Talk:Maitreya (Share International)

message: Changed first sentence on second section, since there is no evidence anyone but Harry Walther and his followers have this POV on Share International's version of Maitreya. However, softened it by saying there is at least one Christian religious leader who believes this, given there well may be one. Diego001 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial postings 

message: I think it is rather offensive to some buddhists, if not all together POV to have this article title Maitreya.  This person is NOT considered the next buddha, Maitreya, by anyone outside of himself and his followers.  It is a grotesque use of POV and is just plain laughable that someone tried to pull a fast one here with the title.  It needs to be changed simply to Share International or Benjamin Creme.
I am open to a discussion about what is the best title for the page. And yes, I am sure some Buddhists find it offensive.
I do not resonate with your claim that it is a POV to have the article named Maitreya, since the fact of the matter is, within this tradition, Maitreya is his name, and within the tradition, he is considered the next Buddha. The only POV I see is NPOV- a neutral reporting of the facts. 
There already is a Share International article and a Benjamin Creme, and this is an article about the figure they teach about named "Maitreya" I am not seeing other solutions, but open to hear them.Sethie 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  having this titled as Maitreya 

message: This article is very vague as to what the Maitreya actually says or does. If he is as SHARE say he is why can't we hear more about him and what he stands for? I would also like to know more about what has taken place during his public appearances and what people think of him. ThePeg 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maitreya is an imaginary person. Only existing in the mind of Benjamin Creme and his followers. According to Creme's entertaining fantasies, Maitreya is hiding in the Asian community of London. Nobody has ever confirmed his identity. I believe that the picture is made of an ordinary person who has nothing to do with Share or Creme, but who was mistakenly identified by Creme as Maitreya (Source:Mick Brown The spiritual tourist)Andries 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post speculation and argueing about a subject on a newsgroup or discussion forum. I am not sure if the above is your personal POV or Brown's, if it is Brown's please clearly indicate it is... if it is yours, please keep it to yourself, ok? Sethie 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I thought and  still think that a brief summary and explanation was necessary to facilitate editing this article. It is my interpretation of what Brown wrote. Andries 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Sethie 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Heya Peg, my response was to Andries, not to you. It's sorta an uspoken rule that in replying to someone you add ":" to indicate who you are replying to (as I am doing to you right now). I was once very familiar with Maitreya's teachings and if the spirit moves me I will add more to the article. Thanks for asking. Sethie 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague

message: Please note that MOST of the article is (a) controversial and (b) unsourced, and also that there are no citations regarding notability.  I'm not proposing that the article be gutted, or deleted entirely, but those who care about its contents (and existence) really should consider adding citations, particularly ones demonstrating that some (reasonably important) newspaper or magazine, somewhere, has actually written a story about this guy.   -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a joke. It is slightly better now that the anti-Christ section is gone, but it still smacks of the kind of unencyclopedic, worshipful nonsense that only Wikipedia can offer. Just because medium/"psychic" Benjamin Creme passes the notability guidelines, doesn't mean that his "channeled spirits" also do. Also, that picture is presumably copyrighted and should be removed, as the uploader never mentioned whether the owners actually did grant him the right to use it. Algabal 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly humorous. I feel sure that serious references would not be found, so maybe it should be deleted. But it probably won't be. I only hope no one takes it seriously. Rumiton 11:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mick Brown wrote serious references. I could use them, but I am too lazy. Andries (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources 

message: Some of many people who think he is the Antichrist:
http://www.satansrapture.com/maitreya.htm
http://www.redmoonrising.com/maitreya.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1677.cfm
and many more. Just google it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.156.89 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you can cite something that qualifies as a reliable source, please bring post it here. We don't count Google results as proof of anything that goes into articles.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do the listed references mention Creme, Share, or Maitretya? If not then they are of doubtful value for this entry. By the way, used references belong in a section called References, not in the section bibliography/further reading. Andries (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The references specifically discuss Shares Benjamin Creme as the "John the Baptist" of Maitreya. (a reference to Jesus's 'promoter') There is no ambiguity whatsoever that it is Creme and his Maitreya that is being discussed. Thanks for moving the references to the right place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.150.234.140 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Algabal, the section is sourced by Truthant and the references are listed. What is the problem? Andries (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing seemed to imply to me that the author was coming to his own conclusions about the similarities between the Anti-Christ and Creme's invention. I have changed the phrasing slightly to make it clear that these are purely Creme's ideas. Algabal (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happenened with the Antichrist comment?