Talk:Esther Hicks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC on the Skeptic's Dictionary link

There is an ongoing discussion [1] as to whether or not to include the link for the Skeptic's Dictionary [2] as a stand-alone "Criticism" section of the subject. Dayewalker (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that that site, the Skeptic's Dictionary, deserves a place in the article, it's just someone's opinion. I looked over it quickly and thought, "Yeah, you could say that" about parts of itand "No, that's not really what Esther/Abraham is saying" about others. I say stick it in the external links, if anywhere. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Todd Carroll is a notable author who has published several articles and also published the book Skeptic’s Dictionary. Sylvia Browne‘s page, and John Edward‘s page both list critical links from less credible and more slanted sources than the skeptic’s dictionary article. I think listing it in external links, as criticism, the way it is done on Browne's and Edward's pages, is harmless and appropriate. Editors are also discussing the reliability of Skeptic's Dictionary on a wikipedia noticeboard if anyone wants to take a look. Lesley1914 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914

so here is quote from the Skeptic:

The Hickses claim Abraham gave them the "law of attraction." If "they" did, "they" stole it from Napoleon Hill's (1883-1970) Think and Grow Rich or William Walker Atkinson's (1862-1932) Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World (1906).

Esther has said many times that the "law of attraction" is not something new, that it has has been around forever, that lots of other folks have known about it, and more. So, it seems to me that the use of the word "stole," for example is an attempt to cast the whole process in a pretty negative, even dishonest light. If there is such a thing a dishonest light. Carptrash (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Carptrash, I see where you are coming from, but I believe Hicks's work falls under the category of Fringe theories, and I think that Parity of Sources is something that should be considered in this case. It isn't being used as a source of information within the article, but being added as an external link. Lesley1914 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914

Ah . . .. well this also explains what someone meant when they called me a fringe theory. Thanks Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no other editors seem to see any value in this, I'm just gonna let it go. Lesley1914 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914

This should of course be kept in the references or a separate critismn section (and why isn' this discussion at the top of the discussion page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a record of discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.155.76 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the link to the Skeptic's Dictionary has been removed, and I see no valid reasoning given for removal. Seems to me that divergent perspectives and critical thinking should be welcome and expected in Wikipedia, especially in cases/pages where so many unsubstantiated claims are presented. --Jdmumma (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jerry-EstherHicks-2007.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)