Talk:Esther Hicks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Controversy

There are a number of controversies associated with the Abraham-Hicks' teachings, including:

• The background of Esther and Jerry Hicks in Amway marketing seminars and how metaphysical ideas were introduced into these seminars and whether the current teachings are an extension of their earlier activities
• The potential for a damaging effect on relationships of their teachings, where people deemed to have negative thoughts are to be avoided
• The view that death and other tragedies are invited by the victims and the resulting lack of sympathy from followers of the Abraham-Hicks' teachings
• The formulation of the teachings as “Laws” and use of other terms such as “vibrations” which suggest a scientific basis, whereas no such basis exists.

For more comments on the controversies surrounding the Abraham-Hicks teachings, visit the Cult Education Forum devoted to this topic.

Carptrash (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Carptrash, I added this section as I was concerned that the controversies that certainly exist concerning the Abraham-Hicks' teachings were not represented in the article. The "Cult Education Forum" was the best source I found concerning the negative experience of individuals concerning these controversial areas.

I am a Wiki newbee and if my contribution needs revision, then by all means lead me on the correct path. However, I remain convinced by omitting its controversial nature, the current article is not neutral and thus needs urgent attention. Panchali101 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Treading on thin ice is not usually the recommended way to enter either a frozen pond or wikipedia. However, let us begin with some documentation about the Hicks' connection with Amway - your first point. Carptrash (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-work the entry, specifying individual references to those who have highlighted controversial topics in the Cult Education Forum, rather than giving a global reference. Would it be best to place the revised version here first for consideration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panchali101 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "The "Cult Education Forum" was the best source I found concerning the negative experience" suggests that you have gone out looking for the negative aspects rather than trying to take a detached or objective view.

Feel free to post any new additions you have in the article if you wish. But I suggest that you keep these thoughts in mind. I went to "Cult Education Forum" section on Abe-Hicks [1] and I seriously suggest that you do not base anything on it.

First of all Hicks is not really a cult, or if you think so you'd better make that argument first. Secondly, Hicks is listed under Multi-Level Marketing Schemes, and I just can't see how a convincing argument can be made for that either. If you feel that it is a multi-level marketing movement please present some reason why. Like, what/where are the levels?

Thirdly, the first posting there states, "A friend has massive problems with Abraham-Hicks. Any similar experiences?" Well what is that? Someone just trolling, looking for dirt. And what they get is, "Esther Hicks when 'channeling' Abraham has an incredibly false-sounding accent."

The third posting is so . . ... unlikely as a real scenario. Watch out for the internet. Anyone can make any claim. that you saw it on a web site is like saying that you heard some one say it on a talk radio show. It is just not (opinion) what will get by on wikipedia. At least not here.

Most of the other postings are folks complaining about the attitudes of Hicks "followers" (or whatever) and are, at best, a pale reflection of what Hicksianism really is about.

Happy hunting, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PS don't forget to sign your posting. having a boot show up and do it for you does not add your credibility at all..

Note: on reflection, I revised the text below. Thanks Einar for taking the time to set out your approach. You wrote: "Your statement "The "Cult Education Forum" was the best source I found concerning the negative experience" suggests that you have gone out looking for the negative aspects rather than trying to take a detached or objective view." The CE Forum came from a Google search where the rest of the search results were primarily ads for Hicks products or sycophantic reviews, and the CE Forum was the only source that presented a range of views both for and against.

My concern for the article as it stands is, as has been remarked in the deletion debate from 2007, that the article read like an ad flyer for A-H, rather than an encyclopedia entry, and because of the selective approach, does not qualify as NPOV. This is in stark contrast to the Wikipedia entry on "Scientology", which is a mix of insider/positive and outsider/negative views. Given such features of the A-H teachings as: messages from beings in another dimension, and people invite death to themselves, I believe that the point that A-H teachings are controversial is itself uncontroversial.

You also wrote: "a pale reflection of what Hicksianism really is about." This seems to imply that you do know "...what Hicksianism really is about." While I have no problem with adherents to the A-H teachings making their points here, the other side should also be represented. Before I decide how to take this further, Einar, I would appreciate your further comments on whether this article is currently NPOV. Panchali101 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC) revisedPanchali101 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So let us keep wandering through these issues.

It makes sense to me to begin by saying that I do adhere (good word, thanks) to the Hicks/Abraham theory, the Law of Attraction, etc. I'm not going to get too into my connection with them unless you really care, but it might be instructive to mention that I have not sent them money in years, and the money that I did send them did not amount to much. For several years I subscribed to their "Tape of the Week" program, which was basically a cassette version of a workshop that they had done 6 weeks or so previously. I can explain that process more if it matters to you.

So yes, I can read the stories at Cultbusters.com about "a follower of Hicks/Abrahams who says this and that" and whether the stories are true or not (I suspect mostly not) they are not what Hicks/Abraham says in her/their teachings. One that pops into my mind, "Women who were raped were probably rapists in past lives," is a complete 180° turn-bout from the H/A teachings. Many of the other ideas attributed the H/A followers are about 127° to 47° tangents. They seem to me to be the reactions of someone who hears some of H/A's ideas, who then launches into a "what if" scenario, and to make it more compelling, has this scenario happen to his/her sister.

I have not read this article in a long time, so perhaps I should do that and try and do some edits to bring it into a balance that makes sense to you. One thing to remember is that this is an article about Ester Hicks, and not her ideas (or whatever). So the point (maybe?) is to present her ideas as she would rather than be a critique of them. That would more properly belong in an article about those ideas. Or not. Perhaps it all belongs here.

So is what we need a credible source for the controversy surrounding H/A teachings? Some Cal-Tech physicist who says that "....................?" Or perhaps just some generic statement saying that the teachings are controversial? My goal here is not to sweep the issues under the rug, but to present them in an encyclopedia manner. 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC) probably by me, Carptrash (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Einar, and your constructive approach. The information you provided about your relationship with H/A is helpful and sufficient. For the record, I come to this topic as a sceptic who has watched a couple of H/A DVDs borrowed from a friend. The teachings dominate my friend's thoughts and actions in a way which gives me some concern, both from the nature of some of the ideas and her totally uncritical approach to them. So, my goal here is to have a more complete article, covering the range of views out in society on H/A teachings. Thus, I welcome your offer to look again at the article and also to try to look for some more authoritative sources on the controversial aspects, although I remain of the view that some of the narratives in the Cult forum are relevant.

You point out that this is a biography of Esther Hicks and I believe this may be part of the problem. The article is primarily about the H/A teachings and publications, including "The Secret", rather than a true biography. In fact, when I first searched on Wikipedia, I was surprised that there wasn't an article on the teachings, only this "biography". In my view, the structure would be improved by an article on the teachings, formed by most of the material here, together with a link to a short biography of Esther Hicks. As a non-biography, a more balanced account would be easier to achieve, similar to the "Scientology" article. Panchali101 (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just cut and moved this phrase (and reference)

"a former Amway salesman"

My guess is that Jerry Hicks has had many jobs in his life and to select one and use it in an article about his wife seems silly and unencylcopedic. Save it for the article about Jerry. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerry redirects to this article and it is sourced background information that I think is relevant as they are basically still a salesmen team. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the author(s) not a salesman or what Jerry has done in the past. I agree with Carptrash that this information is irrelavent to the article. Gordondavid (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article as a Wiki biography of Esther Hicks, the author

The guidelines for a pure, factual, and NPOV biography of Esther Hicks has not been honored in this article. Since the top line of the talk page states:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately especially if potentially libellous"

There is no content here that is "potentially libellous", but there is however, opioniated Newpaper content cited from the "NY Post" and the London "Independant" that are used as references to facts that are not NPOV by any standard. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS for use of Newspapers as a source for citations of the facts.

I suggest that we honor the Wiki guidelines on "WikiProject Biography" and revert this article to be a biography and have it adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. If I don't hear comments soon, I will go ahead and do just that.Gordondavid (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start by listing things that you specifically think are violating wikipedia standards and we can discuss those. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Policy spells out clearly that high quality NPOV sources be used for references and that great care needs to be used when citing newspapers that are not NPOV or based on opionion. The Independant and NY Post articles are slanted to show Esther and Jerry Hicks as charlatan cult group leaders. That is not NPOV or factual.Gordondavid (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Independent and NY Post are both highly respected sources and meet the criteria of wp:rs in spades. I also disagree with your assessment of their "slant." However, the main question is what specific statements in the article do you feel violate wp:BLP standards? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assesment of the NY Post and the Independant are not at all like the University texts that Wiki reccomends for NPOV content. It is in fact, a highly debatable issue that these articles from them are NPOV. This is like saying the NY Times is a right wing paper. It is not, and neither is the slant on these newspapers with respect to the content now present on the Esther Hicks article. The article needs to be reverted to a factual biography of the author as per Wiki rules. My intention is to do just that, and I will used facts from the author's official website and other known NPOV sources as statements for this article. Specifics beyond that will be available in the article after what I know to be NPOV, direct and reliable by any plain arguement. Thanks so much for your part in a non-biased and factual representation Gordondavid (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me some points of clarification. University sources maybe preferred but are often not available for most topics. You will not find any peer reviewed sources talking about the Hicks. In place of those sources the next best thing are articles published in high reputation newspapers and other media outlets. The NY Post and The Independent fall into this category. These sources are the second best category of sources, and the best for articles that do not have peer reviewed sources. You are free to make whatever changes you like. But they are likely to be controversial so I recommend discussing them here on the talk page and hashing things out before editing the article. It will save much time and frustration at having your work reverted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add that a source does not have to be NPOV to be used in an article (not that I am conceding your assessment of the sources but even if they are not that does not exclude them). Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the rule and the spirit behind it to bring discussion of changes here first when it has merit. That applies here for sure, and my intention is for a purely unbiased article with cited facts from NPOV sources.

If you just look at the title of the NY Post article "DIRTY LITTLE 'SECRET' HOW THE CULT PHENOM IS DIVIDING N.Y.C." it suggests clearly that the article and the author are coming from a slant and have an agenda to execute. I also note that you have done trimming of EL's to now exclude the Independant article. All facts that came from that reference need to be removed from this article. I plan to do that.Gordondavid (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have explained to you why you are misreading policy, and I am very like to revert any such changes you make unless we talk about them here first and reach a consensus. May I make a suggestion? How about creating a "sandbox" version of the article that you can change till your hearts content then come back her and present that and we can discuss it. If you are not familiar with how to do this I can create one for you. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now for the specific issue at hand, what facts were in the article from that interview? The reason I removed it was because it is not an appropriate EL, but it could make a good source. I am reviewing it for material to add to the article as a reference. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record and future use the source is here there is actually some excellent material here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that creating a sandbox is a good idea, and I have done that now under my User name. I will make the changes on it tomorrow and advise here. I am well aware that reverts can be done easily and you will find me in line with doing it the easy and peaceful way in dealing with others. Thanks so much for your mutual interest in an unbiased and useful article.05:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wandered over to check out this (the Independent) link, thanks for putting it up. I found:

Esther and Jerry Hicks claim they can make you rich and successful beyond your wildest dreams. And they've certainly been raking it in since helping to inspire the international bestseller 'The Secret'. Ahead of their UK tour, the former circus acrobat and secretary-turned-spirit-channeller reveal their controversial techniques.

