Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. More heat than light here, including Yossarianpedia, who is bordering on WP:DE as they are stating they want the maximum number of articles at enwp deleted regardless, but I will leave that for another admin to determine. The other delete votes I think missed the mark and didn't overcome the rationales used to justify a keep here. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of a previously deleted article. See: Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(2nd_nomination) --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Should qualify for a speedy deleted by WP:G4; Contested by an admin for a reason that is likely erroneous. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cannot qualify for a speedy delete, admin Mikaey  is correct in his decision. It is nominator's responsibility to look for such bizarre copies before nominating one of the copies for deletion. Logos5557 (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Has the same unreliable sources with only Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits being the only independent, reliable and arguably significant (I disagree) source. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits is an independent and reliable source, why didn't you add it to the article as a reference then? Logos5557 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's reliable but it's not significant enough in coverage, in my discretion, to use as a source. I am not able to use it as a source nor write any material based on it. It is well-preserved in the article history. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "significant enough"?? This is quite relative.. When the theme of that source is considered, one can not expect the law of one books to be covered extensively in that source. The existing coverage is enough. Logos5557 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I declined to delete this under CSD G4 because this article was obviously not a recreation of The Law of One -- the current article has history that goes back to 2009, whereas The Law of One's history only went back to January of this year. It does appear, however, that they may substantially be the same article -- it appears that someone may have tried to perform a cut-and-paste move from this article to The Law of One, creating two forks of the article. Mikaey, Devil's advocate  11:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Would this be considered a reputable source? Introduction: Stairways to Heaven by Jay Kinney from Gnosis #36, Summer 1995  Discussion of the Law of One (Ra Material) begins about halfway through the article with "Be that as it may, one of the most intriguing systems for considering the inner planes to appear in recent times comes from a rather unexpected source: the Ra Material, a collected series of transcripts of 100 or so sessions channeled by Carla Rueckert in the early 1980s...." and continues for the rest of the article. Bathmiaios (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Under WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:Fringe, no. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bathmiaios, please be careful about whom you're asking. User Immanuel Thoughtmaker seems as a second account of another user or a beginner/novice user, who just started editing on 20th of may 2014. He/she thinks Introduction: Stairways to Heaven by Jay Kinney from Gnosis #36, Summer 1995 is a self published source. He/she does not have any miniscule experience/expertise to see that http://www.lumen.org/issue_contents/contents36.html is actually GNOSIS magazine, in which that article was published. And yes, it is a reliable source in its context/content, and can be added to the article as a reference. Do not expect these type of users to accept their mistakes; they will just dance around only. There is no "reputable source" defitinion in wikipedia; do not take those, who spill phrases like "neutral sources", as credible/reliable, because their grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines are weak and/or twisted. I recommend you to study wikipedia rules/policies and guidelines on your own and defend your point of view and position. If you think that the article is reliably sourced and do deserve a place in wikipedia, you can vote as "Keep". Logos5557 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't specifically asking Immanuel Thoughtmaker, but I do have a question for him: Why have you pruned the article to a stub after you were asked not to do so again in the previous deletion discussion? ("Thoughtmaker: this pruning operation of yours verged on disruption. Please don't do that again this drastically during an AfD discussion.") Bathmiaios (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC
 * I don't recall ever being specifically asked not to prune articles. I recall only being asked not to generatively claim in a revision that I was just removing unreliable sources when there was one reliable source. I failed to mention I removed one source because it did not have significant coverage. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You were asked not to prune drastically during an AFD discussion. I linked and quoted it for you above.  And yet, you have done it again -- you pruned the page that we're discussing to a stub, and did so after the discussion began.  Bathmiaios (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that Immanuel Thoughtmaker would not make the mistake twice, but obviously I was mistaken. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better not to discuss whether a source reliable or not; if the source is reliable according to your judgement, then it is reliable. There is another reliable source here, which discusses the law of one (ra material) extensively. It seems that the book was published many times, but googlebooks shows the 14th edition published in 2008. While the google copy discusses the law of one only in page 192/193, the pdf copy (that is the latest edition) has a separate section 193 through 197 Logos5557 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And just as equally, according to your relativistic logic, a source is unreliable if it is unreliable according to one's judgement. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Gnosis article qualifies as a reliable source. It is intelligent and sensible; not sensationalistic in the least.  It discusses the Law of One (Ra Material) in the context of Theosophy, Alice Bailey, the Golden Dawn, Gurdjieff, and W.E. Butler, and it explains how the Law of One material brings a new dimension to the our existing models of the inner planes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathmiaios (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some evangelical publishing houses have even had their own mini-boom in books proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits..." With statements like this, I cannot find myself being intellectually honest in saying this is an independent and reliable source. It would be a shame to see this article based on mystical, slanted statements like this and see Wikipedia becoming a new type of New Age Opinion-Editorial. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement. It's quite true that some evangelical Christians see New Age ideas as inspired by Lucifer. Bathmiaios (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "...Some evangelical publishing houses have even had their own mini-boom in books proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits.(2)"
 * "...proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits.(2)"
 * It's claiming that this work is actual, real, factual proof that this phenomena is luciferian. It presumes lucifer is real. It cites this work as proof that certain content is actually lucifer-inspired, not as a sidenote but as a factual source. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you could have misunderstood that statement any more thoroughly. It's saying that the evangelicals thought their books proved Luciferian influence, not that they actually did prove it. Bathmiaios (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really well read in western esoteric traditions. I'll admit I'm wrong here. However, the source confused me and its incorrect interpretation of The Law of One had me assume the worst. My apologies. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you just need to read this arbcom ruling on fringe/paranormal, several times if needed. It emphasizes, as related wikipedia policies & guidelines, one more time that, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is not truth or proofs, but verifiability and notability. You can't demand from the christianity article on wikipedia, to proove with reliable sources that jesus was the son of god. The other thing you do not understand is, since this article is about the books on a fringe subject, the reliable sources in this context will be fringe (or new age sources) as well. If, for example, all the content of this article were inserted in Ra article, then WP:Fringe would fully apply, because mainstream view about Ra is quite different than this article talks about. Then in that case, the content of this article would be fringe in the context of Ra article, and many users would object the inclusion of the content of this article in Ra article, because there are no mainstream reliable sources mentioning the claims of the law of one books about Ra. However, since this standalone article is about the law of one books, the criteria for evaluation are different. Logos5557 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * fix and Keep As per WP:N, WP:BK, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, WP:Fringe and this arbcom ruling on fringe/paranormal the law of one books are notable and do deserve an article in wikipedia accordingly. To me, reducing the article to a well sourced stub version would be most logical decision. In order to prevent unsourced,  WP:OR and  WP:SYN edits in future, an admin should be approached and asked for a protection, if possible. Logos5557 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are free to specifically cite how all of those policies support your claim. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete WP:FRINGE " fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. " I do not see that bar as having been met. While there are several books discussed in the previous AFD, they all appear to be books promoting this and other fringe ideas, and therefore do not pass the independent test. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about the law of one books, not about a standalone fringe theory or aspect of a fringe theory. Nevertheless, there are many reliable sources referencing the law of one books, as stated in previous deletion discussions many times over. Nearly all of these sources were published many years after the first publication of the law of one books, therefore, the aim/function of these sources were not promulgating and/or popularizing. When you look at the seth material, which was well before the law of one books, you will see that nearly all of the sources are fringy or new age. Logos5557 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Law of One (Ra Material) is similar to Edgar Cayce, the Seth Material, and A Course in Miracles in terms of the respect with which it is viewed and in its influence on New Age thought. In addition to the sources mentioned above and books listed on the talk page, a quick google books search found
 * 1) Makram Abu-Shakra Interplay: An Artist's Approach to Spirituality Infinity, 2013 ISBN 0-741-48042-5 (references to the Law of One/Ra Material)
 * 2) Ronald Story The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters Constable & Robinson, 2012 ISBN 1-780-33703-5 (references)
 * 3) Terry Newbegin Genesis: Your Journey Home BalboaPress, 2011 ISBN 1-452-53326-1 (references)
 * 4) Dr. Cheri St. Arnauld Cosmic Connections Balboa Press, 2014 ISBN 1-452-59067-2 (references)
 * 5) Terance Wall The Symmetry of Gnosis: The Universe explained? Trafford Publishing, 2012 ISBN 1-466-95888-X (references)
 * 6) Joel Bjorling Reincarnation: A Bibliography Routledge, 1996 ISBN 1-136-51140-7 (references)
 * 7) Joshua David Stone Hidden Mysteries: Volume 4 of The Easy-to-Read Encyclopedia of the Spiritual Path Series Light Technology Publishing, 1996 ISBN 1-622-33551-1 (references)
