12-01-2015, 02:18 PM
I was on vacation the week it happened. I was not involved. A member of this community attempted to disrupt the deletion discussions several times, only further antagonizing the entire bureaucracy to dismantle The Law of One article.
They were able to dismantle it with one key reason in mind: New Age sources that are slanted to blind faith in spiritual metaphysics and philosophy aren't acceptable when Wikipedia is full of equally dogmatic atheists.
In other words, you can't build a Wikipedia on writings that remain within belief systems that cannot be accepted by the average soccer mom. It isn't MySpace or Facebook. It's an "attempt" at an objective encyclopedia. Truthfully, the article should have had no more than one paragraph of neutral, objective, summarical material. Lip service to higher ideals of spiritual indoctrination had other ideals.
The only way to get the article accepted on such a slanted site is to use "authoritative" sources such as The New York Times, The Huffington Post, ABC, etc.
You can't interact with the common man and other uncommon men while remaining within a New Age bubble.
They were able to dismantle it with one key reason in mind: New Age sources that are slanted to blind faith in spiritual metaphysics and philosophy aren't acceptable when Wikipedia is full of equally dogmatic atheists.
In other words, you can't build a Wikipedia on writings that remain within belief systems that cannot be accepted by the average soccer mom. It isn't MySpace or Facebook. It's an "attempt" at an objective encyclopedia. Truthfully, the article should have had no more than one paragraph of neutral, objective, summarical material. Lip service to higher ideals of spiritual indoctrination had other ideals.
The only way to get the article accepted on such a slanted site is to use "authoritative" sources such as The New York Times, The Huffington Post, ABC, etc.
You can't interact with the common man and other uncommon men while remaining within a New Age bubble.