Talk:Seth Material/Archive 1

Opening
Major opening fragment for the Seth page, mostly begun as a mirror of the indicated material to be transferred from the Jane Roberts page. TaoPhoenix (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proper Language? - Some select phrases may need to be switched depending on how forcefully "Seth" is presented with or without quotes, "purportedly as a personality", etc. TaoPhoenix (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the title of this article. The article should be called The Seth Material or just Seth Material.  It isn't about Seth as much as it is about what he said.  The title "Seth, ("spirit guide" entity)" is pretty clumsy.  Seth didn't call himself a spirit guide.


 * I'm sorry if I sound overly critical, but the title is getting this article off to a bad start. Can the title be changed?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, not a "bad start" - I noted above that you'd probably amend something. I was trying to figure out how an encyclopedia would reference Seth himself & still be objective. So, here we are, with the split complete. TaoPhoenix (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of advice for daily living?
Notwithstanding the complex questions of the theories of reality, is there any place for a list of practical suggestions? When not covering his primary topics, the material bursts at the seams with offhand hints to deal with life conditions. As the very easiest example, he discusses the merits of sleeping in two shorter segments as a break from the single 8-hour overnight rest. The intent would be to make a springboard for "further studies". This and other hints sparked my major personal interest in the mechanics of sleep and alertness. TaoPhoenix (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a list of practical suggestions culled from the Material is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia.Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted redirect - explanation
This page was redirected to Jane Roberts with the comment "massive violation of WP:FRINGE: Roberts herself is notable but we don't need this unencyclopedic spiel". I reverted the redirect. My reasons are: There may be some concerns over whether theses books are sufficiently notable to merit their own article. If so, these concerns should be raised here on the talk page or in an AfD discussion, to determine consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a significant amount of material here, which is not present in the Jane Roberts article, and is effectively blanked by the redirect.
 * The article is not unencyclopedic. It is written in an encyclopedic style, referenced, and takes an NPOV stance. It simply gives the factual background to the texts and summarises the texts themselves, without making any claims as to their truth.
 * The article is not about a science or pseudoscience topic, so WP:FRINGE does not apply.
 * There are ample precedents for having articles on books separate from articles on their authors.
 * None of these points are valid, so I'll be restoring the redirect. WP:FRINGE clearly does apply, this topic doesn't pass notability criteria and is not encyclopaedic in tone, and it clearly isn't neutral. Anything sourced should be reinserted in summary style over at Jane Roberts. Verbal   chat  11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide specific examples of what you are talking about? What lines or paragraphs violate neutrality and how does WP:FRINGE apply? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that WP:FRINGE applies to fringe science topics. The material referred to in this article presents a religious/philosphical/spiritual worldview, not a scientific or pseudoscientific one, so I don't see how it can possibly be fringe science.
 * Notability concerns should be addressed by AfD to determine consensus. Otherwise the revert is a stealth deletion.
 * What exactly do you think is unencyclopedic about its tone ?
 * If you think a merger is appropriate, place merge tags to propose this, see what consensus is fisrt. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't really anything here that is well sourced enough to merge. Verbal   chat  11:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, then I suggest you take the article to AfD. In effect, the redirect was a proposed deletion and I have contested it. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has a potentially useful page history for the Jane Roberts article, as nothing can be merged due to WP:V and WP:RS. Taking it to AfD now would be wrong, without seeing if anything is salvageable. However, this article shouldn't remain here in this state. It should either be stubbed while we decide what to do, or the redirect (which is not a deletion) should be restored. Verbal  chat  12:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Jane Roberts

 * Support for the reasons I've discussed above, and the discussion on WP:FTN Verbal   chat  12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given above. To encourage a wider discussion, I have notified the 6 Wikiprojects that have registered an interest in this article above. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and let's give everyone a few days to contribute to this discussion before we declare consensus - remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest that you Merge material from this page into Jane Roberts, then redirect. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What material? I agree some of this may be useful, but this page only has primary sources currently. Verbal   chat  14:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Verbal. Psychic readings and channelling are pretty clearly fringe. dougweller (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per WP:FRINGE, "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." I am pretty sure the Seth material does not fall into this category. It has been cited in other works. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE? All this text (written mostly by me) was part of the Jane Roberts article for more than a year, and people repeatedly suggested that it be spun off in its own article.  Now it is its own article -- so what's the problem?  And what's this business about its being "fringe"?  Roberts sold MILLIONS OF BOOKS.  The ideas in the Seth Material form the basis for many people's religious beliefs, including mine, and form the basis for a great deal of New Age theory.  Dozens of new concepts were introduced in the Seth Material.  In fact, the Seth Material is the forerunner of the "The Secret".  Furthermore, psychic phenomena in and of itself is a notable area of interest to millions of people.  Verbal is probably just another atheist who is trying to censor the encyclopedia to exclude ideas he doesn't like.  I have worked very hard on this article to make it impartial and factual.  I have my own interpretations of the Material, which I have not included, giving instead only the basic tenets (and there are more to come).  If it doesn't have enough references, that will be taken care of in time.  Wikipedia is always in a state of becoming, and you don't make the encyclopedia better by deleting information just because it isn't extensively referenced.


