Talk:Jane Roberts/Archive 2

To Paul Richard
I'm very sorry, but your revisions were artless. I will return in a day or two and try to incorporate some of the things you said in better language. In the mean time, I reinserted the language that was there before.--Caleb Murdock 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I read Paul Richard's revisions, and if they are correct (source?), are wonderfully informative, elaborating on the detail of the previous version of text succinctly and artfully. The language is fine. The paragraph about the 'early' death of Jane Roberts invalidating her entire work, is just ridiculous. Among the many things Jane was doing, was reporting on how she thinks spiritual, philosophical, and political phenomena operates (Psychic Politics), and reporting what discarnate spirits and forms 'thought'. If a doctor dies and 'early' death, does it follow that his medical practice is fraudulent or unreliable? Jane Roberts has written at least one amazing book that I am aware of (Psychic Politics) - so above all; she is a gifted writer and reporter.Drakonicon 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, his language lacked polish, and there were various mistakes. I'm working on it now.


 * The paragraph about some people thinking that Jane's death invalidated Seth's teachings is simply true. I don't feel that way, but many people do.  Actually, I inserted that paragraph, not because I felt it really belonged in the article, but because Max Mangler and other skeptics were inserting as much negative stuff as they could think of, and I felt it was best if I did it in my own language.


 * Okay, I've just given Paul Richard's changes the "Caleb touch". I have an uneasy feeling that some of the things Paul said aren't accurate -- I'll have to re-read the books about Jesus.


 * Aren't you the one who said you haven't read any of the Seth material? Have you read any of it now?--70.23.99.14 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am reading Psychic Politics. It is deeply interesting and operates on a multidisciplinary level: as autobiography (by Jane), as journal writing, as philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, the writerly mechanics of channelled information, introduces many speculations about how our consciousness operates simulataneously on multidimensional levels. Jane Roberts reads like an honest and sincere investigator. Even she seems to struggle with the labels that she uses to describe what she sees and feels, because they change subtly as she writes and explores. Its is great and fantastic literature on the potentials of human consciousness.Drakonicon 09:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jane Roberts' Death
I notice the little skirmish over the paragraph on Jane Roberts' death. The change that I recently made to that paragraph was made to give both sides of the issue.

Drakonian, there is no doubt that the way Jane Roberts died has affected the way many people think of the Seth material, including me -- and I say that even though I am an ardent devotee of the material, and even though it forms the basis of my religious views. It was only from reading the last book -- the one which Roberts dictated right before she died -- that I fully came to understand that she was separate from Seth and had problems that were outside of Seth's influence (Seth tried mightily towards the end to help her understand the psychological source of her illness, and to be more positive and hopeful). As for citations, I agree that a citation should go there; I just have to find one -- the problem for me being that my business keeps me so busy that I don't have the time. Indeed, citations are needed throughout the entire article.

Max, I would think that you would WANT a citation here. I'm sure you could find some skeptic who has tried to discredit the Seth material because of the way Roberts died.--Caleb Murdock


 * Of course, Caleb, it is always better to have citations throughout an article. The problem I had was Drakonian obviously singling that sentence out solely because he had a problem with the viewpoint. His comment showed his bias clearly. The article could use citations all around, so let's not use double standards. MaxMangel 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What was my bias? Clearly? About her death? I've just about finished reading Psychic Politics, and I can see how the Seth-material is separate from her own Consciousness-writings/explorations? The thing is: she is conflicted in her writing about Seth and her own identity. No easy way to write about it: i can see why it is difficult to condense what 'Jane Roberts' is - as a writer, a thinker, a philosopher, a narrator of consciousness. Anyway: death is a mystery to me. I believe it is a doorway; I've heard other views state that human consciousness does not survive death. Which book is her 'final' work? And what POV does it impart to the reader regarding the way she died? Is this 'final' book the source of the idea that the death of Jane Roberts shows that her Seth-material is problematic? I can see that Seth is problematic from the way she writes Psychic Politics. It is part of her style of writing; to question everything - even the validity of her own 'adventures in consciousness' (especially Seth).Drakonicon 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as double standards are concerned: that was exactly why i placed the citation right into that single line. Obviously i had a problem with that line. The reasons being because it looks like a generalisation, like the phrase 'Some people say..', or 'All mainstream scientists agree'. Who agrees? With what?.... So yes, cite everything else too. It is one line representing one POV. Every line represents a POV. The rest of the article needs citations... absolutely.Drakonicon 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Drakonicon, yes, I think your edit was biased and showed double standards, but...I'm having trouble figuring out if you were disagreeing or agreeing with that statement when I read over your reply. You seemed to at first be questioning whether or not you showed biased, and then you rambled on about other stuff, perhaps attempting to show lack of bias, then you seemed to agree that you had double standards, agreeing specifically that that was why you did what you did, but then you claimed a different reason, and then you attempted to show that you didn't have double standards by saying that other bits needs citations too. I don't mean to be picky about this, but if there is something specific you wanted to communicate, feel free to try again. MaxMangel 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Drakonicon: First, it appears that I've been referring to you as "Drakonian".  That wasn't meant as a dig or a joke; I just didn't notice the spelling of your Wiki-name.  Now, when I call Max Mangle "Max Mangler", THAT'S a dig and a joke!


 * I do think that Max was out of line. Just because there are not cites throughout the article doesn't mean that there can't be a cite in that location.  If you want to reinsert the "citation needed" thingamajig, you have my support.


 * I want to say about Jane Roberts that she excites great emotion and loyalty in her readers because she was so intellectually honest, and I think that's what you are experiencing. It shouldn't bother you that there are people who think she was a fraud or who believe that the nature of her death invalidated the Seth material; nor should you be bothered that the article makes mention of that.  Don't forget that a good encyclopedia must be objective to a fault.--Caleb Murdock 04:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, what do we do when this page gets too long? I believe there is some kind of technical limit.--Caleb Murdock 04:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To Dwiki
Dwiki, you have made a mess of this article. If you are going to make wholesale revisions, then you need to do it with more care and attention to detail. Later today I will either restore the prior version or clean up your careless edits.--Caleb Murdock

Dwiki's response
I respectfully disagree. I understand that I am a newcomer to this article and that others have put a lot of work in. However, I too worked very hard on my edits and I attempted to keep as much material without altering the tone or the content of the article to respect those edits that came before me. I thought the article was well written before I encountered it and I sought mostly to re-arrange the information already presented. Let me catalog here most of the changes I made to this article, and we can all determine which ones should stay and which ones should go.

Larger Changes

 * Moved the quotes to Wikiquote, a link to which exists on the bottom right of the page (Wikipedia is not a repository of quotations)


 * Broke the article into smaller sections. The "Seth Material" section was 11 paragraphs of content with no subheaders!  (Manual of Style: Section Management)


 * Got rid of the disclaimer from the Seth Material paragraph. Not needed, imo.  The main place where it was cumbersome to keep explaining "Roberts claimed" was the area of "The Seth Material" (labeled "Contentions made by Roberts as Seth" on my revision) where Seth is simply saying a lot of things.  I overcame this problem, thus, by killing the disclaimer and then using the section heading of "Contentions made by Roberts as Seth" to act as a disclaimer that is easily interpreted by the reader.  I then changed the sentences in this section from a bunch of "Seth said"s (which I found un-artful) to a simple bulleted list of things that the Seth entity claimed.  The remaining instances of places where the original article disclaimed the reader that channeling isn't proven and based on that, "Seth said..."s were few, and I simply changed those to reflect that Roberts claimed Seth said those things.

Smaller changes

 * Many moving around of sentences to fit into their new subcategories. Such as: added birth location & Date of to opening paragraph as it was currently under Seth Material; moved "With the exception of a weekly ESP class..." further up, etc...


 * One of the few sentences I actually deleted was the one that concerned Roberts' death - I thought it was in bad taste that Wikipedians were asserting that Roberts should have prevented her own painful death - unless, that is, someone notably said as much. If this is the case, this statement should be researched and referenced and footnoted and the sentence put back in.

Conclusion
That's a lot of it, please correct me if there are other changes I forgot about. My take on it is that if inaccuracies emerged as a result of my edits, it's because those areas were already unclear and I interpreted them incorrectly as many other readers would. If you feel that information is mis-catagorized now, my take on it is that at least there are subcategories, now! It's trivial to move tidbits from one section to another, but those logical separations didn't exist before and now they do. I'm reverting back to the most recent version. If you feel that my qualifications here really don't justify the work I did, than feel free to revert again. I won't start a wheel war, and I'm glad to work out what changes you don't like and put them back, but I think for the most part the most important stuff I changed was the overall structure which will be hardest to re-create, and much easier to revise.
 * --Dwiki 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock's response
Dwiki, I have many objections to what you did.

First of all, your headings are illogical. "Claims made by Roberts about Seth" does not accurately describe the paragraph that follows. And "Contentions made by Roberts about Seth" is merely redundant of the previous heading.

Your prose is awkward. In addition to that, your use of the word "claimed" is one which I object to. "Claimed" is NOT a neutral word; it has a negative connotation. There are better ways to convey to the reader that the channelling of Seth was a phenomenon that could not be proven. Specifically, I am going to rewrite the article in this way: I am going to remove words like "claimed" and "contentions" and I am going to refer to Seth as "the Seth personality". No one will disagree that Seth represented a different personality from Roberts' usual personality. What is in contention here is whether Seth was indeed a separate entity -- a spirit, if you will -- so using the term "the Seth personality" should satisfy the critics. It will be far less clumsy than language like this: "Roberts began to claim that she was hearing the messages in her head ...". Such language is extremely awkward. Furthermore, there is no evidence to dispute that she heard the words in her head, so there is no need to say "claimed".

One more thing: It should be enough that Roberts "said" something without saying that she "claimed" it. There is a difference in connotation between writing that a person "said" something and describing that person's words as "claims".

I haven't decided whether to revert the article or work on your new draft. The bullets aren't bad and I'll keep them, but your category headings are inappropriate.

Incidentally, in case you are curious, most of The Seth Material section was written by me. The article was a mess when I first found it a year ago. I have read ten Seth books so I know something about Roberts and Seth. --Caleb Murdock 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made changes. I don't know how to move quotes, however, so if the quotes are in the wrong place, someone else needs to fix that.

Using the phrase "the Seth personality" is somewhat awkward, but it is preferable to the alternatives.

I left the statements about Roberts' death invalidating the Material as I feel that they are valid. However, I am not particularly bothered if they are removed, since I inserted them only to satisfy skeptics who frequent the article.--Caleb Murdock 00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dwiki:
Okay, I think can find a compromise. First of all, let me say that I find this article very informative and understand your custodianship of it. I understand your concern that you don't like the "claimed" terminology and prefer instead that Roberts "said" things. That's fine. However, I would prefer if in all the places where Seth says something it reads "Roberts (as the Seth Personality) stated" or even "Roberts (as Seth) said" rather than "Seth said". I just want to make it clear that that's what happened, especially for people who are just passing through and aren't doing a close read of the article. As I'm sure we can both agree, it's a rare occasion for someone the be channeling an entity and the English language isn't well built for the contingency. In this case, to do the best service to our readers, I would argue that we need to err on the side of clarity perhaps at the expense of elegance.

In that vein, I would posit that we can get rid of both "Seth said"s and "Roberts (as Seth) said"s in the new Tenets of the Seth Material section by turning the bullet points and the content within them into a simple list that is introduced with a qualifying statement, like:  The Seth Material addresses a wide range of topics. As Seth, Roberts made a number of assertions: ^^^^^or something similar. It may be less fluid than referring to a male Seth throughout, but I think it's worth it for the sake of keeping the language of this article neutral. Referring to Seth as a seperate male person is going to appear as upsetting and non-neutral to somebody who doesn't believe in the supernatural as perhaps using "claimed" does to you. Here is an opportunity to drop language that either side might see as non-neutral and instead focus on informing the reader without invoking an emotional response. I'm sure that we can both agree that our main goals for this article is to impart as much information to the reader as possible.
 * On God: That God (referred to as "All That Is") exists. That God is composed of self-replicating and inexhaustible mental energy...
 * On Christ: etc...

Beyond that, I think we both agree that the "Roberts, with Seth's help, should not have created a painful death for herself" sentence needs to go. I appreciate you allowing it to stay as an argument of those skeptical of Roberts, but I think it's ugly, and is more of a general argument that people might make against psychics and mediums rather than one that needs to be directed at Roberts, specifically. Against Roberts, it just seems mean, because, you know, she died a painful death and I don't think anyone would want to rub that in her face, because, you know, we're merciful here on Wikipedia, right?

Okay. Finally, the quotes. Wikipedia policy states that they don't belong here. Wikiquote was created specifically for that purpose, all these quotes are listed there, and it's one click away.

Let me know what you think of these ideas. I'm confident that we can reach a compromise on any remaining disagreements we might have and I'm glad to do any leg work to implement them.

--Dwiki 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like we are getting closer. However, you didn't say what you think of my use of the term "the Seth personality".  Clearly, "Seth" represented a separate personality from Roberts' usual personality (even if that separation was caused by schizophrenia instead of a true psychic phenomenon), so it seems to me that the phrase "the Seth personality" resolves that issue.  To say "Roberts (as Seth) said ..." gives the impression that the thoughts behind the words were originating with Roberts, but people who believe in the Seth material (as I do) specifically believe that that isn't true.  Using the term "the Seth personality" doesn't address the issue of where the thoughts originated, but it does make clear that the words were coming from the Seth portion of Jane Roberts and not the Jane Roberts portion.


 * I just cleaned up the "Tenets of the Seth Material" a bit, and I do think that it can be converted in the way that you want.


 * I am curious to know where you are coming from. The way in which you wanted to insert the word "claimed" in several places makes me think you are a skeptic, yet the changes to the paragraph about Roberts' death makes me think you have some sympathy with her.  How much of the Seth material have you read?  If you are a skeptic who has not read any of the material, I will tell you quite frankly that I am tired of skeptics swooping in to "fix" the article by making it "neutral", only to end up adding their own negative biases to it.  They may have a right under Wikipedia rules to do that, but I also have the right to fix the article after they have left.  Skeptics don't have a true interest in psychic phenomena; their interest is in controlling the speech of others.
 * --Caleb Murdock 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand better your issue with "Roberts (as Seth)". My only concern is finding a way of expressing this that leaves no question, even to a casual reader, that Roberts herself is physically saying these things, in the same way that she is listed as the primary author of her books, and not Seth. After a lot of deliberation, I'm going to suggest using in at least some of the instances the verb "channel", as in "Roberts channeling Seth said" or something like that but perhaps less awkward. The entry for Channelling (mediumistic) already contains many of the qualifiers that it seems people have attempted to negotiate on this talk page for both sides of the argument, so I'm interested to know what you think of this suggestion.

Thank you for working on "Tenets of the Seth Material".

As for where I'm coming from, for the most part don't like talking about my spiritual beliefs in public. I like to think that I am a reasonable person, if I can venture that's what you're attempting to gauge. My initial interest here was merely to re-assemble the facts presented to make the article flow better and be easier to read. As I am now committed to this collaboration, I am also now interested in making sure that the article is accessible to everyone on a slightly more abstract level. Namely, I do not think it does anyone any good to have this article nor this talk page be a battleground for ideology. I can clearly see that you are a reasonable person trying to protect an article about something you care about from being overwhelmed by an opposition POV, and that's completely understandable. As for skeptics themselves, I have met combative jerk skeptics and I have met skeptics who are kind, non-judgemental, open-hearted people with a thirst for knowledge. It is my hope that lending this article a less disputed tone will attract the latter and repel the former. There will always be some people who latch on to and strive for conflict and others who latch on to and strive for open discussion and an exchange of ideas. The more good people that are drawn to this article, the better it is for everyone who reads the article regardless of belief system.

-Dwiki 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the term "channel" is extremely problematic because the phenomenon cannot be proven.


 * I don't know what a "casual reader" is. Is it someone who reads only part of the article, or skips over portions?  I don't think that an encyclopedia should be written for careless readers.


 * The article, as it stands now, is perfectly clear. At the top it says, "For 21 years until Roberts' death in 1984 ... Roberts held regular sessions in which she went into a trance and dictated messages as the Seth personality" ("dictate", of course, means "speak").  That makes it abundantly clear that the words were coming out of Roberts' mouth.  Using the term "the Seth personality" throughout the remainder of the article keeps everything clear.


 * If we switch back and forth between "the Seth personality said" and "Roberts, as Seth, said", that will do nothing but confuse the reader. The language has to be consistent.


 * I do not appreciate your lack of candor. I asked you how much you know about Roberts/Seth, and you didn't answer.  Despite what the rules say, I think it is unethical for any person to edit an article about a subject that he is not familiar with.  Such people THINK they are improving the article, but they can't really know because they don't know the facts.


 * You said, "The more good people that are drawn to this article, the better ...". A good person in this case is a knowledgable person (knowledgeable about the subject).  Is that you?
 * --Caleb Murdock 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing: Seth, or the Seth personality if you will, identified himself as a male, so the male gender should be used when referring to Seth.  To refer to Seth in the female gender is going too far.  To do so would give the article an overly skeptical bias.


 * Personally, I believe that the qualifying text that was there before is a better solution than all these changes.--Caleb Murdock 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not completely understand your reasons for disliking "channel" - if I recall, the phrase was already in use in the article before I made any changes. Also, I do not understand how the unprovability of a phenomenon disallows us from discussing it in such terms. The phenomenon may lack scientific verification now, but some day science may very well prove that channeling is a real natural phenomenon and in my opinion, true skeptics will keep an open mind about such matters. Even if the phenomenon is never proven by science, or is unprovable using human instruments it does not necessarily mean that people who believe in the phenomenon are provably incorrect in their beliefs. It would be pompous of anyone to assume that they are.

I find that often times readers do not closely read all sections of an article. Frequently they zero in on their primary area of interest and ignore others. I agree that we should not strictly cater to the lowest common denominator, but in my opinion, it is quite present and we should account for it, especially when it comes to highly controversial topics where misinformation could easily be spread. If the prose of the article suffers, in my opinion, it's worth it if fewer people come away with misconceptions after reading the article.

I agree the phrasing needs to be consistent. If not using "channeled," how about "Roberts, as the Seth Personality said" for all instances. It's not eloquent, but does it otherwise meet your requirements for neutrality? If not, can you think of a similar phrase that we could use that satisfies your requirements and meets some of the potential concerns I've outlined?

I'm not trying to be combative in the least, as I don't think that's productive. I want to find a phrasing that everyone will be happy with and that will prevent future arguments over how things could be phrased. Once we have reached consensus, this conversation can be referenced by you if future individuals attempt to bungle the phrasing of this article, as consensus is typically the standard of what stays and what goes on Wikipedia. I have already stated that I have no intent to alter the meaning or facts of any of the content of this article, and I will leave the maintenance of such in your capable hands. My primary goal is to edit this article to provide clarity to as many end readers as possible and to reduce the conflict surrounding this article. As you clearly are more knowledgeable about this topic than pretty much anyone else I've seen here, I and others will continue to rely on you to maintain the factuality of the article and to protect your POV from being trampled upon. I, on the other hand am usually concerned with readability, clarity, and flow of the majority of articles I encounter. I have engaged in such a reciprocal relationship with other users before, and I am confident that in this situation we can work as a team leveraging each other's strengths to make this article better. In my opinion, a "good person" is a person operating in good faith and with a knowledge of their area of concern. I can only assure you that I am operating in good faith, although I understand that you have had unpleant experiences in this area before.

--Dwiki 00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dwiki, I just don't understand why you keep going on about this. The article is in good shape now.  It isn't muddled or confused, and the language is satisfactorily neutral.


 * The word "channel" is acceptable to ME (because I believe in the phenomenon), but it would be unacceptable to many of the skeptics who read the article. In an encyclopedia, you cannot say something like "Jane Roberts channelled Seth" because the phenomenon of channelling cannot be proven.


 * Why do you feel that "Roberts, as Seth" or "Roberts, as the Seth personality" is better than "the Seth personality"? I honestly don't understand.  It has already been established that the words were uttered by Roberts, so why do you have to make that point in every sentence of the article?


 * You keep talking about making the article clearer, but many of your original edits were clumsy, in my opinion.


 * I just can't figure out where you are coming from, and what your true interest is. On the one hand, you want to use the word "channelling" (which isn't neutral), but on the other hand you want to insert "Roberts, as Seth" throughout the article, though that is a qualification that needs to be made only once.  Where are you coming from???--Caleb Murdock 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On a casual read, in order to understand that "Seth" or "The Seth Personality" is referring to Jane Roberts channeling the entity Seth, you have to read the phrase hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, sometimes referred to simply as "Seth" in the male gender and also understand that this is referring to both Seth himself and to to the statements made by Roberts channeling Seth (depending on your perspective, I suppose). It's an easy phrase to miss, and I don't think it's fair to our readers to assume that they will read it or get it even if they do, because a large quantity of them will not. I'm not even sure if I understand this correctly and I've probably re-read this article at least 10 or 15 times now. This is a controversial topic, and I think it's important that we're super clear in as many places as possible exactly what it is that we're talking about.

I understand that you may feel that it is neutral to refer to the Seth personality as having made these statements given the previous qualifier, but in my opinion, for another group of people this is going to appear as biased towards your point of view. I feel that it is important to find a compromise that will most likely sacrifice elegance but will with minimal context explain to someone skimming the article that "one person said some things that some people believe are the words (via, presumably, supernatural means) of someone else". We need a shorthand for this that we can use repeatedly to ensure this. I think "channel" is preferable to the current phraseology because if people don't understand what channeling is, they can read the linked Wikipedia entry about it and make up their own minds about whether it is possible. As I understand it, there is nothing in the applicable policy that explicitly prevents us from Wikilinking every instance of channel in the article as a shorthand for what we are talking about, so why not just do that?

--Dwiki 02:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I absolutely disagree with you that the article must be written for people who just skim through it. Furthermore, in my opinion the article is quite clear.  Is this why you keep wanting to change it, because you don't understand it yourself?  There is a link to channelling at the top of the article, and the reader can investigate that link if he or she doesn't understand what channelling is.  It is not the purpose of an article on Jane Roberts to define channelling for the reader.


 * The use of the word "channelled" throughout the article would be offensive to non-believers who would point out that channelling is not an activity which has been proven in any way. Such a word should not be used as if the activity it represents were commonly accepted.  To use the word "channelled" throughout the article would be a step backward from objectivity.  No one can know for sure if Jane Roberts channelled Seth, but we CAN be sure that she spoke AS a personality named Seth.  Furthermore, there is no reason to ruin this article with choppy, ineligant prose to make it clearer than it already is.  The article is already very clear.


