Talk:Tara Brach

Untitled
I think a reading of her bio will indicate that she is a founder of a large group of people. I believe she is relatively well known among Budhists in the United States. She has her talks recorded on the IMCW website: http://www.imcw.org/audio/audio.php

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I made some additional changes for clarity and to avoid redundancy.

She is well known among both Buddhists and psychologists in the United States. However, many of the clinical psychologists who have read her work will not necessarily know she is the founder of a large local organization, be familiar with its name, or have any idea that her internationally popular talks are given away on the IMCW organization's website for free.

I can indicate that in the article if necessarily.

I'd love to understand how the article seems non-neutral as the biography presented is the one presented when introducing her before conferences. Please also help to understand where any weasel words appear and how best to adhere to Wikipedia's quality standards. Does the article still need additional sources?

I will make some changes now.

Thank you.

Jlchan29 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC) It would helpful to know why this person does not meet the notability guidelines as she has been prominently featured by many notable secondary sources.

I do see that references to several of those sources have been deleted. I will re-list but ask the editors to monitor whether they are deleted again. Thank you. Janna Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the author's notability has been now established by her association with teachers, conference centers, and companies considered notable by Wikipedia as well articles from reputable sources featuring her work. If editors disagree what other sources would be helpful in establishing notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had to remove one source: we don't allow citation "by example" and don't allow citation by search link. A web search that shows products for sale is not a reference. A reference is a review or mention in a newspaper, journal, book, or website and it is generally better if the website is not affiliated with the subject. When a subject gives teachings or presentations at a center, they usually write their own biography page: that's not a reliable source. A report in the local paper about the teaching, a review of the presentation by a third party in a yoga journal, these are the sort of thing we are looking for.


 * I agree that the new sources tend to establish that the subject is notable, but too many of the sources are affiliated with the subject in a way that they stand to profit by promoting the subject. These sources need to be replaced by neutral accounts not affiliated with the subject.


 * Also, the language was much too promotional. We do not call people or organizations "prominent", "excellent", or "noted". These are editorial judgements. We can report that some third party has called the subject these things, but we can't just arbitrarily assert such things in the article, as it makes it start to sound like an advert. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo. All references that seemed commercial or promotional were added in an attempt to establish the subject's notability. I am not employed by this person and do not benefit in any way from this article. I simply believe that this person is notable and deserves a Wikipedia articles as as such. Since the issue of notability is no longer officially in question, I believe, I will search for more neutral references. Thank you. Jlchan29 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding link rot, I attempted to reformat the links in APA format and that change appears to have been undone. What would help fix the link rot problem. Thank you. Jlchan29 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I guess that the link rot problem has been resolved Jlchan29 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Most biography pages for people in this field, such as the ones for Jack Kornfield and Mark Epstein don't require verification of Academic credentials. Why is this subject being held to a different standard? Thanks for your helpSueanne0310 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that an editor expressed concern that the educational and professional section of this subject is not well cited. It now seems better cited than the biographies of this subject's peers such as Mark Epstein and Jack Kornfield. If editors still feel that section needs further citations please which indicate what information needs to better cited to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.Sueanne0310 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Would also appreciate any general help or information from experienced editors regarding this entire article. Thank you. Sueanne0310 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of sources have been added to this article since August 2011. Can the tag at the top indicating that the article needs additional resources be removed? If not, what else needs to be done? Thanks to all. Sueanne0310 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed it and corrected some confusion in the article. The bibliography section is only for work *by* the subject, not works that simply mention her. Reference quality works that are not used as references go in the "Further reading" section. It would improve the article to source some things from them and use them as references. Yworo (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in improving the article. Sueanne0310 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reads too much like an advertisement
This is very glossy and doesn’t really give me many details outside of pedigree and publications. - Scarpy (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)