The intro to the article is actually a good place to begin discussing it (and also probably where I will stop). Nowhere that I have even seen, and I've seen, listened and read a fair amount from Esther, do either she or Jerry claim that " they can make you rich etc." My understanding is that they were raking it in long before The Secret and referring to them as " former acrobat and secretary " is like calling Jesus a former carpenter or Muhammad a former camel salesperson or the author of the piece as a "former newspaper delivery boy (or whatever)". Okay, so Esther is not exactly in their league. but I believe that my point is still valid, and that is that this article is very biased, with a pre-determined agenda and is not a good source for much other than to point out the controversy surrounding the Hicks.

I look forward to seeing the sandbox happen and might even play in it as long as as everyone plays nicely and it remains the feel good thing to do. Carptrash (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Carptrash, that is an excellent point you make. We must insert an in-line disclaimer to the Independent reference as per Wiki guidelines for using newspaper content with an agenda. The same is true for references to the NY Post article. The facts on Esther come to me directly from Esther herself. They are also available on the official Abraham-Hicks domain at here: Esther Hicks. The work in my Sandbox today will reflect the information at that URL.Gordondavid (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your interpretation of policy, abstract policy wonk is best left to other places. I will instead wait to see what changes you plan on making and then see how wiki policy specifically applies to those changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made the first entry to User:Gordondavid/Sandbox. Any objections?Gordondavid (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page of the sand box. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

Moved from User talk:Gordondavid/Sandbox

In order to keep this purely a biography of Esther Hicks, all references and external links to the teachings of Abraham need to be removed including YouTube links to Abraham and Abraham forums per Wiki policy regarding "coatracks" Discussing "The Secret" on the biography page of Esther Hicks meets the standard of 'coatracks' as well. Also, the information on HayHouse is repeated twice in the Sandbox edition. Other than that, what is written meets the Wiki standard for WP:LIVE.--Ahnalira (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Something is not a coatrack when 1) it is a very notable aspect of the subjects life and bio, and 2)it does not take up substantially large amounts of article space. The Abraham stuff is certainly a very notable portion of her life and needs to be in the article. It is part of what she is known for and every source about her talks about it. I agree that it should not be the major focus of the piece but I don't think it is either. The Secret is her claim to fame, in fact if 90 percent of this article was about her and The Secret it would still not be a coatrack. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Secret is just a recent development and not at all their claim to fame. You are not aware of the actual story with The Secret, it would appear. Jerry and Esther Hicks were VERY well established authors and teachers 20 years before that video was made. The Hicks even had a Wiki page long before the Secret was producedGordondavid (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

"Teachings in brief", "The Secret" and external links for Jane Roberts are coatracks.--Gacuster (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that this link works. coatrack. Carptrash (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Polices concerning living Individuals

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]WP:LIVE--Gacuster (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we have sources then right? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a good source. The Secret is not a source of Esther Hicks Biography. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Gacuster (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Secret is not the source. The sources are newspaper articles. Now if there are specific claims you feel are inadequately sourced please say here and we shall take a look. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" --Gacuster (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show me an example of something in this article that meets that criteria. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No discussion necessary per WP:LIVE--Ahnalira (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is just not the case. Please stop breaking the article and start discussing. If you refuse to discuss we will have to move this up the bureaucratic chain and neither of use really wants that trust me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring in an arbitrator, that would be the best efficacious way to resolve your bias.--Gacuster (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking ahead

While we await the cavalry, General Custer, would you please be so kind as to offer some specific statements that supposedly violated the quoted policy? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No discussion needed per Wikipedia Policy WP:LIVE--Gacuster (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One last attempt to get you over the hump. Regardless of how this ultimately turns out, I guarantee, unequivocally, and with much emphasis that you will be required to justify your edits with specific examples. So let us get started now, please, tell me what specific content you feel violates the quoted policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. As I said before, no discussion is needed per Wikipedia policy for the changes I made.WP:LIVE --Gacuster (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't think you are going to be very happy with the way this winds up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK!--Gacuster (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on recent removal of material

• I did not like the huge cut in material recently inflicted on this article. Perhaps some of it needs to go (perhaps not) but let's do it in a more controlled manner. Carptrash (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The best solution is to revert back to before the deletion and then have people discuss what is not appropriate. So far the editors have offered a humorous and stubborn refusal to talk. Which if that does not change will not end well for them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• hmmmmm. I don't think any of my edits have ever been reverting something another editor did that I did not see as being just vandalism. This is close, whacking out more than 1/2 (trying to be conservative here and it's not something I do well) the article. So do I just go to that edit and click UNDO  ? What does that do to edits that happened after the BIG CUT ? and that sort of thing? Einar Carptrash (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to go back to the previous version click here and then edit and save that page. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other thing worth putting back in are your links you just added, which would be easy to add back. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not my links. I don't do links much. Carptrash (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, those links. Internal links. I do do those. Carptrash (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• There have been several days of discussion in someone's sandbox about how to make this WP:LIVE conform to Wikipedia policy. The policy states that contentious and controversial statements be removed without discussion. As well, the policy prohibits 'coatracks', and the addition of conceptual material to a biography is prohibited. I think an arbitrator is a very good idea at this point.--Ahnalira (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion, rather there has been people policy shopping for anything that allows them to remove material from this article. These people have a blatant COI and I have a very strong suspicion that they are using sockpuppets or at the very least meatpuppets. They toss out policy and then say "there" and refuse to respond to arguments against there misapplication of policy. That is what is going on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a pure biography of this author this is a much better representation to the rules on WP:LIVE Anyone with many years of knowldge and actual experience with the work in the writings of Esther and Jerry Hicks would know that the teachings and the teacher need to be two separate articles here. They are linked together now. Even though what Esther and Jerry author is not a religion in any way shape or form, what Martin Luther is to the subject of Protestantism, Jesus Christ is to Catholism, or Abraham to the Jews, these topics are substantially different topic areas.

In addition, and most importantly, clearly biased newspaper articles with an agenda to discredit for the purpose of bringing about controversy to attract the reader have no place as being used as references. The same would be true for Wiki contributors that insist on use of these references as unbiased. That is the case that needs to be reviewed here. Having many years of experience in the topic, I can say with absolute clarity that a complete restructure was needed on this article to bring about a truly NPOV. Thanks so much! Gordondavid (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the source says something you don't like doesn't mean it is an invalid source. You are trying to convince us that the New York Post fail wp:rs. Sure....Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether we like it, it's a matter of accuracy. The Post reporter used a sensationalized and inaccurate sentence. Perhaps the Post is a "reliable source" as far as Wiki rules dictate. Even if this is true, it can sometimes report inaccurate information - any newspaper can. In the case of Esther Hicks, who has published literally thousands of recordings and books, it is an easy task to find out what she does. We would all be remiss if we allow her bio to say she "channels the dead" when she has never even once said that this is what she does.We either have to write an accurate line in the bio stating that and referencing her published works (which are the reason she HAS a bio) or leave that part out altogether.MoriahBaron (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. This page needs to be a bio only per WP:LIVE and held until dispute is resolved.Gordondavid (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur--Ahnalira (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, you are in violation of Wikipedia policy 3RR. A report has been filed.WP:AN/3RR --Gacuster (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordondavid: I believe that you are incorrect as a matter of Wikipedia policy. When a teaching is promulgated by a single person, splitting the article up is something that is done for clarity and article size issues, rather than because it would be harmful for a person's biography to include too much about what they believe. For example, the Gerson Therapy article was recently merged into Max Gerson's personal article.

I understand that you have a personal belief about how this information should be structured, but the inclusion of information that she herself calls "Abraham-Hicks' Teachings" does not violate any WP:LIVE policy that I can see.

Ether has chosen to add her own name to these teachings. They are published on her web site, by her company. I will work on adjusting the wording to clarify her sourcing of the material. I'm just concerned about ensuring I don't cross the line into WP:OR. Your personal beliefs about how her teachings is not really citable.

Athnalira: The page does not need to be devoid of any information because some information is being questioned. The information I put back that you reverted does not violate any WP:LIVE policies. Bhimaji (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from Admin on the Noticeboard for Biographies of Live People: "Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."--Ahnalira (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You and each of the sockpuppets above have failed to bring in a single specific passage you have issue with instead you gut the article to something that is embarrassingly sub-par and violates half a dozen core policies of wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take your accusation to admin and let them research. First, they will discover there is no use of sockpuppets, and then they will have to cite you for personal attacks.--Ahnalira (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:TmtoulouseApparently you didn't listen to the findings of the admin when he blocked you yesterday. He has been contacted.--Gacuster (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What findings are those? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

3rr violation

Tmtoulouse, I just reported you for a violation of 3rr--Ahnalira (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good luck with that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the sockpuppeting and please talk about the changes

This is silly can we please stop the sockpuppets, there is no way random ips and newly created accounts are anything but SPA from one or two users. Please discuss the changes. What specific statements in the real version of the article, it is now at User:Tmtoulouse/Esther Hicks, do you have issue with? We must talk about this there is no other way out of it. We must reach consensus. This "refuse to talk about" attitude is against every core principle of wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Except in the case of WP:LIVE where admins encourage that changes be made without discussion in order protect the privacy of live people and prevent contentious, sensationalistic, or potentially libelous statements.--Ahnalira (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying these words as if they are a get out of jail free card. They are not. I am asking you to demonstrate here the specific wording you feel fits into that policy so we can all see what your thumping about. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---I agree it's quite silly, and I am the person you refer to as "random ip", having forgotten to log in before I changed the article back to it's pure biographical form. From my vantage point, not only has it been "talked about", it's been talked about ad infinitum, and the specific statements that have been taken issue with are untruths that have been put forth in various newspaper articles which, in addition to being senstionalized inaccuracies, are not relevant to the content of a biographical entry in Wiki. Esther Hicks does not "claim to channel the dead" or any variation of such statement. I think it's abundantly clear what is at issue, so your "let's talk about it" invitation seems a little out of place considering all that has gone before. You say you are a champion of Wiki rules, and yet you are in clear violation yourself and thumb your nose at having been reported for same. -- Moriah (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ad Infinitum" is the key phrase in the comment above, I think. It is apparent from the amount of discussion held on this article that - at some point - disagreeing to come to consensus with the majority of editors is a manuver to obstruct. Then it becomes necessary to follow WP:LIVEwhich instructs that the biography of a live person requires a different standard of policy than articles about conceptual ideas or deceased people. Immediate removal of potentially libelous, contentious and/or sensationalistic material is encouraged by Admin (See quote above).--Ahnalira (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to identify any such material. The article as it stands now is an unacceptable violation of half a dozen wikipedia guidlines. This whole mess could be solved if you started working towards a compromise and dealt with specific issues. You are trying to "own" an article by thumping the same misinterpretation of policy again and again and again. You and none of the other single purpose accounts own this article you must compromise with me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Read through previous discussions. It has been thoroughly discussed--Ahnalira (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with MoriahBaron. This page needs to adhere to the policy of a biography of a live person. This page has been marked as disputed. Until this disupute is resoloved, you need to stop revertering it, Tmtoulouse. The page is about the bio. and nothing more.Gordondavid (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the statements you claim are in violation of policy do not appear to be in violation of policy. They stem from perfectly reliable and appropriate sources. I have tried multiple wording, multiple organization, I have stripped it down to the essentials and still the single purpose accounts keep reverting back to an article that is obvious violation of NPOV, reference standards, etc. You can not "own" an article. You have to reach a consensus. You can not just say "this is the way it is going to be so there." Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources aren't the issue, Tmtoulouse. This is an issue of "contentious, sensationalistic, and potentially libelous" and "coatracking".--Ahnalira (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifics, please provide specific issues. The real article can be found be found at User:Tmtoulouse/Esther Hicks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Read through the various discussions (and sandbox). You'll find it thoroughly discussed.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Since you believe that further discussion is not needed and all outstanding points have been answered, I will take you at your word. I understand that you, thus, agree that I am correct in any arguments I have made that have not been rebutted. Bhimaji (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All I see is you complaining about the word "dead" which has been changed many times and is still reverted. The rest of it is vague claims with out substantiation. And when people have questioned your interpretation of the policy you say "nope sorry all ready discussed" or "I don't need to discuss this." The Abraham information and the Secret information needs to be included. How can we reach a compromise to include it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)As someone just approaching this article, I'd like to hear why the properly sourced information [2] is being removed. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for a person's official biography

This is ridiculous. The information I put up there was directly from Esther herself. It includes a clear explanation of Abraham's relation to her. Wikipedia biographies are not supposed to be direct copies of a person's official biography. The "removal before discussion" exception is not one that lasts indefinitely. You don't just keep removing accurately sourced non-offensive material without discussion indefinitely. The WP:BLP policies are there to ensure that potentially harmful information is removed and then discussed, rather than the other way around. In this case, I see very little discussion of the material in question. I've seen zero explanation about why her philosophy can't be mentioned. It's surely not offensive or hurtful since she self-publishes it. The actions of this small cadre of obviously COI editors is getting ridiculous. Please, explain to me how an outline of what she calls "Abraham-Hicks' Teachings" is hurtful, offensive, or in some way damaging.

Let me remind you of the policy on self-published sources in biographies:

Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

...

6. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Let's see some action here to add more material to the biography. As it stands, it is unacceptable. It is a violation of policy and has zero information. Bhimaji (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing other sourced information in favor of a personal bio page doesn't make for an accurate article. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The real article and how to reach a compromise

The real Esther Hicks article is now at User:Tmtoulouse/Esther Hicks my understanding is that there is a problem with the phrase "channeling the dead." While this wording comes straight from the source I am not opposed to changing it to something that means basically the same thing or if you can provide another source that describes it differently we can work off of that. I have proposed wordings such as "channeling otherworldly beings" but that has been reverted as well. What wording would work? Also why are people complaining about discussing her basic tenets and her work on The Secret film? These are the only specifics I can find and most of them do not appear to violate any policy at all. I would like some more specific information about how this information should be presented to avoid edit warring. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

--Esther has never used the word "channel" to represent what she does, so to use it in her biography would be misleading and incorrect.--Moriah (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But every single source I have found says otherwise. Wikipedia is about verifiability. I can list multiple sources that call it channeling. I would ask that you please tell me what wording would be appropriate and then offer a usable source for that wording? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If multiple sources say it is "channeling," then unless you can produce a source that explicitly says it's not "channeling," that's what it is. Otherwise, it's original research to say that just because she's never called it that term, the term is not applicable. Dayewalker (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The spin off article has been deleted. Please work on the page here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Love to but you seem to have made sure that we can't. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)What Spartaz means is that the page, and the compromises, should be discussed here at the proper talk page. The article is locked until that compromise is reached, so any issues should be discussed here and only here. In addition, any discussion that took place in someone's sandbox (as alluded to above) isn't relevant. This article is in dispute, so let's hear from everyone with a stake in this and try to gain consensus here. To start with, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above about deleting properly sourced material with no explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dayewalker, I'll give it a go. Hopefully in a succinct and clear manner: Esther Hicks is a live person. What is written for a live person's biography is set to a different standard than an article for a concept or deceased person. It is not a platform for bringing forth alternate viewpoints to create a neutral point of view nor is it a platform for discussing concepts and/or points of view associated to the person. Reading through several other biographies of live persons, Barack Obama and Shirley Maclaine being two examples, it is clear to see how a respectful bio can be written. Unfortunately, the page for Esther Hicks has not met the standard of quality set by Wikipedia in this regard.

Because discussion with the editors who want to introduce contentious, sensationalistic, and potentially libelous material based on sources they found that talk about related topics (ie coatracks) were unwilling to respect the privacy of Esther Hicks WP:LIVE in their editing, it became necessary to create a pure biography to prevent the use of coatracking as a means to place contentious, sensationalistic, and potentially libellous material per Wikipedia policy to, first and foremost, respect the privacy of the live person the biography is about. Without a willingness to participate in a page that meets that standard, the only compromise is to remove the page altogether--Ahnalira (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep talking in vague generalities. What are the specific sentences you have issues with? All I can find are people complaining about the phrase "channeling the dead" which is the wording used in the source but as I have said I am up to discussion on it. And that anything dealing with Abraham and The Secret is a "coatrack" which frankly it is not. These are two issues that define the subject of the biography. So then what are you complaining about? Are you sticking to your story that despite the fact that every source talks about Abraham and The Secret that these do not belong? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Ahnalira, I appreciate you starting off. I understand what you're saying, but you haven't given any examples of what you're talking about. As a living person, Esther Hicks is entitled to certain protections under wikipedia rules under WP:BLP. However, that doesn't mean that her biography on wikipedia should be the same biography that appears on her web site, and all other sources should be ignored and discarded. Some specific examples would help. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Dayewalker. Let's start with this source: Dirty Little Secret from the entertainment section of New York Postdirty_little_secret_entertainment_maureen_callahan.htm?page=0

1. The article is about The Secret, not Esther Hicks. As well, it is a contentious and sensationalistically focused article.

2. For those who say Esther's success is dependent upon The Secret and so the information is necessary to her biography: facts indicate that Esther Hicks began her career 20 years ago, long before this movie/book was developed. Her success precedes and is independent of the Secret. Therefore, referencing the topic itself is un-necessary and using an article primarily about a topic that has nothing to do with Esther Hicks is a poor biographical reference.

3. The current version of The Secret DVD doesn't contain Esther Hicks at all.

Does this address your request for specific examples?--Ahnalira (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another specific example: The resource: Cult Education Forum is slanted, derogatory, and all statements made there are anecdotally based. This is a poor reference for purposes of meeting the standard for WP:BLP--Ahnalira (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus building requires that all parties actually participate in relative good faith. I have been told, flat out, on this very talk page, despite my actual pleading, that they will not discuss the changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)If I may ofer some advice here (to all parties), this page has been locked down by admins. The only way to get the page up and running is to discuss the issues. Tmt, all you can do is start making your case here, point by point, of how you feel the article should be (and provide references). It will be up to the parties who disagree with you to make their case. If they don't bother to return and discuss this, consensus will be made without them. Silence is consensus, especially if the parties refuse to discuss the issue in favor of an edit war.

In short, you have to assume good faith, especially in a situation like this where the admins have locked down the page to force discussion. You can bet admins will be checking in on the page for signs of discussion, and simple dismissals of other people's referenced additions (i.e. "no discussion needed") won't go over very well.

I'd advise the best way to start is with some piece of properly referenced information that's been removed, as I asked about above. Post it here, and let the other side show their reasons why the information shouldn't belong on the page.

I'll be watching the page, if anyone needs another opinon. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lede

Fine, lets discuss the first paragraph. Whats is wrong with this:

"Esther Hicks is an inspirational speaker and best-selling author. She is best known for her work on the Law of Attraction and for her role in the film The Secret. She has also claimed to channel otherworldly beings called Abraham and her series The Teachings of Abraham is based on her experience with these beings. . She has co-authored eight books with her husband Jerry Hicks and has presented workshops on the Law of Attraction. "

Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

She is not "best known" for her "role in the Secret", and she does not appear in the version of the Secret widely distributed all over the world. Again, and this has been said over and over again, the fact that the Times prints a factoid, does not make it true. Likewise, Esther does not "claim to channel otherworldly" anything. This HAS already been discussed. Why do you keep claiming that these points have not been made over and over again?--Moriah (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So how should we change the wording so that it would meet with your approval? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Would love to see what sources you are using as well. The "times" is better than "hearsay" any day as far as sourcing goes. Also the reason that she is not in the secrete (wanting more money and being edited out) belongs in the article as well but not in the lede which is what we are discussing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

==Why is changing of wording required? Let's just leave out these mistaken items.--Moriah (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I can't find any evidence consensus was gained on it so since this page is locked down, let's rediscuss the issue. Do you have a source where Esther (or someone else) disputes the claims of "channeling" that appear in the Post article? Otherwise, what you have just said is "I disagree, let's take that sourced material out of the article." That's not the way wikipedia works. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

==Why does Esther (or anyone) have to "dispute" what was written by a reporter (not even claiming to be quoting her) in a newspaper? Since she has never claimed to "channel" why bring that into this biography? It seems to me to be very clear that TmToulouse has a negative ax to grind where the subject of this biography is concerned, and his lack of objectivity is clouding his allowance of clarity. For him to claim that Esther is not in the Secret for the reasons he stated above prove his lack of not only facts, but of essential neutrality. --Moriah (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no call for personal attacks here. Please remain civil, and comment on the article, not on other editors. A reliable secondary source has been used, and you disagree with it. I'll ask again, is there proof (in another source) that what Esther claims to do should not be described as "channeling"? Tmt, do you have any other sources that refer to it as "channeling"? Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New York Times doesn't use channeling but says "summon otherworldly spirits she says speak through her" which to me sure sounds like a long winded way of "channeling" but wouldn't be opposed to wording along those lines as well. The Independent actually quotes her calling herself a channeller ""We know," she replies. From choice, she says, she would never do another interview. "I'm sitting here and I am uncomfortable because people don't like Mormons, people don't like Amway, people don't like channellers."" [3]. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to that reference, Esther refers to herself as a "channeler," but says she doesn't like to be called one. That seems to prove the point she does do channeling, but doesn't like to use the term because of the connotations. To me, that doesn't call for the removal of the term. If there's another reliable term to be used, it could be. Dayewalker (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact we could probably expand the sentence to include her objections to the term based on the source I would think. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair. She is certainly described as a "channeler," even if she dislikes the term. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a term that Esther Hicks states she doesn't like when there are other ways to describe it is non-compliant to respecting the privacy of a live person per WP:LIVE. Here is an example from the Interview resource referenced below ""By Christmas 1985 she was receiving verbally transmittable messages about the Law of Attraction." I suggest using this phrase.--Ahnalira (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what this has to do with privacy? I don't understand how privacy fits in with this. Regarding the choice of phrasing, I don't believe that Wikipedia's policies demand that a biography comply with the wishes of the person in question. If she doesn't like the term being applied to herself, then the biography should clearly not imply that she gives herself that title. However, if the term is accurate and conveys what she does, I think it's a mistake to forbid its use. I often see people who perform on stage coming up with unique terms to describe what they do. I'm sure that describing what they do using their own terminology helps with marketing and publicity. This biography is not a marketing instrument. If a term is accurate, then it should be used. Bhimaji (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Playing with the wording:

"Esther Hicks is an inspirational speaker and best-selling author. She has co-authored eight books with her husband Jerry Hicks, presented workshops on the Law of Attraction and appeared in the flim The Secret. Her series called The Teachings of Abraham are based on translations she has claimed to make while channeling otherworldly beings called Abraham, though Hicks has stated she dislikes the term "channeling" because of its connotations. . "

Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems more neutral to me. Any other opinions? Dayewalker (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a bit of a time out until tomorrow (I'm not in a US time zone and it's very late here and I'd like to research some sources - thanks.)--Moriah (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Consensus shouldn't be gained until all of the active editors weigh in. In the meantime, the discussions on the other issues with the article. Dayewalker (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This active editor appreciates the time out as well and I agree that before anyone else gets banned for the 3RR we come to a consensus here. I would like to point out something that some of us my not realize yet: Articles from newspapers titling their lists of reliable and unbiased facts as as in the NY Post's "Dirty Little Secrets" and The Independant's "Shaking Riches from the Cosmos" more than suggests not only no form of NPOV was available, but an agenda that cannot be relied upon for the truth of what was said for important Wiki information to be included in a biography.

Sanity rules with Wiki rules. Let's be sure and follow them, please. Goodnight.Gordondavid (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So to break this down, you are claiming that the NY Post and the UK's The Independent fail wp:rs because of the choice of their headline text? Could you point me to the policy that guided you to this conclusion? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that simple common sense be used as well as sound judgement when we are using our chosen sources. We can and should call into question what motivation could have been used for the source. Could all said be gospel? What is the quality? Is it like a University paper in quality? Is it truly a report as a newspaper is responsible to quote? Or is there the motivation of sensation invloved? And so the title used for an article speaks volumes for the quality Wiki suggests we should always use when picking our sources. I suggest the use of a modicum of common sense. The Independant, for example, said this of Jerry and Esther Hicks as authors in their title:

"...the couple who claim they can make you rich beyond your wildest dreams..."

As someone quite familiar with their work that has read their books and gone to their seminars, that would like to see NPOV and quality on this, I can say with complete confidence that they not only have never said that, but that in no way will anyone be able to find citations for it. That said, I want to point out that this is a bio. of a living person and all of the above for this article is moot. Still, I bring out a point I know needs answering, and call into question the quality of both sources, that both sources in this case have no business being used in this arena at all. Tm, you have admited in talk to having a clear bias on this. At least chose neutral sources here. ThanksGordondavid (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific provision in wp:rs that would impeach these sources? Remember sources do not have to be npov. What alternative sources do you recommend we use? Can you please list 2-3 sources that meet wp:rs that you suggest we use for this article? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only find sources for what is actually said and spoken. That is available in many ways, all of which, they have actually published.Gordondavid (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that we can not construct a biography only using primary sources of the subject of the biography right? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case Gordondavid is trying to make, I completely disagree. Attempting to discredit reliable sources (that are used in probably thousands of other articles) simply because of the headline isn't accurate. That's an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard. Dayewalker (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While the title of this article is misleading because nowhere in the article do Jerry and Esther Hicks make such a claim, it does have biographical material interspersed with the author's very subjective point of view "review" of his personal experience with them and in a workshop. If the statements taken from the article are taken with an intention of respect for Esther Hick's biography, I think this qualifies as a source. For example, one of the quotes in the article states "By Christmas 1985 she was receiving verbally transmittable messages about the Law of Attraction." This would be a description that is biographical and respects WP:BLP However, mining the article for comments that have an intent to find critical or derogatory statements would not be appropriate use of the resource for the purposes of WP:BLP--Ahnalira (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed lede is right up there, is there wording or information that you feel is not substantiated by the source presented? If so can you say specifically what that is and what you would propose for a more neutral wording. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sat back and watched this editing war for the past few days. Interesting to say the least. If you step back and look at the NY Post article especially the writer, Maureen Callahan, you will see that she is a gossip writer. For instance, lets look at the article on how the stars chewed with their mouths open and she had a full page Sunday spread of them doing so. [4] Or lets look at her "3 Bimbos" article [5] that she wrote about Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan bearing their crotches to the paparazzi. The Post writer has proven herself as a gossip shop sensationalist that pushes the libel lines and then hides behind the 1st amendment. The post article that a couple of people are praising here is just another one of Maureen Callahan's pieces of editorial gossip.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is a quotes are taken directly from the Independent article:

"Admirers come to learn more about improving their lives by asking questions about the Law of Attraction; the replies, they believe, are given to them directly from Abraham, a group of spirit entities whose thoughts Esther Hicks translates into English, once she has entered into a meditative state." "When I started receiving," says Esther, who dislikes the term spirit channelling, "I thought of Abraham as some dead guy who was really smart. The more they spoke, the more I began thinking they were infinite intelligence that we are tapping in to."

Based on these, I would like to change the part of the lede section that refers to what Esther Hicks does to the following: "Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on translations of thought she has claimed to make while channeling a group of non-physical entities called Abraham. (Hicks describes what she does as "tapping into infinite intelligence".) [2][3]--Moriah (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Secret

Another point of contention seems to revolve around The Secret and the circumstances of Esther Hicks removal from later editions. Here is my proposed wording for a paragraph about that:

"Esther Hicks appeared in The Secret. However, the original footage featuring her was later removed in the "Extended Edition" of The Secret after conflict between Hicks and director Rhonda Byrne. The conflict is reported as being primarily about intellectual property rights and money Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation of the fallout."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose to change the text about Hicks involvement in the Secret as follows:

"Esther Hicks appeared in the original version ofThe Secret as a narrator and star. The Hicks' explanation of the Law of Attraction to its creator, Rhonda Byrne was central to the inspiration that brought about the film. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" of The Secret at her request, due to conflict between Hicks and Byrne regarding intellectual property rights. Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation of the fallout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoriahBaron (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) -- I moved this around - wasn't sure where it should go. I apologize for inappropriate moving about of my comments ---

I looked at the references used for citing the "share of the profits" remark and could not find anything on it. Maybe I missed it. Can you source this phrase?Gordondavid (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From the NY post "She enlisted the help of self-help gurus - two of whom, Esther and Jerry Hicks, later claimed Byrne swindled them out of their share of profits".Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That quote does not refer to the reason that Hicks left The Secret. And so the remark "share of the profits" should be removed and is not relevant.Gordondavid (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think it is referring to then? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference states that they made made such a claim. It does not relate with their reasons for leaving The Secret.Gordondavid (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, everyone. Do not go backwards. We have already decided to leave out the erroneous sentence stating that the "conflict" around the Secret was about Esther's "share of the profits". This is simply an untrue statement, and it's bad enough that we have to leave the sentence about it being about "money" which isn't true either, but since it's been reported that way in a newspaper article we have to leave it. Please don't make the inaccuracies any more glaring. Let's let this part drop. We have enough info on the bio about the whole Secret debacle. Move on people. Thank you. Moriah--85.250.10.107 (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Was raised at AN3. I have protected the page for a couple of days to allow any editing disputes to be hammered out here. If you reach a resolution before that you are welcome to ask for the protection to be lifted at RFPP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A complaint about the editing of this article has been made at the COI Noticeboard

Please take a look at this report. All are welcome to add their own comment to that thread. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry on this page

As confirmed here [6], Ahnalira has been blocked for one month for sockpuppetry. His socks, Kmcgloin (talk · contribs), Melcapp (talk · contribs), MoriahBaron (talk · contribs), and Gacuster (talk · contribs) have all been blocked indefinitely.

I would suggest that since this user has acted in extremely bad faith (beginning with his obvious conflict of interest), that all editors currently working to attain consensus on this page continue to do so, without responding to this blocked user's comments. Let's stay focused on building a consensus among users using good faith, and get this article up and running again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pursuing that, I have had my suspicions of course and am grateful to see it resolved for now. I think the best thing to do for now is look at the article before all this went down here as a starting point. I think we have all ready improved the lede over what is in here based on above discussion. I have also proposed a new paragraph to replace the one about the secret. It is close but I have made some changes of wording and structure based on sources and removed some information that was sourced to a non-existent page. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting also. From someone looking from the outside on this war for the last few days, the admin may want to take a good look at the person who is pointing the finger. The admin should also be really be careful to allow the bully or biases of a certain participant here. Since it is a bio of a living person, Wiki can get into legal hot water. My suggestion would be to take the page down all together before it really gets ugly--70.197.94.180 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Legal, strange this is the second almost threat tonight. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No threats... A simple observation of neutrality. The devils advocate at its best my friend.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Your accusation is ridiculous. The admin took a good look at the person who was not using good faith on this page and sockpuppeting to support their cause. The reason wikipedia is concerned with using only reliable secondary sources is so it doesn't get into any legal trouble. Your suggestion to take the page down has been already atempted once here [7]. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my post [8] Does your NY Post article carry any weight after reading that?--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Yes, it does. A random comment by an IP doesn't invalidate a published source. Dayewalker (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed looking at everyones talk pages - some really interesting ones. After reading the last talk page, which was Ahnalira, [9] it looks as if Bhmaji, Tmtoulouse, and Dayewalker are gloating and fringing on harassment. Admin take a look[10] - better get a hold on this page! I love being the unbiased outsider--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Please limit your comments to the issue at hand. This is a talk page, not a forum. Dayewalker (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Random and unbiased is the best way to look at both sides. Just because it is a random ip doesn't discount the article - thats pretty funny.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies on limiting my comments to the issue at hand. Would it be better to report directly to the admin?--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Take your complaints not dealing with this article to WP:ANI. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect Thanks! --70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to a spirited and unbiased contribution to both sides here. --70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I also look forward to an unbiased and succinct article that has the just facts as can be accurately referenced with an ease of acceptance by both sides of the personal point of views of the editors and administrators out of the picture on it altogether. Obviously, there are will always be naysayers as well as believers and strong points of view as well as those with agendas desiring to broadcast them here. Even though I am very familiar and well versed in the publications of Abraham-Hicks, I will be an agent representing the rules as I understand them with as fair and balanced a contribution as I can possibly make. When there is a question about what to add, anything that is not sourced, I will bring it here first.

