Talk:John de Ruiter

Discuss the Article Here

This talk page is the proper place for discussion of the article. Any suggestions for improvement to the article should be discussed here, prior to going elsewhere in dispute resolution. Until now, nothing has been said on this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

term philosopher is misleading

The term "philosopher" is misleading as John de Ruiter is not an accomplished philosopher nor has does he practice any meaningful or accepted area of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F413:FD00:D9BB:B088:E549:EEBF (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Changed 'philosopher into Non-Dualist. Richard Gooi (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia 'A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy, which involves rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theology or science.[1] In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who has contributed in one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy. A philosopher may also be one who worked in the humanities or other sciences which have since split from philosophy proper over the centuries, such as the arts, history, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics.'[4] Mr. de Ruiter practises and has contributed to at least one or more branches of philosophy such metaphysics and ethics through two books, hundreds of CDs, DVDs, and other media. Planktonium (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)(talk) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-promotion

This article is written like an advertisement for Mr. De Ruiter, and fails to properly address the controversies surrounding him--including that he's alleged to be a cult leader. A review of the history suggests that such references have been being policed out by a single or small group of dedicated editors. Varsil (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

John de Ruiter clearly fits the definition of a cult leader. The lack of integrity of his work and life should be mentioned in the wikipedia information. If one is to read the page it sounds as though he is a legitimate philosopher. Highly suspicious as to the writer of the content. 174.3.167.215 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I agree that a review of the history suggests that the lesser positive info is being polised out by some editors (mostly from new made accounts) f.e. info about the Lawsuits that some tries to delete. The title of philosopher is indeed misleading but the name 'cult-leader' as suggested is perhaps too much loaded so i changed it into the more neutral title of Non-dualist. Richard Gooi (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

3x the same booktitle in several language is also considered self-promotion. The two titels in foreign language been deleted. Also mentioning several boektitles in the first introduction is considered self-promotion, those book titles were already mentioned in the Book section which is the propor place for such thing. Richard Gooi (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much weight on unimportant Brummelman reference

Another point is that the refference of Brummelman is used 6x, which is just a very small artikel of half a page in a not very notable magazine. Richard Gooi (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Book listing

You need to spend more time on Eckhart Tolle's website then which lists booktitles in introduction but no one seems to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 00:42, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Who need to spend more time on Tolle's website? And why? What does nobody mind? And whats the relevance of all that for this article?Richard Gooi (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher / Author

Wikipedia is not about personal opinions and what anyone thinks a person or thing should be lablelled. Mr. de Ruiter has authored at least two books which makes him an author. His website and books list him as an author and philosopher as do several journalists that have actually interviewed and spoken to him.Planktonium (talk) (UTC)

Sure a person can calls himself a philosopher or give himself whatever name he likes but thats not Wiki info. Unless he went to an university to study Philosophy and finished it with a bull, certificate, diploma etc, and mr. John de Ruiter is no official Philospopher in that way. Richard Gooi (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia 'A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy, which involves rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theology or science.[1] In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who has contributed in one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy. A philosopher may also be one who worked in the humanities or other sciences which have since split from philosophy proper over the centuries, such as the arts, history, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics.'[4] Mr. de Ruiter practises and has contributed to at least one or more branches of philosophy such metaphysics and ethics through two books, hundreds of CDs, DVDs, and other media. Planktonium (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)(talk) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nondualist author as a term does fit with the subjects of metaphysics and ethics. Richard Gooi (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits

Richard Gooi you have removed much of the cited material from an already negatively slanted article with vehemence which leads me to conclude that you may be in the camp of said litigants. If this is found to be so then there is some serious conflict of interest here. Planktonium (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been notified of possible conflict of interest and vandalism of said article and Richard Gooi's ip address may be blocked if found to be so. Submissions from multiple or other private ip addresses will also be blocked.Planktonium (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2017 — Planktonium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (UTC)

Before Planktonium accuses other editors of a conflict of interest and threatens blocks perhaps he or she could explain why, in almost five years, Planktonium has only edited this one subject? Being an WP:SPA is not proof of a conflict of interest, but it certainly raises the possibility in this case. Meters (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Planktonium, you addressed the above in [Teahouse] where it was explained that the correction that was made about your work was correctly deleted by me. To settle things I addressed your edditings on [ANI] where like above others mentioned that you are a WP:SPA and found that you wrongfully accused me, where the editings of yourself were described by others as "a lovingly crafted advert" and "It appears that Planktonium is doing a bit of white washing here" resulting in several tags on this 'John de Ruiter' article. Admin notified you of the possibility of discretionary sanctions and declared your editings "tendentious and promotional" and warned you about a possible topic ban.

Later you explained on the talk page of Meters that you created this 'John de Ruiter' article after you went to a retreat of him which you found really good. On wikipedia it is advised to everyone to be restrained about subjects that your are personal involved in. I think that your personal experience with John de Ruiter combined with inexperience in wiki guidelines made your editings too much like an advert, as was clear also for several others. The best reference about de Ruiter for Wikipedia is however not an experience that a person has had, or what John de Ruiter writes on his website or interviews of him in magazines but peer-viewed academic articles about the subject like those two of Paul Joosee of the University of Alberta who received two awards about it.

Hopefully you will keep connected to Wikipedia to work on other subjects about which your more neutral. We do can use every person with good intentions in this society! With respect, Richard Gooi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems a bit deceptive.

For example, the lead talks about, but does not define the "College of Integrated Philosophy" - which has a name that makes it sound like an accredited learning institution - am I wrong in thinking this is primarily an auditorium to, well, stare at him? - and defines him as a "Canadian nondualist author", not mentioning the spiritual leader aspect, again making him sound more like an academic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 03:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree so I explained the lack of accreditation. I also put in some noteworthy scandals concerning him, to hopefully illustrate his public presence more clearly. Worrypower (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cult leader"

I made an edit to the lead which was reverted.[1] The reason for my edit was because the Manual of Style specifically discourages the use of "cult" or "cult leader".

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."[2] ManOfLetters2020 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ManOfLetters2020 Apologies, I noticed this only now. Personally, I find "cult leader" to be an accurate if crude description. However, you're right that it's loaded and non-neutral and, per your link appears to be expressly forbidden by Wikipedia’s Manual of Style.Dolorite (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)