- 1 Cosmic ordering is a New Age version of 1937 Napoleon Hill, then Reverend Ike and others
- 2 What on Earth is this?
- 3 Re: Cosmic Ordering Temporary Article
- 4 SPAM 23rd November 2006
- 5 The need to edit 'Criticisms of Cosmic Ordering'
- 6 Deal or no Deal
- 7 Personal Opinions used to edit Cosmic Ordering Article
- 8 Capitalisation
- 9 Spacestar Ordering
Cosmic ordering is a New Age version of 1937 Napoleon Hill, then Reverend Ike and others
- It would appear that this movement sprang from nowhere but this is untrue. It has a long history in Christianity with ministers such as Reverend Ike and Kenneth Copeland and Bob Tilton to name but a few. Perhaps the most zany was Reverend Ike's "You can't lose with the stuff I use" and "Mind power is green power and green power is money getting power". He told his 'flock' to imagine what they wanted and then to commit those ideas to paper. It would appear as if Noel is either ignorant of the history of this concept, or he is pushing his own version. Napoleon Hill was perhaps the originator of the non-Christian version with his book "Think and Grow Rich" first published in 1937 during the Great Depression. The current article needs a total rewrite. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What on Earth is this?
- What on Earth is this? Is this an ad, part of a swiped article, or what? What is it doing here?
- Septegram 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Holy cow, this article stinks! Beerathon 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As JFK might have said, 'Ask not what your Cosmos can do for you, but what you can do for your Cosmos.' What do these wish-fulfilment programs/books ever ask the doer to provide in return?
The only use CO might have is to maek the doer decide what they actually want, and consider what comes their way.
Jackiespeel 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Cosmic Ordering Temporary Article
On the 24th September 2006 the Cosmic Ordering page was taken offline for possible copyright violations pertaining to an article from the Telegraph newspaper website. I having found the previous Cosmic Ordering article (an extended stubb) to be unsuitable wrote a brand new original article (whilst keeping some minor parts of the previous). It was an original piece of writing, with an external link to an article by the Telegraph newspaper. However afterwards various elements were changed by wikipedia contributors, perhaps some of these change were to directly add text from the Telegraph article, which was unneccessary.
It must be noted that Noel Edmonds and his 'story' with Cosmic Ordering was widely reported in a number of newspapers and interviews in the UK. The news-story itself was not an original piece by the Telegraph newspaper, as such the story of Noel Edmonds and his association with Cosmic Ordering should not be considered copyrightable. However, if direct copying of wording has occured then of course this would be a copyright violation, and this is not acceptable.
Whilst the copyright issue is looked into, I will post an edited version of my wikipedia article on the Cosmic Ordering temporary page, WITHOUT any violations, so that visitors have some referenced information when visiting. I also intend to add some other links to it later.
For the purpose of confirming & monitoring that the article is violation free I have enclosed the link to the Telegraph article mentioned. In this way anybody who has concerns of copyright violation can directly compare the two. Thank You!
SPAM 23rd November 2006
There are now a number of books on cosmic ordering. All prominent text should be presented but the wiki shouldnt be hijacked for spam. This Cosmic Oredering wikipedia entry has seen a new author added, however as the author's details were added in a prominent location, in bold text, with a description that sounded like spam.. "Stephen Richards reveals how to make direct contact with the Cosmos via naturalistic means, researched and developed since 1995." This statement is presented as irrevocable truth, which obviously cannot be substantiated, as cosmic ordering is an unproven belief systems. Therefore I have reworded it slightly to say "Stephen Richards believes he can..."
Also the bibliographic entries have been spamed out of alphabetical order so that Stephen Richards books are placed first, one also had an additional element of an asterisk next to it.
The other change was that two authors were listed with their name in bold, their name was changed to standard text. The new author's name was listed in bold text. I have remedied this, so all author's have their name listed equally in bold font.
Perhaps a wiki mod, can monitor this?
The need to edit 'Criticisms of Cosmic Ordering'
On the 19th December 2006 a section was added entitled 'Criticisms of Cosmic Ordering.' Having read the section it's in urgent need of editing or removal. Firstly because original opinion is given, and secondly because cosmic ordering is criticised for being unscientific - despite the article listing it as a belief system and NOT a science.
