Talk:Seth Material/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Seth Material as a religion

I've already said this but I won't to make sure it is clearly dealt with. Unless we have some good sources that show that it is indeed a religion (and those sources would almost certainly include comments from other religions), we must avoid any suggestion in the article that it is a religion. dougweller (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to find a reference for the claims that Roberts made about the Material and religion, that 70. has commented on. Could be useful for either article. Verbal chat 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article does claim anywhere that the Seth Material is a religion - so how and why is this a concern ? I mentioned religion in a comment above, but I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Seth Material was a religion - I was just saying that I don't see an objective way of distinguishing between claimed paranormal phenomena and claimed spiritual or reigious events - faith healing, miracles, visions etc. etc. (but let's have that discussion elsewhere). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, your right - but it is important we avoid this unless we have good sources (it has been claimed elsewhere). I think Roberts views on this would be interesting. Verbal chat 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, unsourced claims of any sort should be avoided. But if the article did contain a properly sourced statement that the Seth Material was regarded (at least by some people) as a religion, would this be controversial ? Would it change how we approach or treat or evaluate the article ? I feel there is some sub-text that I am not seeing here. Gandalf61 (talk)

There is a comment over at New_age which mentions the material, but the New Age is more of a quasi-religious movement, not a religion in itself. In a number of places Roberts herself was wary that the SM be used as a kind of cult or religion . . . she obviously did not approve of religion in the traditional sense and dd not want the SM to be used as such. I will try to find the sources for this in the next few days . . . she did mention this more than once, although that won't of course stop some individuals from incorporating it into their own personal religious beliefs. Note added later: I have found this where Jane as Seth (session unspecified) makes some comments about "Seth Cults" . . . this is not Jane as herself speaking, and without the session numbers it would be hard to source, but the overall direction of their thought regarding this topic should be clear from this. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the people who oppose the article don't want the Seth Material to be considered a religion because it would provide them with less ammunition to delete or minimize it. The answer to all this is obvious: the Tenets section shows that the material dealt substantially with religious issues. Whether it is an actual religion or a quasi-religion is not relevant, and we don't need a third-party reference to that effect. The content of the material itself makes it obvious that the Material substantially addressed religious issues. Seth himself said that he didn't want the Material to be turned into a religion (because religions are substantially about dogma). However, as I have stated before, my own religious views are based almost exclusively on the Material.

One thing for sure that it isn't is a science, and let me address that issue: What is a science? A science is the study of something. Channelling is clearly a phenomenon to be studied, not the study of something, so to call it a fringe science is absurd.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack of sources for this section is a huge problem. You could help address this by helping review the new sources found below. I'd say it dealt with all kinds of topics, including philosophy of mind, spirt, self, existence, and other religions. A ref saying what seth's core messages were, or central themes, or frequently visited topics, would be a huge boon. Verbal chat 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More sources

I think these clearly establish notability and a rationale for this as a separate article. They also may contain material that we can use in the article, but I'm in a rush and haven't perused them thoroughly. Apologies if they are already here somewhere - all look to be very reliable sources.

• New Age Religion and Western Culture By Wouter J. Hanegraaff "jane+roberts"+seth+religion - should be useful for the 'aspects' or summary

• A Republic of Mind and Spirit By Catherine L. Albanese "jane+roberts"+seth+religion

• The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview By John P. Newport "jane+roberts"+seth+religion - note the comment about the term mediumship being replaced by channelling because of this.

• Northrop Frye By Robert D. Denham "jane+roberts"+seth+religion

• Perspectives on the New Age By James R. Lewis, J. Gordon Melton "jane+roberts"+seth+religion

• Spiritual, But Not Religious By Robert C. Fuller "jane+roberts"+seth+religion other channelers of Seth, see also "jane+roberts"+seth+religion#PPA182,M1

This could be a decent article properly written and sourced. dougweller (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick look seems to show that these would be good sources for expanding this article, and justify its separation from the Jane Roberts article. I need to learn this google books thing. Verbal chat 10:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions about references and sources. The article's detractors keep saying they want more third-party references to establish notability, and I want to know just how many of them they want, and where they think those references should be placed. As to the Tenets section, that is intended simply to be a listing of the points of the Material. That being the case, original-source references are what is called for. The only way to get third-party references in the Tenets section is to find a book of analysis on the Material, and no such book may exist (and certainly I don't have one). So if you feel that more than original-source references are needed in that section, I want to know why. It still angers me that I spent three hours dredging up references for the Time and Space section only to have it removed from the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is in the use of what are called primary and secondary sources. They are discussed in several guidelines and policies, with the main summary at WP:PSTS. My view on this is that third-party secondary sources are required for notability and to establish objective facts, such as the popularity of the books, the critical reception of the material, the effects of the material on the new age movement in general, etc.. For summarizing the content of the material, I see no problem with the use of primary sources that have been published by reliable publishers (as were the Seth books). That is specifically allowed by the WP:NOR policy, but it is required that the use be done carefully so there are no assumptions or interpretations applied. Here is a relevant quote from the policy:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

The policy has more detail, so please review it at the link I included above.

Based on the above, I support the use of the Seth books as valid primary sources for inclusion of summaries of the writings of Jane Roberts in her role as Seth. That's not any different than summarizing the plot of a novel using the novel as a primary source, and that's a routinely accepted practice. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with that point as well. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New "Themes" section

Is much better than the old "Tenets" section in providing a summary of the issues discussed by Roberts in these books. This section should be expanded by no more than three paragraphs, to stop it from overwhelming the page, in my opinion. I think a further clarification or two and discussion should take probably two paragraphs. If any theme is suitably important, by WP:V and WP:RS, then it should be discussed in it's own section - but the article should not become skewed with too much discussion of issues of unknown importance and possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it was recently. Verbal chat 10:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no more than three? It looks that the page being entitled the Seth Material, would be amiss without sating what the material actually says. 70.186.172.190 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No more than three or four for the summary, and then any topics which are notable and have secondary or tertiary references could be expanded upon in their own sections. Verbal chat 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Verbal's removal of the detailed "Themes" sections. In the 6 hours after this material was restored by Caleb Murdock three other editors have started improving this text in situ. Verbal was bold, but I see no current consensus for his idea of moving the material (over half of the article !) to a sub-page. My reversion is stage 2 of the BRD cycle, so please discuss here instead of edit warring. If is demonstrated that there is a current consensus for the removalof this text, then it can of course go ahead. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who has worked on this in the subpage, the updates have been moved to the subpage, and rather than edit warring (and Caleb's uncivil and uncollegial attitude) we should work on the subpage and then gain consensus for sections being restored. Verbal chat 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, an "uncollegial attitude", edit warring and non-consensual reversions by any editor are bad news. I believe Verbal and Caleb Murdock are both at fault here and they are both putting obstacles in the paths of the less emotionally involved editors who are trying to improve this page. Work on this page would proceed more smoothly and more rapidly if both these editors showed more willingness to compromise on some of their beliefs. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's see just what current consensus is. I propose that the "Themes" section should be restored to the article page now and then improved further in situ. My arguments are that (a) the text is good enough now to be included in the article; (b) this section is a substantial part of the article, and the article as a whole is better with it than without it; (c) there is more incentive for editors to improve this text further if it is in the article, rather than on a sub-page. Views ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The text is a mishmash of primary sources and personal opinion of the author. We have no RS that these are central themes or even topics discussed at length in the material, these are just topics Caleb decided to right about. We should have sources stating that these are "themes", "tenets" or otherwise. There is still the problem of the stone and style of the sections. Putting them all back also vastly overwhelms the article. The article is better without it now because the information is poorly written and sourced and quite likely misleading (ie the discussion of Paul is framed as though it is Paul of the bible, however I believe this is in doubt). There is also redundancy. We shouldn't have text in the mainspace that fails our inclusion criteria just so it can be improved - this material makes the article much worse in its current state. I have given many suggestions for improvement, and worked on it myself. Verbal chat 13:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Subpage or not" is a question about process, not about the eventual shape of the Article. In the interest of not getting derailed by this sideshow, may I suggest flipping a coin? If Gandalf and Verbal could agree on what outcomes to assign to Heads or Tails, I would be willing to serve as registrar by flipping a 1935 Buffalo Nickel (other coins also available) online and coming back to report the outcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep it on the talk subpage. I am going on a wikibreak for a few days though. There is nothing wrong with it being on a talk subpage. I see Caleb changed his mind. I hope someone else is checking the new sources for reliability,as I don't have time right now but did find one self-published book as soon as I started. And we should be relying on reliable sources for the choice of themes, not just editors' opinions. dougweller (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a perfect example of what's wrong here. First, the word "themes" is inappropriate to the Seth material. If you look it up, it becomes obvious why. A theme is a motif. Seth stated the tenets of the Material as fact. I have previously posted the definition of "tenets" to show that it is not a religious word. If the article's detractors were familiar with the subject, they would know that "tenets" is the better word. Even the words "points" or "assertions" are better.

