User talk:Ndru01/Gnostic Infomysticism

History of this article

This was an essay that most editors agreed is unverifiable original research. It has been moved (userfied) to User:Infoandru01/Gnostic Infomysticism so it is in the user namespace.

AfD votes:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism (deleted 4 times)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism (deleted 5 times)

--Cedders^tk 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few users (Fuzzypeg, myself) have tried to explain the problems to the author in detail, marking areas particularly needing improvement and sourcing (see history), but this has not been welcomed by the author, and at the moment the text doesn't look like it could ever meet quality standards. There have been many attempts by the author to link to it from, or insert it in, the main namespace. --Cedders^tk 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article text

It was earlier asked what the policy problems were with this article being included in Wikipedia. I've copied my response from Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism with the hope that the problems are understood, as I think they are still relevant to the text.

My main suggestion would be that this is given to someone the author knows, maybe a tutor, for comments, and also to see how well it can be paraphrased by another person. If someone can read the article, and then explain the assertions within it in detail, then that means it is clearer than I believe. If only part can be explained, then that shows it needs a rewrite and is less meaningful than the author believes. --Cedders^tk 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Wikipedia:Deletion policy says

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace.

It is felt that the article has problems with

coming from a particular point of view (which I pointed out in Talk:Modern Gnosticism even accepts telekinesis as fact, so is a minority and contested POV), without contextualising that POV;
not citing sources for the central assertions in it, and so not being verifiable, as it is not clear who is asserting it;
not being clear or well-written, which is not grounds for deletion;
but mainly with being original research.

Wikipedia:No original research says

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

It seems evident that the article is precisely an attempted synthesis of diverse sources, and it seems also to be trying to advance a belief you hold (that, for exmaple, the world is pure information and illusory). I hope this explains the logic behind the normal Wikipedia deletion process.

--Cedders^tk 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be said for whatever article (eg. 'Gnosticism in popular culture') that it is to 'advance' some 'position'. All entries here are some opinions of some editors, behind all these articles. Everything 'advances' some 'positions', and what is not written (missing), that surely doesn't advance anything. If telekinesis mentioned as a 'fact' is a problem, I can rephrase that (with 'would be' like i did now and a 'best demonstration', so that it doesn't claim it to be a 'fact' or some 'proof'), and, anyway, it was used in order to point out that thoughts are - energy (more correctly energetic objects/forms/systems), but that actually doesn't really have to be 'proved'. I suppose that thoughts being 'energy' is regarded as a fact, since the brain (mental) activity is physically measured (as energy), and what are thoughts other than product of brain activities. So I hope that the telekinesis-mentioning now is not so questionable.Ndru01 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wasn't really sure what Ndru01 was saying. I think that there is a difference between facts and opinions, and it that really is the basis of any academic writing or encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are not there to advance an opinion, but provide facts. WP:NPOV says:

assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts, and values or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

'To advance a position' in the above passage means including, promoting or supporting the editor's opinion; or using quotations to support particular values or points of view which are not universally held. So 'facts about opinions' are all right, which means if you can say who is putting forward the opinions or ideas in the essay, it may be OK. --Cedders^tk 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sourcing and salvage

Sky-surfer's revised first paragraph stated:

Modern gnostic mysticism and the related theories is a term commonly used in New Age literature, it is often referred to as Modern Gnosticism, Modern Gnosis or even simply Gnosticism in context in which it is undoubtely clear that there is no reference to historical forms of Gnosticism; it represents the aspect of this physical universe as an infoverse and is also relevant for its view of consciousness and demons.

However, the rest of the article is still unsourced and very hard to understand because of the way it is written. You really need to decide what the focus of the article is if it is to meet Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and No original research. Is it

Influence of historical Gnosticism on writers about technology; or
Usage of scientific ideas to support something particular writers describe as "Modern Gnosticism"; or
something else ?

What the article needs to make sense is quotations from published New Age writers or their critics or reviewers that explicitly

describe the terms "Modern Gnosis", "Modern Gnosticism" etc.;
reference quantum physics and/or use the terms "infoverse" or "infomysticism";
link Neoplatonism or Gnosticism to Bohm or Wolfram or Sheldrake;
describe consciousness as "a symbiosis of Mind and Information" and use the terms "driver" and "vehicle";
reference Dick and Gnosticism;
explicitly talk of demons and angels with reference to any of the above;
advance a part or whole of what Ndru01 describes as "my arguments". If they really are his/her arguments, they are original research and cannot be included on Wikipedia (which of course is not to say that they cannot appear on the user's own website).

If the sources quoted can do the majority of these things and the text overall looks like it is reasonably clear, makes sense and is capable of being cleaned up, then I would oppose deletion. --Cedders^tk 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic Infomysticism article is now at http://geocities.com/infoandru01/