User talk:Logos/park/lo1/archive2

Do we need extensive material from primary sources?
Here we go again; extensive material from primary sources, not backed by secondary or tertiary sources are being pushed into the article, without asking other contributors' opinion here in the talk page in advance. I'm not sure whether byblicalmyst is aware of wikipedia policies. These "uneducated" edits may again end in the deletion of the article. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The user categorized core parts of the material through the main three branches of philosophy and reported from them line-by-line (apparently from a thesis in the summary?), exactly according to source. I hope that one day secondary material can structure this a little better into the future as I don't think this is a long-term solution but currently it's accurate. Into the future... let's hope it doesn't turn it to rainbows and crystals like how the article was before. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, lol, the physics are laughable. Let's just ensure Larson isn't cited as mainstream scientific fact. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hesitant keep It's also the only portion of the article that mentions unity and the actual, literal Law of One the book is centered on (how ironic) that is cited in any respectable capacity. I hesistantly say it passes. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping it. It's appropriate to summarize the main points of the primary source.  I also agree that it will be important to remain vigilant so that the material derived from the primary source does not overwhelm the rest of the article.  Bathmiaios (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The overview was okay. But the rest of it was impenetrable nonsense. jps (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not use the books themselves as a primary source for a detailed analysis of its cosmology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If policy permits inclusion of brief quotations or sections from primary sources, the subject of the material to be added into the article should be decided here by discussion. People have different interests; some people are into UFOs, some are into physics, philosophy etc. Different users may come up with different preferences. As the dialogues in law of one books are on many different subjects, the most appropriate and/or common subject (which would resonate with the purpose of the book) should be selected for inclusion, in my opinion. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to find secondary sources. jps (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And given that there's an internecine squabble among Law of One enthusiasts and self proclaimed experts who have differing personal interpretations of the material (and who are also editing this article), it's best we use secondary sources for any analysis or detailed description of the material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that, the life in wikipedia for immanuel will be much more easy from now on, for his undercover identity was exposed. 88.233.246.5 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, after approving this over too much wine, I see that this was very poorly written. Also, rie, take a chill pill. ;) --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gnosis Reference
It's a very opinionated article with various slants, some I can't really render. I encourage being very skeptical of this work and any material written from it, even my own work. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You already inserted a very critical portion -which, personally I do not have any problem with- from that reference, and you still question the reliability (or anything else)? Gnosis, as a reference, falls under criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK, as stated above. Logos5557 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read that argument many times. What needs to be discerned here is the quality of the reference and its opinion; No policy can discern that, users do. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have an ambition to read the very same arguments many more times, until your weak/twisted arguments fade away. You do not have the sufficient/unbiased expertise to discern the quality of the reference. Gnosis article is quite an appropriate source. Logos5557 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Immanuel Thoughtmaker, you have already admitted that you find the source confusing; maybe you're not the best person to evaluate its quality. Bathmiaios (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I encourage both of you to stand by your judgements. I will continue to disagree as I remain unconvinced. I am quite confused by this author's slant, value judgements and ability to interpret these series of books. I question how well he has read the material. I have interpreted this source very neutrally and proficiently enough to make the article as it stands at this moment. I have the expertise to discern as I've dealt in other spiritual subject matter but not many editorial sources such as this one. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's fairly apparent that the author of that work is a New Age believer, but the way that the source is currently being used is to attribute it to his opinion. It's a critical review. It's not exactly an independent review for the WP:FRIND consideration, but the argument could be made that readers deserve to know what other New Agers think of this work who are not part of the study group, for example. On the other hand, the larger question then is what is the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. This is hard for me to determine. It depends somewhat on how famous and important the author is to the general community. I note we have a Wikipedia article on him... so that's a start I guess. jps (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article by Jay Kinney seems a bit tertiary source, as he stated in "footnote 3", he had benefited from Michael Topper's books while composing the article. Kinney has an interesting style, even a little confusing or complicated in some paragraphs. For example, he both misinterprets "Ra's schema" and then falsifies that misinterpretation with footnote (4). Given that there is an article about him on wikipedia and due to the reputation of gnosis magazine, I think his article can be regarded as reliable. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to the "question & answer" style/nature of the "ra material", most attempts to describe, analyze or summarize the concepts and philosophy will probably fail and will be incomplete/imperfect. That's, I guess, why some parts of Kinney's analysis were not perfect or are confusing. Take "polarization" thing, for example; according to my understanding of the law of one books, polarization covers whole life (every moment, and effects of those moments on the self and other people) -both thought and behaviour- of an individual. Even by choosing to think "this way" or "that way", or just by valuing some principles (without any action), one polarizes to either side inevitably.
 * Dialogues on historical figures serve better to understand the polarization issue, such as the one about Patton. Logos5557 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability & the reliable independent sources being deleted repeatedly
Some users have been trying to push the guideline WP:FRINGE over WP:NBOOK. As I stated in my talk page here, in reply to the notice left by jps (also known as QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, and ScienceApologist previously), policies has more power than guidelines and essays, and WP:FRINGE has not much power in this article's context, while it meets WP:VERIFY and WP:NBOOK. The article is already about the law of one books, not a fragment in an article about a fringe physics theory. I can recommend another guideline WP:BIASED to those who are insistent on WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND "mistakenly". Here are the lists of policies and guidelines. In the end, policies are superior to guidelines, and neither guidelines nor interpretations -or misrepresentations- of guidelines can ever contradict other guidelines & policies.