It was my understanding that as a biography, the "teachings of Abraham" and whatever has been said about that information, sourced either by the subject of this article *directly*, be information would in fact, not qualify for pure biography page. I would like a clarification of that from the Wiki administration. As someone that respects Wiki rules as well as someone that has read the books from this author, I desire to be valuable asset to this article using sources from Esther and Jerry Hicks that has been published and an asset to those that are unfamiliar with this author who come to Wikipedia to learn more about them in an acdemic way.

For example, the phrase, she "talks to dead people" which is not any different than "talking with the dead" is clearly misunderstood and easily creates a negative and inaccurate bias. It is not based on physical facts or in any understanding. These exact words are not sourced correctly per the author's own publications. But that may fodder for another discussion if persued on the article here.

I intend to be clear about what needs to be here per Wiki administrators and their actual guidelines. And so the question I have is: Are the teachings of Abraham-Hicks, (note: NOT Esther Hicks herself but what comes from Abraham-Hicks Publications)'required to be here?Thanks so much for your efforts. Gordondavid (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This page should reasonably reflect what reliable sources have published about Esther Hicks. It may also use information from her own website if it is deemed relevant. It is very puzzling that some editors want to revert information about Hicks that appears well-known. Since I am not very familiar with the issues, it would help if you could clarify what the issue is about "talking with the dead." If we just need to find a way of describing what she does that is not too POV or annoying, that ought to be a doable task. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The "talking with the dead" comment was reported by the NY Post reporter. Based on my knowledge and reading of Abraham-Hicks for over 12 years, this statement was misquoted if it is to be claimed as "quoted" at all. I take it that it was not quoted, it was a statement from the reporter in a clearly sensationalized article for the purpose of reader interest in conflict, rather than an article based on the facts as a report.

The wording of "talking to the dead" has never been stated by them outside of being a delightfully humorous remark. I am confident that a serious and neutral source to those exact words do not exist if they refer to talking to the physically dead. These words from the reporter in the NY Post are misunderstood and not quoted. To use that term in her biography and as statement of fact is absolutely misguided and reflects a naysayer's bias. Gordondavid (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The current proposed lede uses the following wording:

"Esther Hicks is an inspirational speaker and best-selling author. She has co-authored eight books with her husband Jerry Hicks, presented workshops on the Law of Attraction and appeared in the flim The Secret. Her series called The Teachings of Abraham are based on translations she has claimed to make while channeling otherworldly beings called Abraham, though Hicks has stated she dislikes the term "channeling" because of its connotations. . "

Talking to the dead is not mentioned. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to Tmtoulouse's idea for how to say this. Before moving on, though, I'd like to ask if Gordondavid objects to anything in the 2007 NY Times article reported by Allen Salkin. Check out the passage in that article which begins:

Three hundred people had paid $195 each to hear Ms. Hicks, a former secretary, summon otherworldly spirits she says speak through her. The spirits, who collectively use the name Abraham, answered participants’ questions.

Do you disagree with anything this reporter said, or do you think it misrepresents Hicks' approach in any way? EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The price of the seminars is correct and the amount that attended is quite possibly correct as well. But her previous employment history is not related to the subject of their publications at all.

The term "otherworldly spirits" was made up by the reporter. This is a very good example of an article writen with an agenda to sensationalize that we have to be careful with when using in-line quoting in the article because it can be misleading. Gordondavid (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you find an equally brief way of describing what actually happens in Hicks' seminars, that in your view doesn't use any inappropriate language? EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Esther Hicks "translates inspiration from non-physical energy". At the seminars questions may be asked of Esther who is translating Abraham, a group of non-physcial beings. That is what happens at the seminars and is brief as well as being appropriate language for the article. It is not biographical information about the author Esther Hicks, however, but this does answer your question. Gordondavid (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is appropriate wording at all, it seems to smudge the details to the point of being almost meaningless. This "non-physical energy" as portrayed by Hicks has a "name" a "personality" and a consistent voice and enduring identity over time. Hicks often talks as if she is really this Abraham, it is not just "inspiration" and "translation." Based on all the sources provided, and having seen videos of her performance, I think "channeling" is a perfectly legitimate description (we even put in there that she doesn't like the term, seems pretty balanced to me), as for "otherworldly beings" I am open to alterations of the wording as long as it accurately portrays what the sources have described it as and what Hicks herself is doing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in at the right location on the discussion page. Can someone help me out with that? Sorry about my moving it around. This page confuses me a bit. But here is what I want to say:

I propose to change the text about Hicks involvement in the Secret as follows:

"Esther Hicks appeared in the original version ofThe Secret as a narrator and star. The Hicks' explanation of the Law of Attraction to its creator, Rhonda Byrne was central to the inspiration that brought about the film. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" of The Secret at her request, due to conflict between Hicks and Byrne regarding intellectual property rights. Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation of the fallout.--Rjwilmsi 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoriahBaron (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) --Rjwilmsi 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actual work

Please limit discussion in this section to only improvement of the article. I suggest reverting back to [here and then replacing the lede with the one worked out above. And the paragraph on the secret with whatever gets worked out above. I would like some feedback on what I have written on the secret paragraph. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal to revert back to the older article. Perhaps the section on The Secret could expound a bit on why Abraham-Hicks decided to pull out? Theserialcomma (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the wording I have proposed:

"Esther Hicks appeared in The Secret. However, the original footage featuring her was later removed in the "Extended Edition" of The Secret after conflict between Hicks and director Rhonda Byrne. The conflict is reported as being primarily about intellectual property rights and money Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation of the fallout."

The sources we have so far don't really expand much on it beyond what it is said. Hicks discussion of it on YouTube seems to say basically the same thing I couldn't find much "new" behind all the words. If other sources can be found it could be expanded I will look. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any place to find other unbiased sources for this information about why they removed themselves from it from the Rhonda Bryne side. It may important to note that the original version of The Secret was out for only a very short time, (a month or two), and that the overwhelming volume of that video did not have them in it. Perhaps a source could be found for sales figures on the second version compared to the first. Please note my comment in the section above on sockpuppetry, I need to know from Wiki administration directly that their biography should or needs to include any information that is outside of her actual biograhy. Thanks! Gordondavid (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "outside her biography?" There is no question at all that wikipedia is not the place to host Hicks' official biography page. We write our content based on what can be found in secondary sources that meet wp:rs criteria. I don't think sales figures for "The Secret" really matter. However, there is some reporting about the amount of money the Hicks made off of their appearance in it, that might be worth addressing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a source to host her offical biography. But facts about her life detail should to be sourced in undisputed facts. Even if there is a dispute about a particular fact, if it is important, it should be pointed out that there is a dispute between what is reported and what is claimed by the author. It goes without question that there could be a slant made for the purpose of interest in conflict. Agreement is bland and does not sell newspapers. The agreed upon facts is a reason for Wikipedia to exist and diseminate the facts well.Gordondavid (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i disagree that only undisputed facts should be entered. that is just not how wikipedia works. wikipedia works on verifiability through trusted sources, not "facts" or "truth." if a claim is contentious, it should be added cautiously, with proper sourcing, and NPOV wording. however, disputed claims should not be kept out of the article just because the subject of the article doesn't like it. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Comma. Reliable sources should always be used as the primary sources of the article, as per wikipedia policy. Using a subject's personal website for non-controversial information (date of birth, etc) is fine, but using them as a source for constant rebuttals of reliably published information isn't a proper use of sources. If the subject has a problem with something printed in the New York Times, that issue is between them and the newspaper. Dayewalker (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If you read the White House's web site, George W. Bush is doing a remarkable job and has not made any mistakes at all. The reason people buy and read reputable newspapers is because they believe that the journalists in question do research, and listen to both what the person in question says as well as what other people say. A biography that only says what the biographee desires would frequently be lacking in important information. Sometimes it's information that portrays them badly, other times they just would prefer to be marketed differently. I'm guessing nobody wants to be remembered for their role in the movie Ishtar. Bhimaji (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in at the right location on the discussion page. Can someone help me out with that? Sorry about my moving it around. This page confuses me a bit. But here is what I want to say:

       I propose to change the text about Hicks involvement in the Secret as follows:

