User talk:Gordondavid/Sandbox

Lets talk about the sandbox over here for now. Let us talk about the first edit.

Originally it read:

"Esther Hicks is an inspirational speaker and best-selling author. A former secretary, she now claims to channel the dead, specifically beings called Abraham ^[1]. Hicks has stated that her published works The Teachings of Abraham are translations from these beings. She has co-authored eight books with her husband Jerry Hicks and has presented workshops on the Law of Attraction."

You changed it to:

Esther Hicks is an inspirational speaker and best-selling author. She translates blocks of thought (in other words she receives inspiration from Abraham, a group of non-physical beings. The material she translates is referred to as The Teachings of Abraham ®. She has co-authored eight books with her husband Jerry Hicks and has presented Law of Attraction workshops for Abraham-Hicks Publications in up to 60 cities a year since 1987.

Here are my problems with the edit. First of all you have removed the only source in the lead and not replaced it with anything comparable, therefore everything in that paragraph is suspect. Second of all you have removed relevant information about her background and whitewashed the fact that she is channeling the dead with some prolix terminology. And most importantly the phrasing you are using makes it sound like she actually does channeling and translate, can't do that since that claim is highly suspect. It must be qualified as in the original. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a living biography of Esther Hicks, I suggest all references to Abraham Teachings be removed per Wikipedia policy that discourages coatracks. By staying with biographical fact, we eliminate the need to find references for 'claims' and other original research statements. I believe there is already a discussion pointing to this in the Talk section of the article.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Abraham dead channeling stuff is a significant part of her claim to fame and her "teachings" I don't see how it can reasonably be left out when we have many reliable sources that talk about it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable reference that backs this premise, and it can be considered. Otherwise, it looks like orignal research to me. What is factual are the number of books published, their rankings on the New York Times Bestseller's list, the number of workshops given, and that she teaches the priniciples of Law of Attraction. As well, Wikipedia policy WP:LIVE regarding the biography of living people requires: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." as well as "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. 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".--Ahnalira (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications such as "claimed" are discouraged on Wikipedia; the quotes around "channelled" are enough. I am comparing the talk on the Seth Wiki page since that is available and the closest comparison to the topic of "channeling". However my extensive 12 year experience with this author finds that the term they use is "blocks of thought" coming to Esther as "inspiration", and I have linked inpiration for further research on Wikipedia. This is a biography of a living person and should be at the base outline of this article. The topic of channeling is not the purpose. The topic of inspiration was introduced on the original article and accurately describes Esther Hicks as an "inpirational speaker". No one had objected to that. Let's see if we can agree on this starting point.

