Talk:Esther Hicks/Archive 3

COI all over again
Good to see the COI editors are back, you are removing information that is in a source here is the quote:

"She enlisted the help of self-help gurus - two of whom, Esther and Jerry Hicks, later claimed Byrne swindled them out of their share of profits. (Jerry is a former Amway salesman; Esther is a former secretary who claims to channel the dead.)" !!!!When did Esther claim that????

Please stop removing sourced information from this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect TmToulouse, don't you think that if this were true it would have been reported somewhere, at some time, in some form! The fact is, Esther never said this, never claimed this. Yes, yes, I understand that this lie is "sourced". Okay, I got that. But in the interest of really and truly trying to make this bio have a bit of integrity, can we just leave that particular "sourced" line out? It's bad enough that we have a line saying the "conflict" was about money. This too is not true, but I realize that making the bio complete true isn't going to happen because of the "sources". Can we please agree to just leave this "swindled" line out? I'm sure you are aware that not everything that is printed in a newspaper article is true, and I also think you'll agree that we don't need to spit out EVERYTHING that is printed, just because it is "sourced". So.. I appeal to YOUR integrity and ask that we leave that particular sentence out. It certainly would not compromise the bio! Thank you... Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was reported, it is right there in the source, I am using wording from the source...provide me a reliable source that says it is wrong, your only source is basically inside knowledge. Lay off the integrity hyperbole you came here with a group of editors to whitewash this article before, and you are back at it again. Come back with a source, in the mean time, please revert back to the wording and information from the source in the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, TmToulouse, I am not trying to 'whitewash" the article. Why would I want to do that. I truly am, and you and I have been over this before, REALLY trying to make it as factual as I can. And we've discussed before that I GET that anything "sourced" can be used. I understand that. I was trying to appeal to your logic, that even though something can be quoted word for word from somewhere, it might not be true, and we can use our judgment as to what to include in this article, or anywhere.  I concede that this is sourced! Got it! What I would like to know is why you insist on including it, even though there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that such a conflict ever took place, and we already have a line stating that the conflict was over money? Isn't that enough? As I said, that too, is not correct, but so be it! As for "whitewashing", why would I consider the article "whiter" if it left out something true? If Esther really did claim that she did not get her share of profits, I would want that in there as much as anyone! If she had claimed that, why would I object to it being stated? There is nothing that needs to be "whitewashed". And as we've already discussed, I am a professional researcher, and I pride myself on understanding the media, and on knowing how to present "both sides" of an issue. In this case, we are not even talking about an "issue". This is a biography! I am getting the feeling that you think that by including that erroneous BUT SOURCED statement you are somehow making Esther look bad, and that is your intention. I don't agree that claiming her share of the profits would be a "bad thing", I am just asking that you allow removal of the statement for the reasons stated above.--Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What reasons are those? The word of an anonymous editor over the internet? Wikipedia works by sourced information, your opinion is not a valid source of information, please revert back to the sourced wording and when you can come here with something other than your opinion about what is true or not we can talk. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The reasons I stated were unclear? Okay, I'll try again. Not EVERYTHING that is printed in a newspaper MUST be repeated in a biography. Are you with me on that? So again, I am asking that we use our judgment as to what to include and what not to. Not based on opinion, but based on logic. Since this so-called claim cannot be verified anywhere except the printed source you reference, it stands to reason, my personal knowledge notwithstanding, that it MIGHT not be true. And beyond that.. WHY does it have to be included in the biography? And don't say "because it's sourced". We've beat that dead horse. Many many things are printed in "reliable" sources my dear TmToulouse, and not everything that is printed somewhere is a proper addition to a biographical article. --Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, we are avoiding printing a fair amount about her fraudulent activities, about her total lack of qualifications to be offering advise to anyone (she is a bloody secretary), about her husbands involvement in the Amway cult, etc. Her primary claim to fame was her involvement with The Secret, and that story is very relevant to her biography. If it was not for The Secret she would still be an obscure two bit hack doing B shows on cruise ships...after The Secret she owns the ships she peddles her wares on. Her whole gig is about money, so what little we do include is pretty understated and a poor reflection of reality. Your removal of source relevant information takes us even further from reality and should not stand. Can I ask why you won't log on with your account? It is easier to keep track of that way, and people can review your history, including your blocks, and COI complaints to better understand the nature of this discussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous, and I'm not going to stoop to your level. I seem to have misplaced my Wiki password, it's been a while since I logged on, so I'm just signing my name at the end of these discussion posts. Your diatribe against Esther Hicks makes your feelings very clear. You are misinformed and extremely opinionated, while I have repeatedly shown myself to be sincerely desirous of making this a quality biography - neutral, and truthful. I have no intention of engaging you in a discussion on the emotional and judgmental level you exhibit above. --Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are removing relevant and sourced information from an article, claiming its not true, offering nothing but your opinion for verification. User opinion is not a valid source for information on wikipedia, particularly when your opinion is suspect. That is why your block history is relevant to this discussion, you were blocked after a wave of users showed up to white wash this article under the direction of Esther Hicks herself. My view of Esther Hicks is obvious, anything I put in the article has a source, your opinion is obvious as well but you provide nothing other than your opinion as a source. That is the problem. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yet again, it is YOU that is opinionated - as I've stated over and over, I am not trying to infuse the article with my opinions, I am trying to beseech you to use some logic as to WHICH sourced items to include. I'm tired of going over that. The one that has strong opinions in this case is clearly you, and because of these strong opinions, you are having a hard time seeing logic. As for my being banned - that was a misunderstanding, as you well know, due to someone erroneously taking me for a "sock puppet" of someone else. This was subsequently found not to be true (I was simply a newbie and really did not understand that I can't just repeatedly change something in the article back and forth because i don't like it! :)!!) and I was reinstated. I admitted to being guilty of newbie exuberance, but I was not a "sockpuppet" and that has been established. Enough said on that. I will only repeat once more.  My "opinions" have nothing to do with what I am trying to do as an editor of this bio. My opinions are "suspect"? What a funny thing to say... opinions are opinions, and again, since I'm not bringing mine in here, but you are very vociferously stating yours, I have to say again.. funny! :) TmToulouse, yes, your view of Esther Hicks is obvious. And as you well know, it is always possible to use "sourced" items to "prove" your OPINIONS, and apparently that is what you are trying to do. And I am asking you to, rather than try to pull in anything that seems to support your biased opinion, to try to sort out intelligently and logically what makes a good bio, and what deserves entry in this one. So I ask you again to answer this specific question: Can we please leave just the point about the conflict being about money? And leave out the sentence about "share of the profits". I realize that my personal knowledge of what really happened is not admissible here, so all I can do is appeal, again, to your logic and your desire to make this a good biographical article. Is it really necessary to the quality of the article to include this sentence? And once again, I am not asking this in order to "whitewash". If it was true, I would desire its inclusion. Thanks - Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your appeals to "logic" aren't really relevant to how wikipedia actually works. you removed sourced statements from the article because you didn't like them or didn't agree with them, which is not appropriate. So until you can provide a source that is contrary to the claims you wish to remove, you should leave the sourced statements alone. Your personal knowledge of the matter is irrelevant. Sorry if that's illogical, but they are part of wikipedia's fundamental rules. (By the way, I think the info about Esther's profiting should remain, as I think it was written neutrally, factually, with valid sources.) Theserialcomma (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from reading extensively about the stated mission of wikipedia, I would say I have a good grasp on what our purpose here is for the article, and it is NOT simply to dump in every sourced statement that exists simply because it exists. My understanding is that we are trying to build a good article. Neutral, informative, and accurate. In the case of the statement we are disputing it is actually your likes and dislikes that are driving your desire to have it included, and for me, as you said, it is logic and the desire for clarity, accuracy and a decent biography. I am not sure I agree that logic is inappropriate, but that is irrelevant. I am certain that your strong desire to make the subject of the article appear in a negative light is inappropriate as a motivation for including a statement. So with all due respect, again, I am not disputing that the statement is sourced. Many many things are sourced that are not written in wiki articles. And I have already stated many times that I am aware that my personal knowledge is not admissable. That's not what we are disputing. So I'm asking you again - for what reason do you feel it is vital to include this particular statement. I won't use the word "logic" again since you don't like it, but the question stands. How does including that make this article better? Also, since we seem to be at an impasse and it's just the two of us participating in this delightful repartee, I suggest we just leave this alone until we can get some other editors on board to reach a consensus. I'm sure you'll agree that the matter is not urgent or pressing. Moriah
 * Let's be honest. We are talking about a lady who allegedly profits from allegedly talking to alleged intergalactic alien spirits that she literally refers to as 'infinite intelligence.' What? Anyway, we had a proper source for what you decided to remove, and two people are arguing with you to add it back, so it is important. Wikipedia policy is on our side, and I believe that your removal of the info makes the article worse. So, please do not remove it again. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All editors are expected to search for consensus on the Talk page. Anyone who keeps reverting the article without regard for the general opinion here can be blocked for edit warring. Some of the IPs here also have registered accounts. If you would like to be taken seriously, please use your real account and add your signature to your own comments. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to get my password emailed to me but it has not arrived. I am sorry I haven't remembered my original password. I am Jody Baron, AKA Moriah, I am not trying to hide my identity in any way. You can contact me via my website: www.j-rresearch.com or by email at jbaron@j-rresearch.com I agree there should be consensus. That statement was added in recently after months of being omitted. When I have time over the next few days, I intend to look for a source we can reference which states the reasons the Hickses left the Secret. The erroneous statement we are using here only appears in ONE source, and usually these conflicts among people of some celebrity are reported much more in the media. This is the "logic" that I was trying to appeal to, but as is obvious from the words of the two editors who are engaging me in this discourse, I am the only objective person working on this bio with a desire to keep it neutral. There is at this time no "general opinion" - there are two admittedly extremely biased and opinionated editors against the subject of the bio, and me. So I suggest we leave that sentence out until I can complete some more research, or someone else arrives with input. - Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You were blocked as a sock puppet of an editor that arrived under instructions from Esther Hick's to whitewash this article, you managed to become unblocked, so perhaps you are not a sock puppet but merely a meat puppet. There are several COI complaints on you about this article. Get off your high horse of claiming to be the "objective editor" here. You have a POV that your pushing. I have an opinion as well but I base my edits on sourced information. You do not. You are working against the consensus, I am not. Rocks and glass houses and all that. I suggest you move off the "biased editor" argument because it is one you will lose. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