"Esther Hicks appeared in the original version ofThe Secret as a narrator and star. The Hicks' explanation of the Law of Attraction to its creator, Rhonda Byrne was central to the inspiration that brought about the film. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" of The Secret at her request, due to conflict between Hicks and Byrne regarding intellectual property rights. [7][4] Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation of the fallout.[10]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoriahBaron (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moriah, would you mind explaining your current status on wikipedia to me please? As I understand, you were banned for being a sockpuppet. Were you unbanned? I ask because if you were cleared of being a sockpuppet, then people need to know that you have returned under legitimate circumstances. However, if you were not unbanned, and you are consequently supposed to be blocked right now, then I propose that your modifications to this article (post ban) should be removed. If you are here because you were unblocked then I sincerely apologize for this tone; I am just genuinely ignorant to the evidence either way (i checked your talk page and the ANI page and found no new info) Theserialcomma (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure if this was the place to explain, but since you bring it up I will. That's right, I was banned, and after corresponding with the administrator, he understood that my banning was a mistake, and that I am not, in fact, a sockpuppet, and unbanned my account. So, as you can see I am no longer banned. I am not sure why my talk page still lists the ban. I noticed that as well, and I've emailed the administrator about that. I assume it was an oversight and that will revert shortly. Thank you for asking. --Moriah (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Moriah, the problem with your paragraph on the secret is that it introduces a lot of material that is completely unsourced, and removes some material that is sourced. All of that material about how it was central to the inspiration needs sourcing, it is not clear that she was removed just because of her "request" and the fact is that it was not just intellectual property rights. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is taken directly from the source already referenced! Everything I wrote was taken directly from that article so I can't understand why you take issue with it and say it is "completely unsourced"! And the part about being removed at her request is referenced by the video. Can we say "Hicks says ... " As in "Hicks says that she requested to remove herself from the Secret?" And the "conflict" was never about money. That part was made up by the authors of the referenced article. I didn't think it would harm anyone if we took it out, since everything in our paragraph is referenced. Please check the referenced article again and you will see that the fact that ESther was "narrator and star" is directly taken from it, as well as the sentence about her being the inspiration to Rhonda Byrne to make the movie in the first place. I was in fact very careful about being sure everything I said was referenced and would have appreciated some discussion before you summarily reverted the paragraph to your preferred version.--Moriah (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deal Moriah, you have a very strong conflict of interest on this article, it was not pursued because you were blocked. I am willing to let it drop but may not be able to. Essentially you are asked to not make substantial changes to the articles you have a large COI in. Rather suggest your changes on the talk page and reach consensus first. At the moment this is a voluntary request, but if you keep whitewashing and removing sourced content it will have to become an enforced rule. It is easier on everyone if you voluntarily comply. I am willing to talk to you about all of those issues and reach a compromised wording, like we did for the lede. But I would like to see a good faith gesture of putting the original consensus paragraph back in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time could you quote me the parts in the article you used to derive your comments about Esther's role in the secret? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest, and in fact I have felt a very strong one from your corner. Actually, I worked on that paragraph giving all due respect to the rules, having learned them mosting from you! Everything in it was completely and thoroughly referenced - using the same sources that you did in your wording! If you see something wrong with the paragraph as I edited, please let me know here and I would be happy to engage in discussion about it. I made that change with good faith, and changed it again with regard to your comment, but I do not want to remove it as I believe it is a better addition to the bio than what we had before. It gives more information, all of wich is thoroughly referenced. My being blocked previously was a mistake, the adminitrators saw that it was a mistake. Please do not characterize me as a behaving inappropriately here. I am still learning, yes, but I am making every effort to follow the rules strictly and to improve the page in a real and unbiased manner. Please leave my changes intact until we can discuss why you take issue with them. And yes, I'll get the quotes for you shortly--Moriah (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And what conflict of interest would I have in this article? You are free to ignore my advice, but you have all ready been brought up before the COI noticeboard once. It was dropped because of your block (which is the only reason I have brought it up) but it may be picked up again at anytime. I was not the one that brought it up to begin with, there are several editors that may decide to still do so. I am merely telling you one thing you could do to make it so it did not have to be an issue. Again, you can ignore me. I will wait to see your quotes from the articles, but even with that you have removed the fact that the issue with Byrne was also money. Which is reported in at least two sources. Atleast out that back in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is copied directly from the Independent article: "The original version of the DVD features many lifestyle gurus, including Jack Canfield, author of Chicken Soup For The Soul, but Esther Hicks was a central source of the film's inspiration, as well as its narrator and star. The main thrust of The Secret was the Law of Attraction, which Mrs Hicks had described in some detail to Byrne, on camera, during an Abraham cruise in 2005." --Moriah (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, doesn't quiet say what you have said here is my proposed wording:

"Esther Hicks narrated, and served as a central inspiration for, the original version of the film The Secret. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" of The Secret, due to conflict between Hicks and the films creator, Rhonda Byrne, regarding intellectual property rights and money. Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks explanation."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what conflict of interest you "would" have. I'm just saying that you seem to be arguing as if there are two opposing interests here, and that is not the way I see it. I am sincerely trying to work with you, I see your point of view on many issues, and am trying to engage in a straighforward attempt to improve the page. I keep getting the feeling you see me as an adversary. And again - please stop bringing up the fact that I have been reprimanded by the powers that be. Whatever mistakes I made as a completely fresh newbie I am sincerely attempting to rectify by using your example and discussing thoroughly and keeping to the rules. I will put back that the issue was also money,as it seems important to you I realize you can reference a reporter who said it was money. However, the other points that I painstakingly wrote a good paragraph on and referenced impeccably, I will let stand, and I hope you will agree. And please let's try to get a spirit of cooperation and not an adversarial one. There isn't that much difference between your wording and mine - but the very first part of yours is actually not correct - she wa *a* narrator, not "the". I think my wording more closely reflects what was actually reported in the arcticle. --Moriah (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No your wording is confusing the difference between Esther being a central inspiration and her Law of attraction being a central inspiration, the quote seperates those out and says that Esther was a central inspiration, while her idea was similar to the main thrust of the Secret. We can put "a" in my wording. But I think mine more accurately reflects the quote. We can await further opinion on the issue. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however, when we look at another quote from the same article, it puts my wording into context. Here is that quote: "The main thrust of The Secret was the Law of Attraction, which Mrs Hicks had described in some detail to Byrne, on camera, during an Abraham cruise in 2005. After sensing grave vibrational imbalances between themselves and Rhonda Byrne, mainly in the areas of money and intellectual property rights, the Hicks demanded to be removed from the film."

Will you agree that this also supports my wording of the article as Hicks "requesting" to be removed. Do we have to use the word "demanded" to be accurate? Also, I agree with you about the Law of Attraction being the main thrust, but I think the article points out that it was from Hicks that Byrne learned the Law of Attraction. Is there a compromise between our two wordings that might work better? --Moriah (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything needs better qualifing, I don't think it is clear that Byrne learned the law of attraction from Hicks at all. I think all the article is saying is that Hicks a central figure, and that the central theme of the movie matched Hicks MO for her meetings. Everything needs some better qualifying anyway let me play with the wording alittle:

"Esther Hicks was a narrater of the original version of the film The Secret. Hicks earned over $500,000 for her work and was reportedly a central source of the film's inspiration. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" after a conflict between Hicks and the film's creator Rhonda Byrne. The conflict is reported as being primarily about intellectual property rights and Hicks' share of the film's profit. Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks where she says it was her choice to discontinue her involvement with The Secret."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has meanwhile changed that section to bare bones without discussiont their change in talk. Why do you feel it necessary to add how much was made by the Hicks on the Secret? And I'm not being argumentative, I am really curious as to why you wish to include this? Does an encyclopedic biographical article usually iclude this sort of information? And since the fact that Esther narrated and starred in the original Secret and was a major source of its inspiration is perfected referenced, I do not agree with removing that information. I think that is informative and important information. And since it's referencable directly to a source you approve of, please do not remove it again. I'm reverting to your (TmToulouse) previous wording for now --Moriah (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

esther's channeling

the following quote comes from http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20070329/d_cover29.art.htm : "Just ask "Abraham," the disembodied, vibrational force whose teachings have been transmitted for the past few decades through the physical form of lecturer and author Esther Hicks. Although she dismisses the popular term "channeling," Hicks is a modern link to the past Spiritualist movement." perhaps this quote could be incorporated into the article? i think more information on abraham would be appropriate Theserialcomma (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree actually, the information presented in the lede is only a summary sentence appropriate for introducing the topic. A section on "Abraham-Hicks" including the history of when it started, the seminars, the "controversy" over what it is, and perhaps the connection to Jane Roberts if we can get the right sources. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest text such as the following, which can still be referenced to the sources you have now. I think we've exhausted the discussion on whether those sources are appropriate, and I agree to disagree on that, but would think we can still focus on wording the article to reflect a clearer picture. Would the following text work? "Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on the teachings of a group of non-physical teachers called Abraham. This has been characterized as "channeling" although Hicks does not subscribe to this term herself and refers to what she does as translating of thought vibration." This also corrects the mistake that now appears in the lede saying the series is called "The Teachings of Abraham". Would anyone take issue with the wording above? Another point: Since this is an author bio - let's include a list of her published works. --Moriah (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the wording as it doesn't match anything the sources have presented and seems to be a confused portrayal of what is going on. Let me look into the claimed error though. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My wording still admits that this has been characterized as "channeling" and even allows pointing to the disputed article that is currently referenced, so it does indeed match the sources. Can you explain why you see the wording as a "confused portrayal"? It is a clear and concise and exact representation of what is "going on". All of Hicks' books and recordings state that she "translates blocks of thought". Can you suggest a clearer wording?--Moriah (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the wording I have on the article right now. Problems with your wording is that 1) it does not qualify the statements so it looks like wikipedia is saying she actually does do this and 2) it does not match the wording used an any source and 3) it is verbose and using lots of jargon related to Hicks metaphysics. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Then if we add "Hicks says" and state "Hicks says she translates blocks of thought.... " Would this work? It would still be followed by the sentence that this has been characterized as channeling etc.. with the reference.--Moriah (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again it doesn't match the sources, we are dealing with the lede here whose purpose is to make summary of an idea in as few words as needed. I think it is important to write a section about "Abraham-Hicks" that goes into more detail, inside that section would be the appropriate place to discuss "translating blocks of thought" if you can provide a source for it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about a teachings section but can we put that aside for present and just talk about the lede? Your use of the word "translating" is not in context, and I still feel that the following text is one we can have consensus on.

"Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on the teachings of a group of non-physical teachers called Abraham. This has been characterized as "channeling" although Hicks does not subscribe to this term herself and refers to what she does as translating of thought vibration." If nobody else objects, I'll edit that in.--Moriah (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I object, and would ask you not to edit till others have chimed in as the existing lede reflects what little consensus we have managed so far. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. that's why I said "if others do not object". Meanwhile, I've tweaked it a little and I think this will be more acceptable to you:

"Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on her translations of the teachings of a group of non-physical teachers called Abraham. This has been characterized as "channeling" although Hicks does not subscribe to this term herself." This is all verifiable from the sources you accept, and it takes out that last bit which maybe is what you meant by "jargon". --Moriah (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to the terms "teachings" and "teachers" unless you have a good source for those terms they should not be included. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Esther refers to them as teachers in her books, but I would have to search for a secondary reference. Meanwhile, I would be okay with "entities" - would that work for you?--Moriah (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

not sure what to replace "teachings" with.. can you suggest something? "entities" could replace teachers.. --Moriah (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording I would approve of:

"Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on translations she has claimed to make while channeling a group of non-physical entities called Abraham, although Hicks does not subscribe to the term channeling herself because of its negative connotations."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with that for now. Can we put that in now? The only part I'd like to clarify is the last "negative connotations". Is this what it says in the newspaper is her reason for not liking the term? If fact, that's not the reason - she doesn't like the term because it really is not an accurate one for what she does. I understand the constraints here about referencing though, so I'm willing to put that aside for now and accept your wording.--Moriah (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the only thing that can be pulled from the references would be a statement like "although Hicks dislikes the term channeling." So it would read:

"Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on translations she has claimed to make while channeling a group of non-physical entities called Abraham, although Hicks dislikes the term "channeling.""

Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with that then.--Moriah (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the lastest book, but I see that has been removed. Can someone explain why that sentence is not acceptable?--Moriah (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't removed, you added it twice. I removed the second occurrence of it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I do think mention of the latest book should appear in the body of the article though,--Moriah (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) since the other books are mentioned. Maybe we can put that sentence there, and list the book under publications with a scanter wording - not the exact same sentence?

Continued from above

A few unclosed reference tags had make a mess of this talk page, I have tried fixing it but bleh. Anyway here is what appears to be the active conversation now.

• My current proposal for the wording on The Secret section:

"Esther Hicks was a narrater of the original version of the film The Secret. Hicks earned over $500,000 for her work and was reportedly a central source of the film's inspiration. However, the footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" after a conflict between Hicks and the film's creator Rhonda Byrne. The conflict is reported as being primarily about intellectual property rights and Hicks' share of the film's profit. Abraham-Hicks Publications has posted a video on YouTube of Hicks where she says it was her choice to discontinue her involvement with The Secret."

• A proposal by Moriah to change the lede:

"Hicks' books, including the best selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on translations of thought she has claimed to make while channeling a group of non-physical entities called Abraham. (Hicks describes what she does as "tapping into infinite intelligence").

I am getting burnt parsing minutia, so don't have additional comments at the moment but I wanted to pull this out of the mess above. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has meanwhile changed that section to bare bones without discussiont their change in talk. Why do you feel it necessary to add how much was made by the Hicks on the Secret? And I'm not being argumentative, I am really curious as to why you wish to include this? Does an encyclopedic biographical article usually iclude this sort of information? And since the fact that Esther narrated and starred in the original Secret and was a major source of its inspiration is perfected referenced, I do not agree with removing that information. I think that is informative and important information. And since it's referencable directly to a source you approve of, please do not remove it again. I'm reverting to your (TmToulouse) previous wording for now --Moriah (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The more information the better, sure information is included all the time with films and actors/actresses, budgets, gross, nets, contract, etc. Seems like good solid information worth including to me. Is there a reason not to include it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did the phrase "and served as a central inspiration for" come from in the Secret section? It doesn't seem to be supported by a quick glance at the reference given. Dayewalker (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is in the Independent interview. Quote: "Esther Hicks was a central source of the film's inspiration" Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted the complete Independent quote above, and I repeat it here: "The original version of the DVD features many lifestyle gurus, including Jack Canfield, author of Chicken Soup For The Soul, but Esther Hicks was a central source of the film's inspiration, as well as its narrator and star. The main thrust of The Secret was the Law of Attraction, which Mrs Hicks had described in some detail to Byrne, on camera, during an Abraham cruise in 2005."

I thought we had consensus on how to get the points in that Hicks was central to the inspiration and narrated and starred, but we keep changing it, so can we please discuss it here before making any more changes and removing those points? Comma what was your objection to my and/or tmTouLouse's versions? As you can see, they were adequately referenced. Also, why the insistence on stressing the money issue. I am completely on board with the fact that we need to reference everything and even though I know for a fact that the "profits" were never an issue in Hicks departure from the secret, I would like to know first, where is that cited, and second, why is it necessary to put dollar amounts into the biography? If someone could address these two points I would appreciate it. --Moriah (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

my objection was the part where it was written that she "starred" in the video. it sounded POV and not properly sourced to me. also, was she the narrator of the original secret, or just one of the narrators? i feel the wording is ambiguous. if you have any sources stating that she was the narrator and she was the star of the video, i think you should provide them. Theserialcomma (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comma, please before you decide that something "sounds not properly sources", have a look here in the discussion to see if it's been explained and at the very least follow the footnote on the item to see if the source referenced indeed IS a source! If you would read all of the discussion above, you will see that tmTouLouse and I have already discussed this. The source says "she narrated". His wording made it sound is if she was "the narrator" and I pointed out that she was "a narrator and star", as the source stated. And I really take issue with what you have said above. What do you mean by asking if I have any sources stating....??? I have QUOTED the source verbatum and not just once, right in this discussion and have engaged another editor in intelligent talk about how we should use that source's information and word the article. You are sabatoging our efforts at consensus and not paying attention. I have asked you politely above - and I ask you again - please do not come here and state that I am not referencing without checking. I hope we have by now beat this dead horse enough, but I will add once more this quote which is directly from the Independent article:

"When I started receiving," says Esther, who dislikes the term spirit channelling, "I thought of Abraham as some dead guy who was really smart. The more they spoke, the more I began thinking they were infinite intelligence that we are tapping in to." Please do not remove the part about "infinite intelligence" again. It provides much needed clarity and information to what Esther Hicks DOES.--Moriah (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) And here is the quote about "narrator and star" - DIRECTLY FROM THE RELIABLE SOURCE and I am putting it in the discussin for the second time: I posted the complete Independent quote above, and I repeat it here: "The original version of the DVD features many lifestyle gurus, including Jack Canfield, author of Chicken Soup For The Soul, but Esther Hicks was a central source of the film's inspiration, as well as its narrator and star. The main thrust of The Secret was the Law of Attraction, which Mrs Hicks had described in some detail to Byrne, on camera, during an Abraham cruise in 2005."--Moriah (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As a professional researcher and writer, I assess the current version of this bio as excellent. It is impartial, factual, grammatical and organized, well-referenced, and gives the main encyclopedic points that should be included in a biography. There may be a word here and there that I would prefer not appear, but on the whole I think it's good. It has evolved from the molding of several editors who have taken an interest in the bio, and as my first experience with Wiki I find it fascinating and enlightening to be part of this process. --Moriah (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

my apologies if i sounded accusatory in my tone. you are right, the claims that she 'starred' and 'narrated' were both sourced, and i missed that somehow. my mistake. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, the word "thought" is central to the integrity of the statement in the lede about what Hicks does. The "translation" we are talking about, is actually translation of thought, so let's leave that word where it is (it too, is referenced!) And the part I put in parenthesis, also referenced, brings further clarity to what Hicks herself says as far as "chenneling". It isn't only that she dislikes the term, it's that she calls what she does "tapping into infinite intelligence", which is quite different. As I said, all of that is referenced in the article and since it does make things much more clear, I would like to leave it there.--Moriah (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

TmToulouse, I agreed with your change to the teachings section - sounds much better. I did make just a minor change to reflect that they are not "her" teachings, but the teachings of Abraham-Hicks, since Esther Hicks herself doesn't claim any "teachings". --Moriah (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be an excellent time to start drafting up an expansion on what exactly "Abraham-Hicks" is, such as when she started channeling, her early influences, etc. The term needs some introduction and background and I think this section is probably where it will be. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, I bow to your experience with Wiki, but could you explain why all of that information is appropriate to add to a biographical article?Gordondavid (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is interesting information about the subject of the biography? Because the "Abraham-Hicks" show is Esther's entire shtick and information about when and how it came into creation is important? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

TmToulouse, I have to say your remarks surprise me. I had you pegged as a Wikipedian who tried to have integrity, and yet you use words like "show" and "Shtick", which I think anyone will agree sound derogatory, about the subject of a biography we are trying to mold into something encyclopedic and worthy! I think this points to your not being able to approach this task with neutrality, and perhaps you should think about letting others edit. Also, there is already quite a large section on the teachings in the bio, in fact it lists all the main points of the teachings. And there are external links for those who wish to learn more. According to what I understand from the Wiki pages on biographies, what we have now quite covers the subject.--Moriah (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse seems to be getting frustrated, which is logical. You keep trying to assign some bias to his edits, when in reality he's been bending over backwards to try and raise this article up to wiki standards while editors who appear to have a conflict of interest are trying to use as much information from personal websites as possible, which isn't the way wikipedia works. Please continue trying to reach consensus here, and don't try and run off a productive editor with accusations about his "neutrality." Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never hidden the fact that I think the whole thing is a farce, you want my actual take on the whole thing? Read here. Just because an editor has a POV (and all editors do) does not mean they can not edit articles on the standard of "neutrality." If every article was edited only by people who had no opinion on the topic the articles would probably never be written. There are checks and balances against opinion, such as the requirement for sourcing, and the requirement for consensus building. Every edit I make I link back meticulously to the source, when there is conflict the first place I come is the talk page. I had to spend a week begging people reverting my edits to come and actually talk about them. My personal view, and my edits are easily separable.

Anyway about the issue at hand, I am not talking about expanding the "teachings" but expanding the background on "Abraham-Hicks" specifically. When it started, early influences, etc. All valid topics to look at. Remember Wikipedia is not paper. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Entries for people on Wikipedia generally include a lot of information about why the person is important. They normally include a fair amount of information explaining the subject's relation to whatever notable works they have done. When there is a really tight link between a person and what they are notable for, the two are sometimes combined into a single article. For example, the article for Gerson Therapy redirects to Max Gerson's biography, because there wasn't really sufficient information for two articles.

I believe that the Abrahams-Hicks' teachings are the primary reason that Esther is notable. It would thus be expected for her entry on Wikipedia to include a fair amount of material on the teachings. Bhimaji (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So.. are you saying that you have no agenda here? That you are not trying to make the article look derogatory? I remember reading at some point (I admit I'm not sure where but it was a talk page last week) that you said you had added an edit for the express purposes of making Esther Hicks look bad.(You said that you said "talks to dead people" "because it is more derogatory") Since that time, I've tried to look objectively and dispassionately at your work here, because you do seem to have a lot of knowledge of how the Wiki works and to be trying to work with integrity, and I let that go. But then today you said Esther Hicks was a "show" and called her work "shtick", which is what brought it up again. And you once accused me of a "conflict of interest". I am really really trying to understand this. Why is it okay for you to openly think "the whole thing is a farce", and it's not okay for me to try to keep some dignity and truth in the article? Especially when I am playing very carefully by your rules? I am doing all of this work in good faith, and I feel you are alternately working in integrity and working with an agenda, and I am never sure which of them is coming next.--Moriah (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "conflict of interest" and a "point of view." Editors are allowed to have a point of view, editors with a "conflict of interest" are more restricted. The conflict of interest in this case is because it appears that the subject of the biography is/was directing to some extent her wishes through intermediaries. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not directed by anyone but myself and the desire for an unbiased and accurate article about Esther Hicks.Gordondavid (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have said, there a thread of COI concerns with this page, as such it is extremely important that the talk page is fully utilized. I am willing to "live and let live" as far as who maybe directing who for whatever reason (others may not be), but was not impressed with the way a large number of people connected with Hicks behaved recently on this article. A number of them have been blocked, and the problems with refusing to use the talk page have been highlighted. As long as there is not a substantial repeat of last weeks performance everything should move along. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tm, this is actually a good point. I was guilty of not using the talk page (I wasn't "refusing", I was simply naive) and reverted the bio back to it's "better in my opinion" version several times, out of my naive misunderstanding of what goes on here. When I was (likely because of that behavior) accused of being someone else, I quickly learned a lot about the ways of Wiki, and I think we are way past that now.--Moriah (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let you all know something which I think is quite important about the way Esther explains how she recieves the information she translates. Esther has said many times that she receives "blocks of thought" from, basically, Source Energy (another term she uses consistently in her sessions with "abraham") These blocks of thought are "offered" to her and she uses her own resource of the english language to convey the thoughts she is recieving. I really believe that this MUST be how it is described in the WIKI article. She is NOT channeling dead people. She will use that term humorously once in a great while. This is about being as concise and accurate as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portumnus (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for gordondavid and moriahbaron

I write this here because i think it is relevant to the sanctity and neutrality of this article.