 * The things that are going on on Wikipedia are just unbelievable. We have a class of people who are trying to censor information they don't like.  Apparently they have hours to spend making trouble for authors who actually contribute knowledge to the encyclopedia.  The Seth Material is one of the cornerstones of the New Age movement -- this is important information here -- and it's going to have a place in this encyclopedia.  Now, if you want me to move it back into the Jane Roberts article, I can do that, but I don't think it's a good idea.  That article received a lot of criticism because it went beyond biography and too much into her works.  If there can be articles on Einstein AND the theory of relativity, there can be articles on Roberts AND the Seth Material.  Just because you don't know what it is, Horatio, doesn't mean it isn't important.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever Verbal's personal beliefs are I think are not important, but let's see what specific objections he/she has with the article and see f you can deal with them. I don't think they hold much water if the tags are any indication as the article does not seem NPOV to me (unless you want to invite someone to do a "Criticism" section) and I would not say that it is an essay at all. Others have written about the Seth Material so getting references is no problem. Not sure what precisely in the "tone" is not right. Putting all of this back into the Roberts article is an option of course, but as I noted before, it does tend to kind of overwhelm the biographical areas of that article. I might add that a single "Seth Material" article is much more efficient that writing a new article for each of her published books! 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If I recall, Roberts & Butts met with a number of others during sessions such as Robert Monroe, Deepak Chopra, Rick Stack, Susan Watkins, Richard Bach among others, to say nothing of Jane's ESP sessions, so finding extra sources should not be much of an issue here, unlike with Abraham, Elias or the Ra Material. I have added some references that Rick Stack, Sue Watkins and Michael Talbot made, to get things rolling. Let's chill with the fussing and just address the purported problems. ;) 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you add some reliable sources, that aren't primary sources? That might address some of the concerns and allow important parts to be merged. Verbal   chat  08:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not an atheist and I'm not trying to censor wikipedia, and I'm not an idiot either. I'm trying to remove unsupported text. This is a nice essay, but it is an essay - not an encyclopaedia entry. You might be interested in our no personal attacks and civility policy. Deletion is a red herring, no one has supported deletion. Verbal   chat  08:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What precisely makes this an essay? All the writer has done was to summarize the main points from the books and try to give the reader an idea of how Roberts claimed they were produced. I don't see personal opinion here, more of a synopsis of the main points made in the Seth books. Since most of this material comes directly from Roberts it makes sense that the main sources will be from her books, but others who sat in on the sessions such as Susan Watkins and Rick Stack have written books about them. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal - from your response to Blueboar above, we can infer that your proposal is that the article should be replaced with a redirect to Jane Roberts without merging any significant part of its contents into the Jane Roberts article. Although this is technically not a deletion, as the page's contents will still be visible in its edit history, it does have more or less the same effect - it removes the page's contents from the current version of Wikipedia. If you like, we can call this a "redirect without merge" for the sake of accuracy - but let's not pretend it is not a deletion in all but name. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * merge to Jane R if a useful summary of the material can be gleaned from this stuff. Verbal does have a point that as far as I know this could just be the writer's impression of the teachings- WP:OR, as it has no sources. I'll see what I can come up with.:) Sticky Parkin 11:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Verbal has inserted a tag citing six distinct issues to be fixed in the article, hence his redirect is off the table. Suggest revisiting the article in a month and if no improvement has been made by then… either cut it down to about 20 percent of its current length or nominate it for deletion. I am particularly struck by the vast imbalance of reporting on the "material" versus any criticism. (And the reporting, though it puts up a good-faith effort to be neutral, falls short of that aim.) This is perhaps not surprising. People who are not believers have better things to do with their time. But really… have none of the respected skeptic's sites anything to say? James Randi, the Skeptic's Dictionary?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He has not mentioned any specific thing that he objects to however. Incidentally I am not a believer, merely interested. If you really create your own reality then this would not be occurring. The Seth material is kind of old, not sure if most skeptics have dealt much with it as they have its derivatives. And I did suggest adding a Criticism section but no one bit. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And 70.186 just made an edit in which he inserts a one-word section heading ("Criticism") above a single (malformed) sentence reporting criticism and calls this, in the edit summary, "criticism section added". Cute. Really cute.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the criticisms of the article was that there was no criticism of the Seth Material, so I inserted a section in order to get the ball rolling and moved the only critical text in the article to the heading. What's your objection to that now? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a member of WikiProject Philosophy, but I find it amazing that they haven't objected to inclusion of this article into their Project.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that? What Roberts/Seth taught was more or less a modern take on Idealism. Socrates also had a little paranormal problem that is usually ignored. ;) 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is. It is an ongoing project. It evolves as authors think of and make contributions to the articles. No article in this project is finished or perfect. And let me point out that it is written by people in their spare time. The way that you improve an article is not to threaten deletion, which is what you've been doing. Furthermore, I disagree with your tags (and will remove them if you don't justify them soon). The article does not read like a personal essay. It's tone is suitable for Wikipedia. It is a notable subject, not "fringe". It is factual to the best of my ability to make it factual (since it conveys the basic tenets of the Seth Material without judgement). You are issuing an attack on this article for some personal reason of your own.

Now, other people have asked you to be specific. So let's hear your specific objections to the text, and I expect you to include quotes from the article and explain why you object to them.

By the way, have you READ the Seth Material? If not, how do you know the information in the article is not accurate or impartial?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

REDIRECTING THIS ARTICLE WHILE THERE ARE AUTHORS WHO BELIEVE IT IS AMPLY NOTABLE IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE ARTICLE AND AN OFFENSE TO OTHER AUTHORS.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Addressing article issues
Various articleissues tags have been added to this article, and it would obviously be good practice to address these issues by improving the article (which is what the articleissues template suggests). I am happy to help with this. However, I am at a loss to know where to start with addressing some of these issues, as I do not yet understand the reason behind the tag. Specifically:
 * npov - "Its neutrality is disputed" - where exactly does the article fail to be NPOV ?
 * tone - "Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia" - where is the unencyclopedic tone ?
 * unencyclopedic - "It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia" - what material does this refer to ?
 * essay - "It reads like a personal reflection or essay" - WP:ESSAY defines an essay as "a page reflecting the views of an editor or a group of editors" - where does this article reflect the views of an editor ?

If someone can provide specific examples from the article of these particular issues (and not just blanket assertions, or something like "its the whole article", which is not constructive) then I will begin work on fixing them. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Gandalf61, thanks for being part of this discussion.


 * Okay, let's hear people's specific objections to the text -- specific, not general -- and please quote the text that you object to.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. . . we have some generic criticisms but when any attempt is made to address them, they are criticized, and when specific examples are requested all we get are snide comments but no concrete examples of what is wrong. Anyone? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 70.186.172.75, when I reverted the article back to my revisions, I took some of your revisions with it, but I think that they were mostly typo corrections and stuff, no? Sticky Parkin is trying a semi-deletion by eliminating a lot of stuff.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All I added were some references and a fetal Criticism section as requested by one of the critics. Nothing of substance was really changed, so no worries. Name is Randy btw. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As no-one has found the time or the motivation to substantiate the issue tags mentioned above, I was about to suggest they should be removed from the article - but I see I am behind the curve, as Caleb Murdock clearly had the same thought ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the critics please answer some of the questions in this section before getting into an edit war here? Good questions have been raise. I think I have had to ask six times for some specific examples to be cited and still no one is biting. What gives? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

copyvio?
Now I know usually when I spot this it tends to mean people have nicked things from wikipedia, not the other way round, but what do people think of a few lines down into this? Sticky Parkin 13:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the film.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to add here that Sticky Parkin (I think that's the one) went through and butchered my original writing, so you may not have been reading my writing. I have restored most of it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin's revisions
I want to know if Sticky Parkin has read the Seth Material, or if he's cutting the article down just because he thinks it's too long. I expect this article to EXPAND with time.

