Talk:Sacred geometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacred geometry article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

1

[edit] Quasi-meaningful sesquipedalian obfuscatoriationness for the epic win.

Sacred geometry may be understood as a worldview of pattern recognition, a complex system of hallowed attribution and signification that may subsume religious and cultural values to the fundamental structures and relationships of such complexes as space, time and form.

Am I the only person who notices that when bullshit artists are at work, sentences pop up that have no decipherable semantic meaning?

Let me just try to translate this into English. "Sacred geometry may be understood as... making shit up." I think I did a good job there. --75.63.48.18 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point caught my eye on the fly so (as per be bold policy I don't know the link to) I was bold. IMHO the overly detailed repetition, antiquely formal language (as per antique language policy), sweeping statements, and too much linking in the first two paras was obscuring, so they've been cut and changed around to make it less obviously pov than it was (I hope). The statements need citations and it needs a simple line saying what arts are involved in SG, who by and why which then gets fleshed out in the sections. Over to you 75.63. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is the subject? Are we talking about the motivation for some architecture (maybe true) or someone's off-the-wall new age theory (file under flake)? As I recollect, the proportions for Notre Dame de Paris were based on Suger's neoplatonist predilections, so there is a potential for an encyclopedia article there, but I suppose the best fate for the rest of it is to lose it. m.e. (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)