Talk:J. Z. Knight

Reliable neutral references about Ramtha and JZ Knight

It is difficult to find reliable neutral sources about Ramtha and JZ Knight.

Those who are against them write lots of material that can be reliably referenced. And those who are not against them become students, then what they write is not considered reliable nor neutral. I read many books written by RSE students, some I approved of, others I didn't. But my approval is only a personal opinion that should not be considered a fact in an wiki-encyclopedia.

Thank you.

Eye colour change?

I found a website [1] that says that "While she [JZ Knight] is channeling, her posture, walk, voice and the color of her eyes changes." Does anyone know if the colour of her eyes do change? If the colour of her eyes do change, is there a scientific reason for this change? DarthVader 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article on the website was written by a student, as most articles on that websites. As a result, some articles are good, some are bad, and a few contain huge blunders, such as the one on my former religious group that confuses Shirdi Sai Baba with Sathya Sai Baba. For the last few years I have requested an update, first to Jeffrey Hadden and then to Douglas Cowan, but without result. Andries 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please use the book by J. Gordon Melton with caution because it is really biased in favor of Knight and against the critics. I have it at home, but I have not read all. Reading the book convinced me that some of the criticisms made by Anton Hein and Rick Ross against Melton are justified, though I believe, in contrast to Ross and Hein that Melton is sincere. Andries

Her eyes do change color when He is in the body, I have personally seen it. It is not the same person. I have also seen him manefest something out of thin air into his hand, and have numerous experiences that what he teaches is truth. 216.227.110.143 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

From personal observation, JZ Knight's eye colour does not change. But her posture, the way she walks, and her voice tone does change. Lily Carson (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"...is a channel"?

I'm troubled by the opening sentence which declares that J.Z. Knight "...is a channel". My understanding of the term is that it is a supernatural claim (to be a conduit for some sort of external consciousness). Since there is no proof that Knight is a channel, I've taken the liberty of inserting "claims to be". Any well-reasoned objections? Bricology (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go for a explanation (: Cultural artefacts ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing Opinion to Facts about JZ Knight, Ramtha and Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

It seems to me that whether you believe in JZ Kinght and her claims or Ramtha and his teachings Wikipedia should just present information about the subject without personal opinion.

Discussion has no place in the encyclopedia topic page, it either is a fact, for example their are currently 11,000 students at Ramtha's school or it isn't a fact but an opinion, for example Ramtha's teachings are vague..

If you like or dislike the subject matter, dont go into opinions or over the top with your own belief based editing... That also goes for pro Ramtha or JZ People, dont try to push your beliefs on this Topic, just be them in your own life... (Mindgladiator (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009

Hi,

If you are referring to my edits, I would like to point out that it is not my opinion - Ramtha does indeed talk in what sounds like an Indian accent, can occasionally be seen on videos stroking an assumed beard (plenty on youTube), and her/his teachings are indeed about vague and ambiguous matters (consciousness, "emotional addictions", you create your own reality, or to quote her: "If we have just discussed the viable science of levitation" - I haven't found a single piece of peer-reviewed published scientific evidence to support a "viable science" of levitation and its mechanics, in the way Ramtha suggests; but Ramtha seems to be well aware of its "science" and promotes it, of course - at a high cost). Elementary information about the time of Ramtha's actual life has indeed never been mentioned (e.g. the language he original spoke, the kind of food he ate, the societal structures, the alphabet he used, the tools he used, the materials he used, how the geography was like, water levels, etc). Ramtha on one hand has difficulty grasping elementary technological advancements of our age (mobile phones etc), but on the other hand seems very eager to use terms such as "quantum field" in non-sensical and seemingly random places in his/her speeches ("The very fact that your brain can process from its skeletal structure vibrations that can be interpreted as pictures that we call thoughts and then looked upon becomes the structures and architecture for the quantum field suggests that we don't need any voodoo." - JZ Knight on UFOs. 1:47-2:07), among other confusions, controversies and contradictions that Ramtha's disembodied being has carried with it.

