Talk:Overlapping circles grid

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --203.206.199.217 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Flower of life is part of Sacred geomtry pattern that has been studied by many respectable figures, Leonardo Da Vinci among them too. It is essential to have this voice kept on wikipedia and it's surely more important and more relevant than a manga.

I didn't understand deleting a redirect page. I redirected it to Flower of Life (disambiguation)‎. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... there is nothing wrong with the flower of life. (your reason here) --82.34.247.69 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This is truth. Its should be available to all and everyone has right to read about this. let's spread love.--pb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:140D:1300:8C17:DEA3:15CC:C864 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... someone cared to create it. It seems to have been moved from a user page. If someone doesn't like it, and wants to delete it, then I suggest it be moved back to the user page until its status can be resolved. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

History merge

I have carried out a histmerge for attribution purposes and to make earlier versions available to editors. Just Chilling (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Nov 3: Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G4).) and Declined speedy - not substantially identical to the deleted version - if it is desired to pursue deletion then this can be returned to WP:AFD.) --Tom Ruen (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

I tried my best to improve the contents, making it a neutral point of view, and added a section on construction and related figures to help connect this figure to other contents of Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I did a newspaper site search and found: Tom Ruen (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• From Nature’s Geometry, ‘Healing’ Art 2007, By SUSAN HODARA

  Ms. Evans’s paintings depict sacred geometry — imagery based on relationships found in nature and derived from the Flower of Life, an ancient pattern of overlapping circles believed to represent perfection of form and proportion. Her works include 19 paintings she calls Image Keys, selections of which have been exhibited at the Omega Institute in Rhinebeck and used in ceremonies and workshops around the country. In October, prints of four paintings were presented to the Dalai Lama. Last month, the entire set was displayed in Los Angeles and Ojai, Calif.

  The Image Keys all include a version of the Flower of Life as the basis for symmetrical patterns that fill the canvas. Geometric forms include arcs, circles and triangles laid on top of one another against backgrounds of colors applied with texture and variation.

• Andres Amador's 'Earthscape' Art Is Inspired By Nature Posted: 03/31/2012

  Andres Amador The earthscapes fall into two categories; geometric and organic. His geometric pieces, like "Flower of Life," are intricate, symmetric shapes, while his piece like "Kelp" are free-form, resembling the plant water. Amador says his pieces are inspired by nature.

• The Art of Dialogue: Talking Peace Through #Art4Peace Posted: 09/30/2014

  Francesca Love Artist: The sacred and golden letters of peace, 2014 "Peace is golden and a very valuable state of awareness, so that is the main focus of this piece. The background features sacred geometry - the Flower of Life, which is the blueprint of creation, so it's spreading peace throughout all creation. There are also the triangles within the flower of life, which symbolises the unification of body, mind and spirit. Created with intention to bring peace into all the hearts of humanity."

• Beyond Graffitti, a Look at an Evolutionary Process Posted: 03/31/2015

  I caught up with the artist Fishe that evening, who has elevated his tagging and graffiti style to the level of mathematic summations. After several years of painting illegally on the streets and maintaining consistent credibility, he pursued a Bachelors of Fine Arts from UC Riverside. From his studies, he learned to approach art from different levels of consciousness, which originated in sacred geometry. In 2007, he came across The Secret of the Flower of Life, which identified universal symbols and iconography as mathematical patterns of nature that were recognized by different civilizations throughout the world. Inspired by a universal collective consciousness, he began to incorporate these images as superimposed patterns to create a new aesthetic, as cylinders, octagons, cones, and so forth, with the tag as a recurring motif that appears on a canvas or wall.

