Today: Monday 2 August 2021 , 9:21 am


advertisment
search




Conscious evolution

Last updated 6 Month , 4 Day 8 Views

Advertisement
In this page talks about ( Conscious evolution ) It was sent to us on 30/01/2021 and was presented on 30/01/2021 and the last update on this page on 30/01/2021

Your Comment


Enter code
 
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution

Non-notable, POV essay, advertisement, original research, barely coherent, etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (Just to make my vote clear). Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, POV, meaningless, and not entirely literate stream-of-consciousness e.g. a "pantheist universe of the present and past as a kind of metaphorical pre-programmed blind and brute force mathematical equation unraveling as a cosmic process . . ." SlimVirgin 04:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An objective and sensible article on "conscious evolution" wouldn't be such a bad thing, but this certainly isn't it. --Sdfisher 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to a blurb in some other appropriately eugenic/racialist/separatist ideology like Nazism, Eugenics or the equivalent. 'CE' is not the term the vast majority use for this frame of mind, including the vast majority who share that viewpoint. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay! Eugenics! I'm surprised it doesn't link to Zyklon B. Delete (obviously) as personal essay, original research, utter crap, take your pick. Postdlf 05:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I ask that the Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal, give this topic a few weeks to develop, right now this topic is in a very rough and early stage. When I say Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal, I don't mean this as a personal insult or attack against you guys. I just mean it as a factual, accurate and documented reflection of your actions, history, censorship and emotional bias regarding issues related to or regarding jews, judaism, israel and zionism. Please don't let your personal and sensitive feelings about my other contributions prevent such an interesting and relevant topic from existing and being developed. Thanks for your understanding and neutrality in these regards. Dnagod 05:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm being understanding and neutral when I say that this article is crap, and that your comments above show that you are far from neutral yourself. "Jewish Ethnocentrist cabal"? What on earth makes you think that's an appropriate or persuasive phrase to use here? Were you trying to be funny? Postdlf 05:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sadly, no, he wasn't being funny. Look at his User page. Jayjg (talk) 05:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • To be quite frank, you have no idea what you're talking about as regards the religions or backgrounds of the people you just insulted, nor, apparently, the purpose, method and benefit of the wikipedia. Very bad form. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE Yikes! What a creepy defense. The Jacobin 05:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cleduc 06:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite and expand. "Conscious evolution" is getting around 25,000+ hits on Google. It is a genuine term but the article at present needs to be rewritten and the POV eliminated. Megan1967 06:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That does not necessarily make it a genuine 'term,' it could largely be an aggregate of people who mentioned the words in a sentence, but without having a particular model (unified if at all), for it specifically, in mind. El_C
  • Delete - Website notwithstanding, not notable, therefore, also advertisement. It is –an aside– that the contents are highly questionable, that the style of writing reveals a gross unfamiliarity with objective, NPOV exposition, and that it is heavily coloured throughout with grammatical idiosyncrasities resulting in an unstable narrative which reads very poorly. El_C 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to keep to reflect AndyL's commendable revision. El_C 18:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rambling POV personal essay, original research. --MPerel( talk contrib) 06:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. No, it's patent nonsense. No, it's original reserach. AndyL 06:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Wikitroopers, I apologize to those who were personally offended by my remarks regarding the serious problem of jewish bias on wikipedia on issues involving or regarding jews and judaism, I just wish more attention where brought to that fact and that people would stop pretending it doesn't exist or looking the other way. I genuinely and sincerely want wikipedia to be fair, balanced, neutral and possess a wide range of valid points of view.
  • Anyhow, Hey guys, think of conscious evolution as a very rough work in progress, with absolutely enormous potential like the rest of wikipedia ;) Conscious evolution is the wave of the future, and the last stage of our human evolution, so please reconsider your vote to keep it rather than delete it! Think of it this way, each one of you is like a brain cell in the mind of the coming god consciousness and the internet is the network that connects all these brain cells together. With that knowledge you discover that wikipedia is the memory of gods brain and our communication its consciousness. So lets consider keeping it guys!! ;)
    Also where is jpgordons vote to delete? I am disappointed that he didn't vote delete within 1 hr of the topics creation.
    with over 20,000 mentions for "conscious evolution", I think we should keep it and work towards creating a conscious evolution article with all points of view!
