|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | I am still strugling to understand how the so called Creators plan on drawing from Crowley without involving Thelema. If you read the statement they made "The religion we have created for this series is entirely fictional. It is as much related to fictional Christian cults and secret societies as it is to Thelema." it does not actually say it has nothing to do with Thelma. It only says that it draws from other influences as well as possibly Thelema. I know that Gemma said its not.......but we cannot really believe her. Now, I totally understand your point that a Thelamite would not force someone to do something (i have been reading up on free will).--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 13:09, 30 November 2006 (CST)
| + | ==Tannhaus page== |
| | + | Tannhaus, the [[Tannhaus]] page is for the ''series'' Tannhaus, not your personal profile. That belongs on your user page. All it really needs is a background on what the series is about. Thanks for helping out! - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 15:17, 15 April 2008 (CDT) |
| | | | |
| − | :Well, the real idea is that it is not a real religion. Yes, it borrows from Thelema (only in very vague ways..nothing actually said in the videos is very thelemic in anything but a very remote sense), but it also borrows from Christianity. It probably borrows from many other religions and secret societies as well. But, I don't think focussing on Thelema solely or even predominantly is the way to go about things. You might as well focus equally on the Plymouth Brethren (which might be a good place to start....since they DID mention Christian cults and the Plymouth Brethren could be considered cult-like in some aspects) since it was also alluded to at the bottom of the homepage right across from Thelema.
| + | That's what I'm trying to do... Regardless, I will add info and you guys can change it as you see fit. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. |
| − | | + | :Awesome. Thanks! - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 15:19, 15 April 2008 (CDT) |
| − | :Again though, trying to pin this on any one religion is an insult to that religion and its followers because of the criminal and dark aspects of the storyline. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 13:20, 30 November 2006 (CST)
| + | ::No problem. I figured it might make it easier for you guys if I added SOME info. I have no vested interest in this article either way: if it stays or goes, it won't bother me in the least. This is merely because I saw you guys having some problems with the article. In addition, since this is a nonfiction series, I think it should be established whether or not the person has any authority/experience to speak on the subjects. Of course, that's just my opinion. At any rate, I hardly think two sentences constitutes a biography. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 15:38, 15 April 2008 (CDT) |
| − | | + | |
| − | I totally agree. I think we have made a good start to correcting that impression of LGpedia. I have not been able to come up with a lot of information on Christian cults that can be tied to LG. I believe the reference to Plymouth Brethren was removed during the "redesign" but if i am wrong about that let me know. Still, its probably worth taking a look at the Brethren. I think the issue of force vs free will is a critical one and one I would like to see further develeoped. Do you know of any connection to Libertarians because they also stress free will in the context of not harming anyone else.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 13:45, 30 November 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::I'm sorry that you feel insulted. You have every right to feel that way -- the insults that have been lobbed at you were completely inappropriate behavior on a wiki. I have asked Modelmotion repeatedly to please show respect to other editor's of the wiki. This situation will be addressed. You've done nothing wrong, and I sincerely apologize for the way you've been treated, and I hope you continue to contribute! I don't see anything "fascist" about your edits, nor do I see you proposing to delete pages for any reason other than their complete irrelevance to Lonelygirl15.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 14:38, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Thank you. I was under the impression that a wiki's point is to create factual pages. There is a point where including too much extraneous information actually defeats that purpose and muddies the water. In a lot of instances, I don't know how something fits into the LG15 storyline, but I do know about the information being presented. If you check out the discussions of the articles, I've said exactly that on several occasions. Basically, I can go in and edit out misinformation, but then leave it to someone else to actually tie the information into the LG15 storyline.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | But, I don't see how just someone mentioning something in a video's comments is grounds for creating a whole new wiki page discussing their idea, however erroneous. Does Lovecraft fit in with the LG15 series? Probably so. Did it fit in the way it was portrayed? Did "Kathulu Majik" fit in? No. If someone says Crowley had a dog named Bree in a short story he wrote, does that deserve a mention in the wiki? I really don't see how. If, however, it is a common conception of Crowley and/or Thelema, it may indeed deserve to be mentioned, even though it is erroneous. In those cases (such as the reference to the cakes of light containing the blood of a child), I left the original statement, but qualified it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I think some people take things too personally. If I edit something out or change something, I'm not doing it on a whim. I'm doing it because it isn't factual. My goal isn't to portray Thelema and Crowley in a positive light, but in an accurate light. I have done and continue to do my research...and I try to point out WHY I've changed or deleted something....such as the assumption that Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley were associates, but Crowley died when LaVey was just a teen...or the statement that Crowley translated the Egyptian Book of the Dead when Crowley couldn't even translate the Stele of Revealing himself, paying to have the curator of the Bulac museum in Cairo to do it for him. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 16:07, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I believe it is the content of the page that he feels insulted by. I believe I have been respectful of him, welcomed him to discuss points, ask for his assistance in drawing relevance to the LG story line. What i object to is the simple deletion of pages I free are relevant......especically since the person who removed the relevance in the first place was himself! If there is an error i will be the first to change it but if i feel its an open issue I will put it back on the page and argue why it should be included. That is my right. I feel like I am being railroaded here. I dont dispute his knowledge but there needs to be room on the wiki for other peoples opionions if they can back them up. Therre is a lot of information on the internet. Some of it is disinformation. Its our job to clarify what is what and we do not accomplish that by simply deleting it and sending the user back to wilds of the internet.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 14:51, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : This one is gonna be short and swet.. How can we build a wiki of facts if we are working on a ONGOING, FICTIONAL, INTERACTIVE, vlog... To a certain point, unless something is comming out of Miles' keyboard is ALL Speculation. Let's just try to get along and have fun...!!!--[[User:Rosieiswatching|Rosieiswatching]] 16:20, 1 December 2006 (CST) | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | It's speculation on how things tie in together. But, you start with facts. You might speculate how something can be related to the storyline, but you try to be accurate about that something you're speculating about. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 16:22, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :Its all part of the back and forth of wiki discussion. I have no problem with that. What I object to is the nomination of the pages for deletion without a fair and open discussion of how the page could be made better. First we should try to fix whats wrong. If its not fixable then it should be nominated for deletion. And then if someone objects the objections should be considered.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 16:27, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Yet, nominating for deletion does nothing but open up an article for wider discussion. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 17:14, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == truth vs. Breeniverse truth ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I don't know if anybody read my short page on [["in character"]] or my comments on the [[Talk:1943 abduction|abduction story]], but what I'm seeing discussed here relates to those on some levels. One of the big problems in dealing with information about a work of fiction is that we have three (at least) types of information. In the case of Crowley, you have | + | |
| − | :(A) True life real facts, such as "Crowley was born in 1875."
| + | |
| − | :(B) (Probably) True facts in the Breeniverse, such as "Crowley was involved in a 1943 kidnapping in Arizona" and
| + | |
| − | :(C) Speculations, such as "Crowley was the developer of a ritual that involved drawing blood from a sixteen-year-old video blogger to summon Cthulhu."
| + | |
| − | Frankly, all of these different categories of information have a place in the LGPedia, but I think there needs to be some standards as to where and how such information is classified, and how far we can go in including category (C). All of this is of course complicated by the fact that much of the information is in a grey area.--[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 18:10, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Well, I get what you're saying, but I have no problem personally with something included as fiction as long as there is some mention of it being fiction....like the 1943 abduction. My problem is information that is included that is completely erroneous, has nothing to do with anything except in some obscure piece of fan fiction, and is stated as fact. Then, we end up making five wikipedia entries dealing with this topic...and it simply doesn't tie into the story.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::There are two major things I worry about here: One, that people will read fiction that is not clearly dilineated as fiction and believe it....and two, that we run off on so many obscure tangeants based on someone's geocities webpage or whatnot that we become absolutely worthless. Case in point: Kathulu Majik...which was actually the main thing that spurred it. My girlfriend is a HUGE lovecraft fan and she was even like "wtf?" when she saw that.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Frankly, this is a wiki. I like participating, but I'm not pushing some nefarious plot...it's a wiki. In the grand scheme of things....it's still a wiki. It will never be anything more than a wiki. It is growing, so it is fun to get in here and sift through information, but if the way I've been doing things isn't appreciated, I'll walk...no hard feelings. I just thought that what I was doing was something that you're supposed to do on a wiki. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 18:43, 1 December 2006 (CST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I think the discussion area is they key to much of this. If a comment is posted there I will try to respond to it. I will try to accomodate it. But first I have to understant what the problem/objection is. I might agree or disgree but I will read it and try and understand it. I think when you just chop out entire sections without giving any explanation thats inappropriate. Its probably better to give the original author a chance to respond to your comment. Of course there are probably times when chopping is fine. I dont think there are any hard and fast rules. However nominating a page for deletion after chopping our the heart of a page and then replacing it with your own opinion is not always the best way to go about it. I have tried hard to clarify things before and I will continue to do so in the future if you work with me in the discussion section. You obvioiusly know a great deal and can contribute powerfully to the wiki. All I ask is that you educate the rest of us and bring us along slowly so that we too can express our opinions while remaining respectful of your religous beliefs.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 18:59, 1 December 2006 (CST) | + | |
That's what I'm trying to do... Regardless, I will add info and you guys can change it as you see fit. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
