User talk:TaylorOliphant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Kaneh bosem, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] A few general concern (RE:Tree of Life)

Actually, no, you don't see a Tree of Life in Shinto. It concerns me that you put forth opinions and make assumptions on matters that you have no grounding in as if they were authoritative, and then step back and claim that you don't really know - it's not the best way to get someone to consider a viewpoint, and I'm assuming that's what you want done. I'm not claiming that any one of us has perfect understanding, but there is a need for a fundamental level of understanding; showing symbolism is not simply finding or creating vague connections with no underlying support. MSJapan (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I said you see the same tree, meaning cannabis. Shinto does not have a "Tree of Life" as such, you are right. No worries. Keep up the good work.

Here are those links again incase you missed them:

http://www.zmag.org/japanwatch/9907-hemp.html

http://www.taima.org/stories/hanashi001.htm

--TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Godislove.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Godislove.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

If you can produce any evidence which meets WP:Reliable sources specifications, I am sure that we would welcome evidence as you have indicated others are "trying to supress". However, I would like you to know that the only thing anyone actively tries to "suppress" is information from unreliable sources, like many websites. If you can produce evidence to the effect of what you have said earlier, fine, do so and that information will be included. If you cannot, then that belief, however popular it might be among certain cannibis-proponents, is not going to be included, because it lacks a reliable source. Someone should have posted this to you initially: Welcome!

Hello, TaylorOliphant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
That gives the links to the policies which we are all supposed to adhere to. So far, based on what I can see, your proposed inclusion does not appear to meet reliable source standards. If you can change that, please do so. However, please note that (1) the book you have provided a link to is not necessarily considered a reliable source unless independent, non-partisan reviews describe it as reliable. No independent reviews of the book are even indicated on that page, so it's meeting WP:RS is at best dubious. Your accusations that everyone is "trying to suppress" information is inaccurate. What we seek to do is provide verifiable information. Right now, your template falls far short of meeting the standards for inclusion in wikipedia. However, there is at least one group which is working on content related to that subject. That group is Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. You might try contacting them directly, as they are more directly involved in the subject you apparently seek to advocate then the groups you actually contacted. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article itself that you linked to. In all honesty, you've probably heard that we have right now well over 2 million articles. There are efforts to draw attention to the most important articles, like articles on countries, professional disciplines, and the like. Otherwise, though, it's basically up to individuals who are both interested enough in an article and in a position to provide reliable sources to add that information. We are a completely voluntary organization, and we have found out already that it is hard to concentrate attention on even articles about separate nations, an area I'm working on right now. Also, unfortunately, the standard of reliability has to be held in place. If you as an individual can improve the quality of the article on the book in question with reliable sources, I would suggest that you read the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books to see our guidelines for such articles and add the information you can. Unfortunately, given the number of other articles out there, the poor quality of many of the more important of them, and the efforts involved in even just keeping track of all the new ones made, there is a lot of work to be done. You can look on my user page to see the comparatively few number of articles I've worked on for someone with an edit count in the top 25 of all editors ever.
Most of my work is involved in project banner placement and assessment. About half the total articles we have haven't been assessed yet, meaning that there is no way for interested editors to know either the article exists or how comparatively good it is. And I've only assessed maybe 40000 articles, or about 1/30 of the work yet to be done, to get in the 25 of all time. If you can add verifiable information to that or any page, please do so. We are a volunteer effort, and we can use all the volunteers we can get.
You will also note that most of my work is in the field of Christian biography, which, considering I self-identify as a Christian, can be thought of as POV-pushing. POV-pushing in one sense is something we all do, as we tend to work on articles in our areas of interest. Certainly, the subject of cannibis is one we don't have a lot of right now. If you could add NPOV, verifiable information on the subject, I think we would all welcome it. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to work on the issue of "drugs" in religion, the articles Religion and drugs and Spiritual use of cannabis might be the best places to start. The first doesn't yet mention the hallucinogen cocktail used before the Eleusenian mysteries, go into much detail about Soma use in old India, and other such isntances of use of mind altering substances in religious behavior. Both pages could benefit from a lot more information on how drugs have been used in the conducting of religious rituals. I think Karoli Kerenyi is the source on the Eleusenian drugs, but I have had trouble finding the book locally lately to verify that. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand completely. Regarding the "Hell" problem, which is a problem, I rather like the say Neil Gaiman in The Sandman (Vertigo) and C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce and others described it, that you only go there, basically, by choice, by refusing heaven for one reason or another. The New Thought movement has a lot of ideas regarding the interrelationship of thought and reality which seem to agree with a lot of theoretical physics, which lend it a lot of support. In my own case, one could say that I'm "playing it safe" and not addressing the weightier theological/physical aspects too deeply in any but the theoretical sense at this point. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tree of life image

Taylor, the resistance to your image being used is not based on anger (at least not on my part. And having worked with MSJapan for several years, I don't think there is anger on his part either). It is based on several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From your comments it seems as if the image is something you created to support your own novel conclusions reguarding a spiritual/esoteric connection between hemp and the kabbalah. If so, this violates WP:No original research. If these conclusions are not your's, but reflect someone else's conclusions, then it has problems with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. You need to indicate who's conclusions the image reflects, and provide a published source that discusses this conclusion. Even then, it has a problem with WP:FRINGE. The fact that you erroniously proposed the image on the Freeasonry project talk page is actually fairly minor. All that did was draw attention to the problems with the image. I suspect that it would have ended up being nominated for deletion in any case.

Another problem is the way you approached this.... you have an image and are shopping around for a place to put it. That goes against standard practice. It is what we call "spamming" on Wikipedia. If you had come across a verifiable statement in some article about the connection between the kabbalah and hemp, and said to yourself... "hey, I can create an image to go with this statement" there would be less of a problem. But to first create an image, and then attempt to see if anyone wants to use it is backwards.

Finally, the language you use to defend your image comes across as POV pushing. For example, your comment to John Carter in which you say "I know that if I can incorporate some level of questioning of the current laws about cannabis into masonic and religious thought (based on their own true history) I will have done the world a ton of good by giving the truth back to the people." supports this. Wikipedia is not the place to try to convince people (be they masons or anyone else) to change their minds or "question" current laws. Nor is this a place for you to make "amends with The All for my Oliphant kin's very poor choice". This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy board. Our job isn't to try to change people's minds about things... we don't push our own POV's. Our job is simply to inform people about the current thinking on any given topic, based upon verifiable facts backed by reliable sources.

I hope this helps to explain the resistance to your image. The problem isn't anger or even objection to what you say... The problem is with why you are saying it, and the fact that that how you are expressing your view violates Wikipedia's practices and policies. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, absolutely: I see what you are saying and I agree almost entirely. I also think that if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis#Ancient_Hebraic_use you will find a very fair use of the image. I would also like to remind you that my image has a verifiable source, it is named properly, and it is highly relevent in the Spiritual use of Cannabis article. I assure you that if I originally had posted the image to the Spirituality use of Cannabis article and avoided freemasonry no one would have any problem with it. Thanks again for all your feeback, I really do appreciate it and think you are very right. I also think that there are articles that will support this content because of it's inherent value, despite the fact I don't have a harvard to degree to force my opinion on others. I don't intend that harvard comment to be offensive either, I wish I did have a harvard degree but I don't. I passed up a scholarship to Stanford when I was 15 and have been kicking myself ever since incase it matters. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked if I had read Morals & Dogma... No... I am familiar with it, but have never read all of it (I have read a few hefty chunks, but not the entire thing). Pike's rituals are not used in my jurisdiction (in fact where I come from Pike is considered a bit of a quack). But that has little bearing on the issue at hand. I am still concerned about the amount of OR and Fringe reguarding your image. But... if some other project area wishes to consider it, I will leave it to them to determine if it violates Wikipedia policies. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I used to say the same thing about Pike. My stance changed, but who knows. Pike aside, the historic use of hemp/cannabis by masons is easily found anywhere historically referenced masons are found. I think you would find it very interesting to look into hemp and masonry yourself. I originally thought the person telling me this was insane and only now after 5 years of debate am I 100% sure it should be public knowledge. If you are interested in shining light on something that will reflect much more back, look into why hemp was originally criminalized (court transcripts available online) and look into Henry Ford's Hemp car and Popular Mechnics Magazine regarding hemp of that era. I garuntee amazement. (video.google.com henry ford hemp and also this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JyBE53RTjA is probably decent too, but the last part will most likely bore you to tears)

[edit] Chris Bennett

Have you read this? [1] —Whig (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be ready for what you're talking about. Maybe you'd like some of the conversation here. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Please don't add the claim that some lines of the symbol can be highlighted to make it resemble a cannabis leaf to Tiferet or any other article. Without a reliable third-party source making the connection, it is useless trivia at best. (As I have said, I could have highlighted a different set of arbitrarily chosen lines to make it resemble a kite, and I am not trying to force the claim into Wikipedia articles.)