I've not seen any systematic colorings, except maybe radial ones like [1], so for fun I tried a couple, connected to edge colorings of two uniform compound tilings, left 3 hexagonal tilings, and right 3 triangular tilings. I'll add some rainbow coloring too. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a level-5 version colored [2] Tom Ruen (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Within quilting this general pattern has been called Diamond Wedding Ring pattern by Judy Niemeyer, although it only goes to a second level, and adds 6-sided stars inside the intersection points. (The name seems to be a variation of double wedding ring quilts which works similarly on a square grid of circles, one commons image for that one File:Double Wedding Ring Quilt.jpg.) Tom Ruen (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My wor. "Healing" art? Pople do talk some outrageous bollocks, don't they? Guy (Help!) 14:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Archeological / Art history claims being made by non-archaeologists / non-art historians

"The pattern has been found as an artifact of ancient cultures around the world" - a sweeping claim like this need to be supported by proper archeological or art history texts. At the moment, such a claim has no more standing than Erich von Däniken's stuff. Rummaging around the world identifying "Flower of Life" motifs everywhere is not a substitute for proper expert interpretation of what these historical objects actually are. This pattern is composed entirely of compass points / arcs, i.e. it is all construction lines. In that form it exists as a preliminary underlying stage (a framework) for the creation/construction of more complicated interlace patterns. See for example pages 120-122 of "Islamic Patterns, an analytical and Cosmological Approach" by Keith Critchlow. Critchlow does not give a name to this motif, because for him it is simply the preliminary laying out phase for constructing more complicated patterns. So there is a question in my mind about whether it ever existed historically as an actual standalone object. Any historical objects might just be practice exercises in producing the layout lines required for the preliminary stage in the production of more complicated geometric motifs. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that claim was too sweeping and the reference was dubious. I have toned it down so that it is supported by the refs in the article. Just Chilling (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@"So there is a question in my mind about whether it ever existed historically as an actual standalone object." ... The examples from the (perhaps new?) section Historical occurrences appear to be what you are looking for (?) (the examples shown there do not seem to be likely "practice exercises". It would be pretty hard to justify such a claim relating tho the artifacts depicted there, imho - all except for Leonardo's version which is just that, a Study) However, the symbol is probably more common in contemporary use, afaik. Specifically in the Creative Arts as well as Crafts: be it Sculptors, Painters, Jewellery-makers, Designers, Illustrators... all the way to your local Tattoo parlour. This -- in its named Symbol form -- is a very common contemporary graphical motif/symbol; as a standalone object. Also -- in its unnamed Pattern form -- as a "tool of the trade", being the framework from which to create even more intricate lattices (your "Islamic Pattern" reference is right on the spot). AFAIK, it is not known by any other name.

ADDED: "symbol form" (image): triangular lattice, and fixed number of circles, and circumscribed, vs "pattern form" (image): any lattice, any number of circles, circumscribed or not. clsc (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

Further to the comment by DGG here I am proposing that this page be moved to Flower of Life as the primary topic, with a hatnote for the manga. Just Chilling (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. All google searches will be towards this name usage, rather than the comic book. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Given that this term used in relation to a geometric motif is very recently coined, and that sources used for claims of the motif's antiquity and meaning are all seriously fringe, I think it would be incorrect to appropriate what is a rather generic and arguably poetic phrase to one article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The manga had a three year run from 2004-2007 so coining 'Flower of Life' actually pre-dates the manga. What matters is, is there is a primary topic and if so which? If you carry out a Google search on 'Flower of Life' the results are overwhelmingly for the pattern. Just Chilling (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that there is a primary topic. The phrase in this article is being used to refer to a geometric motif, but the phrase was not invented to be used in relation to that geometric motif, it was a pre-existing phrase and concept: "So, when the vernal flower of life is dead, The soul shall ripen in a lovelier clime." - Henry Ingram, 1815; "Love is the flower of life, and blossoms unexpectedly and without law, and must be plucked where it is found, and enjoyed for the brief hour of its duration." - D.H. Lawrence; "Life is the flower for which love is the honey." - Victor Hugo; "We will have beds filled with light scents, Sofas as deep as tombs, And strange flowers on shelves, Blooming for us, beneath more beautiful skies." - Charles Baudelaire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So you would like to add this to the list? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lady Chatterley's Lover - "Love is the flower of life", D. H. Lawrence"? (143,000 google hits! [3])

I think things should remain as they are. Keep the disambiguation page, keep the current title, and if there are more articles that could be added to the disambiguation page, then they can be. Because the phrase 'flower of life' exists in other contexts, including contexts that predate the form of use detailed in this article, I do not think there is a clear primary topic. Especially since there are no genuinely academic sources for this article - but probably many academic sources that mention the phrase "flower of life" as used as a literary motif. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Spherical form removed

