Talk:Eckhart Tolle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

I am not really sure if one should call Eckhart Tolle a representative of the New Age movement. Any opinions to that?

from New Age:

Most New Age activity may be characterized as a form of alternative spirituality. Even apparent exceptions (such as alternative health practices) often turn out to have some spiritual dimension (for example, the integration of mind, body, and spirit). "Alternative" here means, with respect to the dominant Western Judeo-Christian culture. It is no accident that most New Age ideas and practices seem to contain implicit critiques of mainstream Christianity in particular. An emphasis on meditation suggests that ordinary prayer is insufficient; belief in reincarnation (which not all New Agers accept) challenges familiar Christian doctrines of the afterlife.

Sounds to me like he fits in pretty well, except for the reincarnation part. --goethean ॐ 14:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if you use this definition of New Age than I would agree. Nevertheless New Age seems too me a just to comprehensive label for Tolle. Best regards, Dominic

I agree he fits the definition of New Age in so far as being nonsectarian and focused on personal Gnostic experience of spirituality without reference to traditional notions of God or Buddha etc. However, in so far as the New Age is specifically a phenomenon of the 1980's and early 1990's and is now kind of passe, Tolle is not really part of the classical New Age movement. Perhaps perennial philosophy is a better description without any specific allusions to historical movements.

"new age" is a very vague word and carries alot of baggage. He doesn't advocate use of crystals or alot of alternative medicine. Perennoial works...inclusive is also good. -Mike

i think that "new age" is a term that carries too much conotation with astrology, crystals, and the like: things which have nothing to do with Eckhart Tolle. It would be a better entry without it. --Pjford 05:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the things that Tolle talks about is: “Words point.” The phrase “New Age” is a phrase that points. What it points at depends on the person. Some people share a body of thought at which the phrase points. For some people (perhaps a majority), the body of thought includes crystals, astrology and so forth. Thus, words always stem from thoughts and THAT is the point that Tolle is best known for in my mind.

What I have found is what a pastor friend of mind said once, “I must learn to chew the meat and spit the bones.” Reading the words and listening to the words of Eckhart Tolle is no different. I have learned MANY good things from him. I have done so without falling in to the trap of “If I believe one thing, I must believe it all.” I believe this is one of the sad things about being human and being human in a group.

Group humanity wants me to accept “group thought” 100% (or close to it) in order to “fit in.” The closer I am to first defining what 100% is and then believing as close to 100% of it, the closer I am to be accepted and welcomed by 100% of the group. After 42 years of living, I have learned this is not a way of living, but a way of denying who I am for the sake of a group fantasy. I have found that when I look to the group for acceptance, what I really want is to accept myself. THERE is where I have finally come to. I can accept me as I am (not my collection of thoughts, but the REAL me), without 100% acceptance by the group (whatever that group happens to be).

I have said all of this to say – New Age is just a phrase that stems from thought. You have your thoughts about what New Age points at inside you and I have mine. We will never fully agree. I think it is ok that we do not agree because agreement is a fantasy of thought and not the basis for really living. I accept Tolle as he is. I accept what he says for what it is. I chew the meat and spit the bones for myself. I neither lift him up, nor do I put him down. I do not agree with 100% of what he says, neither do I reject all that he says because I find points of disagreement. My hope for all of humanity is the same as this.

If that's anything like Tolle's work, I think calling him new age would be pretty damn apt --Deleuze 11:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As Tolle himself puts it, words are only pointers. Does it matter that much if one calls him New Age or not? --Abysmal 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics

I softened this paragraph. Additional information was gathered from the organiser of Barry Long's seminars in London during the time when Tolle attended them. He told me via e-mail that it's true that there had been queries from people in Barry Long's teaching about the similarity of Eckhart Tolle's work, for instance the 'pain-body' is the same as the 'unhappy body' described in Long's 'Only Fear Dies'. He explained this as the natural influence of a teacher on a student, and said that "copying" would not be the appropriate word.

I suggest to soften it further. In the light of this statement by the respective organiser the paragraph in question might better read, for example: "( [...] Rinzai) school. As some disciples of the Australian teacher Barry Long point out, also a certain influence of him, whose seminars Tolle attended in London in the mid-1980s, some years after his own alleged awakening, might be visible in Tolle's writings. Tolle himself expresses in an interview with John Parker [1] that by listening to and having some conversation with Barry Long, he understood things more deeply." (or something like this ?) --202.32.5.229 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have twice reverted an anonymous user who removed all information about Tolle's connection to Barry Long, without any edit summary or discussion. Academic Challenger 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given it a try according to my explanation of July 6th. Please improve if adequate. --219.110.234.220 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)is works.