There is also a reason why I added a reference to Carl Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World". Ramtha is one of the many seemingly interesting topics that Carl Sagan looked into, but was disappointed to find nothing but "banal homilies", to quote him (Sagan, Carl. "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark". Ballantine Books, 1997, p.205). It is not a matter of opinion whether JZ Knight has provided sufficient evidence for Ramtha's existence. What is a matter of opinion is whether to believe or disbelieve claims (of channeling a 35,000-year old entity). But the evidence/facts provided (by her ability/inability to stand up to elementary skepticism and scrutiny) is a fact in itself, and unless she provides some concrete information regarding Ramtha's life during the Pleistocene ice age, I would be more than willing to add a grain of skepticism to that article and point out that she hasn't so far. Maybe that will motivate her/him to do so in the future, and I would really like nothing more than hard proof that disembodied entities from Paleolithic times can teach us something about quantum physics and the universe. -Jujimufu (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jujimufu.. From the response you have given to this chat subject it seems that you have a huge interest in Ramtha and any information that may lead a reader not believe that Ramtha is who JZ Knight claims he is or who he claims he is? If that is so, I rest my chat case, your entries on the topic seem to back up your opinions, not create a neutral information page about JZ Knight or Ramtha and his teachings for the reader.

In response to some of your points, I do agree that the evidence of Ramtha's teachings and the knowledge he speaks about is not always backed up with scientific papers. However the videos of his students moving objects with their mind, reading through solid matter and predicting the future consistantly would lead one to assume there is somthing going on there?? I dont know all about the history side of things but surely if he has not spoken about it then there should be no reference to it on this topic page of wikipedia, that just seems logical to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindgladiator (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mindgladiator,

The following is a long reply, but please do take the time to read through it and understand it.

From your reply, I get a sense of excitement when it comes to the paranormal, the unexplained, the magic, and the lot. Unfortunately, no matter how many videos Ramtha's students post which show their exciting and interesting newly-acquired abilities, unless an experiment is carried out with results published in a peer-reviewed periodical/journal, and the experiment is verified by other people under controlled environments and excluding the possibility of a fake video (anyone can create a fake video - let me just redirect you briefly here, where author and skeptic Michael Shermer demonstrates how easy it is to fake a UFO image, a crop circle, a dowser, or alleged reverse-recordings from Satan), it cannot be considered as the slightest piece of evidence/materials for the extraordinary claims that Ramtha and his students make.

I would also like to protest against your accusation that I keep trying to force-feed this article (and everyone reading it) my opinion. For every bit of information I added to this article, I also added relevant and respective links to published books, articles, periodicals and videos (not of anyone levitating, but of Ramtha himself speaking, which I take it is a testament to his teachings). Ramtha's teachings has been found by the scientific community (and skeptics alike) to be highly misleading, and provide -at best- a poor misinterpretation and misrepresentation of modern physics (you can find references to these claims of mine in the comments you removed - I have about 5 or 6 of them), including quantum physics, among others. There has not been sufficient evidence so far (if at all) that would support Ramtha's claims as having any scientific basis (it's not that there haven't been many scientific papers supporting his claims, it's that there haven't been any scientific papers supporting his claims), other than the fact that scientific terms (quantum field, entanglement, etc) are occasionally coupled together with New Age cherry-talk (universality, changing reality by changing your thoughts, you create your own reality etc) in an incoherent manner, which interestingly attracts a lot of New Age followers who are eager to believe that her/his claims have scientific bases.

Let me stress here that I do not have any hidden agenda to try and disbelieve Ramtha. I will be very honest with you - nothing would please me more than to know that Ramtha is actually a being from 35,000 years ago, and that if I study under Ramtha I can learn to levitate, move objects with my thought and create my own universe. I truly would like to believe this is true. Just imagine how much we could learn about our planet, about humans, about technology, about languages, about medicine, if only we could speak to a person who lived 35,000 years ago. But thing is, I just want to make sure that it's for real. When someone claims to be channeling an entity from the paleolithic age (she -in fact- claims to have lead an army of 2.5 million people, which is more than twice the estimated population of the whole Earth at the time), they can't expect not to be asked for evidence (of either Channeling or of Ramtha's existence). If there was any remote scientific evidence for Ramtha's claims, I am sure Ramtha would have no objection to go under experimental investigation and skeptical scrutiny, as he would have nothing to hide/lose. What better than to have the whole scientific community to support your claims, wouldn't that make everyone more eager to follow Ramtha? As this has not yet occurred (and when it has, the scientific side has disproven Ramtha's claims), I would rather portray Ramtha as the scientific community has judged his claims to be (that is, as misleading at best, and without any scientific basis in the least) than bite in and believe everything Ramtha has ever said at face value.

I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I hope you did at least take a look at all the references which followed every single of my comments that you removed. I tried my best not to add any personal pieces of opinion, and instead to only mention things which can be found in published books regarding New Age beliefs, skepticism, science, and physics, as well as books critical of publication by J.Z. Knight or Shirley MacLaine.

