Talk:Pandeism

What happened to the discussion that was here? Theoph87602 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no old or even deleted revisions of this page. Conceivably it was oversighted, but more likely you're thinking of a different page, perhaps talk:pandeism. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 01:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFD
Pandeism, etymology 2. Here's the bugger, this "secret religious sect" of etymological sense two occurs, in all of human history, in precisely two books. One, being the cited-in-article Anacalypsis, of Godfrey Higgins. The other being the Oahspe Bible, which includes sense two solely because it plagiarizes broadly from Anacalypsis. I have searched high and low, and nobody else even references this as a meaning, not even, at the least, a pet name somebody made up one day for a pet theory. And if that is not sufficiently problematic, the text of Anacalypsis is so interpretable as to suppose that its author was simply speaking of the traditional notion of Pandeism-- that his supposed "secret sect" was not simply propounding the notion of 'God having become the Universe,' as might as well have been a reasonable interpretation in light of the Hinduism which the original theorist seems to have places at the seed of his supposed sect. And so I posit a chill dearth of proof of there being a 'word' here at all, for if this sense is no sense, then the other 'sense' is simply the capitalized form of pandeism, and not needed either. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to WT:RFV. As a new user you're probably not aware of that page, or what it is used for. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what RFV is. But as I've indicated I have already searched beyond searching; no verification yet come upon is to come. There is and will only be the two meagre employments found, and the failure of definitional clarity even in these. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This particular definition will not get deleted as a result of an RfD as its sole problem is that it lacks sufficient attestation. If there were an RfV and it did not get the required citations, which I believe it cannot, then it would be deleted some time after 30 days, probably shortly after. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't the fourth item on this list a third attestation? (Or is it only a mention? Either way, I'm sure there'd be enough journal articles on the Anacalypsis to make three attestations?) Furius (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well let's be consistent here. This 'third attestation' in Olsson's book is in sum, "The theory presented in The Anacalypsis, by Jeffery Higgins, is that a secret religious order, which he labeled Pandeism, had continued from ancient times to the present day, stretching at least from Greece to India," etc. etc. Now I had thought there was some use-mention distinction applied in these evaluations, but is that out the window now? And does it matter that the Higgins use may simply have been applying the secret sect designation to the traditional meaning i sense one of Pandeism? Where is the evidence of this being a word with distinct meaning? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and send to RFV. You are making a challenge for evidence (which others might possibly be able to provide; if they cannot, it will get deleted anyway). That's an RFV matter as stated above. There is no immediate deletion rationale. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be explicit: Keep and Move to RfV. One element in evaluating citations is independence. Another is "use". We may need all the help we can get to assess this and some who may be able and willing to help may not watch or like to participate in RfD discussions. RfV is the right forum. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you keep this at rfd, there's only one possible outcome: it will be kept. You haven't provided, and apparently won't, any reason for deletion that applies to rfd. At rfv, your assertion about lack of attestation can be tested, and your reasons for not using the other quotes can be addressed. So far, your line of argument seems to be: "I don't want to bother with your way of doing things because I know better. Trust me." This is not a good way to get anyone's support or cooperation. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well then, since everybody seems unified on this point of procedure. I have not done any page moving and don't know the technical aspects of moving a discussion from Rfd to Rfv, and so would appreciate if somebody could please provide assistance/guidance on that point. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There aren't any technical aspects. You as the person who opened this RFD can simply say you're retracting it and declaring it closed, and then you start a new discussion over at WT:RFV. —Angr 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The rfd tag in the entry should be changed to an rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Retracting this Rfd and declaring it closed. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January–September 2013
Rfv-sense Pandeism, etymology 2, occurs, in all of human history, in precisely two books. One, being the cited-in-article Anacalypsis, of Godfrey Higgins. The other being the Oahspe Bible, which includes sense two solely because it plagiarizes broadly from Anacalypsis (not just a line or a paragraph, but entire chapters). This ought not count for anything at all.

The word is mentioned--but not actually 'used'--in Jesus in Kashmir: The Lost Tomb, which is itself simply poorly copied plagiarism of older versions of the Wikipedia articles on Anacalypsis and its author. That source simply recites that Higgins called his theory 'Pandeism.'

Additionally problematic is that the text of Anacalypsis is so arcanely and metaphorically written, and so interpretable as to suppose that its author was simply speaking of the traditional notion of Pandeism, ie pandeism-- that his supposed "secret sect" simply propounded the notion of 'God having become the Universe,' as might as well have been a reasonable interpretation in light of the Hinduism which the original theorist seems to have placed at the seed of his supposed sect. If some author were to suppose that at one time Christianity or Judaism or Mormonism had been practiced as a secret sect (which all undoubtedly have been in the times when they were publicly persecutable) would that in itself require a separate definition of these terms as a secret sect? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything else in Books, Scholar, or Usenet. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pandeism, + 100k google hits, suggest it's substantive. Or memeness gone amuck. - Amgine/t&middot;e 02:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh there's no doubting that "Pandeism" as defined at pandeism (combining pantheism and deism) is a thing which exists, and is well enough attested. That's what the Wikipedia article is about, and what its notes bear witness to. But this challenge is not to that definition, but to the 'secret cult' sense solely set forth here under the capitalized variation, a sense which lived and died fairly exclusively in the mind of one man. And most any further reference to this especial meaning will arise, I'm certain, from plagiarists of material once found in Wikipedia, but removed therefrom for lack of notability or verifiability or some like Wiki watchword. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)