Here we go again (wikipedia)

[βαθμιαίος]

It should probably be deleted, as the way it currently reads is severely misleading.

Do you have any time to improve it?

[zenmaster]

It should probably be deleted, as the way it currently reads is severely misleading.

Do you have any time to improve it?

My improvements would be deleted due to lack of secondary sources.

[Adonai One]

Deleted

[reeay]

It would be so great if there were a wiki just for Law of One with commentary... like integrating the website with study guide by categories

[Adonai One]

Deleted

[βαθμιαίος]

It would be so great if there were a wiki just for Law of One with commentary... like integrating the website with study guide by categories

I'll think about purchasing a VPS, installing MediaWiki and doing just that. It wouldn't be hard at all. We could create a seperate wiki article for each Law of One subject.

There was one, but it died from neglect. However, JustLikeYou is working on a glossary project that will serve some of the same functions.

[reeay]

Thank you so much for your work βαθμιαίος & JustLikeYou! Sounds awesome.

[reeay]

Question: Was looking thru LOO page on Wikipedia and saw that LOO is part of the New Thought Movement. Is this accurate? If so why is it part of this movement?

[caycegal]

Looks like it's going to be deleted again. Some completely insane person linked to it, and the wikipedia admin who deleted that article is now deleting The Law of One article too.

The threshold for notability seems to be completely arbitrary, mostly based on whichever admin happens to be the one looking at the page. Some books are allowed to have pages despite having essentially no secondary sources and tiny readership--maybe a news article here or there. The Law of One has a massive readership and influence, but when it comes to stuff that is remotely spiritual, the admins jack up the threshold for notability to the point where most articles on wikipedia would be deleted should that threshold be consistently enforced.

The guy who has taken aim at the article now has been a wikipedia admin for 8 years. You can bet that he knows the way to lawyer to get anything that he wants.

Also, they've probably read this forum and so it doesn't help that, for instance, xise says this:

The wikipedia page is our defacto public relations page

This is exactly the type of comment that sets off wikipedia admins.

If you guys want the article to survive we're going to have to add in a lot more critical commentary from as many sources as possible.

It's extremely disappointing to have all that work go to waste. I tried really hard to write a valuable wikipedia article that is up to wikipedia standards.

I didn't mean to imply anything by that comment, other than the fact that when people ask me about the Law of One (and a ton of people do), I just say to google it. Often people who know nothing other than the brief lines I tell them about the topic.

It would be sad if they didn't get a clear, clean cut wikipedia link explaining the basics.

And I totally agree with the principle that it needs to be a neutral view. Not spin. As basically a spiritual philosophy that espouses answers to a great many questions, and as one that fundamentally states that if the philosophy doesn't ring true then one should forget about it, it should be unbiased. I'm totally sorry if the public relations bit made it sound like a biased page in our favor. That is totally not what I want, and not what I think wikipedia is all about.

Regardless of my comments, looking over the page, it has a lot of notable secondary sources (though I'm no wikipedia expert). Hopefully it's in good shape on the merits.

I guess Wikipedia is going through the same thing that happens to many structures in this world - they seem to rigidify and change with time. Then some totally new structure forms and the old structure becomes irrelevant. (I think this is in the Tao Te Ching, as well as being my personal observation.) Google is another such. I am hoping the USA has not reached that point - we'll see.

[ChickenInSpace]

I'd like to quickly throw in a related note.

I know of a swedish 'sceptic' organisation which devotes time in a hardcore manner to make sure wikipedia says what they want it to say for quite a large number of articles. I don't know if this goes under their surveillance but good to know.

[Adonai One]

I'd like to quickly throw in a related note.

I know of a swedish 'sceptic' organisation which devotes time in a hardcore manner to make sure wikipedia says what they want it to say for quite a large number of articles. I don't know if this goes under their surveillance but good to know.

I am not surprised at all. You always got James Randi and friends ready to disinfo up esoteric information, which I am sure are proxies for some bigger interest out there.

Cabals of this kind have become more and more frequent ever since the Internet started growing. A good portion of Reddit's traffic is from a military base with good reason.

[yossarian]

What's interesting is that over the years, people have added and mentioned more and more sources. There are well over 40 sources now that discuss The Law of One books.

This makes The Law of One books absolutely qualify according to wikipedia rules. But wikipedia editors often don't know and don't follow wikipedia rules. They delete stuff based on their personal snap judgements--mostly about whether they like the content or have heard of it before in some positive light.

It's not just esoteric books that get pruned off wikipedia--it's everything that doesn't appear on TV basically. If it hasn't been on TV, if CNN hasn't mentioned it, these dolts don't consider it knowledge, they don't consider it cultural activity. They don't even care if it's been covered in academic journals, because (and I've been told this multiple times) the particular admins deleting stuff are not able to access the journals to verify the citations that are given.

Literally--they delete stuff that cites academic journals because they are too incompetent to go to the library and access the journals themselves.

It would be funny if wikipedia didn't have the strongest SEO in the entire world.

[Bring4th_Austin]

A good portion of Reddit's traffic is from a military base with good reason.

Where's this stat from?

[Adonai One]

My views have changed since these posts. I will only giggle at what I used to believe in. It may be true, it may be false. I really don't care anymore. Use your discretion.

