Talk:The Michael Teachings

Untitled

Removed claimed POV dispute tag for lack of dispute. Before restoring the tag indicate which portion is in dispute and why. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Michael teachings have nothing to do with religion, and should not be included in areas pertaining to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbits (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Two points: There's really only one major dispute in the Michael community: the claim by some members of the closed Yarbro groups that other channels aren't really channeling Michael. The article seems to be written from the POV of the Yarbro groups, and definitely needs more neutraliity. In particular, the history of the other groups would be a good addition, or else remove the extensive Yarbro history. However, a quick scan of the links and books shows that everything I know of is there.

The other point is that reasonable people can disagree about whether it's about religion. It's certainly not about a major organized religion, but since it deals with the afterlife, I can't dispute the "religion" tag.

John Roth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.85.122 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just created an account; the above two paragraphs are mine. JohnRoth1 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Radical surgery

Having had my attention drawn here by a message on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, I have boldly performed radical surgery on this article, by removing everything that was not justified by citation of sources. That means, nearly everything. Please don't re-add material without justifying it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Looie496 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 6, 2008

External links for the Michael Teachings

Apparently over the years some people have made it their mission to severely restrict the information on this wiki entry. The Michael Teachings do not neatly fit into a box, such as religion, philosophy, or New Age, although arguments could be made for each of those categories. Because of the relatively small number of people interested in the teachings, national book sales are not that high and getting any new information published that way is an uphill battle. If you restrict the information to only that based on published books, you might as well encase this entry in amber and walk away. There are several well-established, long term (over 20 years for many) sites that are the active places for information and discussion of the material. The external links that are on this page are among those, but there are several others, such as truthloveenergy.com that get deleted every time someone posts them here. What is the justification for deciding which external links stay? And don't quote the wiki rules to me, I am very familiar with the sites involved, and for the purposes of a wiki entry I don't see any substantial difference between the ones that stay and the ones that go.SageScholar (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)SageScholar

Facebook is not an acceptable WP:EL. I also don't see what your other links add to the article. I'm afraid I'm going to quote wikipedia rules at you, specifically WP:ELNO and note that wikipedia is not a directory, a platform, or a webhost; see WP:NOT. As to sources, see WP:RS. If you don't want wikipedia rules quoted to you as justification, then what would you accept? Verbal chat 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you the Facebook entry. Also, I did not add them back in after you deleted them, someone else did that. The TLE site has quite a bit of more in depth material than some of the others. It also has a social component, but that does not take away the fact that some of the best material is on this site. There are no degrees in Michael, no ordination or authorities, so there is no way to get credentials that fit neatly into generic rules. How are you determining that there are "no substantial differences" in the materal offered on various sites? I have been a student for 20 years and there are indeed very substantial differences in the material. They complement each other, and each has some unique qualities. How do you justify one over the other?

SageScholar (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)SageScholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageScholar (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I justify following wikipedia rules as this is wikipedia. It is also not a place to right great wrongs or fight for "the truth. Verbal chat 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. How do you decide which links you are going to leave alone or delete on this specific site? You said there were no substantial differences, how did you determine this? I am not trying to decide the truth or right any wrongs other than you deleting a specific site and not others. Do you even have any interest in the Michael Teachings? Do you have some bias towards a particular segment of the Michael community? The sites that have not been picked on are good sites, and so is truthloveenergy.com. It is one of the very few that continues to regularly post new, quality information that can be accessed by anyone without a fee. Anyone using Google can find these sites, they are not dependent on this wikipedia entry.

SageScholar (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)SageScholar

You're right, anyone can use google to find these links so it is not imperative they are here. I've gone through the links with reference to WP:EL. Please do not restore any (again) if you disagree, but discuss here with reference to why they are suitable per wikipedia's rules. The burden is upon those seeking to add links. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)