Talk:Stanley Krippner/Archive 1

Personal website links to articles -- Wikipedia policy
WP:EL explains Wikipedia policy on external links. Personal websites are allowed if accompanied with links to reliable, verifiable, unbiased third-party sources. GBYork 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

To upgrade article
There are a range of Wikipedia sources that can help you out. All articles must meet WP:V. To learn how to a proper citing style, consult WP:CITE. For what kind of external links are acceptable, WP:EL is a useful set of guidelines. Good luck! GBYork 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Removed disguised Rosencomet link Timmy12 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed copy of search engine link that was triggering spam filter. (This was NOT a disguise; at the time, I was unaware of the policy against search engine links.) Rosencomet 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed the deletion suggestion. The deletion suggestion said that Krippner was not a notable author, although numerous publications are listed on the page itself.  Also it said references are from 'fringe publications'.  'Fringe publications' is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Also, is wikipedia not allowing 'fringe' topics and people any longer?  Who gets to decide what is 'fringe'?  One man's fringe is another man's mainstream.  The fact that Krippner's page was suggested to be deleted is hard for me to understand.  Krippner is probably one of the most prolific transpersonal psychologist in terms of publications, look at his website and check out his CV if you disagree with me.  His number of publications in academic journals is enormous, if not super human (not exagerating, look at the CV!).  I feel the impulse to put this page up for deletion is one reason less people are adding pages to wikipedia, as the Weird article highlighted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed the deletion suggestion again. The first deletion suggestion said that if the deletion suggestion was removed it was to NOT be added back.  I feel that the person who is suggesting this for deletion is someone with a personal agenda against Krippner.  I am thinking it could be a disgruntled student.  Also, the person who keeps putting up the deletion tag is NOT discussing the issue in the discussion page. Please stop putting this deletion tag on the article.  Krippner is a notable author in the field of transpersonal psychology, this is just ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never met Krippner in my life. As for not discussing the AfD here on this talk page that is because, as per Wikipedia policy, I am discussing it at the AfD page accessible through the link that you deleted, contrary to Wikipedia policy.  I would suggest that you participate there to demonstrate notability under WP:PROF if you are interested in preserving the article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first deletion suggestion was a WP:PROD the second was a WP:AFD I suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel this article is being vandalized by wiki users with an 'axe to grind'. For example, i notice that the above user frequents the 'fringe message board' on wikipedia.  It appears some on wikipedia are, consciously or unconsciously, trying to purge wikipedia of 'fringe' topics.  Really very sad the direction wikipedia is taking and sad that some with power on this site are using it for destructive end.  Just dont understand how there is not room for 'fringe' topics on wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL proposing a WP:AFD is absolutely not vandalism. Perhaps you could join the discussion at the AFD and provide an explanition of how Krippner meets the WP:PROF criteria instead of sniping at me on the talkpage for frequenting a noticeboard.Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-author

 * 1974 - Dream Telepathy: Experiments in Nocturnal ESP (with Montague Ullman and Alan Vaughan). (Macmillan) +
 * 1986 - The Realms of Healing (with Alberto Villoldo) (Celestial Arts Press) (rev. ed. 1977, 3rd ed. 1986) ISBN 0-89087-474-3 +
 * 1986 - La Science et les Pouvoirs Psychiques de l'Homme (with Jerry Solfvin) (Sand)
 * 1987 - Healing States (with Alberto Villoldo). (Fireside Books/Simon & Schuster) ISBN 0-671-63202-7 +
 * 1987 - Zwischen Himmel und Erde: Spirituelles Heilen der Schamanen, Hexen, Priester und Medien (with Patrick Scott) (Chiron Verlag) +
 * 1988 - Dreamworking: How to Use Your Dreams for Creative Problem-Solving (with Joseph Dillard). (Bearly Ltd.) ISBN 0-943456-25-8
 * 1988 - Personal Mythology: The Psychology of Your Evolving Self (with David Feinstein) (Jeremy P. Tarcher) ISBN 0-87477-483-7 +
 * 1989 - Dream Telepathy: Experiments in Nocturnal ESP (with Montague Ullman and Alan Vaughan), 2nd ed. (McFarland Publishers) ISBN 1-57174-321-9
 * 1992 - Spiritual Dimensions of Healing: From Tribal Shamanism to Contemporary Health Care (with Patrick Welch) (Irvington Publishers) ISBN 0-8290-2462-X
 * 1993 - A Psychiatrist in Paradise: Treating Mental Illness in Bali (with Denny Thong and Bruce Carpenter) (White Lotus Press) ISBN 974-8495-77-9
 * 1997 - The Mythic Path (with David Feinstein). (Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam) ISBN 0-87477-857-3 +
 * 2002 - Extraordinary Dreams and How to Work with Them Stanley Krippner, Fariba Bogzaran, and Andre Percia de Carvalho. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. ISBN 0-7914-5258-1. +

Reference

Editor

 * 1979 - Psychoenergetic Systems: The Interface of Consciousness, Energy and Matter (Gordon & Breach)
 * Advances in Parapsychological Research Vols. 1, 2, 3 (Plenum Press) 1977, 1978, 1982. +
 * Advances in Parapsychological Research Vols. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (McFarland Publishing) 1987, 1990, 1994, 1997.
 * 1990 - Dreamtime and Dreamwork: Decoding the Language of the Night (Jeremy P. Tarcher) +

