Talk:Eckhart Tolle/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:COMMONNAME

MagicatthemovieS, please stop changing the WP:COMMONNAME of Lao Tzu, to an orthography which is confusing and scarcely used by anyone, and does not match citations. Please see:

versus

--Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Beginning attempt to unbias this article, because it is obviously biased in favor of its subject, and is promotional rather than impartial.

Please bear with me as I am beginning the attempt to unbias this article, because it is obviously biased in favor of its subject, and is promotional rather than impartial. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Sincerely, Magenta30.Magenta30 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

what happened? same in German wiki on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:CF14:BE00:CD2C:8E0A:AB78:FB58 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Teachings

Is it really important to state that he references figures from popular culture?

I think this section should either be removed or be expanded to state what he has to teach about figures in intellectual or popular culture. A paragraph listing the people he uses as examples feels like it completely lacks the points he wants to make about them. Lessons in high-level life strategy are pretty abstract, so it's not particularly surprising Tolle uses relatable concrete examples.

The purpose of listing many other people, regardless of relevance, is to improve search rankings and thus publicity and promotion of the business. In this the article succeeds.

It would be interesting and relevant to include a section on his business and income. Such information would tend to refute or support his claim that his focus is on spirituality rather than business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.98 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

(@Joshua Jonathan:) I just wanted to bring to your attention, that you have violated the WP:3RR. Also, you have now deleted cited contents that criticise ET. It appears you have a strong bias in boosting ET's public impression by ensuring wide criticism of him is not included in the wiki article. At this point please take this as notice, and refrain yourself any further reverts, to avoid escalation. Do you get paid or work for ET ? Cigarlover (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC) You have now reverted a total of 6 edits WP:3RR on 22 May 2024 content of a WP:LIVE person, just because it does not present a favorable view of him. This violates the neutrality of the wiki article, which is against the WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier on Jun 21st, you reverted contents 9 times.

WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Could anyone improve NPOV and basic content of opening paragraph?

Just read this article for the first time and the opening paragraph doesn’t read like the openers of most other bios - seems loaded with opinions that aren’t the kinds of facts we lead with.

I’m logged in via phone and can’t edit well - anyone reading this want to take a look? DrMel (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's an editor on a crusade; I've reverted most of his edits, and warned them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that seemed over-the-top, but after that revert, the lead seems more-or-less neutral. The "spiritual teacher" description seems odd, though, and I'm curious about other opinions. Rray (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That's quite a basic description. See, for example, John W. Parker (2009), Dialogues with Emerging Spiritual Teachers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This section isn't appropriate for the lead (or really at all)

Here are the sentences that are contentious:

"Even though Oprah Winfrey’s endorsements have catapulted Eckhart Tolle into one of the world’s most famous living spiritual teachers, he still isn’t taken seriously by the mainstream media. While Tolle has sold millions of copies of his book 'The Power of Now', the media typically dismiss him as a near-comical “guru.” His books don’t get reviewed."

Describing him as one of the "world's most famous living spiritual teachers" is dubious at best and promotional at worst.

Stating that he isn't taken seriously by the mainstream media represents a POV. It's also vague.

"Millions of copies of his book..." is vague and promotional at the same time.

The first time a book is used in the lead, it should link to the Wikipedia article. Book titles should also be italicized rather than put in quotes.

"The media typically dismiss him as a near-comical guru" is also POV.

"His books don't get reviewed" is unlikely to be true.

Just because a citation to a newspaper article has been included doesn't make something appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Some of this MIGHT, if rewritten, be appropriate later in the article, but it's not appropriate in the lead.

