Here we go again (wikipedia)

[Parsons]

So I guess my main question is why do those who wish to see the Law of One article upheld within this environment feel that way? What is the driving force behind the desire for there to be a Law of One wikipedia article at all? Especially if it is an uphill struggle against an idealistic culture.

Because the vast majority of people have no clue how the politics of Wikipedia work behind the scenes. Most people are just going to google something and wikipedia will be in the top 5 results. If we provide a simple description of what the material is, it could potentially be a critical link in the chain of events to allow them to awaken.

My own awakening hinged on me googling information about the end of the Mayan calendar. Someone had put up a page with a whole list of sources of information about it. At the top of the list was the Ra Material. I am so grateful that information was put up and I was able to google it. I can't imagine how different my life would be if I hadn't stumbled on that material via a google search.

If just one more person stumbles on the Ra Material and awakens because the wiki page is up and provides a coherent description of the material, I call that a helpful stepping stone for personal/spiritual evolution.

Once someone finds the material, it is up to their own discernment to resonate with any of the material or not.

---

I still don't understand why this is even up for debate? Yossarian provided the perfect example of why the article was just fine and not against their rules with his example of Harry Potter. Eg, you can't argue that Harry Potter is a character from a book that goes to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. If you give a very simple description of major points the material provides (eg, there are 7 densities plus an 8th being the first density of the next octave) that are NOT debatable and use any reference that meets the requirements set by wikipedia for THIS TYPE of literature, then I don't see why we couldn't all agree on that?

---

Why don't we start from scratch and just go paragraph by paragraph collaboratively creating what we vote is an unbiased description of the material? It might take months or even years to come up with something that is coherent and as unbiased as possible, but I feel like we can do that.