By the way, Verbal, you wouldn't know if Sticky Parkins' version was an improvement or not, since you are not familiar with the Seth Material. The idea that a person can edit an article (or in this case prefer one draft over another) when that person has no knowledge of the subject, is an illusion. We're still waiting to hear your SPECIFIC objections to the text.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Seth" and "the Seth personality"
Since apparently two personalities were at work in Jane Roberts, I started using the term "the Seth personality" to describe statements made by Seth. That seemed to me to be a perfect solution, since it did not address the issue of whether Seth was part of Jane Robert's psyche or not, but merely identified the Seth portion when it was active. I still consider this to be a good solution to this strange activity (referring here to channelling a spirit). In some instances, however, I just use the term "Seth". If it would add impartiality, I could change all those instances to "the Seth personality". However, substituting Jane Robert's name for Seth's creates a complication, in that we would have to say in each instance, "Roberts, speaking as Seth," and that would make the article very cumbersome.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of the article / Recent contributions
No one owns this article, of course -- certainly not me, though I have written most of it. However, re-writing sections without contributing anything new doesn't make any sense. I frequently find that people have done that, replacing the existing language with language that is usually more clumsy. In such cases, I am free to restore the original language which I felt was better, and I do. When this article was part of the Jane Roberts article, and someone added something new to the article, I would often keep the new material but make adjustments to the language to keep the tone consistent. So, no, I don't feel that I own the article. Also, wholesale deletions of my writing don't improve the article any, and I tend to view large deletions as an attack on the article. There are people on Wikipedia who have agendas -- they are usually athiests or fundamentalist Christians -- who would like to see the article "minimized" to put it nicely. It is my intention to expand the article with time, not allow it to be truncated.

- Please note that references to a film that has not been made yet constitute news and are not suitable for an encyclopedia.

- This change to the text is not accurate: "The Material through 1969 was published in summary form in The Seth Material, which was formatted as a dialogue between Roberts and the Seth personality, which she claimed was a separate spiritual being." First, that book is not a dialogue between Roberts and Seth (has the author of this statement actually read the book?). Secondly, "which she claimed was a separate spiritual being" is information given elsewhere in the article.

- This text, which someone has added and restored, is a problem: "Roberts claimed the spiritual entity Seth began to dictate his own books, however Charles Upton states that while Seth is supposedly able to overlook all space and time, his level of knowledge of Christianity and Eastern religions more resembles that of a New Age housewife." First, the word "claimed" is on a Wiki list of words to avoid. Words which just cast doubt on the subject matter are supposed to be avoided, since they add no information to the article and it is understood that many people will disagree anyway. All this was hashed out last year over the Jane Roberts article (or perhaps it was in 2006). Secondly, Charles Upton's musings should be kept to the Criticism section; they are out of place in that particular paragraph.

- Please note that the entire bulleted section of tenets is preceded by this text: "The Seth personality made the following assertions, among many others:". Therefore, the entire bulleted list has been qualified and no further qualifications are necessary. Qualifying every sentence would be unnecessary and cumbersome.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with putting Upton in that particular paragraph. You don't need separate criticism sections in articles, that is just one way of doing it. I think reader's often benefit from juxtaposting claims and criticisms. dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article is about the Seth Material, not about anyone's reaction or disagreement with it.  In fact, criticism is, in my opinion, irrelevant.  The Seth Material is essentially a religious text, so many people will disagree with it -- that's a given.  Disagreement with religious texts altogether is a useless thing, since there is no way to disprove any of the assertions pro or con.  Also, Upton sounds like a crackpot whose criticisms are merely opinions.  And to call Roberts a "New Age housewife" is just a slur.  I'll overlook it if you put it in the Criticism section, but not elsewhere.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Careful with the crackpot talk, many would say that of Roberts herself. The comments weren't that enlightening, but if the critics demand it for balance, I don't have that much of a problem with it, since Seth does make claims . . . although his general stance that you crate your own reality in thought before it is manifested in action . . . would seem to me to preclude any proof in ordinary terms. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You still appear to think you have rights over this article. You don't, like the rest of us you need to work within our policies and guidelines and consensus. Without criticism, this article would be pure POV. And you can't disassociate the source from the 'text'. This article is covered by WP:FRINGE. dougweller (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought WP:FRINGE was related to fringe science theories? If you want to push this you could try a peer review. What exactly is POV other than the poor criticism section? Fot the most part it looks like just a summary of some of the main ideas from the ten Seth books. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I see no reason to think that this article falls within the scope of WP:FRINGE. I would interested to hear some substantive argument to back up the opposing view that the subject of this article is a fringe science theory i.e. a "scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories" (definition from fringe science, my italics). All I have heard so far are unsupported bald assertions. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still shocked at the things Verbal said: "... this article shouldn't remain here in this state. It should either be stubbed while we decide what to do, or the redirect ... should be restored."  What a nerve.  The article is actually in fairly good shape (except for the lack of adequate references).  It does what it is supposed to do, which is to explain the Seth Material.  To think that he was going to "stub" it until "we decide what to do" -- what a nerve!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC


 * Well, beliefs do tend to defend themselves when threatened. Don't have the reference but its in NOPR. ;) 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a right to edit the article like anybody else! In response to assertions that I think I "own" the article, I have started explaining some of my edits.  Furthermore, the article is not POV; it is an explanation and listing of the tenets of the Seth Material -- that's clearly explained in the text.  I don't see anything in Fringe which applies to this article.  Millions of Seth books were sold; to detail the tenets of such a widely read and disseminated philosophy is perfectly legitimate.  If there aren't enough third-party references, we'll find them eventually.  And let me re-state what I said above:  Criticism of religious doctrine is meaningless since religious doctrine is a matter of faith.  For Upton to say that Roberts is afraid of death is mere supposition on his part.  The other criticism that you inserted by Upton didn't even include a quote; it was a paraphrase, and it was poorly written, since it strayed from the topic of the paragraph.  (I just looked to see if you included a footnote, and you included a footnote to a restricted page.)  If you are going to insert criticism in the article, for God's sake please try to come up with some MEANINGFUL criticism.


