race is divided into seven subraces also hierarchized where the Germanic is the most elevated and the Hebrew the least."

This is both an obvious mix up with the theosophical society, and not a valid source at all.

"The organization has been accused of neo-fascism and neo-Nazism[33][7][9][31] New Acropolis condemns Nazism, racism and political extremism,[34][35] and some scholars and defectors claim that the organization is more ultra-conservative, hierarchical,[30][29][failed verification] and critical or skeptical of democracy[36] influenced by Platonism and Traditionalism, and by the writings of Helena Blavatsky and René Guénon."

This is bad English. It also sandwiches the organizations actual positions between two accusations. It should have the actual organizational position first and then accusations or vice versa, instead you have written it to make it look more scary, by having Nazism, racism and political extremeism blue after the accusations.

____________________

The entire "Cult Status" section is misleading. Very few of the other organizations on those lists have give it an entire section on their wikipedia articles.

_______________________

"The Theosophical Society officially denies any links with Livraga,[38] and claims that Livraga was expelled from the organization due to his connection with extremism of the ultra right and Nazism.[39][40] "

This is misleading. The source clearly says that he was removed from the Theosophical society for other reasons, and that his alleged connections to fascism were just emphasized during his trial among many other things. This sentence makes it look like he was removed only because of his political ideology, which is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zawoxo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to make notice a couple of things;
 * The organization itself can't be use as source, it will be considered Primary sources.
 * I have read a lot of theosophical material and never found any believe in racial hierarchy of the like tha NA has, if you have a source of that please provide it.
 * Saying that the Escépticos web is a bad source in itself is not enough, you have to prove why. In any case is not the only source of the claim.
 * If there were other reasons for Livraga's expell from the TS it ok to mention them, but the source does explicitly states that it was for far-right ideas, the quote is a literal quotation. Adding the others is ok but removing an adequately sourced statement without reason is not valid.
 * Saying than in other articles about other groups the cult status is not mentioned is falacy of ignoratio elenchi.
 * Everything else has valid references, in fact the article itself mentions that the organization was accused of fascism and neo-nazism which is truth and correctly sourced, but that most scholar do not think it is, and that the organization rejected the claims, I can see anything more neutral than that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I agree with and implemented almost all their requests plus many more. This article had serious, serious problems, . The organization can be used as a source for certain information about itself per WP:SPS. Furthermore, you had no problem using a WP:PRIMARY source in § Organization and structure. Regarding Escépticos, no, actually, you need to prove its reliability, not User:Zawoxo! Because from my perspective it looks on par with a random blog and there is absolutely no reason to think it even approaches WP:RS; even WP:RSOPINION. Why is Pedro Luis Gomez Barrondo's email from the year 2000 citable? Why should his opinion be given weight? Many of the other sources in use were, again, random blogs, some of them by anonymous people; in many cases even the blogs you cited didn't say what you put them after. You attributed statements to Miguel Martínez which were nowhere in the source. The source doesn't include the word "theocracy", neither does it use "caste" how you say it does. Immediately after attributing Martínez you cite Clarke, and the provided quote doesn't have the word "ultra" much less "ultraconservative". Your immediate revert of  was, in my view, WP:BITE and should not be repeated. This article still has many issues, especially around what time period different parts refer to; I don't have more time for cleanup right now unfortunately. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Psiĥedelisto I have no problem with most of your removals, but the Theosophical Society's possition about Livraga's expulsion is a perfectly valid source and I will re-added. Similarly I have another source for the organization's racist believe which I will add soon enough. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To me it seemed like before that we were trying to say that the Theosophical Society is the same organization as New Acropolis, which I couldn't find proof of. Is New Acropolis an offshoot of TS? I think we should explain a little about what TS is. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well Livraga claim that Sri Ram ask him to create a new organization as the TS was "corrupt", of course theres no evidence of this other than Livraga's claim, one of many unproven claims. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would write something like this: Livraga, formerly a member of the Theosophical Society, claimed that its founder asked him to create a new organization, leading to the foundation of NA. Then leave what you have there right now about TS and its opinion of Livraga. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. It is also mentioned in his article btw. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)