Talk:Eckhart Tolle/Archive 2

Criticism

I notice there is no "Criticism" section. I assume this is because Eckhart's followers or staff "clean up" such additions.

For example: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351545,00.html

Now, I'm not suggesting bias, I'm just pointing out that as a fair and balanced article, known criticisms should be included. Proxy User (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIT a seperate cricism section is discouraged in most articles, however a controversies section, presented in a balanced way and with proper citations, might be a good idea. It does seem strange that this person has absolutely nothing negative about him included in this article despite being somewhat controversial. -- Atama^chat 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a controversies section is what I'm talking about. Of course "criticism" implies POV and all... Proxy User (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a section that talks about the other side of the story. Without this the article is unbalanced. Most of the other spiritual movements have sections that discuss the opponents' perspective. This one should too. WP:CRIT contains suggested guidelines, not set policy. It says that as long as it's balanced (i.e. not trolling or irrational bashing) it's okay to have a bit of criticism. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there should necessarily be a controversies section on this page, or on other spiritual teachers' pages for that matter. Encyclopedia's are meant to present facts. The news is for opinions. It is important to include a controversies section for areas with major controversy... for example, a cult that stockpiled weapons. It was a fact that they stockpiled weapons. You should not present a controversies section based on the fact that 100 or 10,000 people think that Mr. Tolle is in it for self-gain. Those are just opinions, not facts. You should present it if he embezzles money or something like that. I think this is a point of integrity that Wikipedia often does not share in common with professional encyclopedias; the controversies section is more of a tabloid-ish feature, as opposed to something educated and informed. 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.247.131 (talk)

Having read the Fox article, all I can do is applaud the writer for having enough literary knowledge to know who Kilgore Trout is. But his so called journalism is a joke. Fair and balanced is supposed to be just that. You take the facts (remember those?) that say or imply positive things about Tolle and put them up against others that say or imply negative things about him. Then drop in the neutral and hope the reader has the brains to make a decision. There are no positive things in the article about Tolle. Instead, the author chooses to smear Tolle's reputation. He conveniently assumes the New Age movement is garbage for you so he can lump Tolle in there as guilt by association. It becomes obvious that the article is really meant to smear Oprah Winfrey by associating her with a person the article prejudges for you as wacko. C'mon, what responsible journalist uses "kooky" and "gobbledygook" as adjectives? And can't back them up with facts? Tolle may be a wack job or a liar, but no intelligent person could make that judgment based on this piece of trash. Let me get personal here: If I say Proxy User is an idiot, that statement has no factual basis. If I say Proxy User is a Republican shill idiot because he joined the Universal Life Church for its non existent tax benefits, I'm using a fact (he admits membership). But I'm drawing slanderous conclusions from that fact that aren't supportable. This article is all that and less. The sad part is that this anti journalist trend is a problem on the Left as well as the Right. I recently listened to a Princeton University Podcast where Robert Fisk, foreign correspondent for the UK's Independent, claimed it was foolish to give any cause equal time when one is clearly good and one is evil. The irony is this bozo lamented he felt all his years covering war zones were for nothing and he hadn't changed a thing. Duh. All he provided was Leftist spin, so when counteracted by Right wing spin, most people just got confused and did nothing. What's really sad is the Princeton students didn't run him off the stage. But chances are they'd give the same undue consideration to Bill O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.51.155 (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely there is a need for a Criticism section. Any philosopher or spiritual leader worth his/her salt will come under critical eye at some point. The teachings should be able to stand up to such criticisms and should be included in this entry. Ztheday (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If Tolle has been criticized in reputable sources (for instance journals of comparitive religion) then we should probably summarize and include those criticisms. Vague crtiques not backed up by reliable sources and expert review are not appropriate. See WP:BLP.TheRingess (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a Tolle fan I find the absence of a Controversies section unsettling and the foxnews article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351545,00.html quite well written and relevant. I understand that my statement of being a Tolle fan might seem like a lie, and that anyway I'm only expressing an opinion. I've learned from many spiritual teachers over the years and since I went online I got used to reading criticism of all spirituel teachers and teachings including my pet ones. I find it unsettling that the wikipedia page about Tolle has no criticism/controversies section, because somehow this makes Tolle and his crowd look to me like they are / he is the bad guy : they would have succeeded in getting and keeping an entirely neutral-positive wikipedia page? Creepy. Of all sources of knowledge, spiritual teachers and teachings should be the most carefully scrutinized as they can yield to the total surrender of will and ego of their students for the teachers' personal profit. Been there done that, be careful and in this matter I don't mind nasty criticism as much as unchallenged support. Let Tolle and his crowd withstand controversy, even unfounded biased and dishonest controversy is better than no controversy at all in my opinion. quintal78.115.194.220 (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read this link. Since Tolle is still alive any libelous or potentially libelous material will be removed immediately. If your talking about criticizing his philosophy, then you will violate this policy. It's difficult to criticize someone's philosophy neutrally, especially if a criticism takes the form of assuming that Philosophy A is absolutely true, and therefore the validity of Philosophy B is measured in terms of Philosophy A. It would be better to simply provide material from reputable journals that have neutrally compared and contrasted Tolle's philosophy with other philosophies. As it stands now, the article is neutral in that it makes no claims about the validity of Tolle's teachings, simply presents them in the same way any other article about a religious figure would include the major components of that figure's religion. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many of the "criticisms" that the Fox article makes are included in this WIkipedia article, such as the fact that he had no formal education for a decade after turning 13, but they are just not laled as "criticisms" because that would imply it was a bad thing, which would be a bad thing. If someone finds some valid criticism that can be cited then we could include it. We could also mention that some conservative christians have labeled him as a false prophet, an in the Australian interview, cited at the bottom. But the thing is, it is very hard to actually criticise any particular thing that Eckhart has written, because most of it is fairly uncontroversial, for example he says things like "thoughts about imaginary negative situations create negative emotions" which pretty much anyone would be able to agree with. Also because he streeses that wrd can only be used as "pointers" towards the the truth, and cannot be treated as doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding this to the "Reception" section, because the only bias so far is that is shows positive reception but none of the negative reception from the conservative Christian community.

Christian minister David Milikan has asserted that Oprah is "using the power of her reputation and her extraordinary media reach to actually say "this man is the Messiah"" although Oprah has never said this, and Tolle has not referred to himself as "the Messiah" or a "prophet".Gregcaletta (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with adding this, it's just one man's opinion and doesn't even really belong anywhere in the article. I agree that the reception section needs cleanup, mostly because it seems somewhat promotional. I see no reason to add opinions. Tolle's philosophy is presented in neither a postive nor a negative light, some people will agree with it, some people won't, some people may even be afraid of it, an encyclopedia can't do anything about that.TheRingess (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Teachings" section

I have removed the entire "Teachings" section, as it contained biased, unsourced, and poorly sourced controversial claims. Pursuant to Wikipedia policy, such content must be removed immediately. --Danorton 12:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have returned, mysteriously. --ExLegeLibertas, 8/25/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExLegeLibertas (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This section should be removed until it can be sourced and supported with unbiased evidence.

Ztheday (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was added again, apparently. I flagged it as biased.

-Marshall

I think it would be a good idea to remove it. I tried adding a bit, interpreting Tolle's views, but it was removed. I understand that my additions might be viewed as biased (and they were undocumented), but they were based on my reading of Tolle. In those respects, I believe they fell out of the range of Wikipedia's requirements no more than the majority of the current content of the "Teachings" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.56.162 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been essentially reading or listening to Tolle nonstop in my spare time for the past six weeks, and I think the "Teachings" section is pretty good. Could be written better, but I don't agree that it is biased. --Tom Gray 75.222.220.57 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced it as most of it seemed unsourced. This is not a section for evaluating his teachings, but presenting them in a straightforward fashion with minimal interpretation, using his books as sources.TheRingess (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here hoping to find what Eckhart Tolle's teachings is, but curiously some Wikipedians had opted to remove what little objective notes there were on what he taught UNLESS we read his books. Unfair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What would it take to distinguish teachings from 'tools' of contemplative presence, or whatever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

End of discussion. The title of the section has been changed to "Books and Teachings". See below. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Books and Teachings" section

I have changed the teaching section to "Books and Teachings". It is important to discuss mainly the publication of the books as this is an article about the person and the books are discussed in more detail at the relevant articles. However, it is relevant to at least give a summary of his teachings so I have done so based on direct quotes from his books. A definition of the ego is provided but we need a source to show the role it plays in producing unhappiness in humans and conflict between humans. We also need a definition of his term "pain-body" and there role that it plays. I would say the definition is something like "an accumulation of negative thinking habits" which "causes a person to generate unhappiness in the present because of past unhappiness and causes individuals to seek negative reactions from others", but these are my words; it would be better to put it in his words if possible. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

If someone has time, try weave in something from http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j532440006n7666/ (a journal paper that refers to Tolle's work) A snippet from the abstract: "They advocate an image of the human condition and well-being that is not based on a good and scientific understanding of human nature." 41.174.6.220 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I have added it to the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have removed this text. Firstly it was in the wrong place in the article, probably would be better placed at the end of the 'Teachings' section. But mainly because the implication is that the scientific understanding is the only correct one and thus Tolle's teaching has no validity. Perhaps this could be put in if a reference with a balancing viewpoint could be found. 92.29.8.70 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions about its placement but I disagree with the removal of the text. There are several instances in the article of individuals giving high praise to Tolle and his work so there is plenty of balance there. I do not feel it is appropriate to remove sourced text without a discussion. Can you please put it back in the article? If a counter point of view can be found for this particular criticism we can include that also, but it is not a pre-requisite for inclusion in the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It doens't belong on the page for "Eckhart Tolle" as it is not a criticism of him, but of a book written by him and another book written by someone else. You could try putting on the page for "A New Earth", although it doesn't seem to be a very insightful criticism. It basically just says the book is unscientific; it doesn't say what in the book is unscientific.Gregcaletta (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an analogy. The idea that someone might be dead for 3 days and then suddenly come back to life, is a very unscientific idea. But you don't see that observation included as a criticism in a Christianity article. My point being that the observation that something is not scientific is exactly that, an observation, not a criticism.TheRingess (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How We Can Improve It

Hi Greg and thank you for all your efforts to improve Wiki and in particular this article. I just now had a chance to read the article after giving it a glance some days ago. I made some copy edits and am going to add some "tags" to the article as well. I am happy to help you bring this article up to encyclopedic standards. You and others have done a good job, but at the same time I would like to give the following critique:

• In general the article reads like it was written by a 'fan' and appears a bit biased WP:NPOV and self promotional in the Book, Influences and Business sections WP:PEACOCK. It also relies too heavily on sources provided by the subject himself ie his books, his website etc. WP:PRIMARY What we need are secondary sources like magazine and news articles that discuss the man and his work. This will create neutrality in the article. Over the coming days I will edit more and make more specific suggestions about each section. Thanks for you help and willingness to work together to improve the article. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have added some text and a number of secondary sources. I also toned down some wording here and there to make the article more encyclopedic and neutral. The biggest change I have made is to the format which now conforms to a standard Wiki BLP. The biggest issue right now is the section called "Books". It is a bit of a problem as it is all quotes and stuff of Tolle talking about himself or his books or quotes from his books. This is not appropriate on Wiki. I think this section needs to be removed and replaced with text by reviews of his books from secondary sources which would be considered neutral. See WP:PEACOCK for more info.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that woopidoo is a suitable source. I suspect that the woopidoo biography was sourced from wikipedia. It doesn't quote any sources itself. 217.33.16.66 (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For now that's what we've got. But if you can find sources that are more reliable like news articles in major newspapers etc. then please add them to support these weaker sources. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources

On the Teaching section, I thought the most accurate way to represent his teachings is through direct quotes. Quotes are always going to be more accurate that paraphrase so I think it makes more sense. I don't think it is against any policy either.Gregcaletta (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As a start to clean up that section I have made sure that all of text is attributed to Tolle so the reader knows this is Tolle talking about himself. However, that is just a stop gap measure. Wiki is not fond of text that is from primary sources because there is no objectivity to it. (See WP:PRIMARY) Primary sources are OK when they are supported by secondary sources ie book reviews, news articles etc. Things not written by Tolle. I added one such third party source the other day. We should see if we can find more, including critiques of Tolle's work. At the present time I think the quotes from Tolle are random and excessive but we can proceed a bit at a time to get it cleaned up. Also Wiki prefers summaries to quotes whenever possible (see WP:QUOTE) Having said all that I say also: thanks for your help and participation in improving the article!-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What you've done looks like a definite improvement. I'll see if I can find some secondary sources that summarize Tolle's views so we can get away from the excessive quotes. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, your help is really appreciated. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't understand. If we are trying to summarize the teachings of Tolle, then how is a secondary source's paraphrase of his teachings more accurate or less biased than a direct quote from his teachings? Gregcaletta (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Wiki prefers secondary sources because it values objectivity over accuracy. Since secondary sources are one or two steps removed from the subject, they are thought to be more objective. This is different from a courtroom for example where a secondary source is considered to be heresay and of less value than the primary source ie. witness. I know its a bit weird, but welcome to Wiki world! :-)-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point is valid. The Wiki guidelines state that its OK to include direct quotations from the subject in a biographical article, HOWEVER, they should not DOMINATE. WP:BLP states that an article should not be based PRIMARILY on self-published material.--Early morning person (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Only the section on "Teachings" should be based on his own publications. Other information about his life and actions should come mainly from other sources according to the policy (although much of that information comes originally from Eckhart anyway via newspapers etc.)122.111.224.134 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we don't like the look of the quotation marks themselves, we could just take them out, although it seems more accurate to leave them in.122.111.224.134 (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

SOURCES: SELF PUBLISHED AND PRIMARY--Good comments, everyone. Actually, WP:BLP doesn't give any guidelines on quotes but it does give guidelines on SelfPublished sources. This would include brochures, web sites etc. that are published by Tolle and/or his organization. Wiki BLP says these sources are OK if they are 1) "not unduly self serving" and 2) the article is "not based primarily on such sources". Primary sources WP:PRIMARYsuch as Tolle's books, are slightly different from SelfPublished sources. The guideline for Primary Sources is 1) they should "be used with caution" 2)"the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources". Now that the Teachings section clearly indicates to the reader who is the source of the text, I think it is OK given its current size. If it gets bigger we may need to discuss together whether or not its becoming 'self serving'.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

QUOTES:Wiki gives this caution about quotes "Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject." So again here, moderation is the key. At present I think the quotes are moderate and don't see an immediate problem.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I agree that the Teachings section should not be expanded much, because there are separate articles for his two books A New Earth and The Power of Now in which his teaching is described in more detail. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issues now are