If you would like to remove any opinionated elements of my additions, please do so in an orderly, educated and informed manner - check if the claims have been sourced, check the sources, and if the information is relevant but has been phrased badly, then help phrase it in a way that does not portray an opinion. But for the sake of approaching extraordinary claims skeptically, please do not remove any claims that doubt Ramtha's validity. If Ramtha has been unable to find scientific support for his claims, then it is not our fault for mentioning them, but his fault for not providing them. If he would like to see those claims disappear from the face of the world, let him come forth and prove us all wrong - as I said, I wish for nothing more to meet someone who can teach me how to move objects at will.

As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A very handy thing to keep in mind when dealing with the supernatural, the extraordinary, the extra-terrestrial.

Can you please get back to me and let me know if I can revert the changes I made, but give me a second chance to try and make it more objective-sounding? If you have no further reason to revert my changes, I will assume I can safely restore my additions and expect them not to be removed.

All the best,

-Jujimufu (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you also edited out instances in, for example, the article regarding Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, such as the video by Glenn Cunningham in which he describes various activities within the School, as well as some personal aspects of JZ Knights' way of living.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that, unless something has been said by Ramtha, it has no validity on the subject of Ramtha (you said "[...] surely if he has not spoken about it then there should be no reference to it on this topic page of wikipedia, that just seems logical to me.") Let me make it clear that this is not an article written by Ramtha, but an article written about JZ Knight and Ramtha. As a result, it should mention claims made by Ramtha, and how these claims have rebounded off the scientific community (which Ramtha claims to be supporting his teachings), as well as criticisms upon his teachings, his methods, his school, or his very validity as an actual 35,000-year old entity, criticisms which are present in books, articles, or videos, written/published by members of the scientific and skeptic communities the world over.

Let this be a warning that I will not tolerate being accused of trying to promote my opinions on this article when I am merely trying to preserve the sanity of a well-balanced article on such an extraordinary topic (which should be treaded upon with great caution), while on the other hand you have the impression you are free to remove all such edits which are controversial to the least of information that is mentioned in the mentioned articles, as if it is a given fact that Ramtha ans his teachings are not only true, but should be perpetuated regardless of contrary scientific, philosophical or skeptic evidence and criticism.

I expect to receive at least a reply from you affirming that you have read and understood what I have written, and that you will refrain from perpetuating your own beliefs, as well as abstain from letting yourself be influenced by your inner desires, beliefs, or excitements (referring to your comment "[...] the videos of his students moving objects with their mind, reading through solid matter and predicting the future consistantly would lead one to assume there is somthing going on there??") when it comes to criticism of such elements, and taking it upon your own decision to remove any controversial material by personally judging that it offends the very topic you seem fascinated about.

-Jujimufu (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jujimufu..

All I am reading in your replies is a lot more of you trying to take a personal stance on a Encyclodia Article, I am happy to work with you and make sure that both you and I remain neutral, you are in no position to issue warnings and expectations so please refrain from trying to make me see your point of view. Remain Neutral, if you can't, don't bother making edits to this topic as they will be edited once again. I am with you on much of what you write but you have a tendancy to be extreme with your additions which leads me to believe you have an agenda. Its the wrong web site for that.

Mindgladiator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Ok - for one thing, you can't just throw in words like that. Please provide some evidence that what I have added is my opinion and is not supported by scientists, writers, or skeptics across the world. I am doing my best to remain neutral, although you seem to not be able to shake off your mind the idea that I have an agenda. What agenda is it that I have? How do my edits support this agenda? What motives do I have to support that agenda? Enlighten me, because I'll be honest with you: I don't know (but you seem to know).

If someone is extreme with their edits, that's not - it's you who has made sure every single piece of information in these articles that contradicts to the slightest the notion that Ramtha is true, regardless of how well sourced, referenced or cited that information is, and regardless of how relevant this information is to the article.

I think, in fact, it would be best if there was a separate section in both these articles titled "Criticism", under which all instances of criticism would find their place, as it has been done in similar articles (e.g. Edgar Cayce, Homeopathy, Clairvoyance). In all honesty, I fail to see any reason why previously published information that brings skepticism to Ramtha's claims, by scientists, writers and skeptics alike, should not find its place in the article. Can you provide such a reason? Can you back it up?

If you want to argue, please do so with a bit more decency than you have so far - don't just shout things and throw words like that, but rather make a statement and support it. Say why you believe the things you believe (regarding the article, regarding the claim that all the information I added was my 'opinion' and only that, or that my additions were 'extreme'), and provide backing up, logically-standing arguments, and evidence to the contrary (e.g. you could provide evidence that Ramtha's claims have not been contradicted by scientists, and in fact are in perfect accordance with modern physics).

