User talk:Wa-passage

In response to your feedback[edit]

Don't worry, it's normal.

Juice Leskinen (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Juice...

For now... how can I simply send a msg to another user... I'm sure I'll 'get' it eventually, but it seems nearly unguessable. Nothing I know about any other messaging sytem seem to apply to Wikipedia...

Thanks, - WA

...and is this even the correct way to reply to your msg? 'Edit' seems like a very awkward and indirect reference to what I want to do, which is Reply. - WA Wa-passage (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) [right: four tildes. I'm sure I'd have guessed that eventually...][reply]

Communication goes via talk pages here, and they work just as regular articles do: via the edit button. There is no messaging system, and the international code for smoke signals is still under development. I'll respond on my own talk page as well--to say that your remark on my talk page is best left on the article talk page, since it's relevant to all editors of the page, and then you can leave a note, if you like, on the individual editor's page to say that there's a comment on the talk page. One of the main reasons for that is the accessibility of information: the talk page of the article is for discussions about the article. Given that the article was the subject of a broader discussion, it's more than Todd and me who have an interest in it. Thanks, and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 [Were you a member?][edit]

Were you a member of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love? Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Toddst1... Good question. No, I've never been a member of The Brotherhood of Eternal Love. I became aware or the group only about five years ago, and since then have gotten to know a few of the original members, and several other people who were involved with the group a bit later on. Wa-passage (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Brotherhood of Eternal Love appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Toddst1. Please advise what, specifically, appeared not to correspond to a neutral point of view, so I can 'neutralize' it, or defend it. Does that objection really require trashing everything I added to the article? Almost all of what I wrote is simple fact, based largely upon the the first two chapters of Schou's Orange Sunshine book. Is it really all inadmissible? Wa-passage (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example: describing the group as " a loose-knit group of surfers, former car-club tough guys, former drug dealers and other young men and women seeking the company of fellow truth-seekers attempting to break free of the lives they'd been leading, and investigate the potential of the consciousness-altering agents they'd recently discovered" is a highly non-neutral POV way of saying "a group that wanted to use, manufacture and sell illegal drugs." This is an encyclopedia, not an opportunity to aggrandize peoples' lives or a novel. Yes, it required a total revert.

You are pretty close to being topic-banned on that article given your conflict of interest so instead I have protected the article. Please propose changes on the article's talk page and any administrator can make the changes if you have consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, that's what it said? Truth-seekers?

Thanks for the comments... at least it helps me begin to understand what the objections are. I see that part of it is that I haven't been clear enough that the material I've added so far is about the formation and original intentions of this group. I suppose it seems implausible, or perhaps ridiculous to describe them as "truth seekers" if you view the group strictly from the pov of their drug-running enterprise. It's also clear that the group lost sight of these intentions over time, and ran right off the rails. Their original truth seeking intentions are well documented in secondary sources, though. N. Schou sketches it in the High Times Case Closed article:

Many of them were street thugs or heroin addicts but who after dropping acid, found a new sense of spiritual purpose, adopted Eastern religious teachings, became vegetarians, and swore themselves off violence. At the behest of the group's leader, John Griggs, they befriended Timothy Leary with the aim of transforming the world into a peaceful utopia by promoting consciousness-expanding drug experimentation through LSD, including their famous homemade acid, Orange Sunshine.

From another writer...

They weren't just a smuggling organization, they were a religious movement. Much of what you see today at Rainbow Family Gatherings looks a lot like what was going on around Griggs at Laguna. Brotherhood of Eternal Love

As I mentioned on the article's talk page, Schou treats this matter in depth in his Orange Sunshine book, which is what I cited in my (rejected) contributions. I don't mind at all dropping the phrase "truth seeking" if it seems overblown, but is it at least possible that their original intentions and activities can be documented in the Wikipedia article, as well as their illegal drug-running? Wa-passage (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, though no offense taken. Please feel free to be candid with me. Your comment was helpful, so I've retained it, above, omitting your signature. Wa-passage (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1... It seemed that we were having a fruitful discussion. It's been a couple of days since my last response. Could you reply soon? My essential question / request, at this point is as stated above: "Is it at least possible that the original intentions, formation and activities of the group can be documented in the Wikipedia article, as well as their illegal drug-running?" If possible, I'd like to discuss broadening the topic of the article from the illegal activities of The Brotherhood of Eternal Love to The Brotherhood of Eternal Love... if only to better match its title. Thanks, - WA Wa-passage (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Sunshine does not appear to be a neutral, independent reliable source. Just because it's been published in a book doesn't mean it's an accurate representation. The statement about truth seekers is clearly an exceptional claim which requires exceptional sources and in fact, pretty well establishes the the book being nothing close to a reliable source.

Let me give you an example: I'm sure you could find a book say Jews are the cause of all economic problems. I'm sure there are many folks who swear that's true. However, to make such a statement in Economy of the United States citing that book is going to require a heck of a lot more than just that book saying so. Make sense?

Let's continue any further dicussion on talk:The Brotherhood of Eternal Love. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jon dykes, I worked for the U.S.forest Service Idyllwild,1972, any person who went to \Idyllwild / leaves a peace of them selves over there.