Verbal's assertion that I have written my personal opinions into the article is merely his opinion, and it is based on nothing since Verbal has no knowledge of the Material. Other people here, who do have knowledge of the Material, have stated previously (from the very beginning, in fact) that the Tenets section reads to them as a simple and objective explanation of the tenets of the material, with adequate qualifications in the text so that the reader doesn't think the tenets are being stated as fact. In a situation like this, the editor with the lesser knowledge needs to defer to the more knowledgeable editors.

The article is entitled "Seth Material"; thus, it should include a listing of the tenets of the Material -- just as the article Christianity includes a listing of the tenets of Christianity. The tenets of the Seth Material are far too lengthy to be summarized in a few paragraphs -- if Verbal were familiar with the Material, he would know that. Furthermore, when other articles go to twenty times the length of this article, it makes no sense to insist that this article be limited to a short page. That insistence represents Verbal's bias, period.

Gandalf61, I appreciate that you think I could strike a more accommodating tone, but we need to be clear about what's going on here. We have other editors who are not displaying good faith and who are pushing their personal agendas on the article. This includes removing the bulk of the article without agreement from the other editors, making changes which are not consistent with the subject, and ultimately truncating the article to an unreasonable extent. They have pushed the knowledgeable editors into an untenable position. We are expected to make edits to satisfy their sensibilities, and we are expected to do this in a "sandbox" with no assurances that the deleted portion will ever be restored. They're just trying to destroy the article, and they are wasting our time. If Wikipedia had a good mediation or arbitration procedure, we might be able to save the article, but Wikipedia doesn't.

P.S. I am writing an article tentatively entitled "Censorship on Wikipedia" which I am going to submit as an op-ed piece to various newspapers. The public needs to know what's going on here.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Tenets section has been restored. As long as it remains in the article, I will work on it. My forte will be providing primary references, since I have most of the books, including the early books, plus an index of the early books (it was in the early books that Seth provided summaries of his later teachings). I only have the time to add one or two references a day, since I have a business to run. It will be up to other authors to provide the third-party references, since I don't have a lot of other New Age gooks. I LOVE the two paragraphs that were added to the top of the Tenets section (which I have renamed the Summary section).

Verbal, if you don't like the tone of the article, you need to explain why in more detail than you have up to this point.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, my Oxford English Dictionary defines a tenet as "a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy". The point about this is that we would need sources to say what the main principles are. I don't like tenet or theme as descriptors here. As for censorship, we clearly have a different view of what censorship is. Is the policy against original research censorship? The policy that says sources must be verifiable? The policy that says sources must be reliable means some sources can't be used, is that censorship? Caleb, you are clearly unhappy with Wikipedia's collaborative editing, which inevitably means that with any article some editors (if there is anything contentious) will be disappointed that they viewpoints don't feature as much as they would like or at all. But that isn't censorship. I'm going on a Wikibreak shortly. dougweller (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the title of the section and the description of the Seth Material as a religion:

• Wouter Hanegraaff, Professor of History of Hermetic Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam, uses the phrase "theology/comsology of the Seth Material" to describe these writings. (Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (1998). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. SUNY Press. p. 122. ISBN 0791438546.)

• Peter B. Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the history and sociology of religion at King's College, London and professorial member of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford, uses the phrase "core Seth teachings" to describe the writings. (Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 0415257484.)

Tenets, Teachings, Summary, Themes, Writings... any of those would be fine. To choose the best one though, let's consider that "Seth" presented himself as a teacher, and that word has been used by a reliable source in this context, and that the Seth Material has been described by another reliable source as "theological". Based on those points, I recommend the use of the word "Teachings" for that section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DW, I have already stated that I can dredge up all the primary references you want, and I will do so at the rate of one or two a day. I am not widely read among other authors in this area, so others will have to come up with the third-party references.

The dictionary I was using for "Tenets" was the Wiki dictionary: http://www.tfd.com/ That says nothing about religion. However, the definition that you found says "religion or philosophy", and the Seth material is closer to a philosophy than anything else, so the word "Tenets" is perfectly good.

Yes, there's censorship going on here. This article would have been permanently redirected and eventually deleted if some of us had not put up a spirited defense.

No, I'm not unhappy with collaboration, but I don't see a collaboration going on here. Verbal, you, Moeschi and others want to dictate to the knowledgeable editors how the article must be written, and what the result must be like. That's no collaboration.

Jack, the word "Teachings" sounds okay to me, but not "Themes". Actually, the word "Principles" may be a good compromise.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Human beings never reincarnate as animals, etc.

Can someone please clarify this statement? In The Coming of Seth, Roberts does indeed have Seth state that he has portion of his energy alive as of 1963 on earth as a dog, if I recall correctly.

The notion of "reincarnation" may need to be worked on as well . . . Roberts regards all time as essentially simultaneous and this casts the Seth-idea of reincarnation is a non-liner format that most people do not think of when they use the word. And most people will have no clue what a "probable universe" is. NoVomit (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth clearly stated that human beings do not reincarnate as animals. I haven't found the spot in the material yet. I remember it distinctly.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the page for three days. Please, discuss changes on talk page. Ruslik (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting paragraphs that other editors think are important is not acting in good faith. As I have stated before, there are editors who are trying to "stealth delete" the article. Doing that paragraph by paragraph won't be successful. There was really no need to protect the page -- all I was doing was restoring a paragraph which was deleted (it will be restored later).--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Caleb, you reverted all the changes - you could have just added the paragraph back in! Verbal chat 10:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it only once, because I thought the edits were bad. When you undid my undo, I decided not to fight it and to work on SeminalPanic's version. I then improved some clumsy language and added the Time and Space paragraph back in, and SeminalPanic undid that, which I think was unwarranted. It turns out that he didn't mean to delete that paragraph. We could have worked this out without the article having been protected. Are you the one who called in the cop?

I suspect that SeminalPanic ALSO knows nothing about the subject. We've got a real epidemic of presumptuous editors here.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the new version, although one paragraph does seem to have gone missing. I propose moving the current text to the workspace, adding the missing paragraph (new section or incorporated in existing?) and then working there. The new sections could be edited quite nicely to make them a bit more concise, more direct, and add supporting references. There is a lot of redundancy that could be dealt with. I didn't notice the missing paragraph previously, so sorry about that. Verbal chat 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, without any actual knowledge of the subject, your judgement as to which sections should stand and which should be merged may be flawed. Nonetheless, the last thing I did was simply to restore the Time and Space paragraph which had "gone missing" as you say -- there was no need for SeminalPanic to undo that simple addition (and certainly no reason to call me a vandal). It's never going to end, is it?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose working in sub-page/workspace. There are no good reasons here to work in a workspace instead of in the main article itself, and that proposal has little or no support. No, it won't end until you two put the rocks down and start [stop] provoking each other. But maybe three days protection on the article will give everyone time to calm down a bit. I see no angry mastodons ! Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just can't get over this unique concept that people who have no knowledge of the subject matter can made intelligent edits.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apart from the fact the page is protected for 3 days? And the other arguments given previously. Working in a subspace when there is a content dispute is very common, and would be what happened if this went to dispute resolution anyway. (I think you mean stop) I agree that Caleb should stop casting aspersions about other editors on this and other talk pages, especially since his own civility has been brought up multiple times by multiple editors. What makes Caleb think that I, DW, SP etc have no knowledge? Because we disagree with him? Wikipedia isn't about WP:THETRUTH but about reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant information. For the record I disagree with how SP proceeded - it would have been better to do it on the subpage, as then the page wouldn't have required protecting, the missing paragraph would have been spotted without generating a huff, and discussion could have continued in parallel. However, I much prefer SPs version to Calebs - although it still needs editing as I commented above. Verbal chat 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we have editors here who have no knowledge of the subject is the real issue. There is a determined effort to mess up the article and prevent progress.

