Talk:Barry Long

Rewording the Lede

Anon user 78.151.254.184 and I have a disagreement about the lede and I'd like to hear more opinions.

The lede reads: "Born and raised in Australia with little formal education, in his twenties, Long, married with two children, was an editor of a Sunday newspaper and press secretary in the New South Wales Parliament."

I find that very convoluted and hard to read. Except for the ambiguous last name Long, the sentence doesn't even start until the 18th word! IMHO clarity should be a focus of encyclopedic style, so I changed this to:

"Born and raised in Australia with little formal education, Long became an editor of a Sunday newspaper and press secretary in the New South Wales Parliament in his twenties, while married with two children."

User 78.151.254.184 reverted, saying the first was easier to read. I'd like to hear opinions from him/her and anyone else. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Msalt (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me a new word - lede - and thank you for raising this to be looked at. It's not controversial just that we each prefer a different version. I looked at both versions, reading each through several times. I agreed with the change from 'by his twenties' to 'in his twenties'. The part that didn't ring true for me was the hanging, phrase at the end 'while married with two children' as if it were somehow incidental rather than the most important part of his life (if his wife or child were seriously ill or dying where would his career be then). So I prefer the order: man, family, career. Mostly I rely on my sense of what reads best in the same way that a native speaker of English has an innate sense of adjective order when there are several in a sentence or phrase. 78.151.254.184 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now reworded as three sentences. 78.151.254.184 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Infallibility

In his book 'Meditation a Foundation Course' Long related how he was master of his own mind, and not subject to impressions about reality" This is Arthurankle's posting which I have repeatedly removed because the bolded bit is wrong as it implies an authoritarian rejection of impressions (sensory? mental?) about reality (which reality?). There are too many question marks Arthurankle please quote the page no. you are refering to.124.176.122.33 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It implies, and I imply , no such thing.

Barry claimed to be master of his own mind, this means not being subject to the impressions mentioned in his meditation book the whole point of which was to be rid of impressions. I have quoted page number. If you were not lazy, you would know the material well enough to provide page numbers yourself. Unfortunately, you have too much invested in your guru and your idea of yourself as a devotee to tolerate anything which points to his fallibility, and therefore your own, and thus you vandalize any dissent or any quotes which suggest he may not have known what he was talking about. You are, like the monks of old, an inquisitor. It's incredibly backwards of you to take this attitude of censorship, and I think you have a grudge against free thought and speech. This makes a mockery of the good idea of wikipedia in the first place, and puts you in the category of any other biased troll. Where Long has clearly given out erroneous and possibly dangerously ill informed material, you would rather people believe it without question, and be as ignorant as you. Let's hope, for instance, that none of his followers take his advice on bodily pollutants too seriously- or that they can provide some proof that he was right- you may get a Nobel for that. Just because someone can lead you to deep meditative states does not mean they are omniscient and all knowing, or even honest.

Did you do what your guru said you should, and check his assertions and ideas?

Arthurankle Please could you quote the page no. again as I must have missed it.124.183.87.19 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean all those repeated readings and you don't know?

Arthurankle your made up text is not to be found in Meditation and you haven't given any page reference to it, so will you admit that it is your own understanding of the book and not Long's words? To me that combination of words does not reflect the truth, and is not to be found in Meditation a Foundation Course by Barry Long.58.165.145.64 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I want you to go and find evidence that;

1.We are developing a chemical body of protective pollutants.

 [1.(a).Find the research papers, describe the process, describe the initial sickness, name the protective chemicals.]

2.The ascended masters that Long references are really disembodied devotees of masters. 3.Long has made a constellation- (and no cheating by getting some money together and sponsoring some stars, or renaming them, and such- though that would give me a laugh). 4.Any of his ideas were original. 5.Long didn't just make stuff up.

Arthurankle, I am not concerned with defending Barry Long, I am concerned with the facticity of this article. 58.168.100.202 (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than being an opportunity simply to quote Long and his ideas in an uncritical manner, it would be more in keeping with the idea of wikipedia as a learning tool to provide a broader context for Long's quotes, and provide links associated with his ideas to further their understanding. This may not be popular with his followers or anyone who resents having his ideas being contrasted with those of others, but is necessary for the article to be in line with the wikipedia ethos which is to inform generally, not simply to quote one man's ideas without further discussion or contrast.

There is a tendency among guru followers to focus exclusively on their man because they think he is special, unique and original and this seems to produce a fear of comparison with other competing views on his ideas. Cutting off the Long article from the greater resource of wikipedia by cutting off links to matter related to his ideas seems to be a wasted opportunity for people to learn about various subjects - which is the whole point of this site.

I think it would be a good idea, therefore, for Long's followers to remember that their guru's ideas are to be seen in a broader educational context on wikipedia, and to help maintain that broader perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurankle (talk • contribs) 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Long's world view

I have removed this section. The first paragraph is original research, an individual's own ideas about Long's teaching. The rest is a selection of small pieces of Long's teaching which need the context of the whole teaching for the individual to fully see their significance. Long's teaching is easily accessible on the web and in books as per the references and external links. 2.102.206.69 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barry Long. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j14/letters.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)