Please read on the policies and guidelines on:

before making any more edits. Sincerely, Mike Rosoft (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hemp may have a number of good uses, but it doesn't make your theory have any more (or less) merit. As I have said: either produce a third-party reference connecting the symbol to cannabis, or stop trying to add it to articles. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, you have no reason to. Plus what sephirot would you link the kite image to? There are none. However tiferet's paths make the image look like a cannabis leaf without my help. Also you can't use a kite for food, fuel, clothing, building materials, etc. A Kite has no relation to the Tree of Life and you shouldn't trivialize this. Look into what I'm saying, you may be shooting something down that will land on your head. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Which points do I connect to get an image of a kite (not the bird)? Center->Top-left->Top->Top-right->Center->Down->Bottom. (I am not using the Hebrew names for them, but I hope I am being clear enough; I can't speak Hebrew anyway. I could have uploaded the resulting image somewhere, but my hosting service is currently broken, and I will NOT upload it to Wikipedia.) And you seem to have missed my point, which was that I could connect any abitrary set of points from the symbol to make the resulting shape resemble some object, and it doesn't mean that there's a connection. (As I have said, I don't claim that there's any connection between the symbol and a kite, and don't try to force it into articles.)

    For the last time, a) the number of uses of hemp has absolutely no relevance in your claimed connection, and b) unless you can attribute your theory to a reliable third-party source, please stop attempting to use Wikipedia to promote it; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Instead, please read the policies I have linked above. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • First I don't think the website can be considered a reliable source (due to its inherent bias); secondly, it makes no mention of the Cabalistic symbol of the tree of life (just of the tree of life itself). And please stop making posts on how wonderful product hemp is; it's irrelevant here. Got it? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I said the "author" of that article, Chris Bennett. You actually read all that? That was never my intent, sorry. That gentleman definitely comes off strange to most, I would never cite a page that looked like that. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, in regards to your comment: “which was that I could connect any abitrary set of points from the symbol to make the resulting shape resemble some object” The information about hemp on your page proves that it is not arbitrary. “Arbitrary” is a horrible choice of words for this. Also, I am willing to bet that you can't create a specific shape that directly relates to a "Tree of Life". A bird, a kite? Those are Arbitrary indeed --TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Bennett has written some books, those may be better sources to consider than his website, at least to substantiate that someone besides yourself has such beliefs that can be cited as a verifiable, reliable source. Asking him to respond to your questions wouldn't help us, as we can't in general cite e-mails anyhow. —Whig (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, your listing of uses that hemp has or could have was "for my interest only". As I have repeatedy told you, I am not interested in them, because they are IRRELEVANT to this debate. How many times do I have to tell you that until you understand it once?

    I do find the word "arbitrary" quite fitting. You have chosen to start with the central point of this symbol, connect to its neighbors to get a star shape, and claim that it refers to a cannabis leaf; frankly, this says more about you than about the symbol. I was trying to demonstrate that your connection has no merit by connecting a different set of points to make the resulting shape resemble a kite (the flying device and NOT the bird), or perhaps a tadpole. (Humans are good at finding randomly occuring patterns.)

    My and other people's rejection of your claims is not a matter of a "massive energetic block" (a fine example of pseudo-scientific language), or even their personal bias against hemp/cannabis/marijuana. It's a matter of Wikipedia policies. As a matter of fact, that you can connect some of the points in the symbol to get a star shape, and that when you color the lines in green, it kinda sorta resembles a cannabis leaf is unencyclopedic trivia; please don't add it into any articles. (If I wanted to add into the article what other sets of points you could connect and what the resulting shapes resemble, it could easily grow a mile long.) Likewise, that this resemblance means that there must be some kind of connection between the tree of life and cannabis is unreferenced and unencyclopedic speculation; please see the above-linked policy of verifiability (as well as the other policies and guidelines).

    I consider the case closed. If you disagree, you can ask some other editor, or use the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the Kabbalah, as I said, it's not science as such. I understand where you are coming from, I just ask that you realize a bird and kite have no value as a tree of life and that your making a totally unfair comparison. Other than that, keep up the good work, and look up Kaneh Bosem if you get a chance. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • As I have repeatedly told you, I don't claim that there's any connection between the tree of life and a kite (I meant kite as a flying device and not kite as a bird, but that's just a detail). I said that there isn't any real connection between it and cannabis either. Your only arguments that there is are a) when I color some of the edges of the symbol of tree of life, it sort of looks like a cannabis leaf and b) hemp is a really really really useful plant - neither of which constitutes evidence. (Oh yes, you said that it isn't science - and by that you seem to mean: "Therefore, I can make up any theory I like, regardless of a lack of evidence, and proclaim it The Truth [TM].) The bottom line is that you don't have any references for your claim, let alone any from a reputable scholarly source, and as such, its inclusion in articles would violate quite a few Wikipedia policies.