I will not work in the sandbox. The editors who act as detractors would never allow it to be re-integrated.

SP appears to be a new member. I have to wonder who SP really is. Now, whoever SP really is, it appears that what he's done (mostly) is to consolidate sections. When the block is removed, I will restore the deleted paragraph and continue working on the main article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should an editor need to be an expert? I can judge if text is readable, encyclopedic, clear, and well-sourced. The references in an article should be sufficient to support the text, and inform any editor sufficiently to understand the article. SP appears to be an anonymous editor forced to take a name by recent developments in the UK, and may or may not be a new editor. It certainly has no bearing on his (or her) editing the article. While you claim an expert knowledge of the material, SP or I could just as easily claim the same. Keep in mind, you don't own this article, and aren't in any position to judge anyone else's level of knowledge. Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, and I don't like participating in all this wikipedia drama very much, that this article was way better before the edit wars screwed it up. Alot of you people have no idea what you are talking about. Caleb really knows his stuff and has worked tirelessly to make this article informative. I have read almost every single Seth book that exists (along with a personal visit to the Seth Yale archives), and I think the amount of infighting in this article is stupid and ridiculous. You people are being such goons about it. Caleb was doing fine before you showed up. Gnostc (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: Seth only uses the word God maybe ONCE in the entire material. Every other time he says "All that is". It was fine before. Please rewrite it accordingly. The idea of God has almost no place in the Seth material. To Seth, the Christian God may as well not exist except in individual entity's personal delusions. Gnostc (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, and this is coming from someone who is very familiar with the material, and wants it to be represented well to the public at large, IF YOU HAVE NOT READ ANY OF THE MATERIAL, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE, YOU ARE DOING THE MATERIAL, YOURSELF, AND THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY A DISSERVICE. No matter what you say or think about the issue, if you have not read the material, and you want to edit this page, you are wrong. Go buy the first book, it probably costs about 15 dollars on amazon. Gnostc (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The material is the same, it has just been reorganised. Do you have a sources for what is and isn't important? That's part of the problem here. Verbal chat 07:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gnostc, perhaps you should read Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and then explain to me how I can verify anything you've just said. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gnostic, thanks for showing up, and thanks for your supportive comments.

The concept that editors should have knowledge of the subject matter hasn't been codified yet on Wikipedia. It will one day. This phenomenon of self-appointed police showing up to "improve" articles they know nothing about will eventually result in new guidelines, especially as more people complain about having their editing disrupted. If you read up the page, you'll see that the detractors wanted to delete the article from the get-go. Having committed themselves to participating, they are saving face by remaining after it is clear that they aren't making a contribution. True, the article could use more references. But they could have made that clear in a more constructive way (instead of redirecting the article, threatening outright deletion, and yanking sections out of it -- all of which they did). Instead, we have a power-struggle going on. They have no knowledge of the subject, so they move sections around and add and delete headings, but what good does that do?

I'm not sure what can be done at this point. I'm all worn out. I would like to add references, but I don't have the time to work on the article constantly. I feel like I have a gun to my head. These last two days of not worrying about the article while it was blocked have been wonderful. I may not be back for more fighting.

Gnostic, why don't you try your hand at editing the article? You clearly are very familiar with the subject. I'm sure you could add a new dimension to it. I'm reading the earlier works now, but there is a lot in the later books I've forgotten -- e.g., frameworks and all that stuff about dreams. Actually, there are a couple of the later books that I haven't read.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That would make 2 editors who disagree with the basic principles of Wikipedia. There is no way the policies are going to change to require people to be experts on a subject (what would you do, test them? And who tests the testers?). You two would be happier on Knol I think. As for the word 'god', Caleb's last version before others joined in had it 27 times, only 2 less then the current version, so the frequent use of the term seems to be down to Caleb (or at least the fact that it wasn't removed or changed). Any power struggle here has been caused by Caleb, who has been confrontational and insistent that other editors don't have a right to edit because they aren't the experts he claims to be. dougweller (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you are dead wrong on all points. I'm not saying that editors need to be experts; I'm saying that you can't edit an article intelligently if you know nothing about the subject. Just as editors are asked to assume good faith, editors will eventually be asked to refrain from making extensive edits unless they have knowledge of the subject -- it only makes sense. There are already plenty of rules on Wikipedia that are not enforceable, so that's not an issue -- editors will be expected to be honest about their level of knowledge. Furthermore, I was not the one who caused this confrontation. A group of you descended on the article all at once threatening deletion. You redirected it. You pulled chunks out of it and tried to force other editors to work in a sandbox without their agreement. It was very threatening behavior. You claimed that the article wasn't notable (it is), and that it was fringe (it isn't), and that it was "in universe" (it wasn't), etc. You wouldn't have made those claims if you had had knowledge of the subject. You were grasping at straws looking for reasons to delete it. You never had a collaborative attitude. I'm still shocked that administrators are permitted to act in such a biased and reckless manner.

Now that deletion has been rejected, I'm going to continue working on the article. I'll concentrate for the time being on filling in needed references.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2008#Seth_Material

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • many people believe
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoVomit (talk • contribs)

New workspace - Talk:Seth_Material/Workspace

I have moved the workspace here because of the renaming of the sections. The issues above can be addressed by editing this space, and then it can just be transplanted when we have agreement.

Some issues:

1. Tone and style (make sure statements are attributed, etc);
2. Sourcing, esp. for importance of sections;
3. Remove redundancy;
4. Generally tighten-up wording (to make it crisp and concise);
5. Integration of "time and space" paragraph.

Thanks, Verbal chat 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the paragraphs in the header and the "Existence and Self" portions, to take less focus off of the referenced sources, and more focus on what the sections are talking about. Those sources should be used as evidence to consult that shows that the claims are true, not the first thing that we should be seeing. Gnostc (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "paranormal" category tag. NoVomit did not give an adequate justification as to why it should be classified under paranormal. I think it is an unfair, misleading, and unhelpful classification, especially since that category was created with skeptics in mind (See the little skeptic section towards the bottom). Seth is not primarily interested in showing off "paranormal" abilities, the books are more concerned with improving people's lives through a richer understanding of the world around them. Since this page will more likely than not be read by people actually interested in reading the material instead of debunking summaries they see on the internet, I feel that this page should not have a classification for the time being. I also uploaded a picture called SETHMATERIAL.jpg, but I am still learning how to make a nice header for this page. If someone else wants to first determine that the image is appropriate and then create a header page including the image, that would be great. Gnostc (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would settle for a New Age classification though. Although I'm not completely happy with that one either, if we absolutely must have a category, that would be the one. Seth started many of the trends in the modern New Age movement. Paranormal is a perjorative and it always has been. It is not an objective classification. Gnostc (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NoVomit, have you read any of the books? Gnostc (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) NoVomit are we about to get into an edit war? I will not let this page actively be categorized as paranormal. Maybe if the focus of the tag were off skeptic communities, then I might relent. But that tag is atrocious. Who would you rather have editing this page; Someone who has read every single book written by Seth, and many books written by Jane Roberts (and also made an 8 hour personal visit to the Seth archives at Yale University), or someone who has demonstrated no personal knowledge of the material? Gnostc (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read every Seth book. I added the template because it was suggested an image may make the article more attractive. Thank you for insinuating that I have no knowledge of the material when I was one of the people who helped to save the article by drawing in third parties to combat the attacks on the article. The image you uploaded will attract more attackers here unless you can provide a justifiable rationale as to why uploading a copyrighted work should be used in the article. Since I am clearly not welcome here, I will not make any more edits. It looks like with the statements you made above you are pushing the POV stuff again, but I am out of it. Good luck. NoVomit (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NoVomit.

