Talk:M. Scott Peck

Treatment of criticism
Removed the sentence attributing criticism to one person:


 * 1) You have to give some indication of why she disagrees with him. Is it just because he isn't a fundamentalist Christian?
 * 2) Do we have to add this sentence to every article in this pedia about someone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian

Nobody is claiming that Peck represents fundamentalist Christians, or that everybody agrees with him. Why should we include criticism from one party? There are probably plenty of people who disagree with him. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Her article, in the link I gave, lists specific alleged departures from Christian theology. I thought that a one-line summary quote with a link to the original was better than repeating each of her points, because the latter course would entail giving more space to the criticism than to the biographical article.
 * As to your second point, no, we don't have to add a sentence to everyone who isn't a fundamentalist -- but Peck is specifically a religious author, whose books are sold in religious bookstores and on religious websites (see, e.g., Christian Healing Ministries online bookstore). Therefore, controversy within the religious community about his work is an appropriate part of the article.
 * I don't want to get into a revert war here, so I'll await your reply before restoring the link to the criticism. JamesMLane 20:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that every book is going to attract criticism from someone. Some Christians don't like Tony Campolo, some don't like C S Lewis. I found a site that basicly attacks every Christian leader except Billy Graham as being a heretic. Do we have to put a note on every protestant author saying that Catholics disagree with them? If we don't say he is a fundamentalist (which he isn't) then haven't we said enough? DJ Clayworth 20:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A note on every Protestant author's page? No.  On the other hand, if a particular author writes a book or article espousing a Protestant viewpoint, and a Catholic author responds with a criticism of that particular piece, then, yes, I think the article on the Protestant author would reasonably include information about this controversy concerning his or her work.  To take one of your examples, I dimly remember reading some Christian author's disagreement with C. S. Lewis about miracles.  Ideally, the Wikipedia article about Lewis (or, better yet, the still-nonexistent article about his book Miracles) would summarize both Lewis's view and the criticism lodged against it.


 * We have to strike a balance and not bother reporting every crackpot criticism (like that of the Billy Graham supporter you mention). My impression from skimming some Google results, though, was that, presumably because of Peck's immense popularity, he has attracted a fair amount of fundamentalist criticism.  The Dewart piece seemed to be the most comprehensive so I chose that one as the representative of that point of view concerning Peck.


 * I'm not out to attack Peck (about whom we didn't have an article until I created it). Obviously I'd have no objection if people more knowledgeable about his work added more positive information about it.  I just think that some acknowledgement of the widespread criticism directed specifically at him is appropriate. JamesMLane 20:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wish this article was about what he taught. His life story isn't interesting enough to be the main topic of discussion. What is The Road Less Traveled about?


