|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third eye article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- You want the pineal gland article for the majority of this, as it's mostly about the gland rather than the concept of a "third eye" - in fact, most of the points you raised have already been covered in the pineal gland article.
- I've merged the Blavatsky and Lovecraft references into the relevant sections of this article and cut the rest. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone were to add something about the Greek philosophers. This message  and its responses would provide a good starting point if anyone is interested. Pollinosisss (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section on Mormonism from this article, for three reasons: (1) Mormon beliefs in a "spiritual eye" are only vaguely similar to the concept discussed here (I'm not even sure how much we actually believe in something called a "spiritual eye"); (2) the source cited, Widtsoe's book A Rational Theology, uses the concept of a third eye as an analogy; and (3) this book hasn't been in use by the LDS Church for a long time, and none of the more recent teaching materials I am familiar with have retained this idea.
Admittedly there are those more knowledgeable than I on this topic, and I invite them to correct me if I'm wrong. I've thus preserved the text that I removed, in case it should be reinstated:
- "In Mormonism the third eye is called the spiritual eye. However, no Latter Day Saint has ever founded a system of Mormon mysticism or yoga to teach adherents how to develop their spiritual eye."
Does this image from the article actually reference the third eye? We could use a little more context for it, ideally with some content in the article body explaining Fludd's theory of the third eye, should one exist. --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- No response in five months, so I've removed the picture. --McGeddon (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Considering the concept of a third eye comes from Hindu teachings, the fact that the article talks about it through christian, gnostic and taoist teachings is a bit stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added some new content sourced from Man, Myth and Magic, and it introduces some contradictory information with respect to which chakra is associated with the third eye. According this source, it is the sahasrara chakra, but another source indicates it is the ajna chakra. Every other source that I have read (but don't currently have available for research) equates the third eye with the ajna chakra, to the best of my recollection.
Can anyone shed some light on this apparent conflict? — MrX 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In popular culture
I added a short section referencing these pages; it was immediately reverted with the tag "Unsourced and this article is about an ancient mystical concept, not pop culture."
I think this misses the point.
Many Wikipedia pages have a section "In popular culture", in order to differentiate the material in other sections, which concern the topic of the page, from material that has been used, abused and distorted by the popular media.
The reason for including the section is that, many people in the English-speaking world who have heard of the third eye got their information from this bestselling book. It seems to me that it is worth mentioning the book, while pointing out that its ideas are not based in fact. The source for the statements made is the "Main Articles".
- Yes, I was the editor who reverted your edit. Some articles have popular culture sections, but there is no consensus on adding them to all articles. It may be worth including in this article, but certainly not in a dedicated section (in my opinion). At the very least, there would need to be at least one reliable (secondary) source that discusses third eye in relation to the book. - MrX 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I could copy references from the "Main Article" pages, but I did not want to do that because:
- (a) (paradoxically given the reason for the reversion) I felt that adding references that are really about the popular book was not appropriate for a page on the spiritual concept
- (b) I have not read those references, so my propagation of them would be inappropriate. I could find a print reference that I have read, but this would take an inordinate amount of time, and it would not be particularly helpful to readers if it cannot be found on the Web.
- (c) I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that references to other Wikipedia pages would be sufficient.
- In any case, Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes warns us against failing to be bold. "Yes, you might mess things up a little. But someone else will probably clean up after you. Really, go ahead and change it." Reversion is the enemy of this approach. I don't care if my text is ruthlessly edited, removed from its own section, etc etc, because that is the whole point of Wikipedia; but if it is reverted, no one else gets the chance to improve it. - 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC) KJN
- Widtsoe, John A Rational Theology 1915