I removed the spherical example (left) since it doesn't represent the hexagonal pattern, although it MAY be close as hexagons on a goldberg polyhedron. I did some looking into circle patterns on spheres, with circles circumscribing regular faces, and give an example on a dodecahedron, icosahedron, and icosidodecahedron below, but unless we have sources that connect these patterns, I don't think they belong here. I also contrast the cicumscribed hexagons of a hexagonal grid below, which is 1/3 of a flower of life pattern. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Ball held by the male Imperial Guardian Lion at the Gate of Supreme Harmony, Forbidden City, Beijing, China, showing the geometrical pattern on its surface.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree (and excuse any igorance in advance), so: could you please elaborate just a little on "since it doesn't represent the hexagonal pattern"? The ball under the lion paw left seems to me like a valid representation of the circular pattern of the Flower of Life, extended to cover a sphere. The "Flower of Life" can't be "the hexagonal pattern" as it consists of circles, not hexagons. It is a mesh of circles, so what do you mean exactly? Is there something that you've forgot to mention, or something that I have overlooked? It's not to be rude, I'd just like to understand what you mean. I agree that the polyhedra you've crafted examples of, are (probably, so +1 on "I don't think") another thing altogether. I hold no firm opinion on the relevance of 3D versions vs 2D versions of this pattern. Thanks clsc (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Rethinking first pattern, assuming it is like the the goldberg polyhedrons, like , it may be mostly hexagonal (except 12 red pentagons), like the Euclidean plane versions. It would be nice to see the pattern more clearly. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I get what you mean now, I think. So the "Flower of Life" symbol has the shape of a hexagon, and as such you take the hexagon shape and tile/tesselate it onto a plane, and then you project that plane onto a sphere. I see no problem in that, assuming that the "Flower of Life" is indeed a "repeating pattern" and an "overlapping circles grid". If so, it means that the Pattern is not a Symbol, and hence it can be extended and manipulated in various ways and still retain its original characteristics. However, if the pattern is not a pattern but a symbol, you can't do this. The problem with the tesselation is that it is destructive: from the tessellated mesh it is not possible to correctly identify the individual tile (because the symbol is already tiled). If you try to identify the smallest possible tile you will fail, because this symbol is not in its "first state" but a tessellation by itself, so the smallest possible tile will only be a fraction of the symbol, not the full symbol. For that reason, (if symbol) a tessellation is a very bad illustration of the symbol - it simply destroys the symbol by hiding it. Regardless if it's on a plane or projected onto some surface. So, essentially, all tessellations are inappropriate/inadequate illustrations of symbols that are already tessellations. clsc (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

ADDED: It seems that we have to find out, or reach consensus somehow, if this is a Pattern or a Symbol. My personal "gut feeling" is that it is both: The "overlapping circles grid" is a pattern, while the "Flower of Life" is a symbol (having a more or less well-defined number of circles). For this reason, the article should really be split into two parts: A "mesh" part (Mathematics), and a "symbol" part (Graphic Arts, and/or Esoteric/Spiritual) - these two/three uses seem incommensurate to me. clsc (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Above striked out, as it is another discussion altogether. clsc (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like that, the "flower" pattern inside a single circle can be transformed, and the symbol isn't clearly limited to a single subset of a pattern, so it can be seen in different forms, like the sphere. This article shows similar tessellation between the sphere, plane and hyperbolic plane Uniform tiling symmetry mutations. Doing the same for the overlapping circles is a bit tricky, at least the hexagons won't be all exactly the same size, as the goldberg polyhedrons show, so it probably takes some artistic and technical skills to map them as perfect circles on a sphere, and probably the circle radii will vary slightly. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this topic is pretty large, I'm afaid. However, considering the (new) page title Overlapping circles grid, these spheres now seem more relevant, as they are clearly grids of overlapping circles. Although on a surface (3D) and not on the plane (2D), so if included they should clearly have a separate sub-section. Also, it should be noted that the lattice required for these examples may not be triangular or square. Examples:

• We have a triangular lattice section, and a square lattice section. It seems to me that an Icosahedron (like in the Similar patterns gallery) represents a pentagonal lattice.
• Goldberg polyhedra combine the pentagonal and triangular lattice. However personally I don't think that Goldberg polyhedra are valid representations of Overlapping circles grid at all, because the circles required for one lattice type will be different from those of the other (From memory, a triangular grid sections the circle in 60 degree slices, while a pentagonal leads to 72 degree slices). This implies that some circles will be broken, and hence it's not a grid made of circles (this can be examined graphically). Logically, the same must apply to many other combinations of different lattices, so (imho) to be sure to be on-topic; only one lattice type per object.

