User talk:Logos/park/lo1/archive1

The following talk page entries were copied from User talk:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) which is now deleted. Credit to contributors appears to be done by signatures. This page was moved from Talk:Ra (channeled entity). This talk page requested by Logos at WP:REFUND. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

=Archive of Talk:Ra (Channeled Entity)=

Objection
I object the deletion. Because in the first place, this article is not about a book completely, it is about a group of entities. I believe that if the concept of Ra, an ancient egyptian sun god, can be an article on wikipedia, so can this one. Our civilization don't have any solid evidence that egyptians were truly worshipping Ra, we just have "records-books" from those old days. When we refer to those records-books, Ra builds itself as an ancient egytptian sun god automatically. Similarly, in order to back up the concept here, the books need to be mentioned. You can take it as I'm trying to build Ra group as a social memory complex concept with the material available at hand.Lyckey (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your first objection makes no sense. A book itself cannot derive notability from the characteristics of any of its protagonists. Otherwise every comic discussing a superhero would be notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a very good learning curve with somethings, eg templates, but you don't seem to understand a lot of our policies and guidelines. In what way is this WP:NOTABLE? Please read those guidelines and explain how you justify this. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe below part of WP:NOTABLE should apply here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines --Logos5557 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article will be deleted if you don't remove the template. So why not remove it and I'll take it to AfD and you can argue notability there. I see no likelihood this will become notable and you certainly can't use Wikipedia as a vehicle to make it notable. Or leave the template on it and I or someone else will delete it on the 4th. dougweller (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Logos5557 (alias Lyckey), the following is from the link you gave: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." I have already made an active effort. If the article goes to AfD, other editors there will (normally) also make an active effort. I followed the advice further down of asking the article creator for sources that demonstrate notability, albeit by prodding. Now I have also followed the other two bits of advice: tagging for notability, and tagging for expert help. I think if anyone can find sources establishing the notability of this particular piece of nonsense, it's an expert on UFO religions or pseudoscience. There seems to be no WikiProject directly relevant to UFO religions, but there is one for pseudoscience.

I suggest that you also do something about the presentation of the material, which is currently not from a mainstream, neutral point of view. Otherwise you are going to lose a lot of sympathy from contributors to the deletion discussion. As explained above, the link you gave does not protect this article from being deleted after a deletion discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * These materials were published in 80s. Since then either the books or the editors most probably might have been noted or interviewed with in some newspapers/magazines or in other type of media. World wide web has not a long history, in order to be able to cover all these past records. Perhaps, the definition of notability should be revised for these particular pieces of old publications. Nonetheless, I've searched through books.google and found plenty of references to these material. Hope these reliable sources satisfy you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XASgbACJaeEC&pg=PA190&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&hl=tr#PPA190,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=kQVEPhK_-wIC&pg=PA681&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=W21QlmD9yCEC&pg=RA1-PA21&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PRA1-PT1,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=eq3ZbvrvQVUC&pg=PA79&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=u0WZ_5e-VLMC&pg=RA1-PA78&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=KCEtC3xnzuAC&pg=PA293&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=nt6W60CxsocC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr#PPA39,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=w7R7xyB0T80C&pg=PA52&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PPA52,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=NoF_AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=A3ELAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=A9vAea4MV8cC&pg=PA77&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr#PPA81,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=UyP_U_wybocC&pg=PA113&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=jv99AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=jv99AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr

--Logos5557 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No. Long answer: I see no chance that the "Ra" books satisfy one of criteria 2-5 from Notability (books). So only number 1 remains:
 * The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
 * I have seen most of your sources before, of course (since I also searched Google books). Most are written for a fringe audience: UFO believers, conspiracy theorists, new age people. "The Gods have landed" is a mainstream book, but its coverage of the books is definitely not non-trivial – they are merely mentioned in a biography. "Strange Weather" by Andrew Ross probably counts as a mainstream source (not sure), and it gives a plot summary on p. 39f. There are also a few books that I can't check.
 * The problem remains: There is no evidence that the book is notable, and there is currently no non-fringe information about it that would allow us to give more than a plot summary.
 * Under these circumstances it is hard to fix the worst current problem with the article: That it treats the plot of a fictional book as non-fiction. This kind of situation is exactly why we have the notability criteria. If you can't find better sources that actually allow us to write something reasonable about the book, it will have to go to AfD. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified the article as it would resemble the "format" of Pleiadeans and its current state is no more than a plot summary. It does not include loads of sentences about the information that is said to have been channeled from Ra. It would not be a good idea to merge it with Don Elkins either. I have to state once again: the article is not about the book, it is about a main character of a series of books. Although you seem that you can't check all the books that cover the law of one books, enough number of books, some being mainstream, fits into the definition of WP:NOTABLE. You don't seem to be neutral in this particular case --Logos5557 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I getting this right? Because it's not clear that this series of books is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, you think a way out is to just write about a character in the book? I think establishing the notability of that character will be even harder. Notability doesn't come from sensational claims, it comes from non-trivial coverage in reliable mainstream sources, to an extent that allows us to write a reasonable short article. You have not presented such sources, and I doubt that they exist. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet you're not getting any part of it right. Returning back to your point of notability of the book: "Ra" books do not satisfy one of criteria 2-5 from Notability (books) but this does not mean that they aren't notable since the criteria is "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria". That means 1st criteria is enough. None of the books on wikipedia satisfy all of these 5. The library search for the first volume of the book gives: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8669397&tab=holdings?loc=United+States http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/27743988&tab=holdings?loc=United+States

The author of below book is Dean of the Faculty at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in Menlo Park, California. His academic background is in communications and he views channeling as a form of communication. http://books.google.com/books?id=NoF_AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://www.amazon.com/Tongues-Men-Angels-Channeling-Institute/dp/0030471648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228149766&sr=1-1 http://www.intuition.org/txt/hastings.htm

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=w7R7xyB0T80C&q=rueckert http://www.jonklimo.com/about.htm

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ross

http://books.google.com/books?id=nt6W60CxsocC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Picknett

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=KCEtC3xnzuAC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Lewis

http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=W21QlmD9yCEC&q=rueckert http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=Ws2Oemi1gKIC&q=rueckert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_H._Greenfield

http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr http://www.siu.edu/~philos/faculty.htm#tyman

http://books.google.com/books?id=xJnH6D4kAxgC&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=tr&pgis=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leviton