    Dnagod 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    What makes you think that you need a pro-Jewish bias to want to delete your article? It doesn't even mention Jews (except for the non sequitur paragraph claiming wikipedia has a pro-Jewish bias). Postdlf 09:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Please try to restrain yourself and make No_personal_attacks. Also look into the use of the 'colon' to indent. I mean that sincerely. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It needs a major rewrite, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The topic is an important one. LizardWizard 07:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Blather, delete. -- Hoary 08:35, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • KEEP. I am very far from being a neo-Nazi or beleiver in Eugenics yet User: Dnagod has made some good points about how Wikipedia has come to be dominated by groups following a herd-mentality that stack the votes on VfD's in order to push ahead their own agenda. You people are discrediting Wikipedia with your un-democratic mindset. In the past hour I have come upon this VfD'ed article AND an entry in the deletion log detailing how an article about Wikipedia's Pro-Jewish Bias was deleting WITHOUT VfD-ing. Now back to the article, unlike the rest of you sheep, I actually read the article and although it is not well written, it is quite valid both in its content and its context in the wider world. It should be expanded and fleshed out true, but kept and not deleted. I urge all voters to vote to keep. -CunningLinguist 08:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That speedy deletion (as it's called) is not surprising. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. That person can write their views on their user page or go to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Also, check Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. r3m0t 19:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Which article was speedy deleted? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by calling it valid? It makes little sense, being just an attempt at pretentious twaddle that doesn't even succeed in being pretentious. The arrogance with which you assume that no-one but you has read the article, however, together with your insults to those who disagree with you, suggests that you're either a sock-puppet of Dnagit (or vice versa), or merely a maggot-skinned white-supremacist fellow traveller. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • While my claim that no-one read it was poorly thought out, I still stand by my previous points. Although it is poorly written, I still beleive that the article should be kept because of the fact that "Conscious Evolution" has established its presence on the internet (do a Google-search), the article was far from a "personal essay" as someone claimed, in fact these ideas have been put out in one form or another by various thinkers over time, and I see no white-supremacist propaganda on the page. My comment that no-one read it seems to become more valid the more you read this page. Someone compared the page to Zyklon B...Ummm, excuse me?? are we reading the same page here?? It seems like many of the voters on this page are coming here, quickly seeing accusations of white supremacy by others and voting Delete without actually taking in the article. Your accusation that I am either DNAGod's sock puppet or a White Supermacist is: 1. A cheap attempt to slander me and therefore make any comment I have made on here invalid 2. Patently invalid because: A. A quick look at the edit histories by me and DNAGod or even a look at our User pages shows that we are not related in anyway, in fact if DNAGod is actually a White Supremacist like you claim, I doubt he would wish to relate in any way with me since: B. For your information I am not White. -CunningLinguist 05:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • You misunderstand me. I don't think that the article contained white-supremacist material (in fact I think it had very little if any genuine content, hence my confusion over your description of it as valid). Rather, claiming that no-one but you had read the article, and calling other voters sheep was strongly reminiscent of the style of comments made by Dnagit and his friends at, for example the VfU for Jewish ethnocentrism. In fact it was those comments of yours, in my view, that would make few people take your interjection seriously, not my response to them.
            I did in fact check your edit history, and it was immediately obvious that there was no actual connection between you and Dnagit; I therefore didn't claim that there was. Rather, I said that the tenor of your remarks suggested that there was. I could (and should) have made myself clearer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • If you believe you can write a NPOV article about whatever subject this article is about, then do so—make a subpage of your user page and take a crack at it, and then we'll review it. The article is so incoherent that I can't even fathom what he's talking about from an outsider's perspective, so I'm curious to see what an objective description of this...whatever it is...would even look like. Postdlf 05:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Original research. BlankVerse 09:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Human-directed evolution is certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia; however, this is just a weirdly-written little essay about it. Here at Wikipedia, we publish encyclopedia articles, not jargon-filled rants. Keep if totally reworked, though. And what is it with weird remarks about cabals, pro-Jewish bias and whatnot? One would think this was a Stormfront thread, not Wikipedia.Zantastik 09:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a personal essay, not an encyclopaedic article. If the subject is notable (as yet unproven), restart from scratch and maintain a NPOV from the beginning. Oh, and obviously TINC. --Plek 09:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge/redirect w Transhumanism. This POV lobbying is very disturbing. (Sam Spade talk contributions) 10:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete (possibly make it a Redirect page, but I don't think that there's anything worth merging with Transhumanism, to be honest.) It's a rambling, vague, nonsensical, personal essay. (I say this very reluctantly, because as he tells us a couple of times on his User page he makes a lot of money, and as part of the Jewish ethnocentrist cabal (or cable as he puts it on his User page) I naturally have my eye on his wallet.