Questions:

• (a) Should we also include projections from the plane onto other types of solids than spheres?
• (b) How rigid is the limit from the intro that this pattern is only found in two-dimensional space?

clsc (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDED: I've thought a bit about the page on Uniform tiling symmetry mutations - it is very fine for illustrating transformations in general. So, I don't think we should touch the concept of transformations here, as this page will then just grow using content that is readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Hence it could become very big and unfocused. So, I think we should stick to the plane in the main body of the article, but we could still have one or two 3D-examples of course, and maybe a "See also" link to the mutation page. clsc (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To add anything to the article we need some sources, but if we're following the same rules as the planar cases, circle radii defined to intersect nearest circle center, here the examples I found. I mainly mentioned the Goldberg polyhedra because they do represent a way of unlimited number of circles, like the planar cases. They do fail in the sense that circles won't all be identical diameters but artistically you may not notice, like File:China-beijing-forbidden-city-P1000157-detail.jpg.

Tetrahedral	Octahedral			Icosahedral

On mutations it is actually easier to extend into the hyperbolic plane, like these with more interlocking rings. [4]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. On interlocking rings, there are 2D cases like [5] and the quilting examples use this effect also. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's another plane case, based on rhombitrihexagonal tiling, i.e. triangular lattice, smaller circles that overlap, but don't intersect. Similar spherical patterns exist, like rhombicuboctahedron and rhombicosidodecahedron edges. These are a mutation series. (Note: The spherical models shown below have great-circle edges, so they're not actually perfect circles on the sphere, but just need small adjustments to a constant radius.) Tom Ruen (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a quilting pattern like the plane one, called Jack's chain, some examples are polygonal, some circular edges. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a "See also" section, and a link to the pge on mutations clsc (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Rawles

Why are we using Bruce Rawles as a source? I can't find any evidence he is a reliable source, the cited works appear to be self-published. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair use images in gallery

I think we can't use Sempiternal and A Head Full of Dreams in a gallery as these are fair use images. They need to be stand-alone images, preferably near the text which calls them out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed them, leaving the links. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia portal/project

One reason for the apparent "stepchild" status of this article may be that it is connected to the incommensurate Wikipedia portals/projects on "Mathematics" respective "Spirituality" - for each of those portals the subject at hand is deemed "low importance". So it sort of falls between two chairs. I do not know how to do this, but I suggest that a third project be enabled, if such a project does exist; that of the Creative Arts. In this suggested context I do not think that the matter would be rated "low importance". Spiritualists and Mathematicians will likely argue forever and never agree. These eternal deletions and resurrections make life hard for those of us that belong to neither of those two groups, but still have an "on topic" relation to the subject matter of the article. clsc (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears the problem with artists or Sacred Geometry is how to identify a topic "authority" source for Wikipedia. Basically every source attempted, book or web-based, has been rejected as "self-published" and I have no answer to rejection. You'd think at least University professors would have the status to sort out the artistic or spiritual meanings of symbols used in popular culture. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Prambanan

Is there a reference/source for the last part of this sentence (from opening section): "Patterns based on a square grid of overlapping circles are found in quilt design, in Ancient Egypt as noted in the 1856 book The Grammar of Ornament, and in the Hindu temple at Prambanan in Java." Ie. a source for the "Square grid of overlapping circles" being used in that temple complex. Would be nice with an image, if possible. The Commons page is extensive, and I've not been able to find an image there that supports the claim. Neither in sources [19] and [20] - although these pages do feature a similar "Kawung" pattern there is no obvious link visible to me from these fabric designs to the temple itself. clsc (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the square forms needs much work, and someone else tried the intro recently. I did find the Egypt symbol in googlebooks [6] with more descriptions above, although I've not looked what else can be said about their dates, "ancient" doesn't seem likely in the appearance to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I found these, but I don't think they are valid examples of "Square grid of overlapping circles" - the circles simply do not overlap, in stead they tile. I don't think we can justify the claim that overlapping circles are used in that temple. It seems the temple features an entirely different pattern of circles, not relevant for this particular article. clsc (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Images from Prambanan (Commons)