Please note that some of the authors are academic. May be we can put it in mathematical form; Ra, as a character, is mentioned in law of one books and law of one books and the character are mentioned in other reliable sources. So notability criteria is satisfied here.--Logos5557 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting surreal, and you have already used up most of my capacity to assume good faith and high intelligence. I never suggested that a book needs to satisfy more than one of the criteria, and I made it very clear that we need to check number 1. You seem to agree, while thinking that I said something else. Whether the books exist in public libraries has nothing to do with notability. (By the way, the categorisation by the library, as "Occultism" and "Spirit writing", makes it very clear that this is about a fringe topic.)
 * Please do not just throw links at me in large quantities, especially not links to books that I have mentioned and discarded before, such as "Strange Weather", or to conspiracy theorist books. In connection with the misunderstanding I just mentioned it makes the impression that you are not listening, just talking.
 * With Arthur Hastings' "With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channeling" we have finally reached the area of fringe in the precise sense of the word (on the fringes of science), rather than fringe as a synonym for "popular crackpot theory". In my opinion that's a borderline case of "mainstream" treatment because fringe science is a borderline case of science. Something more mainstream would be better. Unfortunately I have no access to the book. As a consequence, I cannot check that there is non-trivial coverage there. This will have to be checked by someone; if this is to be our only independent source about the topic then the article must be built mostly on what it says. The "non-trivial coverage" condition is to make sure that that's actually possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my misunderstanding about your claims. I'm not underestimating your talents. However, it's your choice to allocate your resources to discuss the matter here. I believe you have been misinterpreting guidelines of wikipedia for this particular subject. If the topic has enough notability, it can be an article on wikipedia although it is fringe. Then it comes to the point, whether there is undue weight or not. The place of discussion for that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Therefore, let's only focus on notability here.
 * I'm sorry but you seem (to me) to confuse notability and acceptance or truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance.
 * Majority of secondary sources (which are reliable) are written for a "fringe" audience, ufo believers, new age people, but this can not have any detrimental effect on the topic's notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V
 * In case above statements hold true, I don't think your discard of books I have been mentioning can result in an unquestionable judgement that this topic is not notable.
 * I have no access to Arthur Hastings' book either. However, the conversation in this link can give some clues as to whether Hastings' coverage of the topic is in a non-trivial manner or not http://www.intuition.org/txt/hastings.htm . The conversation in this link is only on channeling and is not trivial.
 * Klimo is an academic also. http://www.jonklimo.com/about.htm . I believe his below book, which covers law of one books in non-trivial fashion, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=w7R7xyB0T80C&q=rueckert should be regarded as mainstream too.
 * As you stated in your previous reply, "Strange Weather" by Andrew Ross counts as mainstream, and there is slightly more than a plot summary about, on pages 39 and 40. http://books.google.com/books?id=HQcL0MJ4ZWIC&pg=PA252&vq=rueckert&hl=en&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1#PPA40,M1
 * Another book by another academic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek, although not mainstream is http://books.google.com/books?id=zmhYAAAAMAAJ&q=%22carla+rueckert%22&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=en&pgis=1
 * Another book by another academic http://www.siu.edu/~philos/faculty.htm#tyman, is http://books.google.com/books?id=sdV9AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22carla+rueckert%22&lr=&hl=en
 * I won't throw other books this time, as those are for generally "fringe audience" as you stated. To conclude, I think the notability of the topic looks adequate to have a brief article on wikipedia.--Logos5557 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not improved
About 10 days later, the article is still in the same sorry state. There is a plot summary which is in-universe except for the use of indirect speech. (In the section "Highlights" not even this minor device is used.) If nobody is able/prepared to dig up references that discuss these books from a mainstream point of view, and to turn them into an article (which may also summarise part of the plot, of course), then this article needs to be deleted or merged into the article about the author. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the only choices are merge or an AfD. And no publicity for L/L or whatever it is. If there are no objections, I'l turn this into a redirect tomorrow and move some of the content to Don Elkins. If there are objections, I will take it to AfD. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not agreed. The article is not a proper candidate for neither merge nor deletion/AfD or whatever it is. I will seek for other ways of resolving this dispute listed here; DRLogos5557 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here provides better ground for this particular case, especially the comments made by the user Jack A Roe. I would like to refer to the arbitration request for paranormal case here once again;, .Logos5557 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be merged or deleted
Does the material in the article meet wikipedia guidelines or not?


 * merged is better solution than delete. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is a massive violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It states claims of paranormal as if they were outright true. It should either be completely deleted, but if there's going to be any merge here, make sure the info has reliable sources and doesn't advance a particular agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its already been through AfD and the decision was to keep. A Criticism section and the removal of the in-universe perspective could do a lot of good though. NoVomit (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Thanks for requesting a third opinion. Any editor who believes an article should be considered for deletion may do so at any time and for any reason at WP:Articles for deletion. WP:3O and WP:RfC are not intended for this purpose. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2008#Ra_.28channeled_entity.29

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 01:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoVomit (talk • contribs)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Suggestions for clarification or improvement
As per some wikipedia guidelines, suggestions from other editors for clarification and/or improvement are welcome and expected here in this section. Logos5557 (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I voted to keep at the AFD. Keep up the good work on the article, and getting more cited content into it. I've removed many of the quotations and "alleged" type ststements - they aren't necessary and make the text difficult to read. I've also split the Summary section into "Methodology" and "Channelled messages", which will let readers get a grasp of the two key aspects quicker. I'd like to see the "Channelled messages" section be a bit shorter - more summarised, and the methodology section expanded a bit more to describe a bit more detail. --Davémon (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I aggree with you on your comment for "alleged". When there is paranormal tag, it's not so necessary to insert such supposed NPOV pushers. On the other hand, if somebody would be more happy with those insertions, I'm comfortable with that. I'm amazed with the work you've done on the article. It certainly came to a state that I would not be able to provide. Regarding channeled messages; I thought it would be good to give experiences of Ra thorough densities briefly. Since the article is about Ra, in the end. What could be removed from that section? Regarding methodology, I thought giving details on what rituals and spells they used or how they aligned the medium etc. would make extend the article unnecessarily. Nevertheless, if you can specify the details you might wanna see, it can be worked on it. Logos5557 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What do users think about a possible restructuring of Channellled Messages section? Law of One books have lots of fascinating, interesting, startling "answers" on wide variety of subjects. Would it be any good idea to create subheadings on some well-known subjects like UFO, bigfoot, etc. and state what the books tell about? Logos5557 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a good idea, but as I recall the Ra Material consists of about five books . . . could you reasonably summarize that and keep the page to a reasonable length? NoVomit (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that Logos5557 might lengthen it. In any case, shouldn't any 'answers' be ones that reliable sources have mentioned, rather than a choice by an editor which might be seen as OR? dougweller (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Subheadings would not contain lengthy explanations but just summaries of related information. However, it may not be possible to find reliable sources, if the law of one books themselves are not sufficient as reliable sources. Additionally, proper subheadings may not be determined for the existing material in channeled messages section to fit into that new structure. It seems that for some amount of time, it will not be possible to extend the article, which is not so necessary by the way. OR raisers can be worked on instead. Logos5557 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

html codes
How can I increase the space between each note in Notes section without changing the code completely?Logos5557 (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

density vs. band
In wikipedia articles, we do not need to stick to the primary or secondary sources and use exactly the same words. Since the word density is a bit weird for the concept it is used, it is not appropriate to use it in the lead. Because then it should be explained what it means, which would lengthen the lead unnecessarily. Instead we can use another word, which is less weird, and then leave the use of the exact word density to the main body of the article.Logos5557 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

