Talk:cymatic theology

RFV
One reference already given for one meaning. I can't figure out what it really means though. We do not have an entry for cymatic:. SemperBlotto 07:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have inserted two more references (three all together), and added a brief sentence explaining that the word cymatic is a derivative of cymatics. Please let me know if you need anything else.
 * Yes, three durably archived citations; so far we have none. In fact I'd assume three citations per definition, so six. The pdf file may be usable for one of the citations, I don't know, is it a 'published' source? See WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and please don't copy etymologies from external sites: that's a clear copyright violation. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And we do have cymatics. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added the adjective cymatic:. If (as it seems that it might) cymatic theology: means something like "any theology that postulates that creation was initiated by a sound", then this entry might even be just "sum of parts". SemperBlotto 10:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books, Scholar, Groups and News get a combined zero hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I never realised it would be such a process, but it is quite stimulating (sorry about the copyright pasting). Yes, You have correctly focused on the term being a sum part of "any theology that postulates that creation was initiated by a sound". I do believe that as I have read the work being done on this, that it is part of a bigger network on sound being one of the mediums used to create and form matter, thus the universe. Would this now affect the term? Also, the paper mentioned, is a published one. It can be viewed at Pretorius Mark.

--Infrasupra 11:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree that this is SoP, but it looks very much unattestable, so that's a moot point. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, do you think the page should be deleted?

--41.133.140.102 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this question to me? Not speedy deleted no, absolutely not, as it has one valid citation (the one discussed above). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cymatic theology seems to be the name given by Mark Pretorius to his own philosophy, explained in this article. I think this should probably be deleted as protologism which has not "entered the lexicon", but it definitely isn't SoP.--Hekaheka 12:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have listened to what has been said and how the information on the term cymatic theology has been changed, and I have not engaged in any disagreement on this, seeing as I am new to this site. However, after going through a comprehensive website I found on this term (Cymatic Theolgy Its History and Development), I have little doubt that it is a SoP. This particular website gives comprehensive links to other sites and articles related to either cymatics, or theology. I spent hours reading many of the linked articles and watching videos (some by prominent scholars), and in my humble opinion, all Pretorius did, was to link the two words together, and bring more coherence to a widely accepted study of sound being part of creation. I was quite prepared for the term to be deleted, but based on the exhaustive links to articles and websites around this combined term, I would please request a rethink on this.

--Infrasupra 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But there's not even one hit on Google Books . It doesn't appear to be real set term. ---&gt; Tooironic 09:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no 'thinking' involved, after a month the entry is cited per WT:CFI, or it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted at the request of the original contributor. SemperBlotto 15:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)