wikipedia

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:14 #44016

I noticed that the Wikipedia information on Jediism is very scant and insufficient, I think someone should add more information. I still am not able to do it well (my writing is chaotic, my English is my third language only, and I don't trust google translate entirely :), so I ask (only humbly asking the question) if someone will be willing to take over this task in the interest of the community?

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:41 #44017

If people want to know more about us, they can find information on this site. We don't have any affiliation with Wikipedia, I believe.

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:51 #44018

  • Br. John
  • Br. John's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 523
The article on Jediism at Wikipedia is horrible. In theory anyone can edit it but navigating through all their incredible rules is somewhat more difficult than levitating a car with The Force.

So many people have attempted to make it a good article. For awhile, not too long back, it was getting better.

Now it's almost worse than having no article at all.

I've come to realize that until there are actual published books about Jediism written by real Jedi we going to get nowhere with Wikipedia. Once there are references to point too we'll have a fighting chance.

Go to the article and look at how the page was at various times in the past and you'll see what I mean.
Founder of The Order

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 16:25 #44033

  • ren
  • ren's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 4418
We need to check the rules on primary sources, as they make more sense than secondary ones on religion articles. (in fact other religion articles use primary sources a lot).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Pri...and_tertiary_sources

Could be good to check with wikiproject religion and NRMs as to what their policies are, if they give a green light, admins shouldn't complain and we would be able to easily revert any edits which dont comply with the policies (and therefore ruin the article).

I'd like to point out that technically, discussing the editing of articles outside wikipedia is against the rules.
Former Councillor, librarian, and systems administrator.

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 18:09 #44034

  • Jestor
  • Jestor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 3682
We are not "discussing editing", other than to say it needs done....

But you can't tell me other people don't do it... lol...
Rite: PureLand
Master: Master Jasper_Ward
Former Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know
Current Apprentices: Viskhard, DanWerts, Elizabeth, Edan, Brenna

"I do not demand your faith; I am not setting myself up as an authority. I have nothing to teach you - no new philosophy, no new system, no new path to reality; there is no path to reality any more than to truth. All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."~Krishnamurti~

Re: wikipedia 01 Nov 2011 04:08 #44044

  • ren
  • ren's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 4418
I don't care about the rule, what I care about is not being caught as it would be highly counterproductive.

Just a reminder that if you add a link to totjo on that wiki page, you should first make sure this thread doesn't appear in the latest posts...
Former Councillor, librarian, and systems administrator.
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Becoming a member.. (Last post by Kitsu Tails)
    • I had one in 2007 as well. I had submitted a new one for updated information and it for some reason didn't submit....so I did a third one and it finely stuck XD I had Br. John helping me with all that a week back.
    • Virtues or Choices? (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • A choice ? Hmmm ... I really like grapes. I mean - really ! I would eat grapes all year 'round if I lived in Southern Italy (and olives too !) ... But I live in Burgundy. To have really good grapes, I have to wait for them to grow on the vines, be cultivated and come to the market. I suppose I choose to be patient ... maybe. But whether I accept that it is February and there are no good grapes at the market or whether I get into a snit about it and have a rant -- that doesn't make the grapes grow faster nor more plentiful. People have seasons too, and at all of the levels of social organisation. There are right and worse times for things to come or for events to transpire. Should something I want to come to pass - perhaps even something that must come to pass - is not in its right season, all the ranting, insisting and manipulating is not going to make it come more quickly nor in the way it would in its own time. In fact, it can ruin the whole crop ... So, is it a choice ? I suppose that in many cases, it may be. Yet, in most cases, it is not. Neither the seasons nor the sunsets hurry, whether I patiently wait or wait with anticipation. All that I can do is the right thing at the right time and be ready for the season when it comes. Thus, patience can be quite active. If it is not the right time for something, at least that something can be prepared for. After all, simply 'waiting' passively for an event is not 'Patience'. Neither is procrastinating when there is a task at hand. Furthermore, I should be very careful about measuring the patience of someone else ... Choice is a nebulous concept : if Patience is doing a thing in that thing's proper time, but one cannot choose the Time, how then could Patience be a choice ? I guess it falls back on 'choosing' not to pitch a rant, but then would that be patience ? More than this being a question to answer, it is more a terrain to explore ... ;)
    • Martial Arts as a metaphor of Personal Behavior? (Last post by Streen)
    • Quote: Is there a certain style of martial art that, when you perform it or watch it, has taught you things in other areas of life such as your social life, school life, job, etc? Absolutely! I'm of the same opinion as steamboat. Jeet Kune Do is a way of life. When it comes to philosophy, as in JKD, you can take what is useful to you, adapt what you can to fit you personally, and reject the rest. But always keep an open mind to new techniques (new ideas). It also speaks of Zen. The quote "I do not hit, it hits all by itself" is very telling in that sense.
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by StarWalker930)
    • What is TOTJO? I'm also a Unitarian Universalist. So it's all pretty much "Many paths, one goal." in my belief system. I think TOTJO is simply one of those paths to take. This place allows you to start to find that path and lead you through some self reflection, with some really great people willing to help guide and ask questions to really help flesh things out. Should you see this path is one you really want to take, then it can become more detailed in to what the person needs. I see this as any other kind of path in the realm of Spirituality. Welcome those who are interested. Come, stay a while and talk. We can learn from each other, and if you're so inclined, we invite you to stay.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by Connor L.)
    • All we can be sure of is that nobody knows everything. Carlos was not there when the book was written. So, he can't know what the right answer is, EVEN IF HE GETS IT RIGHT. :O It's a crazy thought, isn't it?
    • Talent (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I LOVE how after she comes out of the arpeggio theme she ritards into the other themes, giving each of them their own tempo... that is SO Rock and Roll. WOW. WOW. WOW!!!
    • The Balance (Last post by Jung Faol)
    • So much time is spent displaying and describing the difference between light and dark. Not only here, to which I am granted a newcomer, but in life in general. There is an inherent need to see the separation between right and wrong, good and bad, light and dark, people who talk at the movies and those who shush them.... The Balance is something that I have revered since I can remember. You can be the clown and the smart kid at the same time. In fact its better that way because you approach humor from a point of intelligence, and you portray your intellect with a laugh. The 6'8 bruiser on the football team that volunteers at the local soup kitchen, the cut throat used car salesperson that signs over part of their check to the local animal shelter, the person who strives endlessly to enhance the income of their recorded artist company through whatever means are necessary and still finds the time to go on ahead and say yes (insert name of a band you cant stand here) we'll sign you on for three more albums. More importantly however is the balance within. Concerning with life necessities like family well being, and the ceaseless job to support them. Time apart and enhanced time together can be rather difficult to maintain no matter the circumstances. Work and Play, Family and Friends, Health (meneal and physical) and Wealth (literal and figurative). Do you go for the loaded mash because you spent 30 minutes on the treadmill? Have you call out sick because you just wanted a day to spend at home with your family? I suppose my overall idea here is that finding balance is something I have always wanted to be a constant in my life regardless of which one of endless categories that may fall under. How often is the balance supported, and how often do people so without even realizing it?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial) Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold. I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited. I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people. This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned. Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point. "While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author. "HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary. If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.
    • chat (Last post by Revan Falton)
    • Had to dip out fast. Work called me in early. It was fun chatting with you all, hope to do it again soon!
    • Is questioning one's faith inevitable? (Last post by Koffee)
    • It's as natural and inevitable as a snake shedding its skin, yo. In other words, humans are intrinsically metaphysical. As consciousness evolves, so must ones beliefs or "faiths" correspond to this evolution. Faith must decay before it can grow anew, and since growth is a a natural property of consciousness, it follows that all faiths must in some sense decay. This sense of "decay" could be elaborated further, but I would generally consider "questioning" one's faith to be either a kind of decay or a symptom of decay, depending on how you want to approach describing the phenomena. What is essential never really dies, however. So one may qualify my original answer with a few other distinctions and terms, etc.

There are 130 visitors, 4 guests and 34 members online (4  are in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, steamboat28, Streen, Jedi_Roz, ren, Kitsu Tails, Nakis, roy1593, Wescli Wardest, Darren, Desolous, Red Lila, Proteus, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, PatrickB, Williamkaede, Arcade, Archon, Kamizu, Edan, tzb, Zenchi, Mathew Erickson, Cabur Senaar, SeventhSL, Acheron, Jung Faol, danielhwhite.

Follow Us