Talk:Jane Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Additional Paragraph 2 Removed 3 Category 4 Jesus 5 POV/Criticism/claimed 6 Mediation 6.1 Ways forward 6.2 A Third POV? 7 Jesus Addition 8 Death of Jane Roberts 9 The God of Jane? 10 Rollback of minor revisions 11 To Paul Richard 12 Jane Roberts' Death 13 To Dwiki 14 Dwiki's response 14.1 Larger Changes 14.2 Smaller changes 14.3 Conclusion 14.4 Caleb Murdock's response 14.5 Dwiki: 15 Caleb's response 15.1 Quotations may have to go 16 Recent Changes 17 "Purported" Psychic 18 beings and things 19 2075 and 'All That Is' 20 Skepticism - don't overdo it or underdo it

It isn't necessary to cast doubt on everything that Jane Roberts said; thus it isn't necessary to say that Jane Roberts "claimed" to be skeptical of Seth's origins. The qualifying comment at the top of the article is enough to qualify the entire article without peppering the text with qualifying words such as "claimed". Furthermore, the "claimed" text that Max Mangel keeps inserting is awkward.

I question whether the Criticism section is appropriate for this article at all, since the entire article is preceded by the qualifying comment in brackets; but if it is going to stay, the wording has to be impartial and free of emotional overtones, such as derision.

Furthermore, there is no reason why there can't be an answer to criticism in the Criticism section.

I have added comments at the bottom of this page.--Caleb Murdock 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Paragraph

Any thoughts on adding a paragraph between the fifth and sixth paragraph (after "life and consciousness.") on the ideas presented in the Jane Robert's book, The Nature of Personal Reality? I read Jane Robert's books many years ago, and as far as I know, the ideas presented in The Nature of Personal Reality are unique. I think that any unique theory should be presented to readers for consideration. What do you think?Michele123 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some of Seth's exercises and quotes---concerning working with one's beliefs---listed as well. Perhaps his three-point approach, and at least one lengthy quote, like the one from Jane Roberts that is listed. Something evocative and as said, unique, would be agreeable.Cheliro 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

First of all, new comments should be put at the bottom of this page. If you put your new comments somewhere in the middle, not many people will notice them.

Michele123, I have read The Nature of Personality at least three times, but I don't know which statements of Seth's you are referring to. That book covers dozens and dozens of topics. If you haven't read that book in "years", as you say, I really think you should read it again before editing the article.--Caleb Murdock 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

"The Seth books are arguably one of the most original and profound series of books about reality ever written."

from the first paragraph. It doesn't seem NPOV to me. Andrewa 09:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

"that she believed might be a part of herself"....

It's just not true. It looks like someone who didn't read any of her books wrote that (and that dosen't belive in channeling). F16 (I wasn't logged-in)

In fact, it is true that Jane Roberts was always conflicted about the phenomenon of channeling Seth. Apparently, she coined the term “channeling;” likening the experience to changing channels on a television set, she wrote that she “switched the channel” of her consciousness. In “The Nature of Personal Reality” she wrote: “For years I’ve been confused, trying to define Seth in the usual true-false world of facts. There he’s accepted as an independent spirit—a spirit guide by those with spiritualistic beliefs—or as some displaced portion of my own personality by the scientific community. I couldn’t accept either idea, at least not in undiluted form…. If I said, ‘Look, people, I don’t think Seth is a spirit IN THE WAY THAT YOU MEAN,’ then this was interpreted as an acknowledgement that Seth was ONLY a part of my personality.... The spirit guide may represent something far different than we think. The [spirit guide] idea can also be limiting if it always places revelatory knowledge outside of us, and tries to make literal some extraordinary phenomena that may be beyond such interpretation.” (p. viii).

It is also interesting to note that during the period Roberts and Butts began producing the Seth books (late 1960s), Helen Schucman and William Thetford, two respectable academic psychiatrists at Columbia University, began producing what would become "A Course in Miracles," which contains the same ideas as the Seth books, couched in a quasi-religious context.

---

--sparkit 18:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some copy editing.

The Cayce paragraph, to me, doesn't fit in this article.

In reference to this discussion, I don't think Jane coined the term "channeling." That came later, by other people.

[edit] Category

Should this really be under "metaphysics"? That category is in the philosophical sense - not the psychic sense.

[edit] Jesus

There is a very interesting chapter in one seth-book I have been reading a few years ago. The German title was "Von der ewigen Gültigkeit der Seele". In this book he said that Jesus has not been nailed to the cross but another man, who suffered from insanity, not because he wanted to fullfill the jewish prophecy.

Indeed so. In this hardly insignificant detail, the Seth books are awkwardly incompatible with 'A Course In Miracles' (to which comparison is often made): 'Seth' claims that Jesus was not really crucified, while the 'Jesus ' of A Course In Miracles several times explicitly mentions 'His' experience of being crucified and the true significance of this historical event. They can't both be right...

A serious student of A Course in Miracles understands that the Course's words don't always mean what they say literally and really should not be taken that way. The Course should be taken metaphorically and the content behind the form has to be understood. The Course is not a newspaper and shouldn't be read that way. In fact, the Course's language is the biggest problem for most of its students. The Course is in no way scientific and is often poetic. It often refers to God having arms, hands, tears, and a Voice and doing very human things but the Course's content teaches something quite different: that He does not have a body and does not even know about us at all. Indeed, the Course is written on two very distinct levels: One of non-duality and the other of duality. The Jesus of the Course is not the Jesus of the Gospels: he does nothing in this world because this world does not exist, yet like Seth he does not deny this world. Jesus in the Course is language that we can accept and understand and that language is often the metaphoric language of myth, thus when he speaks of the Crucifiction he is NOT talking about a historical event. The form of the Course is often inconsistent but the content always is. So, yes, Seth may be quite correct about the historical Jesus. Who knows? For speculation is inhabiting the world of myth and myth is not literal.

What Seth actually 'says' (about the 'substitute')is:

"The 'substitute' was a personality SEEMINGLY deluded, but in his DELUSION he knew that each person is resurrected. He took it upon himself to become the symbol of this knowledge.... The man CALLED Christ was not crucified. In the overall drama however it made little difference what was FACT, in your terms, and what was not--for the greater reality transcends facts and creates them." [Session 674].

In her book Psychic Politics, Roberts discusses apparent discrepancies among psychics and their information. Her idea was that the material was interpreted according to the talents and beliefs of the individual receiving, and this included her own material.

Contradictions.

I believe an interpersonal look at the Seth work will show as it did to me, that the blatant contradictions present in the works, even having been noted by Robert Butts and Jane Roberts herself, are the product of taking Seth's assumptions; that all realities are possible and occurring along side ours in all possible "directions", stem from not considering that you can not say for sure that Seth has not taken his information from multiple realities, being that "he", as he says has access to all the possible scenarios. He doesn't mention though whether he may be misplacing where or from what strand of "reality" the information comes from. It then leaves the possibility that the material though often contradictory can be "channeled" or "remembered" from separate strands of reality.

The information is all very coincidental to Jane and Robert's situation at the time. All be it, Seth explains that All That Is, is pre-agreed upon. I can't say pre-destined because he/she makes it clear that it is not the case. Yet he says several times that reality is the product of all consciousness agreeing on what to label reality as.

A reader looking to Seth for answers is just as likely to find them lying drunk on the floor of some bathroom. One could also find them in almost any religious scripture from nearly any earthborn culture, as long as you ignore the labels these texts use. I believe you can derive the same benefit from Seth that you could from these other works if you ignore anything that seems related to actual history. In any religious manuscript the lessons are what people should focus on. The details of how one comes to illustrate these lessons are harmful.