If I fail to receive a coherent response with your claims backed up regarding my 'opinions' and 'irrelevant' edits, and you continue to undo my edits, I will have to report you for vandalism, not only in terms of wikipedia's content, but also as an insult to the very intelligence of the people who have written all those articles critical of Ramtha (and many other similar instances).

-Jujimufu (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Ok, it seems to me that this article is mainly based on self published sources and is not sufficiently following a neutral point of view at present. Parts of the artcile are fancruft. I see that Mindgladiator has reverted edits which had reliable references and appears to not understand the basics of editing Wikipedia and what an encyclopaedia is and is not. I have placed a 3RR warning on their talk page and removed some very dubious ELS as per WP:EL Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very swift reply! The article was indeed heftily based on publications either by Ramtha, or articles from Ramtha's websites.

I will proceed in updating the article with information from other sources, and add a "criticism and controversies" section, where controversial information may be added.

-Jujimufu (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

4th Opinion

Just visiting and helping to improve the article. As soon as I made cited additions to this article and relevant information user Jujimufu undid them. Reading this discussion between Jujimufu and Mindgladiator it seems that Jujimufu is not allowing other users to make additions. I would suggest some admin intervention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.76.101 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again :)

It seems there's a problem with some understanding of WP guidelines.

Please read my reply here, and if you still have problems, we can start a discussion about whether or not

If your impression is that I am not allowing other users to make additions to the article, then I feel you have either misunderstood the conversation, or fail to understand the points I (and others) have made with regards to the issue, in the same way Mindgladiator failed to understand them.

Unfortunately, your position (unregistered user) is not particularly helpful in this situation, as Mindgladiator just went on a voluntary restriction to refrain from editing the article for 30 days (after receiving several vandalism and edit warring warnings, one from me and the rest from other users), and very shortly after he goes on this restriction, another user appears, unregistered, who makes edits of a similar character (albeit a lot less intrusive), on the same article(s), and accuses me of the same things that Mindgladiator accused me (and calls for administrative action by trying to side with admins, showing some knowledge of wikipedia's inner workings but not enough).

I hope you understand, and I hope this issue will be resolved. I have replied on your talk page with regards to this, and I have also reported the case to the edit warring page, so we should get 3rd-party help and comments from other people to help resolve this. • jujimufu ^(talk) 11:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't possibly argue about evidence and peer-review with Ramtha believers. If you believe you create your own reality and such then the entire structure of logic, etc created by legitimately brilliant minds (like Aristotle, not JZ Knight) means nothing to you. Therefore, anyone who believes in what JZ Knight says is by definition not suited for work on this page. 76.92.68.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Is user Jujimufu spoiling this article with intensive edit warring with exclusivity in accepted entries?

Just a question? Is this user helping this article or hindering it?

I see that on the edit warring page this user has admitted not being able keep a neurtal point of view due to other recent edit wars? Should this user have a holiday from editing this article for a while?

88.109.47.240 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of that message.

Have you understood what I have written and the reasons I explained? (e.g. when you went all-out on me, accusing me of removing references when I merely moved the reference to the end of the article, where it would be more suitable.)

If yes, can you please summarise the reasons I have given you?

I have already said, I can see no effort on your part for clear and coherent communication, 88.109.47.240. I don't even know your gender, I don't know how to address you, I don't know if you are the same person as 88.110.76.101, 85.210.122.82 or 85.210.8.187, and you have shown a great amount of reluctance for cooperation and understanding. I keep trying to be as clear and helpful as possible, but it feels like talking to driftwood. Can you summon the concentration needed to formulate a clear, articulate and coherent argument against my recent edits instead of just calling names and accusing me of things, without falling to meaningless jabber?

As I am not expecting anything different from every single one of your replies, I will have to stop here, and as I said, I will stop arguing now, as I can't argue with someone who fails to exhibit an ability for arguing back. I will refrain from editing the article any further until other people get involved. Can you do the same?

Thank you. • jujimufu ^(talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

hi.. Your attempts to assert control over this article e.g. I will refrain from editing the article any further until other people get involved. Can you do the same? are not helping the content and viability of this article. Other users do not have to agree with you to be able to get permission to make changes. I do not want to get into a great big exchange of justifications, that is why I do not make great big answers, instead I will make small contributions to the content of the article as I source them.

85.210.122.82 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.. further misunderstanding: I tried to reach a consensus between us to cease our edits so as to avoid any further edit warring and wait until a consensus has been reached by 3rd-party members of Wikipedia, more experienced in matters such as this, so as to avoid messing up the article more than necessary and avoid ending up in more conflicts than we already have. But, of course, this is not what came across. What came across is that I am trying to assert control and that I am somehow trying to claim absolute authority on this matter and reject anyone's edits on the article.

However, your inability to make a clear argument (or to even understand my position) has been shown once more, and your reluctance to cooperate and understand my position has been further pointed out by your own reply, as has your choice to disregard my comments and continuing your edits, regardless of whether they have been agreed upon by 3rd-party members (through the Edit Warring page - from which we are still awaiting responses).

You win. Do as you see fit. I will refrain from editing any further, and I will wait until someone else comes in to help clarify things, whether for or against me or you. As long as someone does so in a more orderly and intelligent manner than you have shown to be able to handle so far. • jujimufu ^(talk) 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi.. Its not about winning or losing, its about neutrality and the article not being railroaded by one user.

85.210.122.82 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New IP address again: please clarify: are you the same user as 88.109.47.240 (talk)? • jujimufu ^(talk) 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring/conflict

From what I can tell, the only problem here is bickering over references, minor mistakes, and irrelevancies. I think all of this is due to either of you not assuming good faith. First up I would appreciate it if none of you engage in this uncivil behavior, because this has gone way beyond a simple disagreement and it's my understanding that the tone you've taken and the mistrust has caused small disagreements to snowball out of control. Now I want you guys to sum up the exact problems you're having. Don't dig into the flesh of each other when this happens, but in response, state your point of view. These kinds of articles are not my specialty here, so I'm going to try to involve some other editors in this as well, so please bear with me. Eik Corell (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the only problem here is bickering over references, etc. The issue I have with the article is its biased nature (much of it was simply copied and pasted from J. Z. Knight's own website). I'm a high school teacher doing scholarly research for my Psychology and Biology classes, and I am appalled at the leading nature of this article. I understand Wikipedia makes no claims of validity or reliability, but most of its science articles are accurate and thorough, and this article does not live up to the expectation I have of a global forum. I just ask that the author and editors of this article refrain from bias and leading diction. --Audsmo (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to point out some of these biases? It is unclear to me whether the bias is against or for JZ Knight, and whether you think the claims mentioned are overly criticised or overly portrayed as true. I would also like to point out that this is not a scientific article, and thus the rigourousness with which scientific articles are written is not easily (if at all) transferable, and that content which has been "simply copied and pasted from [her] own website" is indeed a matter of referencing, which would be much more reasily resolved if you could point out some of the places where this has occurred.

Thanks you very much. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarities with entity channeled by Barbara Marciniak

Listening to Barbara Marciniak channeling an entity[2] I am struck by the closeness, uncanny rather, of its linguistic expression and pronunciation to that of Ramtha when channeled by J. Z. Knight. It would be interesting to see someone making an educated comment on this for the benefit of this article as well as the would-be article on Barbara Marciniak. __meco (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi meco,

Unfortunately your opinion that there are uncanny similarities between "Ramtha" and the entity which Barbara Marciniak claims to channel constitutes original research. It could be simply one copying the other, and we wouldn't know unless someone did some actual research on the matter. Besides, if anyone would be bothered to conduct some reearch on J.Z. Knight or Barbara Marciniak and the entities they claim to channel, that would be focused on whether they are fakes or not. It seems that we can't have too many people showing how Ramtha simply can't exist. I am not trying to ruin anyone's ideals here - I would personally be incredibly fascinated if entities from the Stone Age could communicate with humans today via channeling, I think it would just be really cool and helpful. However, for us to appreciate the coolness and helpfulness of information that comes from people who claim to channel such entities, we have to make absolutely sure that they are real, which is, of course, not the case.

What question would you ask a 35,000-year old being? ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible statement taken out of context

Hi Wikipedia,

I'm trying to correct what appears to be a statement taken out of context on JZ Knight's page. On the page it says that JZ Knight says that "murder isn't really wrong or evil". But in the source material, it says that JZ says that murder isn't really wrong or evil "if you believe in the continuation of life [reincarnation]."