I just did some mild editing in this article. Just tightening up stuff and rephrasing so that it runs smoother and gets a little closer to Seth's intent in meaning. I plan to add information as well, I just have to get more oriented within the article. I also plan to source everything from within my books, that just takes more time to find page numbers. I'm not feeling this third party sourcing idea that much. How many people have really written that extensively about Seth, besides Seth? I can only think of Michael Talbot, although admittedly I have not read any of the authors references as sources in this article. I'd rather stick to the primary source though, it's more than enough, and for the people who will read this article, it's probably what they're looking for. Gnostc (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

be careful you don't interpret your primary sources. You can cite them, fine. Interpretation has to come from reliable third party sources. dougweller (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't and won't. Seth usually doesn't need any interpretation. I actually removed some minor interpretations. Gnostc (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said to you privately, Gnostic, some things that you removed as "interpretations" are things which I remember Seth saying. Before removing statements, please discuss them here first, or look into the Seth material to see if you can find the actual statements. I recognize, however, that finding references is a huge task given the total volume of the readings.

I removed your edit that said that Seth gave the readings for "fun". I've read most of the books, and I don't remember Seth ever saying that. He did say, however, that the information in the Material is given to every generation, and it was his task to give it to the current generation -- I just haven't been able to find it. Can you find the section where he said that he gave the readings for "fun"?-Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there is a reference to Seth's accent in the Introduction to Seth Speaks. NoVomit (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"All That Is"

I think that the article should use the term God instead of All That Is. God is the normal English term for the one deity recognized by most human beings, and to use the term All That Is could be construed as In Universe (now I know what that is!). So even though an argument could be made for using All That Is, since that's the term Seth used, I think it is more objective to use the term God. If you disagree, please say so.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use Roberts' term, and explain the connection the first time. However, I have no problems with the other direction either. Verbal chat 09:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the passage (or one of them) in the Seth material where Seth makes it clear that, to him, the term God refers to the traditional Jewish, Christian and Islamic concepts, so I have substituted All That Is where appropriate.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• If at all possible, there should be an image in the article, preferably in the top right corner of the lead. Since the author is dead, I think a fair use rationale could be made for an image of her.
• Article needs more references, for example there are many citation needed tags throughout and several paragraphs have no refs at all, such as the second paragraph in the History section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The article has most of its references from the book itself, but most of the refs should be from sources about the book. This is a WP:NPOV issue, see also WP:IN-U (describe things from outside the perspective of the book) and WP:PCR (provide context for the reader)
• At least some of the refs do not seem to be reliable sources - what makes this a reliable source?
• The refs are not consistent - books need author, publisher, place of publication, etc. {{cite book}} and other cite teplates may help here.
• Since the official title seems to be "The Seth Material", should the article title be that too?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions about this. It seems to me that we need just enough third-party references to establish notability, and then the rest of the references (especially those in the Summary section) should refer back to the Seth books. The purpose of the article is to introduce and explain the subject to the reader, so the summary section is what's most important, and that section requires references from the primary source. I don't understand the obsession with third-party references.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This was a comment that I got from submitting the article to the peer review process . . . as far as I am concerned there doesn't seem to be a need for third party references to describe what the books contain, that is just a paraphrase. The submitter of the comments feels that every single statement needs a third party reference, which to me, would seem to make articles longer than one or two paragraphs impractical. Other sources would be good, but since ultimately they depend on the primary source, I don't see much sense in it. NoVomit (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal category

I'm surprised that this should be contentious. The category is quite a normal category used in the outside world. The Seth Material is included in The Encyclopedia of the ParanormalBy Gordon Stein, Beyond Heaven and Earth By Steven H. Propp. It is channeled and channeling is clearly included in the category. An argument based on " Seth is not primarily interested in showing off "paranormal" abilities, the books are more concerned with improving people's lives through a richer understanding of the world around them" is clearly POV. I'm restoring the category, it is correct. dougweller (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to the "paranormal" designation.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. NoVomit (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

I count no fewer than twelve {{citation needed}} tags in this article; this is enough for it to be quick failed as a GA candidate. I'm not going to quick fail it now, but I suggest you find reliable sources which support the disputed information quickly, or else remove the claims in question from the article. Please make sure that you've checked the article against the GA criteria and are satisfied that it fulfills them before nominating. Best of luck with improving the article, Skomorokh 06:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for the heads up. Gnostc (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Very little information here is "disputed" by editors who are familiar with the Seth material. The citation tags merely mean that someone realized a citation would be good for a particular sentence. Removing text from the article because the citation has not been found is not the way to improve the article. There are over 20 Seth books, and the indices to those books are not very complete, so it will take time for references and citations to be found. For example, it was stated several times in the books that Seth sometimes spoke with an accent, but they didn't see fit to put the word "accent" in any of the indices. When you are dealing with 20+ books, it's not easy to find a particular passage.

I am not practiced with Wiki footnotes, so I will operate here in Talk. But I can answer a couple of these "citation" questions. (Speaking of which, I recommend we cite by session rather than page because the Seth texts are being reprinted in some baroque sized trade editions.)

Accent - Rob's note Wed 1-21-1970 #511 - "Seth speaks with an accent that's hard to pinpoint. It's been called Russian, Irish, German, Dutch, Italian, and even French." From Seth Speaks TaoPhoenix (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, your use of the word "claims" makes me think you are generally opposed to the article. Please don't use the lack of some references as an excuse to start attacking the article. We have already gone through that. Furthermore, when the article was nominated for deletion and the ruling was "speedy keep", one of the ruling editors pointed out that the article already has more cites than 95% of the articles on Wikipedia.

All references will eventually be filled in.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh was responding my to my request for a review of this article against the criteria for Good Article status so that future editors would have a yardstick to know in which direction to improve. It may help matters if the main editors of this article do not automatically attack those who make comments or assume they are out to get you. NoVomit (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So sorry. I didn't know an article could be reviewed like that. I never heard of "good article" status before now. I'm so accustomed to people trying to rip the article apart, I'm over-sensitive. But let me reiterate that the way to fix a "citation needed" tag is NOT to delete the sentence that needs the citation. All the citations will be found in time.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah no worries. the articles you see on the front page are "Featured Articles" (which few articles ever reach). Right below that is "Good Article" status . . . it's not a requirement by any means, but it gives you a list of things to keep in mind as you edit. yes, I realize also that the recent attacks can make one a tad bit paranoid, but this guy reviewed it at my request, so no harm was intended. I added a box in the right hand corner for the image . . . I tried one before, but Gnostc took exception to it, this is a somewhat different one . . . you guys decide if it is suitable. If not, we could make a template of our own assuming enough articles could be found. NoVomit (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No that tag is so much better. Thanks, I was trying to find out how to do that. Gnostc (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger of "Conscious Creation"

Where are you, LadyofShalott? If you want to discuss merging two articles, then you need to kick off the discussion.