I found the Seth 2, "channeling" to be the most beneficial. Short and sweet and to the point. ie: there is no point.

In the book "Seth Speaks", Seth described the Christ as a powerful psychic, a gifted individual capable of changing the course of world-events by his mere presence. In the same book, Seth maintained that when mankind is in great need, we (humankind), a gestalt consciousness en-masse, will bring forth from an individual such as Christ to help us with our world-problems. In biblical terms, Christ is stated as being the Son of Man, and also as the Son of God. Seth had stated that Christ had appeared before in our physical reality many times, and that Christ would also return but would not be known. Biblically, it is stated that Christ would return as a "thief in the night". --Cheliro 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

[edit] POV/Criticism/claimed

I reverted and edited some of the additional information in the Criticism section - the information added was POV sentences that were opposite of criticism, so it had no place there(as opposed to factual rebuttle of criticism). Also, sometimes we do need to use the word 'claimed,' as is the case when Roberts 'claimed' to be skeptical of her own channelling. We don't know what she actually thought, and frankly, I don't believe that she had any doubts as to the nature of her channellings. MaxMangel 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One's beliefs regarding this matter are irrelevant. JR was, as is evident form her friends's and husband's memoirs, beset by doubts about the nature of the Seth channeling to the end of her life. Bardon Dornal 07:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, my belief's are not irrelevant. They are the logical base for all my rational thought. The evidence from her friends's and husband's memoirs can never by a hundred percent conclusive because it is impossible to know for certain what another person is thinking. For example, an alternative theory is that even though she stated she had doubts, she was actually a fraud...and so was lying. Hence, 'claimed.' It isn't that hard to understand. MaxMangel 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. IMO, the following is beyond dispute: 1) JR was an influential psychic, who left behind her a huge body of written material-both "channelled" and her own ("Own own") 2) she was not a "fraud" in a sense that she faked her trances or something similar 3) whether Seth was a separate entity or Jane's subpersonality depends on one's worldview 4) Seth's (who-whatever (s)he was) teachings are very susceptible to criticism simply because Jane's illness and death seem to contradict them, which is, bearing in mind that it was not only an "academic" stuff, but strongly pragmatic instruction-crucial in their evaluation. In short: "practice" refuted "theory". In my view, these points are hardly debatable.Bardon Dornal 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Beyond dispute eh? Like as sure as gravity and the sun rising? What undeniable proof have you uncovered that proves she wasn't just a fraud? In my experience, channelling is a popular activity *because* people accept it without proof, and are willing to pay $750 dollars for a one on one session, etc. There will be many more people like Jane channelling their own higher plane entity and making lots of money in the process(an entity that will say that it can never be channelled by anyone else, but will not have a good reason as to why). It must be nice to be believed, even when walking the walk didn't happen and there is no example of it ever happening, ie everyone dies, no matter what they believe. By the by, my point was the usage of the word 'claimed' in the article, as opposed to any other word, in the sentence where I put in the word. MaxMangel 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What is beyond dispute that JR was not a fraud. She might have suffered from MPO, might have been psychologically unstable so as to believe her trances were anything beyond subjective ejaculations-but, it is very, very unlikely that she had been faking for more than 20 years and knew she had been deluding other people. Frauds get money from their victims and JR neither got rich nor left behind her a body of angry disciples who thought they'd been purposefully deceived (unlike Carlos Castaneda). Self-deluded maybe, fraud extremely unlikely. Bardon Dornal 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It can't be beyond dispute, because I am disputing it. I think you underestimate people's ability to have unusual motivations for their behaviour - money is not always the ultimate goal. Acclaim, followers, etc, are all good motivational factors, although I accept the possibility of her being deluded. I don't know her state of mind, I merely theorise. MaxMangel 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics miss the point whether Roberts was "faking" it or not. The meta-physical construct of reality she dictated has many similarities to recent theories now becoming commonplace. Instead of claiming Seth was fake, examine the material and see if it is testable. It is still a theory, but a very intriguing one. Robert's own passing seems to have meaning, where she has entered another reality that Seth describes quite thoroughly. There are similarities between Jung's Synchronicity and the Seth material, so it is not so far fetched what the theory describes. I was especially drawn to the descriptions about the nature of time. I have read many books about the subject, and none have gone into so much depth and detail as the Seth theory.

If Roberts was faking it, then all the Seth material is mindless ranting - that *is* the point. The fact that other theories are similar would then be because they are also being dictated by false channellers, and these people are taking the path of least resistance by simply recycling unprovable/untestable ideas for as much money as they can. Here's an idea, get just one of these channelled entities to factorise a hundred digit number in under a minute. Then you'd have irrefutable evidence in the space of a single minute. Gee, that wasn't so hard. Instead, they talk about heaven, higher planes of existence, "all time is one", etc, exactly the stuff that people just have to accept on faith. It makes me laugh. MaxMangel 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you cited a source for this sentence it might be worth including in the article: "Others, however, view the Seth Material as a religious text and therefore accept it as a matter of faith." Even if you do, I don't really so how it belongs in the criticism section. If it is some attempt at rebutting criticism, I don't really understand it. I'm absolutely sure that many people who follow the Seth material just blindly accept it on faith, like people often do with other texts of religious nature, but who cares.... MaxMangel 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's make something clear: only an unreasonable person would claim that Jane Roberts was a fraud. An easier argument can be made for "deluded" or "schizophrenic". The proof of the Seth Material is in the reading. I am now reading the Early Sessions and they unfold in a logical, completely believable manner. The Seth Material is brilliant and consistent from beginning to end; no one could have contrived it. IF it is true that Roberts was a fraud or otherwise deluded, then it is nonetheless true that she was a brilliant theorist and philospher. So let's drop this absurd discussion about fraud. Skeptics like Max take their skepticism beyond reasonable limits. --Caleb Murdock 05:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me address these issues one by one. You reverted my changes claiming that the criticism was ‘too negative’ and ‘biased.’

Firstly, there is no such thing as criticism that is ‘too negative,’ unless you are talking to a child and simply don’t want to hurt their feelings. Criticism can be improper because it is factually wrong, or exaggerated, or fanciful, but to criticise criticism for simply doing the job of being critical is to get annoyed at a bird for being a bird. But perhaps you were meaning something else? Please elaborate. Of couse, another explanation is that you are biased and simply don't want Jane to be properly criticised, but I await your explanation.

To get the indents, I just put in colons, right?

Criticisms can be lots of things. I've got a small business and I'm very busy, so I'll leave this particular discussion for another time.--Caleb Murdock 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You described my criticism as biased. Please help me find out where. Let’s look at it here. There are essentially three changes of significance in the criticism section. You removed the first part of this sentence:

“Skeptics assert that, like other people who claim to channel ghosts, angels, God and the like, Roberts offered no hard proof that a separate entity was being channelled, and so they offer the alternative explanation that Roberts was either self-deluded or a fraud.”

Very specifically, where is the bias in this sentence? I would claim there is nothing factually wrong in the first part of the sentence, which is the part you changed. I am a skeptic, for example, and I believe that Roberts offers no hard proof that she channelled anyone. If you want me to cite other skeptics, I can do that, which would be proof that this first clause is factual. So, explain to me where the bias is. I even cited an example in the article already.

"Skeptics assert that .... and the like" sounds dismissive to me.

