Talk:Ratu Bagus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ratu Bagus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About this page
editIts good that this page has not been deleted, I have performed shaking myself and I find it helpful. Quite a lot people take part in the Shaking sessions, hence, in my perception it is a relevant topic.
What is missing for me, is the role of the tabac used during the shaking sessions (the so called seringe) 91.51.193.165 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is no further comment, I will add the usage of tabac in the shaking practice. -- 91.51.206.57 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This guy is a cult leader, who openly propagates pseudoscience like homeopathy, energy healing, ect.
editSuch features should be included. His following abroad is clearly cultish in origin, with followers hanging pictures of Ratu and chanting his name in their homes during "Shaking" and I have personally had the misfortune to have a loved one fall for this scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.142.152 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This kind of entry is why I find Wikipedia constantly being attacked and ridiculed. Would somebody please please edit this crap to show it's pseudoscience? John Mark Wagnon (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
For sheer categorization's sake - yes - it should be categorized as pseudoscience because that's what it falls under, however, if you think someone will read this page (which is fairly vague and nondescript) and from doing so will then become a believer in this guy SOLELY BECAUSE it's lacking the term 'pseudoscience' somewhere in the article, I have to wonder if you have exceedingly little faith in the average individual to be discerning and think for themselves - if they're susceptible to believe in this type of mysticism they're going to believe no matter the terms in which the page is written or framed, it is not Wikipedia's job to hand-hold. It presents the information as-is and then people decide for themselves how to use it. I think you're being unduly hard on the website and its mission as a whole. People are hard on Wikipedia because anyone can edit it - but that's also its strength. It's a continuous process, if they want to jape and hold the website in a low opinion that's their prerogative, but I'm certain they also take advantage of it whenever they need a quick resource or answer on something. 2601:87:4400:AF2:2D2A:C7D:1297:334 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)