Here's the text from source document:

With this logic, suicide becomes simply a decision not to go ahead with a life plan but instead recycle to another to complete one's karma. J.Z. Knight, channel for Cro-Magnon entity Ramtha, says that murder isn't really wrong or evil. "If you believe in the continuation of life [reincarnation] it's a different story," she said on ABC's "20/20."28

Can you advise? Thank you. LCO3 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE, October 27: Hi, can you please advise me about this edit request (I'm new here and not sure how long it takes to advise on requests)? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated the page and added "if one believes in reincarnation" after "murder isn't really wrong or evil" to make it clear. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sources

I chopped this statement from the intro, because the source is a radio station she appeared on and is obviously just a blurb provided by her or her management. Also, the 'UN-affliated' conference is never named, making it so vague as to be non-notable.

Knight also participated as a speaker at an international women's conferences affiliated with the United Nations.

Ashmoo (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Requesting feedback on updates for JZ

Hi Wikipedia,

I suggested several edits to JZs page that were not accepted. I requested to remove the statements in questions mainly because the sources aren't reliable, third-party sources, but rather personal websites or opinionated letters-to-the-editor at a reliable source. Thank you for considering the edits in question and examinging the sources.

EDIT 1

In his teachings, Ramtha has made several controversial statements, such as that Christianity is a "backward" religion, that Jesus' parables can be explained by means of photon waves and probability,[23]

Reason: I’m requesting to remove this statement because, although the sources in the footnotes might be reliable third-party sources, these particular pages are opinionated letter-to-the-editor and fact-based, editorial content. Also, there is nothing in these two support articles that refer to Christianity as a “backward” religion and an explanation of Jesus’ parables by means of photon waves an probability.

Source: ^ Kuttner, Fred; Rosenblum, Bruce (November 2006). "Teaching physics mysteries versus pseudoscience". Physics Today (American Institute of Physics) 59 (11): 14. doi:10.1063/1.2435631. http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_11/14_1.shtml.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I am unable to comprehend the statement: "although the sources in the footnotes might be reliable third-party sources, these particular pages are opinionated letter-to-the-editor and fact-based, editorial content." I would like to see some proof of this before continuing with removing a section of the wikipedia page on these grounds.

With regards to your second comment, about finding "nothing in these two support articles [...] proton waves an probability" - the first article mentions that Ramtha says that Christianity is a "backward" religion in the movie "What the Bleep do we know", which you can watch here: [3] (0:15" - in case you can't hear it, JZ Knight says: "we have this ugly, superstitious, backwards concept of God"). Here is another video with Ramtha talking about Jesus' parables and how they can be explained in terms of quantum physics, again from the same movie: [4] ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 2

or (during the court case JZ Knight v Jeff Knight) Jeff Knight stated that Ramtha had allegedly declared that HIV is Nature's way of 'getting rid of' homosexuality.[23]

Reason: I searched for the case at the website, but the case in question is not there.

Souce: ^ Jzk, Inc. v. Joseph Glandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The text in question is on page 4 of this link: [5] which is reference [23] in the above extract. The source you mentioned as not containing the case in question refers to an entirely irrelevant court case, between JZ Knight and Joseph Glandon over trademark rights violation. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 3

Magician and skeptic James Randi said that Ramtha's believers have "no way of evaluating [her teachings]",[29]

Reason: This is Mr. Randi’s opinion and it’s posted at his personal website as opposed to an objective, third-party website.

Source: ^ Randi, James (29 April 2005). "Ramtha Raves". http://www.randi.org/jr/042905some.html#13. Retrieved 19 November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't seem to understand the problem here: If Randi's opinion was posted on a third-party website, would that make his opinion more valid? James Randi is a skeptic, his job is to test paranormal/supernatural claims against reality and science on a daily basis. I think his comments are highly relevant to the matter. If a physicist working at CERN turned up and said "Ramtha's claims have no basis in scientific physics", would you request him publishing his words in a scientific journal or 'objective third-party website' in order for them to have any relevance on the topic? ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 4

JZ Knight's ex-husband, Jeff Knight, in an interview in 1992 with Joe Szimhart, said that Ramtha's teachings are a "farce" and that they are "just a money making business for her [JZ Knight]". He also said that students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment are "involved in a very dangerous, very evil corrupt thing".[30]

Reason: The source is a homemade, personal video from Mr. Knight and, therefore, not an objective, third-party source.