 * 8) Marcia Beachy, M.s. This Divine Classroom AuthorHouse, 2004 ISBN 1-468-51721-X (references) Bathmiaios (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that I looked at five of the books listed by Bathmiaios, and they aren't published by reputable outfits. Light Technology Publishing publishes esoteric stuff on angels, UFOs, and sacred geometry; AuthorHouse is of course self-publishing; Balboa House and Infinity are also self-publishing companies and Trafford Publishing is a pay-to-play operation. In other words, whatever is said in those books is not acceptable for use in an encyclopedia that wants to take itself seriously., are you at all familiar with WP:RS? Drmies (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So that leaves two books out of seven. The book published by Constable & Robinson could in principle be acceptable (it's an independent publisher, though they say precious little about their editorial process), but this happens to be the Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, and anyone who reads it can see it's pure fringe ("we have much to learn about the metaphysics of UFOs"). The only real reliable book in the bunch is from Routledge; unfortunately, it's nothing but a bibliography with one single entry for our "Ra material"--so, we can safely say now that it exists, but that's all. No discussion, so nothing to write, and no reason to think this adds up to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're an idiot who needs to read WP:NBOOK. All of those sources meet the criteria. Read the definition of "independent" and "verifiable". Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you familiar with WP:BIASED, WP:NBOOK and WP:FRINGE? Or were these policies & guidelines not developed and clarified enough when you became an admin? Seriously, you might have stuck to some previous versions of those and there might be no use in discussing with you. You also seem to have some civility issues; the tone of your language might be considered offensive by some. For example, if I were Immanuel Thoughtmaker, I would give you a warning for "SLAP" expression of yours. Especially admins should refrain from such tone & language. Logos5557 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , might I suggest that escalating the confrontation isn't really helping here? I really don't know what, if any, of the article should be kept and what, if any, should be deleted (as I'm only here trying to help the process), but I'd strongly suggest that the way to enhance your position is to explain how those policies support your view rather than derogating other people's understanding of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete I vote to delete this article, because I'd rather that wikipedia was not the first hit on google when someone google's something. The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better. While this page has a tortured history and over 50 sources have been mentioned at various points showing that the series of book is notable, there is no point in trying to keep this topic on wikipedia because the admins don't even know their own rules. A prime example is User:Drmies : who doesn't know the wikipedia definition of a reliable source or a notable book as per WP:NBOOK. In conclusion, DELETE this article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've reverted 's deletion of almost the entire article. Sure, there are some non-RS sources there, but the reliability of the sources used in the article is what people here are trying to discuss - and they can't if someone unilaterally deletes everything. Immanuel Thoughtmaker, you did the same thing in a previous AfD and were trouted for it - in fact, what you did could have led to a reversing of the delete outcome. Two people have now reverted your blanking, so please do not do it again - if you do, I'd expect it to be seen as disruptive and/or edit-warring. Should this discussion result in a "reduce to stub" decision that would be fine - but that's for the community to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by my reverts. Unreliable sources and respective material, in my view, should be removed at will. There is no reason why Wikipedia should stand to let people read unreliable material. I have too much respect for the reader to leave the article as it is. I will only abstain from reverting until the consensus on the reliability of this article changes towards the fact that this article is a poorly-sourced, poorly-made piece. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Boing, I agree completely. Immanuel, I find it hard to believe that you persist in what I thought at first was just a mistake caused by youthful zeal. Doing this during an AfD discussion serves no purpose, and just increases the temperature. I suggest you rethink this standing by your reverts, if so many people are telling you you're not helping the cause. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure we all share your desire to rid Wikipedia of poorly-sourced material - and I applaud it. But the decision, now that this AfD is in progress, is one that will be made by Community discussion - not by you unilaterally. I simply ask that you do not try to impose your personal will while the AfD is in progress - just let the Community decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one principle: Make sure reliable sources are provided and are followed completely. I will stand by this principle. I am happy to hear suggestions but, again, I will stand by my beliefs in this regard and I am quite confident there are plenty of people in this community that resonate with my beliefs. I will continue challenging the quality of this article until I've exhausted the limits of this community. I have the patience to do so. I have not been disruptive and I will not be disruptive within the consensus of the vast majority of the community. I am simply following WP:BOLD and I will continue to do so. Thank you so much for time and making your desires and preferences known, along with everyone else. I am the community as well and I am making decisions in unison with the community. Let all of the voices speak on equal standing and honor. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it is clear to everyone that articles can be edited while an AFD is on-going thus I feel very justified in everything I've done. I remain unchanged in my views. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, articles can be edited during an AfD. But just as at any other time, when you're challenged and reverted you have to stop and wait for consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Recommendation To whomever closes this deletion discussion: I strongly ask that you make a decision as to the reliability of the sources of this article and make a judgement as to what sources need to be never used again in this article in the future and why. My main responsibility I wished to take on in deleting this article is the removal of the unreliable sources of this article and ensuring this article is adequately represented into the far future. If the article is deleted, this is inherently done. I am very upset at the quality of this article first and foremost and I believe Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher quality standard in this type of material. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I would like to give a great thank you to all involved in this deletion discussion and the previous one as this process is essential to maintaining this encyclopedia and holding it to a high quality standard. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. At the second AfD for The Law of One (which turns out to have been a fork of this article at this article's original title), pointed in his closing statement to Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits, p. 39 as a valid source.  has added the Gnosis article. And I have found The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?: Interdimensional Communication and Global Transformation, by Wynn Free and David Wilcock, which is substantially about the Ra material in relation to Edgar Cayce (and is mentioned in our article on Wilcock). Both books are cited once in the uncut version of the article. As per the Arbcom ruling linked by, we are not forbidden to use sources that share the philosophical approach or religious tradition of a work in referencing or in establishing the significance of that work (we do not, for example, exclude Christian or Jewish sources in referencing or establishing the significance of a work of Christian or Jewish philosophy, any more than we exclude experts in a particular tradition of art in referencing or establishing the significance of a particular artwork). This series of books has been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources and in addition has been the topic of a book within its particular tradition of thought. That suffices in my view to establish notability. The article should be kept, moved back to the simple title, and further improved. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's always nice to see someone who is willing to do the work and can balance more than one principle at the same time. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still contest the nature of these sources and I will continue to cite WP:NOTRS over other guidelines. I believe in order for this article to be accessible to the mass of the public, in a neutral view, more sources like Strange Weather are needed. I would highly recommend only sources like Gnosis and Strange Weather are used, that are semi-neutral and semi-analytic in prose. I still think they are very poor sources but they are the better of the bunch. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP:NOTRS can only apply when a source covers a fragment (or any information) from the law of one books, or any issue related to it, in a fictive or untrue way. For example, if a source claims that the authors of the law of one books had taken the content from extraterrestrials by meeting in their UFOs, or Don Elkins had died of natural causes instead of suicide, or moai were built by ra, then these information becomes fiction instead of fact and the source becomes questionable. In other words, the responsibility of secondary sources is to publish information from primary sources without distorting, as it is. So, while building an encyclopedia, the criterion is not ultimate/universal facts -or 1st degree of facts-, but 2nd degree of facts (i.e. reliability of the secondary sources). Assessing the value or 1st degree factuality of the information presented, should be left to the reader. Logos5557 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With only these sources added (Gnosis, Strange Weather), we are left with a limited scope, still with very slanted, casual analysis of The Law of One books, which in my discretion is not acceptable. These sources do not meet the grade, in my view, and if Wikipedia is to have its quality reduced to a mediocre compilation of the nearest New Age bookstore, then by all means I will accept it. However, I will continually stand against it. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

30 sources for this topic, non-exclusive list
Here's a screenshot of the sources for this topic--sources that were deleted by the irresponsible hacksaw deletionist admin User:Drmies and his vandalizing allies Immanuel Thoughtmaker and User:Dougweller.

'Drmies, the Irresponsible Hacksaw Deletionist, and the screenshot he doesn't want you to see

'The following was selectively deleted by Drmies:'





Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:

This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Go look at the history of the page pre-vandalism.
 * 2) Go look at the history of the talk page pre-vandalism.
 * 3) Go look at the previous AfD discussion where 30+ sources are extensively discussed and analyzed, and consensus found that they were reliable according to the wikipedia definition of "reliable" which you have not familiarized yourself with.

 Screenshot of the Sources Pre-Vandalism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarianpedia (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Fails general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.