 * And let me get back to what I said before: People who have scant knowledge of the subject can't make good edits.  There may not be a Wiki rule about that, but it's true!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
I am not going to remove the Criticism section, though I don't really see a need for it. The fact that people disagree with the tenets of the Seth Material isn't noteworthy. For example, is the fact that Upton thinks that Roberts multiplied the self because she had a fear of death relevant? That is a generic criticism that can be made of any person who believes in reincarnation. Furthermore, Upton's comments are contradicted by the way Roberts died (she clearly wanted to die).--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Upton's comments don't add much I agree . . . they are basically insulting suppositions . . . someone's opinion who disagrees with the material. The section was added because the way it was stated in the article where it was placed originally seemed to not fit in with the text very well and because those attacking the article requested it. They don't seem to understand the difference between criticizing the contents of a belief system and the existence of the belief system itself. I am not a Thelemist, so obviously disagree with some of the tenets, yet I don't dispute the right of the article to summarise the belief system. I will say that a more meaningful criticism section could be of more use. As it stands, not much of value has been added by it. I think the way in which the material originated offends the world view of a lot of people, so maybe a critique of channeling in general would be apropos? I did look at The Skeptic's Dictionary and found one line, but it tended to dismiss all ten books in toto without referring to anything specific. Such an attitude shows more the author's stance on the manner of production rather than calling any specifics statements to task, but thus far I haven't found much else. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to figure out what you meant to write when you wrote "Thelemist". It's not in the dictionary I looked in.


 * I can appreciate your comments because you don't seem to have an ax to grind. I tend to have a hardened attitude towards people who swoop in on the article and try to change it or delete it -- I had one fight after another when this text was part of the Jane Roberts article.  My experience was that they almost never had any knowledge of Jane Roberts/Seth beyond the article itself.  They just decided that it wasn't neutral and felt free to make any old changes they felt like.  I honestly don't know how an editor/author of a real encyclopedia would handle this material -- probably they wouldn't go into it at length because of space limitations.  But that's one of the beauties of Wikpedia -- it is more comprehensive than the commercial dictionaries.


 * Thelema is the belief system originated by Aleister Crowley . . . what I meant to say was that although I don't buy all of it, I still think they reserve the right to have what they believe stated clearly. And for the most part, although Crowley himself had a questionable character, it would be hard to call into question the tenets since they are faith. As for my own opinion on the Seth Material some of it I buy and some I don't (for instance his comments on inoculations or about all people having good motivations) but I am interested obviously, but it sounds to me like the objections thus far to the article have been ideologically motivated; they seem offended by the subject matter and seek to minimize the article (one fellow suggested cutting it down to 20% of what it is currently . . . how one could summarize 10+ books in such a space is beyond me), and thus possibly misrepresenting the material, which I don't think is proper. A criticism has been made that the style is in-universe style . . . there may be some substance to that but I think I have read over it too many times to actually be of much assistance there. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case you are curious, here is my article on why Roberts/Seth aren't fraudulent: www.purebeads.com/Seth-Veracity.htm


 * I am pretty sure that Jane was not a hoaxer, but my own opinion isn't enough for an encyclopedia. One of the problems I think now is that the Seth Material itself receives less attention due to its age whereas newer, derivative sources ala The Secret may draw more attention to themselves from sceptical sources. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I didn't have to make that article neutral, since it isn't part of the encyclopedia.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the criticisim section is important for two reasons. Firstly, it adds balance to the article and demonstrates that it is not NPOV. Secondly, it establishes the notability of the Seth Material by showing that it has been discussed in independent, third party sources. However, the quotes do need some context - I will try to work on this a little. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made some good points. If the skeptics can find the Seth Material referenced in their own books, journals and sites, then it certainly must be notable.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Criticism section has gotten bigger but it is still inordinately small compared to the rest of the Article… or the rest is too big. Also, the criticism that the Article is written with an in-universe view is justified, in my opinion. To use an analogy, we want a picture that resembles a bird's eye overview of a piece of land, not a worm's eye view from the level of grass roots. It's true that the bird's eye view loses some detail, but the worm lacks all context and has no idea what is going on a few feet away. In fact, one bird is not enough, there should be several. One to survey the phenomenon as a sociologist would, examining who "buys" these theories and why; one as a historian would, placing Roberts in a line with other "visionaries" (many of whom have been exposed as frauds); one as a philosopher, examining whether anything in there is more than a low-grade regurgitation of philosophical writings (in which case it does not qualify as philosophy at all); one as a theologian, giving the "materials" a critical once-over; and there may be other "birds". To keep the article to a manageable length most of the worm's eye view should go, so that in the end exposition and criticism are roughly equal.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Admiteddly the criticism section needs improvement. But why does it have to be equal to that of the article? String Theory has criticism but it is not comparable to the overall length of the article and by no means equal to the pro-statements made. In deleting the material so that the synopsis of the material is equal to the criticism section you would be forcing a summary of over ten books to be pared down to about one paragraph. That doesn't sound terribly realistic. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoted text
The Fair Use doctrine permits quotations from the Seth books. I used to work for patent and trademark attorneys, and I can tell you that excerpting ten or fewer paragraphs from thousands of pages is well within the scope of the doctrine. I have also researched this subject for a poetry site that I host.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has its own rules regarding quotes and copyrights which may be slightly tougher than what is legally allowed in some jurisdictions. I'm not saying there is a problem with quotes here though, so long as properly attributed etc. Verbal   chat  10:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe?
I believe that this is covered by WP:FRINGE on the basis of this Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. dougweller (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The tone and essay aspects (mostly written from an "in-universe" perspective) also need urgently addressing. This can probably best be done by reorganising sections into prose rather than bullet-pointed paragraphs (maybe these should be subsections?) and by the addition of external references and commentary. The criticism should be integrated also. If this important to a religion then this should be addressed in the article via reliable sources. Editorialising and the unquestioning tone, written in WP voice, should be removed/changed to neutral. These are just some of the issues that can be addressed. Verbal   chat  11:32, 30 November (UTC)