[βαθμιαίος]

My views have changed since these posts. I will only giggle at what I used to believe in. It may be true, it may be false. I really don't care anymore. Use your discretion.

Are you Wikipedia user Immanuel Thoughtmaker? If so, why did you nominate the page for deletion?

[Adonai One]

The book deserves a better article with better sources. Until those sources are found, I will not stand to see the material interpreted in a flimsy, slanted and overtly-mystical manner.

As it is/was, the article is/was a New Age opinion editorial.

My intentions are simply to have The Law of One objectively interpreted and represented. Anybody is free to recreate the article with appropriate sources and material.

I have too much respect for the material to see it slandered by what this article currently aims to become.

---

From the wise:

It should probably be deleted, as the way it currently reads is severely misleading.

[xise]

The book deserves a better article with better sources. Until those sources are found, I will not stand to see the material interpreted in a flimsy, slanted and overtly-mystical manner.

Shouldn't this be a community decision?


In any case, you must feel very strongly about deleting/blanking the page for you to have done it a second time after being warned not to by the admin. I'm guessing that the LOO Wikipedia page symbolizes something else that you have trouble with, hence why you feel so strongly about it. I don't think it has much to do with the page.


What's the real issue at stake for you here A1?

[Adonai One]

It was not a warning by an admin. It was a suggestion. He has no power in this regard. Wikipedia isn't a top-down organization in this aspect. I will challenge the admins as I please.

It is a community decision and I am a part of the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:..._all_rules

I didn't blank the page. I removed all unreliable material and sources. There's a difference.

[xise]

I didn't blank the page. I removed all unreliable material and sources. There's a difference.

How many sources were there prior your removal, and how many sources did you leave after your removal?

[Adonai One]

There is only one source that was remotely reliable but it is insignificant in coverage in my rightful discretion as an editor. All were removed except a citation of the actual Law of One book. People are free to utilize that only, miniscule reliable source to add information to the article.

[xise]

There is only one source that was remotely reliable but it is insignificant in coverage in my rightful discretion as an editor. All were removed except a citation of the actual Law of One book. People are free to utilize that only, miniscule reliable source to add information to the article.

You didn't answer how many sources you removed.


The reverted page has 38 sources so I'm guessing you removed 37 of 38 sources.


I have trouble believing you were able to thoroughly investigate 37 of those 38 sources to such an extent that you were able to determine that the they all should be immediately removed for unreliability.

[Adonai One]

An admin in the previous AFD already found that only one source met reliable criterion in agreement with my findings. I didn't count, I read through every source and marked the ones that were unreliable, unreliable.

The Wikipedia consensus will likely reflect the same finding.

[xise]

An admin in the previous AFD already found that only one source met reliable criterion in agreement with my findings. I didn't count, I read through every source and marked the ones that were unreliable, unreliable.

The Wikipedia consensus will likely reflect the same finding.

It seems that at least 15+ of the sources do not have online links in the Reference area of the wiki page.


Did you actually get the paperback copies of those sources or is there another way to look at those link-less sources?

[Adonai One]

The titles and subject material of the majority of those books indicated opinions of a highly religious and personal nature, the definition of a questionable source.

---

If in-line cited quotes provided, better analysis could have been done. With these not provided, it is the duty of the editor to assume the worst and remove the citation.

[xise]

The titles and subject material of the majority of those books indicated opinions of a highly religious and personal nature, the definition of a questionable source.

That's how you determined the sources were unreliable? The title and subject matter?


Are you serious?

If in-line cited quotes provided, better analysis could have been done. With these not provided, it is the duty of the editor to assume the worst and remove the citation.

Is this Wikipedia's policy?


p.s. Based on your edit, it appears you are serious. That's kinda awesome in its own way (unless it is Wikipedia's policy). In any case, I have no preference either way as to whether the current full article is maintained or where it's a stub. If it's a stub, some people might stop looking but others might go directly to http://www.lawofone.info/ and start exploring, so both types of articles have their pros and cons imho.

[Adonai One]

"Wilcock, David (2012). The Source Field Investigations: The Hidden Science and Lost Civilizations Behind the 2012 Prophecies."

Enough said.

[ScottK]

I must admit that I'm a little confused about how it's even possible to have a "reliable source" on anything - especially given your thinking..

[Adonai One]

Peer-reviewed academic analysis of The Law of One would be most preferred. I hate academia but they do serve a purpose on Wikipedia.

[βαθμιαίος]

Peer-reviewed academic analysis of The Law of One would be most preferred. I hate academia but they do serve a purpose on Wikipedia.

I think it would be career suicide for most (all?) academics to try to publish analyses of the Law of One.

[ScottK]

Peer-reviewed academic analysis of The Law of One would be most preferred. I hate academia but they do serve a purpose on Wikipedia.

Peer-reviewed? That's what's wrong with the world. Original ideas are filed away into the circular trash can because other "academics" don't agree.

We thrive on a diversity of well-intentioned ideas, rather than the shout down of "peer review". I don't know what you are thinking of here.....

Do you want an "authority" to cleanse ideas before they enter your brain? Who chooses the "authority" and how do we know they are right?

And BTW, Wilcock may have some weak ideas, but he also has some strong ones too - just like you, just like all of us..