Talk:Charles Tart/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Charlestart.jpg
Image:Charlestart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Style
I just followed a link from the article on Milton Erickson, where T. is briefly mentioned at one point, to see who he might be.

I stumbled over some expressions which I find quiet "cloudy" and which do not fit into what I would expect from an "Encyclopaedia".

The article claims that "Transpersonal Psychology" had become "part of modern psychology", e.g. through the efforts of Mr. Tart. I doubt that all psychologists would find that an accurate statement. It may reflect a personal POV, or that of a group, and is mighty unprecise also; therfore it does not seem to be helpful in a reference work for non-specialists.

"Growth disciplines" and "personal and social growth" sound like catch words to me; they sound "New-Age-y" and "psycho-babble-y", and could be used for all sorts of things; most unprecise; rather an expression of wishful thinking, personal "identity building", or used in (seminar) marketing etc. I find that very unsuitable for an academic project. (A useful test-question: when precisely are we to say that someone has NOT "grown", or has "shrunken", over some period of time and/or as the result of certain activities, practices, ideas, books purchased, seminars attended etc. - esp. if he/she would claim or belief they had done so ?)

147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Transpersonal Psychology seems to have the blessing of the American Psychological Association (see http://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/sigs/transpersonal/) which I suggest is a key test that justifies the assertion that it is a part of modern psychology. And it's pretty clear from the chronology of his writings that he was the instigator of the field. And I suspect that terms like 'personal growth' are standard jargon among professionals in the field rather than a New Age invention. Are you a professional yourself, that would entitle you to make such criticisms? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles Tart. 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/20111017111537/http://itp.edu/currents/editorials/tart-award.php to http://www.itp.edu/currents/editorials/tart-award.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've checked the links. It appears that the archive link works and the original web site can't be found.  I've changed checked to true and will see what happens on the page. Well, this page says it has been checked but what will happen to the defunct link? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The defunct link remained, so I've done a minimal edit to get rid of it. The outcome is in a distinctly nonstandard format, so if anyone feels like fixing this, do go ahead! --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Predicting future events claim
Paragraph three of the biography reads "He supports Joseph McMoneagle's claim of having remote viewed into the past, present, and future and has predicted future events.[2]" Does "he" refer to McMoneagle, or to Tart? Which future events has he predicted? Were the predictions successful? The current book citation for this claim is very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.177.238 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a book by McMoneagle where Tart wrote the foreword. You can actually read this foreword on amazon.com, and it is clear that Tart is supporting McM's claims and not talking about his own abilities.  I've reworded the article to make the situation clear. I also changed 'supports' to the past tense as the reference is to a specific event in the past and nothing is there in support of what his present views may be.--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Tart. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itp.edu/currents/editorials/tart-award.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501083825/http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/author/charles-tart/ to http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/author/charles-tart/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OOBE experiment
The section on Tart's experiment on a woman who was claiming to have OOBEs offers naturalistic explanations for how this woman got the numbers correct, but does not point out that she may have acquired the information through paranormal means other than an out-of-the-body experience (e.g. she may have gained knowledge through clairvoyance). Vorbee (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? Should it? Are there sources for those other "explanations"? (I use quotes because using an unexplained and unproven effect to explain something is not really an explanation) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata
I was a bit confused when a mobile device search for "Charles Tart" described him as an "American spiritual writer"; this struck me as inaccurate. I changed the Wikidata entry (the source of that phrase) to read "American academic psychologist and writer". This is just an FYI; I would hope no one would object (if you do, please discuss here before changing). Finney1234 (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * More a parapsychologist than a spiritual writer, I'd have said, but he is at the same time a psychologist (has written on states of consciousness). --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, he was a psychology professor at UC Davis, and a lot of his work was decent scientific work (IMO) on altered states of consciousness (e.g., "On Being Stoned"). So I think "research/academic psychologist" is the best description, even if he sometimes studied what might be called "parapsychology" (and even "spirituality"). My .02, of course.Finney1234 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'theoretical psychologist' is the answer, since the aim would be to distinguish what he did from the kind of psychologist who deals with people. I can always ask him, of course. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He suggests 'experimental psychologist'. How would that be? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as accurate/appropriate (and was one possibility I'd thought of); I've changed Wikidata.Finney1234 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)