Talk:Seth Material/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
No way is this a Good Article. It survived attempts to delete it but it has not made nearly enough progress in the direction I expected. Still written too much from in-universe view, and not enough critical commentary included. If I had unlimited time I would downgrade it right now to Start class but the inevitable edit war that would ensue is something I have no taste for.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I boldly downgraded this article to C-class. It suffers from a lot of problems. The notability is established in the lead, but the focus of the article should be on why New Age believers love this stuff so much as opposed to the credulous exposition of the material. I added sourcing tags, clean up tags, and a totally disputed tag because I think a lot of the sourcing is done to credulous rather than third-party independent sources. A truly sad article. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Credulous exposition" is right. An article which uncritically sets out a fringe view is not "good" in any of the normal senses of the word. LeContexte (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Why New Age people believe what they do would be original research unless you can provide sources which would deal with it, and even if you did not looks like that would fall under a new article like "Why New Age People Irrationally Insist on Disagreeing With Me" or something of that nature. There is no sensible reason why an article on the Seth Material should not describe what the material says. To do so would be tantamount to only allowing criticisms of a book or philosophy without bothering to tell one the contents of the book or what the philosophy actually says. Take Islam for instance. Would it make sense to take that article and add only criticisms of Islam and not to add what the tenets of Islam actually are? All this article really does it to describe what the books say. I am removing the totally disputed tag since it does not belong. The article does a good job of summarizing the books. If the language does not suit you in specific instances, then alter it. It seems you are championing a view, and get a bit hot under the collar whenever someone does not edit to suit your inclinations. Although I am an atheist, I still think the material, like any other book or philosophy, deserve the right to be stated plainly rather than altered to suit an opposing point of view. NoVomit (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

quick observation on references/text direction. There are a lot of primary references to the Seth Material itself. An encyclopedia article should use less primary sources and more secondary sources commenting on the material. This will of necessity, limit the exposition of what the material says, which is close to the original research boundary, and is best avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on religious beliefs often depend on primary sources, since the groups who have the beliefs are usually the ones that explain the beliefs. Secondary sources are needed for notability and factual discussions of the groups' history and activities, of course. This can be seen in articles about the beliefs of Catholicism, for example; those articles are full of primary sources, and that's not a problem. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me add to this discussion by saying that NO article on Wikipedia is ever going to be particularly good. All the articles are edited to death by anyone and everyone. Some people have good writing ability and some people don't. When I wrote the initial article, the language was much better than it is now. Other people came along and re-wrote all my language, and now the language is clumsy and inconsistent throughout the entire article.

NoVomit, I appreciate that you are willing to defend the article though you don't personally believe in it. Too many editors see it as biased simply because they disdain the subject matter. Let me add that I agree with you that any article on a system of beliefs must describe the beliefs or tenets; otherwise, the reader goes away uninformed.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How to identify Seth's voice

A couple years ago, I introduced a convention into the article which I now feel should be changed. In trying to identify the voice of Seth, Roberts' trance personality, I decided to use the phrase "the Seth personality said ...". That seemed acceptable to me since it was made clear in the beginning of the article who was who: Roberts was the living individual, and Seth was the trance personality. (Who was whom?) However, I've concluded that there is one inescapable fact: All the words came out of Roberts' mouth; Seth had no mouth with which to speak. Thus, I've decided to change everything to "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said .." and sometimes (since that is a cumbersome phrase) just "Roberts". I personally believe that Seth was an independent individual, but that is only my view. Using the phrase "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said ..." is more neutral. It adheres to the facts, but it also makes clear that Roberts was in trance. Let me hasten to add, however, that the phrase "Roberts, while in trance, said ..." would be wrong since Roberts wasn't always in trance as Seth.

I just realized that the entire History section uses the term "the Seth personality". In that portion of the article, I think it is appropriate to use that term because that is where Seth is initially described to the reader, and also because it is useful to distinguish Roberts' personality from Seth's. However, I'll have to think about it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an WP:RS that the Seth personality is distinct from Roberts? I feel we should remain neutral on this matter and be clear throughout. Verbal chat 11:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the terminology that was being used before was less neutral than the terminology that I am now using, for reasons explained very clearly above. My revisions reflect the fact that the actual words came out of Roberts' mouth, and not out of the mouth of "the Seth personality" who had no physical existence. Secondly, you have no right at all to erase, on a wholesale basis, the work of other editors. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think that I am wrong, this is the place to discuss it. So far, you haven't said anything worthwhile or notable. Let me add to this discussion that you are an editor who has little knowledge of the subject matter. You need to show a little humility and acknowledge that.

What does "RS" mean?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source. Verbal chat 09:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMINOLOGY THAT I HAVE USED, THEN INDICATE HERE WHAT TERMINOLOGY YOU PREFER, AND WHY.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current terminology as it is neutral, not taking an editorial line on the existence of Seth - which your edits do consistently. Seth had no voice, Roberts had a voice which Seth used (or that Roberts claimed Seth used, etc). Verbal chat 09:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Seth may or may not exist, we cant say that 'he' has written anything. and please dont accuse Verbal of canvasing. This article's been on my watchlist since your bout with ownership issues, which seem to persist. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I have no ownership issues. I am the only editor interested enough to edit the article on a consistent basis. The real problems we have here are on the part of editors like yourselves who are not familiar with (and don't like) the subject matter, and thus have an agenda, and who try to block my edits simply for the sake of it. In this case, you have no excuse since the language I'm introducing is more neutral than the language that was there.

Both of you have just said things that support my position. Guyonthesubway said, "we cant say that 'he' has written anything". THAT'S WHAT MY CHANGES REFLECT. By moving from "the Seth personality said" to "Jane Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" I AM MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE WORDS CAME OUT OF ROBERTS' MOUTH.

Verbal said: "Seth had no voice, Roberts had a voice which Seth used". That's right. Thus, changing from "the Seth personality said" to "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" IS MORE REALISTIC AND THEREFORE MORE NEUTRAL. Both of you should LIKE the changes that I am making.

Since you should agree with what I am doing, it is becoming clear that you are blocking my changes simply because I am the one who is making them. This appears to be a personal vendetta.

You don't seem to realize that the phrase "the Seth personality" was terminology that I (that's me) introduced into the article three years ago when it was part of the Jane Roberts article. At the time, some editors felt that it wasn't entirely neutral. I have finally come to see that they were right and I'm trying to fix that.

Now, there are OTHER edits that I just made besides fixing that problem, and when you roll back my edits, you are rolling back those other edits also. Since you aren't familiar with the subject matter, and since your only contribution is to roll back another editor's edits (an editor who is more knowledgeable of the subject matter than you), you engaging in disruptive editing. You have no right to keep the article frozen in time. Now, if you want me to keep "the Seth personality said", please explain why, but don't roll back all my edits. You don't seem to realize that the terminology "the Seth personality said" is more reflective of my own personal belief that Seth was an independent individual. I'm perfectly happy to keep that terminology if you insist!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, as I stated when I rolled back your edits, "claim" and "claimed" are on the list of words to avoid. Please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTA

Secondly, you removed portions of the article that are perfectly good. You need to provide an explanation for why you want to remove those sections. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR DISCUSSION. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC ISSUES ON THIS PAGE SHOWS THAT YOUR EDITS ARE DISRUPTIVE. I am ready and willing to discuss all of these issues with you HERE.

In addition, my understanding is that the American spelling of words is supposed to prevail, not the British spelling.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The spelling is supposed to be consistent, and I noticed the British spelling used. However, as Roberts is American I see no problem with American spelling. As to WTA, common sense is to be applied and what we are dealing with are claims. Your edits introduce a further POV that should be removed. Verbal chat 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You and I need to discuss the specifics of each change. I do, in fact, agree with some of them, but your constant use of the word "claimed" is unacceptable and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I see no reason why you would have deleted such large portions of some sections. I won't roll back your edits IF you make changes to terminology only and stop trying to truncate the article. But you must make your edits without the word "claimed".--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer "states" and "stated"? The removal of unsourced material is justified below, let's keep that separate. What is it about the use of "claimed" that you object to in this instances? I only used it two or three times when it seemed most appropriate.Verbal chat 21:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway, the changes you made are acceptable to me. Instead of "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" I would be happy to revert the second portion of the article to "the Seth Material states". How about that? However, that terminology doesn't always work in the first section of the article, the History section. Will you give me a chance to make those changes?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Content that is unsourced and been taggede since last year should be referenced or removed. Verbal chat 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If by unsourced you mean lacking references, then that can be fixed. But you'll need to give me some time. However, let me point out that not every statement in an article requires a reference. Only details of significant require a reference.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The sections have been tagged for some time. You can restore them when you have a reference. Verbal chat 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Once a section is removed, it is very hard to get it reinserted, especially when there are editors like you who are intent on minimizing the article. Removing portions is not the way to go. That is a call to war.

Not all of the citations that you have inserted are actually required. The fact that Roberts held 2 or 3 sessions a week is not particularly important. Also, the fact that Butts was a co-author can be gleaned simply from looking at the books -- his words are in every book. No citation is needed for such minor details. If you want a cite in that instance, the only thing to do is to cite all 20 books. You're not being reasonable.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't wikipedia policy. You'll be free to restore it if and when you bring WP:RS to support your contentions. Verbal chat 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to read all the rules, but judging from your lack of knowledge about words to avoid, I suspect you don't know everything. In the next week I can dredge up some missing references. But if you cut out wholesale portions of the article, things will escalate. Furthermore, as I've stated, minor facts don't need to be referenced. For the time being I am going to concentrate on replacing "Roberts, speaking as Seth, said" with "The Seth Material states", and then I'll look at the references. There are other editors who are better at dredging up references than I, and I may ask them to help.

Let me add that removing portions from an article instead of getting references is not in keeping with the spirit of the Article Rescue Squadron which, ironically, you seem to be a part of. And let me also remind you that YOU can dredge up the references yourself.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership proven by threats to edit war

The following atrocious example of unwikipedian behavior (an attack on Verbal on his talk page) is pretty near a blockable offense and should be taken into account when judging the arguments and attitudes of Caleb Murdock:

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DOING THE WARRING. First, you tried to block all my edits, and then you tried to truncate the article, using words to avoid in the process. Yet your knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. You have no integrity! You are a disruptive editor!

If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged. If you'll be reasonable, however, we can work this out. I'm willing to accept some of your changes of terminology, but not the constant use of the word "claimed" and not the deletion of perfectly good text from the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement above ("But if you cut out wholesale portions of the article, things will escalate.") is also pretty bad. Ownership issues? Indeed! An RfC/U might be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who have tried to cut the article down in the past are skeptics who didn't like what it said, and such attempts led to editing wars. I might add that the skeptics invariably have little knowledge of subject matter. That being the case, they are unable to appreciate its importance, or even know if what is being said is neutral or not. If there isn't a rule on Wikipedia that authors should have knowledge of the subjects they edit, there certainly should be.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What does skepticism have to do with taking out some chunks of a pretty bloated article. Given my perception of the importance of these books, I'm not sure we need heavy analysis of the topic. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed before. Roberts sold 8 million books, and her books are still selling. She was highly influential in the New Age movement, setting forth dozens religious theories that were completely original to her. Furthermore, the article is small compared to many other articles. On Wikipedia, articles generally expand over time with new information, as this one should and will. The attitude that you have that the article should be minimized because YOU don't appreciate it is entirely biased. I'm getting sick of this. It goes on and on and on. The article was nominated for deletion, and the ruling was a Speedy Keep. Since that time, references have been added, although the language hasn't improved because people keep mucking it up. You and Verbal need to face the fact that you have biased points of view and to let go of it.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in these discussions at all. I noticed that there was a dispute with a very improper personal attack made on Verbal. From what I can gather, the situation pits an experienced editor (Verbal), who understands Wikipedia's rules very well and is enforcing them, against a comparative newbie who is displaying ownership tendencies and making accusations based on bad faith. These are multiple violations of policy. Caleb, instead of assuming bad faith, you should assume good faith that Verbal is following policy and that you might not understand it. You have a disagreement, but your arguments aren't based on policy, but on accusations of bad motives, which is a forbidden thing to do. If you don't stop it, you are going to be the one who gets blocked. You need to collaborate with Verbal and develop a consensus version. Making accusations will only get you in trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for years.

I'm sorry, but you don't realize what's going on. Verbal doesn't want to negotiate on the points of the article. He consistently refuses to get specific on the discussion page. He'll make general statements but is not willing to discuss particular passages. He also behaves provocatively. He started out by reversing all my recent revisions without any discussion. Then he started cutting out sections of the article without discussion. He put a tag on the article AFTER I made changes to accommodate him. Mind you, he doesn't actually have any knowledge of the subject matter, so he doesn't really know what he's doing. Amazingly, there is no rule on Wikipedia that requires editors to have any knowledge about the subjects. Since his efforts are always in the direction of cutting down the article, it's clear that he has an agenda. He acts like a self-appointed cop with a lot of time on his hands -- or perhaps "censor" is a better word. Unfortunately, some of these self-appointed censors have managed to secure positions of authority, so we end up with wolves in the chicken coop. He is a disruptive editor. I have read the page on disruptive editing, and he fits it to a T. He keeps harping about sources even though the article is better-sourced than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. There are dozens of articles out there that are COMPLETELY unsourced and which shouldn't even be in the encyclopedia; but instead of going after those articles, he attacks an article which is highly worthwhile. It simply isn't possible to assume good faith in his case.

Most articles are written by a few people who care about the subject matter; that's just the way it works on Wikipedia. Articles that don't attract dedicated authors are generally poorly written. If I exhibit what appears to be ownership tendencies, it is only because I am trying to protect the article from a hatchet man. If you kick me off Wikipedia, you'll be throwing off a knowledgeable editor in favor of an ignorant editor with a strong bias against the article. He'll chop up the article in no time, and useful information on the subject will be lost. Let me remind you that articles generally grow with additional information over time; they don't shrink. If you care about this encyclopedia, you won't sacrifice a knowledgeable editor for an ignorant one -- and you'll save your scolding for Verbal instead of me.

Now, if Verbal wants to get truly specific on this page and talk about the actual language, that's fine. But I doubt that he will do it. He doesn't get specific because he generally thinks the topic isn't important and that the article should be short, but there are other authors who disagree (not just me). If the choice is between a brief article that says little, and a more complete article that conveys a lot of information, the complete article will always be better for the encyclopedia as a whole. To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules regarding length. And even if there are, this article is not particularly long. For him to keep trying to cut it down is absurd.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you start an RfC about the subject matter, not the editor, as your own editing would then come under scrutiny. Keep it focused on the subject matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)