Talk:Subtle energy

[Moved from Village pump]

Please forgive me if this is not the right place for this, but I'm going round in circles trying to find anywhere more appropriate (though I've visited Wikipedia on plenty of occasions, I'm still a bit of a newbie as far as contribs go).

I just stumbled across the subtle energy page in the Special:Newpages section. Having a background in physics, I am disturbed by its content, but am unsure about what action to take.

The article makes many claims that are difficult to address as the author uses terms like 'Etheric world', 'the worlds preceding [the Etheric world]' and 'proper world', etc., without explaining what these are supposed to mean.

Most concerning, however, are its claims regarding science:

Scientists refer to Subtle Energy as Dark Energy.

According to both ancient and modern sciences, the Subtle Energy of the Etheric world does not interact with physical matter directly.

...energetic processes in our world such as electric and magnetic vibrations and electromagnetic waves definitely initiate vibrations in the energy fields of the Etheric world and of all preceding worlds. [my emphasis]

(Sorry, I've pretty much quoted the whole article there!)

The article uses a reference by Yury Kronn that is questionable in itself. It seems confused over the distinction between the astrophysical concepts of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'&mdash;this is not surprising given that the references relevant to such discussion are popular science or press accounts. I would be surprised if the paper has been peer reviewed&mdash;indeed, it has 'working draft' on it!

Since I can't follow much of the article, and object to the claims that I can decipher, I'm not sure what action I can take (as tempting as it is to get rid of the whole thing!). I don't wish to deny someone the right to propose a point of view, but this article does not seem to live up to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia, and its claims pertaining to science are incorrect as I interpret them. Should I instead stick a disputed tag on it?

Perhaps I should have put this on the Talk:Subtle energy page, but I don't know how regularly such a place would be visited. Also, I wonder how similar articles should be approached. Thanks :) Ajr 13:38, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) Add an accuracy dispute
 * 2) Discuss the matter on Talk:Subtle energy
 * 3) Assume good faith - it may well be genuinely in progress - see if you get a response on the talk page.0
 * 4) If you still think it's patent nonsense, then list it on votes for deletion

HTH. Martin 13:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From VfD:

Began life as a copy or copyright violation of Subtle Energy, had a brief dispute about accuracy, then an anonymous user plastered something completely different on top. I don't see how we can be NPOV about such a cranky, unusual term.


 * Not a comment on this particular one, but we're NPOV about all kinds of cranky and unusual subjects. &mdash;Morven 01:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete due to copyvio in history -- Cyrius | Talk 02:54, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Resolve copyvio but keep some article on topic. ~36,000 Google hits from a wide range of sources including at least one book listed on Amazon.com. Use of phrase dates at least back to 1998 so it's no longer a neologism. Flaky or not, it's certainly a popular concept that deserves NPOV coverage. Rossami 19:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete based on copyvio (otherwise would remain in history). - Create any new article at Subtle energy/Temp to replace when it is deleted. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's popular patent nonesense but not in the way the Wikipedia uses the phrase patent nonesense. Even if there is a copyvio, this one seems to have been edited enough to keep the history around. Jamesday 16:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A supposition on Subtle energy --Louis Palm 10:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Subtle energy vs. Subtle body
I do not believe this redirect is correct. Roughly speaking, subtle energy is to subtle body as matter is to person. The subtle energy is a term being adopted by that portion of the scientific community which is open to this kind of thing. (e.g., ISSSEEM ) I know this topic is controversial, so I thought I would talk before I would edit. I have submitted a companion suggestion that Energy (spirituality) be renamed (or redirected to) Subtle energy. At any rate, this phrase has more in common with Energy (spirituality) than it does with Subtle body.--Mbilitatu (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)