POV in Ra (copied from user talk)
The word "band" is equally meaningless to the uninitiated and needs just as much or more explanation. Ra used the word density for a reason, because density was the most suitable word. When you change the words based on your personal opinion of what is understandable, you are inserting your own opinion and your own understanding about what the word means. This is a WP:NPOV issue. Instead of using arbitrary words that you personally selected for your own aesthetic reasons, we should use the words that are actually used by the source. Is Wikipedia a place for your own interpretation, or is it a place for neutral exposition of the cold facts? Would we change a word in some scientific field based on the personal taste of an editor? Would we refer to atoms as "slices" just because one editor thinks slices are closer to the concept that the scientists are actually trying to get to? The word "density" itself is shrouded in such mystery that for any one person to replace it with an arbitrary, unprecedented word, is the height of arrogance. If Ra meant "band" why didn't it say "band"? 70.67.115.63 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP:POV issue. If you find a better word instead of band, not density of course, for the lead you can insert it. We don't have to use the actual/original words used by the source. If "slice" reflect some other aspect of the atom better, then go for it, use it together with other original words. Because you are simply trying to make it better understandable, you are not trying to alter the original definition or explanation completely but simply trying to enrich it. I'm sorry but you simply are making this Ra channeling and the communications received into a holy religion. You seem to be inclined to accept every single word said without any judgement, like a fundamentalist.
 * This sentence is simply your own personal point of view and can't be counted as neutral: "The word "density" itself is shrouded in such mystery that for any one person to replace it with an arbitrary, unprecendented word, is the height of arrogance." Remember that, Ra was making mistakes in some dates. What does it tell or ring to you that Ra can also make mistakes? Regarding density; as I mentioned several times before, the main body of the article does use the original word density, for the concept Ra used it for. However, for the lead, there is no need to stick to the original words, as we can use synonyms instead, if the original is problematic. If you read through the archives and previous deletion discussions, you will see that "density" was one of the most problematic words of the article. An editor took it as a pseudoscientific jargon. Will you always be around and "protect" the article against such attacks or just try to "push" your own interpretation (your own point of view) about the word "density" one time and vanish afterwards? Ask Ra why it didn't say "band"? And please stop inserting "density" in the lead instead of band. Logos5557 (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing the word from "Density" to "Band" is a significant interpretative leap. This is where the POV issue comes into play. Density is incomprehensible, I agree, but changing it to a comprehensible word changes the original work and misrepresents it (distorts it) in the direction of your particular interpretation. If a certain work is incomprehensible, the incomprehensibility should be documented. The work should not be altered to be comprehensible. Cover the incomprehensibility, don't interpolate. Interpolation cannot possible be a WP:NPOV. Why not put the word "density" in quotes and make a section that discusses the incomprehensibility of the word? That would be the honest approach. It seems you are reluctant to let the public edit this page, and you want to sit on it like a mother hen and protect it. This is unfortunate, since wikipedia is supposed to represent collective wisdom one man's best guess modification. You say I'm turning this into a Holy Religion, what makes Ra different from any other religion? In a wikipedia page covering the Bible one would not arbitrarily introduce new words to replace words that some people find incomprehensible. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * None of your arguments are valid. Wikipedia articles should be wirtten in a way as there remain no incomprehensibility or whatsoever. Aside from that, I don't agree with you on your interpretations regarding the word density and the Ra channeling. You are expecting the "whole world" to accept your interpretation without any question. On the other hand, I am trying to play with the rules of the playground, which is wikipedia. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that, there is no need to stick to the original words and concepts and any jargon needs to be explained. For this reason, it is the most appropriate thing to leave the word "density" to the main body of the article and not use it in the lead, in order to save the necessity to explain it. Wikipedia is not democracy, wikipedia aims to represent collective notable knowledge (not collective wisdom), but not the "wisdom" of a spoilt child, who insists on without seeking for any consensus. Your very first argument that "band" was not used a single time in any of the books, so is completely unsuitable to be used in the article, conflicts with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm indeed reluctant to let any fundamentalist, who sees Ra channeling as a kind of religion, to edit the article about Ra. If you have a better idea, better word instead of "band" (not density, of course) to use in the lead, then you're welcome. Otherwise, I will simply revert your insertions of "density", which you make without seeking any consensus. Logos5557 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

silver cord
All users should discuss before making any conceptual (that is related to the concepts discussed in the law of one books) changes to this article, as proposed by related wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otherwise, it is not good faith to change the existing to whatever one wishes or thinks appropriate to his "wisdom". For instance regarding silver cord, user 70.67.115.63 could search the exact phrase "silver cord" in one of the links and find that in session 91 silver cord was discussed actually after Carla Rueckert was affected by something called "silver cord reflex". Logos5557 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

magnetic north vs. true north
There is no any practical method in the world to determine the true north pole. Therefore, the north mentioned in the law of one sessions is most probably the magnetic north, not true north. If anybody has a proof otherwise, then he/she should present that proof before making any change in the article. Logos5557 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of ways to determine true north. Looking at polaris, looking at the sun, etc. There is no evidence that they used a compass - no picture or mention of a compass. Don Elkins was a physicist and so would be very capable of determining true north. Why bother mentioning magnetic north when it isn't mentioned in the books? You can't know for sure either way, so why bother? Band is still a terrible word btw, I've talked and read tens of commentaries on the LoO and everyone, when they use a substitute word, uses "dimension". No one ever uses band. I still have no idea what band means... like a rubber band? A musical band? A group? It is completely nonsensical. If you must replace a word, the obvious choice is dimension. David Wilcock, who you cite, for instance often uses dimension when he's speaking to a crowd that doesn't know what "density" means. Anyway obviously you are really really intent on having precisely your own unique interpretation with none others being in this article, so I'm not gonna bother trying to improve it anymore. Consider this page your own personal WP:SOAP to speculate on Ra philosophy. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those ways you mentioned to determine the true north are not practical and not flawless. I will personally try to contact Rueckert and McCarty and ask which north they used, did they use a compass or polaris. I hope you will be satisfied with the answer. Band is the most suitable word, it comes from the use of band in "band of spectrum". Dimension can not be the right substitute for the term density because a level or density can contain many dimensions. A somewhat proof to this is the description of Saturn council by Ra; "This Council is located in the octave, or eighth dimension, of the planet Saturn". Ra uses the word dimension both for density and for some other concepts such as "The window phenomenon is an other-self phenomenon from the Guardians. It operates from the dimensions beyond space/time in what you may call the area of intelligent energy.", "There is no doubling effect but a transformation across boundaries of dimension so that light which was working for those using it in space/time—time/space configuration...", "The middle of this plane is the appropriate place for the intersection of the energies streaming from the infinite dimensions and the mind/body/spirit complexes of various interwoven energy fields.", "However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions.". You can find more here . Therefore, since the word dimension is not used as substitute for density only, it can be misleading to use it in place of density. Although, we do not see any usage of the word band in place of density in any session, we still can use it in place of density by referring to its usage in "band of spectrum". I don't believe that David Wilcock can channel Ra. I don't have to believe his claims just for he refers to the law of one and Ra channeling work done by L/L Research a lot. I cited a lot from his book because there was only his book citing the law of one a lot. In wikipedia articles, you need to use secondary sources (like Wilcock's book) not primary sources (like the law of one books) while citing the content. If you carefully look at the beginning of this talk page you will see that majority of the contribution regarding the grammar and style had come from Davemon. You accuse me of having the intent to have my own interpretation, while you pretty much do the same. Logos5557 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Difference being I'm not interpreting anything, i'm just going for the most neutral view that has been reached by community consensus. Out of everyone I've ever read or talked to who knew about the LoO, density is best approximated by dimension, but ideally density is not approximated at all. If you randomly selected 10 other people who have read the LoO and asked them what word to use, 10/10 would say "dimension". Your band interpretation may make the most sense to you personally but you're just one guy. In my opinion band is even more confusing and requires more explanation than the word density or dimension. You don't elaborate on what it means at all, and so it's not clear that you mean "band of spectrum" and that isn't clear anyway. The only reason you can force your sole opinion on wikipedia is because no one has the patience to argue with you. Luckily, the Ra stuff is available free all over the internet and so wikipedia really isn't that important. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what's the problem then, if wikipedia isn't that important. Band is used as substitute for density only in the lead, just to save from the necessity to explain the density. First usage of band is given together with the term "level" which Ra uses as a substitute for density. Using only "level" in place of density was also an option, however, it just implies as if there is some kind of race or hierarchy. Therefore, it rings better to "enrich" the concept by adding "band" also. Regarding your hypothetical survey/poll, I would say Hitler was also a result of the votes of majority. I would also say, had majority of the world thought "right", as Ra mentioned somewhere, we would not have limitations which plague our societies. I think, a person who know about LoO or to whom LoO sounds right should not be taken as superior to the others in any sense. Logos5557 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who may "still have no idea what band means... like a rubber band? A musical band? A group?" can look at the use of "band" in Ra sessions here . Logos5557 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the answer to my e-mail about magnetic north vs. true north;
 * "Greetings, I ran this question by Carla. She said that your supposition is correct: it was magnetic north that Don aligned to. However, she is not sure precisely what instrumentation Don used. She suspects, and is probably right, a compass. Love and Light, Gary – Admin, L/L Research" Logos5557 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