Notability criteria for this article is defined by WP:NBOOK not by WP:FRINGE, because the article is about the law of one books. The notability criteria 1 stated in WP:NBOOK reads as follows:


 * 1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. 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. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

We have been observing repetitive cases of misinterpretations of "reliable source" and "independent source" concepts as regards to their definition in wikipedia. In fact, these concepts are clearly defined in above criteria 1 (of WP:NBOOK), both in body and notes. Users can get help from the guideline WP:RS, and essays WP:RSE, WP:IS, WP:PUS etc. to extend their grasp, but WP:NBOOK is the boss.

Some past arbitration rulings below, support above arguments:


 * Paranormal:Cultural Artifacts
 * Paranormal:Popular Culture
 * Paranormal:Flat Statements of facts
 * Paranormal:3 layer cake
 * Pseudoscience
 * Obvious Pseudoscience
 * Appropriate_Sources
 * Experts

In the light of all of the above, below sources are independent reliable secondary sources for this article.

I will add these sources into the article. Attempting to remove these without presenting "valid" arguments, will be the violation of Wikipedia policies, and will be taken as "disruptive editing". Logos5557 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - the standard being applied is inappropriate - and welcome your expertise. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Logos5557, you've given a handful of sources but haven't specified how you propose to use them and what proposed text they might be applied to. And thank you for the links to proposed findings of fact from past arbitrations, such as this one about the use of the word "psychic", but can you explain how they "support above arguments"? Also regarding your warning that only "valid" arguments will not be considered disruptive, who decides if an argument is valid or if it isn't? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will add these as additional sources to the current text, in order to expose/debunk the claim that there are no additional (or any) reliable sources. Each one contains necessary plots (for appropriate portions of the article) to be referenced as secondary sources. Policy, arbcom rulings and consensus decide whether an argument is valid or not. The conflicts arose up until now, indicates invalid arguments clearly. While arbcom rulings are quite obvious, you're asking me to interpret them. Logos5557 (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a question about how to proceed. WP:NBOOK mentions allowing "the article to grow past a simple plot summary."  Does that mean it's appropriate to include a summary of the books?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathmiaios (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In accordance to secondary sources, yes; Not original research by users reading the work. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's completely accurate. Analysis must come from secondary sources, but according to WP:OR it's fine to quote modestly from the primary sources (the Law of One books) themselves: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Bathmiaios (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly within copyright restrictions is fine; It's when people are directly interpreting from the material is when it gets scary, which this warns against. This material is so large and dense, somebody can easily quote certain portions of the material and leave the rest in a very directive manner. There's a box full of issues if individuals start writing from the books themselves.--Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, a discussion was posted on reliable sources noticeboard for Hastings' book. Anyone can join. Logos5557 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC}

Harvest
What exactly is "a hyper-dimensional inversion of our physical reality"? It's not language Ra used.