 * Which of the points under WP:FRINGE do you think applies? Can you show me an example maybe of how you would revise a sentence from the current mode of expression to "out of universe" style? I think I have read over it too many times to be able to see that clearly. As far as I am aware, no organized religion has been built up around the Jane beliefs, although there are a number of references in New Age literature. I have been looking for criticism online, but have only found passing references to it such as at James Randi's site or The Skeptic's Dictionary, but these are hardly useful in terms of large scale criticism; they mainly acknowledge the existence of the material then dismiss it without dealing with any claims made in the books. Randi's site does state that many of the claims can't be proved or disproved one way or the other, but a lot more would be needed for true balance in a criticism section. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet again, I invite Verbal any editor to provide specific examples of the issues he claims they claim the article has, rather than just vague and general assertions. His The continued failure to do so makes it impossible to address those issues, if they are indeed present. As I have reminded Verbal on his talk page, NPOV dispute says "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, ... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Gandalf61 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the ninth time these specific examples were asked for but who's counting? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories/Arbitration cases does not contain an opinion on the scope of WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE itself says its scope is "fringe theories", which is linked to fringe science, which in turn defines fringe science as "scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories". The subject of the article is clearly not in any sense a "scientific inquiry", mainstream or otherwise, therefore it cannot be fringe science, therefore it does not fall within the scope of WP:FRINGE. QED. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gandalf, there are clear policy issues with this article. Please don't colour the discussion here with previous disputes you feel we have had. I have discussed them here and on FTN, and doug and GMW have also commented on the issues which face this page. The main issue is the in-universe essay style of the article at present. This needs addressing by a rewrite. Please keep the talk page on point, and discuss edits not editors. Verbal   chat  12:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have re-drafted my comment above to a more generic tone. My substantive point still stands and has still not been addressed. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, we finally have it. The main issue is the in-universe essay style of the article at present. Before the warring goes any farther, lets address this. INUNIVERSE has a guide for getting started as well as some good examples. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutrality and other problems would probably be addressed by fixing this problem, so I agree it is a good place to start. Verbal   chat  12:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, at least now we have something concrete to address. I was looking at The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy . . . that seems to be a good example. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories/Arbitration cases does mention dealing with psychic stuff, and I still maintain WP:Fringe applies to psychic phenomena. dougweller (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of the headings would the Seth Material go under then? I see 18 headings but all of the paranormal items I see are for systems of pseudoscience such as Astrology. I see no clear place for a religious doctrine under any heading. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is a religion, it is clearly supposedly psychic/channelled and that is covered in the section Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. dougweller (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I found there with regard to channeling was that it be "appropriately framed" . . . what objections do you have to the framing of the article? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment I was just confirming that this is indeed fringe. When time permits I'll respond with any issues I have about framing, if any. dougweller (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If channeling alone makes for fringe status wouldn't that mean The Book of Mormon and the Koran are also fringe items? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}Please don't be silly, no one claims that the Koran or the Book of Mormon were channelled or that a psychic was involved.


 * According to Origin and development of the Qur'an, "According to the traditionalist view, the Qur'an began with Muhammad's claims of divine revelations in 610 AD" . . . they were memorized and written down later. Unless god is assumed to be a human being who dictated it directly to Mohammed, it seems that it is considered that they were channeled before he had his followers write them down. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Fringe thing refers to obscure scientific theories, and the In Universe thing applies to fiction, which the Seth Material is not. Why are we discussing those things here? The Seth Material was never presented to the world as a work of fiction. If anything, it is philosophy. Any efforts to "improve" the article by treating it as if it were fiction will be resisted.

Furthermore, to introduce a whole bunch of perspectives into the article will make it MORE of an essay. And let me remind you that you can't make up your own perspective information. Those people who want to bring in other perspectives will have to find that information in published works, yet I doubt that much of it exists. As it is, the article is written to inform the readers about what the Seth Material is, and how it evolved. The article does that adequately.

No -- "Fringe" and "In Universe" DO NOT APPLY HERE.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fringe seems to apply to channelled materials, and thus here. And if you are saying it can't be made NPOV, then we might have a problem with the huge amount of material in the article. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole concept of Fringe is being used as a cudgel by people who don't like paranormal activity. First of all, paranormal activity does NOT have anything to do with science.  If there are proponents of paranormal activity who are trying to make it a science, they are doing so because they think it will give it respectability.  Psychics are not scientists, and scientific methodology can't be used on the phenomenon (for the most part).  The Seth Material has more to do with religion and philosophy than anything else.  Almost all religions start with "inspired" or psychic experiences, and the Seth Material could be considered inspired.  Indeed, I consider it to be an emerging religion.


 * I believe that this article has been framed neutrally, AND I AM WAITING FOR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAG AND ASSAULT THIS ARTICLE, THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN YOUR SPECIFIC REASONS AND GIVE SAMPLES FROM THE TEXT.  ONCE AGAIN, IF THE TAGS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED, THEY WILL BE REMOVED, AND I WILL REMOVE THEM EVERY TIME I SEE THEM.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You know that will get you blocked, don't you, if you break WP:3RR? Wait a couple of weeks and if there is no response, remove them then, but not now. And fringe covers a variety of things, eg fringe concepts in history, religion, pop culture, etc. as well. You don't seem to understand WP:NOV either. dougweller (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC
RFCreli
 * section= Tenets of the Seth Material !! reason=Dispute over WP:FRINGE. Need impartial comments. !! time=19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What's the question? Verbal   chat  21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically I want to get some outside opinions on whether the article would be considered notable, or fringe. What we have here is verging on an edit war because of a set of differing opinions. Thus far all that is going on is that one person says one thing and does a revert then someone else says something different and reverts the revert. I think we need some people without axes to grind to break the stalemate. This has the potential to be a good article I think, but if there are any clear cut violations of policy that most people can agree to then let's get that out of the way and stop acting like babies here. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Basic policy reminder
The problem here isn't just WP:FRINGE, it's mostly WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. This article has none: primary sources only are just a non-starter. That isn't really up for debate, so I've redirected this article again (rather than deleting: redirection preserves the history). Please don't revert.

To Caleb Murdock: I suggest you use your extensive knowledge of this topic to upgrade Jane Roberts, which needs it, basing your edits at all times on reliable secondary sources. If the Roberts article gets big enough later on we can always recreate this one per Summary style. Best, Moreschi (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did add some extra sources, but they are invisible to the attackers of the article. So I guess I give up (again). Cheers. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. Not sufficiently substantial, though. They'd be useful in a discussion of the Seth Material at Jane Roberts. Your work is appreciated, but it didn't change the reality that 95 percent of the article was based on primary sources. Moreschi (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that nothing will ever be considered "substantial" by those who want to censor these kinds of things. If this was followed 98% of the articles here would disappear as well. But anyway, happy deleting. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'''This article is not going to be redirected as long as there is an unresolved disagreement as to its notability. If you take this to a mediation, you will lose. Just the fact that millions of Seth books were published, read by millions of readers, in dozens of countries, makes this a notable topic. The article was created because there was a need for it. An enumeration of the tenets of the Seth Material was too lengthy and cumbersome for the Jane Roberts article, and many people -- including a mediator -- suggested that it be spun off. Frankly, by redirecting it you are showing an astonishing lack of respect for the authors of the article and for Wiki neutrality.'''