Relief at the Candi Sewu

Low relief at the temple dedicated to Shiva at the Candi Lara Jonggrang or Prambanan temple complex

Candi Lara Jonggrang

Agreed on those. No pictures, but here are two references: Tom Ruen (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

1. [7] says "Known in Java since the 13th century the Kawung appears on Hindu temple walls such as Prambanan and Kediri and Loro Jonggrang, providing valuable visual reference connected to Sakti mythology, the Goddess of all creation in Hinduism."
2. And here [8] Design elements used in Batik are found in both Buddhist and Hindu temples - the lotus, for example, in the reliefs of Borobudur; and the interlocking and intersecting circle designs - known in batik work as kawung - in the later hindu temples of east Java.

These references appear decisive on the existence of the Kawung interlocking circles pattern at the Hindu temples at Prambanan and elsewhere in Java. This gives a likely date for the pattern of 930 AD, though surface work could be later. We could put out an image request - Crisco might be able to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. References may have knowledge that we don't have. I have never personally visited that temple, so I have no way of knowing if the images from the Commons page reflect the only way circle patterns are used in that temple. As the suggestion is backed by second-hand sources I say keep it unless/until conflicting evidence shows up sometime. clsc (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe patent

A patent for the use of the flower of life pattern to cure tinnitus (I'm not making this up) has appeared in the Further reading section. One might have thought the patent office would be a bit more skeptical of such things, but apparently if the application is filled in correctly the fact that it's WP:BOLLOCKS doesn't matter any more, guess it makes them a bit of cash. Do people think we should be including such things, and if so why would it be in a Further reading section? I'd hazard that this constitutes original research from a primary source, rather than a reliable secondary source discussing the thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Made me smile to see it. I'm no expert on tinnitus, so I have no certain way of judging if it really is bollocks. I may have a personal opinion though :) Worldwide, it seems that patents are relatively often granted for things in one country that could not be patented in another - plus, the scope of things that are "patents pending" or "applied for, status unknown" is enormous. So, to rephrase your position: Can patents/pat.pending et al be considered trustworthy second-hand sources? I don't think I personally agree, at least not in all cases - but I would prefer an "in-/exclude all" policy in stead of editors having to personally evaluate each separate case, perhaps with insufficient knowledge or other personal bias. I have not yet seen an official Wikipedia policy on the matter (sorry if it's because of my own ignorance). clsc (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, probably they ought never to be relied on as RSS. A granted patent shows that a concept exists, so it's a primary source, like a parish record of a marriage; only with independent RSS can we conclude that the married person is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Flower of Life (geometry) → Overlapping circles grid – Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination). jps (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Tom Ruen (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further reading section

The following two books are being promoted:

• Wolfram, Stephen (May 14, 2002), A New Kind of Science, Wolfram Media, Inc., pp. 43 and 873–874, ISBN 1-57955-008-8, A New Kind of Science
• Melchizedek, Drunvalo (April 1, 1999), The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, Light Technology Publishing, ISBN 1891824171

The first is self-published and described as "controversial". It should not be included on both grounds. The second is, frankly, hogwash. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting fanciful books or neologisms. If they are included, the links to the sales pages absolutely should not be. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the amazon link, replaced by [9]. The first "self-published" book is good enough to have its own wikiarticle, A New Kind of Science, so take that argument there if you like. The "hogwash" book is referenced by other sources, and is listed as further reading, so if someone is curious where the name comes from they can check it out. Wikipedia shouldn't be hiding source because you think it contains hogwash. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

By "good enough" you mean that it has been written about, but it remains, as the article clearly identifies, a problematic book, and therefore its relevance to other articles is questionable at best. We do not usually include self-published books promoting fringe theories, on the articles on subjects the fringe theories address - that gives them undue weight. Nor do we include books by obvious cranks, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The only reason it was included appears to be to support a previous title of this article, from which it was moved by consensus. The purpose of "further reading" is to offer sources that expand on the content, not to divert the reader into the intellectual long grass. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree the book should be more clearly used to support usage the name "flower of life" rather than be downgraded to a "further reading" section.