so basically you want the info you don't like kept out until someone comes along and agrees with you, and then you really want it out for good. well, i can't say that i personally agree to that, but i can only speak for myself. and i don't consider myself biased against esther, i am just interested in making a good article. since i'm not a follower or believer of her stuff, nor am i particularly opposed to it, i think i'm about as unbiased as it gets. not believing in her alien medium ability doesn't mean that i'm biased against her, it just means i don't believe in her alien medium ability and that i am editing this article because it interests me. i also sometimes edit Paris Hilton even though i don't think she's particularly talented. you don't have to be a fan or a follower of someone to edit their article properly. so really, until you can provide the source contrary to the one you don't agree with -- and i do believe you will, if it exists -- then you have no argument. and please stop assuming i am biased. i'm only 'biased' towards wikipedia's rules, not the wishes of the article's followers or fans. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, TmT I may not be able to bring my personal knowledge of Esther Hicks into play here, but I certainly hope that my "personal knowledge" of MYSELF will be accepted! :) I was not any kind of puppet to anyone. I have no idea who may have told you that I was brought here as a puppet under instructions from Esther, but I assure you this is erroneous. At any rate, as I said above, you are emotional and judgmental, and I won't engage on that level. What I will do is repeat my intention to do some research in order to find a source that tells a truer story of the Hickses and the Secret. I shall bring that here when I find it. Comma, as for my "assuming" you are biased, anyone reading your comments above can see that you have formed a highly charged opinion about the subject of this article. There isn't really any more to say on this.  I have no conflict of interest.  I'm getting kind of tired of beating that dead horse. So let's just let this drop until someone brings some kind of new information.  I think we've pretty much said all we have to at this point, don't you? Moriah  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the mean time then, since the other editors disagree with you, I think it you should put the sentence you removed back into the article. Then when you come back with sources we can discuss it further. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Moriah. I assume you've tried the 'Email my password' link that appears on the Login window when you try to log in as MoriahBaron? You could try that one more time. If it doesn't work, consider creating a new account such as MoriahBaron2. Then you can leave a note on the new user page that it's a replacement account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've done that twice and I have not received any mail, and of course I've checked spam filters, etc. Okay, I will create a new account. Good idea. Tm, how about if we put the sentence back in in the meantime, but with a caveat? Again I risk mentioning the logic of adding something that was reported in a single source, when logic (!!) tells us that if it were true it would have been widely discussed in the media.. so could we put it in saying "such and such reports that..." and/or no other source has been found to corroborate this report? Or at least, can we say that Esther's YouTube video explaining her decision to leave the Secret makes no mention of money or profits? Please don't jump on me - I'm just asking, and I truly am asking with the purpose of making the bio accurate. Moriah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.10.107 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to jump in on this discussion. I agree that Moriah's (and my) personal knowledge of what actually happened between Rhonda Byrne and the Hickses is of no relevance here. However, I don't understand the lack of admissibility of logic as a way to discern if we are making the bio better or worse. I agree with Tm and Comma that if something really is important to the clarity of the article, it should be included if it can be sourced to a "reliable source". But in this case, the source if of questionable "realiability" according to the Wiki guidelines. And coupling that with the fact that is does not show up as repeated in any source whatever after an extensive search of the news aggregators over the past several years, we really do have to logically wonder whether it is credible. Below are some excerpts from the Wiki articles on "tabloids" and on the New York Post.

From Wiki article on Tabloids: …

"since its initial purchase by Rupert Murdoch in 1976, the New York Post has become the example of the brash British-style tabloid in the US, and its competition with the Daily News has become newspaper legend."

From Wiki article on NY Post:

The New York Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review asserted that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem--a force for evil."

Even the New York Times article which is also referenced by this bio, lists the reasons for the Hickses decision to leave the Secret as being about distribution. Being "swindled" was never mentioned. Furthermore, the Post writer, Callahan, is not quoting the Hicks in that statement and may be motivated to sensationalize in this article. She is simply stating her opinion. And again, according to the Wiki sourcing guidelines, this really should not be considered a reputable source.

Given all of this information, and the lack of consensus among the active editors on this bio, I think we should just leave this sentence out. Trying to be completely objective, I truly do not believe its addition makes this bio any more valuable or factual.Gordondavid (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, if you can convince the wikipedia community to dump the NY post as a reliable source then fine. As it stands the NY Post is accept across this site in hundreds of thousands of articles. You do not get an exception because you don't like the facts being reported. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, even if that is true, my comments re: THIS bio and the fact that THIS statement has no back-up anywhere in the press and was not a quote, should LOGICALLY tell us that it's not a proper entry for this article. I'm not trying to convince you that nobody should ever quote the Post in any wiki article. (Okay I'd like to :) but that's not the point... seriously - it just doesn't add anything to this bio, and there is no good reason to include it and many reasons not to.Gordondavid (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It adds plenty, and multiple editors on this talk page agree that it does. The NY Post is a reliable source per wikipedia policy and can be quoted. I have stated several times now why this is important, Esther Hicks' claim to fame is her spot on The Secret, without her schtick would be small potatoes and there wouldn't even be an article about her on wikipedia. Therefore, the story about her and her involvement in the movie is a central focus of her biography. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You people in America are up late! I just logged on for the first time with my new username - and I see all this activity and that the sentence has been added again, but without the word 'swindled' which I think is a huge improvement. If possible, TM, could we add to the beginning of that sentence "one source claims"? Just so it will be clear that this isn't widely reported and discussed in the media? --MoriahBaron2 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could stick a "The New York Post reports that" Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but since it wasn't a news report, it was a column piece, let's say "A New York Post columnist stated that". Agreed?--MoriahBaron2 (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for consistency (we don't state sources in the body - we footnote them) we can just say "A 2006 column states" and let the footnoted reference stand.--MoriahBaron2 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * so wait, now you accept that ny post is a reliable source, but you want to differentiate a "news report" from a "news column piece"? i'm not sure that precedent is warranted or ready to be set. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you remind me how I change my sig. from the red? Thanks ---MoriahBaron2 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never tried to engage you on whether the post is "reliable". I bow to your experience as to whether it is admissible for use as a source. (wait, were you talking to me or to Gordondavid - sorry if I'm replying out of turn -) But my point was that for all the reasons I've already stated several times, I did not think we needed to include this statement. The STATEMENT does not appear to be "reliable" because it is not repeated anywhere else in the media. (and blah blah I happen to know its not true and again I GET IT that that doesn't matter LOL)--MoriahBaron2 (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TM, in reply to your "small potatoes" remark: Esther Hicks has had a Wiki page up since July of 2005. She has been a published author since 1988, long before The Secret. That movie is just a small part of her biography, not the main thrust. These facts already appear in the article.Gordondavid (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * and yes.. in the interest of accuracy I think it's very important to differentiate between a column and a news report. Now you are getting into my professional area, and I could probably write volumes on why this is quite vital. So.. do we add that?--MoriahBaron2 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT Abraham-Hicks
I found this article because it was forwarded from Abraham-Hicks.

But I am not interested in a description or biography of Ester Hicks. What she has said or not said. Her personal life or whether channeling is legitimate.

To me this is akin to a discussion of whether Jesus existed or what he said or where he lived. Which is hotly debated by many. But a description of the Christian faith, is a different thing.

I am only interested in having a good description of the teachings of Abraham. Something like Buddhism or Hinduism articles.

The "outline" section does not nearly do justice to the teachings that Abraham provides.

Abraham-Hicks should not forward to this article, but should be a separate article that references Ester Hicks. Just like the other "religion" articles it should be an intelligent and balanced description of the teachings of Abraham, instead of an argument over its validity. Robbyriverside (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hicks claims she did not receive her fair share of the film's profits
Before, I removed this claim ("Hicks claims she did not receive her fair share of the film's profits").

