I agree that the Wiki page could and should be changed. The “alternative” label
does make it harder, as the most active editors seem to be “science-based
skeptics”.
These folks who police Wikipedia prefer material from outside sources – not
those directly connected to the topic. For example, quoting a newspaper or
other public source rather than a constellation facilitator's website or even
the industry magazine. If you want a better chance of keeping your edits up
there, find outside, public, preferably well known sources to quote or
paraphrase and add a footnote with link to the source.
I’d offer the same advise when editing. For example, the “quantum quackery”
paragraph could be changed in a couple ways. First, I suggest making a
sub-section lower on the page for “critiques”. Look at some other pages to see
what format is used most often and copy that. Move the negative comment down
there. Secondly, note that the source used for “quantum quackery” doesn’t
really say what the offending paragraph says. It does not describe the method
but one possible explanation offered by some people (not necessarily
representative of all who constellate) for how the Knowing Field may work. So
first make a more accurate representation of that critique, and qualify it in
some way or add in other possible explanations to show that this is only one.
I think the Wiki Police will be more likely to go along with your changes if
they are logical and substantiated. It will help if comments are made on the
back end about why edits are made, showing the logic used for adding and
removing material. It will also help if those editing are not the same ones who
put the original material up that was later changed. New contributors with
solid writing will have a better chance.
My two cents. Hope it helps.