the order in which the information is presented seems a bit haphazard to me, and

the "criticism" so far seems a bit arbitrary. we need to find some reviews from notable sources and decide what counts as informative criticism and what count as just arbitrary opinion. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Greg. As you say there are two other articles on his books which include his 'teachings' so this article should focus mainly on the person and not his publications and philosophy. We also may want to limit the number of book reviews also, for the same reason. Just one summary paragraph I think would be good. The main focus of this article are the various aspects of his life such as: influences, career development, education, personal life etc. Most of which you have already developed to a good extent. I agree we should develop a comprehensive summary of the criticisms of Tolle and his philosophy. Specific criticisms of his books can go in the book articles themselves. I know that any criticism is hard for some fans of Tolle to bear but it is a standard part of Wiki and the Bio articles (BLP) as long as the criticism is well sourced and presented in a balanced way. I think all in all we are on the 'same page' and moving in a good direction.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing we need to consider is that this article is a biography. So the content should be primarily biographical. Facts about Tolle's life. Since writing and lecturing are a big part of his career and his life, of course these things should be mentioned, but only in moderation. Especially when there are other Wiki articles on his individual books. So far it seems that some editors have felt it was necessary to have a section on Tolle's teachings consisting solely of text/quotes from Tolle's books. This then opens the door for the inclusion of text from secondary, reliable sources about his books ie book reviews etc. Furthermore, because his teachings are being presented in this article, for balance we need to include any notable, and reliably sourced criticisms of his books and/or teachings. My point being that, we should carefully consider and discuss how we want to shape the article so that it remains a strong biography. This will be accomplished in my opinion by sticking primarily to facts about his life and giving only moderate and summarized info about his books and teachings. That is why I have mixed feelings about the Teachings section and also the tendency for some editors to want to quote Tolle and giving undue prominence to his quotes by putting them in block format (see the Early Life section). Comments and suggestions from other editors are welcome. Happy Holidays! -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I want to point out though that almost all the information on Tolle so far comes from him, either directly or via a secondary source. It does not seem that any major media outlet has yet done much independent research into his life, so we have to accept that the only source we have so far on much of Tolle's life is Tolle himself. There are some fact which can and should be covered by secondary sources which have done independent research, such as the publication of his books and the reception, but we need more of these sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, any direct quotes can be replaced by paraphrasing, but it is only necessary to do so if we can accurate convey all the important information in fewer words. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I hope you all had a Merry Christmas (its boxing day already in Australia). Gregcaletta (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right we need more secondary sources like news articles, magazine articles and maybe he has been mentioned in some books on the New Age Movement or something like that. These kinds of things will help to balance the article. Happy Boxing Day!-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor note, in case needed for future discussion: There are 6 citations from Tolle.com, 6 citations from his book New Earth and 1 citation from his book The Power of Now.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY a core Wiki policy says

• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"
• "Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

At the present time more than half the citations in the article are primary so we need to be careful here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

This article has come a long way since I last looked in. It now seems to me to be capturing, to a very large extent, why the subject is notable and interesting. I am happy to see a good amount of detail on his activities as an author, because from my reading, that is likely the main way in which he has made his mark on the world. Now the suggestion: That's a great quotation in the lead para about Tolle being the most popular spiritual author in the nation. It gives the reader a quick grasp of who the subject is and why he is notable. However, for the sake of people who, like me, have skeptical minds, I'd suggest defining that point a little further. Perhaps a summary sentence describing how his books remained on the NY Times bestseller lists for xx weeks, and have sold x million copies to date. A mention f the date of the comment in the text would also be helpful. I realize that it is generally acceptable to leave the reader to check the ref and find the date itself, but in this case, since the quotation is in the critical lead para, I'd suggest doing that in the text. 2008 is recent enough to be quite relevant, in my opinion. But all in all, its looking really good.Early morning person (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds fine by me. Feel free to make the additions and I'll let you know what I think. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have cut down the language and moved some of the content from the first paragraph to the third. Let me know if you think the lead is missing something. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's looking really good. I made a few minor copyedits and added one fact about the webinars. I don't suppose you have seen any quantitative info about his seminars (i.e., frequency, attendance)? I've seen in his write-ups that he gets good crowds out in a wide range of locales, and it seems that this is also a significant part of his notability.Early morning person (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to Amend the Reception Section

• Tolle himself wrote in the preface to the 2004 edition of The Power of Now: "The more the dysfunction of the human mind plays itself out on the world stage, clearly visible to everyone in the daily television news reports, the greater the number of people who realise the urgent need for a radical change in human consciousness if humanity is not to destroy itself and the planet. This need, as well as the readiness in millions of people for the arising new consciousness, is the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood. This does not mean, of course, that everyone responds favourably to the book. In many people, as well as in most of the political and economic structures and the greater part of the media, the old consciousness is still deeply entrenched."

It is my opinion that the above text should be removed from the Reception Section. Quoting a paragraph from one of the subject's books because an individual editor feels that it provides a commentary or response to criticism or praise (ie Reception) is original research WP:OR and creates undue weight WP:WEIGHT. This same point was previously discussed on this page in regard to the lead.[1] In which an uninvolved third party said:

• "whatever quote is most meaningful to Gregcaletta is inherently subjective; if I was familiar with Tolle's writing, I may find meaning in a completely different quote. Including the quote really seems more like fan service than anything else"
• "But even beyond that, I think what makes it wrong is WP:WEIGHT. By putting the quote in the lead, you're implicitly saying that this one quote is far more important than most of the text on the rest of the page. And I don't think that's something that we should be doing here"

I think the above comments from an univolved third party in regard to the lead also apply to the Reception section. Can we remove the quote?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How does removing the quote make the article more useful to the reader? It seems to me that someone interested in reception to Tolle's writing may also be interested in Tolle's own comments on the reception of his work. It certainly does count as original research or undue weight. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it quite a bit of detail above, why it is not appropriate. However, you seem to to disagree, which is your prerogative, of course. However, since this is something we have discussed before, I think it would be best to take the issue to the Wiki community via a RfC and let them decide, since there is just two of us here and we cannot seem to get a consensus between us. I hope this is OK with you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually, best to start with WP:3O rather than RfC. I'd be OK with that. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here I don't think I have ever really heard you explain why you think comments by the subject of the article are somehow more biased than comments by others. Surely, if someone is interested in learning about Eckhart Tolle, reading material written by him is far more interesting and insightful than reading commentary by others? I'm sure if you wanted to learn about Plato, ou would find it much more interesting to read material written by Plato, than to read opinions of others on Plato? Gregcaletta (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the Above Discussion