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      AndyL's rewrite turns it into a perfectly aceptable article, avoiding all the problems of its previous incarnation. (I mean, Hubbard as loopy as her namesake (any relation?), but that's not the point.) My vote is now Keep (but keep a close eye on it to make sure it doesn't revert). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • What sort of programming is available on Jewish ethnocentrist cable? Reruns of The Goldbergs and Bridget Loves Bernie? --Calton 02:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I admit that I couldn't make head nor tail of the article as it stands and the reference to Jewish ethnocentrism didn't help. If it can to be shown to be an encyclopedic concept, I will rethink my vote. Capitalistroadster 10:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - non-notable, what Jayjg said. --Mrfixter 12:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete for what it's worth, this seems to be part of the planned neo-nazi "attack" on Wikipedia. For more information, see the Adminstrator's noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents or the original thread at Stormfront http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 (note: neo-nazi site, may be offensive to some). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic screed. Ignoring the writer's, shall we say idiosyncratic worldview, if any actual information exists out there about "conscious evolution" (and I don't think there's anything but a bunch of Skinhead tracts), then it can always be rewritten in the future, by an impartial wikipedian. The article, as it stands now, would have to be completely blanked before any real work could begin anyway. Binadot 12:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. At present, it is obviously original research/personal essay -- a rant, in fact. The article is so muddled that I can't figure out whether the term 'conscious evolution' has any encyclopedic potential either as the topic of a separate article or subsumed under some more general topic. If this does have potential as a separate encyclopedia topic, a future editor is probably better off just starting over from scratch. --BM 14:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Speaking as the Aryan ideal myself, this is a remarkably fit for deletion piece of original research. Even if an encyclopaedic article could be written on the subject (whatever the subject is), this is never going to be it. Although it gets points for showing there is actually a second Cosmotheist in the world who's found Wikipedia - David Gerard 14:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's hardly a surprise, they know each other. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Idiosyncratic original research, as well as being twaddle. -- Karada 14:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Gibberish. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm mixed. This article is crap. Pure POV drivel. However, the notion of "consious evolution" is (or at least was) pretty commonplace in New Age thinking not so long ago. It's unfortunate to see that the term and concept is being co-opted by such societal detritus as the neo-nazis. There *could* be an article on the topic, but this is probably a worse starting point than a blank page. I've no inclination to re-write this crap, so for the article in its current state my vote is Delete. olderwiser 15:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is an article to be had here on this subject, but this definitively is not it. Horrendous and offensive in its current form (and no, I am not Jewish, though why that matters is beyond me). Given that I doubt very much this will suddenly become replaced with a coherent NPOV article, I vote to delete. Katefan0 16:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete in addition to being pure nonsense, also non-encyclopedic article. No value whatsoever. -- Egil 16:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete with extreme prejudice — as already noted, material of this nature belongs in eugenics and/or transhumanism. — RJH 17:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    *there is such an enormous wealth of material on conscious evolution, that it would be an utter shame and waste for such a topic to be merged with other topics. eugenics and conscious evolution are not the same. Eugenics is about selective breeding, where as conscious evolution encompasses all strategies, philosophies and tactics to enable upward evolution. There is also a very spiritual element to conscious evolution, that does not exist in transhumanism. Merging conscious evolution with transhumanism wont work either, as transhumanism which was hijacked and rejects eugenics - even though the founder of transhumanism was an avid supporter of eugenics. Conscious evolution deserves its own category, and has thousands of unique articles and perspectives on it make it worthy. I ask that you give me a couple of months to develop this topic and I will include all perspectives, pro, con, neutral, etc.. etc.. Consider it a work in progress which will encompass all POV on the issue. Dnagod 22:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    More evidence that this should be deleted Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox TrödelUser_talk:Trödeltalk 22:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Delete for being original research, largely in the form of a personal essay. I agree with Bkonrad that the concept is capable of having a legitimate encyclopedia article, but it doesn't appear that anyone is all that inclined to write such an article at this time, and there's no reason to leave this around, either as a placeholder now or to pollute the page history later. --Michael Snow 17:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Essay, original research. Xezbeth 17:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete ditto - orginal research - not coherent Trödeltalk 19:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The concept exists, and is notable, no matter how far-fetched. I would at least keep the introductory paragraph. DanP 19:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete ➥the Epopt of the Roman Catholic/Libertarian Chapter of the Marxist/Zionist Cabal 19:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, original research, codswallop, I've read better stuff about consciousness in the lyrics of punk CDs. Wyss 19:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Not a report on anything, in spite of the ranks of (vaguely related) external links. Posturing. --Wetman 22:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's possible, though difficult, to turn excogitations on fringe philosophies or religions into respectable NPOV articles: compare the original revision of Cosmotheism (a philosophy/religion similar to this one) with the current content, which resides at William Luther Pierce#Cosmotheism. (Though writing that article was nothing compared to the following six-month battle against Vogel's attempts to turn it back into a proselytizing pamphlet. . .) If anyone can fix this, then keep; otherwise deleting it is no loss. —Charles P.Special:Emailuser/Mirv (Mirv) 22:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, then recreate as a redirect to transhumanism. humblefool® 23:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Crap. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Eugenics is a subset of conscious evolution, they are not one and the same. Transhumanism is a subset of conscious evolution, because the hijacked (huxley was a eugenicist) version of transhumanism rejects conscious evolution. Conscious evolution does not discriminate, it embodies all philosophies, all view points, all strategies of real tangible transformation towards Godhood! Why would anyone want to delete the most fascinating, creative, imaginative, stimulating and interesting topic that has ever come to wikipedia or the human race for that matter? We are talking about the last revolution where man takes control of his own conscious evolution to attain the ultimate dream of immortality and godhood. Sure the thing needs work, so does the rest of wikipedia, but why would we want to delete something which represents the true essence of wikipedia? If we deleted something because it wasn't finished or could be improved regarding its POV, wouldnt we have to delete all of wikipedia? Boulder Dash! ;) Is not wikipedia Conscious Evolution and conscious evolution wikipedia? Are we not taking control of our own evolution here by building all the knowledge in the universe? Is that not clearly defined in conscious evolution as one of the traits of godhood? Imagine genetically modifying ourselves where we could hold the whole wikipedia (year 2100 version) in its completed form in our minds. Don't you see what this is? We are creating God here, this is mans ultimate dream to be immortal and attain oneness with god. Why would you want to delete this opportunity? Conscious Evolution is the great convergence of everything, all the knowledge in the universe and understood in our post human minds with perfection! Imagine a state of consciousness where consciousness permeates the whole of the universe and knowledge, and even the past and future. This is earth shattering stuff here folks. Please, let this thing stay, it needs a lot of time to nurture, to fertilize - no pun intended - and developed into something profound and wonderful. Give Conscious Evolution a CHANCE! As a reward you will all be given godhood. ;) ;) In all seriousness PLEASE give this a chance folks, please. Dnagod 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    * Thank you for the essay. You've confirmed my earlier opinion. -- Hoary 02:29, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
    In fact, this is fodder for BJAODN. :) --Modemac 12:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    We are creating God here, this is mans ultimate dream to be immortal and attain oneness with god. ...codswallop, too. Wyss 17:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Rant, borderline unreadable. Delete. CJCurrie 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original nonsense that's nearly impossible to read. Carrp Talk 04:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to transhumanism. -Sean Curtin 04:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete.Mackensen (talk) 04:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mikkalai 07:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - ideological advocacy - Skysmith 10:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a redirect to artificial selection, no merge. Maybe even a delete first to erase history. -R. fiend 20:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete: essay, nothing useful. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Me too! --Modemac 12:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE Nazi blogging and dnagod is probably a long-term sockpuppet max rspct 19:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC). u r so obviously here to promote anti-democratic and anti-semitic views max rspct lOOk at your rant >>>
    Well this is why some would argue democracy is a scam, because there seems to be more ignorant people in the world than intelligent (not meant as a personal attack). Based on the number of people voting to delete, I don't see any reason to try to make this section NPOV, as well as include a wide variety of legit POV on the issue. The votes will mean the outcome of deletion is the same (true or false)? You may have proved that wikipedia is simply and mostly a numbers game (encouraging sock puppets and proxy servers). And of course proved I was right in regards to my statements regarding an organized biased jewish cabal, even worse are their lackeys. I think my bringing this fact of jewish biast to the forefront, will never allow for me to make long term legit contributions to wikipedia without the weenies (you know who you are), censoring, deleting or reverting.