In the New York Post reference Hicks is mentioned once and sideways: "She enlisted the help of self-help gurus - two of whom, Esther and Jerry Hicks, later claimed Byrne swindled them out of their share of profits. (Jerry is a former Amway salesman; Esther is a former secretary who claims to channel the dead.)" No evidence is given, nor reference where to find that, for Hicks actually posing this claim. I cannot see this as a reliable reference with regard to this claim, certainly not with a biographical article, see WP:BLP.

The Independent reference is also used to back-up this claim, where I cannot find it at all.

So I removed the claim again, in accordance with WP:BLP, and removed the NY Post article altogether as a reference for this article, since the Hicks are only mentioned once and sideways (without background on the statement made). -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * first off, i asked you in the edit summary to discuss the removal of the nypost source, and you had already done exactly that, so i apologize for not noticing. you're right, i'm wrong. but as for the nypost source, i see no reason why nypost should not be treated as a reliable source. the nypost says that hicks was swindled out of her profit from the secret. i don't see how this is controversial, and i really don't see how this could be appropriate for removal. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The removal is not because whether the NY Post is in itself reliable or not, but because the topic of this article is not Hicks (mentioned once) but The Secret. You cannot use such a sideway remark as a reliable source, it then only is a primary source see WP:PSTS, and a high-quality secondary reliable source is needed, see WP:BLP. The NY Post article may be an appropriate source for other subjects, but not for this claim. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a controversy, as is evident, between Byrne and Hicks. But I have not found (yet) reliable sources on the details of the conflict (besides that it is about money and intellectual property). -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i would have to beg to differ with your interpretations of the rules here. you cite WP:PSTS, stating that the nypost is a primary source. i'm sorry, but the nypost article is a secondary source, not a primary source. an example of a primary source would be something like a court case. if you check WP:PSTS, it gives a list of what would be considered primary sources. a nypost article, which is a reliable source, is also a secondary source by all means. even though the article in question may not be about esther hicks primarily, that in itself has nothing to do with making it a primary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * and is there a specific rule that states that we should not use reliably sourced articles as sources if the articles are not primarily about the subject in question? cause if that's not a rule, then it really shouldn't be an issue. if there is a reliable nypost article about michael jordan that also happens to mention shaquille o'neal, are we disallowed from citing the article in reference to shaq? cause that's an analogue of the situation here, and i don't believe it should be an issueTheserialcomma (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A newspaper is not always a secondary source, see for instance here. Since the author does not state primary sources or the process how she drew up to this conclusion, it is a primary source (for the time being, unless it is a well-known claim, in which case it is a tertiary source and there must be reliable secondary sources to support it).
 * It totally depends on the situation, and how it is stated, whether a side remark in an article on a different subject can be a reliable source in this matter or not. But in the present case, to my opinion, the NY Post article is much to meagre (with only one unsourced sentence on Esther Hicks) to support such a statement. Even more since it is to a certain extend an opinion article, see WP:RS. I do not know whether the NY Post is a quality news organization. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please show us the specific wikipedia policy that governs news articles that do not "state primary sources". Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPSTYLE. -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of which I fail to see any issues with what is written. Everything is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Wording has been carefully hashed out over several months...Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not call ...claims she was "swindled"... as carefully hashed out (besides "swindled", and not being backed up by a reliable source, "claim" in the context of this sentence is a word to avoid). Nor is the sentence "...The Hickses' books, including the best-selling series The Law of Attraction, are — according to Esther Hicks — based on translations of thought she says she channels from a group of non-physical entities called Abraham (Hicks describes what she is doing as tapping into "infinite intelligence")"... related to the NY Post article used as a reference. Neither would I call the NY Post article a reliable secondary source with respect to the statement "...Hicks claims she was "swindled" out of her fair share of the film's profits...". It is just one statement in this article on The Secret, with Hicks mentioned only once sideways, and the journalist giving no background or sources for this statement.
 * Furthermore, it is not me to prove this is an unreliable source, it is yours to prove it is reliable, see WP:PROVEIT. -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty easy to prove that the NY Post is a reliable source, I see no policy that excludes it from use. If you could provide me policy guidelines that would some how make the NY post no longer a valid source, I could look at it and address. I have not seen that policy yet. So if the NY Post is a reliable source, and there is no policy that you have shown me that some how invalidates it, then I think it is "proved." Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The NY Post is not a reliable nor an unreliable source. Reliability depends on context. You would not call the NY Post a reliable source on quantum mechanics. See WP:RS:
 * Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.
 * So it is up to you to come with proofs.
 * Why do you stay re-inserting references which do not back up the content they point at? See my post of 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC). The NY Post article does not say anything about Abraham, neither does the Abraham-Hicks url say anything about the amount of their output (by which that becomes an unverifiable statement). -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The NY Post can of source be used as a source for what a quantum physicist says about quantum physics, and we are using the NY Post as a source for what Hicks' says about her reasons for dropping out of The Secret. The NY Post clearly states that Hicks' claims she was swindled from her share of the profits. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But Hicks does not says that in this article. It is the journalist who says this: without quoting Hicks, without stating sources or evidence, without other sources backing this statement. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure the NY Post can be used as a source for the what the quantum physicists says, but not as a source for the reliability of the physics he is talking about. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a paraphrased quote to me, it is attributed to Hicks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * nypost is a reliable source, at least per wikipedia standards. as a legitimate newspaper, we have to trust their editorial oversight, and there is no burden of proof on them to show that the quote is true. newspapers don't need to expound on every point they make so that we really believe them. it's why their editorial oversight makes them reliable. and wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. it actually doesn't matter if the nypost completely made up the quote or not - the burden is on you to disprove it, not just assume it's untrue, remove it, and reverse the burden. until you can provide another editor, hopefully an administrator, to come in here and agree with you, and buttress your points that actually make sense and your interpretations of policy are true, then please stop reverting this material, which comes from a third party, reliable source, which the rest of wikipedia trusts, and has been in the article for months. seriously, this is very disruptive, and i'm surprised that you're doing this, since you are an established editor. you come across as arguing for the sake of frustrating the process, since you showed up out of nowhere and are making these seemingly minute, but actually serious changes. you removed multiple reliable sources which are critical of the subject. i don't know what your motivations are, but i assume your concerns are legitimate and you are not just trying to frustrate and disrupt, so i will ask that if you really want this material out, please allow it to remain for now, and start an RFC to get some input from other established editors. as it is, you should respect how the article has been for a long time until then. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot state: "nypost is a reliable source". It depends on the context, among others on: subject, author, and in the present case that it is not a direct quote of Hicks. The article is written in the section "Entertainment" of the NY Post, which also contains "Horoscope". Do you consider the horoscope of the NY Post a reliable source? Often, in the news section, the NY Post will be regarded as a reliable source. Also, in the Entertainment section when it concerns for instance direct quotes, etc.
 * Further, with respect to the contested material, you turn things around on whether material should be in the article (especially a biography) or not while being contested, see WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments on User:Tmtoulouse were not in the best spirit of wikipedia and, after having the error of my ways pointed out, more or less concur with the pointer. Objection sustained. Carptrash (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Carptrash, please comment on edits and not on editors. Your comments above add nothing to the discussion of this article, which is what the talk page is for. Tmtoulouse (not "titmouse") is one of the few editors working on this page who doesn't have a clear conflict of interest. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Daywalker, my only interest in this article is accuracy and the quality of it's sources which in the case of the NY Post, call into question what needs to have been noted as being quoted. Please see above discussion content on this matter.