Comments are requested regarding this text in the Reception section of this BLP:

• Tolle himself wrote in the preface to the 2004 edition of The Power of Now: "The more the dysfunction of the human mind plays itself out on the world stage, clearly visible to everyone in the daily television news reports, the greater the number of people who realise the urgent need for a radical change in human consciousness if humanity is not to destroy itself and the planet. This need, as well as the readiness in millions of people for the arising new consciousness, is the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood. This does not mean, of course, that everyone responds favourably to the book. In many people, as well as in most of the political and economic structures and the greater part of the media, the old consciousness is still deeply entrenched."

One editor feels the text should be removed from the section because a single editor has selected the quote from one of Tolle's book and presented it as a response to criticism and he considers this to be Original Research and POV. On the other hand the editor who has selected the quote and placed it in the Reception section feels that "removing the quote [doesn't] make the article more useful to the reader" and that "someone interested in reception to Tolle's writing may also be interested in Tolle's own comments on the reception of his work". Any comments from the Wikipedia community are welcome to break the deadlock between the only two editors working on this article at present. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You might like to remove this and use WP:3O instead. It's policy to start with that. RfC is for more serious disputes :) Gregcaletta (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's at least three of us active on this page, so 3O doesn't apply. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, I wasn't aware you had an opinion on this particular matter. What is your opinion? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it belongs. The reception section is for what other people say about a person or their work; self-reception (if you want to call it that?) just seems like a bit of fancruft. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy with moving it into the "Teachings" section? The "Teachings" section is currently much shorter than the section on the section on the "Reception" of his teachings, which seems absurd to me. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My overarching question is, why is it needed at all? I don't get the sense that these words are particularly important outside of the book; it's not like people are quoting them elsewhere or anything like that. They're just words that he wrote about how important he wants his book to be. There's nothing in the quote itself that suggests it should be in another section; it's just self-proclaimed text. No, I think my vote is that they don't belong anywhere in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just interesting to see Toll'e's response to the hugh success his book and the contrasting negative reactions among the media. He is outlining what he believes is "the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood"; I don't see how that could be more relevant to its current place in the article. Have you read the book? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, and having read the book is irrelevant here. The Reception section is about what other people think of Tolle. This isn't the place to refute what people said or anything like that. If anything this text would belong on the article for the book, not about Tolle himself. Do you see the distinction? This is an article about Tolle himself, not about the book - so quotes about the book are more or less beyond the scope of this article. Either way, you've got two editors telling you that it doesn't belong. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's an article about Tolle, and surely something written by Tolle himself on his reception tells the reader more about Tolle than anything written by people who don't know him. Or no? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Read our policy on sourcing. Secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources, and we're supposed to avoid using primary sources whenever possible. That's even more true on articles about living persons. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Greg, it certainly doesn't. The subject of an article is rarely a reliable source in this sort of matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The subjects of articles are not reliable sources on their own opinions? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article, or an editorial. So it is not a place for the subject to comment about himself or comment on what other sources say about him and certainly not through the use of a quote from the subject that has deemed to be relevant by a Wiki editor instead of a secondary source. Secondary sources (Tolle's book is a primary source) are the foundation of any Wiki article. I'd also I don't mind discussing further but we have a clear consensus in this discussion as three editors feel that the quote should be removed from the article. So I'd like to remove it soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Orange Mike's already done it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've accepted that I'm not going to change your minds on this particular quote, but it is important that you understand Wikipedia policy on primary sources and secondary sources. To say that writings by Eckhart Tolle are unreliable sources for describing Tolle's opinion because they are primary sources is a misinterpretation of the policy, and to some extent a misinterpretation of the term "primary source". If one were trying to summarise "Othello" by William Shakespeare, it would not be necessary to go to secondary sources. The play itself is a reliable source for the contents of the play, just a book such as this is a reliable source for the opinions of its author. "Primary sources" refer to the forms of evidence that a historian pieces together to create a historical evidence. The terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are not relevant when discussing the opinions of the writer. Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice book

HI this is a nice book, the content of this book almost similar to teachings of Ramana Maharshi from India, http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstall/bookstall.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.121.4 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes, Maharshi had a great influence on Tolle's work; it's in the article. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolle's "genre"

I'm going to suggest removing the "genres" from the infobox. It makes sense to talk about a book being part of a genre, but not to say that a person belongs to a particular genre, so it belongs on the article for the book. I think most biographies of writers tend to leave that part of the infobox blank because it creates too much controversy. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV

There is a lot of critical information about this individual out there. Why is none of that criticism included in this fawning article? Laval (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some negative comments on his work in the "Reception" section, which is unusual for a biography. Criticism of his books goes on The Power of Now article or A New Earth. Criticism of an individual does not really make sense, and is certainly not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia biographies record the factual events of a persons life, not opinions on that person. It unusual that this article contains a "reception" section at all. Most biographies of authors do not. Other than the "reception" section, this article is a list of factual events from his life, with auto-biographical statements in cases where the sources report the information as a quotation rather than as a fact. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