Roberts wasn't trying to offer hard proof. As I've said before, the Material is essentially a religious text, and a very remarkable one at that, and it has to be judged accordingly. Either it "speaks to you" or it doesn't. "Proof" is irrelevant when it comes to religion because all religious beliefs are personal and subjective.--Caleb Murdock 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now your addition:

“Since trance mediumship is a phenomenon that can't be proven, skeptics generally offer the explanation that Jane Roberts was either deluded or a fraud.”

Hmm, I note that unlike me, you cite no sources. Not just that, but I can prove your first clause to be factually incorrect. For example, Harry Houdini proved many trance mediums to be frauds. If this is a phenomenon that cannot be proven, then it should also be a phenomenon that cannot be disproven, and yet I’ve just provided you with an example of just that. It seems to me that you’ve added bias to this first sentence. But please, show me, very specifically, where the flaw in my logic is. Also, the logic causality of that sentence is flawed. If a claim cannot be proven, it is not a logical conclusion to simply assume that the person making the claim is a fraud or deluded. Essentially your sentence could read: "Sally couldn't prove she was attacked, so she must have been a liar." That is an illogical deduction. So I would claim you replaced my verifiable factual sentence with a biased illogical one.

When I said that trance mediumship cannot be proven, I meant that it cannot be proven to be true. I wasn't thinking in terms of proving it as false.

Now, either you are more intelligent than I am, or you are an accomplished sophistrist (is that a word?) because I can't fully follow your logical argument. Maybe I'm just too tired right now. So you are saying that the statement "since trance mediumship is a phenomenon that cannot be proven as true ..." is something you disagree with? I would think you would love that. It seems to me that both your text and mine say about the same thing, but yours strikes me as derisive, as I said.

Something just occurred to me: Roberts and Butts DID do a lot of tests of Seth's abilities. They had him read the contents of envelopes and such. And there were instances during the readings when Seth knew something before it was known to them. Of course, if you believe that Roberts and Butts were frauds, then their assertions that they even did any tests are suspect. My point here is that the Seth Material is extremely plausible, and a reasonable person (who bothers to read the Material) will see that. The only thing that I think a reasonable person can doubt is whether Jane Roberts was actually the one speaking, and not a separate, discarnate entity.--Caleb Murdock 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The third thing of note was this sentence you added: “Others, however, view the Seth Material as a religious text and therefore accept it as a matter of faith.”

Now, I specifically asked you for a reference for this sentence previously and you completely ignored me. I say again, please provide a citation. See wiki rules on verifiability. Your again lack of citation leads me to believe this is simply something you believe and is your own baised opinion.

However, I'm not going to re-revert before giving you the opportunity to respond. Please provide the citations I've enquired about, and answer the questions I've made above. Please be specific. If you don't respond within 24 hours I'll revert. MaxMangel 11:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's something that I believe, but I also think it is obvious from the Material. The Material is all about God, the origins of life, etc. It is religious in nature. I don't know how to prove that others see it that way also. What I can do is to re-word that so that I'm not making a general statement about what other unnamed people believe. I'll need a day or so to come up with something, as I'm very busy now. Let me add again, however, that there's no reason why an answer to criticism can't be given in this section.

How much of the Seth Material have you read? I've read 8 or 9 books. It continues to blow me away. I assume you are an atheist.

I'm sure we can come up with a compromise on the wording, though someone else will probably delete it at some point.

Okay, it's way past my bedtime, but I came up with the paragraph below. Two things: First, Skepdic.com is hardly an authoritative reference. My imipression is that it is a site written by cranks and crackpots who make a religion out of not believing in anything (however, I'm open to changing my opinion -- I'll look it over more closely). Perhaps you could find a well-known philosopher or theologian to serve as your reference. Secondly, the second sentence of my proposed paragraph includes a little speculating, but I think speculating is valid in an encyclopedia. Let me know what you think.

"Skeptics assert that Roberts offered no hard proof that a separate entity was being channelled, and so they offer the alternative explanation that Roberts was either self-deluded or a fraud. [1] However, the Material, which is concerned with issues of God, the origin of life, and the construction of the universe (among other topics), has strong metaphysical overtones and can be viewed as a religious text, for which standards of proof would be irrelevant. A common criticism of Roberts and the Material is that, despite Seth's assertions that each individual "creates his own reality", Roberts was unable to prevent her final illness or her death at the relatively young age of 55."--Caleb Murdock 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Caleb. I accept that you are editing in good faith. However, I think from your comments (and edits) that you don't have a clear understand of the wiki's rules for the following: WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please look at them when you get the chance. I'd like to enter a compromise with you, but your analysis of religious texts in the second sentence there is very POV. I don't think I could accept it without a citation. Keep in mind that that doesn't mean it stays out of the article forever, should you be able to find a source for it in the future.

But to answer your other questions, I haven't read any of the Seth books. Yes, I am an atheist - in the sense that I have never encountered what I would describe as evidence of there being an invisible all powerful being.

As for the citation of Skeptic.com, feel free to read this info on what constitutes a reliable source, but the sentence was about skeptics, and I provided an example. If I was discussing what philosophers or theologians thought, then I'd provide a citations for them, but the sentence was about the opinion of skeptics. MaxMangel 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You have never read any of the Seth Material and yet you presume to edit an article about it in an encyclopedia? WHAT??? Frankly, I don't think you should be editing this article at all, and I suspect that I would have no problem finding a Wikipedia guideline that says that participants should only edit articles on subjects that they are knowledgeable about.

Do you visit ALL the articles on metaphysical topics inserting words like "claimed" and peppering the articles with qualifications and doubts? If you would do it on this topic, about which you know nothing, then you would do it on others. I can't tell you how irresponsible I think that is. And YOU presume to judge MY motivations???

You say that you are an atheist because you have not found any evidence of a god, but you clearly don't want to find any evidence; otherwise, you would have read some of the Seth Material, which is utterly remarkable from the first word to the last.

I would be more than happy to have a personal discussion about religion with you, and to share with you some of the things that Seth said; but you and I are no longer negotiating on the text of this article. There's no sense in negotiating with you if you have no knowledge about the topic. I will simply check it every day to make sure that you don't ruin it. I am also going to save your admission that you know nothing about it; and if you keep changing the article, I'll contact the people at Wikipedia with a complaint. According to the article in the New York Times, Wikipedia does oversee the encyclopedia and make editorial decisions.--Caleb Murdock 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I've only now worked out you replied in various staggered paragraphs within my posts. Please don't do that, it makes it hard to follow a discussion and if I wanted to reply I'd then have to reply in four different places, which justs get annoying. Now, Caleb, this is not an article about the Seth Material. Have a look at the title. It is about a person called Jane Roberts, who happened to write the Seth material. I don't need to have read her books to edit an encyclopedia entry on her life. No, I don't edit articles I know nothing about. Here is another wiki guidline Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which I think would be a good read for you. I have as much right to edit this article as you, so please don't say things like you're 'no longer negotiating,' because you need to get used to other editors.

Please do contact other people on wikipedia. I very much recommend you get a mentor on how to edit articles and how to interact with people like me. Please keep your edits closer to the discussion at hand, rather than grand statements about the universe. I see you've removed the criticism section entirely. I'll just add that back. If you stop negotiating with me and blindly revert my edits (without citing clear wikipedia rules), you will official be a vandal and your user account will become blocked. Please consider this before acting rashly. MaxMangel 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude is utterly fantastic. If you haven't read Jane Roberts' books (any of them!), you aren't qualified to edit an article about her. Period.

You lack integrity. A person with integrity bothers to learn something about the things he comments upon. I can refute portions of Christianity and Buddism because I know a great deal about them, yet I don't know enough about Islam or Hinduism to comment on them, so I don't. You don't even know what Jane Roberts said about Seth. You don't know that she was doubtful about his origins, that she didn't care for being a "trance medium" all that much, and that she did little to promote the Seth books because of her doubts. Don't you think you should find out things like that before you edit a sentence about how she felt about Seth?

In my opinion, you are an intellectual dillettante. You have a narrow view of reality; and instead of trying to expand your views, you set boundaries up against knowledge. If this were just a personal exercise for you, it would be one thing. But adding skeptical comments to articles on Wikipedia about which you have no knowledge just makes you a cyber bully.--Caleb Murdock 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? You are clearly ignorant of the rules of the wiki and, despite my repeated suggestions, you’ve made no attempt to change that fact. If you think you can simply flout the rules forever, you’re wrong. I have contacted the Mediation Cabal. It would be wise for you to cease your personal attacks. MaxMangel 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

MaxMangel contacted the Mediation Cabal for help in resolving this dispute. I'm prepared to help do some of the mediation, so just a few notes:

• I'm just another ordinary Wikipedian, but a neutral one, who I hope can help.
• The process is entirely voluntary.
• Nobody gets sanctioned, criticised, or rapped on the knuckles. All we're interested in is calming down the dispute and producing the best article we can.
• If you're interested, head over to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19_Jane_Roberts, and leave a note.

Thanks, Grobertson 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that mediation is necessary. Max Mangel is a self-styled "skeptic" and atheist who apparently goes around to various articles on metaphysical subjects making changes, even though he knows little about the subjects. For example, he has admitted that he has never read any of the books by Jane Roberts, whereas I have read nine. I can't respect a person like that.

Mangel's only apparent concern is that the article not promote unproven phenomena. That's fine. However, I won't negotiate with him over the text since he knows nothing about the subject. In the last day, I tried to make changes to the article to reflect his skepticism.--Caleb Murdock 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really good to see an editor with specialist expertise. There aren't enough of you ;) Wikipedia aims to present a WP:NPOV in all its articles. This is a subtle policy, with many effects, but broadly speaking, says that all major points of view must be reflected in the article. In a carefully written article, we can create space both for your view and a more skeptical approach - much like the balanced reporting you might hope to find in news outlets. Ultimately, it's up to the reader to decide what they will believe.

Having read the books is great, because it allows you to WP:CITE your sources accurately, which makes it easier for every other wikipedian editing the article to move from there. Unsourced edits are frequently challenged if the challenging editor doesn't believe them. Grobertson 09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you read the articles you'll see that it is balanced. I personally believe in the phenomena of trance mediumship, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that my opinion is in any way neutral. In my opinion, Mangel has been nitpicking the article, adding qualifications that aren't necessary (since there is a general qualifying statement at the beginning) and also contributing a tone to the article which is biased in a negative way.

Cites are a problem with the Seth Material. Seth may have made the same point repeatedly, in as many as 50 different places, and it isn't easy to know which instance to cite. Furthermore, none of the books have indexes, so finding passages is difficult. I'll see what I can do to add cites. In the meantime, the article contains a general representation of his statements.

When contributing to this discussion page, should I always put my remarks at the bottom?--Caleb Murdock 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do that Caleb, unless responding within a different section for a different subject.

As you can see, Grobertson, Caleb has developed a personal disliking to me as an editor and, I contend, is trying to dominate this article by force of will. He clearly does not care for Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and more. Again he says "However, I won't negotiate with him over the text since he knows nothing about the subject." - essentially he is attempting to ban me from editing this article. He breaks so many wiki policy rules it isn't funny. I concede he has attempted to introduce comparable material to what I have written, which I respect, but I will not accept being denied editing access to this article when I have done nothing wrong.

His lies about me are manifold. I obviously know something about the subject, or else my edits would make no sense, and yet he continually repeats that I know nothing - an obvious lie.

Another lie - "apparently goes around to various articles on metaphysical subjects making changes, even though he knows little about the subjects." This is merely his opinion, an opinion he formed on the single Jane Roberts example that he provides. Tell me Caleb, what other 'examples' do you have?

Edgar Cayce & Chanelling, for two.-Caleb

Ah yes, my link spam removal. Not the best of examples Caleb. Doesn't exactly support your case. There are many articles I have edited, Caleb. Proving that is hardly what I'd call evidence for your case. MaxMangel 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What he describes as 'nitpicking' others would called 'NPOV.' His example of there being a general qualification at the start so my changes weren't necessary is invalid because that change came about because I was introducing the skeptics perspective to an otherwise POV article.

His accusations against me are always point of view statements that he never qualifies with actual wikipedia rules, whereas I continue to show that he is continually breaking wikipedia policy guidelines. My problem here is less about the article, I'm not too upset about where it is at at the moment - but simply that Caleb is refusing to cooperate with me as a fellow editor. I would be happy to have him continue to edit the article and introduce lots more to it. I am waiting for him to extend me the same courtesy. MaxMangel 12:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ways forward

Everybody seems reasonably happy with the current article, which is brilliant, but it's worth looking at how we can make it better. How about:

• Giving the Seth Material its own article, which can - and probably should - include a discussion about its authenticity.
• Once that's been done, removing the mildly unusual disclaimer at the top of the article and refactoring the rest so it isn't needed.

Any other ideas?

Grobertson 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Find out

Yes, but Caleb is refusing to work with me. He has stated this many times. That needs to be resolved before I can contribute here. MaxMangel 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, be bold and make the edits you want to make, and then discuss them on the talk page. Nobody can work together if nobody's working ;) Grobertson 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) There is no point in negotiating with a person who knows nothing about the topic at hand and whose only true interest is to discredit it. As evidence of this I give you Mangel's first draft of the Criticism section in which he said that "the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud". Any person who has read the Material knows that isn't true.

(2) Regarding the Criticism section which I deleted, it has no place in this article. It reflects other people's opinions and does not inform the reader about Jane Roberts. The fact that channelling is a controversial phenomenon can be indicated in other ways.

(3) I agree that the disclaimer is awkward. I'm considering ways to remove it. --Caleb Murdock 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, Caleb lies. I never said "the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud," I said the equivalent of "Skeptics believe the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud," which is a completely different sentence and is a perfectly valid and factual sentence. How is this not true Caleb? Please prove the sentence wrong with a citation.

You see, Grobertson, this is what Caleb does. He'll now either provide some POV defense without any citation to back it up, or just change the subject and hope we all forget his distortion of the truth.

Also, not everyone who reads the Seth material agrees that it is helpful. On this very talk page above someone did a rant on how useless they are...or something. The point was unclear.

Caleb's defense for not having criticism, and these are different reasons to what he has used before, is that it isn't informative of Jane and it reflects 'other people's opinions.' So, what you're saying is you don't want the opinions of people who disagree with yours being mentioned in the article? How blatently biased...

Note also that he doesn't even attempt to defend his wikipedia rule breaking. And he restates the tired old line that I 'know nothing' about the topic. Tell me, Caleb, have you read Speaking of Jane Roberts the autobiography? Because this article is about Jane Roberts so if you haven't read that book, then you know nothing about the topic, and should not be allowed to edit the article. And have you read the wiki page on wikipedia? Because if you haven't you know nothing about the wiki and should not be allowed to edit articles. And have you read the manual on your computer? Because if you haven't you know nothing about computers and should be allowed to use one. Oh wait...you find those statments unfair? Well it is your logic I'm using. MaxMangel 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Grobertson, as long as this discussion is still going on, let me say that I'm new to Wikipedia and that I obviously have a lot to learn. I have an internet business which keeps me working 50 hours a week, so I may not be able to read all the rules right away, but I will read them soon. If I have broken rules, I apologize.

However, my contributions to this article have been significant. The majority of the language in the "Seth Material" section was written by me (before I registered), and it is a vast improvement over what was there before. Even if I've inadvertently broken some rules, I suspect I haven't broken as many as Mangel suggests. I suspect that Mangel was hoping I'd be kicked off Wikipedia as a result of his complaint (and he made threatening noises [above] about how that was a possibility), but I'm sure the mistakes I've made are the same mistakes that most newcomers make. Furthermore, the fact that I know so much about Roberts/Seth, whereas Mangel knows very little (and if he hasn't read any of her books, he indeed knows very little), is more important than he wants to admit.

Let me give you an example of why I have a problem with Mangel: I had a line in there that read, "Roberts herself remained somewhat skeptical [about Seth's origins] until the end of her life." Mangel didn't like that and kept changing it to "Roberts claimed to be skeptical ...". Well, Mangel can't know WHAT she "claimed" because he hasn't read the books in which she discussed her feelings and doubts. No person can reliably edit content without knowledge of the facts.

I learned only recently that Susan Watkins wrote a biography about Roberts, and no, I haven't read it. However, there is a great deal of personal information about Roberts in her books, and I have read 9 of those (with 6 additional books of Early Sessions on my shelf ready to be read). I have also read several articles about her. I'll move Watkins' biography up to the top of my reading list.

Now, as for my unwillingness to negotiate with Mangel, I don't know what else to say. Most revisions to most articles are probably not the result of negotiation. Whether I am right or wrong, I have come to see Mangel as what I call a "skeptic-kamikaze", a skeptic/atheist who has an ax to grind and is intent on grinding it on the heads of those of us who are foolish enough to believe in spiritual nonsense. I have found his corrections on at least 3 articles on metaphysical topics, and I am sure there are others. In my view, he is a self-appointed "thought cop". Of course, the rules of Wikipedia may permit that, but it strikes me as improper that he should presume to correct the writings of people who actually know something about the topic at hand.

In closing, let me say that I'm well aware that articles on sensitive subjects have to be neutral, and you can be sure that my revisions will always be neutral, if not letter-perfect according to Mangel's standards.--Caleb Murdock 09:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you provided evidence of my poor form. Let's examine that evidence. Are you saying that my sentence was wrong? So you're saying that she never claimed to be skeptical? Wow. I'm not sure why the information was in the article in the first place if she never claimed to be skeptical. Oh wait, you're not saying that, so the sentence is accurate, you just don't like the subtle insinuation that she may have in fact been lying. So, your 'problem' is nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the statement and more to do with my 'nitpicking' on presumptions in the text. I don't need to have read anything about someone in an article to change information that presumes to state someone's inner thoughts. If an article reads 'Elvis was in love with his neighbour' then it is wrong. It should instead be a sentence showing the information that indicates the potential thoughts and emotions of the subject of the article. This is called factual writing, as opposed to 'point of view' writing. Another way to put it is 'Roberts herself expressed skepticism as to Seth's origins' - which is what's in the article - a more factual and less presumptious account of the situation. The article is better for it. MaxMangel 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NO. You are just not getting it. You are reading statements that other people have written and presuming to know what is wrong with their statements without actually knowing the facts. Whether you like this or not, good encyclopedias are written on standards of reasonable evidence, not on standards of proof, and no reasonable person who is familiar with Jane Roberts' writings considers her to be a fraud. The evidence to the contrary is just too enormous. That's why I said earlier that a more reasonable argument could be made for her being self-deluded. You are just simply so convinced that any psychic phenomena is invalid that you are judging all the participants as con artists without having a full familiarity with the phenomena. Your lack of knowledge of the facts is fatal insofar as your ability to make good edits is concerned.

This is incorrect: "I don't need to have read anything about someone in an article to change information that presumes to state someone's inner thoughts." Presumptions that may appear to you to be reasonable may not be once you learn the facts. If you are to make good edits to articles, you need to have knowledge of the subject. Period.

And yes, your constant little insinuations that Roberts was a fraud are inappropriate for this article because your entire assumption that she was a fraud is unreasonable. Learn the facts.

Okay, so explain it to me. What is factually wrong with the statement: "Roberts herself remained somewhat skeptical [about Seth's origins] until the end of her life."

What does this mean: "Whether you like this or not, good encyclopedias are written on standards of reasonable evidence, not on standards of proof,"

Now back up this statement, by showing factually and verifiably that it is true with regards to this article: "Your lack of knowledge of the facts is fatal insofar as your ability to make good edits is concerned."

Prove this statement: 'no reasonable person who is familiar with Jane Roberts' writings considers her to be a fraud.'

That's right, Caleb, I'm asking you to prove it - as in, show that it is not simply one more biased personal opinion of yours. MaxMangel 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to be drawn into an endless debate. You need to educate yourself on Jane Roberts and the Seth Material if you want to edit this article with integrity. Until you do, I'll be dropping in every day to check it over.--Caleb Murdock 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You made a whole lot of statements without citing evidence, got asked to prove it, and made up an excuse. I don't think anyone would be surprised at this repeat of the past. Facts shouldn't be the enemy for someone who wants to edit an encyclopedic article. MaxMangel 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Max, in my opinion you are not a true atheist. Just in case it isn't obvious why, send me an email and I'll explain it to you. I understand that personal comments are discouraged here.--Caleb Murdock 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Third POV?

Hello, I have read through the talk debate above. There are quite a few disagreements. I will talk about one first; 'Whether or not Jane Roberts' 'channelling' is fraudulent; deliberately fraudulent, or misguidedly, or otherwise.' Maybe it would be useful to find a published critic of the Seth Material, who has read at least one Seth/Roberts book, and has a fair idea what the Seth/Roberts the Seth Material contains or promotes. I can see how the authenticity of Roberts as a channel can be called into question, much like Edgar Cayce's work has been. For a sceptical viewpoint we need citations from critics, (Wikipedia rules); for a supportive viewpoint(of Seth's usefulness and validity) we need citations.

I have never read any of the Seth material (not yet). I have read about 7 books written about Edgar Cayce, that quote his readings, and attempt to analyse them in context. I believe in the guidance of a Divine Source. I believe Siddhartha Gotama Buddha was a great philosopher on emptiness. Nietzsche was a great iconoclast. My point is that all these statements need qualification. Some of the Wikipedia articles that cover controversial topics, like Edgar Cayce and List of pseudoscientific theories, seem to go to great lengths to present a balanced point of view on the subject matter. Being neutral, and using neutral language, may appear scientific, and clinical, and tidy, but I would argue that anything 'written' contains biases - the bias of the writer/communicator, and the bias of the reader. It doesnt mean that that the communicator is right or wrong, it is simply a point of view. If Jane Roberts never set out to write books containing channelled information, it is possible she would simply be known as a philosopher and inspirational writer. And it is quite possible she would never have made it into any Encyclopaedia, or maybe a as an obscure reference somewhere. But it is very apparent to me that her core life work, and what she is (in)famous for, is the Seth Material. Thus I believe that discussion about her life, in the context of the impact that the Seth material had on her mental and physical wellbeing, as well as the influence it has had on subsequent writers, philosophers, and thinkers, are all important aspects of what constitutes 'Jane Roberts'. I've got way off topic from the concept of her being fraudulent or not. Maybe not.

Well, it seems the common practice that I have come across in discussions and labellings within Wikipedia so far, when a skeptical viewpoint is presented on difficult to verify spiritual phenomena, is to label it a pseudoscientific viewpoint. In that sense, I would say that such a label would possibly be presented here (for the first time?) i.e: the Seth Material as pseudoscience, and thus an original assessment made by the Wikipedian community. What is the policy on original research? Isnt every article in Wikipedia an original contribution to knowledge, based on the findings, citations, and verifications made in scholarly peer reviewed journals, on film, in archives, files, library resources, museums of facts? So do we label Jane Robert's work as pseudoscientific? Is that an accurate presentation of her work? Who exactly, which authority, is claiming that she has been fraudulent in her presentation of the Seth Material. Who benefits from the fraud? Who benefits from the facts? The readers of this article online?

I really do feel that the word 'claimed' in the context of this article, if oversused, can create an implicit bias that the Seth Material is 'unscientific'. Can philosophy be 'unscientific'? Of course it can? Can the Seth Material represent truth? Can it represent fraud? There is a whole other level of meaning here about the bias of language to represent a "medium", and I believe mediumship implicitly represents a point of view: Jane Robert's/Seth's point of view. The authenticity of Jane Robert's authorship of the Seth Material should not be questioned. If so, we need to hire a private investigator to question her friends and family about her publishing intentions. Did she just crave attention as a New Age Guru? Did her fraudulent intetntions relieve her anxiety about her lack of notoriety as 'channel'? Apparently, she didnt even really want to be a channel at times... I think I digress into critical assessments of what her life might have been like, given certain premises about her philosophy and mental state. Roberts appears to have stated (in the article?) that she was uncomfortable with the authenticity of the Seth Material herself. It does not follow that her psychological discomfort means she had an undiagnosed delusional psychosis. People who hear voices in their head are not always crazy. Socrates called it his intuition: yes, or no. Jesus and Moses certainly spoke in terms of listening to God-source(s). Who knows? I suppose you need to utilise 'belief', give it a 14 day free trial, to see if it works for you. Did you really use it? Or do you want your money back before the offer ends, convinced it is useless?

Basically let the life of Jane Roberts, her own philosophical works, and the Seth Material speak for themselves. Describe what she was, what she did, give some detail of what she did (channelled Seth Material), details from her friends and critics, make it interesting for the reader of this encyclopedia, and leave it at that. User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you haven't read any of Roberts' writings either? Why do so many people on Wikipedia feel compelled to share their opinions even when they have no knowledge of the subject?

To answer your one concrete suggestion (besides hiring a detective): There are enough categories into which Jane Roberts and the Seth Material fall (psychic, trance medium, channelling, paranormal phenomena, etc.) that there's really no need to make up a new category. Besides, I would never agree to the term "pseudoscience" because the prefix "pseudo" means "false", and it hasn't been proven that the Seth material is false.

The disagreement with Mangel is simple and basic: He knows nothing about the subject but insists on editing the article anyway, and his edits are artless and biased.

As for cites, I will come up with as many as I can, but it's difficult. Seth would make a particular point over and over again, so it is hard to know which passage to cite. There are a lot of Seth books and none of them have indexes. I'll insert cites into the article eventually.

Your post contains 905 words. If you post again, would you please try to be concise?--Caleb Murdock 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I havent read a Jane Roberts work. I posted because it seemed that Max Mangel was sharing a skeptical view without having familiarity with a single Roberts text. I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of philosophising on the use of skepticism in an article that really did not need it. One line to suggest that interpretations of the Roberts/Seth Material is controversial, would be enough. The artistry of my post was intended to show yet another useless intrusive philosophical position held by myself (the editor/critic/interpreter), a position that I have found some editors 'expert' at performing, in some of the Wikipedia articles I have read so far. I thoroughly support your work here Caleb. My inital post was intended to be unbiased in my suggestions. I must have struck a different chord.

The point about hiring a detective was tongue-in-cheek, because the whole act would yield very little useful results, and the concept is intrusive and offends my sensibilities. The question I was implying with the detective scenario was: Do we really need to go to that level of investigation to find out whether Roberts was a fraud? The point about 'pseudoscience', is again, a deliberately artless and biased statement, intended to provoke debate, and I DO NOT want Jane Roberts to have such links in this article. As for citations (because Wikipedia is citation mad), just pick ANY citation from Jane's works; any instance in the article that concurs with what you have read. Any source (page number ref.) is better than no reference.

And due to the fact that this raging argument about who is right and who is wrong is so extensive (the entire discussion page above) I tried to introduce few ideas to clarify the situation. I have begun to read a little of Psychic Politics. I do not pretend to be an expert on Jane Roberts. My main point was that its appears that Max Mangel is making a general assumption about Jane Roberts, and introducting a debunking mindset into the article, when it doesn't really need to be included. Readers of this encyclopaedia should be capable enough to make up their own minds about materials herein; instead of being told what to think, or how to think about Jane Roberts. As for the word count..... Peace! Drakonicon 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This mediation case is still listed as "open". Is further mediation required or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Addition

Redbongooze, I feel a little uncomfortable with your addition about Christ. It's not my recollection that Seth made a specific prediction about the discovery of the Gospel of Judas. If I am remembering incorrectly, please tell me where in the Material Seth says that. Also, if we are going to mention Seth's teachings on Christ, it seems to me that there are other more important things that should be mentioned.--Caleb Murdock 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Redbongooze, until I can verify the things you said, which don't strike me as accurate, I am moving your text here:

"Concerning the Christ story, Seth also predicted the discovery of the Gospel of Judas by alluding to the fact that Christ's relationship with Judas was not what we have traditionally believed, as well as the idea that Christ was able to mentally project his body to speak to people without actually being in that area. He predicted that we will continue to find revolutionary material concerning that period of time, but also that the figure who will be associated with the Second-coming of Christ will be alive somehwere by the year 2007 (predicted in the early 70's)." --Caleb Murdock 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The date given by Seth as channelled by Jane Roberts, during a session for the first Seth-dictated book entitled "Seth Speaks", was 2076, but it was a date that he had given for the onset of many specific actions that would have resulted from the return of the Christ entity, for example, the Roman Catholic Church would have lost much of its power/influence, and the Christ entity would have already been here in this physical reality. Having not read ALL of later "Early Sessions" books, this is the only date mentioned in the originally published books concerning the Christ entity. Without knowing how long the returning-Christ would live in our terms, it cannot be said that he would be alive by the year 2007. If there is any quote in the later "Early Sessions" books, please include it. --24.74.168.248 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

[edit] Death of Jane Roberts

I have to mention this as I am not seeing it refuted in the above (or in the main article). Channeling Seth, and publishing the associated material did not preclude Jane Roberts from dying. I don't have the book in front of me, but I am presently re-reading a Seth book that states that everyone dies, period. References to Jane Roberts dying (regardless of how, in this case, from an illness) is irrelevant beyond that fact that she did die. No claim to the contrary was ever made. --Ethmar100 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If we create our own reality, why aren't we allowed to choose not to die? If we don't want to die horribly, why does it happen anyway? These are the questions that the issue raises. MaxMangel 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have "The Nature of Personal Reality" in front of me, I refer you to page 353 (Session 665, May 23, 1973): Quote: "Again, there are no accidents. No one dies under any circumstances who is not prepared to die. This applies to death through natural catastrophe as well as to any other situation." I am not speaking to the validity or accuracy of this quote, I am merely providing it as evidence supporting my prior paragraph. --Ethmar100 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Max, as Jane Roberts and Robert Butts were the vehicle through which the book was published this does not mean that either of them "lived" the material. I suppose it is possible with greater understanding (even scientific understanding) we may discover ways to prolong our lives. Again, metaphysics aside, I believe this to be a self-evident assertion. --Ethmar100 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't aware of it, Max hasn't read any of the Seth material, so he can't carry on an intelligent discussion about it.

I'm the one who put this into the article: "Since Seth asserted that each individual 'creates his own reality', Roberts' illness and premature death are considered by some to cast doubt on the validity of Seth's teachings." It's clear to ME that Roberts and Seth were different personalities and that Seth didn't control Roberts' life, but many people still feel that her death somehow invalidated the material. Obviously, Roberts had her own "fish to fry", if you know what I mean, and Seth couldn't stop her from choosing a self-destructive path. This becomes painfully evident when you read The Way Toward Health, the book that Seth was dictating while Roberts was dying. Butts' notes make it all too clear that Roberts wanted to die and nothing would stop her. My own theory is that, like so many brilliant people, she burned out at the end. A lot of geniuses seem to come and go in a flash, like a comet.--Caleb Murdock 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your contribution Caleb - don't forget to insult me each time you post.

So, essentially, I guess what we can learn from this is that there is no such thing as rape, for example. The 'victim' actually always wants to get raped and so all rapists should be released from jail. In fact, all crime is endorsed by the victim, so we may as well do away with the justice system all together, because the only 'crimes' that occur are things that the victims explicitly desire. In fact, we should also do away with the health system, because illness is also something that is self created, as is healing, so we may as well get rid of the charade that hospitals and doctors are important.

Is that how it works? Perhaps I have it wrong. I'm trying to demonstraite the difficulty people have in rectifying the idea that all problems are self created and desired. MaxMangel 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So does there need to be a line edited into the article that indicates that the Seth material may have been self created by Roberts? I dont doubt that she wrote the Seth material. The evidence is in the fact that she published numerous books. The ideas in the text made her famous. Whether these thoughts were given to a victim type of neurosis, I dont think quite adequately describes the artistry and logic of what Roberts set out to achieve by publishing her thoughts. It is admirable that she entertains doubts about the authenticity and helpfulness of her channelled material. The intellectual position she her work implies is what is being debated here? Whether her channelled information is authentic? Roberts believed this to be the case, even if she was troubled by it. Edgar Cayce was troubled immensely by the material that he 'channelled'. Is Roberts a self-hypnotist? I think Max is wanting to indicate in the article that Roberts may have been delusional (having a silent agenda, like the psychology of a stage magician, who want the crows to beleive her tricks, for the purpose of gaining attention, and entertaining thoughts of the supernatural, as an intellectual game?). I think Caleb is wanting Roberts to speak for herself, via the works she produced? Whether or not channelling is a valid or invalid activity should probably be discussed under the stage magic article. I dont believe Roberts' intentions was to play out her victimhood, or to perform intellctual magic tricks. Drakonicon 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Drak, I am going to say to you what I keep saying to Mangel: If you want to be an intelligent contributor to either the article OR this discussion, you need to read some of Roberts' writings. Your suggetions aren't useful because you aren't familiar with the subject. You are groping in the dark.--Caleb Murdock 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about Caleb, Drak, you have every right to contribute here. You don't need to have read the Seth material to edit an article about Jane Roberts. But, to answer your paragraph, no, that is not what any of us were talking about. Might I recommend that in the future you keep your posts short and to the point. MaxMangel 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The short answer, Max, is that you really need to read at least one of the books and then a) reflect on the material and b) determine if any of it has any basis in reality. Make no mistake, this is heavy material and it doesn't lend itself to fluffy cocktail party conversation. Sorry if this comes off as a cop-out. --68.94.56.186 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Max, you are at a huge disadvantage here, and it is BECAUSE you won't read any of the material. All of your questions were answered by Seth.--Caleb Murdock 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this section is for discussing the article, so I wont push the issue further. But, in the future, try to avoid raising issues that you aren't prepared to defend. MaxMangel 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What issue?--Caleb Murdock 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This section of the discussion is about the death of Jane Roberts. The sentence about this in the article was criticised, I defended the sentence by beginning to explain the view point of how people find the idea of wanting something bad to happen to oneself to be strange, then, as a counter-argument, I was told to simply read the book. This does not an argument make, but I said I'd let it go. I hope that clears it up for you. MaxMangel 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, you are really addressing your comment to the other fellow.

You are intelligent enough to know that the human mind is complex, and that what the conscious ego wants may not be what the subconscious wants. People are full of contradictions.

Consider also that a person may agree to do something for his own good that he doesn't really like. Thus, a person who wants an education may spend years in school, but may not enjoy it much. Reincarnation is like that. The ego self that we know is not the whole self, according to Seth. By having these so-called negative experiences, lessons are learned. A premature death may teach you to value life. A life as part of a hated minority group may teach you to appreciate differences instead of hating them. Et cetera.

This is why we forget our past lives. If we remembered everything and knew that we were immortal, learning the lessons of this world would be much harder.

Now, where Jane Roberts is concerned, we can't know what her personal agenda was. She had a horrible mother who was manipulative and filled her with Catholic guilt and generally messed up her mind. Roberts spent part of her life rebelling and trying to be independent and self-assertive, but there was part of her that never escaped from her mother's psychological grip. The Seth material was anti-Christian in many respects, and Roberts never resolved her personal conflicts over that, since she had been very religious early in life. Also, as I've said before, she never really liked being a trance medium and having somebody else's words come out of her mouth.--Caleb Murdock 08:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The God of Jane?

Yes, a bit tacky; a subsection using the title of one of Jane Roberts' books. I added the question mark.

So.... in the book that I bought on Friday, called Psychic Politics by Jane Roberts, I found many interesting quotes. Here is one from the editors of her book, re-published in the year 2000. Its pretty good: "... [Jane] refused to accept the "official" explanations of her experiences that both science and religion offered. Instead, Roberts spent her life searching for her own answers to the phenomenon of Seth and to her psychic abilities and experiences. She risked ridicule and asked questions. The conclusions she came to are, today, as relevant to our search for an understanding of consciousness as they were twenty years ago." (p vii, Psychic Politics, Roberts, 1976 [2000]).

So may i cite what i think is one of her conclusions about her abilities? I'll just let the above quote settle for a bit due to the fact that my posts are quite long. Read, interpret, feel, think, say more.... Go for it guys. Drakonicon 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback of minor revisions

I believe that the revisions made are not correct. The one in which the third Christ figure -- Paul or Saul -- was identified as the Apostle Paul isn't, to the best of my memory, correct, but I am going to look into it. I remember reading those passages and wondering, "Is this the Apostle Paul that Seth is talking about?" and never getting an answer, but I may be wrong.

As for saying that Paul or Saul is going to "appear" in the "21th century", that is less specific and less accurate than what was already there. Seth most definitely said that Saul or Paul would "reincarnate", and he made it clear that it would be in mid-century.--Caleb Murdock 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seth had dictated through Jane Roberts during a session for the book "Seth Speaks", that it was the Paul/Saul portion that would return in our future as the Christ-entity. Seth described the Christ-entity as being comprised of three strong personalities, biblically recorded as John the Baptist, Jesus-Christ, and Paul/Saul. Seth also described in "Seth Speaks" certain details of the meeting between the two, Jesus-Christ and Saul/Paul. Biblically, the meeting was described as Saul seeing a blinding light while walking along a road.