 * You could read it, and then write an article about it here. ;-) DJ Clayworth 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I discovered that Peck's obituaries listed a wife of a different name from the one listed here. I've added something about the 'new' wife, but I can't find any record of what happened to the 'old' one (Lily Ho) or when he married the 'new' one; or indeed which wife his children are by. Or if we just got it wrong. Any contributions welcome. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That Times interview is a great find, very revealing. (Of course, "colossally self-deluded man" would never pass muster under NPOV.  I guess the Times is more lenient.)  I'm changing the link format, partly because I think the article title is worth noting, and partly to provide an adequate reference to the printed version in case the link is disabled.  (In a bio of someone who lived in the northeastern U.S., many readers would assume "Times" to be the New York Times.)  Also, "separated" is a technical term in matrimonial law here, and we don't know if it's applicable.  Rewording is necessary, and I've chosen wording that adds the information that the split was at her initiative, not his. JamesMLane 15:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed a part about him relying on Malachi Martin because of lack of source and because I don't remember Martin being mentioned in his works. DJ Clayworth 14:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He dedicated Glimpses of the Devil to Malachi Martin and talks quite a bit about Martin in that book. Martin is the one who 'mentored' and inspired him to try exorcism Caroline1008 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph on possession and exorcism which suggested strongly that the controversy about Malachi Martin's accounts of possession therefore invalidated or at least brought into question Peck's own views. Having re-read the People of the Lie chapter on possession he states 'all my experience confirms the accuracy and depth of understanding of Martin's work'. I think it is reasonable to suggest that he was discerning about Malachi Martin and was willing to disagree if he found the evidence, consequently any controversy about Malachi Martin's own accounts is therefore irrelevant. (although I acknowledge that in the Arthur Jones biography the author considers that Peck viewed Martin as a father figure, even if this is true I think it is very unlikely it would have affected Peck's own perception of his experiences) Furthermore it is not like Peck and Martin are the only ones with similar views on this topic there are many eg. Gabriele Amorth (I also rewrote the section giving a summary of Peck's views on spiritual evil) Xtheuniverse (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Material
I just added some biographical material, then noticed that somebody had recently (and maybe inadvertently) deleted a lot of similar stuff. I don't know how to easily restore that which was deleted, or whether it was quality material or not. Surely the article needs material about Peck, and not just about one of his books. Lou Sander 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the section on evil
The article states that Peck goes to great lenghts to discuss evil on a scientific basis, but then, in the very next sentence, describes how Peck characterizes evil in regards to God and the Devil. Now, I'm not saying anything for or against belief in such concepts, but even most devoutly Christian scientists do not equate faith with science.Minaker 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC) : That whole section is pretty hilarious. --Tysto 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Heron Farm
As I stated in an ES, the existence of this community is relevant to Peck's bio. Readers might want to know that some people acted on his ideas. The linked website confirms the assertion that Peck's book played a role in the founding of the community. That's why I've restored the information. JamesMLane t c 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree that Blue Heron Farm is relevant to the article, in addition to being an interesting fact on its own. SONORAMA (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspectives. I have added a disclaimer to the entry linking to the Blue Heron Farm. Scott Peck never endorsed this community and his name should be protected from those who claim, rightly or wrongly, to implement his ideas. There are many people and organizations who have been impacted by individuals who have been nurtured by Scott Peck's writings. This entry at such an important place in the article seems to elevate its prominence and credibility without an objective evaluation of the facts. I would like to see it in the extrernal links rather than in the body of the article. Otherwise we could fill the page with such references. Organizations change over time as well and may fall away from their first principles. We have no way to evaluate that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabdella (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of people were "nurtured" or "impacted" by M Scott Peck's ideas, but these are the only ones that I'm aware of who went out and formed an intentional community inspired by their reading of his book on community. Interesting, and relavant. SONORAMA (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I do not have adequate knowledge of this possibly quite virtuous enterprise to evaluate its claims and unless you offer such I expect neither do you. In the spirit of dedication to reality, we have no way of knowing, based on a web page synopsis, unverified by a more objective perspective, if this community is congruent with Scott Peck's ideas. There are many people in the world who believe they have in fact understood and implemented Dr. Peck's prescriptions in their lives and they have not. Some of what I read at the link is quite foreign to anything I have read in Scott Peck's published works. For example, price controls on property and a kind of communal living. I'm unaware that Dr. Peck espoused such concepts. So to make the claim that one is inspired by his ideas and have founded a community based on those is a tall claim in and of itself. For one to elevate that claim to the main body of an article rather than a more subsidiary part is really to lend credibility without adequate investigation of the facts. I recommend that we move it to the external links where it properly belongs. Otherwise this article promotes an organization, worldwide, by associating it with the greatness of Scott Peck.