Finally, this message is specific to Cigarlover (cool username, btw, I smoke Padrons almost daily myself): the way things work here is that you generally make a bold edit, have it reverted, then discuss it on the talk page. Reverting back to your preferred addition repeatedly and "warning" other editors doesn't contribute to building a consensus about the changes you want to make to the page. You'll have more success taking a different approach. You might take a look at BOLD, revert, discuss -- it's an essay about a method for building consensus. Hope that's helpful. Rray (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The guy's on a crusade, violating basics Wiki-policies like WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:3RR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The text they added to the lead is WP:UNDUE, violates WP:NPOV, and does not belong in the WP:LEAD, whih summarizes the article. The source, Douglas Todd (Feb 11, 2008), Eckhart Tolle has insights, but not The Answer, Vancouver Sun, is a "Staff Blog." That's a lousy source for such statements. Let's have a closer look:
  • "Even though Oprah Winfrey’s endorsements have catapulted Eckhart Tolle into one of the world’s most famous living spiritual teachers, he still isn’t taken seriously by the mainstream media." - that's a direct copy from the source, that is, a WP:COPYVIO. It should be attributed, not placed in the lead, an not given WP:UNDUE weight.
  • "Tolle has sold millions of copies of his books, including The Power of Now, but the media typically dismiss him as a near-comical “guru.” His books don’t get reviewed." - this is a near-exact copy from Douglas Todd. Same problems.
Obviously, Cigarlover is WP:NOTHERE, intend to trash the subject of the article, and violating a number of Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Please focus discussion at this page on the content of the article, not on other editors. Concerns about other editors, if you have enough evidence to back up the claims, can be taken to WP:ANI or another noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Rray I would disagree with you here, as I would take a published mainstream newspaper article with higher credibility than to dismiss it based on your personal preference. User:C.Fred, please feel free to correct me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigralover (talk • contribs) 24 june 2021 (UTC)

Another user here on the talk page has already explained why this is an inappropriate addition to the lead -- I agree with those, obviously, and I'll let my earlier comments stand. Rray (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not see the objectivity in your disagreement. The solution does not have to be a democratic decision, but should be fact-driven and objective. I clearly see that you are acting against the principle of WIKI in terms WP:BALANCE User: C.Fred please help arbitrate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 24 june 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. It might be worthwhile for you to review it. Rray (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This is unrelated to this above issue. What is the objective reason to not include a published criticism of ET in this page? You seem to be acting in the interest to protect ET's image as you are in strong disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Author and Vancouver Sun writer Douglas Todd is one of the few mainstream religion and ethics journalists to seriously look at Tolle’s work. So why should his criticism on ET be omitted from this wiki page ? User:C.Fred please arbitrate. https://www.macleans.ca/culture/eckhart-tolle-vs-god/ --Cigarlover (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Rray Please see the top of this talk page. It clearly states that this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 25 june 2021 (UTC)
Cigarlover, ignoring the explanations of other editors is WP:DISRUPTIVE. I've explained why this COPYVIO does not belong in the WP:LEAD, which summarizes the article. You don't reach WP:CONSENSUS when you ignore this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Content with citation that is urelated

The wiki page for Eckhart has references cited to content which are failing the cross-check. Please see the history on the edit and corresponding remarks>> here is a few example.

We need to escalate this, C.Fred, please respond on the next steps to clean up fake content from this page. This page seemed to be produced in a concerted effort by a 70$ Million dollar Eckhart Empire to boost Eckhart's image.--Cigarlover (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please be specific, and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS? Take that as a warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan We cannot make progress in a objective way in restoring the biased page on ET, until you first WP:DISCLOSE if you are affiliated to ET. Once you confirm that, we can make reasonable progress and we will able to converse in an unbiased way.--Cigarlover (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred : I would like to point out that the below statement in the wiki page Tolle said he was depressed for much of his life until age 29 when he experienced an "inner transformation." He then spent years wandering "in a state of deep bliss" before becoming a spiritual teacher, publishing his first book, The Power of Now, in 1997,[4] reaching The New York Times Best Seller list in 2000.[5]

is self propaganda.

Let me explain, why using terms like 'inner transformation is a huge issue in articles like this. The citation used here is from Eckhart's own writing and hence cannot be used as the primary basis to support this statement. Given this is a biography of a living person, we need WP:BLPBALANCE:: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

This would have not been an issue of WP:COI if ET was not running a commercial venture. If Dalai Lama or some recognized expert on the field of spirituality would have endorsed ET, then it can be used as a secondary reference and the statement can be supported.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 24 june 2021 (UTC)

User: C.Fred please note that this entire page needs to be audited and statements that are cited with primary reference that originates from Eckhart's own writings and claims need to removed unless there is a verifiable secondary reliable source. FYI.. User:Joshua Jonathan User:Rray User:HelloAnnyong - can you please add your 2 cents. We need to turn this propaganda page to Wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with ET; stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I asked you to give specific examples; you gave two examples:
  • "self propaganda" - see WP:SELFSOURCE. Sources written by the subjects of biographies are perfectly fine for statements on themselves, especially when attributed with a statement like "Tolle said." Calling this "self propaganda" is misplaced, and displaying your lack of neutrality.
  • "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" - what you do is colleting information on his enterprises, writing your own criticism. That's your problem: you dislike him, and you want to use this article to criticise him. That's not what Wikipedia is meant for.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Eckhart Tolle: He turns dogmas into factual statements

Quote from a video: "What matters is: There is the burst of something entirely new on the planet" Tolle thinks there is a planetary upheaval towards "expansion of consciousness" right now. That is a quote that can also be heard by many shallow-water spirituals and "2012 believers". When you hear about Palestine, Eastern Ukraine, and Isis on the evening news, then you realize that you could also logically justify the opposite scenario. (No one knows what really is.)