Gordon David, you first started editing wikipedia in Nov 2007 [[11]] by uploading a picture of Jerry and Esther Hicks. You edited Wikipedia sporadically until August 12, 2008. You have only edited Esther Hicks or the article's talk page, except for a few edits for one other article Mary Manin Morrissey. In the efforts of neutrality, would you please explain why you decided to random start editing heavily in mid August? Were you requested to be here on a messageboard or mailing list related to Esther Hicks? Did you randomly just decide to check out the article? I noticed that someone named Gordon W. David (your same name according to your upload here: [[12]] runs http://www.theabeforum.com/, a forum dedicated to Abraham-Hicks. Are you the same Gordon W. David?

MoriahBaron, I noticed that you started editing on Wikipedia on 15 August, around the same time Gordon really picked up his momentum on editing this article. I also notice that you have only edited Esther Hicks so far in your time on Wikipedia. Neither of these facts are an issue within themselves, but they do raise a couple of questions. First, would you please elaborate on why you decided to begin editing on Aug 15? Was this article brought to your attention on a messageboard or mailing list? Did someone ask you to be here or request assistance with the article? Or did you just randomly decide to start editing on that day as a coincidence? I am not accusing you of anything, just looking to understand the circumstances of your editing. Your userpage states that all your edits will come from deep integrity and certainty, and so I hope this same integrity will apply to your response here. Thank you. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am that person. I am very much interested in fairly, and stricly by Wiki rules, to see the article about Esther and Jerry Hicks be reliable, truthful, and unbiased. I am close to the Abraham-Hicks organization and to Esther and Jerry Hicks. I came to be involved with the Wiki page because there were factual errors on the page that I wanted to correct. My contninuing invlovment is that the page remains factual and neutral. Gordondavid (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the response. i agree that the article must remain factual neutral and i appreciate your efforts to help ensure this. however, i still wish for you to respond to my question as to why you began editing heavily in mid august? were you made aware of some disturbances in this article by an outside source and then decided to edit more? have you ever been in contact with Ahnalira (outside of wikipedia)? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

also, since you are close to esther and jerry hicks, have you expressed any interest to you in making this article more factual and neutral? i.e. have they or anyone affiliated with their organization mentioned how this article should be cleaned up, and is that related to your sudden increase in editing? thanks again Theserialcomma (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I check this bio frequently and noted that there were factual errors in mid August as you noticed. Of course Esther and Jerry have expressed interest in making this article more accurate, factual and neutral. Ahnalira is the webmaster for Abraham-Hicks Publications. I think that this exhausts the need for more personal information, and my edits stand on their own merit.Gordondavid (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the honest response. could you still expound a bit on what you mean when you say that esther and jerry have expressed interest in making this article more accurate? did they email you? message board posting? call on the phone? were multiple people contacted to help fix this article? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comma, with all due respect, you have enough information about me and I would like to return to the issues at hand as far as editing the bio. I am not going to ask you about the content of your email, and I don't think I'll engage you in any conversation about what's in mine. I've told you that I work (in contact) with Esther and Jerry, and that my edits and discussion stands on the sole merit of the guidelines of Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge.Gordondavid (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comma, why all these questions? I'll give you a polite and factual answer of course, but I do not want to carry on a continuing discussion of who I email and speak to as you seem to want to be doing with Gordon. Yes, what you have noticed is true - I so far have no interest in editing any other article on Wiki although I might in the future. This is my first taste of it all, and it's fascinating. I started working on Esther's bio in August because that's when someone added that Esther has "2 sons" and other various inaccuracies (or at least that's when it was noticed). I am not sure why you ask if it was "brought to my attention on a message board" and all of that... but no, it wasn't. I have never seen Esther's wiki bio discussed anywhere on the internet but here. I am in contact with Esther and Jerry, and I am well versed in the relevant content. You asked if I "randomly" started to edit. I am at a loss as to why you might ask such a thing, but maybe my inexperience with Wiki is showing and there really are people who come and "randomly" edit articles? That is not the case with me. I really want this *particular* bio to be accurate and neutral. As I said, right now I'm way too busy to focus on any other article, but who knows in the future... I'm gaining some skill and understanding here, which is valuable in any case. I am a professional researcher and have read about Wiki often in the information science literature, and consulted it on occasion, but now I am researching it much more in depth, and as I said, it's very interesting. But I digress from your questions.. I spoke to Jerry Hicks just before coming here and seeing these questions, and he expressed appreciation for the way the article is shaping up, except for a few relatively minor points. He too,is researching the Wiki rules in an attempt to understand better how this all works, and to make the article informative and neutral. He is not "directing" my edits. (As you have probably noticed I am not one that takes "direction" very well in the best cases anyway...) I am working on the bio to make it the best it can be, hopefully in concert with you and the other interesting and knowledgeable editors. Thanks for asking. Now on with the matters at hand, okay? --Moriah (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i feel relatively satisfied by your answers. thank you for employing such civility and patience with your responses. i was only asking these questions in order to ascertain a potential conflict of interest, which is a general no-no on wikipedia. since this conversation over and not directly relevant to the article itself anymore, would anyone object if i moved all of this particular conversation to the top of the page (and hence out of the way)? i am not sure if this is acceptable wikipedia protocol, so i would like to get your permissions before attempting something like this. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support that, since this is an article that has been locked down for COI-related reasons in the past. Now that everyone is talking, it seem logical to move these items to a prominent place on the page so anyone coming here to edit will be aware the subject has been civilly discussed. Dayewalker (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the good discussion, but please don't move threads out of time order; it will confuse newcomers to the page. If you think the current thread is taking up too much space, I can box it up using an appropriate summary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am jumping in here because it is the feel good thing to do. I hold smoldering resentments against GordonD because his picture (I think) replaced my picture of Esther - the first one here. However I can't help but notice that his involvement in the article goes back to 2007 (at least) and that his recent spurt of activity was/seemed to be generated by a variety of edits by others. Some of which contained blatently (tho carefully sourced) and willfully inaccurate statements about A/H's teachings. But, Theserialcomma, perhaps it is time for you to tell us your real name? And reveal where else and with whom else you discuss this stuff. Hmmmmmm ? Carptrash (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

i found out about this article because of an ANI posting about sockpuppets, COI, and a content dispute. i came here and it was seemingly unresolved, so i decided to participate. do you still want my real name? you can talk page me if you have other questions unrelated to the article. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your real name does not matter. I was just reaction (poorly) to your apparent outing of other posters. And for my curiosity (another bad habit) , is this article infested with sock puppets? Carptrash (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the previous problem with puppets, this discussion is now on a better course. The main issue is how to come up with a good description of Esther Hicks' work that can be tied back to reliable sources. My impression is that this is mostly resolved. So long as the end result is reasonably neutral, people are not likely to complain further about the COI of various participants. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Publication section

The publication section currently reads like an advertisement blurb. Who is opposed to reformatting in a table presentation similar to say this? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea. Can you make the table and show it to us before putting it into the article? --Moriah (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should table that suggestion. Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV opening paragraph?

"The Hickses' books, including the best-selling series "The Law of Attraction", are based on translations of thought she has claimed to make while channeling a group of non-physical entities called Abraham (Hicks describes what she is doing as tapping into "infinite intelligence")." to me, (Hicks describes what she is doing as tapping into "infinite intelligence") sounds quite POVish. should her counter claim as to what she describes her spiritual channeling of otherworldly spirits really go in the first paragraph? the opening paragraph should be more neutral, i think. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comma, I'm not sure what you mean. It's not a "counter claim", but rather it's clarification and it's referenced to a source you have all deemed worthy. Why does this make it "POV" - it's documented, so I don't see why it's not "neutral". Since Esther does not herself use the word "channel", we wanted to clarify what Esther DOES say she does. The word "channel" was brought in by reporters, and there is no point starting that discussion up again. Those of us who would rather the word was not used in the bio have come to understand that it's going to stay since someone from a "reliable source" can be referenced as having used it. However, the sentence (in parentheses) explaining what Esther DOES say is also referenced, so it should stand. However I suppose we could consolidate into one sentence. How about this: ".... are based on translations of thought she has claimed to make while tapping into "infinite intelligence". Would this work? --Moriah (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Which would of course remove "channeling" from the paragraph....I don't think that would fly. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote the phrasing comes from:

"When I started receiving," says Esther, who dislikes the term spirit channelling, "I thought of Abraham as some dead guy who was really smart. The more they spoke, the more I began thinking they were infinite intelligence that we are tapping in to."[13]

My issue is that I am not so sure we can say that this quote is related to Esther Hicks describing what she does, rather it is related to her description of what Abraham is. From what I can see in the sources Hicks doesn't really ever give a positive definition for what she claims to do but rather just says "I don't like the term channeler." My preferred wording is to change the parenthetic sentence to something like "though hicks does not like the term channeling because of its connotations." Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i guess what i meant was, instead of putting her likes and dislikes in the opening paragraph, we should just describe what she does. the fact that she dislikes the term channeling is good to know, but maybe not for the first paragraph. we could put that someplace else Theserialcomma (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, maybe....I am ambivalent about it. I think the main thing that needs to happen is a section needs to be written about the channeling act and its history. Once that is written it will be more clear what deserves lede and what doesn't. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comma, there is nothing there now about her likes and dislikes. It simply says what she calls what she does. I think there is good clarity in the sentence as it stands. I don't think it needs any clarifying or improvement. I agree there is no reason to write ".. dislikes the term..." or that sort of thing. TmToulouse, you are saying you want to write about how Esther came to start translating thought? The problem with that is you only seem to accept references that are newspaper interviews. The Hickses explain the sequence of events in many many of their recordings and books. Would those be acceptable? My understanding was that these are "primary" sources and would not be usable. (I could be completely off base here, I admit, so please explain if you would--Moriah (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

They are not unusable, but can only be used for certain things. Luckily some of the newspaper articles we have been working with do contain information about the history of it all. Combined with judicious use of primary sources and something could be written. I put it out there as something that belongs in the article, and encourage anyone that wants to do the leg work to get started. Otherwise I will eventually write it up myself, when I feel up to it. Which at the moment I don't. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)