purported and the like
Except the terms mentioned in an arbcom ruling (which was discussed here ), purported and similar terms should better be used to qualify/temper the other concepts in the article, such as the word "communication". "Purported communication" is different than "communication". The latter presents what happened as a fact, that is, it implies that the communication between contactees and Ra was really happened, which might not be the case. "Purported communication" on the other hand presents the case as fact by implying that the communication between contactees and Ra is a claimed one. Hope I could explain the need to use "purported and the like" as an adjective for such words like "communication". Logos5557 (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the Communication which happened from lady to the microphone was a real one. Yes she used English, it seems. So this was not a Purported communication, it was an actual thing, with vibrations of sound, stimulating microphone, which then was applied to tape.


 * In the previous paragraph it was said "purported to be instructed by Ra" that is by far enough to get your point across that "perhaps some people might not be interested in accepting this fact".


 * When things go on in your brain, and that stimulates your ability to express, and then the expression organ does what it needs to do (type or speak) this is communication. it actually happened so perhaps you would like to say something like "vocal communication from Reuckart purportedly channeling Ra" though it was mentioned in a previous statement that it was a "purported to be instructed by Ra" so really it's already been mentioned.


 * Yes, I love you to. Have a nice and wonderful day of ecstatic bliss. :-) L!-wgi (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the mechanism of communication. However, there is something missing in that expression. In the beginning of the lead, Elkins, Rueckert and McCarty are grouped together, that is they are introduced as a group having an aim in their mind to contact/communicate with some extraterrestrials. When these individuals are grouped together, then you can't isolate a particular member from the rest of the group and state that that particular member "communicates" with the rest of the group. The people reading the article, unconciously behind their mind, will understand Ra as the other party to be communicated by the group. That is, that sentence implies that "the group" "communicates" with Ra. Then you can base your statement on that implication without mentioning the parties openly/clearly: "The purported communications (between the group and the Ra) depict an infinite universe.." Therefore, since there is no need to repeat the parties of the communication again outwardly, you can drop the extra statements between parantheses. Logos5557 (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great Idea "The purported communications (between the group and the Ra)" as that was where my initial confusion was. From reading the wikipedia entry, I was left with the impression that the communications might not have happened, as in perhaps there was no book or anything of the like, or if there was it might have been lost, and in this realm of illusion and misunderstanding we only had the vaguest notion as to whether or not there was indeed any communication going on. Purportedly I am talking to a human right now, but it might be a robot. never know, not even if I see you, that's not scientific evidence until even after we cut you open and put you all over the interweb. that's okay though, you love everyone to right?


 * It's okay, I don't really care, you love Wikipedia and the text you wrote, I can understand that. I hope it serves you well. end of transmission. L!-wgi (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed :) What else can I say? Good luck with your robot hunt.. Logos5557 (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

edit by Adasta
Hello Adasta,

I do not know what level of interest & knowledge you have on "the law of one" series, but your edit in Ra (channeled entity) article is disruptive, to me. Removing majority of the explanatory sentences in the lead and inserting unrelated information about Don Elkins in history are not necessary. Not to mention original research (disembodied, etc.) and POV issues (macrocosmic, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no way to correct/save your contribution without reverting it back completely. If you had discussed the issues you would like to edit first here, in article's talk page, may be we could reach an understanding.

Logos5557 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit is not disruptive. Instead, I removed obscure information from the lead which does not fit the purpose of a Lead paragraph. This information should be in the body of the text. People reading about Ra for the first time do not need such dense and frankly confusing information. The Lead is the overview of the subject. Referencing is, of course, important; however, referencing does not necessitate relevance, and some of the referenced material is not relevant to the Lead.


 * Your claim that "macrocosmic" is OR is justified. However, I think it's quite clear that the material is speaking of things which fall into the realm of metaphysics. That's not an opinion: clicking the piped link will explain what metaphysics means, and the article should explain the Ra material's metaphysical nature.


 * Your request to use the talk page is fine. However, one should be bold. Nobody owns an article, and whether or not you or I know all there is to know about this subject is irrelevant; it is not expressed on this page and that is a problem. Frankly, this article is sloppy. It's long-winded, uninformative, has an obscene amount of notes and suffers from repetition of unhelpful, redundant phrases such as "According to the text" which are only awkward attempts to avoid POV. Articles are not guarded, and I do not need to petition anyone in order to edit it. I want to avoid an edit war, and I'm sure your revision was done in good faith, but you should know that you are not a guardian (forgive the pun) of this article. I can see that you've added a lot to this article. Well done. However, I can also see that you have been cautioned previously for your revisions on this page. Try to be open to new changes. --Adasta  10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your edit is disruptive. You miss some details while transferring information from the law of one, and as a result are giving miscomprehended and misinterpreted information, as if those are from the law of one. I need to be bold and guard this article against such approaches as well (other than apparent vandalisms), even if such approaches are "good faith". You will agree that, to such a dedicated "guardian", cautions or blocks do not mean much, when the prize of preserving the article in good shape (even it is sloppy) is considered.