Source: ^ Knight, Jeff & Szimhart, Joe. (1992). The Jeff Knight interview, 1992. Google Videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. See above. Jeff Knight was JZ Knight's husband - he had an insight in the inner workings of the company as run by JZ Knight that not many people had. Again, if this exact same conversation took place on a talk show, would it have more validity? It is an objective third-party source insofar as it is not affiliated with JZ Knight in a beneficial way. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 5

Attacks and criticism against Ramtha's teachings and Ramtha's School of Enlightenment have also been made by former students of the school. David McCarthy, a Yelm resident and former student of the School between 1989 and 1996, has accused the School of being a cult. He further claims that he was intimidated during his studies there, and he felt like mind control was being exerted by JZ Knight and the school. He said "At one point I was running around scared I was going to get eaten by the lizard people."[31] Mc Carthy became disappointed, not only with his own experience of Ramtha's teachings but also as he had cut ties from his family to become a student as they lived in a different country.[32]

Reason: In this speech, Mr. McCarthy is giving his opinion, but the source material is not an objective, third-party source.

Source: ^ McCarthy, McCarthy, David. (2006). LARSE Gathering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose See above. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 6

Glenn Cunningham, a former bodyguard of JZ Knight's, in an interview with David McCarthy details the inner workings of the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and criticizes various activities (such as trademarking ideas and phrases that had been coined by other authors many years before - for example, the idea of "Blue Body", or mixing quantum physics with new age ideas, which can be found in Vera Stanley Alder's "From the Mundane to the Magnificent", first published in 1979) of JZ Knight's and aspects of Ramtha which he simply saw as JZ Knight acting. Among the things he mentions is the fact that Ramtha mispronounces the same words that JZ Knight mispronounces, and that Ramtha quotes the same books that JZ Knight has read.[21] Glenn Cunningham admits in the video interview, that he was prone to lying to students when he saw fit or thought that it may help them.[21]

Reason: The source material is a homemade interview that’s posted on You Tube and not an objective, third-party source.

Source: ^ a b c Cunningham, Glenn & McCarthy, David. (2001). Glenn Cunningham Interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose See above. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 7

Furthermore, Ramtha's teachings as they are portrayed in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know!?, not only in the general gist of the film (which was directed and funded by students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment) but also in instances where Ramtha is interviewed on screen, have been heavily criticised by the scientific community across the globe,[33][34][35][36] and skeptics,[37] such as James Randi.[38]

Reason: The first link from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is a dead link that is not valid. The second link leads to Mr. Randi’s Wikipedia page that, according to Wikipedia rules, cannot be used to substantiate claims on another Wikipedia page. The link for the “Pigasus Awards” leads to a personal page from Mr. Randi’s personal website which is therefore not an objective, third-party source.

Sources:

^ Review[dead link] by Eric Scerri of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry ^ 2004 Pigasus awards James Randi Educational Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Again, I see this as evidence that these edits are more of an attempt to defend Ramtha's teaching rather than an objective attempt at improving the article: The dead link at the csicop.org website brings up a message saying that they have recently redesigned the website and ask you to use the search function on their website to find the article you're looking for. Simply typing in "Eric Scerri" (the name of the author), gives only one result, which is the missing article. I have replaced the link in the main page to the working link of the review. In any case, thank you for pointing out that the link is dead, it is important to keep links up to date. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT 8

In Knight vs. Knight (1992–1995), Jeff Knight alleges that he lost years of his life by postponing modern medical treatment for his HIV infection, due to advice from his wife that Ramtha could heal him. The court decided against him, but he died before he could appeal the court's decision.[40]

Reason: This website is a personal website and not an objective, third-party source.

Source: ^ Szimhart, Joe (July, 1998), Essay on Gordon Melton's Study on Ramtha, http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/ram2.htm, retrieved November 20, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. See above with regards to other 'personal website and not an objective, third-party source.' accusations. It would be interesting if you could provide some information/support as to why you believe this website is not an objective, third-party source. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of things. First, this is a long comment to read and reply to. If you don't mind, I'll sign each section ("edit 1", "edit 2", etc) and then reply to them individually. Second, taken as a whole, these changes are pushing against the standard of maintaining a neutral point of view. I'm going to remove all of the changes, we can discuss them here, and they can be individually added back after talk page participants reach consensus. But first, I need your permission to refactor your talk page comment slightly so each edit can be replied to. tedder (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have my permission to refactor the talk page and thank you very much for considering each item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCO3 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. These edits seem to be against WP:NPOV, as mentioned above, and also look like attempts at defending "Ramtha" and his teachings, a "softening out" of the criticism that is on the page rather than an attempt at making the article more accurate or neutral. I have replied individually under each edit where appropriate. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