I will delete all references to the Teachings for the time being so we can go further. Thank you.Gordondavid (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to keep deleting in this sandbox, but I think you are going in the wrong direction completely. We can work out the exact wording if you don't like claim (asserts could be used or others) but there is certainly precedent for qualifying highly questionable claims from subjects of articles. You can not state as fact that she is actually doing anything, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or they need to be heavily qualified and attributed. As I said above her hearing the voices of dead things is a major MO and something she is known for. This should not be left out particularly when all of our solid sources talk about it as well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a biography, it is important maintain a high standard of reference and focus on fact. To the best of my knowledge, Esther Hicks has never claimed to channel; others have applied that term to her teachings. She calls herself an inspirational and motivational speaker. Bring non-contentiousWP: LIVE, reliable resources to state otherwise--Ahnalira (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Hicks speaks to regular folks all over the world. There is a list of testimontials available to reference to qualify as to the validity of the subject matter of this author. That was referenced on this Wiki for quite a while until someone took it down for not being NPOV. Understood. You are asking about qualifying highly questionable claims (your words) made by this author. Can you pick one claim that is an example?Gordondavid (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the most obvious one would be that she talks to dead people. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies, by defintion, are factual. Find a reliaable reference that adheres to WP:LIVE to backs this statement, and it can be considered relevant to the biography--Ahnalira (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NY post directly talks about her claim to channel dead people. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you supply the passage, please, that quotes her making the claim. WP:LIVE says: "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." I'll wait until tomorrow morning to see if there is an appropriate citation for the statement on the live page before removing it as per Wikipedia policy--Ahnalira (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the NY post article which is used to source the claim "Jerry is a former Amway salesman; Esther is a former secretary who claims to channel the dead." Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote referenced was not made by Esther Hicks. It was made by the author of the article (which by the way is about The Secret, another topic altogether.) In order for this reference to be acceptable, the statement must be accurate. You could say, "The reporter (State reporters name.) states Esther claims to channel the dead" However, this statement would have it's own set of issues with Wiki policy WP:LIVE in terms of conservative and reliable referencing.--Ahnalira (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that when it was first published. An extensive experience with Esther Hicks will reveal that her "inspiration" is received as "blocks of thought". There is no verbal dialog going on as in the practical, physical talk. You are using apples and oranges and calling them the same. This is not accurate at all, and the NY Post, to be used in this way represents a negative NPOV. Where does your inpiration come from? Please consider that and know that common sense recordable "talk" is not claimed at any time by Esther Hicks. It is reasonable to consider that the word "talk" is not used literally in this way. To use it in any other way does not represent the idea presented here. Make sense?Gordondavid (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)User:Gordondavid|Gordondavid]] (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go by what the sources say, and so far the only reliable sources I have seen say something very different. Oh, and wikipedia goes by the sources as well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you not permit or prevent a short explanation that the word "talk" used by the NY Post in this case was not necessarily literal as audible talking?Gordondavid (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for it? If so then I have no problem. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that states the use of the word "talk" in the NY post was, in fact, use of the word literally? If so, I would have no problem so long as an in-line comment per Wiki rules would be made about the precise use of the word. Sound good?Gordondavid (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "talk" as the NY Post uses it being something audible or recordable should be allowed to be mentioned as a note to this reference to clarify talk as communication as in inspiration, a word used in the first sentence of the article. Seems reaonable. Do you agree? That's all I am asking. Thanks!Gordondavid (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post doesn't say talk, it says channel, which is what is in the article. I say talk because it is more derogatory. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honesty. :) Although it's not hard to get the bias you have. That slant easily reflects and expresses in the article something, you will have to admit, is not in the spirit of the rules on Wikipedia. I now ask to remove that word and allow a revert to now use another expression. Everyone that knows the work hears what is said over and over... that it is "blocks of thought or "inspiration" coming through or to Esther Hicks. My question now would be will you block us from exlcuding "talking to dead people" in this article?Gordondavid (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to altering the wording. However, any change would have to be backed up by a source or sources that is at least on par with the NY Post in terms of reliability and verifiability. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "talks to dead people" remark that you admitted soundend more derogatory, and does... I'd like to delete that remark. That is a change. Will you block it?Gordondavid (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the remark from where? It is not in the article it is a talk page comment. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but look at the second sentence in the article. "A former secretary, she now claims to channel the dead, specifically beings called Abraham" What was wrong with the statement you deleted: "She translates blocks of thought (in other words she receives inspiration from Abraham, a group of non-physical beings". There is a far more accurate explanation in this statement. Also, refer to the talk page on the article and the relevance of her former employment. Please tell me why you prefer your sentence?Gordondavid (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is sourced to a reliable source and based on that sources wording. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I see as 'wrong' with the statement ""She translates blocks of thought (in other words she receives inspiration from Abraham, a group of non-physical beings"." is that one the statement 'translates blocks of thought' infers original research, and, even more importantly, can be omitted from the biography by just sticking to Wiki policy WP:LIVE. Thirdly, the introduction of the topic of Abraham teachings creates a 'coatrack' which, again, isn't pure to the biography of Esther Hicks.--Ahnalira (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Esther has a bio on Wiki is that she is a published author. In each of her published works, she explains clearly in her own words what she does, or if you insist, what she "claims" to do. What better source can there be? The Post's phrasing is not a quote from Esther but rather a deragatory sensationalized phrasing aimed at getting attention of readers. That she translates blocks of thought, and that she receives inspiration from Abraham, a group of non-physical beings is put forth in each and every one of her publications. The fact that a reporter chose to twist and change her clear characterization does not make his words a definitive source.Gordondavid (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS carefully, what Esther says about herself is actually relegated to a less reliable status than what third party established media outlets have said about her. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well I've managed to at least read, if not follow, everything so far. One thing Abraham, though Esther, urges us NOT to do is to get too caught up in "resistance." I am seeing a lot of it from everyone here. Saying Esther "talks to the dead" is like saying that Jesus was a caterer because he fed the multitudes. It is missing most of the point of what is going on. But Abraham says that nothing is more important than feeling good, and working on the article is not a feel good use of my life. This is trench warfare and i feel that it is better to retreat than to engage. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

There are several arguments happening at once here, the coatrack argument I think is actually more appropriate on the main articles talk page as it is a more general criticism than just changes made in this sandbox. So will copy the conversation there and respond. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dirty Little 'Secret'. New York Post.

[dirty-1] Dirty Little 'Secret'. New York Post.

[1]