Talk:The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Occult Portal The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class 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.)

Please read my entry in the Copyright problems February 4 --GalaazV 05:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article on this book

Following the Copyritght violation notice, I have written a new article about Max Heindel's main book in The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception/Temp. I tried to present there a NPOV information and details on this book, which is a worldwide reference book in the Christian mysticism and the Occult literature.

Please be kind to review and accept its description. Thank you --GalaazV 03:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edition

I have noticed a while ago this "temp" page was already closed for editon. I made some editing meanwhile in order to present the article as complete as possible. Thanks --GalaazV 19:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work! I've moved the article out of temp now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for moving the article out of temp.--GalaazV 19:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] undid redirection

Deletion was spurious. Article is important to series of articles on the Rosicrucians, fully notable, and the fact that its taught by them is no more relevant than the fact that various encyclicals are only taught by catholics, or that various other occult texts are taught by no one at all. This isn't a metric by which to measure usefulness. Style and content issues may be valid, but outright deletion is foolish. 66.251.25.139 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Supported and thank you. This attempt of "explaining away" the article, undoubtedly beyond some individuals' comprehension, did not pass unnoticed. I'm adding now an external link to the 1911 edition of the Cosmo digitized by Microsoft (tx!) and available at the Internet Archive on-line library. Cheers! --Tekto9 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)