+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Here we go again (wikipedia) (/showthread.php?tid=6477)
Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 01-18-2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_One
Quote:
- This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately. (January 2013)
- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (January 2013)
- This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (January 2013)
It still boggles my mind that people think the Ra material isn't notable. I'm not sure what it is if not notable. (I understand that wikipedia has its own definition of notable.)
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Cyan - 01-18-2013
Yeah one of the groups that started the whole 2012 buzz. Not sure how that could be more notable than the name of some minor nobles uncle that made shoes in the 11th century
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 01-19-2013
If you know of any books that reference The Law of One, please add them to the list in the talk page so that admins will know that The Law of One is not just a standalone source of information but exists within a community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Law_of_One
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - zenmaster - 01-19-2013
"A Fool's Phenomenology; Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution", by Dr. Stephen Tyman" ISBN-13: 978-0761833567
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Horuseus - 01-19-2013
"The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive" - Laura Knight-Jadczyk. ISBN-13: 978-1897244364
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - zenmaster - 01-19-2013
"The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds" -James R. Lewis
"SECRET CIPHER of the UFOnauts" - Allen Greenfield
"This Divine Classroom: Earth School and the Psychology of the Soul" - Marcia Beachy
"The ET-human link" - Dana Redfield
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Cyan - 01-19-2013
This is where Shin'Ar and his massive storehouse of data would be handy, And GW's
This is somethign super useful the community can do. Add all the books that you know of that can be used to prove the community nature of the information.
Hands of light by barbara ann brennan covers the holographics universe though not LOO itself. thats the best I can do, but i'm sure others can do better.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - zenmaster - 01-19-2013
@cyan - this is for sources which cite the Ra Material.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Cyan - 01-19-2013
Ahhh I thought it was for sources that can be used to justify keeping the concepts in the LOO material online. My bad.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 01-19-2013
Return of the Aeons -- Rick Cook. http://www.richardccook.com/return-of-the-aeons/
Going Deeper -- Jean-Claude Koven: http://www.prismhouse.com/reviews.php?ID=prismhouse&IN=N
David Wilcock's books
Scott Mandelker's books
Do they have to be books, or do magazine articles and web essays count?
Magazine article (from Gnosis 36: The Inner Planes. A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions, http://www.fieldsbooks.com/cgi-bin/fields/GNO36.html?id=Xw8e26uV ): Introduction: Stairways to Heaven by Jay Kinney
Are You Seeking the Light or Just Dancing With the Dark? (Peter Newton)
Jeremy Weiland: Political Implications of the Law of One
Walter Last: The Spiritual Path
Michael Topper's review of Carla's Channeling Handbook: http://southerncrown.tribe.net/thread/e598d713-3a5a-4a00-8ac1-9255a1cdcfd4
Serving Ourselves and Serving Others (Wade Frazier)
Into the Still Center (Timothy Wyllie)
Never read it but it was influential before the internet: Val Valerian Matrix IV
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 01-19-2013
It just depends how prestigious and notable the source that cites them is.
What we need is the ISBN for each book in addition to the title and author.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 01-19-2013
It's important to recognize that they aren't asking for you to back up the claims of The Law of One, they are looking for you to show that The Law of One is not a stand alone source. You must show that other books have cited The Law of One books.
So if anyone has any books that cite it please post them in the references on that wikipedia page.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - zenmaster - 01-19-2013
"The Tao of Mermaids: Unlocking the Universal Code With the Angels and Mermaids" By Kitty Bishop Ph D. 978-1452500645
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 01-19-2013
Rick Cook's book information: Return of the Aeons: The Planetary Spiritual Ascension by Richard C. Cook. Published by CreateSpace, an Amazon Company. Distributed by Ingram and Baker & Taylor. ISBN-13: 978-1479364268; $19.95; $12.99 on Kindle. Available February 2013.
http://www.richardccook.com/
Wikipedia page on Rick Cook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Cook
Jean Claude Koven's Going Deeper: Paperback: 434 pages
Publisher: Prism House Press (August 1, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0972395458
ISBN-13: 978-0972395458
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Deeper-Make-Sense-Makes/dp/0972395458
Souls of Distortion Awakening
A convergence of science and spirituality
ISBN: 978-90-813047-2-6
Piramidions | March 2008
Author(s): Jan Wicherink
The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?
Wynn Free
Paperback: 420 pages
Publisher: Frog Books (March 11, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1583940839
ISBN-13: 978-1583940839
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 01-19-2013
I've updated the page to include all the different secondary sources provided here. But the page itself is quite bare and needs a lot of work.