So, what, you want it as an unreliable source for "flower of life" rather than as an advertisement at the bottom? Explain to me why that is good, please. And the other book, which is self-published and controversial, definitely does not belong. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I reworked 2 books into the "modern usage" section for the sole purpose of showing independent usage of the names. Again Melchizedek's book is relevant because its where the name originates! I don't know why you have a problem with documenting where the name came from. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So you want to use it as an unreliable primary source for a fringe name. Which is fine, apart from the fact that it's unreliable, a primary source, and fringe, so not actually allowable per policy. What you need is a reliable independent secondary source attributing it to Melchizedek, instead. Note: instead. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are picky. I tried a search under google books. How about this? Tom Ruen (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Symbol, Pattern and Symmetry: The Cultural Significance of Structure, By Michael Hann, p. 29-30. [10] (Michael Hann is Chair of Design Theory at the University of Leeds, UK and Director of the University of Leeds International Textiles Archive. He is the author of seven design and textile books, including Structure and Form in Design (Bloomsbury Academic, 2012), and has written extensively for numerous journals including the Journal of the Textiles Institute and Textiles Magazine.)
• [11]: "By the early twenty-first century, many mathematicians had taken a keen interest in the geometrical analysis of designed objects and constructions, including paintings, sculpture and architecture. A wide range of relevant literature resulted, but again the bulk was not readily accessible to typical art and design student audiences. There were, however, a few exceptions, includuding Melchizedek (2000), who examined cultural and historical aspects of what was referred to as the flower of life motif (consisting of overlapping circles in hexagonal order)"

RFC: Inclusion of differently-rational books

The following discussion 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.

---

}

There are two books listed in "further reading" which seem to be a hangover from the previous title of the article:

• A New Kind of Science, self-published by Stephen Wolfram and described in our article on the book as "controversial";
• The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, by Drunvalo Melchizedek, published by Light Technology Publishing, a New Age press.

One user is determined that these should remain, I think they should not, because inclusion gives undue weight to fringe views. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

• Exclude both, per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both, as supporting usage and origin of the name Flower of life in the Modern usage section for a specific pattern of overlapping circles. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude both as per WP:FRINGE. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude both as WP:UNDUE and arguably off-topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude both, support BOLD removal. These works are also already discussed in the body of the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to Close

I have BOLDly removed the disputed material. I recommend this RfC be closed as there is emerging consensus against including the material. On the other hand I also note that the title of the RfC is not neutrally-worded. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2016 (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.

Metatron's cube redirect

When I try to access the "Metatron's cube" page, it redirects me to "Overlapping circles grid#Metatron's cube" page. However, this page does not contain any information about Metatron's cube whatsoever. I definitely remember that the information about Metatron's cube was somewhere on wikipedia before. I think it was related to the pages "Platonic solids" and "Sacred geometry", but I'm not sure. In fact I even found that information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tomruen/Metatron%27s_Cube I believe that either this information should be returned somewhere ("Overlapping circles grid" page is fine by me) or at least the misleading redirects should be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4401:F830:C8EE:7078:2801:DA2B (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC) agreed, just came here looking for Metatrons cube186.30.32.203 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against that material but other editors consider it "self-published" material that couldn't be defended here. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The redirect is still there today. It would surly be better to claim to know nothing at all than to guide people to a page which does not include the material the searcher is looking for. Very frustrating. Have long thought Wikipedia needs a separate volume where such strict rules of reference sources are a little more relaxed. On occasions the current policy creates incredibly biased one sided articles.. (the press is sometimes incredibly one sided and biased) A prime example is the article on Anita Sarkeesian, which does not even mention the huge controversy surrounding her. Lucien86 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)