Wikipedia page on Ra/Law of One up for deletion

[βαθμιαίος]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A...omination)

The actual page has been moved, for now at least, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logos5...ed_entity)

[C-JEAN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A...omination)
The actual page has been moved, for now at least, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logos5...ed_entity)

Cool.

I did add some arguments, in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A..._entity.29
Hope this helps.

Blue skies.

[C-JEAN]

Hi, Carla fans.

I am in Wikipidia, right now, and I am trying a second attempt
to SAVE the Ra material.

Is it a good idea to do that ?
It seems I'm alone, with Logos5557 to save the "works".

IF it IS a good idea, come on. . . go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...&section=1
and let's save the day, and try to have the subject "merged".

MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW
EDIT TO ADD:
I did not know about the "ways" in Wiki. I improvised.
I went there and I did write comments, from my hearth and feelings.
I try to convince "them" by comparisons. . .
So go ahead ! Add your comments under mine, at Wiki. . . B-)
MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW

Blue skies.

[Lorna]

i don't know the first thing about wikipedia really, other than that it's quite handy
i've had a read of the thread but i don't understand what they're looking for when they ask for noteability, or how to input into the conversation
what should we do to help? are they looking for 3rd party references to L/L Research and the Ra material?

[βαθμιαίος]

I don't know much about wikipedia, either. Does anybody on bring4th know the ins and outs of wikipedia policy decisions? Anybody know the arguments that would sway the skeptics?

[Ali Quadir]

I don't know much about wikipedia, either. Does anybody on bring4th know the ins and outs of wikipedia policy decisions? Anybody know the arguments that would sway the skeptics?

I don't know wikipedia politics either. They have very wel written out policy pages. But in the end it's a small minority of editors that defines most of the decisions in wikipedia. It doesn't matter that they do not believe in Ra. They don't believe in little red riding hood either but she's got a page.

I think the biggest issue here is showing that there is a real world interest in Ra. It doesn't have to be more than a minority group it just has to be a real network.

They're literally saying the article may not achieve the "general notability guideline" and are literally asking you to show "reliable secundary sources".

Since there are thousands of people involved with the Law of One material and all it's spinoffs I'd show them a bunch of relevant sites and communities....
From the top of my head.
bring4th.org
divinecosmos
projectcamelot
lawofone.info

People add your sites?

They're literally saying "No one is interested in this Ra guy." so you should say "Well... These guys are.."...

I'm not sure if there should be a page on Ra myself. I'd expect a page on the Law of One as a broader phenomenon with Ra mentioned in it. The fact that Wikipedia is thinking about dropping this page is not very alarming to me. It's not as if it's the only source of information on the subject. And it's far from the best.

[C-JEAN]

Hi, Ra fans.

People add your sites?

Yesssss sir !! B-)

I did send them this:
MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW
For { notability }, here are sites that link to Ra, in a way or another. Meaning
via the links in web pages, or via the documentations, in the hard disks.
Some involve $money, and many are TOTALY FREE. Prooving their honnesty:

ABC Online Forum
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/a...62627.shtm

BBC NEWS ; Talk about Newsnight ; Latest news FORUM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/200...world.html

BBS radio. The Don & Wynn Show with guest Carla Rueckert.
http://www.bbsradio.com/bbc/don_wynn_sho...3-05.shtml

Learn about the amazing work. . . ALL free.
http://www.dvfugit.com/lawofone.php

Divine Cosmos Discussions = $ and free.
http://www.divinecosmos.com/forums/searc...&do=getnew

Bring4th Carla forum.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/search.php?action=getnew

Project Camelot, = free for L/L
http://www.projectcamelot.org/

Law of One ___RA___ PDFs == FREE for ALL of it
http://www.thesonsofthelawofone.com/lawofonepdfs.html

Above top secret forum = BIG membership !
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/stats.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre...pid6217602

Introduction to The Ra Material. . . FREE B-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLvStyrzM

David Icke's Official Forums
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/i...19399.html

Here is our Logistics for notability/popularity : You have decided to keep Edgar Cayce,
channeling EXACTLY the same way Carla Rueckert did. But Edgar's events happened in
the '30s. Carla's Ra events happened in the '80s. Soooooo Edgar had a LONG time to
gain CUMULATIVE popularity, with 50 YEARS to gain it, before the internet got popular.
Carla had 0 years ! She is STILL "growing" in popularity, and her story is MUCH younger,
in the net. . . Soooo, to not lose the time done in Wikipidia, by the person who invested it,
we ask if it could be MERGEd in L/L or Carla Rueckert, or Don Elkins, please ? Thanks.
MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW

YOUR turn now ! ! I am out of ideas ! ! B-)

Blue skies.

