Talk:Neville Goddard/Archive 1

Article was deleted in 2014
This article was deleted in 2014. I am not seeing any reliable sources on the current article. The page should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --174.131.57.99 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have studied Neville Goddard for several years and the information in this Wiki entry appears to be correct and factual. J Allen 7/11/20


 * That is not a valid reason. The article is not neutral and violates a number of Wikipedia policies because most of the sources are taken from Goddard's own books or are unreliable, see WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Reversion
I have reverted the edits you recently made to this article, because they were not verified by reliable sources—most, if not all, of the material was unsourced. Feel free to add the material in the relevant sections if it can be verified with appropriate sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wife and daughter.
He had a wife and daughter.

There's a picture of them https://www.nevillegoddardbooks.com/uploads/4/0/9/5/4095367/2569244_orig.jpg

The daughter updated his book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/93971.Power_of_Awareness

76.115.29.213 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested passage
I think Religion Dispatches is a reliable source. The IP who keeps removing this passage disagrees. Can we get some third party input? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the sources are not unreliable as described. Furthermore, Neville Goddard is a real person whose influence in this area is trivially verifiable, and it seems preposterous to outright delete this article without any attempt to rectify the issues at hand.

On to the issues with the sources:

Firstly, Neville's own books are an appropriate source to reference when describing his ideology. If you are aiming to accurately represent the beliefs a person espoused in life, it strikes me that referencing the books (his own books) which have formed the basis of his following is best practice. Carl Jung's books can be used to reference his own teachings, so why can Neville's not be used for his? However, if these are still not considered adequate, there are ample recordings available on the internet where he is directly saying in his own voice these same beliefs. I can replace any unsatisfactory references with these if necessary.

Secondly, I suspect that the attribution of 'unreliable' to the sources stems from the fact that several of these sources are seemingly self-published. However it is worth noting that reference [9] ('The Miracle Club: how thoughts become reality') is NOT self-published, which would indicate that traditional publishers both recognise Neville's existence as real and his influence in New Thought as notable.

As for the self-published books, two are used to reference his association with New Thought. In this case I do not see why these are inappropriate sources as clearly if people are publishing multiple books about him in relation to New Thought, that is proof in itself of his connection to New Thought. Secondly, a book's status as self-published, especially as these seem to be self-help books (as, I would argue, are the majority of books in this field), does not, in my opinion, render it immediately non-factual. There are many cases, infamously the Bell Curve book, which used real figures to convey completely false information, so if these self-published books are being used only to repeat details about Neville's method, and they are in AGREEMENT on his method, and in agreement with his own books, then using them as reference surely cannot be regarded as inappropriate.

You'll notice that reference [12], which is used to prove the link between New Thought and the law of attraction, references 'The Secret', an extremely influential book in this field, one that often functions as people's entry into New Thought ideas. How on Earth can this be regarded as an unreliable source? If this book, which also got its own documentary and is widely discussed to this day, cannot be regarded as adequate proof of the connection between the law of attraction and New Thought, then what can? These books are the kind of books we have to work with. There simply do not exist enough academic non-pop books and articles about every aspect of this topic.

Other sources which are NOT self-published include [16] and [17], which are used to argue that Neville is one of the most quoted authors of the subject. Of course, nothing could ever conclusively prove that he is one of the most quoted authors, no matter how many books you found, so if this line is the issue here, then surely we can simply remove the line and retain the article? We don't need to throw everything out because of one poorly phrased line with, might I add, references to revelevant books?

In conclusion, the reasons cited for speedy deletion are incorrect, because the sources deemed questionable are in fact not questionable on close examination. Furthermore, Neville Goddard's veracity and his influence on New Thought are verifable both through the many sources cited here, and from the widespread recognition he has on the internet. He is a person of note and interest and it is in the interests of everyone on the internet that this article remains in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CA33:C300:3937:B1DB:C28F:CE2A (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If "The Secret" is a reliable source, then you should be able to just make a wish and the article will be the way you want it without all that fuss of convincing other users. Problem solved. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While that is funny, and of course the philosophy espoused by both The Secret and Goddard himself are self-evidently ridiculous, it doesn't really address the sources question. 24.192.136.44 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)