Talk:Abd-ru-shin

World Library

Emmisgood (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Provided World Public Library Article Id: WHEBN0002666422 as a source of citations & references to further subject matter related articles. These articles are independantly created and developed and undergo independant peer review processes not associated with the authors of the article.

It fails both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. See for details http://www.ipad-library.net/article/whebn0002666422/abd-ru-shin . Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's worthless as a reliable source. It's fool's gold, don't use it anymore inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Another source for checking that Article Id: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/abd-ru-shin . Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not have peer review in any meaning that would be germane to Wikipedia (WP:IRS). Neither is it independent, since it could have been written by just everybody, including people having a conflict of interest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion of verifiable information

The issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_214#The Messiah Abd-ru-shin. It is now archived, so do not edit the discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

According to WP:UNDUE majority views should not be presented as minority views. According to WP:ASSERT facts should not be stated as opinions. The WP:SPA editor who claimed that it would be debatable that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he is the Messiah provided no WP:SOURCE stating the either that Abd-ru-shin did not claim that or that it would be debatable that Abd-ru-shin ever claimed something like that. So, for Wikipedia purposes, it has not been shown that it would be a debatable fact, instead of established fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Another source would be Introvigne, Massimo (2006). "Grail Traditions in Western Esotericism". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. pp. 436–438, 1183. This source neither affirms nor denies that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he was the Messiah, and it is written by the same Massimo Introvigne already cited in our article; Introvigne has not retracted in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers in all countries published reports of the mysterious “castle” on Vomperberg, of which I was supposed to be the owner! I was described as “the Messiah of the Tyrol” or “the Prophet of Vomperberg” with great and prominent headlines, even in the leading newspapers which wish to be taken seriously! There were weird and mysterious accounts of numerous underground tunnels, of temples, of knights both in black and silver armour, of an unheard-of cult, also of great parks, automobiles, stables, and whatever else could be invented by the diseased brains that can report such things. Details were quoted, some based on beautiful phantasy and others so disgustingly filthy that anyone giving a little thought to the matter could not fail immediately to recognise the lies and malevolence behind it!

And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports!

— Abd-ru-shin, Vol. III 7. The distorted tool

He did not say "And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports! I have changed my mind: I am not the Messiah." Or "And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports! I have never claimed that I would be the Messiah and I hereby publicly deny that I am the Messiah." Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

— WP:NPOV

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

References

From the horse's mouth

EPILOGUE

Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen

IMANUEL,

the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.

Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!

— Abdruschin, In the Light of Truth. GRAIL MESSAGE. GREAT EDITION 1931

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers in all countries published reports of the mysterious “castle” on Vomperberg, of which I was supposed to be the owner! I was described as “the Messiah of the Tyrol” or “the Prophet of Vomperberg” with great and prominent headlines, even in the leading newspapers which wish to be taken seriously! There were weird and mysterious accounts of numerous underground tunnels, of temples, of knights both in black and silver armour, of an unheard-of cult, also of great parks, automobiles, stables, and whatever else could be invented by the diseased brains that can report such things. Details were quoted, some based on beautiful phantasy and others so disgustingly filthy that anyone giving a little thought to the matter could not fail immediately to recognise the lies and malevolence behind it!

And there was not one word of truth in any of these reports!

— Abd-ru-shin, Vol. III 7. The distorted tool

Not a word of truth about the Messiah of the Tyrol? Seriously? Just compare the two quotes! He lied through his teeth, err, fingers. Yup, journalists have read what he wrote. That way they knew about his messianic claims. I did not read the claims about knights in armor, but those could have been sarcasm (satirical). Since he wrote he is the Messiah, they must have thought this man is crazy, let's make sport of him! The journalists were deriding him and they let him know it. That's why he complained in the Message of the Grail that he was crucified through ridicule. The journalists noticed that he made larger than life claims about himself. One man's religion is another man's laughing stock.

Note: in EU his book is public domain, and in the US the use of quotes falls under fair use. So, of course, I own the book: in my country everyone owns it. That's what "public domain" means: all the public owns it. If you don't like it, your sole remedy is to never set foot in the EU. Since if you had set foot in the EU you have recognized my intellectual property of the book. I own the copyright for the book, same as every other EU inhabitant. There's no need to pay me money for it, since you can always find an EU inhabitant who is entitled to donate this book to you. Should I say sarcasm warning? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of name Abd-ru-shin

The etymology of this guy's messianic name or nom de plume or whatever is incorrect. Abd, عبد, in Persian means slave and comes from Arabic; ru-shin is meaningless (roshan/rushan means shining or on, like the light is on), ru means on (preposition on) and shin on its own can mean a number of things including the letter ش. The source in the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism simply says "Abd-ru-shin ("Son of Light" in the Persian language)." It cites no dictionary or etymological source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