 * Okay, it's time for you to put your cards on the table. If you have not read any of the Seth books, or any books penned by Jane Roberts herself, then there is no point in continuing this discussion because you don't know what you're talking about.  The people who consistently make the most trouble are the ones who know little about the subject matter.--Caleb Murdock 04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please believe I am not in any way trying to be critical of any of the work that has been done here. I think this is a great article with a lot of interesting facts, which is what led me to begin editing it in the first place. I have the utmost respect for people who contribute new content to the Wiki. I acknowledge that they generally perform a more important function than I typically do. You should know that I think this article needs improvement only because I think all articles on Wikipedia need improvement. Everything on this Wiki is made gradually better in bits and pieces by lots of different types of people for lots of different reasons. Making this article more accessable may not be a priority for you, but as I have expressed, this is where my interest lies and I think I am representing a viable interest of this encyclopedia's usefulness.

To business:

In my opinion, Channelling (mediumistic) is not exactly as sympathetic as it could be towards the concept of channelling. Wikipedia's definition of channelling (as it stands) presents it as a phenomenon with a lot of skepticism. If people are curious as to how Wikipedia defines a term, they should properly click the hyperlink to understand how it is classified on Wikipedia. If people are angry about the definition on Channelling (mediumistic), we can point them towards the definition and encourage them to improve it there. Here, I think that wikilinking exists as a wonderful resource to act as crib to readers.

--Dwiki 06:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a few changes. What do you think? As far as I am aware, these are the only currently contested edits between us.

--Dwiki 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... it would appear that we are at an interesting impasse. As I understand it, you feel that language like "the Seth personality as channelled by Roberts" assumes a pro-channelling POV and I feel that just saying "the Seth personality" also constitutes a pro-channelling POV. I appreciate that you are defending an opposing viewpoint for the sake of neutrality. Here is a possible compromise: would you be okay with qualifying the instances of "the Seth Personality" making a statement (in the first two paragraphs of the "The Seth Material" section) with "purportedly"?

--Dwiki 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to insert the word "purportedly" because no unprovable claim is being made. No one disputes the fact that when Jane Roberts spoke as Seth, she assumed a separate Seth personality.  Since the meaning of "the Seth personality" is made clear in the article, it cannot be said that that phrase promotes the concept of channelling.


 * Substantial changes to the article have already been made to suit you. Bullets were added.  The qualifying statement at the top is gone.  "The Seth personality" was inserted throughout to make it clear that Seth was not a separate individual (at least to the point that that can be proven).  But still you want changes.  You are not going to be happy until you have inserted clunky qualifying language throughout the entire article.  However, I disagree with your approach.  This is the only article on Wikipedia that I edit, and I am very knowledgeable about the subject (which you apparently aren't).  I am not going to allow you to ruin this article.


 * I want to know what your level of knowledge is about Jane Roberts and the Seth Material, and how many of Roberts' books you have read. If you have no knowledge of the subject matter, then you are not qualified to have an opinion on any of this.--Caleb Murdock 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to back away from these changes, at least for now, because it seems like I might be antagonizing you, and that is not my intent. I appreciate that you have been accommodating to me. I understand that we have a disagreement of approach, but I am open to suggestions from you about some way we can meet mid-way.

You have insisted on knowing my level of knowledge about Jane Roberts, and I have thus far refused to venture into that territory. My primary reason for failure to divulge has been that the information has been demanded of me as a qualifier for editing this article, and I object to this premise. As the Main Page says, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I fail to see, hypothetically, how knowing more or less about this subject has anything to do with the phraseology of this article, which is what I am primarily concerned with. Secondly, I don't take kindly to having demands made of me, in general. You demand that I divulge my level of knowledge about Jane Roberts. Well, please don't. It's not polite.

I am trying to follow the procedure for refining neutral language detailed here. I want to be your partner and ally in this process, but you have consistently accused me of being an enemy. Why? What have I done, other than tried to negotiate some edits that you think are worthless. Well, I think those edits are worthwhile, and although you have tried to create a situation where your opinion is positioned as more important in all areas of this article because you are the expert on facts of this topic, this is not how things work on the majority of other Wikipedia articles. You have accused me of being unsuited to editing this article because I presumably know less about it than you do. However, I believe the possibility exists that you are equally unsuited because you have edited few articles other than this one and do not completely understand how the collaborative process works here on Wikipedia. Or, perhaps neither is the case. Perhaps we are both equally qualified to put aside our differences and work together as equals that do not insult each other's work and do not impolitely demand things of each other. This is the foundation of working together in good faith, and it is how I would request that we proceed from this point forth.

--Dwiki 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick update: I removed the quotations from the article, because I previously copied them to Wikiquote, which is a more appropriate place for quotes. Now, a quick question: how would you feel about replacing phrases like, "The Seth personality contended" with "The Seth Material contends" in the "Tenets of the Seth Material" section? To me, this seems like a prudent edit as Seth's contentions are made via the Seth Material, and the Material is a body of published works. To me, fewer people would object to the idea that a book states something than a personality that they may or may not believe in stated something.

--Dwiki 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can hide behind the rules if you wish, but in my opinion it is nearly unethical for a person to make substantial edits to an article if he knows nothing about the subject. You are less crass and obvious than Max Mangle, but I've concluded that you are a skeptic looking to impose your skepticism on the article.  Frankly, I think you have a lot of nerve.  The idea that you don't need to be familiar with the subject matter is laughable.  Unless you are fixing misspelled words or obvious syntax errors, there is no way that you can know for sure that your edits reflect the truth.  Phraseology DOES relate directly to content.  You can't know for sure if one phrase or another is most suitable unless you are FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER.


 * I'm going to look into the rules. I read them recently, but I'll read them again.  Unless there is a rule that specifically says that quotes must be put on Wikiquote, I'll be moving them back.  If the quotes are not in the article, few people will read them -- how does that benefit the article???  As for Jane Roberts' death, the way she died created some controversy in the spiritual community, and there is no reason why that shouldn't be mentioned in the article.  There is no "original research" involved on my part.  When I find an appropriate reference, I will reinsert the sentences you deleted.


 * If you want my respect, you will read some of Jane Roberts' books. Otherwise, we can expect to keep butting heads.--Caleb Murdock 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man!!! I don't want to butt heads with you. This is (hopefully) the last that I'll speak of it, but you must realize that part of what makes Wikipedia work is that experts collaborate with non-experts to make articles better. If you unilaterally mistrust all non-experts, you will be missing out on the help of non-experts who are good at specific things (not that I am claiming that I am this) within Wikipedia that are unrelated to expertise.

The guidelines are not rules, in the traditional sense. They are all bendable, and really just examples of how things have been done in the past. As for the quotes, my recommendation is that if you would like quotes included on this page, find quotes that are relevant to a section of the article as it stands, and integrate them inline. The guidelines frown on collections of quotes, but quotes integrated inline to the narrative of the article are more than acceptable, they make articles better. I am happy to help you do this and make it look good!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for looking for a source for the "death" statement. I really only took it out because it seemed unsourced and unverifiable, but if you know of sources for that material, by all means, put them in. I will help you cite them properly if you would like the help.

I am excited about this collaboration!!!!!

Thanks Caleb.

--Dwiki 06:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Caleb's response
You certainly have a lot of hubris. The original edits you made to this article were a disaster. Your language was clumsy and you inserted poorly worded, redundant headings. Here is an example of your prose: "Roberts began to claim that she was hearing the messages in her head ...". (What you meant was, "Roberts claimed that she began to hear ...".) Your interest is not to improve the article, it's to stamp the article with your skeptical point of view. And now you have the nerve to bait me. Well, if you want to hang around and be a pest, you are welcome to do so. I'll be checking the article every day.

Incidentally, that sample of your writing provides a good example of why you can't edit the article effectively when you don't know the subject. To whom was Roberts making the claim that she was hearing the voices in her head? Do you know? Of course you don't, because you haven't read the books. The fact is, she was not making claims to anyone. At that point in the readings nothing had been publicized and no one knew about the readings. Are you saying that she was making claims to her husband, her collaborator? If so, you would have to be privy to their private conversations. This is an excellent example of how a seemingly innocuous edit by an ignorant person can make the article less accurate.

Skeptics are in love with the words "claimed" and "allegedly", yet those words are not always suitable. As I explained before, "claimed" has a negative connotation and therefore is not neutral, and the same goes for "allegedly". In the beginning, Roberts and Butts were surprised by the material. Roberts had been an atheist before Seth started coming through. When they first started to publish, their attitude was "let's put this out and see what people think of it". They didn't make bold claims about who or what Seth was, and Roberts was always upfront about her doubts. Thus, words like "claimed" and "allegedly" don't fit in this instance.
 * I am sorry if I disrespected your point of view. However, in the article as it stands, "The Seth Personality", is defined once and in a confusing way and then is used ten additional times without any further reference to what the Seth Personality is, or who is channeling it.  For me, this constitutes a POV slanted in your direction as for the majority of the article, The Seth Personality, which for you means one thing and for another group of people means a very different thing is referred to in a context that is friendly to your POV but hostile to another POV who doesn't believe that the Seth Personality in and of itself is capable of doing anything, because they don't believe that the Seth Personality exists outside a figment of Jane Roberts' imagination.  I have offered alternate suggestions, but you have belittled them.  You oppose use of "channeling" because it represents your POV too strongly.  Well, why not let it ride and see if anyone complains.  Because if they do, I will argue at your side that the language should stand (so long as it is properly hyperlinked).

I am a better writer than you are, and I have knowledge of the subject, which you don't. If I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia rules and tradition, I will learn them soon enough. The fact is, you have very little to contribute to this article. This is the way it is with all know-nothing skeptics who go around "neutralizing" articles on subjects they don't agree with. --Caleb Murdock 08:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Caleb, I am sorry you think I am baiting you. I am glad you are familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia guidelines, because a large number of them deal with being civil towards others, and a lot of them deal with Wikipedia's goal of "neutralizing language".  Please inspect Etiquette and Assume good faith as they apply directly to this situation.  Making assertions that I am ignorant and your are "a better writer" than me hurt my feelings, and drive away other potential collaborators.  Please be polite in your interactions with me, even if you think I am a fool.  Kindness in interaction is a core value of life on Wikipedia, and one you will soon have to choose between adopting and ignoring to advance your own viewpoint.


 * You point to the first edits I made on this article, but at the time I did not completely understand your POV concerns and was simply trying my best to make edits that I hoped would be better in the tradition of Be bold in updating pages. Wikipedia articles should be written in a way so as to prevent misunderstandings.  You are intimately familiar with the Seth Material and this article, but I as an outsider was confused by certain wordings, felt that a non-neutral POV was represented, and felt that sections didn't even belong on this Wiki as currently employed.  Is this because I am an idiot, or does the possibility exist that the article needed improvement?  I disagree with how the article should be worded.  Is this because I am a fool, or might the article need improvement.  You have assumed the former in both cases, and it does you a disservice.  By being civil and relaxing your grip just slightly, by treating other collaborators' ideas with respect and patience rather than belittling them, this is how an article is improved.  When you brought up the idea of sourcing sections of this article, that made me want to read more Roberts and find citations.  For the first time, the prospect of a collaboration was suggested rather than specific information demanded, and that made me want to share and work with you rather than feeling off-put.  Don't you see how your attitude has at times negatively impacted the overall quality of this article?  By closing yourself off to others, by disallowing connection and collaboration, by being stand-offish and demanding rather than reconciliatory, you scare off collaborators and the quality of the article suffers.  I want to go to the library and pick up the rest of the Roberts books and thoroughly source this article, but what guarantee do I have that you won't decide I'm a nincompoop and revert three months of work?  I (and I would imagine others) are not willing to put their hides on the line, because the editorial atmosphere of this article is terrible.

--Dwiki 20:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Material contends" and "the Material says" is more confusing than "the Seth personality said ...". It isn't consistent with the paragraphs above.  Furthermore, when you say "the Material contends" you are really referencing Seth (or the "Seth personality"), so why not reference him directly?--Caleb Murdock 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, by doing so, we are referring to the texts released by Roberts, which is less contentious than referring directly to a disputed entity making those statements. Plus it is still implied that (the reader's interpretation of what Seth is) is making the statement, rather than using a contentious phrase like "The Seth Personality said" about which I have POV concerns. Also, what's confusing about it? What the Material consists of, nobody contests. What Seth is, there is contention. --Dwiki 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just got a wholly different idea. How would you feel about instead of "The Seth personality", "Roberts' Seth personality"? This would satisfy my concern that readers understand Roberts is physically making the staements, but it leaves open for interpretation who Seth is, in my opinion. Let me know.--Dwiki 00:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unclear about referring to "the Seth personality". No one is disputing that Roberts assumed a different personality when talking as Seth.  What is in dispute is whether that personality arose from an individual who was independent of Roberts.  Furthermore, since the term "the Seth personality" is defined at the top of the article, there should be no confusion.  If readers don't start reading from the beginning of the article, that's their fault.


 * "Roberts' Seth personality" is unacceptable because it implies that the Seth personality belonged to HER. By using the phrase "the Seth personality" by itself, we are not making any implications about where the Seth personality originated, and that's the way it should be since no one knows where Seth originated.  In other words, in order to be accurate, the article must refrain from making any implication about who Seth really was.  Since you don't seem to be getting this, I am going to make a list for you:


 * "Seth said" would be acceptable to me with a qualifying statement at the top, but you don't want that. Without a qualifying statement, "Seth said" is unacceptable because it makes it sound as if Seth was a separate individual -- and although I believe that was true, it can't be proved.


 * "Roberts, as Seth, said" implies that Roberts was simply assuming a personality, yet I and probably all of Roberts' adherents believe that Seth was more than just a personality of Roberts'. "Roberts, as Seth, said" is also clunky because of the commas.


 * "Roberts' Seth personality said" implies the same thing, only worse.


 * "The Material said" is vague and unnecessary because the author is known (the Seth personality as dictated by Roberts). Furthermore, in the paragraphs where Seth's statements about himself are conveyed, the phrase "the Material said" can't be used, and so the terminology throughout the article would not be consistent.


 * "Claimed" and "allegedly' are unacceptable because they have negative connotations. "Purported" has a similar negative connotation (in my view), so it should be used sparingly.


 * "Channelled" is unacceptable because many readers would dispute that the phenomenon even exists.


 * What I think is happening here is that you don't like the phrase "the Seth personality" because Jane Roberts' name isn't in it, and so it seems to you to imply that Seth was a reality (that is, a separate entity). I would agree with you if we were just using "Seth" throughout the article.  However, the addition of the word "personality" makes it clear that this was a distinct personality which emanated from Jane Roberts, the source of which isn't being addressed because it isn't known.  If we were talking about a schizophrenic named "Jane" who had a secondary personality named "Seth", I can assure you that the term "Seth said" or "the Seth personality said" would be used throughout the article and no one would object.  There is no reason why we can't use that same convention here.


 * I'm getting really tired of this. You wanted the qualifying statement out, so it is out, and there is now another solution in place which in my opinion is very clear and reasonable.  Perhaps you don't "get it" because of your biases.  Certainly, if you think "Roberts' Seth personality" is an unbiased phrase, then you lack objectivity.  I am tempted to put the qualifying statement back in and simply refer to "Seth" throughout the entire article, just as it was before.--Caleb Murdock 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for enumerating the problem. It is about time I backed away from this entire drama as I am getting sucked way too far in.

We have gone around in circles with my suggestions and your counters, and I now realize that the fundamental problem lies really with the disclaimer at the top,
 * For the purposes of this article -- and specifically in order to avoid the necessity of inserting repeated qualifications into the text -- the phenomenon of trance mediumship, as well as the presumption that Seth was an independent personality, are taken at face value. It should be noted, however, that the verity of such phenomena has not been established.

which later became a mini-disclaimer:
 * Seth (hereinafter referred to as the "Seth personality" or simply "Seth")

The problem is with the disclaimer itself. Nowhere else in any other article on Wikipedia about mediumistic phenomenon (or any other sort of paranormal phenomenon) have I seen a disclaimer that allows for language that would be considered non-neutral without it to occur multiple times elsewhere in the article. The non-standardness of the disclaimer and the article's reliance on it is without precedence, as far as I can see. You will admit that without this mini-disclaimer, simply referring to the Seth personality or Seth would be seen as totally POV in your direction, no? 10x more POV than using the linked "channeling" phraseology I suggested before. The reason disclaimers and mini-disclaimers generally aren't used to explain a non-standard phrasing is because they create confusion which leads to strife (see: this conversation and the ones that came before it). This is essentially my question to you: if we had to live in a world without that mini-disclaimer, what language would you use instead? --Dwiki 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would use the same language, "the Seth personality". You see, I don't consider that to be non-neutral.  As I said before, no one is disputing that Roberts' assumed a different personality when speaking for Seth; thus, I don't view "the Seth personality" as being inaccurate.  And as I said before, if this were a case history of a schizophrenic, the likelihood is that they would refer to the various personalities by name as if they were individuals.


 * However, I'll ponder the matter and see if I can't come up with something else. Perhaps "Roberts, speaking as the Seth personality" could be inserted in several strategic places.


 * I come from the world of law, and "hereinafter referred to as 'the Seth personality'" is called a definition, not a disclaimer. I'll try to find some articles on psychics in other encyclopedias to see how they handle the situation.


 * I very much hate to admit this, but the article is somewhat improved since you came onboard, although I feel it has too many links now. I wish you had been more artful with your initial edits, as that would have gotten us off to a better start.  Also, your lack of candor about your level of knowledge still annoys me.--Caleb Murdock 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for not better researching the state of discourse on this talk page before making my initial edits and I apologize if I came off as confrontational. I thank you for your most recent set of edits, and am enthusiastic about whatever you have planned next. I have a feeling it will be really good. You are a formidable opponent, Caleb Murdock, and you have my respect.

--Dwiki 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotations may have to go
There is a problem with the quotes, and that is that they are probably a copyright violation. Quoting an author within an article of your own in order to make a point is covered by the Fair Use doctrine, but listing quotes with bullets is probably a copyright violation. I once asked Robert Butts if I could quote the Seth material, and he didn't give me permission, so I doubt I could get permission for Wikiquote.--Caleb Murdock 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the Wikiquote copyrights page. I'll excerpt one relevant part:


 * ...make sure that there are not too many quotes from any single copyrighted work. Be especially careful not to even take too many quotations from a single television or movie series (which could potentially be held under one large copyright claim as well as per-episode copyright claims).


 * If this simple rule is followed, most Wikiquote use of copyrighted materials should easily fall under the "fair use" clause.


 * It would probably be a good idea to source which books the quotes came from to make sure it's a diverse range (plus it would benefit the article). I'll leave it to your judgement if anything should go from that page, but I'm guessing the Wikimedia foundation would probably back it as it stands.


 * --Dwiki 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Dwiki, you tipped your hand with the language that you used on Wikiquote for Jane Roberts. It is typical of the language used by skeptics who aren't familiar with the subject matter but believe that they know enough to make edits. If you don't know the subject matter, that is a clear indication that you have motivations that are not in line with the purpose of the article. In other words, you have an agenda. The motivation of a person like me, who knows a lot about the subject, is to convey that information to the public, but the motivation of a skeptic is essentially to censor. Censoring is all that a skeptic can do (besides fixing grammatical errors) specifically because he doesn't know the subject. The skeptic may think he is removing biases, but if he doesn't know the subject, he can't be sure that his words are accurate, and he may end up adding his own biases. When I find an article which strikes me as inaccurate or poorly written, yet I don't know the subject very well, I leave a note on the Discussion page. In my opinion, that's what you should be doing.--Caleb Murdock 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of what you are saying. I have indeed learned a lot from this interaction.  You will notice that I changed the language on Wikiquote once I realized your objections to the "claimed" wording.  I do sort of see your point about how skepticism can lead to censorship.  If you hadn't been here to defend this topic, skeptics would probably have made a different article of it.  On the other hand, you're here now.  I do not wish to censor you.  I may have been bold without carefully adhering the warning about being reckless, although in the past I have ignored it and good things have come of it.  I would like to think that our recent collaborations are proof that people with differing worldviews can work together and make good things happen on Wikipedia.


 * Also, are you satisfied that the fair-use "justification" on Wikiquote:Copyrights applies to this case? I would hate for those quotes to go.


 * --Dwiki 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Thank you. I was re-opening an argument, but you decided not to argue, and I appreciate that. Perhaps I should be more forgiving. You know, I was an atheist in my teens (but that's 40 years ago now).

How do I access Wikiquote:Copyrights?

By the way, you have this heading in Wikiquotes:

"Quotations as Seth, the entity Roberts said she channeled"

I would like to suggest more elegant headings:

- Quotations from Seth as "channeled" by Jane Roberts

- Quotations from Jane Roberts while "channeling" Seth

- Quotations from Jane Roberts while "channeling" the Seth personality

- Quotations from Jane Roberts while speaking as the "entity" Seth

- The Seth personality as dictated by Jane Roberts

- The Seth personality as "channeled" by Jane Roberts

You get the idea.

I do wish you would read some of the Seth material. If Roberts had been a philosopher and not a psychic, she would be widely recognized as one of the great theoreticians. Seth/Jane's insights into human nature were just remarkable. Incidentally, "Seth/Jane" is a term that Roberts, Butts and their friends often used (but I don't think it would be suitable for the article).--Caleb Murdock 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response as well! Follow this link to Wikiquote:Copyrights.  Any of your suggestions above for the heading on Wikiquote are fine by me.  And, if you would like to know, I will be reading more Jane Roberts soon.  I have been planning a Wikibreak for a while and while I'm away I am hoping to finally get caught up on my to-read list...

--Dwiki 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating that you've read some of Roberts. Here is a short rundown on the most accessible books:

The Seth Material (a summary of the Material up to the First book dictated by Seth); Seth speaks (first book dictated by Seth); The Nature of Personal of Reality (second book dictated by Seth, written to help people in their personal lives).

One loose end I want to mention: Seth would make major points over and over again, so it is hard to know which book to reference. Probably the best book to reference is the first book where a particular concept is mentioned, such as The Seth Material, which was a summary of the early sessions. I will start adding references soon, when I have the time.--Caleb Murdock 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of quotes, you might think about asking Rob Butts, who was quite generous with me when I used Jane's material for my Honors Thesis a few years ago:

Rob and Laurel Butts 400 Olive Street Sayre, PA 18840

This address is posted on the Internet.


 * I've written to Robert Butts a few times. I told him that I wanted to start a site on the Seth Material and I asked for permission to use a few excerpts from the material totalling just a few pages, and he didn't say yes.  If I had gone ahead and developed the site and shown him what the site would be like, I think he might have said yes, but I was somewhat discouraged at that point.


 * The problem with asking him for copy privileges is that the Quotes presently being used are not the best selections. Every time someone changes or adds to the quotes, he would have to be asked again (I think it is doubtful that he would give blanket permission).  Of course, he probably doesn't mind quotes being used since the quotes serve to promote the Seth material, but legally we should ask.


 * If we had kept the quotes in this article and incorporated them into the text, the Fair Use doctrine would have applied. Even in a separate list, the Fair Use might have applied, but Dwiki wanted them moved to WikiQuote.  Frankly, I don't know why they started WikiQuote at all since most quotes on that site are probably a copyright violation.--Caleb Murdock 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I think the new formatting changes have generally been beneficial. I think Dwiki has been useful (and has the patience of a saint). MaxMangel 12:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I suppose you think that I have just been useless and cranky.


 * Keep in mind that the actual writing of the article is done by people who have knowledge of the subject. Without people like me, there'd be nothing for Wikipedia's roving skeptics to correct.--Caleb Murdock 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Caleb Murdock has the patience of a saint for maintaining this article for as long as he has. I sincerely hope everyone respects the consensus we have reached and otherwise stays chill and respects the peace. If we're going to discuss anything, let's discuss dividing up some of the less-fun improvement tasks for this article, such as digging up the dozens of references that could be obtained from this page. I think this article could reach so-called "A-Class" above in a few months, and within a year, it could be a featured article, but we'll all need to stay on task. Or rather, y'all will need to stay on task, because I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak. :) --Dwiki 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice comment.


 * References can be put in the article only by people who have read the books. Since I am now reading the early sessions, in which Seth first introduced many concepts, it is logical that I should do it (although I would have to go back and re-read portions).  However, much of the stuff about Christ was introduced in the book Seth Speaks, which came after the early sessions.  I need to read up on how to insert references, and how to format them.  I would love it if I could just reference a whole book, but I probably can't do that.


 * Max, why don't you read the books so you can insert the references? You might not be an atheist by the time you finished.  I could read the whole Bible and not be a Christian when I finished, but Seth is much more convincing.--Caleb Murdock 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, all right, no tapping the glass, please...

Now, we have established that the early books are probably preferable for citation. I am willing to help and am waiting for some texts to be returned to the library... Caleb, if you have any questions about properly footnoting the references, I'm glad to help. Check out this for a broad explanation, and this one for a specific explanation. This is also an interesting read. We may want to consider citing facts about Jane from books by other authors about her, such as the one featured on the top of the article. Okay, now back to the job I'm paid to do :) --Dwiki 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy moly, I didn't even see the "citation needed"s Caleb added. Now that's commitment! --Dwiki 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul/Saul of Tarsus
I just thought that I should say that the Paul/Saul that Seth talked about is not necessarily Paul of Tarsus. Someone else added "of Tarsus", not me. I haven't read those portions of the Seth material in years, but my recollection is that Seth specifically did not identify this Paul/Saul as the Apostle Paul (i.e., Paul of Tarsus). However, it makes great sense if he did. I need to re-read the material.--Caleb Murdock 08:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Check out Ch. 20, "the meaning of religion."   I think a pdf version of Seth Speaks would make this whole thing a lot easier. Sayvandelay 10:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy, but I'll check out that chapter soon.-Caleb Murdock


 * I'm also busy but I will make it a point to read that chapter soon, as well. -Kirk Hammot


 * Well, I still haven't re-read the material on this -- I've just been so busy. I do remember that Seth revealed the three individuals who composed the Christ entity over many sessions, and not in the same book, apparently because he was afraid of a backlash from Christians.  I think that he may have identified Paul/Saul as the third Christ personality in the Nature of Personal Reality, but I'm not sure.  However, I recently learned that it is historical fact (or belief) that the Apostle Paul also went by the name Saul, so it must be the Apostle Paul that Seth meant.  What threw me is that Seth never said "the Apostle Paul" (to the best of my recollection); he just referred to the individual as Paul and Saul.  It always seemed to me that if Seth was referring to the Apostle Paul, that he would have simply said "the Apostle Paul".--Caleb Murdock 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Purported" Psychic
To those of you who want to call Jane Roberts a "purported psychic", it is enough to call her just a "psychic" because everyone knows that the abilities of psychics in general cannot (usually) be proven. Furthermore, to call her a "purported psychic" implies that psychics are legitimate and that she was purported (but not proven) to be one. If you are a skeptic, is that really what you want to imply?--Caleb Murdock 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "everyone knows" that. People come to Wikipedia for knowledge.  Some of them will encounter the concept here for the first time.  The link won't help them much -- according to our article, a psychic "is an individual who has a relatively high degree of psi ability".  Therefore, to say that she was a psychic is to say that she had a relatively high degree of psi ability, which is purely POV.


 * Your interpretation of "purported" doesn't move me. As a skeptic, I think that including that word would greatly improve the article.  The real issue is whether "purported" has too strong a connotation of fraud.  (In other words, it might be unfair to Roberts, not to the skeptical POV.)  Did she say she was a psychic or that she had psi ability?  Would "self-described psychic" (with the wikilink) be accurate? JamesMLane t c 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel that a link to the article on psychics is enough, but I'm willing to negotiate some descriptive term if that is what you want -- but for the reasons you gave (that it implies fraud), "purported" isn't acceptable. But let me make a point:  if psychic phenomena in general can't be proven (to scientific standards), then EVERY psychic is a "purported" psychic.


 * You'll notice that "purportedly" occurs further down in the article -- I put that in there myself. I also stuck the word "purportedly" in the article on Edgar Cayce.  On occasion the word can be used, but it must be used carefully and sparingly.


 * I don't care much for "self-described" because she was rather humble about her abilities -- indeed, she was conflicted about them, preferring to be known simply as an author. If you believe their story about how it all started (and I see no reason not to), she started hearing Seth's words in her mind spontaneously, without inviting the experience.  She continued with the sessions out of scientific curiosity (she was, after all, writing a book about ESP).  She was so alarmed to have Seth's thoughts in her head that she spent the first year pacing furiously during the sessions, refusing to completely "go under".  They considered discontinuing the sessions on many occasions, and Seth did quite a bit of "sweet-talking" to sooth her anxieties.  According to her published statements, she never felt completely comfortable being Seth's mouthpiece.  Thus, statements that make it sound like she was making claims (such as "self-described") don't capture her real attitude.


 * This is the opening line of the article: "Jane Roberts was an American author, poet and psychic."  I'm thinking of this language for the opening line:  "Jane Roberts was an American author and poet who was known primarily as a psychic and spirit medium or 'channel'."  Saying that she was primarily known as those things is true, and it doesn't make a value judgement as to whether she was actually a psychic.  I don't think that such a statement would require a cite either, since no one would dispute that that was what she was known for.


 * You have to understand that the Seth material is brilliant, and no one who has read it at length has any doubt that its source wasn't Roberts herself. During the dictation of the books, she would sit there and -- very slowly so that Butts could write it all down -- dictate paragraph after paragraph of finished text that required no rewriting.  No human author has that ability.  If they were interrupted, she would leave the trance and then resume right where she left off without losing her (or Seth's) train of thought.  There were ample witnesses.  If you haven't read any of the Seth material, I wish you would.


 * Incidentally, I'm intending to eventually spin the section "Tenets of the Seth Material" off into its own article called "The Seth Material". The number of points in the bulleted list will increase, and many points will have quotes.  (A moderator once suggested a separate article.)  However, I just don't have the time now.--Caleb Murdock 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Later: I just made changes to the opening lines, and I even snuck in the word "purportedly" to make you happy.--Caleb Murdock 08:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * James, I spent a couple hours writing the above note and making changes to the article in response to what you said above. The least you could have done was to let me know what you thought of my efforts.  Since then, I've gone around to other Wikipedia articles on psychics, and they are all called, simply, "psychic" without any qualifying adjective.  It's my opinion that the word "psychic" is commonly understood to denote a profession or avocation without any judgement as to the validity of psychic phenomena.  I don't believe as you do that there are people who will come to this article and be exposed to the concept for the first time.  Well, children perhaps -- but you can't write encyclopedia articles to the knowledge level of a child.


 * Incidentally, if the Wikipedia article on psychics is poorly written, that's not my fault.--Caleb Murdock 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

beings and things
Hi Caleb, I missed your edit in "Tenets" suggesting "beings and things, including physical manifestations", and accidentally reverted it to just "physical manifestations". Apologies! Upon realizing my accident, I've changed it back to your original, "beings and things". Here's how it stands now:

"The Seth personality said that the mental energy of God permeates all of existence and is the building material for all beings and things. Thus, even what is often referred to as "inanimate" physical matter actually has life and consciousness."

My thoughts. It occurs to me now that you may have been wanting to be inclusive in the first sentence of both physical and non-physical beings and things, which makes sense. While, because of the point of the second sentence, I was focused on physical manifestations (both "alive" and "inanimate" in conventional terms). We are making the point that "things" are "beings". Saying "things and beings" might confuse the point. How about:

"The Seth personality said that the mental energy of All That Is permeates and is the building material of all of reality. Thus, even what is often considered "inanimate" physical matter actually has life and consciousness." -Dave aka Metamusing (I use that account for work related stuff, which is why I've been doing edits to this article anonymously, except when I forget!) 68.101.79.95 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's nice of you to be asking my opinion. I'm not usually so considerate.


 * My pleasure, I like joyful co-creation.


 * I can't say that I care for the wording -- the word "permeates" seems to hang there without an object. I think the sentence construction isn't very good.  I thought my original language was clear enough, but I guess it wasn't.


 * Yeah, the construction could be improved.


 * Let me make a point which you may know already: Seth made it clear, especially in the early books (which I am reading now), that the mental energy of God is the building material for all things (beings included) in the universe.  This energy is the only substance in the universe, and it takes different forms depending on which plane of existence it is entering.  That's what I was trying to convey.


 * Righto. Can you please suggest a version that does not use the phrase "beings and things"?  I feel that phrase creates an unnecessary distinction (that beings and things are different) that confuses the intention of the statement as a whole. -Dave 68.101.79.95 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see below for other comments on your changes.--Caleb Murdock 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2075 and 'All That Is'
It is my feeling that it was enough to mention that Seth referred to God as All That Is without then using that term in the article. This article isn't the Seth material; it's an article in an encyclopedia, so I think we should use the traditional word.


 * That's a good point about using accessible language in an encyclopedia, so I'll revert my changes from All That Is back to God. In terms of simple straightforward language for the lay person, I think All That Is is actually superior.  Its meaning is inherently quite clear, and it avoids all the baggage around the word God.  But it is less familiar and therefore less accessible; I see this point as well.

Are you the one who changed the sentence about 2075? Seth said (I remember this very clearly though I haven't read it in years) that the return of Paul/Saul, including all events that he will be involved in, will be complete by the year 2075. The affect on society, of course, will linger for centuries. Paul/Saul may even die before then, though I don't recall if Seth specifically said that. So the text that you have in there now is incorrect. The "return of Christ (in the person of Paul/Saul)" will be over by then, it will not be just starting. If I am remembering wrong, please tell me.--Caleb Murdock 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After his initial statements which left some details ambiguous, Seth clarifies what will occur by 2075 later in Ch. 21, session 588. -Dave 68.101.79.95 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll go there and read it. The reason I keep saying that everything will be finished by 2075 is that Seth made that exact comment in one of the books -- that the events would be complete by that year (though not the ensuing impact on society, which would continue indefinitely).  I am absolutely positive that he said that.  But I'll read that chapter again.  I just need to find the time; I am very busy with my business.--Caleb Murdock 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement you are referring to occurs earlier in the chapter, then is clarified in the session I mentioned (see Rob's introductory note about it also). I appreciate that you're busy, as am I.  Since I've researched it recently, how about we let my version stand for now? -Dave 70.152.47.254 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Caleb, you responded to comments in other sections but not this one. Perhaps you missed it.  I'm going to go ahead and re-assert my researched and cited statements into the article.  Please let me know if after your review of the material, you feel I am in error.  Thanks.  -Dave 68.101.79.95 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, are you referring to this text? "Now in answer to Rubert's question: the birth will occur at the time given; by the time given (the year 2075).  The other changes will appear generally over the period of a century, but the results will show far before that time."


 * First of all, the parenthetical phrase "(the year 2075)" was added by Robert Butts; it was NOT spoken by Seth (Butts' words are always given in italics). When Seth said "the birth will occur at the time given" he was merely saying that the birth will occur by the time mentioned earlier, and I am sure that Seth was referring to the 586th session.  In session 586, Seth says, "He [the reincarnated Paul/Saul] will not come to reward the righteous and send evildoers to eternal doom.  He will, however, begin a new religous drama. A certain historical continuity will be maintianed. As happened once before, however, he will not be generally known for who he is.  There will be no glorious proclamation to which the whole world will bow.  He will return to straighten out Christianity, which will be in a shambles at the time of his arrival, and to set up a new system of thought when the world is sorely in need of one.  By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis.  He will undermine religious organizations -- not unite them.  His message will be that of the individual in relation to All That Is.  He will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity; the entity to some extent being man's mediator with All That Is.  By 2075, all of this will be already accomplished."  THAT LAST SENTENCE is the one that I have been remembering all this time.  That last sentence essentially says that Paul/Saul's return and accomplishments in establishing the new religion will be completed by 2075.  That is not when he will be born.  Indeed, in the 588th session, Seth is merely telling Robert Butts that the birth -- along with all the other events -- will occur by 2075 ("the time given").  Seth is NOT saying that the birth will occur near to the year 2075.  It could occur in 2010 or 2030 or 2050.  Seth, to the best of my recollection, never narrows down the date of the rebirth, and he does not say whether the reincarnated Paul/Saul will be a young man or an old man when he takes the actions which result in the new religion.


 * Consequently, your revisions strike me as incorrect. I think we should restore the language that I had there before (I've already done that).--Caleb Murdock 04:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism - don't overdo it or underdo it
As a skeptic, I think that the word "claim" should generally be avoided. It amounts to saying that the person said or wrote or asserted something, but with an added little insinuation that the statement probably isn't true. On the other hand, just because we don't say that she "claimed" to be channeling Seth doesn't mean that we should adopt her statement uncritically. It's not NPOV for this article to describe a subset of her work as "non-channeled". The skeptical POV is that all of it was non-channeled. I've changed that heading and text accordingly. JamesMLane t c 10:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with most of your changes. I was going to change "All That Is" back to "God" myself, but I didn't want to offend the person who made that change.  However, I'm not sure why we need to refer to Jane Roberts as "Roberts" throughout the article.  Is it the standard practice in articles to refer to the subject by his or her last name?


 * Regarding the word "claimed", I didn't know until recently that that word is on a Wiki list of words to be avoided. That would have saved me a lot of trouble while fighting off previous skeptics who wanted to insert it into the article 20 times.


 * As for your other changes regarding "channelled", I also agree (except for the spelling) -- and I am NOT a skeptic.--Caleb Murdock 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed Wikipedia policy to identify people by surname only after the first mention. (See Manual of Style (biographies).)  For example, if you go to the Bill Clinton article, you'll find him referred to as "Clinton", not "President Clinton" or even "Mr. Clinton".  Obvious exceptions are that direct quotations, book titles, etc. are quoted exactly as in the original, and you might sometimes use a first name or title to avert ambiguity (e.g. in a context where "Clinton" might mean Bill or Hillary).  As for spelling, Wikipedia policy is to use American English spelling for American subjects and British English spelling for British subjects.  (See Manual of Style.)  When -ed is added to a word like channel, BE doubles the final -l but AE doesn't.


 * I don't like this surname-only business, but it's not a substantive issue--Caleb Murdock 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


 * You've let your nonskepticism go too far in at least one instance. It's POV to say that "during some sessions she slipped in and out of trance spontaneously."  The alternative POV is that there was nothing spontaneous about it, because she was faking it all the way through.  What we know, the objective NPOV fact, is the appearance that she gave to outside observers.  That's why the prior wording of "seemed to slip" is correct.  That reports the fact without taking a position between the competing POVs.  I have my doubts about another of your changes: from "The Seth personality, as dictated by Roberts, made the following assertions...." to "Seth, as dictated by Roberts, made the following assertions...."  Your wording appears to adopt the paranormal POV that Seth was (is?) a real entity.  I'm not sure that "the Seth personality" is the right way to go, though, so for now I'm leaving it alone.


 * No, you are dead wrong about "seemed to slip". Saying "seemed" is the same thing as saying "claimed", a word which I recently found out is on the "Words to Avoid" list.  It would seem that having lost the right to pepper articles with the word "claimed", skeptics are now falling back on other words that imply the same thing, and that is what "seemed" is.


 * When you say "seemed to slip", you are clearly implying the possibility of fraud, but there is no evidence to support that. If you are going to imply fraud, there has to be evidence -- the disbelief of skeptics like yourself is not enough.  Furthermore, any reader with the slightest bit of intelligence and sophistication knows that all paranormal phenomena (such as channeling or trance states) are in dispute.  This article in particular is not written in a gullible fashion, so qualifying every little statement isn't necessary.


 * Let me extend my point here: That same paragraph says, "Roberts consciously initiated most sessions ..." (meaning trance sessions).  Since you don't believe in trances at all, why don't you insert qualifying language in that sentence also?  Indeed, why is it that you suspect Roberts of fraud instead of self-delusion?  Isn't it possible that she was a schizophrenic; that her trance states were real but that her unconscious mind was putting forth a secondary personality named Seth?  Why do you assume fraud, which is the worst possibility?  You obviously haven't read the books.  If you had read the books, thoughts of fraud wouldn't enter your mind for even a millisecond.


 * Regarding the issue of Roberts slipping in and out of trance, I am just now reading book 4 of the early sessions. It is in the sessions covered in book 4 that Roberts started to slip in and out of trance with fluidity.  Their description of the phenomenon doesn't suggest any kind of fraud.  They saw it as a new and interesting development.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Roberts and Butts were not frauds.  A case can be made for her being delusion, but not fraudulent.--Caleb Murdock 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The skeptic's wording would be "Roberts feigned slipping in and out of trance" (fraud) or "Roberts thought that she was spontaneously slipping in and out of trance without realizing that, subconsciously, she was actually controlling the phenomenon" (delusional). The believer's wording would be "Roberts slipped in and out of trance".  Each of these wordings adopts a position on the issue.  Because none of these positions can be considered to be beyond dispute, all these wordings would violate NPOV.  What we know -- all we can know -- is the external appearance that she gave.  Such appearances are sometimes accurate and sometimes not.  I think "seemed" is a neutral way to report it.  Alternatively, "appeared" would work; is that acceptable to you?.  By the way, I don't "assume fraud", as you suggest.  I just want the article to avoid making any assumptions at all. JamesMLane t c 11:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is getting awfully long!


 * Firstly, I think we need to retain the words "Roberts consciously initiated most sessions" because some people are under the impression that the entity being channelled is somehow in control.


 * As for the disputed phrase, I can't think of anything. I still don't like "seemed".  I've thought of using the word "reported", as in "Beginning in [month/year] Roberts reported that she could slip in and out of trance spontaneously".  However, the word "reported" presents problems.  Who was she reporting to?  When it first started to happen, she was in a group including Butts and a psychologist from a university.  The second time it happened, she was with Butts and two friends who were witnessing the session.  There was no "reporting" that took place.  It happened; she noted it; Butts and the witnesses witnessed it; they discussed it during a break; Seth discussed it when she went back "under".  That's it.  It was only "reported" to the public years later when they started publishing.


 * I've just had a change of heart and I've deleted the disputed sentence. It was really an unimportant detail.


 * I need to get back to what you were saying about "channeled" vs. "channelled" (and "totaled" vs. "totalled", etc.). These are just differences of opinion -- the double-L isn't the "British" version.  Both can be found in American dictionaries as spelling variations.  In the dictionary I've consulted, it doesn't say "chiefly British" or anything like that.


 * By the way, thank you for undoing that bit of vandalism. I also want to say that you are being much more moderate than other skeptics who have come here and done rewrites.  In respect of that, I will try to increase the number of instances in which "the Seth personality" is used, as opposed to just "Seth".  I assume that you saw my section on that below.--Caleb Murdock 04:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I did see your section below.  As I said above, though, I'm not sure that "the Seth personality" is the way to go.  At this point there's no alternative that I'm really happy with.  I hope that someone comes up with a good solution.  Deleting the "seemed to slip" sentence is fine with me; I agree that it's minor. JamesMLane t c 18:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * James, I didn't completely answer you above when I changed "the Seth personality" to "Seth" in this sentence: "The Seth personality, as dictated by Roberts, made the following assertions...".  In my opinion, "as dictated by Roberts" is a qualifying modifier of "Seth", so I saw no reason to use "the Seth personality", which in itself is a qualified way of saying "Seth".  In other words, I felt that there was a redundancy there, so I saw no reason not to streamline the language.  If you want "the Seth personality" back in, I have no objection.--Caleb Murdock 07:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem is that I do have some objection to each way of doing it. Maybe I'll just solve the problem by nominating the article for deletion.  :)  If we take the term "Seth/Jane" that you say Roberts used, change it to "Seth/Roberts" per Wikipedia style, and explain it up front, that might work better than the current approach.  The phrase "the Seth personality" is apparently an attempt to be NPOV (as compared with simply "Seth"), but it's not all that neutral, and, as you point out, it's somewhat cumbersome. JamesMLane t c 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the thing. I think that "the Seth personality" IS neutral.  No one disputes that she assumed another personality when speaking for Seth.  What's in dispute is whether Seth was a separate entity or whether Seth was part of her subconscious (or she was faking).


 * "Seth/Roberts" might work, but you would never find such "shorthand" phrases in commercial encyclopedias. Part of the reason I used "the Seth personality" is that it has a clinical, professional-sounding quality to it.  You should know, incidentally, that I originally referred to just "Seth" throughout, and then put a disclaimer at the beginning of the article ("For the purposes of this article ... the phenomenon of trance mediumship, as well as Jane Roberts' assertion that Seth was an independent personality, are taken at face value. It should be noted, however, that the verity of such phenomena has not been established") but another skeptic didn't like that.  Pleasing skeptics is the hardest thing I do on Wikipedia; writing the article is a piece of cake in comparison.


 * I just looked through the history and I see that you've been editing the article for a long time. I thought you were a newcomer.--Caleb Murdock 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edited thousands of Wikipedia articles, but I don't remember editing this one before this month. It doesn't really matter, though.  The Wikipedia approach is to consider the edit, not the editor.  Newcomers can edit.  So can people who haven't read any of Roberts's books.  If you want to work on a site where "experts" have special status, try Citizendium. JamesMLane t c 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding my using "Seth" instead of "the Seth personality", in the first paragraph of that section it says "Roberts held regular sessions in which she went into a trance and purportedly channeled messages from Seth (hereinafter referred to as the "Seth personality" or simply "Seth")". In other words, the word "Seth" has already been defined.  I made that change simply to streamline the language of that sentence, since it was cumbersome.  There are many other sentences in which the word "Seth" is used by itself.


 * Let me make another point here, one which I made once before on this page: If a psychiatrist were writing a case-history of a schizophrenic, he or she might very well refer to the various personalities by their names, and no one would object.  Using language like "the Seth personality" throughout is very cumbersome, so occasionally switching over to "Seth" shouldn't be an issue.--Caleb Murdock 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Headings: Wikipedia style is to use sentence case in headings. (See Manual of Style (headings).)  "Early Death" should be "Early death", except that I see no point to having the word "Early" in there at all.  She was 55.  Many people die younger than that.  More to the point, the text immediately states that she was 55, so "Early" in the heading imparts no additional information.  This is another instance where we can simply provide the facts and let the reader decide how to characterize them. JamesMLane t c 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My desire to keep "Early death" as the heading is a throw-back to earlier language which another skeptic removed. Many people feel (although I haven't been able to find any sources to cite) that Jane Roberts' early death somehow negated Seth's teachings.  Seth taught that we form our reality according to our attitudes and beliefs, so people naturally wonder why Jane Roberts died at such a young age (yes, 55 is young) when she had Seth as her personal advisor, and when she so fully understood the "you create your own reality" concept.  It is a legimate question, so I inserted sentences about it.  However, without cites, I couldn't defend the language when someone else wanted to delete it.  One wonders why that other skeptic wanted to remove those sentences, since Roberts' early death is probably the best argument against the validity of the Seth material.--Caleb Murdock 07:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there were no citations, then presumably the other skeptic wanted to remove the sentences because s/he was acting as a good Wikipedia editor. An editor should remove material that violates our rules about neutrality and verifiability, even if the unacceptable material happens to support the editor's personal POV.  I've removed some derogatory comments from the George W. Bush article even though I heartily agreed with them.  On this particular point, I applaud your effort to be fair to the anti-Roberts POV.  Nevertheless, "early" in this context is just editorializing.  We report that she was 55.  If there's a prominent spokesperson who says that her failure to live past 55 invalidates the Seth material, then we should include that opinon, properly attributed and cited.  Even then, however, a heading like "Early death" would give the reader no additional information.  It would serve only to favor one POV by emphasizing a fact cited by that POV's adherents. JamesMLane t c 11:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * James, I didn't notice your final post (above) until now. You are right, of course.--Caleb Murdock 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

beings and things continued
Caleb, I think you missed my responses to your comments in the Beings and Things section and in the 2075 section of this page. Please have a look.

Do you use the watchlist page? I find it to be an easy way to see what changes have been made to pages I'm interested in. The "diff" feature on that page is particularly helpful in seeing exactly what the changes were and for scrolling through versions of the page (similar to the compare versions feature on the page history). -Dave 72.155.94.33 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, I did miss some of what you said. Sorry.  I'm accustomed to going to the bottom to find new text, but new text isn't always at the bottom.


 * The words "beings and things" are, to me, all inclusive, and I don't have a problem with them. Seth made it clear that all "things" are alive, so in fact there are only "beings" in the universe.  However, when I use the term "things" in the article, I'm thinking of the reader who isn't familiar with Seth and who thinks of "things" as being lifeless.  I'm trying to talk to the reader in the common lingo that we all know, and in that lingo "things" are generally lifeless.  What I'm essentially saying is, "lifeless things are actually alive".  To me my language is clear, but you are free to change it.--Caleb Murdock 11:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Let's make it accessible AND precise. -Dave 70.152.47.254 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, I have to ask you at this point: Have you actually read the Seth material covering the statements in the paragraph we are haggling over?


 * Hi Caleb. Why do you think this question is important?  I'm concerned that it is an attempt at article ownership.  If it's all the same to you, I would prefer that we discuss the merits of my edits rather than my qualifications as an editor. -Dave 68.101.79.95 18:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the language you are inserting, and I don't think it is clearer than the language I have been using.--Caleb Murdock 07:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? Here's how I think I have made these statements clearer:
 * Prior to my edit:
 * "The Seth personality said that the mental energy of God permeates all of existence and is the building material for all beings and things. Thus, inanimate physical matter has life and consciousness."
 * My edit:
 * "The Seth personality said that the mental energy of God is the building material for all of existence and permeates everything. Thus, all physical matter has life and consciousness."
 * I substituted "everything" for "beings and things" because the point of the second sentence is that according to Seth there is not a distinction between things and beings. The phrase "beings and things" is unnecessary and may suggest to the reader a distinction that is counter to the point of the second sentence.
 * I substituted "all physical matter" for "inanimate matter" because inanimate means without life, and saying "inanimate physical matter has life" is literally a contradiction in terms.
 * Caleb, I hope you can be more specific about your preferences. I look forward to your constructive criticisms and suggestions of alternatives. -Dave 68.101.79.95 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting really tedious. My point is a simple one: According to Seth, inanimate matter is alive just as animate "living" matter is alive. There IS indeed a distinction between inanimate and animate physcial matter; nowhere in the readings did Seth say there wasn't a distinction. Seth's point to us was that the physcial matter that we consider to be dead is actually alive in addition to the organic matter that we already consider to be alive.--Caleb Murdock 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Language like "physical matter that we consider to be dead is actually alive" is clear. Language like "inanimate matter is alive" is by definition incorrect, and potentially confusing. -Dave 68.101.79.95 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of trying to "own" the article, but that is not what I am doing. I want my point (that both "dead" and living things are alive) to remain in the article. I am willing to change the language to suit you, but it is not okay for you to keep changing the meaning of what I am saying -- and that's what you've been doing.--Caleb Murdock 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your willingness to continue to work together toward mutually agreeable language. -Dave 68.101.79.95 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not work, and I think the reason should be obvious: "The Seth personality said that the mental energy of God is the building material for all things, including all life forms and physical matter normally considered to be lifeless." By moving "all life forms" to the parenthetical phrase, you are essentially saying "including all life forms ... normally considered to be lifeless".

sources for Seth summary
It would be very helpful if you would give book and page (or better perhaps in this case: book, chapter, and session) references as you add Seth material summaries. One reference is sufficient for material that Seth repeats in various places. This will allow others to confirm the accuracy of your statements and explore the concepts in greater depth. The format of the references is of less immediate importance than getting the info out there. Of particular interest to me at the moment is the source of the information in the "four universes" bullet of the Tenets section. Thanks! -Dave 72.155.94.33 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, you are absolutely right. Much of the reason that the article doesn't have many references is that, when I started revising it (earlier this year), I was inserting information from my head.  I've read about ten Seth books (some of them repeatedly), so I'm fairly sure of my information.  I should add that most of the text in the article is now mine; I have approximately doubled the size of the article, and I am proud of my contribution.


 * However, the information about the four universes is given in the Early Sessions books, which I am reading now. I should have included a reference since I read it recently.  Again, the problem is that Seth covers this material in several books, so it is hard to know which one to reference.  In the early sessions, Seth spread the information out, leisurely, over many sessions (unlike the books that he specifically dictated [such as Seth Speaks] in which he stayed on point and conveyed information in a more compact form).  Nonetheless, I'll insert a reference for that paragraph soon (he mentioned all or some of the four universes in all of the first four books of the early sessions that I have read so far).


 * The early sessions are interesting because Seth spent more than half of the sessions interacting with Robert and Jane and, to be blunt, soothing their egos and cajolling them to continue the sessions.


 * The information on the electrical universe is very interesting. He said that all of what we are -- our minds, our experiences, etc. -- are contained in the electrical universe.  He also said, however, that the electricity is dissimilar from the electricity that we know, and he added that the electrical universe is yet another camouflage universe (apparently we exist in a pure, uncamouflaged form somwhere).


 * One other thing about the electrical universe which I found a little disquieting: He said that the whole of a person's being is contained in just the tiniest of electrical charges.  It doesn't take much electricity, it seems, to contain a huge amount of information.


 * Well, I'm rambling now ...--Caleb Murdock 10:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Caleb! -Dave 70.152.47.254 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"the Seth personality" as opposed to other phrases
Everything I'm saying in this section is contained in paragraphs further up, but this page has gotten so long that I want to summarize here.

The phrase "the Seth personality" is a compromise between saying simply "Seth" and using other phrases which have yet other problems. Here is an example of the various options:


 * "Seth said that Jesus was not crucified ..."


 * "The Seth personality said that Jesus was not crucified ..."


 * "Seth, as dictated by Roberts, said that Jesus was not crucified ..."


 * "Jane Roberts, as Seth, said that Jesus was not crucified ..."

Here are my thoughts on each one:

"Seth", when used exclusively, implies that Seth was most definitely a separate entity from Roberts, and that can't be proven.

"Seth, as dictated by Roberts," is simply too cumbersome to use throughout the entire article.

"Jane Roberts, as Seth," implies that Roberts was assuming a personality, and that the source of Seth's statements was actually Roberts. That isn't unbiased either and doesn't satisfy people, like myself, who believe that Seth was independent of Roberts. Also, sentences like this can't start with "Jane Roberts, as Seth": "The Seth personality described himself as an 'energy personality essence no longer focused in physical form'".

I came up with "the Seth personality" because it seems factual and impartial. When Roberts spoke as Seth, she WAS assuming another personality (one who called himself Seth). Whether that personality was actually part of Jane Roberts, or was an independent being, is not implied by that phrase, and that's why I like it. The phrase "the Seth personality" doesn't try to decide the issue of who Seth was, but it does acknowledge that Seth was a personality distinct from Roberts' normal personality. I think it is a good compromise.

In those cases in which I revert to "Seth", it is only to keep the language from being overly cumbersome. Toward the beginning of the article it says, "Roberts held regular sessions in which she went into a trance and purportedly channeled messages from Seth (hereinafter referred to as the 'Seth personality' or simply 'Seth')". By using the word "purportedly" in that sentence, we are alerting the reader right from the start that the issue of Seth's origin is in dispute. I think that's good enough to make this article impartial.--Caleb Murdock 08:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Seth on Reincarnation
I inserted in the text that most people reincarnate less than ten times. I am presently reading the Early Sessions books, and that was a remark that Seth made in one of those books. The problem is, those books do not have indices or tables of contents, so finding the passage is quite difficult.

At the time that Seth said that, I recall that he said that some people enjoy the earthly experience and incarnate many more times than ten. However, I'm sure that Seth never said that anyone reincarnates thousands of times. Of course, we are all immortal, and when it is all said and done (which it never is), our lives may number in the thousands -- but not EARTHLY lives -- and that's what I'm talking about here.

The Seth Material in the Chapter "More on Reincarnation" mentions that we must incarnate at least two or three times, but Roberts doesn't mention a maximum number, or even an average number, in that chapter. I'll keep looking.--Caleb Murdock 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Another fake account"
Why, on some occasions when I make revisions, does the history list identify me as "Another fake account" instead of as me?--Caleb Murdock 08:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quibbling and nit-picking
"She also purportedly channeled other personalities, including the deceased philosopher William James and the deceased painter Paul Cézanne."

I believe the proper phrasing would be "She also channeled other personalities, purportedly the deceased philosopher William James and the deceased painters Paul Cezanne and Rembrandt."