    I won't waste time developing and expanding this section (unless it is preserved), as it will get purged anyway, so what would be the point? I also think that most people are probably not ready for this kind of truth, it causes too much pain to the masses to realize that for thousands of years their silly revealed religions (especially judaism & christianity in the west) were perpetuated myth-scams and that reality is Man is actually God in the making - you can pretend if you want that we are an end unto ourselves or simply that it isn't true, but deep down you know it is true and you hate the truth. You can't handle the truth! ;)
    So please make the deletion final. On a tangent, I think the real problem is that I exposed the absolute fact that every section regarding or even remotely involving jews, judaism, israel, zionism and holocaust denial have a cabal of jewish ethnocentrists, jewish supremacists and (neurotic?) jews, even worse lackeys of jews, who refuse to allow these areas to be fair, balanced, npov, and include legit links and sources. Even worse is that these sections will rarely if ever have the truth regarding the extent of alternative points of view which largely exist and are not pro or neutral concerning jews. By exposing this as a fact regarding wikis jew bias and jew infestation, I have brought the wrath of the jews and their lackeys, thus not ever being able to make legit contributions to wikipedia without those legit contributions being purged, deleted or reverted. Not an insult, not a personal attack, just follow the cabal and you will see I am right.
    Would it make more sense that I no longer use this account to contribute? I will still use it to browse though, or would a fresh start be in order under a new name and proxy? In other words, would it make sense I set up new accounts, by instead using one of the thousands of proxy servers I have access to? Does one need to use subtle stealth to achieve positive results of neutrality? Not concerning the jew bias problem.
    Wikipedia works for the most part, but your jewish bias from your jew cabal (which includes lackeys of the jews as well) and the inability for the great majority of people to see there is a serious jew problem here will definitely hurt the long term legitimacy and credibility of wikipedia regarding issues involving or even remotely involving Judaism – FACT!
    I am glad I was able to bring attention to this fact, even though it’s futile with most people sticking their heads in the sand. However, I enjoy wikipedia and I have faith that history will repeat itself.
    You have my blessing purge conscious evolution.
    Best Wishes. Dnagod 22:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that you've shown yourself unable to keep your moronic racism quiet, even when it would have been in your interest to do so, I doubt that you're capable of stealth. Why not go and work off your psychological problems somewhere else? Buy a 4x4 (SUV) — that seems to be what other people with inferiority complexes do, instead of polluting Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I wanted to thank him for that last bit of racist sludge, actually—that was the excuse this pale-skinned Irish atheist needed to block him permanently. Postdlf 22:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Even after years of observing white supramacist wackos in action, I am continually amazed by the incredible narrow-mindedness these losers display with every public statement, and especially their unending, fanatic obsession with Jews. Jews this, Jews that, Jews all over the place. Jews in the morning, Jews in the evening, Jews at suppertime! They must look over their shoulders and see imaginary Jews leaping out of every shadow and corner to attack them. It must be a mental handicap or something. --Modemac 12:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Modemac, you are exactly correct. I have looked at these "jew biased" sections in question with great detail and they are free of insensitive ideas, free of right wing agendas and carefully sanitized, which means they are politically proper and socially correct. There is absolutely no bias, censorship or questionable POV involving what this user describes as "topics even remotely involving jews and judaism." Censorship of additions, contributions and links which point to politically incorrect, insensitive, alternative and critical ideas should not be allowed on wikipedia. If you allow alternative view points which are racist, politically incorrect, insensitive, hurtful and alternative, you will destroy the credibility of wikipedia. I am glad there are a large number of people keeping a close eye on these "jewish biased" topics ensuring they stay in the same voice they are now. Dariodario 14:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Heh heh. I must admit though, I get a kick out of seeing a crank burst now and then. Wyss 23:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Lest there be no mistake about the ideology being espoused - despite Dnagod's self-immolating protestations to the contrary:
  • "The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"
    -- Adolf Hitler, Nazi
    Delete this nonsense, but perhaps insert a redirect to higher evolution? Shantavira 17:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Keep I've replaced the article with a stub on the more mainstream usage of the term "conscious evolution" as coined by futurist and new age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard. AndyL 16:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Having read Andy L's stub, I will change my vote to Keep. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Ditto. El_C 18:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, AndyL's ingenuity in finding something reasonable for the article to be about is commendable. But, you know, this book by Barbara Marx Hubbard is not really notable, nor is the author. The book has an Amazon sales rank of 58,000 or so, and doesn't seem to have had much of an impact, though it was published in 1998. Tip of the hat to AndyL, but I don't think we need to be bending over backwards to have an article of this title in the Wikipedia. So, my vote to delete is unchanged. --BM 20:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think articles pending VfD should be so totally altered as to not even be about their original subject matter—the only thing the same is the title. The article should still be deleted, to remove the worthless edit history of the original, unrelated version, and then AndyL can repost his version on a totally clean slate. Postdlf 22:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • well, unlike the editor who originated this article, Hubbard is a published author though that alone may not make her or her theories "notable". I'm fine with deleting the article entirely in a few hours once five days have elapsed. AndyL 22:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • :It's not an encyclopedic classification. I still say begone... Wyss 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

     
    Comments

    There are no Comments yet

    last seen
    Most vists