[Ali Quadir]

I think you answered their question properly C-Jean. I personally would not invest more in it than this. My position is, if the Wikipedia wants to remove Ra, let them, they're not the only source. As you've now shown

Logos5557 kind of attacks you. I would not accept his invitation for conflict. A sock puppet is someone who logged in under multiple accounts in order to make his single opinion seem shared by multiple individuals. Ignore it, the wiki crew can check your ip adress and see that this is not the case and there's no point in bickering and the more mature you come across the better.. If the sock puppet argument continues, just tell them to check ip adresses and see for themselves.

However, I'd recommend against multiple people logging in flooding this article with opinions. It will only confuse the matter. And make the sock puppet accusation seem more likely. You put your arguments in politely and directly answered the objections. I will monitor the article regularly and put my comments here. I think it's best for our opinions to go through you in order to do this politely and coherently.

If we'd all show up it might end up looking like you brought your family over for a troll war! Also there's a chance one of us n00bs accidentally deletes information that can be brought back but won't help the situation. Replying there is a bit more complicated than the average forum reply.

As the Law of One material gains more momentum, as it is clearly doing, and if the page is deleted, then eventually someone will start a new page. The discussion will start again and it will be even less deniable than now. In the end there is no doubt there will be a Law of One wikipedia page.

Don't invest too much in "winning or losing" just answer their objections or questions politely precisely and factually then see what happens. Leave out the irrelevant. And let the decision be theirs as it is. Either outcome is not a big thing for the Law of One movement imho... It had not even occurred to me personally to look at the wikipedia for Law of One information.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Thank you for taking a stand for the Law of One. If success can't be had today it will be another day. And it will be the little pushes from people like you that made the difference. All the other more comprehensive sources will be very available to seekers in the mean time.

[ayadew]

Hello friends, thank you for your work... I believe we can't do much more to help to convince wikipedia now though.

If wiki deletes it now, they clearly don't want it, for you have given good arguments.

[C-JEAN]

Hi, ayadew, Ali Quadir, and Carla & Ra fans.

Thanks for your advices. As you can see in Wiki itself,
I told "them" that I would stop, after my last 2 questions.

Their way of dealing with this case confirms my idea about them:
They TPTB are only a MSM thinking group of administrators.
MSM = main stream media, you know, the censored ones ! B-)
TPTB = the power that be.

{
I got those "words" from :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/today.php?negate=25
} B-)

Soooo, I will live and let live. . . B-)
. . .or. . . let be DELeted?. . . B-))))

EDIT TO ADD:
I went back to Wiki, and Logos is again on our/my side. . . now.
I had a laugh, reading him, because his last comment is a nice little **remark**
on Wiki's admins' ways of dealing with their cases. . . B-)

Blue skies.

[Ali Quadir]

Soooo, I will live and let live. . . B-)
. . .or. . . let be DELeted?. . . B-))))

Not much else we can do those rules are there for a reason, I assume the offline sources being the Ra books themselves were referenced? Are there other offline resources apart from Carla's writings? I do know another book by another author references it, but he's based on both the original Law of One material and david wilcock's material. "Souls of distortion" by Jan Wicherink which can be ordered in regular bookstores in a few languages.

[βαθμιαίος]

Well, the page did end up getting deleted, but I have a hunch that its author is now an active member here. For those who might be interested, the former wikipedia page is available at lawofone.info: http://www.lawofone.info/pdfs/ra-channeled-entity.pdf

[yossarian]

There is no reason why there couldn't be a good page on the Law of One. The point is that it needs to be written for a general audience without biased language, and should be centered around the normal way people approach books, in terms of human authors and published works.

So the pages should be called "The Ra Material (book)" and "The Law of One (philosophy)"

The "The Ra Material" page would describe the books from the perspective of them being a published non-fiction book in the paranormal, spiritual, and philosophical categories.

The "The Law of One" page would give a digested, community consensus overview of the main points of the Law of One philosophy starting with those considered the most important. It would follow the way that normal philosophies are discussed, talking about how it views humans, how it views the universe, and go over major concepts like "Polarity" and define terms like "Mind/Body/Spirit complex"

I've been following the "Ra (channelled entity)" page for years and Logos5557 basically would not let anyone else edit it or improve it. It was his pet project and in the history you could see him unilaterally reverting any changes anyone made to make it more appealing to a general audience or to provide less point of view.

