Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthism

Earthism

nn neologism Gnewf 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tevildo 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, most of 12,400 Ghits refer to 'Mother-Earthism' or 'Flat-/Round-Earthism' Jammo (SM247) 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-22 08:18Z

It is called a new word and a revolution in thought. SAVE! Look at the credibility of these "pro-deleters": We have an Australian abstinent atheist in SM247; a depressed, gay, smoker in Tevildo; and very un-notable fellow in Quarl. In other words, you have a brilliant creative mind participating on Wikipedia, and a bunch of clowns wanting to deny my article. View http://groups.myspace.com/earthian and/or http://www.spectivepro.com ; My ideas will change the world for the better --Spective 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment watch WP:NPA, attacking the personal credentials of others does not reduce the validity of their arguments, especially given that nothing you have said about our attributes indicates that we are more or less intelligent than yourself. You have yet to deal with anything we have said. Per the verification policy, a personal website and a Myspace group are insufficient, no matter how refulgent your intellect or revolutionary your ideals. By your own admission, it is a neologism and appears to have no popular acceptance. Jammo (SM247) 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It does not matter whether Wikipedia accepts the entry or not. What matters is people will eventually recognize what Earthism is all about as briefly described here in my entry and will be written in length in my thesis and book: Spective Earthian Treatise, Spective Earthian Manifesto. I am not insulting the wanna-deleters, you should just take in account and be more respectful of original, innovative, and gifted individuals; we are the ones that shape the world when it comes down to it. Not "nay-sayers” that only get joy from trying to shoot down an idea, or smear it like all those Christian web-sites that are trying to vandalize Earthism by linking it to so-called "Flat-Earthism" or young Earthism. How lame! Try thinking a little. --Spective 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am all for new and creative ideas. However, I am not at all for vanity articles about subjects which are not yet notable. This is not yet notable and your assertions of world-shaping are far from evident, although your condescension is glaringly apparent. Do you understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox? Jammo (SM247) 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• Comment: One who listens not to me but the Earth will say: All is one.--Spective 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Individual and Communal Spective Earthian Constitution

I came from the Earth, and the Earth created me. I am a Spective Earthian; my soul is Earthism.

. . .

The Earth is in me. The Earth is who I am. The Earth supplies me food; the Earth nourishes me. The Earth gives me shelter, and therefore protects me. The Earth provides me air; the Earth provides me breath. The Earth grants me spirit; the Earth inspires my kindred soul. The Earth is my guardian, and I am a guardian of the Earth.

. . .

The only four Elements that I truly need are: The Earth, its Air, its Water, and its Fire. The Earth feeds me. My thirst is quenched by the Earth's fresh, pure water. My lungs are filled by the Earth's clean, oxygen filled air. The heat produced in the hearth warms the fire in my heart.

. . .

The Earth recognizes my spirit and my soul. The Earth is a living being. . . the Earth is a life form. I exist only because the Earth granted me the privilege to live, and when I die, I will return to the Earth. When I die, the Earth will recognize and regenerate my soul. The Earth will welcome me back with open arms. I am a Guardian of the Earth. It is my duty and responsibility to do everything in my conscious power And ability to protect the Earth, our environment, and our biosphere's existence. It is a goal to continually become more environmentally conscious. As a citizen of the Earth, it is important to strive to maintain The Earth's fragile ecosystem. It is my responsibility to minimize the pollution and destruction that I [or anyone else] inhibit onto our planet. It is my responsibility, as a citizen of the Earth, to minimize the destruction that I exert upon myself or onto any other life form (including the Earth). I am a Spective Earthian, and I belong to the Spective Earthian way of thinking, and an Earthian way of life. I am human. I will make mistakes. Yet the Earth has always been forgiving. When I sincerely repent, the Earth recognizes my sincerity. Sacred is the Earth to forgive my vices, and reinforce my virtues. My spirituality is an Earthism. My mind and my body, my psyche and my flesh are redeemed by the grace of the Earth. I seek redemption. I am a disciple of the Earth. By the grace, the power, and the life generating force of the Earth, I pledge my deepest gratitude and my most sincere respects.

. . .

I am a Spective Earthian Guardian. I am a Spective Earthian Warrior. I pledge my life to the Earth.

. . .

We came from the Earth, and the Earth created us. We are Spective Earthians; our souls are Earthisms.

. . .

The Earth is in us. The Earth is who we are. The Earth supplies us food; the Earth nourishes us. The Earth gives us shelter, and therefore protects us. The Earth provides us air; the Earth provides us breath. The Earth grants us spirit; the Earth inspires our kindred souls. The Earth is our guardian, and we are guardians of the Earth.

. . .

The only four Elements that we truly need are: The Earth, its Air, its Water, and its Fire. The Earth feeds us. Our thirst is quenched by the Earth's fresh, pure water. Our lungs are filled by the Earth's clean, oxygen filled air. The heat produced in the hearth warms the fire in our hearts.

. . .

The Earth recognizes our spirit and our soul. The Earth is a living being. . . the Earth is a life form. We exist only because the Earth granted us the privilege to live, and when we die, we will return to the Earth. When we die, the Earth will recognize and regenerate our soul. The Earth will welcome us back with open arms. We are Spective Guardians of the Earth. It is our duty and responsibility to do everything in our conscious power and ability to protect the Earth, our environment, and our biosphere's existence. It is a goal to continually become more environmentally conscious. As citizens of the Earth, it is important to strive to maintain The Earth's fragile ecosystem. It is our responsibility to minimize the pollution and destruction that We inhibit onto our planet. It is our responsibility, as citizens of the Earth, to minimize the destruction that we exert upon ourselves or onto any other life form (including the Earth). We are Spective Earthians, and We belong to the Spective Earthian way of thinking, and an Earthian way of life. We are human. We will make mistakes. Yet the Earth has always been forgiving. When we sincerely repent, the Earth recognizes our sincerity. Sacred is the Earth to forgive our vices, and reinforce our virtues. Our spirituality is an Earthism. Our mind and our body, our psyche and our flesh are redeemed by the grace of the Earth. We seek redemption. We are disciples of the Earth. By the grace, the power, and the life generating force of the Earth, We pledge our deepest gratitude and our most sincere respects.