Co-editor

 * 1973 - Galaxies of Life: The Human Aura in Acupuncture and Kirlian Photography (with Daniel Rubin) (Gordon & Breach)
 * 1974 - The Kirlian Aura: Photographing the Galaxies of Life (with Daniel Rubin) (Anchor Books) +
 * 1975 - The Energies of Consciousness: Explorations in Acupuncture, Auras, and Kirlian Photography (with Daniel Rubin). (Gordon & Breach)
 * 1977 - Future Science: Life Energies and the Physics of Paranormal Phenomena (with John White) (Anchor Books) +
 * 1997 - Broken Images, Broken Selves: Dissociative Narratives in Clinical Practice (with Susan Powers) (Brunner/Mazel) +
 * 2000 - Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (with Etzel Cardeña and Steven J. Lynn). (American Psychological Association) +

Discography

 * 2009 - Cognition Factor (2009) Headspace Studios
 * 2004 - How to Cope With Stress (DVD) (with S. Fischer). Dorot Lecture Series
 * 1991 - Personal Mythology: How to Use Ritual, Dreams, and Imagination to Discover Your Inner Story (Cassette) (with D. Feinstein). Audio Renaissance Tapes.+
 * 1989 - Understanding Your Dreams (Cassette) Great American Audio.


 * since you ask, i have put a + sign next to titles i believe are notable, and i will try to find references to justify these choices. these are from publishers i know to be reputable publishers of either popular or academic works, and by popular i mean serious works for the educated layman or professionals/paraprofessionals in associated fields, not just catalog filler or cheap moneymakers. i am not sure of the ones i have not added + signs to.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gordon & Breach was a major academic publisher, now swallowed up by Taylor & Francis I think, so deserves a +.John Z (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored bibliography
the bibliography, which appears to contain at least some notable works, from major trade publishers, as well as academic presses, has been restored. I dont think the entire bibliography of an AUTHOR should be removed from an article without specific reasons given for each item removed. and we dont need multiple, third party references for ALL items: having an isbn and being from a publisher with a WP article is proof of existence, which can be adequate for listing in this article, as long as he can pass notability. his notability does depend at least in part on the responses to these works, i admit, but it also depends on his ouvre, some of which may be less notable, some more, but there will be a rational cutoff point somewhere between the most and least notable here, and arguments for deleting less notable, if not self evident (say, self published or online blogs) should be presented. likewise, arguments for the most notable should be given, and i will do so for whichever ones i can find reviews for. some of the reviews will be in publications which may not have online analogs, so we should be careful not to casually delete publications prior to the 90's for that reason.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards, see WP:BURDEN. Verbal chat  08:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice for articles on academics and authors to have lists of their works, within reason, usually all the books and the most important of lesser works. There is no section of WP:NOT directed against this. He appears to have edited a book series (or periodical?) Advances in Parapsychological Research published (partly) by a major academic publisher. Such editorships have been held to be significant evidence of notability in other academics' AfD's as being roughly equivalent to journal editorship. It is particularly helpful to have such a list during an AfD, for easy access to people trying to judge notability.  In this case some of the academic press books are older or co-authored/edited and may be more difficult to find reviews of online. It is of course not necessary that each work be individually wikipedia-notable.  See Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works) for this point and more on lists of works, encouraging complete lists.John Z (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I see no reason or discussion for neutrality and peacock tags on the current article, and will remove them if no objection.John Z (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was quite surprised not to see a list of publications here. Skomorokh,  barbarian  16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Peacock
This article, even in this reduced state, has neutrality and peacock problems. For example, the entire second paragraph is not neutrally worded, partly unsupported, partly supported by a non-RS, and credulously presents a ridiculous claim. Verbal chat  09:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "personal commitment to teaching has been honored" seems to justify both tags! Feel free to remove that. Verbal chat  09:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Streamlined with just the facts. Nothing left to be unneutral or peacock, so I removed the tags and added a stub tag. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree w/the comments and changes.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mighty confusing closing.
The article currently closes with the following:


 * Stanley Krippner and other researchers have advocated further study of unusual phenomenon in the academic community. They don't believe that this should be handled solely by theologians.

What the heck does this mean? Does anyone claim that unusual phenomena should only be studied by theologians? This statement is either utterly meaningless or utterly trivial. Phiwum (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also utterly ambiguous. What is this "unusual phenomena"? The only such that "theologians" study would be claims of miracles and the like. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's code for "parapsychology is science" I could be wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what theologians have got to do with anything here. Verbal chat  17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I say just delete what's there minus biographical information and start over. There's better source material. Though I wouldn't want to see the article sourced to a single cite, there's basic biographical information in the APA source I included (what he does, where he works, what subjects he covers, etc). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Messy refs
When I came to edit this page I saw that it had errors in how the references were done were flagged -- the refs seemed to be done by someone who didn't understand how to do the process. I've fixed these, I think, but there's still a problem that someone with time to spare can fix. I refer to two references that simply say 'SJ'. At a rough guess these are supposed to be linked to an earlier ref., that with S.J. Sherwood as an author. It is fairly straightforward to collapse the refs into one using a label to link them, but I don't have the time or patience to do the job, so can someone else fix it? Let me tell you, people: every opening tag (with certain exceptions), such as, needs to be coupled with the corresponding closing tag, i.e. at the end of the section concerned, or there will be big trouble. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Biased editors will waste one's time by making tendentious deletions, of course. Sigh! Islamic State has nothing on these people. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)