I don't find an article at Conscious Creation. I find a single paragraph that says next to nothing. What is there to merge?--Caleb Murdock (forgot to log in!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.231.131 (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the other title to the "Reality" section of this article. Seems like there was no opposition, if anyone disagrees, please speak up. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth Material/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

No way is this a Good Article. It survived attempts to delete it but it has not made nearly enough progress in the direction I expected. Still written too much from in-universe view, and not enough critical commentary included. If I had unlimited time I would downgrade it right now to Start class but the inevitable edit war that would ensue is something I have no taste for.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I boldly downgraded this article to C-class. It suffers from a lot of problems. The notability is established in the lead, but the focus of the article should be on why New Age believers love this stuff so much as opposed to the credulous exposition of the material. I added sourcing tags, clean up tags, and a totally disputed tag because I think a lot of the sourcing is done to credulous rather than third-party independent sources. A truly sad article. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Credulous exposition" is right. An article which uncritically sets out a fringe view is not "good" in any of the normal senses of the word. LeContexte (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Why New Age people believe what they do would be original research unless you can provide sources which would deal with it, and even if you did not looks like that would fall under a new article like "Why New Age People Irrationally Insist on Disagreeing With Me" or something of that nature. There is no sensible reason why an article on the Seth Material should not describe what the material says. To do so would be tantamount to only allowing criticisms of a book or philosophy without bothering to tell one the contents of the book or what the philosophy actually says. Take Islam for instance. Would it make sense to take that article and add only criticisms of Islam and not to add what the tenets of Islam actually are? All this article really does it to describe what the books say. I am removing the totally disputed tag since it does not belong. The article does a good job of summarizing the books. If the language does not suit you in specific instances, then alter it. It seems you are championing a view, and get a bit hot under the collar whenever someone does not edit to suit your inclinations. Although I am an atheist, I still think the material, like any other book or philosophy, deserve the right to be stated plainly rather than altered to suit an opposing point of view. NoVomit (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

quick observation on references/text direction. There are a lot of primary references to the Seth Material itself. An encyclopedia article should use less primary sources and more secondary sources commenting on the material. This will of necessity, limit the exposition of what the material says, which is close to the original research boundary, and is best avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on religious beliefs often depend on primary sources, since the groups who have the beliefs are usually the ones that explain the beliefs. Secondary sources are needed for notability and factual discussions of the groups' history and activities, of course. This can be seen in articles about the beliefs of Catholicism, for example; those articles are full of primary sources, and that's not a problem. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me add to this discussion by saying that NO article on Wikipedia is ever going to be particularly good. All the articles are edited to death by anyone and everyone. Some people have good writing ability and some people don't. When I wrote the initial article, the language was much better than it is now. Other people came along and re-wrote all my language, and now the language is clumsy and inconsistent throughout the entire article.

NoVomit, I appreciate that you are willing to defend the article though you don't personally believe in it. Too many editors see it as biased simply because they disdain the subject matter. Let me add that I agree with you that any article on a system of beliefs must describe the beliefs or tenets; otherwise, the reader goes away uninformed.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How to identify Seth's voice

A couple years ago, I introduced a convention into the article which I now feel should be changed. In trying to identify the voice of Seth, Roberts' trance personality, I decided to use the phrase "the Seth personality said ...". That seemed acceptable to me since it was made clear in the beginning of the article who was who: Roberts was the living individual, and Seth was the trance personality. (Who was whom?) However, I've concluded that there is one inescapable fact: All the words came out of Roberts' mouth; Seth had no mouth with which to speak. Thus, I've decided to change everything to "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said .." and sometimes (since that is a cumbersome phrase) just "Roberts". I personally believe that Seth was an independent individual, but that is only my view. Using the phrase "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said ..." is more neutral. It adheres to the facts, but it also makes clear that Roberts was in trance. Let me hasten to add, however, that the phrase "Roberts, while in trance, said ..." would be wrong since Roberts wasn't always in trance as Seth.

I just realized that the entire History section uses the term "the Seth personality". In that portion of the article, I think it is appropriate to use that term because that is where Seth is initially described to the reader, and also because it is useful to distinguish Roberts' personality from Seth's. However, I'll have to think about it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an WP:RS that the Seth personality is distinct from Roberts? I feel we should remain neutral on this matter and be clear throughout. Verbal chat 11:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the terminology that was being used before was less neutral than the terminology that I am now using, for reasons explained very clearly above. My revisions reflect the fact that the actual words came out of Roberts' mouth, and not out of the mouth of "the Seth personality" who had no physical existence. Secondly, you have no right at all to erase, on a wholesale basis, the work of other editors. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think that I am wrong, this is the place to discuss it. So far, you haven't said anything worthwhile or notable. Let me add to this discussion that you are an editor who has little knowledge of the subject matter. You need to show a little humility and acknowledge that.

What does "RS" mean?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source. Verbal chat 09:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMINOLOGY THAT I HAVE USED, THEN INDICATE HERE WHAT TERMINOLOGY YOU PREFER, AND WHY.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current terminology as it is neutral, not taking an editorial line on the existence of Seth - which your edits do consistently. Seth had no voice, Roberts had a voice which Seth used (or that Roberts claimed Seth used, etc). Verbal chat 09:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Seth may or may not exist, we cant say that 'he' has written anything. and please dont accuse Verbal of canvasing. This article's been on my watchlist since your bout with ownership issues, which seem to persist. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I have no ownership issues. I am the only editor interested enough to edit the article on a consistent basis. The real problems we have here are on the part of editors like yourselves who are not familiar with (and don't like) the subject matter, and thus have an agenda, and who try to block my edits simply for the sake of it. In this case, you have no excuse since the language I'm introducing is more neutral than the language that was there.

Both of you have just said things that support my position. Guyonthesubway said, "we cant say that 'he' has written anything". THAT'S WHAT MY CHANGES REFLECT. By moving from "the Seth personality said" to "Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" I AM MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE WORDS CAME OUT OF ROBERTS' MOUTH.

Verbal said: "Seth had no voice, Roberts had a voice which Seth used". That's right. Thus, changing from "the Seth personality said" to "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" IS MORE REALISTIC AND THEREFORE MORE NEUTRAL. Both of you should LIKE the changes that I am making.

Since you should agree with what I am doing, it is becoming clear that you are blocking my changes simply because I am the one who is making them. This appears to be a personal vendetta.

You don't seem to realize that the phrase "the Seth personality" was terminology that I (that's me) introduced into the article three years ago when it was part of the Jane Roberts article. At the time, some editors felt that it wasn't entirely neutral. I have finally come to see that they were right and I'm trying to fix that.

Now, there are OTHER edits that I just made besides fixing that problem, and when you roll back my edits, you are rolling back those other edits also. Since you aren't familiar with the subject matter, and since your only contribution is to roll back another editor's edits (an editor who is more knowledgeable of the subject matter than you), you engaging in disruptive editing. You have no right to keep the article frozen in time. Now, if you want me to keep "the Seth personality said", please explain why, but don't roll back all my edits. You don't seem to realize that the terminology "the Seth personality said" is more reflective of my own personal belief that Seth was an independent individual. I'm perfectly happy to keep that terminology if you insist!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, as I stated when I rolled back your edits, "claim" and "claimed" are on the list of words to avoid. Please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTA

Secondly, you removed portions of the article that are perfectly good. You need to provide an explanation for why you want to remove those sections. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR DISCUSSION. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC ISSUES ON THIS PAGE SHOWS THAT YOUR EDITS ARE DISRUPTIVE. I am ready and willing to discuss all of these issues with you HERE.

In addition, my understanding is that the American spelling of words is supposed to prevail, not the British spelling.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The spelling is supposed to be consistent, and I noticed the British spelling used. However, as Roberts is American I see no problem with American spelling. As to WTA, common sense is to be applied and what we are dealing with are claims. Your edits introduce a further POV that should be removed. Verbal chat 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You and I need to discuss the specifics of each change. I do, in fact, agree with some of them, but your constant use of the word "claimed" is unacceptable and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I see no reason why you would have deleted such large portions of some sections. I won't roll back your edits IF you make changes to terminology only and stop trying to truncate the article. But you must make your edits without the word "claimed".--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer "states" and "stated"? The removal of unsourced material is justified below, let's keep that separate. What is it about the use of "claimed" that you object to in this instances? I only used it two or three times when it seemed most appropriate.Verbal chat 21:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway, the changes you made are acceptable to me. Instead of "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" I would be happy to revert the second portion of the article to "the Seth Material states". How about that? However, that terminology doesn't always work in the first section of the article, the History section. Will you give me a chance to make those changes?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Content that is unsourced and been taggede since last year should be referenced or removed. Verbal chat 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If by unsourced you mean lacking references, then that can be fixed. But you'll need to give me some time. However, let me point out that not every statement in an article requires a reference. Only details of significant require a reference.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The sections have been tagged for some time. You can restore them when you have a reference. Verbal chat 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Once a section is removed, it is very hard to get it reinserted, especially when there are editors like you who are intent on minimizing the article. Removing portions is not the way to go. That is a call to war.