. . .

We are Spective Earthian Guardians. We are Spective Earthian Warriors.

(written originally by T§, TABS Golden in 2002, perpetually refined)

---

• Comment: Earthism has nothing to do with vanity or ego and everything to do with what is sacred. You should not touch this or delete it. If you do, you suck. Plain and simple!--Spective 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Once again, you add nothing to the consensus. Wikipedia is not about preserving what is sacred. Once again, watch WP:NPA. Jammo (SM247) 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, you are mistaken. You add nothing to the consensus. Deleting is the opposite of adding, so don't tell me about "adding to the consensus." Have you ever done anything original or note-worthy? Have you ever presented research to a room full of scholars and experts in a particular field. I have. Your reasons for deletion are weak. --Spective 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am only going to say this once again - this article is about a non-notable neologism that lacks credible verification. That is a pretty cogent reason for deletion. Nothing you have said indicates why according to official Wikipedia policies and more than a score of other guidelines, this page should be kept. Your effete intellectual elitism and personal outrage at being challenged seems to have obscured from you this basic truth. Consensus in this context relates to the general opinion of the community about whether this page merits inclusion or deletion, and not to the validity or development of your ideas. At the moment, all the users who have commented are in favour of deletion, except you, the article's creator. As I have stated before, my credentials are quite irrelevant and despite your purported laudable achievements and dubious claims to mental lordship, you have not addressed the core reason why this was listed on AfD, instead invoking puny, small-minded and thus ultimately ineffective ad hominem attacks.

Have a nice day! Jammo (SM247) 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Jammo, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you have been equally or more than pompous. You tell me not to personally attack and then you follow suit. You are a complete hypocrite and disgraceful. I have demonstrated no outrage, since you can not accurately determine tone in inflectionless prose, so don't assume. I have remained calm, and if anything, I have been baffled by people not being open minded to a wonderful concept. You have attacked me personally on several occasions as well, so maybe you should read the rules you so slavishly follow once again before you go preaching them to others. How dare you call me small-minded. Wanting to remove ideas so others cannot see them is "small-minded." I do not claim "mental-lordship," but I have been recognized for scholarship and artistic ability, which merrits respect. You need to read your comments again and see what a contradiction you are. And thank you, I am having a nice day! --Spective 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is fun! (and you still haven't addressed the issue, are you a parliamentarian)? Jammo (SM247) 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Like I said before, it does not matter whether you save or delete (I’ve supplied enough reading for you to take to mind and heart). Wikipedia has a silly reputation anyhow. This whole process has been a joke. I can't stop laughing. If Wikipedia wants to continue to get contribution like yours, the mundane (e.g., list of local railway stations, list of bus stations, etc.), well, it should keep its same practices, but if it wants contributions from innovative, creative people, there is a serious level of refinement needed. Don't try to pretend that this website has an extraordinary level of credibility, because you would be one of the few that believes it. Also, you cannot just rely on what has been published on the web, your research ends with a google search like a freshman in college. Once again, silly Wikipedia-folk protecting their silly artificial wall... Have a good one. --Spective 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Mundane is a matter of perspective. I find your readings mundane and uninspiring despite your assertions of personal creativity, but that is not the reason they must go. They go, as I have said many times throughout the above, because they lack either credible verification or real notability. The reason the internet is relied upon is because it is more universal than research journals or other sources, which are time-consuming to access and are unlikely to contain your writings (unless you can show that they do and exactly where they do). Wikipedia's credibility problems are caused, inter alia, by articles that do not cite credible sources - this ones falls into that category. Jammo (SM247) 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable movement (as of now, anyway), whether or not it's "right" -- where would we be if we had to judge the philosophical truth of articles? NawlinWiki 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment Academically, I first introduced the concept of Earthism to describe the source of spiritual inspiration of such artists, philosophers, and geniuses as Leonardo da Vinci, Alberti, Aristotle, and others who primarily were inspired by Nature (and not a concretized god) as documented in their personal journals, artwork, treatises on art, painting, and philosophy. My graduate level course thesis was completed in 1999 while an undergraduate at the University of Washington entitled “The Renaissance, the Elements, and the Consciousness of Western Mankind.” In May of 2004, I presented the same researched material (refined) to the Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society Conference at Western Washington University in a presentation entitled “The Elements of the Renaissance,” documenting the profound influence on the Italian Renaissance masters of the primary elements (water, fire, air, and Earth), and a spirituality that had never been appropriately denoted, Earthism and Earthian belief system, which has inspired geniuses throughout the ages - often referenced as a sort of Nature mysticism.

The 2004 PNRS conference website has since expired, but it did contain my name and an abstract of the thesis. The current home page is http://www.stmu.ab.ca/PNRS/conferences_NEW.html , but that does not have detailed information of the 2004 conference where I presented my research. I’ve published my thesis on various websites, but websites come and go, and only elite sites have a budget to remain, or ones that have been spoiled by an abundance of advertising. So if Wikipedia only publishes works that have privileged access, you are instituting an elite class structure that seems contrary to the true goal of intelligent investigation. --Spective 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)