 * According to the law of one, 7 densities resides within each octave, eighth being the first density of the next octave. Your edit assumes that, universe is sub-divided into octaves.. There is no such outcome/comment/result in any session. Instead, there is such a comment: "However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery." Whenever Ra speak about the beginning of the universe, they always reside in existing octave; what occurred in the beginning of the universe belongs to only one octave (that we are experiencing now).


 * "but suggests that all areas of the universe are one" is this statement any helpful to any level reader? What areas of the universe, what is area, what is one? It is very clear that you do not know enough about the law of one. However you feel yourself "complete" to engage in and edit the article according to your very own taste. Even if I were not a guardian, I could not permit such a "bold" & disruptive edit.


 * The information you inserted on Don Elkins is irrelevant to the article. While there is a separate article about Don Elkins, it is nonsense and a bit fallacious to include such biographic information. You can move that information to Don Elkins article.


 * I see that you replaced macrocosmic OR & POV pusher with metaphysical OR & POV pusher. It is still OR & POV and additionally not factually correct to write that the material was of a metaphyscial nature. There are lots of information in the law of one sessions which are not of a metaphysical nature. Additionally, no any wikipedia editor should frame such a sentence, if he/she studied the policies, guidelines, etc. well.


 * You see; you are not ready to edit this article, yet. Nevertheless, you are welcome to heal sloppy items and redundant phrases anyway. My native language is not english, and if there were no grammatical & style corrections by other users, the article would be still a mess. Which means I have no problem with such edits. I will have problem with disruptive edits though, such as yours.


 * There is no way to keep your contribution other than reverting back it completely. Logos5557 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck editing this on your own, Logos. It's quite ironic that someone who knows such much about the Law of One can't see the damage he's doing.-- Adasta   [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind wishes.. Thanks to wikipedia as well; we're pretty much familiar with such "I leave you with your article alone" & "damage being done to the law of one" dramas. Logos5557 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
It seems that this article would be better merged with Don Elkins than as a stand-alone article. I am uncertain the book meets the notabitility criteria on its own.Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Check first the references; you will see that notability criteria is well satisfied.Logos5557 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability & merger
I see that some users, without checking previous discussions on merger & notability, bring the same issues again. Without bringing any solid and valuable discussion to notability & merger, leaving some tags on the article has not any meaning, is not helpful and subject to removal. Users first need to check the references given are actually reliable secondary sources (i.e. are reliable third party publications), before tagging the article. While all the secondary sources are given with searchable books.google and amazon links, and while it is definitely possible to search & find the information presented in the article through those links, how come one can claim that the material is not from secondary sources?

Note that, "reliable" means any publication that were passed through editor check. All the references given satisfy reliability criteria. If someone thinks otherwise, he/she first has to prove it before tagging the article.

Finally, I will repeat once again: first check the previous discussions in archive. Since there are no bases for the tags, I am just removing those. Logos5557 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point out which are third party WP:RS? Verbal chat  06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I tried to restore the tags, Verbal had already done it. In its present state the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia. I could find no evidence that this book or its content is discussed in any reliable sources other than (1) Strange Weather, a book that tries to give a complete overview of New Age related beliefs. It merely gives a short summary. (2) An article entitled A short history of bad acoustics (not verified). (3) Books by believers, published by fringe publishers. Hans Adler 06:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had already pointed out in previous discussions. Why don't you first check those discussions and prove otherwise? All the references supplied in the article are reliable. Check the definition of reliability in related wikipedia policy and/or rule. This is not a discussion, just attacking without any base. I will not waste my time with these, instead it is better to request arbitration. Logos5557 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise how recently I added the tags, so sorry about that. Could you please point out which are third party WP:RS that demonstrate this article meets one of our notability criteria? Verbal chat  09:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember these discussions very well because I spent hours looking for reliable sources. In vain. I would love to have an article that puts the topic into its proper context. But not an article full of badly written pseudoscience as in a very cheap science fiction novel. This article exhibits no intellectual distance from its topic whatsoever, and it can't be fixed without reliable sources or original research. This problem is normal for articles on non-notable subjects, which is the single most important reason for our notability guideline. Hans Adler 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the article as it presently stands, including the referenced sources, I can not see how anybody could consider this to be notable.Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

this is simply an article about a less than notable book series. If kept separate, it belongs at The Law of One. If it is considered as failing WP:BK (as is rather likely), it belongs merged into Don Elkins. If the books are considered notable based on third party reviews, of course the article may base itself on the books in detailing their contents, just as long as in universe tangents are avoided. Note that the don Elkins article also needs to be reviewed for notability (WP:BIO). I fail to see any indication of the books' notability. If they have been mentioned in passing in works on "channeling", Wikipedia can also mention them in passing in appropriate contexts. This isn't sufficient by far for a standalone article on the book series and a standalone article on their main author. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

=Archive of Talk:The Law of One (The Ra Material)=

Great job!
Glad this has finally gotten a Wikipedia entry, and one that's well written. Let's keep on top of it so it doesn't get deleted! Thank you for the effort in putting this together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphman (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization questions
What are wikipedia guidelines on capitalization? Should we write "The Creator" or "the Creator" or "the creator"? Should we attempt to use the capitalization of the books, or is there some wikipedia convention for capitalization of concepts defined in philosophical books? --Yossarianpedia (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My advice would be; "don't bother whether there is any guideline for that or not", as there are more important guidelines such as notability and references. Nevertheless, congratulations to you for this nice work. I had tried hard in the past to defend "Ra (channeled entity)" article (http://www.lawofone.info/pdfs/ra-channeled-entity.pdf) against "skeptic" attacks, but couldn't succeeded. Your's is leaner and to the point, however it again should satisfy most basic wikipedia guidelines and rules without any doubt. Otherwise, any user/administrator can claim otherwise and can lead a deletion rally. Logos5557 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Detail
At the time of channeling, Earth was in 4D (it was causing a difficult harvest); this aspect needs more detail.204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