The content should be fleshed out and described from an objective, mainstream view using the words used in the books and not using any words that don't appear in the books, for instance "dimension". "Density" should instead be used and a link included to the part of the article that describes what a density is. This applies to all other esoteric terms as well.
another example of a word that doesn't appear in the books is "band"
The article needs a lot of work but I hope that including these references will at least keep away some of the people who are eager to delete anything remotely spiritual from wikipedia
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 01-20-2013
Good job with the footnotes.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - xise - 01-20-2013
(01-19-2013, 11:29 PM)yossarian Wrote: I've updated the page to include all the different secondary sources provided here. But the page itself is quite bare and needs a lot of work.
The content should be fleshed out and described from an objective, mainstream view using the words used in the books and not using any words that don't appear in the books, for instance "dimension". "Density" should instead be used and a link included to the part of the article that describes what a density is. This applies to all other esoteric terms as well.
another example of a word that doesn't appear in the books is "band"
The article needs a lot of work but I hope that including these references will at least keep away some of the people who are eager to delete anything remotely spiritual from wikipedia
Thank all of you for your hard work. The wikipedia page is our defacto public relations page and I think everyone appreciates all of you raising awareness of the issue, finding sources to resolve the issue, then implementing the solution by modifying the page.
You guys are awesome!!
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - zenmaster - 01-20-2013
(01-19-2013, 11:29 PM)yossarian Wrote: The article needs a lot of work but I hope that including these references will at least keep away some of the people who are eager to delete anything remotely spiritual from wikipediaI don't think that's an issue. Writing is a skill, and good articles are simply not easy to write properly.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 01-22-2013
Looks like it's going to be deleted again. Some completely insane person linked to it, and the wikipedia admin who deleted that article is now deleting The Law of One article too.
The threshold for notability seems to be completely arbitrary, mostly based on whichever admin happens to be the one looking at the page. Some books are allowed to have pages despite having essentially no secondary sources and tiny readership--maybe a news article here or there. The Law of One has a massive readership and influence, but when it comes to stuff that is remotely spiritual, the admins jack up the threshold for notability to the point where most articles on wikipedia would be deleted should that threshold be consistently enforced.
The guy who has taken aim at the article now has been a wikipedia admin for 8 years. You can bet that he knows the way to lawyer to get anything that he wants.
Also, they've probably read this forum and so it doesn't help that, for instance, xise says this:
xise Wrote:The wikipedia page is our defacto public relations page
This is exactly the type of comment that sets off wikipedia admins.
If you guys want the article to survive we're going to have to add in a lot more critical commentary from as many sources as possible.
It's extremely disappointing to have all that work go to waste. I tried really hard to write a valuable wikipedia article that is up to wikipedia standards.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Cyan - 01-22-2013
Wikipedia has no consistency.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Plenum - 01-22-2013
well, at least Carla still has a prominent place here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_channelled_texts#Carla_Rueckert
she is one of 25 representative 'channels'.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - xise - 01-22-2013
(01-22-2013, 05:42 AM)yossarian Wrote: Looks like it's going to be deleted again. Some completely insane person linked to it, and the wikipedia admin who deleted that article is now deleting The Law of One article too.
The threshold for notability seems to be completely arbitrary, mostly based on whichever admin happens to be the one looking at the page. Some books are allowed to have pages despite having essentially no secondary sources and tiny readership--maybe a news article here or there. The Law of One has a massive readership and influence, but when it comes to stuff that is remotely spiritual, the admins jack up the threshold for notability to the point where most articles on wikipedia would be deleted should that threshold be consistently enforced.
The guy who has taken aim at the article now has been a wikipedia admin for 8 years. You can bet that he knows the way to lawyer to get anything that he wants.
Also, they've probably read this forum and so it doesn't help that, for instance, xise says this:
xise Wrote:The wikipedia page is our defacto public relations page
This is exactly the type of comment that sets off wikipedia admins.
If you guys want the article to survive we're going to have to add in a lot more critical commentary from as many sources as possible.
It's extremely disappointing to have all that work go to waste. I tried really hard to write a valuable wikipedia article that is up to wikipedia standards.
I didn't mean to imply anything by that comment, other than the fact that when people ask me about the Law of One (and a ton of people do), I just say to google it. Often people who know nothing other than the brief lines I tell them about the topic.
It would be sad if they didn't get a clear, clean cut wikipedia link explaining the basics.