Not all of the citations that you have inserted are actually required. The fact that Roberts held 2 or 3 sessions a week is not particularly important. Also, the fact that Butts was a co-author can be gleaned simply from looking at the books -- his words are in every book. No citation is needed for such minor details. If you want a cite in that instance, the only thing to do is to cite all 20 books. You're not being reasonable.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't wikipedia policy. You'll be free to restore it if and when you bring WP:RS to support your contentions. Verbal chat 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to read all the rules, but judging from your lack of knowledge about words to avoid, I suspect you don't know everything. In the next week I can dredge up some missing references. But if you cut out wholesale portions of the article, things will escalate. Furthermore, as I've stated, minor facts don't need to be referenced. For the time being I am going to concentrate on replacing "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" with "The Seth Material states", and then I'll look at the references. There are other editors who are better at dredging up references than I, and I may ask them to help.

Let me add that removing portions from an article instead of getting references is not in keeping with the spirit of the Article Rescue Squadron which, ironically, you seem to be a part of. And let me also remind you that YOU can dredge up the references yourself.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership proven by threats to edit war

The following atrocious example of unwikipedian behavior (an attack on Verbal on his talk page) is pretty near a blockable offense and should be taken into account when judging the arguments and attitudes of Caleb Murdock:

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DOING THE WARRING. First, you tried to block all my edits, and then you tried to truncate the article, using words to avoid in the process. Yet your knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. You have no integrity! You are a disruptive editor!

If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged. If you'll be reasonable, however, we can work this out. I'm willing to accept some of your changes of terminology, but not the constant use of the word "claimed" and not the deletion of perfectly good text from the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement above ("But if you cut out wholesale portions of the article, things will escalate.") is also pretty bad. Ownership issues? Indeed! An RfC/U might be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who have tried to cut the article down in the past are skeptics who didn't like what it said, and such attempts led to editing wars. I might add that the skeptics invariably have little knowledge of subject matter. That being the case, they are unable to appreciate its importance, or even know if what is being said is neutral or not. If there isn't a rule on Wikipedia that authors should have knowledge of the subjects they edit, there certainly should be.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What does skepticism have to do with taking out some chunks of a pretty bloated article. Given my perception of the importance of these books, I'm not sure we need heavy analysis of the topic. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed before. Roberts sold 8 million books, and her books are still selling. She was highly influential in the New Age movement, setting forth dozens religious theories that were completely original to her. Furthermore, the article is small compared to many other articles. On Wikipedia, articles generally expand over time with new information, as this one should and will. The attitude that you have that the article should be minimized because YOU don't appreciate it is entirely biased. I'm getting sick of this. It goes on and on and on. The article was nominated for deletion, and the ruling was a Speedy Keep. Since that time, references have been added, although the language hasn't improved because people keep mucking it up. You and Verbal need to face the fact that you have biased points of view and to let go of it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in these discussions at all. I noticed that there was a dispute with a very improper personal attack made on Verbal. From what I can gather, the situation pits an experienced editor (Verbal), who understands Wikipedia's rules very well and is enforcing them, against a comparative newbie who is displaying ownership tendencies and making accusations based on bad faith. These are multiple violations of policy. Caleb, instead of assuming bad faith, you should assume good faith that Verbal is following policy and that you might not understand it. You have a disagreement, but your arguments aren't based on policy, but on accusations of bad motives, which is a forbidden thing to do. If you don't stop it, you are going to be the one who gets blocked. You need to collaborate with Verbal and develop a consensus version. Making accusations will only get you in trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for years.

I'm sorry, but you don't realize what's going on. Verbal doesn't want to negotiate on the points of the article. He consistently refuses to get specific on the discussion page. He'll make general statements but is not willing to discuss particular passages. He also behaves provocatively. He started out by reversing all my recent revisions without any discussion. Then he started cutting out sections of the article without discussion. He put a tag on the article AFTER I made changes to accommodate him. Mind you, he doesn't actually have any knowledge of the subject matter, so he doesn't really know what he's doing. Amazingly, there is no rule on Wikipedia that requires editors to have any knowledge about the subjects. Since his efforts are always in the direction of cutting down the article, it's clear that he has an agenda. He acts like a self-appointed cop with a lot of time on his hands -- or perhaps "censor" is a better word. Unfortunately, some of these self-appointed censors have managed to secure positions of authority, so we end up with wolves in the chicken coop. He is a disruptive editor. I have read the page on disruptive editing, and he fits it to a T. He keeps harping about sources even though the article is better-sourced than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. There are dozens of articles out there that are COMPLETELY unsourced and which shouldn't even be in the encyclopedia; but instead of going after those articles, he attacks an article which is highly worthwhile. It simply isn't possible to assume good faith in his case.

Most articles are written by a few people who care about the subject matter; that's just the way it works on Wikipedia. Articles that don't attract dedicated authors are generally poorly written. If I exhibit what appears to be ownership tendencies, it is only because I am trying to protect the article from a hatchet man. If you kick me off Wikipedia, you'll be throwing off a knowledgeable editor in favor of an ignorant editor with a strong bias against the article. He'll chop up the article in no time, and useful information on the subject will be lost. Let me remind you that articles generally grow with additional information over time; they don't shrink. If you care about this encyclopedia, you won't sacrifice a knowledgeable editor for an ignorant one -- and you'll save your scolding for Verbal instead of me.

Now, if Verbal wants to get truly specific on this page and talk about the actual language, that's fine. But I doubt that he will do it. He doesn't get specific because he generally thinks the topic isn't important and that the article should be short, but there are other authors who disagree (not just me). If the choice is between a brief article that says little, and a more complete article that conveys a lot of information, the complete article will always be better for the encyclopedia as a whole. To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules regarding length. And even if there are, this article is not particularly long. For him to keep trying to cut it down is absurd.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you start an RfC about the subject matter, not the editor, as your own editing would then come under scrutiny. Keep it focused on the subject matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and ownership

Please let's not have any editors blocked for edit warring. Note my recent edits were not a revert as they made large changes to the text. The threat here is unacceptable: If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged. Verbal chat 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and some of the changes were reasonable, but it is a highly provocative thing to delete large portions of an article as you were. As I have stated, every little detail in an article does not need a reference. Only the major assertions.

There is a very good reason why no one has been working on the article, and that is because everyone was exhausted after the first round of warring. That first round was initiated by skeptics like you who were intent on minimizing the article as much as possible. I consider you, as much as anyone else, responsible for the fact that the article has sat untouched for a long time.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

It has come to my attention that Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs) has made good on his promise to be disruptive, above, and is now canvassing for support. Verbal chat 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Verbal. YOU are the disruptive editor. You have called in your friends many times. You have repeatedly over the years tried to truncate the article against the sensibility of other editors. Your behavior is consistently provocative. You rolled back all my recent edits without discussion. Twice you have deleted portions of the article without any agreement to do so. When I made extensive edits to satisfy YOU, you still put a tag on the article. Your actions are designed to inflame other editors, and if you succeed in doing that, they can't be blamed for being inflamed. It is clear from your posts that you know little about the subject matter; thus, you are stuck in the role of critic. Yet it is not the critics who write the articles; it is the people like myself who actually know something about the subject matter. All you can do is to make cuts, or to rewrite other people's language. You have a clear agenda, and you do not make your edits in good faith.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