Might be useful as references
Couldn't figure out the origin of these entries which I happen to come across in google. Yet, they look authentic, not some old texts/articles slipped through from wikipedia or similar. Logos5557 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kinney's criticism
I guess there is nobody having a problem in understanding from below quote that, Kinney criticized the material for its potential effects on "psychologically unstable people" or on people who have ethicist tendencies. Kinney equated the former to "vulnerability to paranoid abuse" and the latter to "vulnerability to moralistic abuse"; surely the abusing party was not the material itself but the specific audience whom Kinney labeled subtly as "vulnerable". In fact, both the material and the "specific audience" are vulnerable; the possibility of misinterpretation/misrepresentation is what the material's vulnerability, whereas "specific audience"s vulnerability is on their "ethicist distortions".

"The drawback of the Ra schema is that it is readymade for paranoid or moralistic abuse, inviting the too neat division of people into positive or negative categories, and projecting those polarized values in even starker fashion onto immaterial realms that are, for most of us, vague intuitions at best. For instance, consider the troubling scenario that Ra provides of the role that the 4th and 5th densities play in our 3rd density lives. While the positive beings in higher planes encourage the growth of 3rd density light and consciousness and are nourished by the psychic energy that this produces, their negative counterparts are busy fostering divisive thought-forms and slurping up the plentiful waves of fear, pain, and conflict that these stimulate. All of which is somewhat reminiscent of G. I. Gurdjieff's contention that most human lives are 'food for the moon.' Perhaps such things are so, but dwelling on them for longer than five minutes seems like a sure way to trigger anxiety attacks among the psychologically unstable."

The second meaning of ethicist here is equivalent to moralistic/moralist. So, I'm reverting to the below version, if anyone thinks that the english is poor, then they should propose a better english/grammar, not a completely different meaning.

"Kinney also criticized the material due to its possible implications on ethicist audience".

And, Kinney did not criticized the material's ethics; that would be pure OR/synth to frame the issue like that. Logos (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe "ethicist" is equivalent to "moralistic" in either of those senses: "moralistic" has connotations of "censorious towards others" whereas "ethicist" has to do with having/studying a system of ethics. The use of "ethicist" has as a result puzzled me. Also, the sentence we provide has to be grammatical! Implications are for someone/something, not on, and it's either an ethicist audience" or "ethicist audiences. Hence, I've tried again to summarise the point in good English. He's saying it's open to misuse by people inclined to oversimplify and hence to condemn whole classes of people / beings ... right? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary and wikipedia list "moralist" connotation of "ethicist" as well, apart from the primary meaning. "Moralist" is the kind of person Kinney describes, and "moralistic" is the behaviour what I tried to elaborate above. Dictionary entries confirm this interpretation also: oxford.moralist, oxford.moralistic, etc.
 * Remember that "implication" is somehow the synonyms of consequence/result and effect: oxford.implication, oxfordlearner.implication, merriam.implication. So, it is not totally incorrect grammatically, to use "on" with this meaning of implication.
 * Audience points a group of people, therefore there is no need to make it extra plural with "s".
 * "Kinney also criticized the material as open to ethical misuse": this version does not ring fully correct to me; especially the word "ethical" does not resonate exactly with what Kinney wrote/implied. Logos (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing at least part of my points. The word "implication" uses a different preposition from the words "consequence", "result", and "effect". And if you're going to use a singular, you need the article; if you don't have the article, you need a plural - one or the other. Also, your use of "ethicist" is simply unclear. Maybe someone else with more of a grounding in philosophy can weigh in here on what word to use, but the grammar has simply got to be correct. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What I claim is, the preposition "on" is not incorrect, whereas preposition "for" may look like the only option for the other meanings of implication. Instead of the "a" article, and to get rid of the need to make it plural in the absence of "a" article, you could just insert "the", and the suppositional weakness of grammar could be eliminated. The only problem left would be that whether "ethicist audience" qualifies as a Genitive construction or not. Rather than philosophers, copy editors can gauge these two different forms of expression. Logos (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)