Talk:Seth Material

CAUTION TO EDITORS
This article is considered controversial, and it has been attacked repeatedly by editors with an agenda -- specifically atheists and Christians -- who don't like the message of the Seth Material. (The Material can be interpreted as both anti-"skeptic" and anti-Christian.) At one time, the article was much longer and more complete, but several persistent editors got the main author of the article barred from Wikipedia, after which they promptly cut the article down by 75%. Be warned that if you add too much information about the Seth Material (that's what the article is supposed to be about, isn't it?), you can expect it to be persistently attacked by other editors.

If you want to see what the article once looked like, scroll down the history to where it says "THIS IS THE MOST COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE, BEFORE THE DELETIONISTS TOOK CONTROL OF IT". (You'll need to go to the 2nd page of the history to find one of those entries.) If you decide to restore one of those versions, you should restore one of the earlier versions, not one of the later versions, as the footnotes won't be correct.

This article is a prime example of the fact that there is a great deal of bias and inaccurate information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That would presumably be Caleb Murdock, see his talk page at User talk:Caleb Murdock and the section "Topic ban for your review" at. And this article is meant to be about what reliable sources say about the Seth material, not a CliffNotes version. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. An article on a particular philosophy should give the basic tenets of the philosophy.  The Christians were against it because the Material says that Christ wasn't crucified, and the atheists were against it because the Material says there is a God.  The point of view that is represented in any particular article is determined not by the facts, but by the persistence of the biased editors who manage to wrestle control of the article.  Wikipedia is a sham.


 * Jimmy Wales once enthused that Wikipedia could contain all the knowledge in the world, but that can't happen if there is no information in an article because people such as yourself don't like the information. This article is nothing but a bibliography, and that isn't what it was supposed to be, or should be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood me and probably Wales as Wikipedia is not meant to contain all the knowledge in the world. Sure, it should provide enough information so that have some idea of what it is. It does that. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And it is overwhelmingly about the Seth material. Oh, and 4 sentences of criticism. Probably fails WP:NPOV because it has so little. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this article doesn't come close to what it could be. Don't fool yourself.  The Seth Material is a wide-ranging philosophy that touches on every aspect of life.  The information that was here before was just a bare outline.  As for criticism, it's questionable whether criticism belongs in any article since opposing points of view can have their own articles.  As for Wales, I didn't misunderstand him.  Wikipedia hasn't evolved into what he thought it would be.  The majority of authors now are not contributing information, but are attempting to control what little information there is in the encyclopedia.  And the bias is obvious.  An important topic like this (and yes, it is important) has little information in it, while every new camera model that comes on the market has its own article.  What a farce.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.9.37 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See the NPOV policy. The article should reflect what has been published in reliable sources about the subject. This talk page is not a forum for discussion of the merits of the subject nor is WP a soapbox or means of promotion. Present ideas for improving the article based on policy and sources supported by rationale and sign posts with four tildes ~. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what this discussion is about. It's about the nature of the article, and what it should be.  Are you now censoring Talk pages in addition to the articles themselves?--70.181.9.37 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as a newcomer to this debate and to this idea of "Seth", the article seems to describe a crazy person's delusion that clearly based on imaginary delusions. At some point a judgement call is needed regarding actual facts and fact-like imagination.  It is not apparent to me that this topic in its fulsome form is something that belongs in a collection of facts, even if it's believed  by some set of people and even when Wikipedia is supposed to include facts regarding substantive religions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.72.221 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Says IP who cut a chunk out of my talk page. - like other bad editors, you interpret implementation of our policies and guidelines as censorship. There isn't any free speech here, everyone has to abide by those policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "An important topic like this" is surely discussed in independent reliable scholarly sources. Please provide them, that is what WP articles are based on, not primary sources or original research. Bring the sources and propose content based on them, leave your soapbox on the streetcorner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dougweller, it is censorship. It is censorship because the guidelines are applied unevenly and inconsistently.  Furthermore, the guidelines are vague enough that they can be interpreted to mean anything.  Probably a majority of the information in the encyclopedia is not documented, yet it sits there unchallenged because it isn't controversial.  Furthermore, it's part of the process of building an article that the information generally comes first and then the documentation gets added later.  Wikipedia is not a commercial product, and there is no reason why commercial standards should be applied to it.  If every article was cut down while it was still in the development stage, there would be no information in the encyclopedia at all.
 * As for "independent reliable scholarly sources", not everything gets studied by scholars -- but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. This article is supposed to be about the Seth material, yet there is precious little information on the Seth material here.  And that's because of the biases of editors who can't stand to see information in the encyclopedia they don't like.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.60.25 (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia (WP) reflects what is published in reliable secondary sources as due. That is what an encyclopedia does and is. If a subject has not been considered important and notable enough to be covered in reliable secondary sources it is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. The standards of WP are not "commercial" they are community developed project based consensus supported policies and guidelines (PAG). If an editor objects to PAG the place to raise those objections is the talk page of the policies and guidelines objected to. Arguments based on other stuff exists don't hold water. Arguments based on the premise that if PAG were applied universally "there would be no information in the encyclopedia" don't hold water. Numerous articles have survived AfD, and a multiplicity of other challenges. If you don't like the core policy Verifiability which states, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. take it to the talk page of that policy. Personal attacks, characterizations of editors and ascribing motivations to editors are violations of policy and not constructive, collaborative attempts to improve the encyclopedia.
 * See core policy Neutral point of view which states, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. and core policy Verifiability which states,  Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. and Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce
It is inaccurate to lump Edgar Cayce together with individuals connected with other channeled works. Cayce did not receive his information by channeling a noncorporeal entity or consciousness. Instead, he had direct access to the Akashic Records during his trance state so it was more like looking things up in a research library than being a conduit through which a wise being was speaking. This distinction is made clear in numerous documents at the official Cayce organization www.edgarcayce.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorgantokyo (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that people see enough similarity between both types of bullshit that they mention a connection, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)