We follow WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism is not a dictionary of a language, it is an encyclopaedia of concepts and by no means a definitive or reliable etymological source. I will amend the main page to include the proper meaning of his name in Persian ('slave on the letter shin') and cite the Dehkhoda dictionary (University of Tehran, 1958), which is published by the University of Tehran and is, in fact a definitive source of the meaning of a word in modern Persian. Furthermore, the person who wrote the article in The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism has absolutely no credibility as a scholar of the Persian language, and a throwaway comment (that is itself not cited) in a text should not be the basis of any statements of fact on Wikipedia regardless of its inclusion in what one may think is a credible source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

Modern Persian? Says who that it must be modern Persian? Also, providing your own translation is prohibited by policy (WP:OR). All we could do then is remove the bad translation, if you fulfill the WP:BURDEN for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also scoured the decisive Middle Persian dictionary Mackenzie, D.N. (1971) A concise Pahlavi dictionary, London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, as well as what little we have remaining from Old Persian which is published in Kent, Roland G., 1950, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, American Oriental Series XXXIII, New Haven / Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Unfortunately, abd cannot even form a functional Persian word before Modern Persian because the letter ع (the first letter of Abd) is an Arabic loan-letter and therefore by definition is already Modern Persian. The individual whom you believe is a respected source on the Persian language, Massimo Introvigne, is in fact most notably the Italian director of the Transylvanian centre for Dracula. Including his opinions on the etymology of a Persian name is academically irresponsible. Please refer to proper dictionaries in the future, as according to WP:SOURCE, the creator of the work is also a factor that must be taken into account regarding the reliability of the source. Also, it is not prohibited by WP:OR because as I'm sure you are aware, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." And I have just cited three published sources that back up my etymology, or at the very least contradict Introvigne's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

I have no access to those works. As I said, all we can do is remove the bad translation. You cannot posit a translation like "slave on the letter shin", because it sounds odd and contrived. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to provide you with access to these works, but I know some are available online, and your local university library should have access to those that are not. It is your responsibility to prove that either: a) Massimo Introvigne is a credible authority on the etymology of Persian, or b) that either the Dehkhoda, or the Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, or Kent's Old Persian Grammar (or any other dictionary of the Persian language) indicates that Introvigne's definition is accurate. Furthermore, can you provide me with the Wikipedia rule prohibiting one from entering dictionary-factual evidence due to its being odd and contrived? I can't find any record of that. I suggest the bad translation be removed immediately and can do so myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs)

Our own translations are covered by WP:OR, especially if contentious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have talked to an Iranian, he said that "abd" does not exist in Persian, only in Arabic, where it means "son of". Iranians say "pessar" for "son". He could not comprehend "ru-shin", but said that "roshan" means "(to) light, (to) shine". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, dude? "I have talked to an Iranian?" Yes, because each and every one of us is a dictionary of our own language. Tell me, do you know the entire Romanian language? Every word of it? What are you even doing on here? I gave you three academic sources which are dictionaries. Oh, and by the way, your friend is wrong. Abd most certainly is a word, it just means slave or servant in both Arabic and Persian. Ibn is the word for son of. You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked. And please please tell me how "I talked to an Iranian" is not original research, as laughable as it is... Fortunately there's a record of this on here for everyone to see...

Vindafarna (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're seeking to achieve. The bad translation was removed years ago. And there is nothing wrong with a bit of WP:OR in the talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The bad translation has been removed, yes, but the correct translation cannot be added because you think it sounds "odd and contrived?" I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. This person chose what he wanted his own name to be and it's not for us to decide how it should be depicted. Again, he chose his own nom de plume, and as it stands, his name translates as "slave/servant on the letter shin." Alternatively, in certain dialects of Persian 'shin' means sickbed; the correct translation should be added, viz. 'servant/slave on the letter shin' or 'servant/slave on the sickbed'. I'm sorry but your argument that that shouldn't be added to the article because it sounds 'contrived' doesn't hold any water and blatantly contradicts NPOV as you are introducing editorial bias. At the very least, a section on his name which explains what his name really translates as vs. what he believed it did should be added. Also, original research either should or shouldn't be allowed. If you argue in certain places that OR shouldn't be allowed, and then turn around and say "oh, well a bit of OR is fine on a talk page," that's hypocrisy, and should be evident so people can see that you pick and choose when to use certain rules. A talk page is there to improve an article. If OR shouldn't be used in an article, it shouldn't be used in a talk page either. If you can find a Wikipedia policy that specifically prohibits 'things that individuals believe are contrived', please show it to me. Barring that, the correct translation should be added to the page somewhere. I also think it may be beneficial to re-read the NPOV policy, because I think your statement about not including the translation because it sounds 'contrived' is the very definition of "editorial bias" that is prohibited under NPOV. It's not for you (or anyone else) to say that something sounds "odd and contrived" and therefore can't be included on the page. The fact remains that that is what the name means when translated, and consequently it should be included on the page for readers to see and draw their own conclusions. Vindafarna (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't like this Abd-ru-shin guy, either. That does not mean I'm allowed to throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks.