His notability is mainly because of his books and his books are widely cited, quoted and referenced in the article as part of his "teaching", so likewise criticism is also included for balance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Influences section

This section is a bit of a mess really but at the moment I'm not sure where to start to tidy it up a bit - any ideas? 79.79.248.118 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

external links

One of the external links is unnecessary. http://owanorthamerica.com/2011/11/09/eckhart-tolle/ (Ananda Giri meeting with Eckhart Tolle) is just a link to a photograph on the One World Academy website with a donate button right next to the photograph. Neither One World Academy or Ananda Giri are mentioned anywhere in the wiki article. I purpose replacing it with http://www.has.vcu.edu/wrs/profiles/EckhartTolle.htm. This academic article contains information about Eckhart Tolle viewed through a religious studies/sociological lens. Atellefsen (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the external link to Eckhart Tolle TV which appeared in the Publications and section because the web page was an advertisement asking for monthly subscriptions and its deletion was agreed upon in a prior discussion.[2] I have amended the same link in the EL section so that the reader is directed to the free content page and not the sales/subscription page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal life and organisation

This article says nothing about his current personal life. The actual mode of life of a "spiritual teacher" is vital. Even the fact that nothing was known about it, would in itself shed light on him as a person. As a friend of mine once said "If you want to know the true worth of a guru - check in his trash bin." If he was almost anyone else in public life we'd know a lot more about his everyday existence. This article (apart from the predictable Christian criticism) reads a bit too like a hagiography.

Also, of course we need to know about the money. With such vast sales and such a high level of activity, there must be serious sums involved - how is all this organised - how much is his personal wealth and how much non-profit? All that sort of thing should be covered and is covered in the articles on other spiritual and quasi spiritual teachers. Compare Prem Rawat just as a random example of a very successful proponent that I have seen recently.

As a matter of record - I am with Tolle on much of what he says, as far as he goes - I have no axe to grind - but biography is about a man's life - not just his work. Finance, in particular, is important in cases like this.Steve M Kane (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• here some information about his personal life ..محمد الباحوث (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Name-dropping lists to improve Google rankings?

"Tolle often talks about the relevance of figures in intellectual or popular culture."

As do many people, myself and most of my friends and colleagues included, and, probably, the same goes for most readers of this article - not exactly a significant piece of information about Tolle.

"In A New Earth, he quotes Descartes, Sartre, Nietzsche, Shakespeare and Albert Einstein."

He and many, many other authors. Look at the lists in any book that cites sources.

"He has spoken of movies such as Groundhog Day, American Beauty, The Horse Whisperer, Gran Torino, Titanic, Avatar, Being There, and Forrest Gump, and musicians such as Mozart, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones."

So do many, many people, in gatherings from bars to dinner parties.

"Tolle himself has mentioned texts such as the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita and other Hindu scriptures, the Buddhist scriptures, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and A Course in Miracles;"

Many spiritual books quote these and many other obvious sources.

"... he has mentioned various individuals such as Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Mahavira, Siddhārtha Gautama, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Jesus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, Hafiz, Rinzai Gigen, Ralph Waldo Emerson; and he has emphasised the mystical schools within religions such as Gnosticism in Christianity, Sufism in Islam, Hasidism and Kabbala in Judaism, Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, and Zen and Dzogchen in Buddhism. He has met and spoken with Barry Long and Don Miguel Ruiz, and he wrote a foreword for The Diamond in Your Pocket by Gangaji"

Same again!

All of the above examples are so widespread and generic that they show nothing about Tolle to distinguish him from many other best-selling authors in the field. The main function of such lists is to influence search engine rankings. See any work on SEO - search engine optimisation. I would recommend that the lists are severely pruned to contain only items that are especially relevant to the man. That he has "spoken of" the particular Hollywood films listed makes the article almost humerous, rather than serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.58 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, however, I wonder if your interest in SEO may have given you a unique perspective. Myself, I've read a couple of Tolle books, and I feel curious as to where he gets his ideas from, if from anywhere outside himself. A lot of his writing seems to proceed along as a kind of Platonic or Socratic dialogue, i.e., based on nothing other than an internal logic, perhaps also based on inspiration from within. So I actually find these details about thinkers, books and movies he has made reference to rather interesting. Also, it indicates that even though he does not seem to rely (at least not much) on outside sources of information or inspiration, he does in fact acknowledge and integrate the ideas of various contributors to culture. Therefore, I personally would favor retaining these brief lists. I think they give us worthwhile added insight into Tolle and his offerings. But I do thank you for your brief explication of SEO, a field that I really should understand better! EMP (talk 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External Links

18 profile links? Seriously? This smacks of WP:Linkspam, WP:Listcruft, and WP:Advertising. Seriously, I can't think of a single other author who has even half that many profile links on Wikipedia. Please trim this. Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of objection or response, I went ahead and trimmed the list back to what it was when the article was voted a WP:GOODARTICLE. Please note that the article has had a "No More Links" banner on the External Links for years, and this has been egregiously ignored. Please keep the External Links down to the three existing ones. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your good. Good clean up. Definitely a promotional link farm before. WP:EL says the subject is entitled to one official web site and other EL's should give unique info about the subject (Tolle's life) not already included in the article. Those links in many cases only gave the reader further access to Tolle's products and teachings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of however