Founding an intentional community, although perhaps admirable, is no more virtuous than applying the principles of community to the communities in which we live today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabdella (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the specifics of the community's operation aren't necessarily what Peck would've recommended, but I don't think our article asserts that. Peck's work played a role in inducing these folks to start the community.  That, by itself, is an interesting fact.  We rely on reliable sources, and at this point we have no such source for evaluating Blue Heron Farm as being either consistent with or departing from Peck's ideas, so we shouldn't address that subject either way. JamesMLane t c 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the reference appears where it does on the same level as an otherwise remarkably well written and objective article, it is promoted and elevated to a place on a level with FCE, an organization Peck founded and really anything else in the main section of the article. The placement of the reference lends credibility to something that has not been objectively evaluated.  It should be an external link to make that clarify thus avoiding the matter of evaluating the claims.  Anyone can make the claim that they have founded a business or township based on the ideas of Peck, Plato, or Jesus himself, and gain instant credibility with those who are admirers of those historical figures.  By telegraphing this claim to the world without qualification we are promoting something of which we know very little.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabdella (talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We generally follow the philosophy that our readers aren't idiots. The article says that Peck was involved in founding FCE.  If you think there might be confusion about his rule in BHF, I can go along with stating expressly that he wasn't involved (although I think that was the clear inference from the previous wording).  To spell out that BHF might or might not comport with Peck's ideas, however, doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding and seems like giving the skeptical position too much weight.  The objective fact is that Peck himself wasn't involved.  We can state that fact and let the readers draw their own conclusions.


 * I agree with your example about Jesus. Anyone who knows about the divergence of Christian sects, extending all too frequently to mass bloodshed, will know that people invoking a historic figure's ideals aren't always living up to the hype! JamesMLane t c 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that by the placment of the reference in the main article automatically lends credibilty to it. This should be mitigated by some statement of neutrality. I recommend that we negotiate something agreeable to the parties.


 * Yes, Christians are bad sometimes and Stalin, Mao, and Hitler slaughtered hundreds of millions in the name of the atheistic state, but we digress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabdella (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your revert erased more than a dozen stylistic corrections that I'd made purusant to the Manual of Style (as noted in the edit summary for my edit). Even if your disagreement about Blue Heron Farm were justified, you would need to be more careful about such a blanket revert.


 * As for the specifics, you are correct that there's no consensus for my revision of your language about Blue Heron Farm. There was also no consensus for your insertion of that language in the first place.  We do not require prior consensus for all edits.


 * You continue to insist that merely mentioning the project in the text of the article somehow "lends credibility to it". You haven't addressed my specific point that any incorrect inference is dispelled by the express statement that Peck himself wasn't involved.  In this context, your proposed additional language strikes me very strongly as editorializing on the other side.  It would be factual for us to add, "It is not known whether anyone familiar with Peck's work has ever expressed the slightest reservation about Blue Heron Farm, or whether there is any basis for criticizing the project as departing from Peck's ideas."  That would be equally accurate but would be editorializing in the other direction.  WP:NPOV is one of our core principles, so we don't editorialize either way. JamesMLane t c 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From my perspective the prominent placement outweighs your qualification as is, so I added the word "claims" preceding the phrase in question. Have you addressed the reasonable request that we should move it to external references thereby placing it in a truly neutral place, "outside" of the work of Dr. Peck proper?Tomabdella (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Claim" also implies doubt. See Words to avoid.  I've substituted "stated".  As for why the information should be in the text, I agree with SONORAMA's comment above that it's interesting and relevant.