Eckhart Tolle has some theories he believes that he proclaims as fact. However, they do not constitute any higher knowledge.

Here is the second example of a dogma, from the same video: "And awakening is a cosmic event. Since it is happening on this planet here, we can virtually be certain it is happening elsewhere in the universe - it is an awakening of the universe into a completely different level of consciousness. That is how important your life is. "

Whether there is an awakening in the entire universe, is again just an assumption, a dogma a theory ... no more. Eckhart Tolle has a number of beliefs that he declares as a facts. It is not higher knowledge that leads to awakening; at most, it leads to the ego-enhancing thought to be someone special, who contributes to something special (the awakening of the universe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cigarlover: And this analysis is per what source? —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@C.Fred:. Please see here.. https://www.poehm.com/en/eckhart-tolle-criticism/
@Cigarlover: Reliable sources should be things like scholarly journal articles, not opinion pieces where a rhetoric expert says Tolle must have an ego issue because he covers his teeth when he laughs. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@C.Fred:. You are correct. I also wish to point out that the current page, is heavily biased and its contents are based on Eckhart's own writing serving as a primary reference. This is against the very guidance mandated in Wiki WP:BLPSPS. Also, if you look at the history of this page, multiple authors in the past have pointed out the same issue that I am bringing up now. There is a strong wall of resistance that is keeping this page as a marketing tool for Eckhart. I am hoping you will have a neutral perspective here and allow for adjustment of the tone in the page and allow critical views to be included that come from a published newspaper article which I tried to add but were reverted.
The article that was reverted multiple times was
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 25 june 2021 (UTC)
User:HelloAnnyong, User:Ashmoo - can you please add your 2 cents. We need to turn this propaganda page to Wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "expansion of consciousness" and "cosmic events": it's completely irrelevant what your opinions about this are; it's what Tolle says and thinks, and taht's what this article is about: his opinions, not yours. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not a GA article

I came here because the article had was using [7] CelebrityNetWorth as a reference. I agree with the concerns about the article being promotional. The GA status should have been dropped. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

And it never was. How did it get past review in the state it was in when it got GA approval? --Hipal (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the article tag and asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Simple_way_to_remove_GA_status? --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been over a week. I'll take a look for the next steps when I find the time. --Hipal (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Eckhart Tolle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Initial impression

In general, the version that was approved for GA looks like a fanpov, PROMO piece. The recent versions have the same problems.

There's heavy reliance on information directly from Tolle, and using Wikipedia's voice.

The timeline is not chronological.

It appears his major successes were due to Oprah Winfrey's recommendations, though this is difficult to see from the article content.

Some refs appear redundant and promotional.

Some refs are missing basic information (publication date, author, etc).