    Please don't post any material relating to your claimed connection between cannabis and the tree of life; they will be summarily ignored. You may want to ask another user about the issue, or even start a request for comment, but chance is that you will be told the same as I had told you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Start reading here to avoid BS and save time =)

The connection between the kabbalistic tree of life and cannabis/hemp is as follows:

- Cannabis was traditionally used by the Jewish people, google kaneh bosem

- The kabbalistic tree of life is of Jewish origin and was, by all scholarly accounts I can find, created and developed by people that also relied on cannabis/hemp – This is not POV as hemp can not be separated from the history of Judaism, in any way. In fact, ancient copies of the Torah were often made of hemp, as was much of the paper, clothing, and food then.

- The kabbalistic tree of life is related to the tree of life of Genesis via the Judaic tradition - many scholars believe this could be/must be cannabis

- Many small judeo-christian sects believe cannabis definitely is the tree of life - The Ethiopian Coptic Zion Church and the Rastafarians are good for starters.

- On top of all this, the kabbalistic tree of life looks to many like a cannabis leaf when Tiferet’s paths are highlighted

- Plus you can make anything out of cannabis/hemp, it's seed is probably the most nutritous in the world, and it cleanses the soil and air much more so than any other plant. (It is being used to clean up chernobyl for example) There is definitely no other plant like it.

It is for these reasons that I strongly believe the image should be made available to the public, but with no absolute claims placed on it other than that it is an image of tiferet's paths. I would like to add that it can look like cannabis/hemp, but don't want to step on any toes. It definitely belongs online, at least on the tiferet page for now. The Religion and Drugs and the Spiritual uses of cannabis pages down the line once I get qualified references in relation to those pages. For the Tiferet page, it is just an illustration of the paths of Tiferet, which are already listed on the page.

--TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Taylor, the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Without references stating the conclusions you are presenting here, it is original research that cannot be included no matter how true. I do think you might find some references to support at least some of what you are saying, but until you can find and cite them for others to verify, it is not worth debating further in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a response in the works. Good comment though, best so far.... --TaylorOliphant (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to figure out why any other image would be more qualified for pointing out tiferets paths for the tiferet page... bbiab (honesty)

Back. No my new friend, I am sorry, but you must get the mouth sword too. (finger sword? nah) =)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tree_of_life_wk_02.jpg (later found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tree_of_life_wk_02.svg)

Why is this a more qualified kabbalah image? This is kabbalah, who is this kabbalist that governs illustrations, show me his kabbalist degree. =)

By Wikipedia standards on this topic the image should be fine as a generic illustration for the Tiferet page. I think it may be better quality than the others actually. I mean shoot, I can even touch it up, anti-alias it a bit better, take down it’s file size, whatever you need. Most of these images are crap by graphics standards, I can tell you that much for sure. Steve Jobs definitely isn't running the graphics department. =)

Btw, I really do mean the "=)". Excuse the tackyness of them, but I need to express my smile.

I don't think that image is linked to any content on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the policy is on commons.wikimedia.org but your image might well be suitable there. —Whig (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
here are a bunch of other images of the tree of life. Personally, I like this one a lot too. —Whig (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah scroll down, it's on the right. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tree_of_life_wk_02.svg

So in light of that last url, I feel strongly that my image is definitely fine, even highly necessary, on the Tiferet page. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, why not put it up on Wikimedia commons and then you can ask some of the editors on Tiferet to look at it? —Whig (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tree_of_life_wk_02.svg - why do I have to use wikicommons? I will, but I don't see why this image is any better.