A check of Tmtoulouse history document clearly his focus, motivation and intent, and it's exceedingly far from NPOV and the spirit of a useful, neutral and balanced Wikipedia. I admire his resolve, but if any Wiki Admin actually reads all the talk in the history of just this page alone including it's archives, and that would take many hours, as well as his New Wiki Project, Rationalwiki.com, I would say that easily this is not an editor that "doesn't have a clear conflict of interest".Gordondavid (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * a check of tmtoulouse's history has shown him/her to be an insightful and invaluable contributor to wikipedia. you mention his/her work with another wiki project called rationalwiki, as if that constitutes some sort of conflict of interest by default. as far as i can tell, rationalwiki is a wiki (modifiable by anyone, like wikipedia) that promotes scientific thought. it just so happens that scientific thought is antithetical to esther hicks' work (in my opinion). disagreeing with something doesn't constitute a conflict of interest by default. you, on the other hand, administer www.theabeforum, an 'abraham-hicks appreciation forum,' and it's been claimed in the thread above that you currently or at one time worked for esther hicks/abraham hicks. the COI here is with you, not tmtoulouse or anyone else who happens not to believe in channeling otherworldly spirits. (sorry for tmtoulouse if it appeared that i've spoken on his/her behalf. these are just my opinions) Theserialcomma (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with Theserialcomma. I've been too busy to get involved and comment on this, but have been reading the updates and I support tmtoulouse's position on this matter. Let's get back to the actual subject matter of the article, OK? Bhimaji (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have asked for support on the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, with respect to the reliability of the NY Post source regarding the statement "Hicks claims..." in the article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, Crownest. The stated information already on the NY Post on Wiki about that particular source for information, as well as the headlined title of the NY Post article itself ("The Secret" is dividing NYC) is sensational journalism in most rational views, I submit. I am sincerely for this article being accurate and useful for the viewers of it in every way.Gordondavid (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Theserialcomma and Bhimaji for your support, as has been adroitly pointed out above, a point of view is not a conflict of interest, and does not prevent one from editing wikipedia. If having a POV about a subject meant recusal of your editing rights then nothing would get done. Anyone that cares enough about a topic to write about it probably has a POV about the subject. To temper that wikipedia relies on reliable sources, npov language and other regulations. All of my edits are based on specific wikipedia policy, and what I believe is the "spirit" of the regulation. Other's edits that are in the same vein I readily adapt and move forward with. When I get annoyed is when clearly reliable sources and the information in them gets removed from an article.