(transplanted from Softlavender's talk page)

Thanks for the link to WP:editorial, which explains, "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Yes, I see that using such words could subtly take weight away from the previous para, and give a little extra to a sentence or para that it starts. My concern, as a writer, is that such words also serve a useful function in that they signal to the reader that a shift in meaning has taken place, making it easier to take in the meaning. In the case of that para at Eckhart Tolle, would you feel that beginning the paragraph with "On the other hand, . . . " would also be non-neutral wording? Thanks. EMP (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EMP, it's usually better to have these discussions on the article's talk page -- that way other editors can participate as well. The paragraph doesn't need an editorializing word or phrase to begin it, as that is neither encyclopedic or necessary. If it were the same paragraph, then such a word or phrase might be useful. But not for a new paragraph, particularly not one which has already been alluded to in the first sentence of the section. Hope that helps. Any further discussion however should take place on the article Talk page rather than a user talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It does help. Thanks for the clear explanation. Helps clue me in to the writing norms of this site. EMP (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Eckart Tolle and Oprah Section?

Given that Oprah Winfrey has been a major contributor to his success and notoriety as an author does it make sense for there to be a section devoted to that. There is enormous coverage of her endorsement of him and their various collaborations. I believe that she helped put on and promote a web based seminar together several years ago. I will take the lead in creating a section if others are in support of it. Please let me know what you think. 63.252.49.201 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of that info is the article on A New Earth. It doesn't need to be overemphasized, any more that it does for any author or person Oprah has popularized on her show, especially since his first book was a bestseller long before Oprah promoted him many years later. Oprah's influence on his popularity is mentioned in the intro of this article and as needed in the body text, but since it is really around only one of his books, most of the info is on that article about that book. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Advertising / self-publicity article

This is very transparently a publicity article about someone who has found a route to being a very successful author in the self-help field.

There is almost no information at all to what he actually does and how he lives, apart from the implication that he has a very financially successful setup. Much of the article is rank-boosting name dropping (see above). The spiritual claims / advice are mostly a very simplified, superficial version of those common in Buddhism and other contemplative religions, so that he seems to have hit the self-help publishing sweet spot by regurgitating a sort of "Idiot's Guide to Buddhism with a little Christian sweetening thrown in". He is very financially successful at this, but this marks him as primarily a self-help author rather than a person with any demonstrated spiritual depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.215.210 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That this article is still is a similar state just shows how unreliable wikipedia is becoming. This is just one of many articles without any critizism that actually are used for sales purposed "Look he/she is on wikipedia, it has nothing critical about him/her" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:C1C2:A679:AFDC:4CDD (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception by Christian theologians

Why is this section relevant to this article? It is stated in the opening section of this article, "Tolle is not identified with any particular religion, but he has been influenced by a wide range of spiritual works." Why are a few Christian theologians highlighted as a reviewers of Tolle's work? This appears blatantly one-sided to me, as if the Christian religion is the only valid perspective to spiritual discussion. I would delete this section.

Zenqi (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me to be a sub-section title useful to divide the lengthy Reception section. And since Tolle writes in English and since the English-speaking world is dominated by the Christian religion and since Tolle is so widespread that there has been readership across the English-speaking world, there has been a good deal of Christian theologian commentary. That is my inference from the article. I don't see any reason to delete a section. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the section is quite relevant. It is important to show the significant debate and opposition to his ideas. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many Wikipedia articles are becoming increasingly distorted by US-Christian positions. The rationale used above for retaining this overblown and rather irrelevant section is the claim that the English-speaking world is dominated by the Christian religion. That's a big claim, and can be dismissed as original research unless the editor making the claim can support it with creditable sources. But it is true that United States politics is infected with US-style Christian ideologies, and that many people influenced by these ideologies are keen to dominate other people. It is wishful thinking on the part of Christians to claim that the people in other parts of the English speaking world have succumbed to these attempts at domination. The section titled "Reception by Christian theologians" presents a chaotic and therefore unhelpful spectrum of US-Christian positions on Tolle. The views are chaotic because Christianity itself has no coherent or unified meditative tradition. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Dutch part of the western world is not dominated by Christianity, but by atheism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

live link to replace dead one

sorry, this is my first contribution ever to Wikipedia so I'll ask someone else to do this edit, thanks

