| Revision as of 06:29, 13 December 2007 editLinda (talk | contribs)1,012 edits fixing format← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:12, 14 December 2007 edit undoFireplace (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,915 edits →merge proposal: bogus sourcesNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Notability is established by reliable sources. ] (]) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | Notability is established by reliable sources. ] (]) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Alright, I'll take a look when I get a chance, it seems they are all in my university library. The question is whether they give significant coverage to the seven rays doctrine ''itself'', or whether they just give coverage to the religious movements. ] (]) 06:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :Alright, I'll take a look when I get a chance, it seems they are all in my university library. The question is whether they give significant coverage to the seven rays doctrine ''itself'', or whether they just give coverage to the religious movements. ] (]) 06:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, I checked the sources. The first source you gave does not discuss the "seven rays" in the pages you cited, nor in any other pages I saw, nor in the index. The second source does not seem to be located in the Harvard library system, which is the largest academic library in the world -- making me doubt that it could constitute "substantial coverage". The third source you gave doesn't seem to mention the "seven rays" either, although a couple times there are passing references to a "seven-fold committee". Certainly nothing rising to the level of substantial coverage. Any more wild goose chases you want to send me on? ] (]) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I agree about keeping this as a separate article, and I wrote the reasons at the other discussion . --] (]) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | I agree about keeping this as a separate article, and I wrote the reasons at the other discussion . --] (]) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 14 December 2007
 | Religion: Left Hand Path Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
.svg)
.png){kind=small} | Occult Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Blavatsky
Blavatsky did NOT write about the seven rays - in the sense it is used in this article. I feel that reference should be removed, or explained more.
kh7 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Blavatsky DID write about the SEVEN RAYS - and throughout her writings there are continual references to the septenary aspects of creation, manifestation, and evolution. Arion 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The list of rays
Wouldn't this look so much clearer if it were in two tables, like the one here? That's the Alice A. Bailey table and then there'd be another for the Church Universal.
Also, does Alice Bailey define the master of the fourth ray as Serapis or Serapis Bey, because they are different, and in the current description it has Serapis yet links to Serapis Bey. Might be worth clarifying or sourcing. - Zeibura 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
merge proposal
There has been a proposal to merge this article with "Ascended Master Teachings". I disagree with this. It would be the same as suggesting merging "Bishop (Catholic Church)" or "Purgatory" with the article on the "Roman Catholic Church". Arion (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a question of notability as established by reliable sources. The standards are at WP:N and WP:SOURCES. Currently, the article does not appear to meet those standards. Fireplace (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The notability is established by reliable sources. This religious / philosophical belief has been part of esoteric and religious organizations for centuries. Arion (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The standard is whether the topic "Seven rays" "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which sources in the article meet that standard? Fireplace (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
These sources:
- Partridge, Christopher ed. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities Oxford University Press, USA 2004. pages 330 - 334
- Lewis, James R. Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective Center For Academic Publication 1994.
- Braden, Charles S. These Also Believe MacMillan Publishing Company 2000 pages 257 - 307
Notability is established by reliable sources. Arion (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll take a look when I get a chance, it seems they are all in my university library. The question is whether they give significant coverage to the seven rays doctrine itself, or whether they just give coverage to the religious movements. Fireplace (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I checked the sources. The first source you gave does not discuss the "seven rays" in the pages you cited, nor in any other pages I saw, nor in the index. The second source does not seem to be located in the Harvard library system, which is the largest academic library in the world -- making me doubt that it could constitute "substantial coverage". The third source you gave doesn't seem to mention the "seven rays" either, although a couple times there are passing references to a "seven-fold committee". Certainly nothing rising to the level of substantial coverage. Any more wild goose chases you want to send me on? Fireplace (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about keeping this as a separate article, and I wrote the reasons at the other discussion on the other talk page. --Linda (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories: