Talk:Lee Carroll

Purpose of talk page
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article on Lee Carroll. i have removed a section of religious/spiritual writing, that is not sourced and is thus not a candidate for inclusion in the article. Any further information on Carroll's channeled messages should be accompanied by sources indicating their notability, from neutral references not associated with Carroll or Kryon.76.245.46.141 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag
The cited reason was "article has been updated since and in any case sufficient notability was established in AfD discussion". However, the references in the article still do not successfully show the notability of the article's subject, and the AfD discussion referred to in no way shows the notability of the subject, the only thing that the AfD showed was a lack of consensus per WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR, but according to the closing admin, "a failure to meet GNG has probably been established." This is why the tag was restored, as no notability has been shown, and the article still needs reliable sources to establish this. - SudoGhost 13:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I mis-remembered that the afd was closed as keep. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I'm not trying to keep the notability tag there as any sort of "badge of shame" or anything, but it's there so that readers and editors will know that the article could use some stronger references.  If better references exist, there are very likely readers who will come to this article that have knowledge of these references, and if they see that the article needs them, they'll know to insert them, or come to the talk page to discuss them.  If the notability tag isn't there, they may not know that the article would need them, and if the page gets nominated for AfD again, the lack of these references may cause the article to be deleted.  I'd like to avoid a situation where an article is deleted not because of a lack of notability, but because of a lack of references that establish that notability, where those references otherwise exist. - SudoGhost 14:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The French references are enough to establish the minimum required notability of the article subject -- they are to the most widely notable mainstream French media. If the AfD participants can not or want not read them, it's their problem, not the article's. I don't mind some tag being inserted, which would alert the visiting readers about the need for stronger sources. This need is there indeed, in order to make this article better sourced. However, the other tags are still there to accomplish that. And the notability tag, as observed by me, had been mostly a cause of attention from the editors who are not generally interested in improving the article, but rather just want to dump it, as its subject is not in accordance with their personal preferences. I'd like to avoid unnecessary attention from that sort of editors, which also steals time and produces unnecessary and rather fruitless disputes and controversies. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The French references do not establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. That was established at the AfD discussion.  The tag should only be removed when the references in the article have been improved, and a talk page discussion has taken place to establish that the tag is no longer necessary.  Neither of these have been done. - SudoGhost 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation regarding WP:GNG from an AfD closing editor: "it could be that the foreign language references would make a difference, if time were spent on reviewing them". If you claim that French sources fail the notability criteria, please substantiate your claim. -- Nazar (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also add the Spanish source by Koldo Aldai. That's a good neutral source. David Thomas' sources are also neutral enough and independent, although David Thomas himself is not that notable. But he does satisfy the minimum requirements for an independent published opinion on Lee Carroll as well. -- Nazar (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD consensus substantiates that claim. If you wish to have that changed, establish a new consensus.  The article's references needs to be improved, or it will very likely not survive an AfD. - SudoGhost 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "AfD consensus substantiates that claim." -- not true. AfD did not analyze the French sources extensively enough (all we had there were some rather baseless personal private remarks of participating users). Neither did the AfD analyze the Spanish and other sources. However, I do admit that the majority of participants expressed an opinion that the article should be deleted. While I do not find that opinion well substantiated, the consensus had been formed that way indeed. And, in my opinion, it will very likely be formed that way again if AfD is re-opened, not because the article deserves deletion, but because of the prevailing views of the majority of people who are likely to participate.
 * On the side note, for me personally it means the failure of Wikipedia to provide an open platform for gathering neutral referenced information on the multitude of subjects that are of interest to broad public. That would eventually make me lower my own Wiki priorities and time allocation for Wiki Projects in my general schedule... A sad failure of a promising project it used to be a few years back... -- Nazar (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of some of the most dubious sources; more needs to be done here
Publishers have a vested interest in making their authors seem as important as possible, and in exaggerating sales numbers; that's why bestseller lists (however flawed) compiled by third parties are so valuable. Likewise, conferences such as the one referenced are inclined to republish information about their speakers provided to them by the speakers or their publicists, if it makes the speakers look more important. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't think it's enough to fully discard a reference. Article should provide information available from various sources, and legit publishers do seem to qualify, as well as the conference. We are not speaking about establishing a world record of book sales, or entry into a country-wide official best-seller list. -- Nazar (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By definition, material which is not from a reliable source has no place here. This entire article is plagued by the problem of the use of dubious and unreliable sources. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I contest. The article subject is not mainstream, therefore, one should not expect "excellent quality" academic encyclopedic sources. The sources provided do qualify the minimum requirements for this class of articles. No reason to discard information provided by third parties. Vested interest may or may not be present, and may or may not override the source's natural interest to provide reliable information. Assumptions used as base for removal venture too far into original interpretations. -- Nazar (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this article is covered by not just WP:FRINGE but by WP:BLP. I disagree with your argument that these sources meet the minimum requirements. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any legit publisher would provide fake information about the volume of publications. Moreover the conference, which is an independent event organized by third party. Also, for most independent authors the publishers are the primary source for the volume of published books. I can't really imagine any totally independent organization gathering that kind of information on thousands of particular authors. I find many top mainstream articles here on Wikipedia, where the information on the volume of sales etc. is taken from the publisher's statements (because in most cases this is the only available source for such information). Also, the information about the number of separate publications from the conference agrees with the information from the WorldCat listings for Lee Carroll. I find the use of arguments by opponents above highly captious, motivated by personal prejudices, and not contributory to building a versatile and full coverage of topic in the article. -- Nazar (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'Undue weight' section tag
There is an 'undue weight' tag on the channelling section of the article yet I see no discussion of that section here. There is no record of what is undue or why. Span (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources for consideration

 * Potency Matters by Colombe Marie Van Stokkum. Infinity Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0741421542, 9780741421548
 * "Jew Age: Jewish Praxis in Israeli New Age Discourse" by Marianna Ruah Midbar and Adam Klin Oron (a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and also a member of 'Ascending and Descending' research group at the Scholion Interdisciplinary Center for Jewish Studies). Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies. Vol 5, 2008

-- Nazar (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ich bin Kryon vom Magnetischen Dienst - Aufzeichnungen aus der geschlossenen Psychiatrie. Stephanie Brück. epubli, 2012. ISBN 3844223312, 9783844223316

-- Nazar (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Transitions-Earth, Death, the Afterlife. Marianne Maynard. iUniverse, 2007. ISBN 0595426956, 9780595426959

-- Nazar (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Current Jewish Spiritualities in Israel: A New Age. by Marianna Ruah-Midbar (Zefat Academic College; University of Haifa). Modern Judaism (2012) doi: 10.1093/mj/kjr026 First published online: February 24, 2012. Oxford University Press.

-- Nazar (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Scott O. Lilienfeld,, Rachel Ammirati, Michal David. Emory University, USA. Journal of School Psychology. Volume 50, Issue 1, February 2012, Pages 7–36. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440511000793

-- Nazar (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Word and the Problem of Human Unconsciousness: An Analysis of Charles R. Lawrence's Meditation on Racism, Oppression, and Empowerment. Reginald Leamon Robinson. Howard University - School of Law. July 30, 2008. Connecticut Law Review CONNtemplations, Vol. 40, Spring 2008

-- Nazar (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

looking for information
a friend just showed me the definition of this term, I think it defines me to almost DNA....45 and just accepted my "gifts" I had ignored them, and the universe was unhappy w/ me, sick as energy couldn't flow. SO I have no teacher, but am healing with white light, and can clean auras, take people on meditations with me, some "peer to peer" talking mind to mind, also the clairvoyance of last few weeks is like I am in tune with something amazing, so beyond this plane, this planet. Its so new and im reaching out ty!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apossibleindigochild (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)