 * I am the one who inserted "purported" in there -- I usually object to the word, but in this case I felt it was appropriate.


 * I don't see much difference in meaning between my wording and yours, but I feel that my wording is more concise and elegant. I had forgotten about Rembrandt.--Caleb Murdock 09:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The word 'purport' means : 'to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred)'. The way you use it in the context implies there is some doubt that Jane actually channeled those books.  In fact, she did produce those books; whether they were in fact from the world views of James, Cezanne, and Rembrandt are what could be the specious claim. The difference is all the difference.  Also, the Rembrandt also contains a few pages toward the end by Leonardo and Michaelangelo.  Add Donatello and we could have all four Ninja Turtles.  Jastevens42 05:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any change in meaning when the word "purportedly" is moved. The question is, was she actually channelling those individuals, or was she just talking from her own unconscious?  I mean, no one disputes that she actually produced the words.  The word "channelled" implies that she was actually channelling those individuals, so it seems to me the word "purportedly" needs to modify "channelled".  Perhaps I'm missing a nuance that you are seeing that I'm not.--Caleb Murdock 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to illustrate: "She also PURPORTEDLY CHANNELED [the activity of channeling itself having the 'specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming"] other personalities', which implies that she just possibly sat down and wrote a bunch of stuff and pretended it came from other personalities; versus "She also channeled other personalities, PURPORTEDLY so-and-so, etc etc," which casts doubt on who or what exactly they were. What needs to be modified is not the act of channeling, but what the actual sources were. [Rereading this paragraph, it suddenly occurs to me that the Cezanne book was directly typed by Jane rather than spoken; the James book was written in longhand. Is that even channeling in the conventional sense?] My undergraduate minor was English, and in my last career my correspondence was put under this kind of scrutiny, so please don't take it personally. Jastevens42 10:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you are talking about, but I don't agree with you. I personally believe in the phenomenon of channelling, but in an encyclopedia like this, it can't be stated as a fact.  Channelling must be considered "purported".  You must not be aware that I've been battling many skeptics on Wikipedia who think the notion of channelling is just so much nonsense.  If I didn't qualifying the word "channelled" with "purportedly", someone would come along and put "purportedly" in (or worse).


 * For example, the article used to say that Jane Roberts was a "psychic". Someone kept changing that to "purported psychic".  Finally, as a compromise, I changed the language to "who was known primarily as a psychic".  But even if I weren't dealing with skeptics all the time, I would still feel that the concept of channelling can't be stated as fact in an encyclopedia.


 * Some of the skeptics I have dealt with believe that Roberts and Butts made it all up. They don't think she even sat and spoke; they think she just contrived it all and wrote it down.  Some of them may accept that she dictated the material, but they assume that she was a schizophrenic or something like that.  So there are many people who don't believe that any channelling of ANYTHING went on, not of Seth or Cezanne or Rembrandt, and not even of her subconscious.


 * Now, the word "purported" does have all the negative connotations you mentioned, but it is better than "claimed" and any other word I have been able to think of. Also, some dictionaries don't define it in such a negative way.  Here's a definition of "purported" from one:  "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" (that's my favorite).  Can you think of better language?  How about "reputedly"?


 * I believe that automatic writing is a form of channelling.--Caleb Murdock 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sessions were held at regular intervals, usually three per week lasting two or three hours."

In fact the regularly scheduled sessions were twice a week, Mondays and Wednesdays; Tuesdays at first were for classes, eventually Tuesdays and Thursday were class night. Which brings us to:

"...With the exception of a weekly ESP class in which the Seth personality spoke to class members..." Initially the classes were once a week, then expanded to a Tuesday 'beginners' class and Thursday 'advanced' class until they were discontinued due to the purchase of the couple's house and Jane's increasing difficulty with physical movement due to her arthritis. See The Seth Material, Adventures in Consciousness, and Sue Watkins two books about Jane. Unfortunately, my copies of those books are in storage and I am unable to offer specific attributions. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § jastevens42 Jastevens42 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You obviously know more about when the classes were held than I do. I've read about a dozen of the books, and what I took away from them was that there were two private sessions and one class session.  I'll make changes to the article to make it more accurate.  Ultimately, however, I think that such details are pretty minor.--Caleb Murdock 09:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I made changes to the article to reflect your comments.


 * Clearly you know a lot about Jane Roberts and the Seth material, and I find it gratifying that you didn't have more objections to the article. I still haven't read her biography.--Caleb Murdock 06:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Role of Dreams
I think one thing that the current version of the article fails to mention is the role of dreams the way Seth explained them. I do not have the books at hand right now to quote properly, but one important thing is that we should not view the dream universe as fantasy land (as suggested by saying it is used to actualize improbable events). In fact, Seth said that we spend a great deal of our lives there, and our 'daytime' events is what we should see as our dreams. Seth said that in our real lives (the so-called 'dreams') we practice events that we wish to experience in 'waketime' reality. That's why many people dream about things before they actually happen: Because they practiced them beforehand. I was aware of this myself for many, many times, and from my experience, I can say this is totally true. Just picture yourself standing in the middle of a sphere, on a flat ground, and as you look around, you see thousands of doors on the dome above you. Which door will you pick next? It's a question you should ask yourself when being in a so-called 'dream' next time ... happy reality travelling, everyone! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.173.243.40 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your comments. I am presently reading the Early Sessions (very slowly, as I only read a page or two a day), and Seth is dealing with dreams in these books.  However, his comments on dreams are so spread out over the books that I find myself losing the thread of his remarks.  You are welcome to upgrade the article, if you want to.  Otherwise, I will do it myself when my grasp of his teachings in this area is a little clearer.  Perhaps I should just re-read that portion of The Seth Material since there is probably a summary in there that could be paraphrased for the article.--Caleb Murdock 11:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) -- For dream-related stuff, "Seth Speaks," in my opinion, provides the most material. There are some excellent sections in there about dreams. You can speed up your Seth reading by focusing on the main text and ignoring Rob's comments (which can distract from the main text). The first time I read "Seth Speaks," I read it in two days! ;) -- Good luck! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.173.231.254 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The Seth material forms the basis of my religious beliefs, and I read some of it every day as if it were the Bible; but I find it very dense and slow-going. The early books are very interesting, but there is a lot of personal stuff that doesn't relate to the material.  Even so, I want to read every word, and I never skip over anything.


 * I'll make changes to the article regarding dreams as soon as I have the time -- or you can.--Caleb Murdock 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware that there is an online index to the Early Sessions available. Most of my copies of Jane's books are the original hardcover editions from Prentice-Hall and are not indexed at all (except "The 'Unknown' Reality". The reissues have indices, but I find that they lack thoroughness.  I took a course in indexing as part of graduate school, so I know how challenging this is to do properly, particularly when you are not being paid to do it.  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for putting so much effort into this enterprise.  Jastevens42 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know there was an online index. Can you give me the URL?  Is it at the www.sethcenter.com site?

The online index to the Early Sessions can be found at . Go to the Library menu, then the References link. That site is also home to the former SethNet weblist, which migrated from Yahoo! last year. Jastevens42 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thanks. The Seth material forms the basis of my religious views, and I'm very religious, so that explains why I spend so much time on the article.  Unfortunately, I feel like I own the article now, which isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia.  There are major gaps in my knowledge.  I keep pouring over the Seth material and have read very little of the non-Seth stuff (except the William James book, which affected me deeply).  I need to read her other books, as well as her biography.  I am 56 years old, and I figure that by the time I croak (not before 75 or 80, according to my life line) I'll know everything there is to know about Roberts/Seth.--Caleb Murdock 12:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but when you're reading a speech, you might want to stick to the main text, to pick up the ideas presented more directly. When you attend a speech, you listen to the speaker, don't you? You can read Rob's annotations in a second reading step, after you finished a book. The Seth material, when you stick to Seth's speech, is a very easy read, at least for me. But I'm a professional logician! ;-) From that point of view I can attest, however, that the Seth material is indeed very logical and consistent. To me, it's a sign that it might indeed be authentic. IMO the best Seth books were 'Seth Speaks' and 'The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events.' Definitely two of the most significant books ever written. Books like the Bible do pale in comparison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.173.224.168 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Before I answer, let me just suggest that you sign your posts from now on. Even if you don't have a log-on, you can sign with your IP no.  You do that by clicking the box above that looks like part of a signature.


 * It is nice to hear you say those things. I have always said that the "proof is in the pudding" when it comes to Seth.  The Seth material is so remarkably intelligent, consistent and original from beginning to end that it just has to be authentic.  I can't imagine any ordinary human being dreaming it all up.  And when you read Jane and Rob's own writings and notes, it is so obvious that they had great integrity.  I personally believe that the Seth material may be the closest human beings have ever come to being given the absolute truth about their existence.  He answered every important question that people have.


 * And did you know that the Cayce material confirms Seth? The owners of the Cayce material never published it verbatim.  Instead, they released a number of books over many decades.  Once Jane Roberts started coming out with Seth, the owners of the Cayce readings apparently looked into it and found that Cayce said many similar things (in particular, that you create your own reality according to your beliefs), and then they published some of that stuff.  I honestly believe that the Seth material is completely true.--Caleb Murdock 08:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you also know that work of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore (the Unity Church of Christianity), Emmett Fox (who, much to my surprise, has no article here), Religious Science, A Course in Miracles (which was produced contemporaneously with Roberts material) and many other systems of belief also contain such statements? Each of these puts forth the same ideas using different vocabularies due to the skills and cultural references of the individuals producing them. Jane says as much in 'Psychic Politics' when an amateur psychic investigator visits to quiz her on what Seth thinks of Cayce. The intellectual and non-religious approach of Jane's books appeals to me more than the quasi-religious tone of the others, helpful to me though they all were. Jastevens42 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Believing as I do that Seth gave us the truth, it doesn't surprise me that others have echoed what he said. The reason I mentioned Cayce is that Cayce said those things BEFORE Seth did -- BUT Cayce's statements weren't published until AFTER Seth's statements on the issues were published.  The owners of the Cayce material apparently held it back until they saw what Seth was saying.


 * I have to be honest that once I discovered Seth, I stopped looking at other sources. I'm not a Christian, so the Course in Miracles doesn't appeal to me.  I haven't even heard of all the people you mentioned up there.  The Seth material is so voluminous that I may not read everything before I die (I find it very dense and have to read it slowly).--Caleb Murdock 12:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Seth article
I purport that an article should be created wholly devoted to Seth in general; where the material written about Seth can be expanded upon and not just have the Seth Material part of it. This would involve a great deal of courage since Jane Roberts wrote so many books under the channelship of Seth. Lighthead þ 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's something that I would like to do. However, I am mostly familiar with the Seth material and less so with her other writings.  I would have pulled out the Seth material into its own article a long time ago, but because of other demands on my time, I haven't been able to do it.--Caleb Murdock 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be good to have. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I've read Seth Speaks, The Unknown Reality Vol.II, and The Magical Approach. The only thing is that I have a bad memory when it comes to specific details about books. Although I have read Seth Speaks a number of times over the course of approx. 10 years. And the other thing I'm really bad at is with referencing. So... Lighthead þ 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I just learned how to reference recently. Lighthead þ 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category change
Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

William James and the painter Paul Cézanne
I just took it out because unless my search mechanism is faulty, it's mentioned nowhere else in the article, and the summary is supposed to summarize, not give the first and only mention. See WP:LEAD. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)