Is this an actual phenomenon - have people changed their lives to incorporate it - or is this just the theological equivalent of a micronation? If the latter, and there is no evidence apparent otherwise, it does not deserve an article.
- No, it's not a real religion. As far as I know it has one follower - Albert Jacher. I don't see any reason to delete it, however. What if a sociology student comes along, desperately needing information on made-up religions? Never fear, we have some NPOV information right here! Under which clause of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not would you like it deleted? -- Tim Starling 05:53 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, if it is not an actual phenomenon, it's not exactly encyclopedic. But I'm more concerned that if we give this idiot any attention we'll never be rid of him.
- Not encyclopedic? Is List of people with six toes encyclopedic? What about Nose-picking? I'll agree that it's trivial, but we have no shortage of that here. As for encouraging him, he seems to be content to leave things alone for them moment – see below. If he starts making a nuisance of himself, we'll deal with him the same way we deal with the rest of the vandals. -- Tim Starling 06:24 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
- 'Starts'?
- Some people do have six toes. Most people pick their noses when they think nobody's looking. Nobody (as far as can be told) follows 'Albertanism'.
- So what?! Does a number of followers justify the wisdom or stupidity in an ideology? So why are you not a Communist or Hinduist? There are plenty of followers! -- Albert Jacher
- Communism and Hinduism influence the actions of people. Your stupid fantasy does NOT.
- The point is not whether people follow it or not, the point is whether or not it is a part of human knowledge. "Albertanism is a vanity religion recently constructed by Albert Jacher". That is a piece of knowledge, something I didn't know yesterday. What's more, I find systems of belief interesting -- interesting enough that I went to Albert's website and read some stuff. Maybe some other people are like me and find this more interesting than Atlas Shrugged/Airport attendant 1 or Dormont, Pennsylvania.
- Okay so far as it goes, but this is closer to, say, Woodstock Weather.
- Your main problem with this seems to be that you hate Jacher for his arrogance, and don't want to give him any attention for fear making him happy. -- Tim Starling 07:35 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't hate a mosquito that bites me, but I smack it anyway. What sticks in my craw about keeping this article, more than its sheer pointlessness, is that doing so rewards a vandal for making a pest of himself.
hahahaha! :-D
Tim!
Thank you!
I appreciate what you did!
Your text is much more informational than the option chosen by Danny &co.
They just removed ALL the information about that new religion.
I hope i will be able to edit that content although the chance is not big.
But anyway it is nice of you that being an information editor and publisher you are able to allow publishing some new unusual information.
I send you greetings!
AlbertJacherHolyProphet 06:01 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
The material on this page is idiosyncratic, and not encyclopedic. The only references to the term "Albertanism" are on Jacher's own sites and newsgroup, to which Jacher is the major poster: the rest is only spam. Keeping this article only feeds Jacher's vanity by drawing traffic to his website. Whatever Wikipedia is, it is not a vanity webhosting site or link farm.
I will put this page on the deletion list.
-- Anon.
- Sorry, I didn't see this comment before my last reversion. Thinking... -- Tim Starling 08:13 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Also note that there were two different anon users. -- Anon
I had assumed someone just changed IP addresses. Help! I'm being ganged up on by anonymous users!
The material on the page was not idiosyncratic. The statement "Albert Jacher is God's representative on Earth" is idiosyncratic, the statement "Albert Jacher claims he is God's representative on Earth" is a simple fact. But seeing as it offends you so much, I'm happy to leave the page in its current condition (blank) until an administrator reviews the situation.
Summary
- I created this article to demonstrate that even an article about a vanity religion could be a useful contribution to Wikipedia.
- In my opinion, nothing in Wikipedia policy or rules suggests it should be deleted.
- Two anonymous users find the page an offensive encouragement to a vanity-obsessed vandal and troll.
-- Tim Starling 08:42 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
I respect your point of view, Tim, but on the whole, I tend to agree with the anons: it's just advertising and as such should be deleted. It was a brave effort to pluck enough straws out of the winds of empty bluster to make something useful with, but in the end there is nothing encyclopediac about the topic. I'm not going to join in the revert war because I don't care enough about the silliness this entry tries so valiantly to cover, but I'll take a little time (if I have to) to keeping silly links to vanity pages out of the entries of real substance. Tannin
- I don't see how an article classifying something as a "vanity religion" can be called an advertisement for it. I would reserve the term "advertisement" for an article which promotes its subject as a good thing. I agree with Tim Starling that although Albert Jacher's claims have had very little impact upon the world, the fact that he has made them is a piece of human knowledge. I don't think that the issue of whether or not the article "feeds Jacher's vanity" (as Anon. put it) should come into it at all. Our job is not to reward some people by giving them articles and punish others by not giving them articles, but just to report the facts.
