Jump to content

Talk:United Lodge of Theosophists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ratreya (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 12 July 2015 (→Final List of References). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I do no understand this clause; "As an effect lies in germ form deep within its cause". I am a native english speaker but I can make no sense of it. Does it use language that would only be familiar to a Theosophist or is my vocabulary simply weaker than I had realized? (previous comment left in 01:23, 10 May 2006 by Icarus Down)

I agree I cannot make sense of it either, in fact the whole article needs heavy work Dwarf Kirlston 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase has a profound meaning and to understand it, one must have internalized the core concept of Karma. For that, I would refer you to an excellent article on Karma by Willam Q Judge (APHORISMS ON KARMA). But at a high level what it means is that, an effect is fully determined by it's cause or causes. And when viewed from the other side, the cause contains in it the seeds of all its effects which merely unfold over time. Essentially, nothing that is manifest is without an "efficient cause" (Four_causes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratreya (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article plagiarizes this and this website. There are also no secondary sources, so if the copyvio CSD doesn't go for some reason through there's that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the lede is original.
The second paragraph of the lede is taken from page 316 of this source.
The third paragraph of the lede is a mixture of plagiarism from this site and original advertising.
The last portion of the lede is original but not supported by the source cited.
The declaration section is straight from this site.
Was it impossible to manage something original? Could they do no better than to steal from those who came before them? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that the copyvios were introduced by this IP. Still, going to the version from before that, you still have no indication of notability, and the problem of WP:ADVOCACY in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning to improve this article for a while now and this is a good forcing function. An organization which is more than a century old with about 25 different branches all over the world deserves to be well represented in Wikipedia. I am going to remove the deletion recommendation and add back the valuable information about various centers, which was reverted. And I will incrementally improve the remaining article from there. Ratreya (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratreya: Wikipedia is not a directory. Articles must have multiple independent non-primary professionally published mainstream sources specifically about the topic to exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article rework notes

Notes about the article's rework in case others want to contribute. As for 7/8, this is very much a work in progress. Please feel free to comment and/or edit any of the following.

High-level topics

Overview:

  • The mission and declaration
  • Exclusive focus on the original, unaltered publications of the founders - HPB and WQJ
  • Reinstatement of WQJ's body of work into mainstream Theosophical literature
  • The unique nature of the lodge which focuses on the message and the messengers of the Theosophical Movement
  • No personal considerations such as organizational structure, affiliation or authority - not considered an organization
  • Articles from ULT being unsigned in the same self-effacing spirit of the lodge
  • Nature of the meetings and study classes

History:

  • Corsbie in TS and his association with WQJ
  • WQJ's death and succession of Mrs. Tingley
  • Reasons for Crosbie's leaving TS and starting his own study group
  • Initial study group with 7 other students
  • Founding of the ULT
  • Crosbie's death
  • B.P. Wadia's discovery of ULT and WQJ's body of work
  • BPW's deep appreciation of ULT's founding principles and recognition of WQJ as one of the original founders
  • BPW's failed attempts at reforming TS back in Adyar
  • BPW quitting TS and the work he did for ULT (starting of branches around the world)

Various branches:

A short bio of each active branch:

when it was founded, by who, noteworthy history, a photograph (if available), contact information, study class timing and website link

References

Primary sources:

Secondary sources:

Ratreya (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those "secondary" sources are still affiliated with the ULT. Furthermore, the first one is a personal site, and the second one is a WordPress blog, which both fail WP:USERG.
The way to start articles is to get professionally published mainstream academic sources unaffiliated with the subject and summarize those. Then you can expand them with WP:DUE weight from affiliated sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional unaffiliated sources we could look into:
Ratreya (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Academia.edu is user generated as well, and so fails WP:RS. That Google Books result (from academic publishers like Brill Publishers) is exactly the sort of source needed to establish notability -- you just need more than one source like that. Religions of the World, edited by J. Gordon Melton and published by ABC-CLIO is another high-quality source, as is The Cambridge Companion to New Religious Movements, by Olav Hammer and published by Cambridge University Press. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Theosophyforward.net link is affiliated. You need non-Theosophical sources, you need secular academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the Theohistory.org source... Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF is an article written by Dr. James A. Santucci - Chair and Professor of Comparative Religion at California State University , Fullerton. Published by Theosophy Forward.
The theohistory website states, "Theosophical History is an independent scholarly journal devoted to all aspects of theosophy (with and without a capital T). It is unaffiliated with any Theosophical organization." Ratreya (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final List of References

Unaffiliated Sources:

Affiliated Sources:

Ratreya (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Lodge_of_Theosophists&oldid=671114995"