| Revision as of 00:35, 16 December 2007 editFireplace (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,915 edits →Ascended Masters, etc.: thx← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:12, 16 December 2007 edit undoArion 3x3 (talk | contribs)2,063 edits →Great White Brotherhood: your actions of the last several daysNext edit → | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| It was patent nonsense, as far as I could tell, made no assertion of notability that I could find - admittedly, it's sometimes har d to tell when an article has the first problem - and had no independet sources. It's possible it was wrong, but I think that some sort of evidence'd be need shown. Anyway, deletions are easy enough to undo. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | It was patent nonsense, as far as I could tell, made no assertion of notability that I could find - admittedly, it's sometimes har d to tell when an article has the first problem - and had no independet sources. It's possible it was wrong, but I think that some sort of evidence'd be need shown. Anyway, deletions are easy enough to undo. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Just because both of you consider a group of religions or philosophies to be "patent nonsense" (and some of the other slurs you have leveled against the new religions of the 19th and 20 century), that does not justify your actions of the last several days. ] (]) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | == Happy Holidays == | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 16 December 2007
edit count | edit summary usage
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
| File:Red leaves wreath transparent bg.png The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter File:Red leaves wreath transparent bg.png | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Integral Theory
I removed the New Age references because some people on the Ken Wilber Facebook group requested it. If you think they need to be there that's cool. I don't really agree, but wouldn't want to start any edit wars..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.123.228 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Substantial changes on "I AM" Activity and other articles
Making "substantial changes to the article" without discussion or reaching a consensus is not the best editing technique on Misplaced Pages. Small changes such as grammar or punctuation corrections do not need to be discussed. However substantial changes should be discussed and a consensus reached. Arion (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Response at the article's talk page here. Fireplace (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy Ballard
HI Fireplace. I notice you made this article a redirect earlier today. This can confuse newer editors who might be working on it or have it on their watchlists. In the future, could you discuss that sort of change on the talk page or with the primary editors before implementing it? Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. This series of articles is a part of wikipedia that doesn't get much sunlight, and recently attracted attention at the Fringe Noticeboard. The article failed to satisfy WP:N and WP:SOURCES, so being bold and redirecting it to an article which does satisfy those standards is an appropriate response. At the end of the day, I'm not sure what will happen to the article, but a bold approach has generated discussion and attention, so I'm comfortable with it. Fireplace (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Great White Brotherhood
It was patent nonsense, as far as I could tell, made no assertion of notability that I could find - admittedly, it's sometimes har d to tell when an article has the first problem - and had no independet sources. It's possible it was wrong, but I think that some sort of evidence'd be need shown. Anyway, deletions are easy enough to undo. Adam Cuerden 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just because both of you consider a group of religions or philosophies to be "patent nonsense" (and some of the other slurs you have leveled against the new religions of the 19th and 20 century), that does not justify your actions of the last several days. Arion (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
 |
 |
 |
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Lesser ritual of the pentagram
I've added a partial bibliography which I hope you will agree establishes notability. There are dozens more which could be added, see Google Books search. Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ascended Masters, etc.
I want you to know that I really appreciate your note on my talk page. My apologies if the forum shopping remark went too far. With respect to newspaper searches, I'd actually not expect to find much on the individual masters in the newspapers. I suspect the same would be true for the gods, saints or other objects of the religious imagination associated with other new religious movements.
My point of view is that when it comes to religious matters, sources internal to the religion are sufficient for reporting what the adherents believe. Yes, it would be good to have at least some outside views, but typically a new religious community of the size of Theosophy has several voices and at least a couple of associated publishing houses. There is not always agreement between adherents, and many of the publishing houses publish a broader range of books than just those specific to the belief system. That is, some of the Theosophical publishers can't really be labeled "vanity presses". They were/are real publishers with editorial staff, submissions, etc. and like most publishers probably rejected many more manuscripts than they accepted. So they did play a defining role, yet at the same time, it was a fairly broad community that produced the writers.
On the other hand, I can certainly see your point when we get down to the submovements which claim Theosophy as their spiritual parent. Where to draw the line is certainly something for the Misplaced Pages community to decide. On the third hand, it doesn't hurt to assure those who are intimately familiar with the details of the topic, either because there are involved in research on the topics or even more intimately involved as members that we value their opinion about what elements are significant enough to be considered notable within the topic. Yes, they may need to supply some citations and sometimes they won't be there. But sometimes things that should be considered valid sources are dismissed incorrectly. I think it pays to be a bit accepting in order not to alienate potential editors. When religious issues are involved, feelings are likely to get hurt. So let's trim the fat without cutting away too much meat or our or anybody else's fingers. :-) Curious Blue (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, I appreciate what you've brought to the table. The extent to which primary sources and religious publishing houses can be used to establish notability is a genuinely murky area of Misplaced Pages's policy. If I have any reputation capital left after the Ascended Master discussion, I think I'd like to raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability or the WP:Village pump. Fireplace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)