Talk:Progressive and accumulative spiritual intelligence of the universe
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deletion debate
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- I've no idea what this is supposed to be. — Paul G 15:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Also Transcendentalism Today, Religious Rationality in the 21st Century, Religious rationality, Collective spiritual knowledge and Spiritual unity.
- It is the definition of "God" according to Transcendentalism Today.
- These are not dictionary entries. Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks are more appropriate places for attempts to explain their theology. Eclecticology 17:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that most of these should go, but I've amended Transcendentalism Today, provided that it's actually well-attested, and I argue that the transcendentalist definition of God is no worse than any other (though it could stand to be shortened). -dmh 19:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It still sounds like nothing more than the title of a promotional publication for a religious cult. Eclecticology 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Transcendentalism Today and Religious Rationality are well-attested.Also see spiritual unity--User:Kkawohl
- These are only Google results. Nothing in that to show that they are proper dictionary entries. It is not our task to do marketting for a religion. Eclecticology 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Be careful here. Evidently it is our task to do marketing for random companies and artists (TeamSpeak, Sealed Systems and echo drawing again come to mind). Googling "Transcendentalism Today" turns up on the order of 1000 hits (putting quotes around the phrase makes a difference :-). I looked through the first half-dozen or so pages. A large portion of these are authored either directly or indirectly by Kurt Kawohl -- this includes a Wikibook, a Wikiquote, and Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries in various forms. However, several, including a review of the wikibook and some exchanges on a theology website, appear independent. There don't seem to be many of these, and I'd hardly say the term is in wide usage, but by contrast, googling "Echo Drawing" turns up 83 hits, most if not all either incidental or by a single author. I don't have a strong opinion here, however my preference is to keep such entries but clearly mark them as "not widely used/in no way endorsed/etc." I certainly don't see how religion plays in. -dmh 02:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you review some of the Google sites that you reference you will see that Transcendentalism Today is Kawohl's own religious sect. It is shameless self-promotion. Eclecticology 09:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I did look, and I agree. Again, the argument is that shameless self-promotion has not, so far, been grounds for deleting an entry. -dmh 14:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transcendentalism and Transcendentalism Today is an ideology and has "never" been a cult or religion; it is an application of religious rationality which many religious zealots have attempted to stifle throughout history.--User:Kkawohl
- I'd be inclined to agree with Eclecticology. I think that Transcendentalism Today and the other entries mentioned above, TeamSpeak, Sealed Systems and echo drawing (do the TeamSpeak and Sealed Systems entries even exist anymore?), are not in wide use (and therefore of low importance as terms in the english language) and require more explanation than a dictionary article. Wikipedia would be a better place for them. IanLewis 17:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm slightly confused now. I can't find either TeamSpeak or Sealed Systems, but neither do I see them in the deletion log (maybe they've scrolled off?). From the discussion above, I thought the decision was to keep Sealed Systems, and because of that I never rfd'd TeamSpeak and I don't see that anyone else did. In any case, I'm about done talking about this. So just to be clear, here is my summary (which, naturally, is about as long as what I've said so far):
- Transcendentalism without the "Today" is well-known, well-attested and uncontroversial (from a lexicographical standpoint). As Transcendentalism Today at least appears to be a revival of 19th-century Transcendentalism, I don't think leaving Transcendentalism Today out of Wiktionary does it great harm. However,
- The transcendentalist definition of God should be restored. I don't see how this could be controversial. Lexicographically, there is such a thing as transcendentalism, it does define God, this definition is well-attested (though perhaps dated), and it differs significantly from other definitions. End of discussion. We have let enough other stuff in from video games, works of fiction, or whatever else that removing this definition because it is "sectarian" gives the impression, which I believe we very much wish to avoid, that such removal is a value judgement concerning transcendentalism.
- Transcendentalism Today per se does appear to be largely the work of one person. Calling it "well-attested" is misleading, as nearly all of the attestations appear to stem from that person. On the other hand, calling it a sect and calling its entry shameless self-promotion of a sect are unhelpful statements, whether they are defensible or not.
- From a Wiktionary standpoint, there appear to be two major approaches to these marginal entries, religious or not: 1) Remove them; 2) Leave them and mark them specially. I'm indifferent as to these two approaches, as long as they are applied reasonably consistently.
- This is why I said I might live to regret defending "The Bjorn" -dmh 17:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm slightly confused now. I can't find either TeamSpeak or Sealed Systems, but neither do I see them in the deletion log (maybe they've scrolled off?). From the discussion above, I thought the decision was to keep Sealed Systems, and because of that I never rfd'd TeamSpeak and I don't see that anyone else did. In any case, I'm about done talking about this. So just to be clear, here is my summary (which, naturally, is about as long as what I've said so far):
- 1. Saying that Transcendentalism Today is an ideology rather than a cult or a religion, then defending the oxymoron "religious rationality" in the same sentence suggests that we are getting into the realm of semantic games.
- A. Agreed. Religious rationality today in most religions is an oxymoron. I stated: Transcendentalism Today (like Transcendentalism) is an ideology, an "application" of religious rationality which many religious zealots have attempted to stifle throughout history.--User:Kkawohl
- 2. Restoring the transcendentalist definition of "God" begs the question of the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Every group with some sort of vision of God will define the term in its own way, and the list could get very long. These theological distinctions are more appropriate to an encyclopedia. An understanding of what "God" means in a general context is what belongs in a dictionary. What is there in the term that can be understood by everybody.
- 3. Merely saying that a term is one used by a particular group is no definition at all if we cannot understand it without recourse to the publications of the group.
- 4. I can't comment about "TeamSpeak" since I took no part in that discussion. "Sealed Systems" is now referenced in the more general sealed systems. I haven't completely made up my mind about "echo drawing" even if I give it the benefit of the doubt. Surrealism tends to belong to another world. Eclecticology [4 Sept. 2004]
- These are only Google results. Nothing in that to show that they are proper dictionary entries. It is not our task to do marketting for a religion. Eclecticology 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that most of these should go, but I've amended Transcendentalism Today, provided that it's actually well-attested, and I argue that the transcendentalist definition of God is no worse than any other (though it could stand to be shortened). -dmh 19:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- All deleted. Eclecticology 16:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)