--24.74.168.248 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

To have the "Oversoul Seven" books included in the NON-CHANNELLED section is not correct. Jane Roberts had written that the words in those books "came" to her and that she wrote or typed them by hand when she received them. In that regard the Oversoul Seven books should be classified as further channelled material, along side her books "The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher", and "The World View of Paul Cezanne".

As a significant detail, it should be included elsewhere in the article that the Seth material was claimed to have been delivered "first draft/final draft" and was published as such, without either Jane or Rob changing or editing any of the material, except for the very rare inclusion of brackets [for clarification of an implied pronoun or such] or an added punctuation mark for a complex or very long sentence. Also, the specific grammatical directions that Seth had given---as to new paragraph, underlined phrases, comma, period, bold text, capitalized text, or offset text---are also recorded alongside the text in which Seth delivered, so that each and every word spoken during a transcribed, channelled session is recorded. Rob Butts further added other specific details into the text as italics (and in parentheses), to describe what was occurring in any given session, such as (very loudly), (whispering), (long pause), (slow delivery), (eyes closed), etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheliro (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 August 2006 UTC.

It should be added in the main article section that Jane Roberts also claimed that she had produced, at the very least, seven different "channels" of work: Seth, Seth II (very much different from Seth in scope and material), the Oversoul Seven books, the book on William James, the book on Paul Cezanne, the book "Emir's Education in the Proper Use of Magical Powers" (a children's book), the Sumari songs and poems, and an aspect that she had referred to as "Helper". In that regard, she could be considered one of the most, if not THE most, successful and active channellers in recorded history. --Cheliro 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

Cheliro, you make a lot of great points. I have been extremely busy with my internet business, so I haven't looked at the article for a while. You are free, of course, to make the changes, and if I (or anyone else) don't like them, then I'll let you know.

Personally, I haven't made any contributions to the Quotes sections, and I don't have a good overview of the non-Seth books, though I'm well aware that Jane picked up other entities. If you have superior knowledge in this area, you should definitely go ahead and make contributions. Although I work on the article a lot, I certainly don't own it.--Caleb Murdock 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Paul Richard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jane Roberts' Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] To Dwiki

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

[edit] Dwiki's response

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

[edit] Larger Changes

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

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

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

[edit] Smaller changes

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

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

[edit] Conclusion

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

--Dwiki 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caleb Murdock's response

Dwiki, I have many objections to what you did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dwiki:

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

In that vein, I would posit that we can get rid of both "Seth said"s and "Roberts (as Seth) said"s in the new Tenets of the Seth Material section by turning the bullet points and the content within them into a simple list that is introduced with a qualifying statement, like: The Seth Material addresses a wide range of topics. As Seth, Roberts made a number of assertions:

• On God: That God (referred to as "All That Is") exists. That God is composed of self-replicating and inexhaustible mental energy...
• On Christ: etc...

^^^^^or something similar. It may be less fluid than referring to a male Seth throughout, but I think it's worth it for the sake of keeping the language of this article neutral. Referring to Seth as a seperate male person is going to appear as upsetting and non-neutral to somebody who doesn't believe in the supernatural as perhaps using "claimed" does to you. Here is an opportunity to drop language that either side might see as non-neutral and instead focus on informing the reader without invoking an emotional response. I'm sure that we can both agree that our main goals for this article is to impart as much information to the reader as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Caleb Murdock 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said, "The more good people that are drawn to this article, the better ...". A good person in this case is a knowledgable person (knowledgeable about the subject). Is that you?

--Caleb Murdock 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To business:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am excited about this collaboration!!!!!

Thanks Caleb.

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

[edit] Caleb's response

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

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

Skeptics are in love with the words "claimed" and "allegedly", yet those words are not always suitable. As I explained before, "claimed" has a negative connotation and therefore is not neutral, and the same goes for "allegedly". In the beginning, Roberts and Butts were surprised by the material. Roberts had been an atheist before Seth started coming through. When they first started to publish, their attitude was "let's put this out and see what people think of it". They didn't make bold claims about who or what Seth was, and Roberts was always upfront about her doubts. Thus, words like "claimed" and "allegedly" don't fit in this instance.

I am sorry if I disrespected your point of view. However, in the article as it stands, "The Seth Personality", is defined once and in a confusing way and then is used ten additional times without any further reference to what the Seth Personality is, or who is channeling it. For me, this constitutes a POV slanted in your direction as for the majority of the article, The Seth Personality, which for you means one thing and for another group of people means a very different thing is referred to in a context that is friendly to your POV but hostile to another POV who doesn't believe that the Seth Personality in and of itself is capable of doing anything, because they don't believe that the Seth Personality exists outside a figment of Jane Roberts' imagination. I have offered alternate suggestions, but you have belittled them. You oppose use of "channeling" because it represents your POV too strongly. Well, why not let it ride and see if anyone complains. Because if they do, I will argue at your side that the language should stand (so long as it is properly hyperlinked).

I am a better writer than you are, and I have knowledge of the subject, which you don't. If I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia rules and tradition, I will learn them soon enough. The fact is, you have very little to contribute to this article. This is the way it is with all know-nothing skeptics who go around "neutralizing" articles on subjects they don't agree with. --Caleb Murdock 08:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Caleb, I am sorry you think I am baiting you. I am glad you are familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia guidelines, because a large number of them deal with being civil towards others, and a lot of them deal with Wikipedia's goal of "neutralizing language". Please inspect Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith as they apply directly to this situation. Making assertions that I am ignorant and your are "a better writer" than me hurt my feelings, and drive away other potential collaborators. Please be polite in your interactions with me, even if you think I am a fool. Kindness in interaction is a core value of life on Wikipedia, and one you will soon have to choose between adopting and ignoring to advance your own viewpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have gone around in circles with my suggestions and your counters, and I now realize that the fundamental problem lies really with the disclaimer at the top,

For the purposes of this article -- and specifically in order to avoid the necessity of inserting repeated qualifications into the text -- the phenomenon of trance mediumship, as well as the presumption that Seth was an independent personality, are taken at face value. It should be noted, however, that the verity of such phenomena has not been established.

which later became a mini-disclaimer:

Seth (hereinafter referred to as the "Seth personality" or simply "Seth")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Quotations may have to go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I access Wikiquote:Copyrights?

By the way, you have this heading in Wikiquotes:

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

I would like to suggest more elegant headings:

- Quotations from Seth as "channeled" by Jane Roberts

- Quotations from Jane Roberts while "channeling" Seth

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

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

- The Seth personality as dictated by Jane Roberts

- The Seth personality as "channeled" by Jane Roberts

You get the idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob and Laurel Butts 400 Olive Street Sayre, PA 18840

This address is posted on the Internet.

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

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

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

[edit] Recent Changes

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the nice comment.

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

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

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

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

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

== Paul/Saul of Tarsus ==http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Purported" Psychic

To those of you who want to call Jane Roberts a "purported psychic", it is enough to call her just a "psychic" because everyone knows that the abilities of psychics in general cannot (usually) be proven. While we are at it, why don't we just call her a "purported human being"? I mean, did any of us actually meet her? Can any of us prove that she actually existed? Perhaps Robert Butts just made her up!--Caleb Murdock 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] beings and things

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

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

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

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

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

My pleasure, I like joyful co-creation.

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

Yeah, the construction could be improved.

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

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

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

[edit] 2075 and 'All That Is'

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

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

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

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

[edit] Skepticism - don't overdo it or underdo it

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

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

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

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