You will have a hard time here if you don't understand the distinction between a claim you are making and a claim WP:RS are making. See WP:SYNTH and WP:CITIZENDIUM for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• (arriving here after seeing the ANI report) It is not difficult to find etymologies of Bernhardt's pen-name Abd-ru-shin in high-quality academic publications, eg.

The Grail movement was founded by the self-proclaimed Messiah Oskar Ernst Bernhardt (1875-1941), better known by his pen-name Abd-Ru-Shin (a name composed of Persian-Arabic elements meaning 'Servant [or Son] of the Light'), in Austria in 1928.

— Janson, Marloes (2021). "Beyond Religion: The Grail Movement and Eckankar". Crossing religious boundaries: Islam, Christianity and 'Yoruba religion' in Lagos, Nigeria. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9781108838917.

The larger esoteric movement centred on the Grail myth is the Grail Movement, founded by Oskar Ernst Bernhardt (1875-1941), a German esoteric author known under the pen name of Abd-ru-shin (“Son of Light” in the Persian language)

— Introvigne, Massimo (2005). "Grail Traditions in Western Esotericism". In Hanegraaff, Wouter (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis & Western esotericism Vol. 1. Leiden ; Boston, Mass: Brill. pp. 436–7. ISBN 90-04-14371-8.

Either or both these sources can be added to the wikipedia article, and ideally used to further develop it.

@Vindafarna: given that we have the writings of subject-area experts Marloes Jenson and Massimo Introvigne published by academic presses available, I don't think your objection based on your reading of Persian dictionaries carries much weight on wikipedia. Suggest that you drop this issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with this opinion. We should follow academic sources, not engaging in personal speculation based on dictionaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare @Hemiauchenia Guys, I completely agree that academic sources and subject-matter experts should be followed. But neither of those sources are subject-matter experts in languages or linguistics; they're religious studies scholars... A dictionary definition is a dictionary definition, and a Persian-English dictionary can easily be consulted -- I'm not proposing a personal 'reading', I'm proposing that a subject-matter expert in languages/linguistics, viz. a lexicographer be referenced here. I can cite sources from academics and subject-matter experts (in language/linguistics). I'm proposing that the standard reference in linguistics for a Persian-English dictionary be followed; if you really think this is still an inappropriate request, and so that I can follow the rules better in the future, could one of you at least explain how a dictionary translation is considered a 'reading' and subjective? Vindafarna (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The author was not a native speaker or particularly proficient in either Persian or Arabic, so expecting their name to correctly reflect either language properly is questionable at best. Ideally we would want a source that discusses what they personally thought the name meant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Vindafarna, to expand of what Hemiauchenia said... the subject of this article is Abd-ru-shin, the person and not the word per se. And therefore the relevant subject-matter experts are those who write about the person and translate/interpret his pen-name in that context. It would be a different matter if editors were trying to add this translation to the wikipedia article on Persian or Arabic language.

And although it is not a determinative factor in this discussion, the reason I called your consultation of the the dictionary a "reading" is because, if I'm understanding it correctly, you are not looking up the definition of "Abd-ru-shin" itself in a Persian dictionary but rather breaking up the moniker into its presumed constituent parts and then concatenating the respective dictionary definitions. That can constitute synthesis and whenever there is a dispute about such a reading, we take the word of a published scholar over that of a wikipedia editor. PS: to be very clear, even if there were a dictionary entry for the pen-name itself, we would prefer the context-aware scholarly source. If you wish to continue this part of the discussion, I would suggest taking it WP:TEAHOUSE. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare @Hemiauchenia Okay, this is the last thing I'll say on the matter but I don't think this can be considered "[combining] material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not combining material from multiple sources (it's one source, a dictionary). And I'm not sure this would really constitute "breaking up the moniker into its presumed constituent parts and then concatenating the respective dictionary definitions." If there were an article about Teutonic Knights, is it 'concatenating different parts of the 'moniker' ' to look at the definitions of both 'Teutonic' and 'Knight'? They're both in a dictionary and both have a definition. When I publish articles on Indo-European linguistics, if I include something about history, I don't think I should be cited about the historical content since I'm not a historian, I'm a linguist; people are experts in their own fields. If you're saying the people in these sources "translate[d]/interpret[ed] his pen-name in that context," I think that can (and should) be verified by checking a dictionary, especially if the original person wasn't a speaker of either of those languages as Hemiauchenia stated (which I think is an assumption, but still), otherwise it's just something incorrect being cited by some other incorrect person, and disseminating incorrect information. And at the very least, like I mentioned above, a note should be made on the matter so as not to give out incorrect information, which is pretty antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose, I think... If the issue is the multiple words, ' 'abd' is one single word, and I think that that should be independently checked in a dictionary. If you're saying that the word of a "published scholar" is what's required here, I can find you 15 dictionary sources that show that ' 'abd' means servant/slave and there is literally no other possible reading for that word; it's absolutely unambiguous. And that's not a 'reading', that's fact. Vindafarna (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hemiauchenia and Abecedare here, including dictionary-defs of separate words here would indeed fall under OR. People make up stuff, like Abdul Alhazred. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to the charge that I don't allow others to edit:

• I perform good edits;
• I revert bad edits;
• but in the end I cannot do everything myself, especially seen that I'm not a genius of literary writing (composition);
• therefore: I welcome good edits performed by others. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Silly edit war

The charge of the edit warring IP is that Wikipedia spilled the beans about a fact... that is publicly known since 1931 from the work published by Abd-ru-shin himself. Isn't that silly? See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Haile Selassie have publicly denied that they were the Messiah. Abd-ru-shin has never done that, he has never retracted his claim of being the Son of Man, who brings to Word of God before the Final Judgment. He deleted it from his book, but that is not the same as a retraction: he has never apologized for calling himself the Son of Man, who restores WP:THETRUTH after the failed mission of Jesus Christ. In his opinion, the Word of God is Abd-ru-shin's own book, the Bible being thoroughly antiquated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Il y a par exemple cette directive que l’auteur donna en 1937 à l’occasion du transport d’un stock de livres de la grande édition du Message du Graal, de la Suisse au Vomperberg en Autriche :

" Je vous demande encore une chose : avant l’expédition, faites enlever, dans tous les livres, quelque soit la langue en laquelle ils sont imprimés, la feuille qui se trouve avant l’Appendice et qui comporte l’indication au sujet de IMANUEL !

C’est très important, car, ainsi, le Message sera beaucoup plus facilement propagé et devra être considéré plus objectivement. Il sera alors intangible, pour les ennemis aussi. L’indication directe ferait surgir involontairement, chez tel ou tel lecteur, une opposition, parce que le genre de l’esprit humain est ainsi.

Si cette feuille ne s’y trouve plus, le Message sera reçu plus facilement. Mais il ne faut la retirer que dans les exemplaires qui sont vendus maintenant, parce qu’elle pourra, plus tard, s’y trouver de nouveau. "

La feuille dont il est question ici est intitulée « Mot de la fin ».

Copy/paste from fr:Discussion:Message du Graal#Une page "délicate" dans la grande édition de 1931.

So, even among Abd-ru-shin's believers there is a conflict between the loyalists of the great edition and the loyalists of the edition of last hand. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emmaueze: You should not engage in silly edits wars. This is our encyclopedia, you obey our rules or you're out. We offer true believers no license to break the rules with impunity. See WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Subjecting the article to whitewashing (censorship) is a violation of WP:NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The Messiah

Abd-ru-shin did claim he is the Messiah, or the Son of man (Christianity). Then he kept mum about it. But keeping mum is not retraction. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Article structure

The structure of this article seems strongly deficient in a number of ways particularly:

• 1. The lead includes huge amounts of information not present in the body of the article, rather than serving as a summary of it.
• 2. "The Messiah" section doesn't really make sense as the first heading, nor really as a standalone heading. Ideally it should be merged elsewhere.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Refutation of the text 'Millennial Expectations in the Grail Movement' by Zdenek Vojtisek"

Why are we citing this source? This is self-published Grail Movement religious apologia made by followers of the movement as is evident in the text. This is hardly a RS, particularly compared to the academic journal article it is supposed to be refuting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I would not say that Calvache and Junior is a reliable source. It is cult apologetics. But I did not remove it from the article since I do not seek unnecessary quarrels. And in a curveball way, it confirms that Abd-ru-shin has removed the Epilogue from his later editions. So, without wanting to do so, it corroborates the mainstream WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who is not familiar with the topic of Abd-ru-shin, the article is really unclearly organised and confusing. What is the significance of the epliogue? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's the most obvious place wherein he called himself the awaited Son of Man who brings the Doomsday Judgment. But there are/were other places as well. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to add some text discussing the removal of the eplilogue to this article then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: It's in the quote from a footnote. Vojtisek calls it "Conclusion" instead of "Epilogue", since there are various ways to translate that German word. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant discussing it explicitly in the main article text rather than just in the footnote. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)