Talk:Summum

Kybalion

Concerned about which ideas Summum dictates that are clearly taken from the Kybalion but changed in form, without any indication of that process here. There is a reference to "The lips of wisdom are closed except to the ears of understanding" which is straight out of the Kybalion. Things like this I feel should be attributed so that a reader can see how closely related Summum is to the Kybalion.

I removed the status flag indicating the article is written as an advertisement. I would think such a designation be made after a community discussion first. The designation was made by an IP address and the Talk page of the IP address indicates the user had made past inappropriate edits on other articles.

KamiLian 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article on SUMMUM fits in well with the series of God. If it were combined with the article on Summum, then I don't know if it would fit with the series of God. For that reason, I think it might be better to keep it separate from the Summum. But that's just my opinion.

KamiLian 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears a user did some drive by tagging and placed a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tag without addressing any issues on the talk page. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page..." Since nothing was addressed on the talk page, I removed the tag. If someone has an issue with the NPOV, please address it on the talk page and refrain from drive by tagging.

KamiLian 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an Advertisement

This article Summum reads like an advertisement which is not what Wikipedia is for. Please do not delete this tag until it someone edits the article so it is more neutral in its writing. IamMcLovin 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about an advertisement, but it reads as if it was written by believers with very little regard for the rest of the world. I kept finding phrases I couldn't make sense of, like "advanced beings who work along the pathways of creation." "...because it is the human mind that interprets the characteristics and qualities of the golden ratio, it should be considered in its relation to the human psyche." (The words "golden ratio" could be replaced by any other noun/s at all and make as much sense.)

The sentence "Apparently, the government will not allow Summum to make the nectars in the manner Summum believes they should be made." needs attribution. To whom is it apparent? --Hugh7 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The internal links to the cult's own website should obviously be moved to an external link section. I absolutely agree with the "Advertisement" flag, but a cult like this poses a special problem, since no one on the outside will be able to say much about it. From the perspective of such a cult, there is no such thing as a neutral point of view, and no one who "truly understands" their beliefs can possibly describe those beliefs in a neutral manner. No attempt to summarize or compare their beliefs to anything else can possibly be regarded as valid from their viewpoint. Nonbelievers are defined as non-neutral. How about reducing it to a demographic treatment? Basically just a historical list of leaders and how many followers the cult claims over time and any evidence of those claims, along with a clearly flagged external link to the cult's website for the whole spiel. --Shanen (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur that this reads as an advertisement; it's also built upon self-published sources of the group's own website, the other sources being merely peripheral, and likely does not meet notability guidelines: usually any external mentioning of it are due to lawsuits it has itself brought to court, not to beliefs or outside critiques, etc.; and so the notability tag, and sources tag, have been added. Thinking about it now, this may require the NPOV tag as well, because it's written like an ad.

tooMuchData

08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

There is genuine value in keeping information about this group's belief system in place, rather than simply reducing the article to a summary with demographic information and an historical list of leaders, in that it gives the Wiki reader a chance to get some feeling for the basis of the cult. The link to the cult's website should indeed be put into the external links; otherwise, the casual reader gets the impression that all the references (to number 4 at the moment) point to some sort of external assessment. Perhaps someone not affiliated with the group could take the time to review some of their materials (to gain some basic understanding of the cult's belief system and claims), and then edit this article, to remove some of the advertisement feeling?Hughesdavidw (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Tags

The notability and advert tag weren't warranted, I agree that there might be an original research issue. I'll also tag for more 3rd party sources. --Bobak (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

After re-examining the article, I think the original tags were well meant but not quite accurate: the notability question is moot because the sect's Supreme Court battle is enough to warrant that there's a serious (and genuinely supported) faith that's involved here. The Advert and OR tags were closer to what's at issue, but the tone of the article didn't really become too heavily advert (at least not at this point, the tag was from over a year ago and back then it may have been different), and the OR wasn't accurate as there are citations. Now, looking at those citations we see most are by the religious itself, so that leaves two major concerns: that we do not have enough independent/primary/3rd party sources and that many of these sources could count as self-published. --Bobak (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked up Summum after reading about the 1st amendment case in the NYtimes. It appeared to me that part of the section on the case was written in a way so as to illegitimate the inclusion of a non-Judeo-Christian monument so I reworked it a litle. --User:PingreePark (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reads as an ad for Summum

A status flag indicating the article is written as an advertisement for Summum is definitely indicated.

Large sections of the Kybalion (itself dubious) were simply copied and pasted, or amplified to support a winery business model, and passed off as a new revelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.205.64 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court Case argued Nov. 12, 2008

WaPo points out that Summum's case:

"Unlike the Supreme Court's most recent cases over government display of the Ten Commandments, the Utah case is a free-speech challenge that does not involve the Constitution's provision on establishment of religion."