I have added the primary sources tag as much of the material is sourced to the Seth Material itself, which is a primary source in this context. This material should be trimmed and summarised using third party sources. There are also problems of WP:UNDUE. Verbal chat 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Primary sources are necessary to document the tenets of the Material as given in the article. There are enough third-party references already, and more can be added in time. THIS ARTICLE IS BETTER SOURCED THAN 90% OF THE ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA. Your complaints about references are nothing but a red herring. As for cutting down the article, this article is about one of the leading figures of the New Age movement. It is an important article, and it deserves to be expanded. The fact that you keep trying to cut it down just shows that you have a biased agenda.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add more material supported by primary sources without discussion. This material should be trimmed, and tertiary sources used. Also, please do not remove valid tags without discussion. If you want futher review I suggest WP:FTN. Verbal chat 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding significant amounts of material; I am simply rewording the text as I find the references in the books. Your opinion that the article needs to be trimmed is only your opinion. If you want text trimmed, you need to state your case on this page, and be specific as to the text. YOU are the one who is refusing to engage in meaningful discussions.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already too much primary sourced material in this article. Please don't add more without discussion. And please stop removing valid tags. I have raised this issue at WP:FTN. Verbal chat 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles of this nature, about religions or philosophies, etc., require primary sources in addition to third-party sources. Is there some rule that says that only so many primary sources can be added to an article? I rather doubt it. You are free to add third-party sources yourself. All you need to do is take some books out of the library and do some studying.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here as a result of Verbal's post at the FRINGE noticeboard, and I agree with Verbal's assessment. Primary sources should be used only to confirm or clarify information from third party sources. If the information is found only in primary sources, it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Verbal posting stuff about this article on the Fringe board? It was established a couple years ago when the article was nominated for deletion that it is not Fringe.

You are more than welcome to study the subject and provide third-party references yourself. I'm not able to do it. I have the full collection of Seth books but I don't have a large library of books on metaphysical subjects that would mention the Seth Material. Someone else will have to supply third-party references.

I disagree about primary references. They are needed when describing the source material. A description of the source material is necessary because this article is ABOUT the source material.

I have no problem with the tag, however. I wouldn't mind seeing more third-party references myself.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is clearly within WP:FRINGE, and the contrary cannot be established without overturning the fringe policy. The overuse of (fringe) primary sources is leading to problems of balance and neutrality, which need to be addressed. Verbal chat 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sections supported solely by (fringe) primary sources should be removed or additionally sourced with reliable secondary or tertiary sources, to avoid bias and disproportionate coverage. We have to follow the RS, not our own opinions of what is notable in the texts, etc. Verbal chat 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If this article were Fringe, it would have been deleted when it was nominated for deletion. From my discussion with Jack-A-Roe below about primary vs. secondary sources, it's clear that the rules do not forbid the use of ample primary sources. You can't say that primary cites are fringe since they refer to the very books that the article is about! Your belief that this article is Fringe is just your opinion.

Furthermore, it does no good for you to make broad statements about the article without getting specific. It is in the specifics that these things are determined.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because they are fringe, that's a straw man. Primary sources can be used to support material that has been shown to be relevant via tertiary or secondary sources. What we have here are large sections of material only supported by primary sources, and some text totally unsupported. They are also fringe sources, which makes the problem worse. Specifics: pick any paragraph that has no secondary or tertiary sources. That paragraph needs support from a WP:RS or it is at risk of removal, due to WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, etc. Verbal chat 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this citation needed?

Someone wants a citation after this statement: "Robert Butts contributed notes and comments to all the Seth books, and thus was a co-author on all of them." That information is gleaned from the fact that his words appear in all the books. On most title pages, it says, "Notes by Robert F. Butts". So what kind of reference do I insert? Do I insert references to all the title pages?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Frameworks

Seth's stuff on frameworks is pretty important and I think it shoudl be add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.57.87 (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I never added the stuff about the frameworks because I thought it was too complicated. I only included the stuff that I felt people could easily relate to. Other people have mentioned the framework stuff but never added it to the article. You are welcome to add that stuff if you want to. However, we have a problem in that another editor -- Verbal -- is trying to block further development of the article. He's even gotten to the point where he's telling me what I can and can't do. I'm sure that he's breaking some rules, but I don't have the time to read them all. For some reason, a lot of the other people who have worked on the article are not around right now, so I hope you will hang around and make your contributions.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you bring non-primary WP:RS for this material then it could be added, correctly framed and referenced and in proportion. Please bring for discussion here. Verbal chat 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Verbal, it doesn't work that way. Editors are free to work on articles as they please. You don't justify your changes on this page, yet you expect me to. You expect me to get your permission to do this and that. It's an absurd situation. This kind of behavior I have never seen from another editor.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN and remember to WP:AGF. It is very hard to respond when your arguments consist of personal attacks and assertions, rather than justifications for your edits. Please justify the addition using RS, and it would be good to work on it collaborative here rather than on the article. Verbal chat 11:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary vs. Third-Party References

I would appreciate it if someone would direct me to the help and/or policy articles that discuss primary vs. third-party references or cites. I just read a help article on citations and couldn't find any mention of the kind of citations that should be used. Also, Verbal has stated that every fact or assertion in an article needs to be referenced, so please point me to the help and/or policy article that states that. Thank you.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources - section of the No Original Research policy).

I don't see any problem with using primary sources in articles like this one, about religious or spiritual beliefs, to describe the beliefs as written by people who are believers. This is done routinely in articles about religious topics. A similar use of primary sources occurs in articles about works of fiction, in which the plot section is sources routinely to the fictional story itself. It has to be done carefully, to indicate that the statements are not "facts about reality" and rather are descriptions of what the person said or wrote. There are situations where this approach would not apply, for example when the author and the writings are not notable, then there should not even be an article. But for an author who has sold millions of books and had a significant effect on a segment of the publishing industry (in this case, the new-age-related areas of publishing during the 1980s and early 1990s), the author's writings are satisfactory sources to describe what the author wrote. That said, there should be no original analysis or interpretation of the author's writings added by Wikipedia editors - analysis would have to be based on reliable secondary sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, thank you for responding. That article says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That raises a question: In writing the article, I paraphrased the Material (well, some of it). It seems to me that paraphrasing is necessary when conveying information -- I mean, Seth/Roberts published 20 books; and when they discussed a topic, it was discussed in depth. So my question is: Is paraphrasing considered to be "interpretation"? To me it is not interpretation, but others might say it is.

It would seem that Verbal thinks I am interpreting instead of paraphrasing. But since he isn't a knowledgeable editor -- meaning an editor with knowledge of the subject matter -- I don't see how he can know that. Verbal, acting on the assumption that I have been interpreting instead of paraphrasing, has been trying to block any new primary sources that I might add.

Now, that policy article also says that primary sources must be used "with care", but it doesn't say that they can't be used in abundance. In a case like this, I don't see why the sections that describe the Material can't be abundantly sourced to the Seth books.

I really do have a handicap when it comes to finding secondary sources (what I've been calling "third-party" sources up to now). I have always been interested in the Seth material, not metaphysics in general. Thus, I have almost all of the Seth books, but few other books on metaphysical subjects where references to Seth/Roberts might occur. (I do have many Cayce and Casteneda books, but they don't say a thing about Seth.) Finding more secondary sources is difficult for me because my town has a small library and (you'll be amazed by this) I don't have a car to drive to the nearest city. However, it seems to me that, given the sale of 8 million books and the secondary references that are already in the article, notability has already been established.

Because I repeatedly reverted Verbal's cuts to the article, I am now being accused of edit-warring. There's the possibility that I won't be around to prevent Verbal from chopping at the article. That being the case, I hope you'll stick around.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read that policy article. It says that an article must not be based entirely on primary sources (this one isn't), and it also doesn't say that there must be a certain minimum ratio of primary-to-secondary sources. It doesn't even say that secondary sources must be in the majority. So, officially, I think the article is on firm ground.

I just noticed that the policy article also says, "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." But to the best of my knowledge, I've never done that. All throughout I have honestly tried to convey the Material in a factual way. If you feel that any portion of the article is not neutral, please let me know. (Sorry for writing such long notes.)--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming to an understanding

I've done most of the lion's share of edits on this article, but I want to make it clear that my interest is in having a neutral article, and that I'm not trying to push the idea that the Seth Material is true or valid (that's a judgement that the article can't make). For example, the first use of the word "channeled" had quotes around it. I was the one who put those quotes in, though someone else removed them. I inserted the first instance of the word "purportedly" (even though it is on the list of words to avoid) because I felt it was needed, and I have reinstated it when other editors removed it. Someone named "Itsmejudith" has just changed the word "awareness" to "the idea", and I support that change. I'm mentioning these small things simply as examples to show people that the neutrality of the article is important to me. And despite what you may have thought (speaking to Verbal now), when I substituted "Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" for "the Seth personality said", I believed that I was making a change that was a leap forward in neutrality (since Roberts was the one who actually uttered the words).