I've only glanced at the recent dispute, and so am not addressing it at all. --Hipal (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of your edits, almost all of which are actually reversions of things that were added after the good article review. However, apart from the issues that you have already fixed, I don't really see your description as accurate. It seems chronological. Most of the claims made by Eckhart Tolle about his own life that are likely to be contested are not put in Wikipedia's voice. It often says "Eckhart Tolle says" which is neutral language and does not assert that the statement is true. Otherwise, uncontested and non-sensational auto-biographical claims may be the basis for some of the narrative but they are quite mundane. I can't see anything super-promotional in Wikipedia's own voice. The redundant refs have mostly if not all been added by spammers after the Good Article review, so I agree with your removal of those. The claim about his birth date is not backed up by a reliable source (except for the "reliable sources" that have used this article itself as a source) and I tried to remove it several times but it kept getting added back. I have no reason to doubt the birthdate but it's against policy so I tried to get rid of it. Otherwise I don't see big issues with the article except that spammers will keep trying to add spam like in a lot of good articles. Mr G (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
There are some weird claim that have been added since the review like that his friend as "psychic". I think it would be better to just fix these issues that remove the good article status, but I don't really mind either way. Mr G (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The claim at the top of the article that the article is written "from a fan's point of view" is false. It's mostly neutral and most of the things you are objecting too have been added more recently by other editors. Mr G (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Giving UNDUE weight to material referenced only to poor or promotional sources violates NOT, POV, and BLP. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me, reading the article now, that whatever "fan" material may have been there has been removed; the word "psychic" is not present in the text. I agree with Gregcaletta that the article is entirely neutral in tone now. The sources include The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Vancouver Sun, Time magazine, and The Observer, so the immediate impression is of a robustly-sourced article, and indeed of a figure definitely in the public eye on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. The use of interviews does not seem excessive. The primary material (sourced to Tolle) is used plainly and descriptively; it forms a modest percentage of the text, and it is clearly attributed and cited. The "Reception" section provides both positive and negative opinions of Tolle. It would be hard to describe any of this as promotional. I found some refs poorly-formatted and have fixed them; I've rescued one newspaper article with an archive link. Overall it looks pretty good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Revisiting the article, I've done some more copy-editing so that it flows better in English, checking carefully for neutrality; I hope it reads better, but I found little in the way of neutrality issues to fix. It's a decent, honest article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

More comments

Remove the "Dialogues With Emerging Spiritual Teachers" reference, or use it only to provide important details already on topics from better refs.

Removed.

Remove the worse references.

Done.

Put more emphasis on the better and non-primary sources throughout.

Done. The article now contains almost no primary sourcing.

Rewrite the "Inner transformation" section title. This is improper use of Wikipedia's voice.

Said 'Reported.

I'm not sure if Oprah's multiple recommendations should be mentioned in the lede. Probably.

Mentioned her interventions for the two books. I think the webinar series is marginal for the lead.

Christian scholars have differing opinions on the compatibility of Tolle's ideas with Christianity. Remove, unless there's a summary from and independent source we could use. --Hipal (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It was only a lead-in to the cited paragraphs that follow. In the interest of harmony I've replaced it with a brief statement cited to the article in The Independent.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Much improved. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Great. Well if you or someone who knows how could close this, that'd be good. Thanks all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hipal: This looks like it is ready to close. Aircorn (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Softlavender has done a great job cleaning up the article. I caught a couple of minor items. I wish I had time to review it closer, but I don't want to hold anything up given it's current state. --Hipal (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of religion in lede

Tolle does not identify with any specific religion, but he has been influenced by multiple spiritual works. - "Times Topics: Eckhart Tolle Biography". The New York Times. 2008-03-05.

If mention of his religious beliefs belong in the lede, it should be specific. --Hipal (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

Tolle has resided in Canada since 1995. He also married a native-born Canadian, so it's likely he has Canadian citizenship, although he could merely have permanent residency. In any case, we don't know his precise nationality: We don't know incontrovertibly whether he has Canadian citizenship, and we also don't know whether he still has, or has renounced, his German citizenship. Therefore, until both of those issues are verified (Canadian citizenship; German citizenship), the "Nationality" parameter in the infobox should remain blank. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Fan's point of view

I disagree that this is written from a fan's point of view, so I'm starting a discussion on the talk page to get additional opinions (rather than just removing the tag). Maybe some examples of the problems could be addressed in this discussion? Or if other editors disagree with the tag, they might also chime in? Rray (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a discussion regarding this further up the page. Sorry I missed that. Rray (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a fan article, but the discussion is elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The tag was removed on 25 August 2021. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I did a bit more cleanup. Much improved. Thanks everyone! --Hipal (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Reception by Christian Theologians

While this article offers some assessment of E.T. by Christian theologians, pro and con, a very precise comparison has been observed between the New Testament distinction between "the flesh" and "the Spirit" ("the carnal mind" and "the Spiritual Mind") and Tolle's distinction between "the Egoic mind" and "unconditioned consciousness". See, for example:

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/opinion/bible-verse---romans-rom-8-6-8-quote-by-eckhart-tolle/article_7fc3b61e-0b35-11ec-b3da-3f8dd9511f3d.html

https://rsheeley.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-self-the-flesh-the-ego/

https://cac.org/letting-go-pain-body-2015-10-19/

Do a google search for additional sources (e.g. ego + flesh + Tolle OR egoic mind + carnal mind + Eckhart Tolle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.70.141 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eckhart_Tolle/Archive_3&oldid=1193965651"