That is where we are at now, and hopefully some additional views will come from the RSN post by Crowsnest. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the NY Post reference from
 * the lead section, since it is unrelated to the preceding sentence for which it is supposed to provide verification,
 * from the section "The Secret", together with the statement based on it. The reliability of the source in the present context is questionable, see also this diff. Without the NY Post ref the statement is unsourced, as well as that the terminology of the statement is not in accordance with the requirements for a biography.
 * As long as it is not established that the NY Post article is a reliable and a secondary source in the context of this biography, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE, I will oppose its re-instatement in the article (see WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT). -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A single comment on a notice board does not policy make. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually considered the amount of energy that has been expended trying to suppress/justify this one comment from this one biography? Has anyone read the NY Post article recently? It's an article about different people's opinions of "The Secret" and it has one paragraph that tries to deftly mention and put down Mrs. Hicks with an off-hand comment about how she felt she didn't get enough money, based on nothing. I don't see a source in the article. I could just as easily write a blog and say "this article (link) is wrong and should never be sourced elsewhere" and refute it that way. The whole thing is an obvious waste of time and energy for everyone involved. Even if the reference is left, it still really doesn't matter. But if it were up to a vote, I'd drop it, as an encyclopedia really shouldn't include in 1/30th of its body a quote from some New Yorker trying to be witty without even an attempt to pretend to be factual in an opinion article. Clearly the word "source", here, is becoming a simulacrum. PseudoSherlock (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * your attempt to refute the nypost on a blog would fail, since wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources. since the nypost is a reliable source, however, we have to trust their editorial oversight and assume the quote is genuine. if you have a reliable source that is contrary to the nypost's claims, please post it. that could definitely be included. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest makes two, clearly valid points citing Wiki rules. A consensus needs to be reached on the inclusion of the NY Post article in this biography. The NY Post used as a source for reliable, unbiased content from a newspaper stands in question. I submit and agree that it is a tabloid piece in the Entertainment section, and not quoted directly in this case. Does it add to or distract from the factual and accurate article that is about what Esther Hicks and her husband Jerry have written and done over the past 20 years? A consensus should be reached from truly NPOV that includes points made *at least* from Crowsnest, hopefully with the help of a Wiki administrator.Gordondavid (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the NYPost is a reliable source in this context, and I think this information should be in the article. PseudoSherlock seems to be somewhat unfamiliar with WP sourcing rules - as Theserialcomma noted, a blog posting doesn't let you refute a newspaper. It could be argued that the style of the article is tabloid-like, but that doesn't mean it's factually inaccurate. I find it highly unlikely that the NY Post requires that their journalists be factually accurate in one section but lets them make stuff up in other articles. Regarding the source of the information in the article - many newspaper articles that I read don't provide the sort of citations that WIkipedia requires. I would not expect precise formal citing for this information from any publication. Bhimaji (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bhimaji, if the NY Post is a reliable source for content, that would extend to their blogs. A factual error or libel in a blog would open them up to a lawsuit, so it's reasonable to expect some level of legal reliability. Dayewalker (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I gave a throwaway example without being fully aware of the guidelines, that was my fault. My essential point is that the article paraphrases the work/opinions of the specific individuals in a couple sentences in a flippant way that is closer to artistic license than reporting. As it's not quoted as a fact, nor is it sourced (as mentioned), adding it later into an encyclopedia as a "source" itself seems to contradict the purpose of a fact. I'm sure there are millions of throwaway comments like that one could dig up about any given subject in all the newspapers and online sites across the world; treating them all as quoteable facts doesn't help anyone nor can you build a solid structure on so flimsy a foundation. True, someone undoubtedly looked over the article to make sure it didn't open them up to legal action, but just because an opinion isn't actionable doesn't make it a truth. PseudoSherlock (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." As stated previously, since the nypost is considered to be a reliable source, we must trust that they employed proper fact checking when publishing such material. We have to just assume that reliable sources aren't making things up until proven otherwise. That is standard practice on wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If one source is contested, then cite two sources independent of one another. Marasmusine (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read this discussion page with great interest. I found another source on The Secret conflict in a long article published in The Australian last summer (August 2008). I have edited the section to add more context, including the fact that Rhonda Byrnes has been involved in quite a bit of contractual disputes and some litigation regarding the movie. I also included words directly from Esther Hicks about her perspective on the money aspect of the issue. Hopefully these changes will shed a more neutral light. Frankaustx (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Abraham is Different Than Esther
Hi everyone - apologies if this isn't presented on the right section - but I did a search for "Abraham Hicks" not "Esther". Why is the page redirected? Is it because many people don't believe in the existence of Abraham? I know it sounds crazy to believe we have eternal souls and that we can communicate on many different levels ... But so is believing in an Alien god living in a volcano and that we're all filled with neutrinos or whatever those harmful microscopic things are called in Scientology. Let's not get into coming back to earth as a worm as in Buddhism or that if we draw a picture of some guy that it insults god and is reasonably punishable by death...

So regardless of if this "Abraham" stuff sounds wacky to you it still deserves its own section. The beings referred to as Abraham have their own description and characteristics that separate them from Esther. Does the term "Jew" forward to Jesus? Or does the name Mohammed forward to Islam? This Abraham section should be about the work and beliefs espoused by "Abraham" whether you believe they exist or not --- and tmmt - I'm sure you have the same disdain for Mormons who supposedly got their ideas from some guy who found a book under a rock. And Christians who believe Jesus communicated with god and actually was god and muslims who believe you offend god by drawing a picture of a bird.... Try to be more respectful of others' beliefs.

This Abraham section should go into extreme detail about what "Abraham" says and writes. Not talk about 98% Esther and then mention an 8 point summation of the broad universal views of Abraham. Thanks guys I'll look to see how this all plays out. Cheerio. AlchemyAlchemist (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a page on the Seth Material, which would be analogous to having a page on the Teachings of Abraham. I'll start pulling together a page for the Teachings of Abraham that would be brief, to the point, and follow the same flow as the Seth Material page, which would be a great template to start from. Frankaustx (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thetans, that's what Scientologists believe are the cause of all of our problems. They're just another name for souls. Neutrinos are very small sub-atomic particles which we can actually measure...
 * I think the reason that Abraham didn't get a separate section is because there wasn't enough reliably sourced material about them. If there is enough material, I think it should be in a separate article. There might be some dispute about how the relationship between Esther and Abraham is portrayed - obviously those who accept the teachings have a different view than those who don't. But we'll deal with that when it happens.
 * Regarding analogies, I think a more appropriate analogy would be an article about Jesus and about Christianity, during the lifetime of Jesus. I would not be surprised to see the two combined at the beginning. Bhimaji (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out that I simply won't have time to work on this project in the foreseeable future. I'm only posting this since I had previously indicated I would start on such a page.  If anyone else feels inclined to do so, I would still recommend using the Seth Material page as a template. Frankaustx (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Url in references
The url for Teachings in Brief (in the references section) as an extra / at the end that confuses browsers and causes the formating to show up in a 'distressed' fashion on every browser I checked, both Mac and Windows alike. If who ever put it there would remove the / at the end of the url, it will show up accurately. Much appreciation.--Ahnalira (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated the URL in this reference to remove the trailing slash. Frankaustx (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

