Talk:Flower of Life (manga)

Flower of Life (manga) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Anime and manga B‑class Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Farmar, Katherine (August 19, 2010). "Flower of Life Volumes 1-4". Comics Village. Archived from the original on September 20, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Review(s)

Comics Village vol. 1-4 --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Just in case the work(s) listed here is/are notable.

Burke, Thomas (1929). The Flower of Life. London: Constable & Co. OCLC 1058517.

Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost article?

This article was recently moved. There seemed to be a different article here recently, on a geometric shape, but no sign of it now. Its archived here at least: [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the geometric figure was deleted, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). As it was deleted by consensus at AfD then re-creating the same article is not allowed without discussing first.

The manga caled "Flower of Life" is now the only topic with that name, so it gets the article title Flower of Life.

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... that's surprising to me. MathWorld talks about the geometry at least [2] Tom Ruen (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be surprised the geometry article was deleted, however much its "sacred geometry" content was over the top and needed trimming. Its clearly an old symbol, even if the name isn't old, and pretty much every google search shows the geometry NOT the comic book. Artists are copying it and using the name, for instance [3]. Its named in this book Sacred Geometry Design Sourcebook: Universal Dimensional Patterns Bruce Rawles. Stephen Wolfram names it in his 2002 book A New Kind of Science

So (1) it has an ancient interest (2) it has modern interest (3) It has a modern name (4) Diverse people are using that name. What more could you want? Tom Ruen (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book references it, citing Bruce Rawles. Clearly this name isn't going to disappear and be replaced by someone else making up something completely different that already has a widely used name. Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition By Eric W. Weisstein

Facebook likes as secondary source

This discussion has nothing to do with improving this article, but complaining that another article was deleted through the AfD process. This talk page is not WP:Deletion review. Under WP:TALK guidelines, I am closing this topic. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have 7,669 likes listed on my Facebook account, the majority of which are pages on Wikipedia. The other day I noticed a new image from the manga series Flower of Life on my page of likes. I did not recognize this image, so I clicked on the image. To my surprise the Flower of Life page on Wikipedia, that I had originally liked, had been replaced by this page on the manga series. I then learned that the original page had recently been deleted because of a lack of secondary sources.

Don't thousands of likes by Facebook users such as myself serve as as appropriate secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines? If they don't, then they should. The tyranny of the few be damned.

“Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.” - John Locke (Two Treatises of Government) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Facebook likes won't help on Wikipedia. I don't know how "popular culture" terms or symbols can gain recognition into Wikipedia. Google shows something close to 100% of references of "flower of life" are towards this symbol. [4] Tom Ruen (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether or not Facebook likes qualify as a secondary source. According to the Wikipedia page on secondary sources, "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source . Analysis, synthesis, interpretation and evaluation adequately describe the processes that I use to decide whether or not to like a Wikipedia page on Facebook. Is there documentation in the Wikipedia that explicitly states that Facebook likes do not qualify as secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Documents like this would be the place to look: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources. I've never heard of anyone who hoped for such a thing, but if you prod, I bet a policy against it will be made, even if you had a way to prove likes had something to do with real people. Facebook_like_button#Fake_.22likes.22 Tom Ruen (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for what? What is the claim? "This article has a bunch of likes on Facebook"? I don't understand. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, apparently "The Sacred Geometry & the Flower of Life facebook page has 275k likes." [5] and "The Flower of Life facebook page has 164k likes." [6] proving that Facebook deserves an article on this sacred geometry pattern. ?!?!?! Tom Ruen (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now have 7,723 likes on my Facebook page. Yes, can you institute a policy against using Facebook likes as a secondary source, even though the guidelines describe quite well the process I use to decide whether or not to like a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk • contribs)

You're barely making any sense. Please try to stay on topic of improving the current article. (Which has nothing to do with any of this...) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is the only clear place to express opinions (good or bad) about a deleted article. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win. This page deserves to be deleted. I also just deleted my Facebook account. The likes didn't matter anyway, right? What about all my friends? Do their voices matter? Who decides? You? Wait, I almost forgot. Wikipedia is not the real world. Neither is Facebook, nor the Internet for that matter. They only amplify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make this up. I go and create another Facebook account and proceed to like over 250 pages. Facebook then notifies me that since I have liked too many pages too quickly, it has unilaterally deleted all but 240 of my likes. How is this arbitrary enforcement of Facebook's policies any different from your actions to unilaterally delete this page, let alone decide that my content is off-topic? I get it, you are simply following the rules. Rules are superseded all the time. I anticipate your deletion role will be made redundant by a more democratic process that enables users to vote whether or note a page should be deleted based on the body of evidence.

The last time I was censored to this extent, I ended up voicing my concerns directly to the editor. He took care of the situation by overhauling the entire comment system (e.g., by replacing the human censors with a more democratic, self-correction process). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reinstate the geometry flower of life

The style in which you have removed this article is shameful, obviously you wiki users are not much into these types of subjects, and could not care less if the article is about a symbol written and talked about by millions in the world, and if it is a manga series. All those who have contributed and read the article in the past years have done so because they have an interest in the subject. if all people taking an interest in the subject logged on and gave their opinion, you would be outnumbered by thousands.

This symbol was not invented by drunvalo melchizedek, it is a naturally formed symbol that has many stories attributed to it, one of the people who has written about it is drunvalo. i dont believe you are entitled to remove it BECAUSE he wrote about it no matter what his story is. It exists in many places of the world, one of the oldest is thousands of years old, on the column of the osirian temple in abydos, egypt. It predates modern civilization. Maybe drunvalo coined the term flower of life but it is now generally accepted around the world and literally millions of people talk about it, draw it, read about it, tattoo it etc.

www.google.com/search?q=osirian+temple+flower+of+life

www.google.com/search?q=leonardo+da+vinci+flower+of+life

also, leonardo da vinci has written and illustrated the flower of life long time ago

so what is the issue here??

Odarcan (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]