HI!
I am fairly new editor. I edited here about 8 years ago or so, and many things have changed, so please pardon me newness. I would like help in understanding how you have established any notability for this article because the new article that references this article has notices on it for that reason. Please see article The One Peoples Public Trust and leave notes on the talk page to help me figure it out. Thank you! ImthatIm (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability, etc.
There are no references in the article to say how these monographs are notable per WP:GNG. At the moment the article only says that they exist, with detail of their contents, referenced only by the monographs themselves, plus links to two study groups about them. The article needs WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources to show why the monographs are notable enough for an article here. Altered Walter (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The four "Law of One" books are referenced by many secondary sources. One popular example is The Source Field Investigations, a New York Times Bestseller. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many secondary sources for this highly referenced material. I'm not an expert on this material but I'm familiar with its notability to some extent. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondary issue has been resolved
A large number of secondary sources, including a New York Times Bestseller have been cited that support the basic facts of the existence and circumstance of the publishing of this series of books. The basic content of the books has been widely discussed in secondary literature and the article reflects the consensus view of that community of authors.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability issue has been resolved
The Law of One series of books has received significant coverage by secondary literature satisfying the WP:N requirement. A significant number of secondary sources have been cited by The Law of One article, demonstrating the notability of this book series for this community. WP:N holds that "availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." This requirement has been amply met, especially considering the short length of The Law of One article. The Law of One article is also cited by more than a few other articles on Wikipedia, which helps to establish the utility of this article's existence on Wikipedia. The existence of The Law of One article is helpful for the sake of the many Wikipedia articles that cite The Law of One. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-publishers issue has been resolved
There is no issue with self-publishing because none of the five books in this series were self-published. They were all published by Schiffer Publishing which is not owned or operated in any way by any of the authors of the books and is not a self-publishing platform. I have therefore closed the self-publishing issue tag. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, what are you trying to do here? What's with the WP:BOMBARD? Is this supposed to be a parody of bad editing on Wikipedia? I do not assume that you are suggesting this content for inclusion with a straight face. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to improve the article. My apologies if I'm not a professional writer up to your standards. I thought this website is edited by anonymous amateurs and that newbies were welcome. Why are you insulting me? You are not exempt from the WP:DONTBITE rule and are also not exempt from the WP:FAITH rule. Seriously, if your behaviour is not considered offensive and completely inappropriate on wikipedia then I don't know what is. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes by Dbachmann

 * User:Dbachmann made some controversial changes. I can see where you are going with these changes and I like them. The original article had way too many headings and not enough narrative. The only thing I didn't like was your unnecessary use of "quotations" to cast doubt on the legitimacy of things like "mediumship" and "channeling". The pages that discuss these issues make it clear that they are NOT scientifically respectable, and the literalized description of the chaneling process in this article is factual and fair, because it described clearly how the authors behaved and how they claimed that this behavior constitutes communication with an E.T. But anyway if the article is not deleted I think improvements along your lines will be very worthwhile, although in your hasty improvement you probably made it look temporarily worse due to punctuation, grammar, and references being shifted around into the wrong places. If the article is not deleted I will make improvements along your lines, that is, if you don't first. (I would do it now but I've already spent half the week editing wikipedia and have some non-volunteer work to do. If the page gets deleted I can't be held responsible becaue I just started editing on january 19th and I can't be expected to work non-stop under a deletion banner.) Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Following up, the controversy about mediumship and channeling is not whether they exist, but whether or not they are supernatural. They do exist in that people engage in these behaviours. They aren't real in that there is no supernatural activity going on according to scientific consensus. But just because psychics aren't real doesn't mean that we should stop calling them psychics, since, socially, they are considered psychics. This is why I believe medium and channel should be used without quotations marks, but ALSO without an implication that these things are real. I believe the article already made it clear that the mediums words were "taken" to be communications from aliens, NOT that they WERE factually communications from aliens. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies.
Please, if it's in your will, excuse my disruption of this article. I will investigate these types of edits more deeply in the future. --Neoconfederate (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging Don Elkins, Carla L. Rueckert, Jim McCarty
After reading over WP:BIO I agree that merging those authors into this article makes sense. They are mostly, though not exclusively, notable for creating The Law of One series of books and therefore any information about them should go here according to the WP:BIO guidelines. I created those pages, so I think my agreement should end the discussion and constitute consensus. I don't know how to merge articles yet but I'll look into it. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See here. It's mostly a matter of figuring out what content from the old page belongs on the new page, and then creating a redirect and some procedural tidying up. InShaneee (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Energy centers
As far as I remember, in law of one series there was no reference to hindu chakras. The corresponding hindu chakra names were not mentioned, either. Even if the reference (Bishop, Kitty. The Tao of Mermaids: Unlocking the Universal Code With the Angels and Mermaids. ISBN 978-1452500645), discusses related sections of Law of One series by including correspondences to hindu chakras, I am not sure whether this kind of referencing is not OR (original researsh) and is allowed in wikipedia. Logos5557 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll need to actually read the secondary sources to see how these comments are based on secondary sources. If the content comes from a secondary source, it is not WP:OR by definition. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2012
Another possible OR is 2012 section and other references to the year 2012 in the article. Again, there is no any single mention of 2012 in law of one series. I guess 2012 is the conclusion or "OR", which David Wilcock reached by himself.

Therefore below fragments in the article are both OR and is not true:

"This involves a "quantum leap" within our physical reality, said to occur approximately 30 years from the time of the 1981 Ra dialogues." (there is no definite/clear statement in law of one series that the "quantum leap" will occur around 2012 )

"The entire book series centers around the harvest, which is described as a major spiritual and physical change that will occur around the year 2012." (the only dialogue which might imply 2012 in a very subtle way is, and it does not mean what the above sentence in the article is determined to infer)

"The series predicts that 2012 will bring cataclysms, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, that cause the death of a large number of humans." (not only the year 2012)

"Instead, the 2012 phenomenon has roots primarily in New Age spirituality, including The Law of One book series." (we can't call harvest phenomenon mentioned law of one series as 2012 phenomenon)

Logos5557 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not based on the contents of the books. It is based on the contents of the secondary sources that comment on the books. If you keep pushing your primary source fundamentalism this article will be deleted, just like your previous attempts to write this article were deleted. If you want to edit this article you need to base all comments on secondary sources (there are more than 17 of them) rather than on your interpretation of the primary source. Your emphasis on the primary source is, by wikipedia's definition, original research. Most secondary sources link this series to 2012. That's all that matters as far as wikipedia rules are concerned. Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, an article about a book should be based on the contents of the book, not on the misinterpretations of secondary sources. If a secondary source has some misinterpretations or OR, than it means that it is not a reliable source. If there is no reliable secondary source discussing a specific fragment in the article, than that specific fragment can be excluded safely. I do not have a primary source fundamentalism as you imagined; instead, I am bringing these matters into the attention of the ones who might have the motivation to edit the article. My points are not interpretations of the primary source. On the contrary, the stuff about 2012, push the limits of interpreting. Regarding the deletion; I honestly do not mind an article's deletion if it is trying to push/advocate some other individuals (like David Wilcock) "secretly". David Wilcock is a kind of person who claims of being little bit of everything; reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, second medium of Ra, etc. An article in wikipedia should not advertise some other individual or his agenda. Especially the law of one article should not be an advocate of some "new age guru"s; as being a law of one fundamentalist, this would hurt my feelings. Logos5557 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't writing what the book says original research? My understanding of wikipedia rules is that you have to write what the secondary sources say about the book, not what the book itself says, because writing down what the book says would be original research. Original research, according to Wikipedia, is when you or I read a book and then write down what we think about it. Instead, Wikipedia wants us to find secondary sources and then paraphrase what those sources say. Bilbo Baggins Precious  (  §'  ) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Writing/quoting what the book says is not original research, it is something else depending on the specific case. Especially when the topic of the article is about the content of a book or about the book itself, different practices apply. WP:SYNTH is the specific sub-heading of WP:OR, which seems to me as the problem of some fragments of the article. Rewording like "Although the book series do not address 2012 phenomenon directly and mention the year 2012 specifically, some sources interpret the harvest phenomenon of the book series as being 2012 phenomenon" can also help. Logos5557 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The series predicts that 2012 will bring cataclysms, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, that cause the death of a large number of humans." (not only the year 2012, the period includes before & after).
 * In addition to my comment in parenthesis, I think one can easily see the problematic wording if he/she looks at the related content in the primary source. Here are the links to the "harvest phenomenon" and accompanying "earth changes phenomenon" (catastrophic events) in law of one series: Dialogues grouped into "harvest category",, , , , , . Logos5557 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Massive vandalization and insertion of POV material
I am the major author of this article. I wrote it over a year ago. Since that time it has undergone massive vandalization--death by 1000 cuts. Small edits here and there by heavily biased parties who wish to make the content in line with their particular religious beliefs have made this article incoherent and unreadable. For instance, in the lead, someone changed a key sentence from this:

"Her answers were taken to be direct communications from Ra, which is in line with standard views on channeling."

into this:

"Her answers are a direct communications from Ra, which is in line with standard views on channeling."

The vandal who made this change didn't even fix the incorrect grammar he introduced. Shame!

The vandal was attempting to remove the objective language of the original article and present The Law of One paranormal claims as factual. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy that is careful not to present non-scientific assertions as if they are true.

The article has received hundreds of edits like this from dozens of people. It is now all but unreadable. My suggestion would be to (a) just delete the article or (b) revert it to a non-vandalized state (circa January 30th, 2013) and then protect the page to prevent random IPs from making these vandalization. This would not stop all vandalizations, however, as some of the vandals do have logged in accounts. For instance, this page was renamed by User:KyleLandas to include "(Ra material)" in brackets. His stated justification was that "The esoteric concept of "The Law of One" is not exclusive to this book and should be disambiguated." but this argument completely fails because the esoteric concept of The Law of One is not notable, and the article is titled "The Law of One" because the article is about a series of books--not because it is about some esoteric concept.

The article is about a series of books called "The Law of One." The "esoteric concept" of The Law of One, on the other hand, is not notable as has been previously established by consensus, but the book series called "The Law of One" is notable, as has been previously established by consensus. Therefore, the book series deserves a page, but the "esoteric concept" does not. User:KyleLandas has also not provided any evidence what so ever that this "concept" is independent of the book series, and as a scholar in this subject matter I know for a fact that it isn't. The only published book that covers this concept originally is this series of books, and the other uses of this concept in other literature were derived from this series of books.

In light of these facts I will revert some of those destructive changes. But if the low quality edits continue in this way I recommend the page be deleted. As the primary author of the page, and as the sole individual responsible for demonstrating notability of the series of books and the sole person responsible for preventing the deletion of this page 1 year ago, my vote is more important than anyone else then or now. Yossarianpedia (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have deleted numerous paragraphs added by a single author. They were unsourced and POV. 94.5.181.52 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I have flagged this article because it fails to be adequately neutral in its claims. As has been explained by the original author of this article on this talk page, the opinions and beliefs of the editors and perhaps of the authors of The Law of One are presented as facts. Moreover, there are, in my opinion, some highly dubious claims without proper referencing and the language used is inappropriate. For example:

"Dr. Elkins would ask them the most difficult, challenging questions coming from the forefront of his research into advanced physics, and he would get the answers."

It is not clear what such questions are, how these are asked and how these are answered. To write objectively, one does not want to build suspension and let the reader 'fill in the obvious', in this case probably something in the lines of the idea that such answers have somehow been transmitted by higher beings. It should not be the goal to persuade the reader into the truth of the ideas in the books The Law of One, but rather to only inform about these ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.206.14 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: someone has removed my flag and reverted the little changes that I have made in order to make this article more neutral. I will again flag this article, but refrain from changes, because I do not want to play a back-and-forth game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.206.14 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

G4 Speedy Deletion
See: Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_%282nd_nomination%29 --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CSD G4 applies when the article was recreated with content substantially similar to the deleted article. This article has some significant edit history to it and predates the other article by some time.   Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  04:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One vs The Law of One (Ra Material)
The page called The Law of One was deleted, but this page (The Law of One (Ra Material)) was kept. Should a redirect be added from the deleted page to this one, or should this page be moved to The Law of One?