Logos was pretty rigid in the way he wrote the article and basically refused to conform to wikipedia or social norms in any way. Also he chased off anyone who dared to edit the article to improve it. So I'm not surprised it was eventually deleted.

I have a feeling Logos5557 is unity100.

[βαθμιαίος]

There is no reason why there couldn't be a good page on the Law of One. The point is that it needs to be written for a general audience without biased language, and should be centered around the normal way people approach books, in terms of human authors and published works.

So the pages should be called "The Ra Material (book)" and "The Law of One (philosophy)"

The "The Ra Material" page would describe the books from the perspective of them being a published non-fiction book in the paranormal, spiritual, and philosophical categories.

The "The Law of One" page would give a digested, community consensus overview of the main points of the Law of One philosophy starting with those considered the most important. It would follow the way that normal philosophies are discussed, talking about how it views humans, how it views the universe, and go over major concepts like "Polarity" and define terms like "Mind/Body/Spirit complex"

That sounds good. Is this something that you're interested in undertaking?

[yossarian]

There is no reason why there couldn't be a good page on the Law of One. The point is that it needs to be written for a general audience without biased language, and should be centered around the normal way people approach books, in terms of human authors and published works.

So the pages should be called "The Ra Material (book)" and "The Law of One (philosophy)"

The "The Ra Material" page would describe the books from the perspective of them being a published non-fiction book in the paranormal, spiritual, and philosophical categories.

The "The Law of One" page would give a digested, community consensus overview of the main points of the Law of One philosophy starting with those considered the most important. It would follow the way that normal philosophies are discussed, talking about how it views humans, how it views the universe, and go over major concepts like "Polarity" and define terms like "Mind/Body/Spirit complex"

That sounds good. Is this something that you're interested in undertaking?

Yeah I've been thinking about starting those pages. Ultimately the philosophy section in particular would need community input from bring4th, because the philosophy should represent the general philosophy of all those who subscribe to it rather than one man's interpretation of the work.

[βαθμιαίος]

Yeah I've been thinking about starting those pages. Ultimately the philosophy section in particular would need community input from bring4th, because the philosophy should represent the general philosophy of all those who subscribe to it rather than one man's interpretation of the work.

That'd be great. It'd be wonderful if there were wikipedia pages like you suggest.

I'm sure there would be many here, including myself, who would be glad to pitch in if you or someone else takes the lead. Is it important at all to have had experience writing or editing other wikipedia pages?

[yossarian]

Yeah I've been thinking about starting those pages. Ultimately the philosophy section in particular would need community input from bring4th, because the philosophy should represent the general philosophy of all those who subscribe to it rather than one man's interpretation of the work.

That'd be great. It'd be wonderful if there were wikipedia pages like you suggest.

I'm sure there would be many here, including myself, who would be glad to pitch in if you or someone else takes the lead. Is it important at all to have had experience writing or editing other wikipedia pages?

Well I don't have much experience writing or editing for Wikipedia. I think the main thing is to think about who the audience is and to avoid putting your personal twists into the material. The big failure of Logos5557 was that he wrote extremely quirky articles and presented his own very strange interpretations as unbiased fact. Instead of explaining what the books said he explained his interpretation of what the books said, including using new definitions and words that were never used in the books. He also tried to convince the reader that the Ra Material is true or valid rather than simply presenting what is there. For instance he would bring in outside images and sources to try and "back up" the Ra Material. This isn't the purpose of wikipedia and is a big reason why the admins ended up deleting the article.

The article needs to be informative rather than persuasive and objective rather than subjective. Anyway now that Logos5557 seems to have given up there may be room now on wikipedia for a proper article.

[yossarian]

hows this for a start? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_One

What we need to do is describe the general outline of the book, and then can move on to describing specific concepts.

[βαθμιαίος]

Great! The only problem I see is that the L/L Research, Carla Rueckert, and Don Elkins links redirect to an "Ancient Astronauts" page.

[yossarian]

You can edit those if you want. Just click on the link that says (Redirected from Don Elkins) and then use the "edit" button to remove the redirect code.

You can then insert a biography of Elkins. The link to the astronaut page just has a small citation at the bottom, I don't see why it redirects there

[βαθμιαίος]

I don't see why it redirects there

I think it was part of the politics of deleting logos5557's page, but I'm not sure.

[yossarian]

I don't see why it redirects there

I think it was part of the politics of deleting logos5557's page, but I'm not sure.