'''You people don't seem to realize that your judgements about the article's notability are flawed because you are not familiar with the subject matter, nor aware of the extent to which its influence has permeated society and thinking. Your assumption that all paranormal texts are not notable is simply biased.'''--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A huge problem here is verifiable and reliable sources, which show it meets the notability criteria. Verbal   chat  21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter if this article is up to "code" or not. The way that you improve an article is not to delete it.  Period.  You are just trying to censor a topic you don't like.  I am requesting mediation.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks they are saying that if an article isn't of FA quality, it has no right to exist. Each time we have asked for specific points the attackers don't answer, and when we do fix (or attempt to fix) what the detractors complain about they come up with something else. I am tired of this fighting like old women. I wish you all the best on this, but I have been through this crap to many times to expect a fair outcome. Take care. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The first two references
I have major issues with the first two references which are being used to establish the importance of this material. The first "authority", Michael Talbot, is arguing his point in the course of establishing his own fringey theory. He is really not acceptable as an authority as to the place of this material in New Age thought. Then there is Charles Upton, who from what I can tell is a follower of the Traditionalist School associated with Huston Smith (among others). I found a review of the cited work here, and what I'm finding again doesn't give me confidence that his opinion is generally shared. My gut reaction is that this material is not as influential as is being claimed, but in any case better citations are needed. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add that those references.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you are OK with removing both passages? Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Without better sources, we can't assume they are correct, so they should be removed. dougweller (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug, Mangoe and Caleb. They should be removed. Verbal   chat  19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that anything should be removed. If references have been removed, they should be restored.  It does no good for you to clamor for references, and then remove them if you decide you don't like them, and then claim the article should be deleted because it has no references.  PLEASE RESTORE ANY REFERENCES THAT YOU HAVE REMOVED THAT ESTABLISH NOTABILITY.  Thank you.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the point was (now moot), that if the references backing up 2 specific claims aren't RS, those two claims should be removed. That's all. And please stop shouting. dougweller (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing paragraphs
Removing paragraphs because they don't have references makes no sense. If the paragraphs are no longer there, then editors can't work with them. Certainly, new authors who come to the article won't know that they were there and won't be able to add needed references. Removing paragraphs is another form of stealth deletion. Editors who do that are acting in bad faith. This is especially true given the fact that those who are deleting wholesale parts of the article have no knowledge of the subject matter and can't know how important the information is that they are deleting. A mediation has been requested. Until that happens, I respectfully request that those editors who are attacking the article restrain themselves.

The paragraphs that have been removed will be restored in time. I work on this article every day.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Material deleted as it had no references is here:
Here is the material that was deleted. On my talk page Caleb Murdock wrote "If they are no longer part of the article, other authors won't have the opportunity to add references. Since I have reverted two bad revisions already today, I will restore them after midnight" -- but hoping someone will fix them isn't good enough. They are also way too verbose, even if there is a justification for each of the sections. Let's work on them here (or in a subpage if people prefer that).


 * What do you mean "let's work on them here"? Who -- you and me?  Do you know anything about the Seth Material?  I've started adding references, and the article will be full of them soon enough.  In fact, I've made a commitment to add three references a day (each one requires research).  As a matter of RESPECT TO OTHER AUTHORS, please leave the unreferenced portions alone until the references have been filled in.  I have every Seth book, and it's just a matter of finding the passages.  Finding third-party references is going to be less easy, although I see that Linda has added some.


 * By the way, when this is all said and done, I'm going to run over to the Bible and Christianity and delete every paragraph that doesn't have a reference -- and I will have your actions on this article as evidence that I am justified to do so.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Who knows, you might improve the articles. The only difference I personally see is that this stuff is pseudo-science, the other is mythology. dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no testable scientific claims in the Seth Material. If you would have bothered reading the material before assuming you are an expert on it, you might have known this. God dreaming the world into existence sounds close to mythology than to science to me. If every article was equitably subjected to this kind of scrutiny, there would be no stubs here, and precious few articles, and incremental improvement would be close to non-existent. Example. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to decide to stoop to insults. The claim is that this is channelled material. That's why this is fringe. As for your example, yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and is never considered an excuse. Your example actually has a citation (probably added after the tag), and there are much worse ones around. dougweller (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this stooping to insults? I know other crap exists isn't an excuse, but it does point out that this article is being scrutinized in a way that others aren't and does shows that admins tend to gang up on articles they don't like while ignoring the rules when it suits them. Yes, it has a single citation, less than the material in this article. You are the one that said this was pseudoscience; from what I have read its more akin to philosophy. Nothing testable is to be found in it. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is disagreement as to whether channelling is a real phenomenon or not, but it is still a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. There is also disagreement as to whether God exists.  Why don't you go over to that article and cut it down to 10% of its size, or just delete it?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Seth_Material/Tenets for editing, see below. Verbal  chat  12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Seth Material is not a science. It can be considered a phenomenon, religion or philosophy.  Scientific criteria do not apply.  THIS POINT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tenets section - Talk:Seth_Material/Tenets
This section is far too long, poorly sourced, and written in an inappropriate style and tone. To make the article comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines I have moved this section to a subpage here for editing. Talk:Seth_Material/Tenets Verbal   chat  10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please will you provide specific examples of what you consider to be "inappropriate style and tone" in this section. It is very difficult for anyone to improve the article if your concerns are only raised as vague generalities. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For a specific example see the edits I made to the first section to change the tone, and tagging the unreferenced assertions that need referencing. As already discussed by several people above a problem is the in universe style. In addition, we also need a solid reference that these are or are considered to be "the tenets" of the Seth Material. I think it would be more encyclopaedic if the tenets were described in a prose structure of at most four paragraphs. Verbal   chat  12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A further example, every sentence of the Existence subsection his problems, eg "Ultimately, there are no boundaries to the self just as there are no boundaries to any system of reality." is a claim made, in wikipedia's voice, which is inappropriate. The whole section is full of these problems. Verbal   chat  13:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so one concern is in-universe style. WP:WAF suggests that this problem can be avoided by "describing things from the author or creator's perspective", using phrases such as "The author introduces", "The story describes". It seem to me that the first sub-section of the Tenets section, titled Physical universe, successfully adopts this approach by framing its statements with phrases such as "According to the Seth material ...", "The Material posits ...", "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said ...". Would you agree that the Physical universe sub-section is written from a real-world perspective ? Gandalf61 (talk)
 * That's the subsection I rewrote when asked for an example some time ago. However, we still need a source that these are the tenets, and the section intro needs rewriting and referencing. A summary style would also vastly improve this section. Thanks, Verbal   chat  13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so would you agree that re-writing the other sub-sections in the same style as the Physical universe sub-section would address your "inappropriate style and tone" concerns ? And for sourcing, WP:WAF says "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". So would you agree that referencing the text of the Material itself within the Tenets section is permissable ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if it is supported by other sources that these are the "tenets" of the SM. This hasn't been established. The Physical universe section also need support by primary and secondary sources. The best idea would be to remove these sections and replace them with a discussion of what the tenets are, which is supported by V and RS. The physical universes section may form part of this. The IP editor tells me that the views on Christ and Paul (who may or may not be the Paul of the bible) is not central, and therefore those sections should probably not be included even if well sourced - unless there is a source that states this is a tenet or an important view. However, those sections, after reworking, could perhaps go elsewhere. Verbal   chat  14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How about if it avoids the term "Tenets", and instead just says it is a "Synopsis" or "Summary" of the Material ? Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that would address the concern that tenets suggests a religious, when I am informed that the SM themselves are not organised as religious writings. A new section, informed by these paragraphs, and fortified by reliable sources, would be a great solution. Verbal   chat  18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about leaving the "tenets" page as a subpage until proper references can be found. The main overall ideas that the Seth personality repeats over and over are "you create your own reality via your expectations and beliefs" and the idea of "probabilities." The material on the Christ story/Paul and so on are not central and although he mentions reincarnation, he tends to refer to "probable realities" much more. The nature of god isn't an issue through most of the books although he does touch upon it in the last two volumes. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states: "Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth, made the following assertions, among others."  That means that all the following assertions were points made by Jane Roberts/Seth.  There is no need to qualify every statement.


