(06-15-2014, 07:37 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Also, I will mark each paragraph with citation needed.

(06-15-2014, 06:08 PM)reeay Wrote: Using a website called 'way back when' I compared a cached version of the wikipedia page (cached on November 2013) to the current version. I am now unsure which version is what and who's edits... Here are some subtle differences that I found. Just a few examples:

1. Cached version: The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books purportedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra and his questioners through the process of channeling.

The current version has changed 'purportedly' (italicized) to 'reputedly'.

Purportedly means to claim something even if it may be false
Reputedly means what people believe. Subtle differences in connotations. Not too much of a big deal but makes slight difference.

2. The cached version changed 'hypnotic state' to 'non-conscious state'... What is a non-conscious state? Non-conscious in psychology may allude to consciousness - for example minerals are non-conscious because they do not have awareness. Non-conscious processes alludes to mental processes that work when we are sleeping or no aware. It does not describe a trance state necessarily as hypnotic state would imply.

And then:

3. Cached version: ' The material in the books conveys an elaborate philosophy called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One" or that all things that exist are ultimately the same thing.'

Current version: 'The material in the books conveys an elaborate grand reality called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One", or that all "things" that exist are ultimately the same "essence" within many forms.'

'elaborate philosophy' --> 'grand reality'

There is a HUGE difference to claim something is a philosophy and something is a 'grand reality'. This is distorted depiction of the Ra Material to say it is a 'grand reality'. This is what some were concerned about when A1's edits came out.

Have not finished comparing yet tho...

I'm not sure if the November 2013 cached version is what Yossarian wrote last year? Can you confirm this?

www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=17#2 17.2 Ra Wrote:We, ourselves, do not feel an urgency for this information to be widely disseminated. It is enough that we have made it available to three, four, or five. This is extremely ample reward, for if one of these obtains fourth-density understanding due to this catalyst then we shall have fulfilled the Law of One in the distortion of service.

(06-16-2014, 02:06 AM)Parsons Wrote: What DOES severely annoy me is what you did with that reasoning: "I am going to come over there and destroy your sandcastle because I don't think it is 'correct'. I am going to show up like a thief in the night and kick over your sandcastle without even telling anyone. Not only that, I won't bother to build my own (supposedly) superior sandcastle first (or ever) to replace the castle several people spent a lot of time and effort creating. The only way we can have a sandcastle is if the Sandcastle Review Board comes over here and approves of your sandcastle, but I certainly have no intention of helping. In fact, I want to let you know in advance that I intend to kick over any sandcastles you might build."

(06-16-2014, 04:08 AM)Adonai One Wrote: I have no reverence for Ra nor any other entity associated with it. The existence of the metaphysics within the material concerning chakras and other affair do not concern me. The practical application of the ideal of Oneness and the archetypal mind are my primary concerns, as these have the greatest application for the good of mankind.

(06-16-2014, 02:45 AM)vervex Wrote: I totally sat down earlier today with Immanuel and explained him about sandcastles and how destroying people's collective sandcastle without helping them build the structure for a new one was kind of mean. *smirks* I called it Teamwork 101. Seems like he's still chewing on that one.

Quote:The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated. I nominated the copy but it seems the result was mistakenly "keep." I highly encourage a review of the deletion discussions to see this article is properly reviewed, removed of its unreliable sources and deleted until reliable sources are found. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(06-19-2014, 05:21 PM)xise Wrote: βαθμιαίος, do you know what Immanuel Thoughtmaker is referring to in his Deletion review comment from June 19 20:18 UTC about "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated"? Is that information accurate?

Quote: Burn it with fire, if not nuke the site from orbit - If it's notable as a result of being described in RELIABLE sources (academic journals, books from university presses, newspapers, not WP:FRINGE crap), then the article can be remade. But in it's current form? Not notable, not neutral, not reliable, at all. I could see a case for the Influence section being the basis for notability, except that it's WP:OR, making arguments from primary sources that the primary sources do not explicitly state or do not demonstrate is noteworthy, instead of going with secondary sources that directly support article content. The article is currently on par with the sort of mess that'd exist if we wrote the Christianity article citing only the Bible, www.demonbuster.com , The Two Babylons, Michelle Remembers, the writings of Charles Manson, and The Da Vinci Code. The article does not handle its material the way Christianity or 9/11 conspiracy theories handle theirs, it just takes for granted that any book must be a reliable source because it's published. The article is a collective brown stain on the drawers of every editor on this site.

And if someone does find RSs in that mess, that one has to scour the page to find them demonstrates major problems with undue weight.

I'm wondering why anyone bothered to listen to Logos5557 and Yossarianpedia after the personal attacks they made. There's also the claim that this part of an Arbcom decision justifies this article's inclusion. That arbcom ruling says that we shouldn't delete articles on fringe subjects just because they're fringe subjects, but it does not in any way overturn WP:FRINGE's requirement to cite reliable, academic, and unaffiliated secondary sources when discussing such topics (instead of more fringe material). Bringing up that Arbcom decision like that is not even a matter of 'letter of the law vs spirit of the law,' but taking an out of context comma and claiming it trumps the whole of policy.

I've added the page to my watchlist, and will be mass deleting and CN tagging large portions of it if this discussion ends without deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(06-19-2014, 05:44 PM)Adonai One Wrote: And I would prune it again as the sources are not the kind of material I wanted cited as fact in this world...

(06-15-2014, 10:35 AM)Patrick Wrote: :exclamation: CONTROL of information...

We all know where this leads.

(06-19-2014, 05:41 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(06-19-2014, 05:21 PM)xise Wrote: βαθμιαίος, do you know what Immanuel Thoughtmaker is referring to in his Deletion review comment from June 19 20:18 UTC about "The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated"? Is that information accurate?

The history is a little convoluted. This iteration of the Law of One on wikipedia started with an article called The Law of One, which Yossarian began working on in 2011. In July of 2013, the page was moved to The Law of One (Ra Material). In January of 2014, it was moved back to The Law of One.

So somehow, in all the moves, there ended up being two pages, with The Law of One (Ra Material) redirecting to The Law of One. On June 10, the one called The Law of One was deleted. However, that happened after Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker had pruned the article to a stub, and the deleting admin didn't realize it.

At that point the page called The Law of One (Ra Material) became visible again, I guess because the redirect no longer worked, and Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker nominated it for deletion, too. Again, he pruned it to a stub while the deletion discussion was ongoing. However, this time his pruning was reverted and the decision was made to keep the page.

(06-19-2014, 09:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: The deletion could have been undone, and maybe should have been, but it wasn't. Some edits were lost with the delete -- everything since the move in January. Basically, there was a fork of the article and now the fork has been deleted and the article reverted to how it was in January.

I'm not sure what Adonai One/Immanuel Thoughtmaker means by "this copy was not properly nominated." Maybe he means that it wasn't included in his original deletion nomination and thinks that both pages should have been deleted on June 10.