In the article cosmic ordering is criticised for being a pseudoscience (listed in wikipedia as being a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.) The author has not listed any sources that list who has may have made scientific claims about it. However there have been no claims that cosmic ordering is a science, either by those who believe in it, or by those who have spoken about their faith. More commonly it is compared to a religious belief.
The person who has written the article has made original and speculative comment which should be removed. To say that believers in cosmic ordering only remember when they have had 'a wish come true' is fair comment, but the same could also be said of believers of a religious faith who remember when 'their prayers have been answered', as oppossed to when they haven't. With editing this could be made suitable.
Relevant criticisms should of course be made, but the author has written with a bias against the subject, and given 'his' subjective opinion when a neutral viewpoint is appropriate. So the comparisons to a pseudoscience should be removed because there have been no claims that it is a science, it is a belief system/faith. Also the author's speculative opinions should be removed completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Pumblechook (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I agree that the "criticism" section is quite biased, contains speculative points of view and should be edited. However, subjects do not have to claim to be sciences before they are allowed to be labelled as psuedoscience; this part should be kept (but edited). Science deals with any observable claims. The act of cosmic ordering is supposed to give observable phenomena (i.e. the stuff you wish for coming true) so it falls under the eyes of science. As it has never been shown to work experimentally and it makes use of sciency words, like "cosmic" and "universe", with no purpose or meaning, it is just like other things that are called psuedoscience. For instance, homeopathy is a pseduoscience as they use science sounding words and concepts that don't make sense and are not backed up with experiments.
To what extent do the "promoters of this theory as a group" suggest that people following Cosmic Ordering should contribute something to what happens/help others achieve their cosmic orders. I think the most that can be said for it is my previous comment about helping people define what they wish to have/achieve. Jackiespeel 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the assertion that this is not really a scientific or a scientifically testable assertion. For one thing, it's not testable unless the wish is expressed. Secondly, some wishes have a guaranteed outcome ("I wish for the sun to come up tomorrow"); other wishes have a degree of probability that is *not* ascertainable because the number of variables is very large ("I wish for a million dollars to appear in the trunk of my car"). Testable *in theory* may have no practical consequence. While I can't test for it, I'm *almost certain* that the majority of wishes addressed to the cosmos remain unfulfilled, while those that are the result of coincidence or synchronicity. It seems clear that "cosmic ordering" is a new gloss on the ancient idea of prayer ... part of the magical belief in the power of the spoken word ... which puts it into the realm of metaphysics, and outside of any current scientific POV. Twang 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Deal or no Deal
The symbols on Noel Edmonds hand were a joke, NOT to do with Cosmic Ordering - as stated in the Deal Or No Deal article
Whilst presenting the British version of the game show Deal or No Deal he is regularly seen to have different symbols drawn over his right
hand. He has revealed that this is due to his belief in Cosmic Ordering.
Bilky asko 09:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal Opinions used to edit Cosmic Ordering Article
Having written the majority of the original Wikipedia article on Cosmic Ordering I am surprised by what I have found here. An editor who is opposed to New Age beliefs has removed most of the article. Cosmic Ordering is a belief system. Wikipedia has no duty to preach that Cosmic Ordering is true or not, however it should give an explanation of what it is. The beliefs and their context have been removed because an author disagrees with them. This is like taking the page on 'The Secret' or 'The Law of Attraction' and removing the theory because an editor disagrees with it! This is an abuse of Wikipedia and weakens it. I will update this soon in accordance with Wiki guidelines soon.
Also. I have seen that the key texts which define Cosmic Ordering beliefs have been removed. This is ridiculous! Cosmic Ordering was first explained by certain books. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be abused by spam. Where these 'key' authors have released multiple products, I think that only one book should be listed to minimise spam. I have returned a truncated Cosmic Ordering bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Pumblechook (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason why this phrase needs to be capitalised? Is it a trademark? If not, the article should be moved to cosmic ordering and the spelling changed accordingly throughout. — Paul G (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I performed the page move to the 'Cosmic ordering' title. Anyone who has some time is welcome to fix the capitalization on the links to this page from other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)