The first book was originally published as The Ra Material; subsequent books were called The Law of One (Book X), so in my opinion it makes some sense for the page to be called, as it is now, The Law of One (Ra Material). However, there was some edit history at The Law of One that was lost in the deletion. Is there a way to restore that? What's the best way to proceed here? Bathmiaios (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since did the delete, I would defer to him, but you could maybe ask him for it to be userfied for a week or two.  Attribution (copyright) is a problem, however, and you can't just copy and paste sections over.  You would have to completely rewrite anything over from it.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh good, I hadn't realized the AfD had been closed. The other article was a fork of this one. I believe the best thing to do is to move this one to that title (which was its original title), leaving this title as a redirect, and stick a big permanent notice at the top of this talk page saying that that was what was done. I will look at the deleted article to see whether it has anything worth salvaging with attribution, but they strongly resembled each other. Now watchlisting this, however, I'm actually late for bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What I would recommend is the reverse of what Yngvadottir proposed; that is, putting a redirect link in "the law of one". Leaving "the law of one" empty, may result in the creation of another copy in future. Logos5557 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the books were actually published as The Law of One, I don't see the advantage of a disambiguated title; and this title would become a redirect. Beyond that, I don't think I understand what you're saying - The Law of One would become the title of this article (again) and this title would become a redirect, so neither would be empty - and in any case forks can be dealt with if they arise (and watched for via watchlisting). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Could we please use this talk page more, and revert each other less? The amount of interest in the article is a bit more than I expected, and honestly, I don't question the faith of anyone in trying to get it to a proper state, but this back and forth reverting is going to end up with someone getting blocked or the article getting full protection. For at least now, it isn't going anywhere and there isn't a rush to change it. It can wait a few days. Perhaps everyone needs to bring their comments here on the talk page instead of in their edit summaries. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Large cuts to article
has cut large amounts from the article claiming original research and unreliable sources. It's possible the editor is unaware of the Arbcom decision referenced at the recently closed AfD, which clarifies that it is not forbidden and not inappropriate to use sources from the philosophical tradition to which a work belongs, so long as it is not claimed in Wikipedia's voice that any such philosophical positions are Truth. A link can be found in the AfD. I'd also like the editor to clarify what is regarded as OR. , please explain why these specific heavy cuts need to be made, before continuing to edit war. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I favour deleting this article, as per my comments at DRV. However if it is to be kept, these heavy cuts are a reasonable attempt at removing the parts of the article that rely on its "esoteric" nature and in this case, as is causing so much comment at DRV, that they're unsupportable by RS sources (even within your comments aboout sources from "the same philosophical tradition").
 * I share you concern that massive removals from any article when under discussion make it too much of a moving target to permit a sensible discussion of it. However I'd also have to recognise their virtues here and the serious problems of "woo-woo bilge" that it had otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not add the rewriting of this article to my huge to-do pile. For one thing, this is pretty far from my core interests and I know I don't know as much about it as several other editors. But at the AfD, sources were identified that can be used in such a rewrite - including more detailed use of at least one source already cited in the article. I would be grimly pencilling in that task in my schedule, since it looks unlikely anyone else is going to step up and do it. But I feel I should wait till the deletion review has run its course; after all, it might get deleted after all; also, as you say, it seems best to let the deletion review focus on more or less the same article as the AfD. (Especially since this article already has a tortuous history, including the creation of a recently deleted fork at its original title). However meanwhile swathes of it are getting carved out with substantially the same argument that's being presented for its deletion. At a minimum I believe this needs to be discussed, since notability is a different thing from the quality of the existing article. And the cutting is pre-empting the strengthening of the referencing that I would wish to do. So there's how I see it, pending a response from the editor who is applying his own definitions of OR and unreliable sourcing here. Still hoping to get him to talk specifics. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pragmatically, I would suggest that you add a comment at the DRV, with links to relevant versions, so that those commenting there are at least aware of the "two versions" that exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:FRIND are fairly clear about what is and is not a usable source for claims in the article like this. There's not much to discuss here. Reverting without actually reading the text that was removed or, worse, claiming that this article's previous text somehow represents a "philosophical tradition" (when there are precisely zero sources which identify it as such) is unbecoming of a competent Wikipedian. jps (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So your defence of edit warring is that your view of RS (and presumably OR) is correct and therefore I must be incompetent to edit Wikipedia? Interesting collaborative attitude. Call it what you will, New Age, proto-New Age, belief system that accepts channeling as a viable source of information about the universe and morality - the argument for condemning the sources as unreliable is based on the view that they share that belief system/viewpoint with The Law of One; it is therefore circular reasoning to state that there is no philosophical tradition involved. It is permissible to cite sources from the same tradition to support information about the text. This is a different issue from notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A source that accepts channeling as a viable research method is not reliable for describing the implications of a separate work (like prayer or making things up in school one day, channeling is not a form of research that is accepted by any Wikipedia policy). It is only a viable source for describing what that particular author believes, and that is not relevant to this article. It cannot be used to source objective claims about content or the beliefs of the authors which is what was being done. jps (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just not so. For explication of the content and its influence on other believers, it is entirely appropriate to use sources that share the belief system. What it is not appropriate to do is to rely entirely on such sources to document notability. Complete objectivity, i.e., not sharing any part of the belief system, is not required for content analysis or statements about influence within that tradition. This is not a WP:MEDRS situation. See sections 9.1 and 11 of the Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience, and note that the subject of this article is a series of books, not channeling or Ra per se, so we are not in any danger of misleading the reader that channeling is real or that Ra exists. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no way to identify that the sources share the belief of the channelers in a way which would position them as primary sources. We're not talking about Catholic theology or Marxist politics or anything that has been verified to have a coherent and consistent group identity. The inability to identify the sources I removed as primary sources about The Law of One is in stark contrast to The Law of One books themselves which can obviously be used as sources for what they say at least -- and those are still in the article. If Gene Ray writes about this book on his webpage (indeed, the claim that these sources are somehow legitimately published is not backed up by even a cursory examination of the vanity publishing outfits from which they originate), does that mean it's a reliable source about this book? See the issue? Just because a subject is mentioned in a source doesn't make the source reliable about the subject. You have to evaluate the sources themselves and, in these cases, these sources are just plain unreliable. jps (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with jps that an objective article about a somewhat obscure mystical teaching can't be written from sources that themselves are trying to justify belief in that mystical teaching. And our wikipedia policies, particularly WP:FRIND, are extremely clear about sourcing articles for fringe subjects. I am sorry that some feel the article is "gutted" by the removal of large swaths of esoteric detail cited to sympathetic sources, but now that the article has gotten more eyes on it, WP:DONTCHANGEANYTHING isn't a viable option. How about helping us find more objective sources (like Andrew Ross) to improve it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to Immanuel
, you have started three processes to get this article deleted, yet you have moved this article, then listed yourself above as an expert on the material, and have been extensively involved with editing and using the talk page. Personally, I know nothing of the topic and have only acted here in an administrative fashion, but it seems duplicitous for you to spend so much energy to delete this article, then act in a rather dominating fashion in shaping it. I'm sure that much of what you have to say is likely accurate, but moves without consensus and taking such a dominating position is likely not in the best interest of Wikipedia considering your clearly stated objective of deleting this article. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your thoughts. I cannot say I agree with your claims. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, it would be logical to investigate whether there is a case of sockpuppetry or not: WP:HSOCK. Logos5557 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a bit of an attack based on personal differences. By all means feel free to make that claim and act on it but it seems to have little backing. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Policy based arguments can not be an attack. There's been no judgement yet, just the mention of legitimacy of an investigation. Logos5557 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a case of sockpuppetry but it does seem like there may be some ownership issues. Bathmiaios (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct, and when someone spends a great deal of time trying to get an article deleted, they shouldn't try to own it. Act as a watchdog of sorts?  I can understand that, to make sure it doesn't drift back into WP:OR, but it isn't wise for them to try to take the lead on development since they've shown their primary goal is its disassembly.  As for sockpuppetry, either file at WP:SPI or drop the issue as it is technically against WP:CIVIL to make unsubstantiated claims.  True or not, it just looks like mud slinging if you aren't filing a report.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over The Law of One external links section
Policy states that the links should be the most accessible. Currently these are not the most accessible links to the The Law of One books due to a desire to have the main website advertised by one IP user who claims the company's interests are more important than Wikipedia's. I suggest this user reach a consensus here rather than continuing edit warring and consult policy. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No immanuel, you're wrong again, as always. It is not a policy, that you & I have been referring to, it is a content guideline, which means it is not a strict policy. "Immediate benefit" is a quite vague definition or term. What if that "immediate benefit of wikipedia users" contflicts with llresearch's benefits? llresearch has a right to demand the "precursor" page to be linked in wikipedia article, instead of individual direct links to pdf copies. Because, some visitors' benefit might be in donating to llresearch (they might feel happy by donating, while downloading pdf copies freely), we can not remove or prevent that possibility on our own by our "linking preferences". 88.233.224.192 (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * L/L Research has made no such demand. If you are associated with this company, I suggest you disclose a conflict of interest.--Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Until a written copyright notice by L/L Research shows that such hotlinking is an infringement, this is acceptable. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate to link to the page with links for the books rather than to the books themselves. Bathmiaios (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not outside of the universe; it is subject to all universal standards and rights that were accepted by many nations or countries. In fact; laws, rules and declarations (such as copyright laws and Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are superior to wikipedia policies and guidelines if there is a conflict. A person or an organisation has a right to freely choose (and expect others to respect their choices) how they would present their "property". By linking to the pdf books directly, you are infringing on their rights, choices and free will. There is no need for llresearch to present their "demand" here, because it is already a "right". I'm not associated with llresearch, but as all the other wikipedia users should, I am obliged to observe universal rights, laws etc., and should try to prevent infringement on outsiders rights here in wikipedia. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting and novel interpretation, but not one that is accepted. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)