Talk:Oahspe: A New Bible

message: While researching Pandeism, I came across a usage of the term in the Oahspe Bible that sounds very much like Godfrey Higgins' use in his Anacalypsis. Can anyone tell me if Newbrough cited or credited Higgins? I think a fairly significant chunk of the Oahspe Bible may be a derivation of Higgins' work.  BD2412 talk 02:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had the opportunity to read further in Oahspe, I have satisfied myself that Newbrough correctly cited to Higgins for the material with which I was concerned. bd2412 T 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some observers have contended that portions of Newbrough's writings constitute plagiarism - either by copying or paraphrasing from previous works, such as Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike, the Anacalypsis of Godfrey Higgins, and various works of Andrew Jackson Davis. 
The "accusations of plagiarism" mentioned here are made by the "oahspe.com" group. The oahspe.com group is an anti oahspe group and their "observations" should be consided subjective. The self defined purpose of the oahspe.com page is to steer interested parties away from an objective read of the oahspe. It then goes on and  pushes it's chosen book. Oahspe.com could best be described as a for profit venture, so therfore, not faithist at all. I maintain the "East Tennessee Oahspean Library" {etol} for the purpose of sharing the oahspe and other oahspe related materials with any interested person. contact me by email if you want.  Etol00@hotmail.com   Rick whitaker
:I have moved this section to talk: it seems to have aroused some contention.  I'd point out that, first, it isn't the custom here to sign contributions to the actual articles.  Statements of personal belief are also not really appropriate here either; they may constitute original research, and that too is somewhat frowned upon.  
:I admit, though, that I am also sceptical that anything in Oahspe constitutes "plagiarism", especially given its highly original style.  Oahspe contains speculations about human antiquity and history; so do Morals and Dogma and Anacalypsis.  Unless they are quoted verbatim, ideas about history cannot be "plagiarized".  More details about what was allegedly borrowed, stated in a NPOV tone, might be appropriate.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of plagiarism (Moved to talk)

message: Removed "Reference Improvements needed" tag of 2007, as many references were added since then. In the Infobox, changed category from fiction to nonfiction category, i.e., from genre (fiction) to subject (nonfiction). I have an original 1882 Oahspe edition, and so, added to the info box the total number of pages in the book.
In the old article layout, the intro material and the Origin section seemed overlapping and somewhat redundant, so, combined them into a tighter, more informative opening. The next section, Nature of the Revelation, in the older article looked too long and too much a collection of disparate facts, and so, some of its contents are now found in other, new sections. At the same time that the section was changed from a catchall category, it was given a wider but integrated scope.
A new section called Basic Teachings was added for benefit of those who desire a capsule summary. Next, the Arrangement of Oahspe section gives a quick overview of the book's basic structure.
The Excerpt section was removed. Because there are now two quote boxes in the expansion article, these should be sufficient to give readers a representative sample of what the Oahspe text is like. Too, keeping the Excerpt section would have added unnecessary length to the article.
Care was taken so that the items which editors seemed to deem important in the older version, can be found in the now expanded article. Some was moved to the Synopsis of Oahspe section of the expanded version, while still others are in the new Oahspe "Firsts" section.
The Influence section remains and has been expanded to include more information. Also an Editions (and Publishing Chronology) section was added since there tends to be general confusion about the editions of Oahspe.
New references and footnotes have been added to the ones already there. Because of the fact that of all the online Oahspe editions, the OAHSPE Standard Edition offered the best way of linking to a citation, it has been used as the primary citing reference, although other online Oahspes are also cited or shown in the links section.
This editor, having the different editions of Oahspe available, went to all the Oahspe sites previously listed to check them out. Hence, the discovery of the "mixed" 1882-1891 material in the sacred texts archive, and the discovery that the "so-called" 1891 edition was missing not only images (although it left room for them), but it had no direct links (on the home page) to the start of the Oahspe book (although it had links to other interior books), and, moreover, the indirect link to the first book was broken so that it couldn't be accessed at all! And then, too, whoever did the editing for that 1891 edition, missed many words---that is to say, it is obvious to me that whoever did the editing, started from an 1882 edition and tried to insert all the 1891 word changes. But I discovered that the editor missed many words; that is, the words were from the 1882 edition and not the 1891 edition! To be fair, though, the editor did get some of the big differences that I checked---but then again, I did not check all major differences.
I hope you find this new rendition of the Oahspe article to your liking. My intention was to present a neutral encyclopedia entry that was first and foremost informative, but also acceptable to all stakeholders in its message. Of course it had to be factual but also I desired that it be easy to read and understand. Jes99 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major expansion. Tightened intro; added sections, references; infobox category: fiction to nonfiction. See talk page for more. 

message: Is it supposed to be descension or declension?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declension or descension 

message: I flagged this article as potentially not neutral because it doesn't read like a neutral article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgbush (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: John Newbrough is qouted at length in the Wing Anderson book entitled SEVEN YEARS THAT CHANGE THE WORLD 1941-1947 published by the Kosmon Press in 1940.  the book is subtitled: A Collection of Phrophesis of Yesterday in the Light of Today,and Tomorrow. 
This book attempts to include American and world prohesies seemiongly since the Renaisance. Others whose prophesies (some are cited by mediums) include George Washington, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, others are newbrough, Mother Jones and  It shed some light on the socio-religious underpinnings, motivations and expectations of the neo-religious organizations that in part or in whole follow Oahspe for direction.  
After reading the book and becoming acquainted with Oahspe, I also sense an overlap and some kinship to some of the tennets of Masonic beliefs, Bahai, Rosicrucians and other neo socio-religious beliefs and practices as well.  Hopefully someone who is familiar with these other beliefs and Masonic practice, who is also familiar with the Wing Anderson book and Oahspe can more fully comment. Jmmanuto (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We construct our articles using material that reliable sources say about the subject - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Unless you can find such sources discussing the Oahspe book, we can'd to this. Kosmon Press has only published books relating to Oahspe. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Newbrough qouted at length

message: *
A church revived this religious tradition in 2015. The sources currently cited in this wiki article are 10+ years old, with most of them centuries old. If this really was a forgotten religious tradition then my guess would be that this Wikipedia article helped re-establish it. This Wiki article was well developed before the 2015 church revival, so would have been an information source consulted by anyone seeking context.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2018 in ''The New York Times'' 

message: : Hi, thanks for responding on your talk page. In regards to Oahspe not being an Abrahamic religion for the reasons you gave, sounds reasonable enough; I've never seen Caodaism as being Abrahamic despite it regarding Jesus as a prophet, so I guess I'll have to concede there.
Anyway, as for the category for vegetarianism, perhaps Religions that require vegetarianism would be better than what I put before? I had missed it earlier. Also, where is the discussion on Oahspe being put in New Religious Movements category? I can't find it anywhere. Thanks.
69.120.202.15 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay, life caught up to me. That vegetarianism cat should be more appropriate, I'm find with that. As for the NRM, I was mistaken. That was a different article entirely where we'd had a long discussion about that term. If you have citations where sources have labeled this faith a NRM, we could fit it in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories