Talk:Seth Material

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)

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)