more COI evidence?
Moriah, in the thread above, you revealed your full name, for whatever reason. I typed your name into google, and the second hit was http://abetalk.com/f8/1696.html which the first paragraph mentions you and the other person who edits in your (and esther hicks') favor in this article, david gordon. It says, "On August 31 2008, I received an email from David Gordon. In the email, he stated that he was employed by Jerry Hicks (Abraham-Hicks publications)" - so this website claims that david gordon works for abraham hicks. The next paragraph says "Abraham-Hicks publications had hired Jody Baron, under the title of Business Intelligence, to scour and find websites that used the Abraham-Hicks trademark, and report any website that might associate the trademark with any unfavorable content" - which states that you also work for Abraham Hicks. I'm not going to state anything else, other than neither of you should probably be editing this article anymore if this is true. That is just my opinion, of course, and I'm not an admin. but in my opinion, you've both been editing this article to support each other's positions (moriah and david gordon), and those opinions have all been an attempt to paint esther hicks in a favorable light. editing an article only in a white washing, favorable way to the subject, all while you're her employee, is not appropriate. especially if your job is to scour the internet to report unfavorable content. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think this new information should be reported to the COI boards, and an admin should step in. Dayewalker (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of what was said on AbeTalk - their members were upset because Abraham-Hicks asked them to remove their copyrighted name from their header. At the time that forum was posting X-rated material (nothing to do with Abraham), and they had been asked not to associate the name Abraham-Hicks with their content. I made a mistake and posted something on that forum and was attacked, just as it seems I'm being here, for supporting A-H. I'm sure you are aware that you can't believe every accusation that is thrown around on an internet forum. All I can do is tell you the truth.  I am not employed to "scour".  In fact, I am not, and have never been, an employee of Abraham-Hicks. If you have any doubts about this, you can certainly contact their office and check.  If you are going to use AbeTalk as a source now, well, that certainly opens up a mountain of possibilities! Wow! Anyway, I am not their employee, and that's that. I gave my full name in this talk because I have nothing to hide. What I find so interesting is that you are all trying so hard to discredit me, when I am not trying to do anything but make the article truthful and neutral, when you and other active editors on this bio have stated over and over how NOT neutral you are! I confess, I'm stumped on this. If you want to read AbeTalk - knock yourself out. The discussions there are on a level from which I have long since risen, and if you are using it as a source of "information", that is very telling as to your neutrality. Information, as I have stated, is my profession, and you are not going to be able to discredit my integrity. --MoriahBaron2 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep this article factual, complete and most of all, fair, the more truly neutral elements brought in such as administrators that honor Wiki guidelines and policies, that have truly NPOV, the better it will be for the visitor. We are, after all, creating the article for those interested in the author and those doing research. I am confident NPOV administrators would have no problem here.Gordondavid (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i ... uh ... what? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gordondavid is the moderator of the abeforum. His idea of neutrality is in favor of the Hicks'. This is not a place for Abe enthusiasts to sell their rhetoric. That is for another forum--the one they made! Not Wikipedia. Lesley1914 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Lesley1914

Outlines of the Teachings needs to be pulled
This needs to be removed. The list is straight from their site and that is not appropriate at all. A) It's straight from the subject's site, meaning it does not fit into Wikipedia's guideline of not including sources that link to the subject. B) I'm pretty confident that we can't directly quote from anywhere like this. Lesley1914 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Lesley1914

Is Abraham New Age?
One of the problems of Wikipedia is that any idiot (I hear it's called a wikitard) can put himself up as an expert. That's why the new Scholarpedia was born, that requires one to sort of prove that you know what you are talking about. Either way, I have read all of their books (~10) and listened (never attended) to about 300 of their complete workshops. Workshops are about 4 hours long on average. I don't work for them, just trying to find the truth about them. So I hit this website and read what is about them.

First of all, I am removing that this is a "biased article". NYT/Amazon.com best selling author? The only thing positive about them are facts about the best selling author status, not a single other positive remark anywhere. Thus I will remove this. This article is strangely small, go read some other NYT/Amazon best selling author bios. They are much more positive and nobody complains about that.

Secondly, I looked down below, and saw that they were categorized under "New Age". At this point, I started to laugh. To categorize them as new age would indeed be completely false. Sort of like classifying Jews as a offshoot from Hindu's. They teach *against* most "new age" ideas, so to even lump them in with the "new age" when they agree with only a fraction of the points of philosophy is just a fallacy. Someone NOT knowing what they teach did this. But that's okay, we all make mistakes. So I click on "New Age" and went, point by point on all points of philosophy and doctrinal to see how they faired. I give them a "+" is they generally agreed with this point, a "/" if parts of the point they have taught and a "-" is they have disagreed to the point of making fun of it, or taught against the point of philosophy. Here are the results, with a small comment under each which explains further if they disagree with part or all of it because I know you wikipedia cats like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age#Philosophy_and_cosmology

Philosophy and cosmology +Theism

-Spiritual beings They teach there is no hierarchy of spiritual beings and they do not teach getting in touch with any of them, just use your own internal guidance.

+/-Afterlife

They do teach in afterlife, but not hell; as the only place hell exists is in man's own disconnected mind.

-Age of Aquarius

They teach this is a nice idea, but this is a general time of awakening.

---Astrology

They say this is false and teach contrary to it. "Very small flee on a very big dog"

---Teleology

They say "Life isn't trying to teach you any lessons, you didn't come here to learn or become anything because you were lacking, you came here for the joy of it - that's all"

--Indigo children

They say this is false and all are born with the same power, but the older you are, the more you are trained out of it.

---Interpersonal relationships

They say "Life isn't trying to teach you lessons" They say there is no Karma, they call it "Karma Copout"

+Intuition

They teach that intuition is guidance.

+Optimism

They do not teach affirmations because without feeling they are meaningless. But they do teach that when you are feeling good, all things wanted will flow unto you.

+Human potential

/Spiritual Healing

They say this is false and teach contrary to it. Nobody can assert their will into you. Others can influence you into healing yourself, but they can't give you any healing.

+Eclectic spirituality

They say you are the only one who can truly guide you.

---Anti-Patriarchy

They say this is false, all have equal connection to spirituality; the differences between male and female from a vibrational standpoint and zero.

---Stonehenge and other ancient sites are revered by many who practice New Age Spirituality.

They say there is nothing significant about these, you are the vortex, not these external things.

--Psychic perception

They say they may exist but are "like a very small flee on the back of a very big dog" & "people are their own vortex"

+/--Eastern world practices

They teach only meditation and never teach any of the others and have spoken against most of them.

---Diet

They teach eat anything you want that you feel guided to and gives you the most energy and makes you happy.

---Mathematics

They teach that this is rubbish. But if you want to find evidence for your cause in numerology, the law of attraction will bring it to you.

Science

-Holistic health: "It matters not what you use as your excuse to let in the well-being that is natually yours"

/Music: "Any music that thrills you"

-Sustainable living : They disagree with this and say it's an infinite universe and world and whatever you want, you can have and it will not negativity affect others.

So, in count, they:

+Generally agree with #5 of them

/Somewhat agree with #3 of them

-Disagree and teach against #14 of them

I can cite all my references with lectures they have presented, but anyone that has listened to them, will easily see that indeed they are NOT part of any new-age movement even by their own definition or by wikipedia's own definition of the new age movement. I can cite my references (for a discussion post?) but anyone that has read them will know this is indeed mis-categorized.

