This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ BrightR: your removes the link to the publication "Varieties of Tulpa Experiences: The Hypnotic Nature of Human Sociality, Personhood, and Interphenomenality" which text is available at www.academia.edu. Is there any particular reason the url with the text of a publication isn't allowed to be linked to the footnote? --- Farcaller ( talk) 10:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ BrightR: You exclude something that is an earlier and broader iteration of a peer reviewed document but post a /r reddit questionaire in the same article as some sort of hinting at mental problems. Is this an attempt at comedy? As other editors mentioned, this article handles largely about some deprivation of the 4chan and mlp iterations of the term and has barely anything to do with the origins or original meaning of it. As it stands this article should be scrapped entirely, if for nothing else then for the reason that it was written by someone who just wanted to remark on the my little pony idiocy instead of reviewing the actual term, its meaning and its connections. Also please be so kind and never in life try to bring up the argument of "peer review" in something you put reddit opinions into. Makes you, the entire site, and everything on it/everyone involved with it look like a circus with clowns around it. --- A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.16.243 ( talk) 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The source by Ben Joffe is a completely speculative self-published blog post and is in no way a reliable source for this topic. I have good reason to believe that the original author of this article, B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk · contribs), is a friend of author of this post and wrote this article to drive traffic to that post. It should be removed as a source along with the speculations that it "supports". Skyerise ( talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. Skyerise ( talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: it was an amicable divorce. Skyerise ( talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Article concerns supposedly Tibetan Buddhist practice, yet substantial portion of the article (ca. 20%) is devoted to My Little Pony fans who practice "tulpomancy" and studies on that group. History of the practice as practiced by Tibetan monks is reduced to a single sentence. This article needs more historical sources and Buddhist PoV. Searching "tulpa" in an internet search engine yields multiple resources more comprehensive than this article and since Wikipedia aspires to be an aggregate of all human knowledge, this situation is upsetting. 5.226.81.106 ( talk) 07:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal and papers published in it should not be used on Wikipedia. I'm removing the information cited to papers published on it. Taramasalata-icre ( talk) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
What is tulpa 202.8.112.30 ( talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Kuia34, you say that stuff related to tibetan tulpamancy is not allowed on this article per previous consensus
. That may well be so, but I am not familiar with it. Can you point me to where this consensus was established? Thank you.
Dumuzid (
talk) 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
In spiritual and magical writings, a "tulpa" is a thought-form--a creature created from the imaginations of people through magical acts. The concept was appropriated for the West through Alexandra David-Néel's 1929 book, Magic and Mystery in Tibet.It strikes me that it supports the cultural appropriation wording. I think it's important to include; is there some wording that would be acceptable to you? Dumuzid ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The edit summary for this edit was false, I could easily find the material in the source that does not appear to be unusable. — Paleo Neonate – 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that the contents of origins category should be added to the Theosophy and thoughtforms category and the "Modern Tulpamancer" category deleed since it word for word is stating what is already said in the "Tulpamancers" category and there both talking about the same group of people. Kuia34 ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
the topic of tulpamancy and thoughtforms are extremely interesting, but the entire article is filled to the brim with dubious sources, vague statements, and misinformation. is anyone planning on working on this article? it needs a lot more work to be considered good FROWNINGCATS ( talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
i was trying to look up synonyms for tulpa for a writing thing, and one of the results (from here) is "dissociative identity disorder" which is a disorder i have. DID is a severe childhood trauma DISORDER, we(alters) are people, not spirit manifestations, and we didnt choose to have this disorder and we dont choose or MaNiFeSt alters. why the hell is DID even mentioned here, it has not a single THING to do with tulpa and to allude so is hurtful. DID already has enough misinformation and stigma littered everywhere too. edits: typos. 2601:405:4780:D250:60E:DCC7:3372:5EA ( talk) 13:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ BrightR: your removes the link to the publication "Varieties of Tulpa Experiences: The Hypnotic Nature of Human Sociality, Personhood, and Interphenomenality" which text is available at www.academia.edu. Is there any particular reason the url with the text of a publication isn't allowed to be linked to the footnote? --- Farcaller ( talk) 10:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ BrightR: You exclude something that is an earlier and broader iteration of a peer reviewed document but post a /r reddit questionaire in the same article as some sort of hinting at mental problems. Is this an attempt at comedy? As other editors mentioned, this article handles largely about some deprivation of the 4chan and mlp iterations of the term and has barely anything to do with the origins or original meaning of it. As it stands this article should be scrapped entirely, if for nothing else then for the reason that it was written by someone who just wanted to remark on the my little pony idiocy instead of reviewing the actual term, its meaning and its connections. Also please be so kind and never in life try to bring up the argument of "peer review" in something you put reddit opinions into. Makes you, the entire site, and everything on it/everyone involved with it look like a circus with clowns around it. --- A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.16.243 ( talk) 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The source by Ben Joffe is a completely speculative self-published blog post and is in no way a reliable source for this topic. I have good reason to believe that the original author of this article, B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk · contribs), is a friend of author of this post and wrote this article to drive traffic to that post. It should be removed as a source along with the speculations that it "supports". Skyerise ( talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. Skyerise ( talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: it was an amicable divorce. Skyerise ( talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Article concerns supposedly Tibetan Buddhist practice, yet substantial portion of the article (ca. 20%) is devoted to My Little Pony fans who practice "tulpomancy" and studies on that group. History of the practice as practiced by Tibetan monks is reduced to a single sentence. This article needs more historical sources and Buddhist PoV. Searching "tulpa" in an internet search engine yields multiple resources more comprehensive than this article and since Wikipedia aspires to be an aggregate of all human knowledge, this situation is upsetting. 5.226.81.106 ( talk) 07:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal and papers published in it should not be used on Wikipedia. I'm removing the information cited to papers published on it. Taramasalata-icre ( talk) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
What is tulpa 202.8.112.30 ( talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Kuia34, you say that stuff related to tibetan tulpamancy is not allowed on this article per previous consensus
. That may well be so, but I am not familiar with it. Can you point me to where this consensus was established? Thank you.
Dumuzid (
talk) 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
In spiritual and magical writings, a "tulpa" is a thought-form--a creature created from the imaginations of people through magical acts. The concept was appropriated for the West through Alexandra David-Néel's 1929 book, Magic and Mystery in Tibet.It strikes me that it supports the cultural appropriation wording. I think it's important to include; is there some wording that would be acceptable to you? Dumuzid ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The edit summary for this edit was false, I could easily find the material in the source that does not appear to be unusable. — Paleo Neonate – 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that the contents of origins category should be added to the Theosophy and thoughtforms category and the "Modern Tulpamancer" category deleed since it word for word is stating what is already said in the "Tulpamancers" category and there both talking about the same group of people. Kuia34 ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
the topic of tulpamancy and thoughtforms are extremely interesting, but the entire article is filled to the brim with dubious sources, vague statements, and misinformation. is anyone planning on working on this article? it needs a lot more work to be considered good FROWNINGCATS ( talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
i was trying to look up synonyms for tulpa for a writing thing, and one of the results (from here) is "dissociative identity disorder" which is a disorder i have. DID is a severe childhood trauma DISORDER, we(alters) are people, not spirit manifestations, and we didnt choose to have this disorder and we dont choose or MaNiFeSt alters. why the hell is DID even mentioned here, it has not a single THING to do with tulpa and to allude so is hurtful. DID already has enough misinformation and stigma littered everywhere too. edits: typos. 2601:405:4780:D250:60E:DCC7:3372:5EA ( talk) 13:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)