1. 51

https://www.eckharttolle.com/article/Spirituality-And-The-Christian-Tradition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.234.17 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That link was already present in the article. I have now formatted it for clarity, and removed the dead link which was redundant to it. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include the section Reception by Christian theologians? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I believe that this content is extremely informative, well sourced, and topically relevant to the article, and should therefore be included. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – the section, as you restored it, is not unbalanced within itself. But it is deeply inappropriate. Christian theologians belong to a profession funded largely to articulate bookish intellectualism aimed at consolidating Christian elitism and hierarchical power. They are perhaps the last people to provide useful commentaries on Tolle. The Christian meditative tradition is exceptionally thin on the ground. If there is to be such a large section on "Reception by Christian theologians", then for a wider balance there should be much larger sections from people better equipped to make such assessments, such as "Reception by Buddhists" and "Reception by Hindus". At that point, the article will be dominated by all sorts of people expressing their own personal views, and very little on what Tolle has to say for himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Mild support - interesting, but WP:UNDUE in its current length. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The section is well cited, is relevant to a massively best-selling spirituality author who lives in and is read widely in Christendom, and has been stable for several years. It also bears relevance to Christians who may read or may be interested in reading any of Tolle's works, and to non-Christians who are interested in the works' assessment by practicing Christians and Christian theologians. See also Talk:Eckhart Tolle#Reception by Christian theologians. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support The section is good, well referenced, and, due to the fact america is largely christian, I can see the correlation between his book in america and christian scholars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Summoned by bot. Needs to be trimmed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – It seems a bit like a coat rack for the Christian point of view about Tolle. At a minimum it is undue weight. I don't see the need for Christian reception to be singled out. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:UNDUE applies. This subsection is larger than the rest of the Reception section when it really deserves a single paragraph at most. What NPOV reason is there for the extensive treatment of Christian views? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Given what he does, his reception by theologians is probably the single most important aspect of how his work is viewed. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Trim and add reception by other major religions. Eckhart Tolle is well known outside the US, so I don't see a particular reason to focus on Christianity so much. In fact, I'd be more interested in what Buddhists and Hindus have to say about him. Daß Wölf 17:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception by Christian theologians

I condensed the Eckhart Tolle#Reception by Christian theologians section per the closed RfC. I also made more clear which were in support and which were criticism. It is still primarily quotes and should probably be paraphrased. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender has restored the following text to this subsection:

In 2008 The Independent noted that "Tolle does have fans in academic, even Christian, circles". It cited Andrew Ryder, a theologian at All Hallows College in Dublin, who wrote that "Tolle's writing is based on his own experience and personal reflection. This makes his approach to the challenge of living in the present moment both practical and fresh. While he may not use the language of traditional Christian spirituality, Tolle is very much concerned that, as we make our way through the ordinary events of the day, we keep in touch with the deepest source of our being."

I feel that this restores yet another extensive quote contrary to the mandate from the RfC to trim the section. I think we should limit the section to one paragraph each for pro and con. And why are we using all quotes for this section? Anyway, this does not seem like the most relevant quote as it is mostly general feelings about Tolle rather than a response from a Christian point of view. What do "personal reflection" and "practical and fresh" have to do with contrasting or comparing to Christian theology? —DIY Editor (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Right now we have quotes and reviews from: (1) Maclean's, a Canadian weekly news magazine; (2) a personal blog; (3) the National Catholic Reporter; (4) (a theologian posting on) Eckhart Tolle's own website; (5) The Independent, a widely and internationally read notable British newspaper. If we are going to trim anything further, we should probably trim in order of independence and notability; therefore the first to go should probably be in this order: Tolle's site; the blog; Maclean's / National Catholic Reporter (they're about equal in notability), and last of all The Independent. I personally don't think more than one of those should be trimmed, if any. There's also no reason to force the responses into one paragraph each of pro and con, especially if one section has more WP:RS sources than the other. We also don't paraphrase reviews -- that leads to inference and editorializing. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There was more to the article in question. For example it says "Tolle's theories are certainly seen by many as profoundly non-Christian, even though Tolle often quotes from the Bible," and generally gives the impression that Christians don't have a positive view of Tolle's work. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

An Icon

For most people struggling with depression,the fact that Eckart has come out of his lifelong depression ,is enough to bring you out of your own depression. Depression is just a mind game that envelops u in a vortex.To come out of the vortex ,you have to know that there is a way out.Eckart is proof. Poof !! Your depression is already gone. Nothing like awareness that its all make believe that you are going through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.170.38 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the content of the article? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tolle was, according to the article, depressed for some of his 20s and then experienced a so-called 'inner transformation'. He is now 68. So his depression was either far from 'lifelong', or else has persisted, in which case his approach has conspicuously failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.168.222 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This is to profoundly misunderstand Tolle's approach. He argues a person is two (the I and the Self). The Self can continue to suffer depression but the I observes and understands it as a passing state so it affects the individual far less, if at all. As such Tolle may have depression to this day. "Before Enlightenment I was depressed, after enlightenment I continued to be depressed" (a quote from Anthony de Mello whose base approach preceded Tolle's but was largely the same idea.) Polishwanderer (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eckhart Tolle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515183011/http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j18/bookreview2.asp to http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j18/bookreview2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eckhart Tolle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721080105/http://www.wam.org.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1267001058491&p=1135099400124&pagename=WAM%2FWamLocEnews%2FW-T-LEN-FullNews to http://www.wam.org.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1267001058491&p=1135099400124&pagename=WAM%2FWamLocEnews%2FW-T-LEN-FullNews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone of article

The tone of this article strikes me as overly promotional. Too much of the text is devoted to quotes from magazines, the subject himself or his marketing materials. We need to get some more scholarly analysis of where he fits into modern spiritual discourse. Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Often, a sentence with a citation is immediately preceded by an unsubstantiated, marketing-speak claim, which adds no facts, only opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.79 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Scholars are not qualified to pontificate on the nature of subject, which is what Tolle talks about. Tolle himself says his words are pointers to non-verbal reality, so how can a scholar do anything except say "Waaaaaahh ! He criticized words !" 162.205.217.211 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)