 * I remember reading a comment (long ago) about B. F. Skinner's book Walden Two, denouncing it as "a slur upon a name" or some such -- someone who thought it was contrary to Thoreau's vision. If someone notable has similarly called out Blue Heron Farm for departing from Peck's ideas, we can include that criticism, with proper attribution.  I searched and didn't find anything in the top several hits.  If you can find something like that, we can include it.  See Neutral point of view for the protocols concerning the reporting of facts about opinions. JamesMLane t c 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinion that the point about the farm is interesting and relevant could apply to all of the references and external links as well. What fact about this entity justifies elevation to the main article on a level with his own achievements? It serves only to lend legitimacy and does in fact promote this organization by association with a major figure.  Indeed, Dr. Peck made it abundantly clear in his writings that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism are desireable states. So to hold this commune up as the only example of how his work manifested itself in the world is awkward and paints a false picture.  It's an interesting aside and nothing more. It belongs down below outside of the main article if anywhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabdella (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to External links, the idea of the external link is to provide the reader with access to more detail than is appropriate for the text of the article. In this instance, the link gives details about Blue Heron Farm's organization -- so that, for example, a reader who's particularly interested in Blue Heron Farm can follow the link and see that there are price controls (one of the subjects you identified as going beyond what Peck wrote).  That's too much detail for the Peck article, but the basic fact of the existence of a community that came about in part because of Peck's work seems to me to be significant enough for the text.  I don't think we "hold this commune up" in the sense that troubles you as long as we make clear that he wasn't involved.  Is it the only example of a manifestation of his work in the world?  I don't know.  If there are others, we can add them.  As a general rule, though, we don't delete valid information just because there's additional information that could be added.  A wiki article develops through a succession of gradual improvements.  It's different from a traditional encyclopedia, where the article is supposed to be complete in the form in which it's first published. JamesMLane t c 09:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Biography Sections
This article contains two chapters titled "Biography:" chapter 1 and chapter 6. Chapter 1 contains actual biographical information. Chapter 6 contains a single line: "The Road He Travelled: The Revealing Biography of M Scott Peck by Arthur Jones (Rider Books, 2007)." I propose deleting Chapter 6 and adding a line to Chapter 1, something like: "For more information on the life of Scott Peck, see The Road He Travelled: etc." Feeline (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing the duplication. Wikipedia's Manual of Style provides a different solution, though.  Books by the bio subject are listed under "Works" or, as here, "Bibliography".  Then follows a "Further reading" section for material about the bio subject.  I've eliminated the second "Biography" and combined that book listing with the articles listed in a new "Further reading" section.  See Layout for the preferred style, which I think I've followed in correcting the error you noted. JamesMLane t c 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks James. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't know about the manual of style. I will check it out. Feeline (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Xtheuniverse and WP:NOR
Editor Xtheuniverse (who has no user page) appears to be mainly interested in editing this article. The amount of work is considerable and impressive. However this editor seems repeatedly to fall foul of WP:NOR. Assuming good faith, I would ask this editor to look back over their work after having reread the policy - and I would ask other editors to look at the article in its present state and see what improvements they suggest.

I for one have just rv an encyclopaedic contribution from some time back, the removal of which Xtheuniverse justified with the words:


 * I think it is reasonable to suggest that he was discerning about Malachi Martin and was willing to disagree if he found the evidence, consequently any controversy about Malachi Martin's own accounts is therefore irrelevant. (although I acknowledge that in the Arthur Jones biography the author considers that Peck viewed Martin as a father figure, even if this is true I think it is very unlikely it would have affected Peck's own perception of his experiences) Furthermore it is not like Peck and Martin are the only ones with similar views on this topic there are many eg. Gabriele Amorth (I also rewrote the section giving a summary of Peck's views on spiritual evil)

WP:NOR ??? Testbed (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Testbed as I said previously, it is not a violation of WP:NOR to remove a referenced edit with a quote/reference and subjective arguments as I have done. I suggest you yourself reread WP:NOR and acquaint yourself with that fact (you omitted my Peck reference in your quote of my arguments). You accuse me of 'seemingly' ‘repeatedly falling foul of WP:NOR’ yet six months later you still haven’t provided one example and argument, but ‘assuming good faith’ you were hoping others would find such evidence. But my ‘considerable’ amount of work is just a summary of Peck’s writings on evil expressed in my own words, as per good editing practice, certainly no original input/thought from me. I think it is rather obvious in this instance that you have overreacted to the removal of your one line edit. Xtheuniverse (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell???
I was recommending M. Scott Peck to someone online, and they come back with "well, I'll look into it, but I don't like his idea that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured". I have never heard that in all my years of recommending M. Scott Peck's work, and I'm frippin' 42.

Of course, I check the Wikipedia page and lo and behold!

Homosexuality
The book contains occasional references to homosexuality, which assume that it is a mental condition in need of treatment and capable of cure. By 1978 the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association had ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder.

My memory of this book may be fuzzy, but it's not that fuzzy. The point is moot, however; it's completely unsourced and there is absolutely nothing on the web that comes close to this statement. In fact, when you google M. Scott Peck and homosexuality, you get the exact opposite view - that Gay people were "created by God".

But what really boils my cheese is that there appears to be some sort of heated discussion about some (probably) minute point, and the last entry in this discussion was frippin' two days ago. Whoever any of you are, if none of you can do rudimentary fact checking on a shocking, inflammatory statement about a dead man that's contrary to all of his other writing, then find another hobby.--NinaOdell | Talk 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:

" that Gay people were "created by God"..."

Schizophrenics were "created by God" also, so that comment does not argue against a belief that homosexuality is a disease that must be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:409:AB01:C4A5:6206:C332:7170 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note:

Peck never said schizophrenics or schizophrenia was created by God. So you have no argument, but prejudice is a disease that must be cured 1.178.78.67 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Viewpoint?
Hey. i altered the section under Stage IV of personal development to change 'difficult' to prove spirituality scientifically to 'so-far impossible'. I personally don't close my mind to the existence of 'forces' which human understanding can't comprehend yet, but surely if it was just 'difficult' then that implies that there exists evidence somewhere? Which far as i'm aware, there isn't. Evidence to the contraray needs to be provided before making claims like that. Also, this entire article reads like an advertisement of the man and his teachings; not at all like an unbiased over view of a humans life and work. I have read just a little of the book and though i love a lot of what he says can find considerable criticisms, surely there are more structured, perhqaps ideaologically based criticism (and from reading this talk page thier are) that are valid enough to be put on the page? Surely he didnt just go through life with everybody agreeing with him, which is certainly the sense one gets from this page? 129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree that the article 'reads like an advertisement of the man and his teachings', consider:

'While Peck's writings emphasized the virtues of a disciplined life and delayed gratification, his personal life was far more turbulent.[1] For example, in the book In Search of Stones,[4] Peck acknowledged having extramarital affairs and being estranged from two of his children.'

'Peck's writings and views on possession and exorcism are to some extent influenced and based on specific accounts by Malachi Martin, however the veracity of these accounts and Peck's own diagnostic approach to possession have both since been questioned.[6]﻿ It has been argued that it is not possible to find formal records to establish the veracity of Fr. Malachi Martin's described cases of possession as all exorcism files are sealed by the Archdiocese of New York, where all but one of the cases took place.[7]'

There is critique of his views, but his views like many psychological theories are not falsifiable, and there is little critique available that is citable. His personal life and it's contrast to his writings espousing discipline has been acknowledged, hardly an advertisement of the man. Also I don't detect any advertorial tone in the article, just a summary of his views. (edit- Rereading it I agree with you in the discipline section that needs a rewrite but the rest of the article seems fine124.168.46.222 (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

Regarding reversion of your edit, 'impossible' is too strong a statement, there have been some studies for example that showed prayer works medically although a fairly recent one suggests it doesn't http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html (article also discusses studies which found prayer beneficial), 'difficult' to prove is therefore I think more appropriate than 'impossible'. And Peck himself strangely considered exorcism (a spiritual manifestation) to be capable of scientific study, ie. he thought there was something provable about it's existence, nature and causes. 124.171.18.103 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on M. Scott Peck. 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://geocities.com/whkinfo1/malachi_martinsophia.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam War service
Although Peck served in the United States military during the Vietnam War, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served in Vietnam during the war. Accordingly, Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Theories
These merit brief treatments, maybe one or two paragraphs each.--Artaxerxes 19:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What's a WASP?
WASP is a term that describes White Anglo Saxon Protestants, which means Christian. By WP:Neutrality people do not belong in certain sectors. 108.65.249.149 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Reads like a positive book review
This article is too long, too many details about his prescriptions, reads like a fan club. Tallard (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to propose edits or improvements...SONORAMA (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources by the subject
, five of the 16 citations are books by M. Scott Peck himself. Of the approximately 53 footnotes, 35 link to those five Peck citations. This does not serve as adequate verification. Peaceray (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)