I would guess that if there is a consensus to include your image in Tiferet (or anywhere else it might be appropriate) it could be downloaded from the Wikimedia commons to Wikipedia by any editor. It's not a question of fairness, but if your image is not being used in any Wikipedia article at present it does not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great point. If it is deleted I will upload it to wikicommons and then wait until the light is seen. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you wouldn't be able to use it for your user page. —Whig (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look around but I'm not exactly sure what the rules are. Who would be good to ask? I feel like I've overloaded the friendly admins for now and the not so friendlys ones.. Well.. They do what they do. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in general your user page is yours to do with as you like within reason. —Whig (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making a good point about the image Image:Tree of life wk 02.svg. Just like your claim that the symbol with some of the lines highlighted resembles a hemp leaf doesn't belong to Wikipedia (unless it can be attributed to a reliable source), neither does the claim of the other image's uploader that it resembles a lightning/flaming sword with a different set of lines highlighted. I have relaced it in Template:Kabbalah with Image:Tree of life kircher hebrew.png. As for uploading your image to the Commons, I don't believe it is a good idea; the project is a central repository of images used in Wikimedia projects, and images that won't be used (or useful) in any of the projects may be deleted as outside the project's scope. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

One of the problems that Freemasonry in particular has is the lack of homogenity among the various bodies which call themselves Masonic. That's one of the reasons why some of the pages have strange titles, because people were trying to find an NPOV way of addressing in one article several disparate points. That isn't just limited to Freemasonry, though. If you want to see another example, there's the question why the entity whose official name is Catholic Church has been shunted to Roman Catholic Church, when our policies on naming would seem to indicate that it should be in the first location. Unfortunately, difficulties like this tend to arise in complicated subjects. Certainly the content in question would be very relevant to either the York or Scottish bodies, or maybe the main article on appendant bodies. Alternately, perhaps in an "influences of the Kabbalah" page, which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist yet. I think the more active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah might be better able to inform you on that subject than me. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taylor... one thing to remember is that we have been talking about two seperate issues here. One is the degree to which the Kabbalah is connected to Freemasonry (or more accurately, is connected to specific rites and degrees within the broader umbrella called Freemasonry). That is a very debatable question, but the debate is worthy of discussion further discussion. The other is your personal interpretation of the Kabbalah, as illustrated by the image you have created. That interpretation most definitely does not belong in any article about Freemasonry. Do you understand the difference? Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes. Absolutely. My image is for the tiferet page only -it is of good use there as paragraph 5 points out. I think there should just be a generic reference on the masonry page(s) about kabbalah, this is what I've been trying to say since I was originally corrected as far as I know. My goal is to restore the history of hemp in America and Freemasonry, so that bias aside, I think I see the divide between freemasonry and tiferet's paths just fine. It would be nice if the kabbalah project would like to highlight tiferet's paths on their main image, but that is entirely up to the established members there.

Thanks again for all your help, God Bless, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you want to make similar paths for all of the sefirot? —Whig (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying by the way that you want to restore a connection between hemp and freemasonry? I do understand that many of the framers of the constitution were both freemasons and hemp farmers. —Whig (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All the way back to egypt. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll in terms of what I am going to prove -1492 sounds like a good year to start, the egypt thing is just for fun. =) Also, www.provideforall.com - I think (good idea, thanks) a blog would be a good place for me to collect data before I show it to people here, save some wikienergy --TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the framers of the constitution were both slave owners and hemp farmers... would you say that there is a connection between hemp and slavery? Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The connected between hemp and your wounded ego is of more concern my friend. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a connection between blacks and hemp though: From 1910 to 1920, Hearst’s newspapers would claim that the majority of incidents in which blacks were said to have raped white women, could be traced directly to cocaine. This continued for 10 years until Hearst decided it was not “cocaine-crazed negroes” raping white women - it was now “marijuana-crazed negroes” raping white women. http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image on Tiferet

Taylor... I still have a lot of strong reservations about your puting your image anywhere on Wikipedia... Of all the places you have tried, the Tiferet page is the closest to being appropriate, but even there I see a lot of problems. The main one is that the image is Original Research. To include it, you need to directly tie the image to something said in the article, and in order to say that something that you need a reliable source which said it (which so far, I don't think you have). Again, please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR (the various policies and guidelines that tell us what we can and what we can not add to wikipedia). Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Yes, you are right. I will add a link to the image after the following quote (Paragraph 5 on on the Tiferet page) when I get time to figure out hosting and so forth: "In the standard tree, Tiferet has eight paths, leading (counterclockwise) to Keter (through Daat), Bina, Gvura, Hod, Ysod, Netsakh, Khesed, and Khokhma." - All I did was highlight those paths: http://www.provideforall.com - it's there somewhere

Hmm... As long as the only thing you do is use the image illustrate the paths, it is probably OK to include it. Personally, I had no problems following the paths from the image already provided, but if the normal editors of the Tiferet article agree that your image is helpful, I have no objection. The fact that you color the paths green is not a major problem (as any color would do). As long as you do not include any interpretation of what the illustration reminds you of (ie don't mention hemp) you should be OK. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)