Go ahead and change it how you think it should be. As long as you are improving the accuracy of wikipedia without making it into your personal preaching ground the admins will appreciate it I think.

I think we all know that Don Elkins redirecting to Ancient Astronauts is an oversimplification. If someone wants to write a biography of Don Elkins that would improve the accuracy of wikipedia.

[Tenet Nosce]

Well, the page did end up getting deleted, but I have a hunch that its author is now an active member here. For those who might be interested, the former wikipedia page is available at lawofone.info: http://www.lawofone.info/pdfs/ra-channeled-entity.pdf

ROFL! You posted this three days before I came back to Bring4th. BTW, I was not the author of that page. I gave up on wikipedia some time ago.

---

I have a feeling Logos5557 is unity100.

:exclamation:

---

I don't see why it redirects there

I think it was part of the politics of deleting logos5557's page, but I'm not sure.

Go ahead and change it how you think it should be. As long as you are improving the accuracy of wikipedia without making it into your personal preaching ground the admins will appreciate it I think.

I think we all know that Don Elkins redirecting to Ancient Astronauts is an oversimplification. If someone wants to write a biography of Don Elkins that would improve the accuracy of wikipedia.

The basic premise of wikipedia is if that you are acting in "good faith" you are free to change whatever you like. However, everybody else is also free to change whatever you have done. There are many ways to go about this, from writing a huge exposition, and having it whittled away by others. Or slowly building piece by piece. Or anything in between.

Keep in mind that you will likely be spending much time on this... better, in my humble opinion, to keep it short, with links as it currently has, so that L/L can speak for themselves, rather than having others speak for them.

In my experience, wikipedia-ing was a huge time-sink with little return of investment. Perhaps you will have a totally different experience, but just wanted to share.

[unity100]

Logos was pretty rigid in the way he wrote the article and basically refused to conform to wikipedia or social norms in any way. Also he chased off anyone who dared to edit the article to improve it. So I'm not surprised it was eventually deleted.

I have a feeling Logos5557 is unity100.

...............

in any case there is no relevance.

[βαθμιαίος]

Go ahead and change it how you think it should be. As long as you are improving the accuracy of wikipedia without making it into your personal preaching ground the admins will appreciate it I think.

I think we all know that Don Elkins redirecting to Ancient Astronauts is an oversimplification. If someone wants to write a biography of Don Elkins that would improve the accuracy of wikipedia.

I think it should link to a biography of Don Elkins, but I don't have the knowledge or inclination to write that biography. There's probably one on the L/L site that could be adapted if anyone wants to take a shot.

In my experience, wikipedia-ing was a huge time-sink with little return of investment. Perhaps you will have a totally different experience, but just wanted to share.

I'm not surprised. It seems like there really ought to be wikipedia pages on the Law of One and L/L Research and/or Don, Carla, and maybe Jim, but I do question the politics of wikipedia and whether, if we build such pages, they will stay around. But yossarian, what you've done so far looks great. One question for you: do you think it's completely accurate to say Ra is a spiritual being, given that they also have mind and body complexes, just like we do?

[yossarian]

I'm not surprised. It seems like there really ought to be wikipedia pages on the Law of One and L/L Research and/or Don, Carla, and maybe Jim, but I do question the politics of wikipedia and whether, if we build such pages, they will stay around. But yossarian, what you've done so far looks great. One question for you: do you think it's completely accurate to say Ra is a spiritual being, given that they also have mind and body complexes, just like we do?

Well it has to be written from a mainstream perspective. But you raise a good point. Maybe calling Ra an "extraterrestrial being" would be more accurate. I will change it.

[kycahi]

If accuracy is important, perhaps something along the line of "tightly knit group of extraterrestrial beings who received a 'call' from [Don, Carla and Jim OR three people who dedicated themselves to solve their curiosities about life, the Universe and everything]." Yes, it's a conscious reference to Douglas Adams.

[3DMonkey]

Shouldn't it be an "unknown channeled entity" ? UCE

---

or "unverifiable channelled expression of the One" UCEO

[yossarian]

you guys can edit it

just cant use terms that the general public doesnt understand without explicitly defining them first

[zenmaster]

"Ra explains that humans and the earth are undergoing a transition from third density to fourth density. This process is called "harvest"."

This is technically not correct as beings were harvested from Mars in mid 3rd density, beings are harvested at end of 1st and 2nd cycles, etc. 2d animals are harvested to 3rd density all the time (non-cyclically(.

It should say something like "the transition from 3rd to 4th density necessitates a process called 'harvest'."