And I totally agree with the principle that it needs to be a neutral view. Not spin. As basically a spiritual philosophy that espouses answers to a great many questions, and as one that fundamentally states that if the philosophy doesn't ring true then one should forget about it, it should be unbiased. I'm totally sorry if the public relations bit made it sound like a biased page in our favor. That is totally not what I want, and not what I think wikipedia is all about.
Regardless of my comments, looking over the page, it has a lot of notable secondary sources (though I'm no wikipedia expert). Hopefully it's in good shape on the merits.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Aaron - 01-22-2013
I copied and saved the text of the article (from the edit page to preserve all the boxes and formatting) so that just in case it gets deleted and needs to be remade in the future, we will have something to go on.
Just message me or respond here if you ever need it.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 02-06-2013
They're keeping it, for now at least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One
Quote:The result was No Consensus. There are substantial GNG concerns about this article raised by the nominator and others favoring deletion, namely that they're doubtful that any of the sources are truly reliable and independent of the article's subject. This central point is rebutted by several individuals who also make good policy-based arguments. Though I personally have my doubts, the premise of some of these arguments aren't really challenged. With this in mind, there's no clear consensus on how to interpret the nature of the proffered sources. --Lord Roem ~ 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - yossarian - 02-06-2013
If you guys want this article to stay it needs more quotations and direct mentions of the 17 reliable sources.
This ruling has protected the article for now but it won't protect it forever.
Is there anyone here who has read the secondary sources and could write down, in the article, what those secondary sources say and could do it in a neutral analytic tone?
For instance, every part of the article should say something like:
Bill, Bartley, and Bob interpret the harvest in terms of a gradualism theory, while Kevin and Kelly interpret it abruptly. "The harvest will be gradual, I just know it! Kelly is on crack!" writes Bill in his popular 1999 book, "Hidden Secrets of UFO cults".
See what I'm saying? If the entire article is explicitly written in terms of what secondary sources say of The Law of One, then the article will survive deletion. Right now it barely survived because the body of the article was not written like this.
It would also help if someone went over the precise meaning of words in the notability sections in the talk pages, so that the next time someone decides to try and delete it they are confronted with solid policy-based arguments for why it shouldn't be deleted.
Wikipedia is basically a place where are a bunch of no-knowing amateurs with very large inferiority complexes go around trying to delete anything they can. Opposing them is a combination of idealistic people who want to help the world with knowledge, and many many large hordes of ideologues trying to push their ideology and destroy opposing ideologies. The dominant ideology by far is atheist scientism, to the point where these atheists actually believe they don't even HAVE an ideology. That is how poorly educated these religious zealots are. Opposing the atheists are very distinct groups: Muslims, Scientologists, Catholics, Fundamentalist Protestants. Each of these groups has staked out territory and each of them have "pocket admins" which are admins that secretly work in their interest but must appear to be neutral at all times.
Then, there are the corporations who use wikipedia for marketing and PR. They are very influential and often do their work just by hiring already well-known paid editors with good reputations. There are also the governments and political interests. They operate just like corporations except have more volunteer work.
Anyway if you want this article to survive it will need bolstering. To be strong, the secondary sources need to slap people in the face. You cannot allow any doubt that the secondary sources exist and that they meet the requirements for reliability and independence.
The Law of One on Wikipedia Needs Help - Adonai One - 03-03-2013
Deleted
RE: The Law of One on Wikipedia Needs Help - reeay - 03-03-2013
here: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=6477
RE: The Law of One on Wikipedia Needs Help - zenmaster - 03-03-2013
(03-03-2013, 06:21 PM)Adonai-1 Wrote: It almost got deleted awhile back--luckily it was barely saved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_One
It needs a lot of work. It doesn't introduce itself to new people that well and it just isn't good reading. I'll try to revamp a paragraph or two in the near future. If anyone wants to give it a swing, feel free. It's open to anonymous editing.
The main problem is the use of Ra's language and not laymen terms. Not much about love.
It should probably be deleted, as the way it currently reads is severely misleading.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Bring4th_Austin - 03-03-2013
The previous 3 posts have been merged from a separate thread.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - C-JEAN - 03-04-2013
Hi, Wiki watchers.
After saying that "Coast to coast AM" is the biggest talk show on the planet,
with millions of listeners, and over 500 other radio stations linked
to "Coast to coast AM", how about a link like this ?:
( Be patient, they are very long to load.)
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/04/28?mode=print
or
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/14
The 2 links up there come from:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/search/?query=Ra+material
Blue skies.