I have no idea what to do now, I guess it's not a big issue, but it most certainly is inaccurate.

Oh yeah, when replying, please state how much have you studied their material so we can have an understanding.

And YES I agree (with Robbyriverside) this has nothing to do with the teachings of Abraham-Hicks. What do you suggest? can you give me a page of another philosophy and maybe we can start working on it.

Darrellx (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but even though Esther does not identify herself as a channeler, she and Abraham understand why the term would apply to them. See in A New Beginning I (pg 163), where Abraham says, "that which is "channeled," as you say, that which is received through thought through the Non-physical dimension." They do consider what Esther does as receiving thought from the nonphysical dimension, and in their own words, they understand our referring to that as channeling. Channeling is considered a New Age idea. They also endorse concepts such as out of body experiences and meditation, both part of New Age philosophy. Also, when you said mathematics, I think that you meant Numerology because I am certain that Abraham never said that math was rubbish. As for the list, no one of these New Age principles needs to agree with all the others to be classified as New Age. New Age is a broad term, used to describe a variety of ideas. Thus, New Age is an appropriate classification for Esther Hicks' teachings. Lesley1914 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Lesley1914

More care should have been taken with the main and talk
The main misses the core of the philosophy. Yes Esther teaches a "philosophy" as told by Abraham. The main doesn't mention that we are vibrational beings and it lacks substance (it also lacks length). The talk is bias. I see a mess. Much of the core of what Abraham teaches is missing. Whether writing about god or any scientific theory at the moment that has hidden variables (which is most of them) far more care is taken. Wikipedia is supposed to take an unbiased expert view on subjects is it not? I don't believe this is either. Just saying... J Sax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.70.61 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Section titled "
Contradictions to Teachings==" ==

I removed the following. There is no reason for this to appear on the page. People who hold these beliefs are free to have their opinions, but this is irrelevant and unnecessary.

"Since the onset of their teachings, controversy has surrounded the teachings of Jerry and Esther Hicks and the Entity they call Abraham Hicks. The basis of this controversy is its direct contradiction to the teachings within Biblical scripture. Biblical scripture essentially states that channeling is a form of witchcraft, demonic possession and divination, which are practices that separate people from G-d. However, the response of the Hicks has consistently been that the entity Abraham states that any religions or actions that make you feel good lead to G-d." --Lesley1914 (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lesley,

If you think there is no controversy surrounding the idea of one god or science for that matter you would be wise to think again. There is nothing other than a book (quite frankly that could of and were written by anyone, but for certain not written by god) and some followers to support the idea of one god... lacks evidence. There are many unseen variables in physical science today that are explained in such a way (softly) that stretches the imagination past the point of having a slot for it. Esther is not out to convert anyone... to any way of thinking. If anything this philosophy covers god and science so it can use words from either to explain itself. It answers more questions than it creates making it the most sound for the moment in my opinion.

What Esther states is that she meditated and look what happened... These entities that call themselves teachers are speaking to her now and this is what they have to say. That we are vibrational electro-magnetic beings that split our energy at birth. That we came here to experience growth and joy and that the larger aspect of ourselves remain nonphysical but are also here very much with and within us. That we create reality with our thoughts and that our emotions are our guidance system that tells us whether or not the larger aspect of ourselves see things the way we see them. By reaching for positive rather than negative feeling thoughts we will be more aligned with that larger aspect of ourselves. The concept is a simple one. Be as happy as you can be in any given moment and your life will be better. How you see a problem with this I don't know, it really is common sense... be happy life will be better? No? They also state if you can't be happy be content at least and appreciative of the good things in your life... is that controversial? The reason for the negative things that we experience is to give us the contrast that aids our expansion or growth they say. Does that sound unreasonable? That's pretty much all there is to it. Not only does Abraham say this by means of Esthers physical self but it is repeated hundreds of times in many different ways. It is pretty much all they talk about. They may use the term god for those who believe in god or science for those who believe in science or just tell it like they feel like telling it for a spiritual but also scientific crowd... depends on who shows up in the hot seat.

Ever meet a person who is truly depressed focus on their problem for a bit and you will become that. You get what you pay your focused attention on period. Neurology supports this and the physical, and psychological evidence supports this. So keep "thinking" whatever you like it doesn't change anything for anyone else, just you and perhaps those that are close to you.

I am not writing this to defend Esther or the Abrahams because frankly I don't think they care. I think however, that it is important to be clear on the subject you are writing about. Be it god, science, or something that people consider other. Just because you can't see distant shores from the point you stand doesn't mean that they don't exist. Because Esther has this ability that we don't doesn't mean she shouldn't be taken with at least some care. Some care... she's put herself out there... she isn't hiding behind a bible or a scientific paper with a lot of jargon. What she is saying is clear and makes sense. That's all I am saying. In case you are wondering I am not bias to this theory either... although I guess it would appear that way. I have looked into most religions in my life because I have a spiritual nature, I have looked in depth into the sciences concerning the possibilities for creation or the seat of consciousness. What the Abrahams have to say is not disagreeable and makes clear sense but I will continue to search for my own truth. I am not saying that there isn't one god for all I know that god could be comprised of all of the vibrational energy that we all for all of infinite eternity. I am not saying science is not useful as I am educated and know science has its place. I am saying... be easy... and feel your way to your own truth. Perception is not something that is shared by any two of us. Sincerely J. Sax

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esther Hicks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202025230/http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152007/entertainment/dirty_little_secret_entertainment_maureen_callahan.htm?page=0 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152007/entertainment/dirty_little_secret_entertainment_maureen_callahan.htm?page=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary link will remain
Criticism is allowed on wikipedia. Bob Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary (published by John Wiley & Sons), is a "reliable secondary source." This link does not take up a disproportionate part of the page. Either this link remains, or we should include a separate section on criticism. Lesley1914 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914 I see the link to Skeptic's Dictionary has been removed, and I see no valid reasoning given for removal. Seems to me that divergent perspectives and critical thinking should be welcome and expected in Wikipedia, especially in cases/pages where so many unsubstantiated claims are presented. --Jdmumma (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)