Verbal, I would like to try to bury the hatchet and work together on this article. Your interest in the article appears to me to be negative, but I am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong and to see your point of view. In order to work together, we'll have to discuss specifics of the article on this page. We'll need to discuss individual passages as well as the broader issues of the article's size and the proportion of primary to secondary cites. If we make a concerted effort to work together, I'm sure we can come to an understanding and improve the article. Are you with me on this?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Editing war

In all honest Caleb, I feel your argument is valid. As an outsider that just started reading Seth Speaks mid last year. I did my own research on this topic to seeing a big difference in how it currently being presented. Have you tried contacting the people directly associated with the book? I feel that Wikipedia administratration is being unfair to Celeb. With lack of sensiblity and respect of his efforts to express the works of actual writers and editors in a domain he isn't familiar with. I made an account just so I express my words of gratitude for your efforts Caleb of preserving the message of this topic in an unbiased way! Don't give up, for the people directly invovle with this topic will side with you...Took me a while to figure this out :) Oasisoftheheart (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Caleb is topic banned from this article. As to "side with you", be very careful about siding with Caleb. He has violated a number of policies during his efforts to protect this subject and even got blocked. He was unblocked only after promising not to edit this article. You should also read about meatpuppetry: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." If your behavior becomes too similar to his, the duck test may apply. It hasn't yet, and I'm hoping to save you trouble.

I am providing this advice to save to from running into the same problems which have hounded his editing. I'll leave a welcome template on your talk page. It contains links to our policies and guidelines. Please read them. Good luck here. BTW, this also applies to the Jane Roberts article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a spinoff copy of Caleb's last long version on my talk page. Caleb, you're free to work on my Spinoff copy. These issues seem to affect a fair few new age topics. My current quiet compromise is my talk page spinoffs. David R. Hawkins is another example. On a broader level, I think a whole new space is possible of Spinoff copies hosted by users who expressly know that the article has main WP policy problems, but want to use the knowledge foundation for further studies, *especially Original Research*! I hope one day there would be a structure for people's private versions of pages, but for the moment I only care to spinoff a few articles. TaoPhoenix (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Always good to welcome a new user with threats . . . 70.186.173.82 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that someone else sees things the way I do. That "welcome" note was very threatening indeed.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed by 2/0 per talk page guidelines.

Oasisoftheheart, thank you for your supportive comments.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

NSF paragraph

I've moved this here for discussion:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers channelling to be a pseudoscientific belief.

Brangifer, leaving aside that the source is disputed, this is a policy violation in two ways. First, the source doesn't say "this is the scientific consensus," so that's a WP:V violation. Secondly, you're taking a source that doesn't mention the Seth Material, and using it to making an additional claim to disparage the topic, a claim that would otherwise not appear in the article. And please don't think I'm a Seth Material defender. :) I'm arguing only from the point of view of policy. This is very close to the Smith and Jones example we have in the SYN section of NOR. Note that NOR and V both say the source must directly support the material. --SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to move it here then saw someone else had removed it already. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, just in case you ARE interested in the Seth Material, the most complete version of the article is the edit by Itsmejudith on 1 March 2010. After that, the "skeptics" gained control of the article and deleted a whole bunch of paragraphs.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Caleb has been indef banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be banned does not make you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.158.184 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection

Any objections? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Take a look at all these IPs he's been using, and there's no indication he'll stop. He's nuts:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock

It's this type of thing that makes me think that all articles and talk pages should be semi-protected by default. There would be no downside, since anyone can still edit if they really wish. Just register. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RASSSS...

bunn the ganja in ai in ai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.123.211 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Self creates reality subconsciously and NOT consciously

One of the difficulties in describing the Seth Philosophy is the we-create-our-own-reality concept. Most, when they hear this, automatically assume that consciously create is what people are saying when they discuss Seth's concept. That is why most people move away from this philosophy since they don't believe they really create reality.

Seth adds clarity in session 119 when he says that the inner ego is the organizing principle within the subconscious which does not possess self-consciousness within the physical universe. The outer ego sees reflections of the inner ego and the self creates matter in line with inner and not outer expectations. Jeffreywanger (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Jeffrey.

Misuse of talk page by indef blocked editor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CAUTION TO EDITORS This article is considered controversial, and it has been attacked repeatedly by editors with an agenda -- specifically atheists and Christians -- who don't like the message of the Seth Material. (The Material can be interpreted as both anti-"skeptic" and anti-Christian.) At one time, the article was much longer and more complete, but several persistent editors got the main author of the article barred from Wikipedia, after which they promptly cut the article down by 75%. Be warned that if you add too much information about the Seth Material (that's what the article is supposed to be about, isn't it?), you can expect it to be persistently attacked by other editors. If you want to see what the article once looked like, scroll down the history to where it says "THIS IS THE MOST COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE, BEFORE THE DELETIONISTS TOOK CONTROL OF IT". (You'll need to go to the 2nd page of the history to find one of those entries.) If you decide to restore one of those versions, you should restore one of the earlier versions, not one of the later versions, as the footnotes won't be correct. This article is a prime example of the fact that there is a great deal of bias and inaccurate information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC) That would presumably be Caleb Murdock, see his talk page at User talk:Caleb Murdock and the section "Topic ban for your review" at[1]. And this article is meant to be about what reliable sources say about the Seth material, not a CliffNotes version. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) That's nonsense. An article on a particular philosophy should give the basic tenets of the philosophy. The Christians were against it because the Material says that Christ wasn't crucified, and the atheists were against it because the Material says there is a God. The point of view that is represented in any particular article is determined not by the facts, but by the persistence of the biased editors who manage to wrestle control of the article. Wikipedia is a sham. Jimmy Wales once enthused that Wikipedia could contain all the knowledge in the world, but that can't happen if there is no information in an article because people such as yourself don't like the information. This article is nothing but a bibliography, and that isn't what it was supposed to be, or should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC) You've misunderstood me and probably Wales as Wikipedia is not meant to contain all the knowledge in the world. Sure, it should provide enough information so that have some idea of what it is. It does that. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC) And it is overwhelmingly about the Seth material. Oh, and 4 sentences of criticism. Probably fails WP:NPOV because it has so little. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC) No, this article doesn't come close to what it could be. Don't fool yourself. The Seth Material is a wide-ranging philosophy that touches on every aspect of life. The information that was here before was just a bare outline. As for criticism, it's questionable whether criticism belongs in any article since opposing points of view can have their own articles. As for Wales, I didn't misunderstand him. Wikipedia hasn't evolved into what he thought it would be. The majority of authors now are not contributing information, but are attempting to control what little information there is in the encyclopedia. And the bias is obvious. An important topic like this (and yes, it is important) has little information in it, while every new camera model that comes on the market has its own article. What a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) See the NPOV policy. The article should reflect what has been published in reliable sources about the subject. This talk page is not a forum for discussion of the merits of the subject nor is WP a soapbox or means of promotion. Present ideas for improving the article based on policy and sources supported by rationale and sign posts with four tildes ~~~~. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC) That's exactly what this discussion is about. It's about the nature of the article, and what it should be. Are you now censoring Talk pages in addition to the articles themselves?--70.181.9.37 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Proposal, source, rationale based on source and policy. I see none of that. Accusations, soapboxing and off topic nonsense that there is plenty of. Thanks for signing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Relevant info: Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock (Read it, because there is good information there. Caleb, you are still indef blocked and you know you are not allowed to use Wikipedia for advocacy. Your religious beliefs in Seth are not to be pushed here. That's not what a talk page is for. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)