 * It has previously been pointed out that "In Universe" refers primarily to fiction, and that there is disagreement as to that point. It has not been established that the Seth Material is fiction.  If you have objections to the writing style, you can change it, but deleting wholesale portions of the article is not a suitable response.  You have no right to demand rewrites from other authors when you can rewrite the article yourself.  However, given your limited knowledge of the subject, that will be a problem.


 * There's no harm in using the word "Tenets", but "Summary" is fine. Here is the definition of "tenet":  An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.  As you can see, it has nothing to do with religion.  References are not required for every word used in an article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For you to ask me to work in a "sandbox" is unacceptable to me for an obvious reason. I have no faith in the neutrality or sensibility of the people who have been attacking the article.  I could spend 40 hours dredging up references, but I believe that the attackers would find fault with them and delete my work.  Last night I added ample references to the "Time and Space" section, yet that section was deleted.  You have created an untenable situation for other editors.  Thousands of imperfect Wikipedia articles remain in place while they are improved, and there is no reason why that should not be the case here.  Furthermore, the attackers themselves are free to add references to the text if they so choose.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I gather we agree that the word 'tenets' shoud be abandoned? Unless of course we can find some reliable sources that say the Seth Material is a religion. Without those we should avoid any suggestion in the article that it is a religion. Summary may be ok. 'Chief aspects' or something like that might need references again that those are the chief aspects. The problem with having someone who beieves in this as a religion is that they are naturally going to choose those bits of the material that they find most important from a religious point of view, whereas what we should be looking for in this section is what other sources focus on and wherever possible use what they have to say. In this case reliable sources might include notable New Age publications I guess. dougweller (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already provided the dictionary definition of "Tenet" that shows that it is not a religious word, so no, I don't agree.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think using a more neutral word would be a good first improvement. Something such as "philosophy" or "summary" or even "topics covered" Verbal   chat  17:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case
I have closed the MedCab case: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-12-01_Seth_Material due to there being issues which I feel will not value from our support - Please use official dispute resolution. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone started a MedCab case without notifying the editors named? Not good at all. dougweller (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM
'''The wholesale removal of large parts of this document while there is a disagreement about the text which has not been resolve, is a form of vandalism. If this vandalism continues, each and every vandal will be reported. I am escalating the mediation request, after which there will be an arbitration. Please show some respect for other editors and restrain your attacks on the article.'''--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not your enemies. Please calm down and consider that some of the criticism may be offered as a sincere contribution towards improving the article. Shouting is bad form.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are vandalizing the article. There is no agreement to have large portions of this article removed.  Please stop vandalizing the article. I am in the process of requesting a formal mediation.--Caleb Murdock (talk)