- It's interesting that Tim Starling called for an administrator to review the situation, because I'm an administrator, so... I demand that the article be kept! ;) Heh, no, I can't really say that... As I understand it, the job of an administrator is not to "pull rank" and override other people's decisions, but rather to carry out actions which have been agreed by consensus. In the process of reaching a consensus about something, the opinions of the administrators shouldn't carry any more weight than those of other known contributors such as Messrs. Starling and Tannin. -- Oliver P. 10:24 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
- I started thinking about administrators because I thought that's how our little edit war would end. You're quite right though, an administrator shouldn't decide the issue on this. I guess if there are enough people out there willing to start an edit war over this, but no administrator willing to declare a consensus has been reached, the article will just remain in its current state. -- Tim Starling 11:52 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. This is exactly the kind of thing that an administrator can and should deal with. Albertanism is supposedly the religion of one self-proclaimed prophet--likely someone just wanting attention--with no following or, in fact, no one anywhere ever having heard of it. In other words, it is a vanity page. That is not what Wikipedia is. This is probably the most attention AJ got for his little grabs for attention, whether in the real world or the virtual world. Look how much time and effort has been expended on these pages. Notice too, how the pages are not even about his personal religious philosophy (which might merit removal to Meta, though I doubt it), but about him. Furthermore, many of the participators here have political ideas. Should they all proclaim themselves "political theorists and innovators" as yet undiscovered by the masses and put out personal pages? Will we have Capitalism, Communism, Dannyism, and Svertigism? Should we have articles like the "Dannyist approach to the Middle East Conflict" or the "Tanninist critique of a the free market"? Finally, has anything academic ever been written about this guy's beliefs or is he the only source of information--if the latter then anything here will necessarily be POV. Let's stop wasting time on this guy, who is doing this for attention, and start getting down to real work. Danny
- (Tannin is trying really, really hard not to put "[[" and "]]" around "Tanninist critique of the free market" above. I wouldn't start such an article, but if someone else did, then I'd be morally obliged to edit it up with the appropriate corrections, wouldn't I? And with dear Uncle Ed on the prowl ... well ... it would be only a matter of time.)
- LOL. I'm tempted to put the brackets just to see what happens.
I give up. Let's end this. -- Tim Starling 12:16 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
This is a vanity page and needs to go.
- Why do you put yourself in a role of a judge over Speaker of God? Are you "self-proclaimed" censor of prophets?
I've checked Google and confirmed
that this is an idiosyncratic topic that deserves to be in Wikipedia
as much as any of the many one and two person micronations that invaded
Wikipedia a while ago and were deleted.
- who know the message from the God: Google or Albert Jacher, Speaker of God?
The only web presence or references
to this "faith" seem to have been created by the self-proclaimed "prophet."
- Really?! And what about the biggest internet portal onet.pl and website of one of the most popular Polish talk shows of TVN television?
http://forum.onet.pl/1365,281825,program.html
- I guess you cannot read in Polish, but please do not make judgments based on your limited ability of learning information.
Just because somebody thought of something doesn't make that a part of human
knowledge that we should bother including in our encyclopedia.
- That is usually right. I agree. But your general rule does not apply to exceptional humans. I am not just average "somebody". You do not have to believe now that Albert Jacher is representative of God, but it would be reasonable to take to your information that Albert Jacher announced publically to people in many parts of planet that he was "Chosen By God to be the new Speaker of God". This is just a fact! How do you want to verify that? Ask the governments of USA, UK, Germany, Poland, Australia, Israel, Palestine. I contacted them all and all of them ignored me just as you try hard to ignore me now. But i hope they register arrived emails and phone calls.
- In summer 2001 i phoned to USA embassy in Poland trying to contact USA government. An officer stopped our talk saying that they have serious things to do... 1,5 months later the muslim commando attacked WTC and the Pentagon...
There needs to be credible independent references to any topic we cover -- otherwise NPOV and fact checking is impossible. Wikipedia is not a homepage provider, soapbox, or advertising forum. --mav
- Mav! I am the only credible, independent reference for albertanism and for the message from God to you a human on Earth and billions of other fellow humans... Open your mind and think logically!
- With good wishes! -- Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 22:26 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
If I didn't think you were serious, I would say that the above is just about the
funniest thing I've ever read.
Your claim to be the Son of God is your POV. There is no way for you to
prove it and there is no way for me to disprove it. All we know is that
you think it is true - that is a POV. It is also idiosyncratic. But
the "article" is now in the user:namespace so all is well. --mav
---
>Your claim to be the Son of God is your POV.
- What?!?! Can you really read text with comprehension?! Can you distinguish "Speaker of God" from "Son of God"? I am the son of my father only and not of any god including the real god. God does not breed. Humans breed.
>There is no way for you to prove it and there is no way for me to disprove it.
>All we know is that you think it is true - that is a POV.
- Yes, i agree. That is why i do not understand why people want to find "verification" about my claims to be Chosen By God else where in some bureaucratic institutions. This is private relationship between me and the God. No one can confirm or verify my private spiritual communication with God.
- But your mistake is that you assume that i want to do some aggressive propaganda in Wikipedia to recruit supporters for Albertanism. But this is not true. I have my own website and there i publish my prophetic texts. I just want to bring information about me and my philosophy here to Wikipedia. If that is not interesting for you and many others, it is a pity. But i am 100% sure there are many people who desperately need information about some alternative wiser religion to guide them in their sorry lives.
- Why do you take the responsibility to prevent them from getting such information? -- Albert Jacher, Speaker of God 23:00 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)