birthplace

So her birthplace and time are Roswell, New Mexico, 3 years before the supposed crashing of a UFO there? that seems a little too much like something she might have made up herself. Alternatively it may just be vandalism. What are the sources for this? --129.11.13.73 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, but constitutes original research. Furthermore, assuming JZ Knight's birth date is the 16th of March 1946, I am curious as to where you discovered that the Roswell UFO incident occurred on/or around the 16th of March 1949. The Roswell incident occurred sometime in June or July (it's is ambiguous as the various reports of the first discovery of the debris vary) in 1947, which doesn't seem very significant. ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was writing from memory and was obviously mistaken about the date. However I'm still a little skeptical about it! --129.11.13.73 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it happens to the best of us :) Why are you still a little skeptical about it? ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 10:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Allen Geis

Please see www.wayneallenprocess.com for information on Wayne Allen Geis I have tried to add this information, but I am not sure if I did this right. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.105.84 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it is always useful to take a look at the guidelines for adding references/links or editing wikipedia (formatting etc), if you have any questions.

Could you also elaborate on why you think the link is necessary on the page? Also, if you made an account it would be easier for you to track your changes, replies, and comments around wikipedia, and for us to communicate with you. ¬ laonikoss ^(talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for editing. The link is necessary because Wayne Allen Geis is the same person described in the wayneallenprocess.com. More information on Wayne Allen Geis is on Joe Szimharts page, please see http://jszimhart.com/theater_cult.217.226.89.105 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for the reply. Don't apologise for editing! Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, but it is helpful if you can get an idea of how to correctly format things so you don't always have to tap people on the shoulder to see if you did something correctly :)

I understand that Wayne Allen Geis is the same guy as in the website, but I don't see why it is important to have the link on the webite. The spirit of this edit seems to be as if to warn other people "hey guys, look *points finger* THIS is who Wayne Allen Geis is so be careful!" rather than a useful, encyclopaedic addition to the article. The article already contains a lot of information with regards to criticism of JZ Knight's methods/claims etc, and this is an article about her.

I am not saying that Wayne Allen Geis is right or wrong, and I am not supporting him in any way - but I feel the best way to contribute would be to create a separate page for Wayne Allen Geis, with some information about his life, his teachings, and why they are controversial (and you can link to that website in the references).

¬ laonikoss ^(talk) 16:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ccel.us/newage.toc.html

  Triggered by \bccel\.us\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Extensive listing of Ramtha products sold on linked vendor's site amounts to free advertising copy, courtesy of Wikipedia

Simply a verbatim regurgitation at length of Knight's product catalog. An ad, more than an encyclopedia entry.

4 Writings

   4.1 Books by Knight

   4.2 Ramtha books

   4.3 Ramtha's Fireside Series

5 Audio recordings

6 Video recordings

...

External links

JZ Knight's official website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Information

I read the whole article and feel like I have no more information about their teachings than I started. I understand that it is likely a hoax, but that is all this focuses on. I don't believe in Tengrism either, but at least I get an idea of its concepts from reading its article. This whole entry is a mess. --172.58.97.190 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on J. Z. Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206072711/http://ramtha.com/html/pdf/introduction.pdf to http://ramtha.com/html/pdf/introduction.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130204080730/http://www.theolympian.com/689/story/50048.html to http://www.theolympian.com/689/story/50048.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620135233/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/int/2004/09/09/bleep/index.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/int/2004/09/09/bleep/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206072711/http://ramtha.com/html/pdf/introduction.pdf to http://ramtha.com/html/pdf/introduction.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930054533/http://www.ramtha.com/html/aboutus/aboutus.stm to http://www.ramtha.com/html/aboutus/aboutus.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Details of Austrian Case

I'm curious if anyone has any idea where to find details of the case in Austria that Knight brought against Julie Ravel [6]. Knight is very litigious, but her other cases usually involve someone copying material from her institute. On the other hand, as reported, this ruling appears to affirm her copyright to Ramtha himself - which under US law would imply that he was her (fictitious) creation. You certainly can't "copyright" a person.

I would be very interested to read the text of both the complaint and the ruling, but haven't had much luck finding them.

J.Z. Knight financial scams

J.Z. Knight has been involved with numerous financial scams and grifts tied into Ramtha conspiracy theories. I'm concerned that this article pushed an aire of legitimacy that she does not deserve.

J.Z. is a run of the mill new age grifter and in my opinion her page here does not at all reflect the reality of her "career". Several of the cited sources with big names like Larry King are well beyond dubious. We're linked to archives of pages that are purported to be "secondary transcripts". Marthfox6040 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)