 * Please calm down and contribute by helping to fix the problems with the article. I invite you to self revert. Verbal   chat  18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Caleb, you are in breach of WP:CIVIL. Please read WP:Vandalism. All that has been done is that part of the article has been removed to work on it. You also need to read WP:AGF. There is no attack on the article. I also note that you say that the material in this article forms the basis of your religious beliefs, and it appears that this may be creating a conflict of interest that makes it difficult for you to be objective about this article. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is substantial disagreement as to whether the portions removed are problematic. I have provided my answers above.  The portions that you have removed represent three-quarters of the article.  Removing such large portions is an attempt to censor and "stealth delete" the article.  You are free to fix the language you disagree with, but wholesale removal of portions of the article are not suitable.  I do not believe that you are acting in good faith.  When one objection has been answered (such as references), you find another reason to delete the article.  That is not acting in good faith.  I have every reason to believe that your list of objections will be endless.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but playing up a persecution complex is not going to help your cause. We are not out to get you; we are not censoring or attempting to delete the article. If we were, it would have gone to WP:AFD and been deleted outright. Wikipedia has specific rules, and we are following them. Your answers are basically "because I say so!" and constantly claiming that WP:FRINGE only applies to scientific articles. It does not. It applies to any fringe movement, whether it's science, history, religion, etc.
 * Large sections of articles do get removed when they fail to cite reliable sources, or are written in a non-neutral manner. You still seem to believe that this article is yours, and we are not allowed to edit it to conform to Wikipedia's standards. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are a johnny-come-lately to this debate, and you don't know what's been going on. The very first thing that happened was that someone attempted a stealth deletion by redirecting the article.  In the week or so that people have been attacking it, they have been looking for any reason they can find to delete it or truncate it.  The whole thing has been ludicrous and obvious.  They try one tactic, and when that doesn't work, they try another tactic.  If Fringe doesn't work, they try Notable; if that doesn't work, they try In Universe; if that doesn't work, they try POV. The intention is clear:  to get rid of the article one way or another.  There has never been an instance when I felt that they wanted to actually improve the article.  They've descended on this article like a pack of wolves with a set point of view.  Even your assertion that this is a "fringe" movement, which you made just in the previous paragraph, shows your own bias and ignorance.  A majority of Americans believe in paranormal phenomena -- spirits, ghosts, channelling, ESP, seances, telepathy, reincarnation -- you name it.  Did you know that a Gallup survey some years ago showed that a majority of CHRISTIANS believe in reincarnation?  There is nothing fringe about paranormal phenomena -- indeed, it is entirely mainstream.  In fact, I've met half-a-dozen people in my life who have seen ghosts, and I've met three people who had near-death experiences.  No, I'm not going to spend a couple weeks  working in a sandbox only to have you all reject it and delete it.  We'll see what the mediator says.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, hang on now. People who were once opponents of the article are now saying they think it is notable and could make a good article if properly sourced. Now we just need to go ahead and find sources for the important statements. And I found a ton online, we just need to get hold of them and see which sources support which statements. Let's cool down now and get busy. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, I understand what you are saying, but none of this should have been necessary. The article was developing very nicely on its own.  There was a time when the article (before it was spun off) was nothing but wistful expressions of New Age sentiment, and it had no references at all.  When these people descended on the article, they did so with biased attitudes, and they made all kinds of assumptions based on their lack of knowledge.  I have a small business; I have orders coming in that I have to fill, and I don't have five hours to spend each day dredging up references, references which I don't think these people will ultimately accept.  As I said, they'll find one reason after another to minimize the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily Wikipedia doesn't depend upon polls to define what is fringe. I've made it clear that I think the Seth Material is notable and thus deserves its own article. I'm not sure how long we should put up with your accusations and your insistence that everyone else is the problem. Editing is meant to be a collaborative exercise. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any good encyclopedia will reflect the interests of the general public. If paranormal phenomena is a substantial interest of the public, then it should be addressed in this encyclopedia.  Let me remind you again that the Seth books sold in the millions, so there are at least millions of people who have had exposure to it.
 * From the very beginning you have not had a collaborative attitude. Along with the others, you have been looking for excuses to minimize and delete the article.--17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an interesting question here, concerning what (if anything) distinguishes paranormal claims from other supernatural claims in the area of religion, and what distinguishes texts supposedly produced by channeling from other texts that claim a supernatural or divine origin. However, I think that is a topic for WP:FTN, not for this talk page. Issues with editors' behaviour should be discussed politely with those editors or addressed through other channels, and should not be allowed to side-track the work on improving this article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticky Parkin has refused mediation, so mediation can't occur. In my opinion, it shows extreme bad faith that he is not willing to have these issues mediated.  That leaves us with nothing but arbitration.  If any attempts are made to delete this article or the Jane Roberts article, I'll initiate an arbitration proceeding.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may be frank, your intransigence and belligerence are making progress here rather difficult. I personally am inclined to merge Jane Roberts into this article, because there is so little that can be said about her besides that she authored this stuff (by proxy or not, it makes no difference). That's not a commitment, but only an opinion which I am not prepared to defend to the death. On the other hand, your emotional commitment to the material is a huge impediment. I suspect that the refusal of mediation arises out of conviction that you viewed the mediators as enforcers of the rightness of your cause, which they likely would not be.


 * Whatever Seth is related as saying needs to be presented as his views, not as statements of authoritative fact. For instance, he/Roberts is in some sense entitled to present a contrary view of Jesus, but this view has to be so presented as to make it clear that hardly anyone else agrees. For the purposes of this article, Seth/Roberts can only be an authority on what he/she says. If you cannot accept this, then I would suggest that you are constitutionally ill-disposed to work on this article. And having been through a couple of arbcom cases, I believe that the arbitrators would look with displeasure upon your conduct thus far. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SP has every right to refuse, and was only tangentially involved - please Assume Good Faith. The mediation was likely to be refused anyway as other forms of dispute resolution have not been tried. For example, contacting noticeboards, asking for review, or asking for input with an WP:RFC (the one on the page currently is misfiled). We can work together (all of us here) on the wording of the RFC if you like. However, I would ask you to just try collaborating and helping rather than making accusations, disruptive edits, canvassing, and trying to escalate the situation. There really isn't a problem here that can't be solved by working together, and since you know so much about Roberts and the Seth Material you are a great resource. The fact is none of us has taken this to AfD because we think that these problems can be fixed, and we've given you a huge amount of leeway. Verbal   chat  21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, how do I un-misfile the RFC? This is the first time I have tried to file one. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I have no faith in any of you, given the way you descended on the article with biased points of view. Just the fact that an administrator, Dougweller, would add criticism to the article, though he has no knowledge of the subject -- that speaks for itself.  Shouldn't administrators be neutral, or at least try to be?  As I said before, the foxes are guarding the hen house.
 * I believe that if I work for two weeks dredging up references, you will still have multiple objections, and the Tenets section will never be restored. I need some kind of commitment from the bunch of you that that won't happen.  Once the references are in, you'll start complaining about the tone, or find some other excuse.  As I pointed out previously, you rarely get specific in your objections.  In the mean time, I have a business to run and I can't spend hours a day doing research.  I could come up with one or two primary references a day, and that's about it.  Gandalf61 would have to come up with the third-party references.  But I'm not touching the article again until there is agreement that the Tenets section will be reinserted after a specified period of time, even if it isn't perfect.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators are also editors and if you want to complain about my edits please do, go to WP:ANI. I have no idea what you mean by 'neutral', we are all asked to follow our WP:NPOV policy which requires all significant views to be presented and if there is significant criticism that should be there. You carefully ignore my support for a separate article, my finding some good sources, etc. dougweller (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're doing your duty as an administrator by adding additional views? And it doesn't trouble you that you have no knowledge of the article's subject (beyond the article itself)?  I'm sure you don't know what I mean by "neutral"!
 * There's no need to scold me for personal attacks (even though they are warranted). I've already decided to abandon the article.  If Gandalf61 decides to stay and work on it, I may also, but it isn't likely.  I'll visit it on occasion to remove any incorrect information that creeps into it (until you manage to get it deleted altogether).--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's every editor's duty to if necessary add additional views to make an article NPOV, nothing to do with being an administrator. And I note again despite my saying it is notable enough to be a separate article, and providing reputable sources which back it up, you accuse me of trying to delete it. dougweller (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)