Summum claims not the right to take down religious speech of others but to put up its own religious speech in the park.

So -- the town is trying to say that the first stone speech (the 12 commandments whose donation it accepted) become the town's speech. And that the government is free to say anything it wants, including all about religion, without having to accept any groups donation of other speech. If you make the speech, the government must be content neutral. But if you donate it, the government can pick what it likes based on religion, prominently display it in perpetuity, and that's all right.

So: What about a Vietnam war memorial donated by the KKK that omits all the names of all the black soldiers and sailors who died there? Once the government starts acting, the limits on what it can do (and can't do) with the tax money of people who disagree come into play.

The issue of separation of state from church is the issue glaringly omitted from the briefs. Congress and the states are permitted to make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Because most of us wouldn't like it if someone else's religion was established on our nickle and thrust upon us.

But in this case, unless the Supreme Court on it's own raises the issue of not using taxpayer resources for establishing religion, it won't be raised. Neither of the parties are raising it, and neither care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.205.64 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Religion" versus "Cult"

Arbitrarily referring to Summum as a "cult" cannot be sustained on face. Even the U.S. Supreme Court regards it as a "religion". If an editor wishes to introduce a well-balanced section exploring "cult-like" aspects of Summum consistent with the definition and content of the Wikipedia page on Cult (religious practice) go ahead and see what the outcome is. But simply labeling the group as a bare-faced cult will not fly. Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted the "cult" labels back to "religion." KamiLian (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge pyramid article here

There is no need for a separate Summum Pyramid article that only duplicates information from this article, except for the picture. How about merging it here where it belongs? 172.129.43.80 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 72.72.254.176 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

mummiform

§ Mummification used the word "mummiform" as a noun. Summum's own website uses it that way, and some dictionaries include that usage, but mostly it's used and defined as an adjective. I've reworded the sentence slightly to go with the common usage.

--Thnidu (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops (class="plainlinks")

Evidently I stuck <span class="plainlinks"></span> at the beginning of the first subhead. I have no idea how, or where it came from; I must've accidentally copied it in from somewhere. Anyway, I took it off again. --Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 10:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• Summum → Summum (religious group)
• Summum (disambiguation) → Summum

– Pageviews [1] show that Summum (magazine) gets more clicks. Per WP:NOPRIMARY, the disambiguation page should be at the base title. 162 etc. (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support the religious group is probably primary by PT#2 but considering it was only formed in 1975 while the magazine 2003 I don't see a clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the religious group is far more notable than the magazine. There are many published books and papers which discuss the religious group. For example, Susan J. Palmer, "Overcoming death in new religious movements" (chapter 20), in Christopher M. Moreman (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Death and Dying, Routledge, 2018, p. 212-213, spends four paragraphs giving the history of this religious group and pointing out what is distinctive about their afterlife beliefs. The chapter DeAnn K. Gauthier, et al, "Disposing of the dead: minor modes", in Clifton D. Bryant (ed.), Handbook of Death & Dying, Sage Publications: 2003, volume 1, pages 794-795, also spends about four paragraphs discussing the group and describing their unique methods of corpse disposal. J. Gordon Melton's famous Encyclopedia of American Religions has a decent-sized entry on this group too (half a page), on page 1130 of the 8th edition. Here's a journal article which extensively discusses their novel beliefs about Jesus. They were also party to a US Supreme Court case, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, and you can find extensive discussion of that case in law journals. And that's just limiting ourselves to the more serious scholarly/academic literature. This group's unusual beliefs and practices, and also their Supreme Court case, have got them a lot of attention over the years in the mainstream media and many popular books. Some lifestyle magazine is nowhere near as notable; I really doubt any serious academic sources have paid it any attention at all, and I doubt it has received anywhere near as attention in the news media or popular books either. (Honestly I'd even question whether the lifestyle magazine has sufficient notability for an article, I am seriously considering AFDing it.) In determining the primary topic, the quantity of coverage in reliable sources is a lot more important than page views, and on that measure the religious group wins hands down. Mr248 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I've nominated the article about the magazine for deletion – Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Summum_(magazine) – it would make no sense to go ahead with this requested move while the AFD is pending. If the AFD succeeds (which I think is most likely outcome, but you never know), that would inherently make this requested move inappropriate. (I don't think the AFD being pending means we can't close this requested move as "not done" in the meantime, but others will be the judge of that.) Mr248 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Well yes wait and see what happens with the AFD, if its delete then the religious group probably would be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Massviews [2] show the current primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong, strong oppose Religious topic is clearly more important and notable here. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.