Tolle mentions A Course in Miracles a couple of times in works. Having read a bit of this, I suspect this ought also be mentioned as an influence, at least in his choice of terminology. Read it yourself and you'll see what I mean. Any comments? --Abysmal 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This article has much better NPOV than the other, but there may something worth keeping in the other article. Any way you look at it, two articles differing in title only by capitalization is not the right way to go. --Thanatosil 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In my recent edit I have inserted the sentence "At the core of Tolle's teachings lies the transformation of individual and collective human consciousness - a global spiritual awakening" into the first paragraph. Something about this does not feel entirely "true" / good, but not having found out at the time of writing this what it was I leave it at this for the moment. Maybe someone else can change that as far as it is necessary. --125.100.73.66 05:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this merge needs to happen. Anything useful in the small T tolle article can be brought into here -- that's what merge means, after all. If I knew technically how to do so, I would be bold and do it this second. Msalt 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I figured it out and merged the pages. Excellent help on the Wikipedia documentation page (unless I screwed it up, in which case it was terrible documentation.) Msalt 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is actually original in his thought?

From this article it appears that most of the things cited as Tolle's teachings are simply secularised presentations of ancient traditions, especially Buddhism. Someone with more knowledge of Tolle could do with writing a section placing him in the context of the new age movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.19.85.230 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he is a a Freezone Scientologist. I thought I had seen his picture on a forum for Freezone Scientologist. In this particular forum , the Freezone Scientologist would speak of their amazing experiences from Freezone auditing. like expanding their space, being out of their bodies and being able to see people from other dimensions, and very superhuman things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.14.105 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he must be original. His teaching is coming from the same place as the teaching of the previous spiritual masters (Buddha, Jesus, etc), the ultimate, simple truth for the present human level of understanding. What is different is the perspective, the signature of the messenger and the different level of understanding of his audience. And we should not forget about the language-barrier, in the way that he needs to express a state beyond, above the mind, through the limitations of the mind. He shows us that the core, essence of religions is the same, helps us to remove the added baggage, accumulated over the centuries (through cultural traditions, mistranslation, misinterpretations, religious power-structures, self-identifications, etc). And out of the same resons from above, the teaching should not be categorised, it would be diminished. Sarkozila (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Is it necessary to indicate that Germany is in Europe (Germany, Europe) or that Canada is in North America (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, North America)? Sounds fairly childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.195.158 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course! Otherwise, people might get confused and think they're talking about Germany, Pennsylvania or New Canada, Maine. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-03 20:35Z

• I think it isn't necessary when it's the primary, best-known form of a name, concept. Sarkozila (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact or Opinion?

From the teachings section:

"Tolle claims to have had a radical spiritual awakening at the age of 29 after suffering long periods of suicidal depression. This shift in consciousness for most people is not a single event but a process, a gradual disidentification from thoughts and emotions through the arising of awareness."

No problem with the first sentence, except that it is unclear whether the context of "Tolle claims" is supposed to include the second sentence. The second sentence sounds like an opinion, but it's presented as a fact. Plus the word "disidentification" just gnaws as me; I can't decide whether it's incredibly clumsy language or just plain wrong.

Snertly (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see no problem. In the teaching section are the opinions of Tolle, what he wrote or said. The "disidentification" word is used in psychology and spirituality. It means the absence of identification, the opposite to the process of identification. I couldn't find better solutions. Did you? Sarkozila (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles Italicization

Why is A Course in Miracles italicized? --Emesee (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. Proxy User (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Educational Course of Study & Degrees

The article would be improved if it included the course of study he pursued and degrees earned, if any, while attending Cambridge and London Universities.Icometothegardenalone (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Icometothegardenalone

Business Organization

I have already cleaned up a large portion of this section. Anything that mentioned pricing of his goods or services, I have removed. I have also removed a comparison between the demographic audience for his books and the demographic audience for Oprah Winfrey's book club. This comparison seems out of place in a wikipedia article and unnecessary. The demographic is what it is . . . it doesn't need comparison to Oprah Winfrey's demographic.

I also removed a paragraph from this section that included fashion information from Tolle's sold-out speaking appearances. This information is irrelevant, especially in this section of the article.

Additionally, I'm concerned that this business organization section has the ability to come off as advertising. Anyone else? Ztheday (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed the text "Eckhart Tolle's sales demographic is 85% women and 15% men, primarily in the white American baby-boomer demographic." as I could find no references to this effect. Feel free to re-add if you find some. Jenafalt (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Yes, the biography section definitely needs much more detail.

99.231.221.164 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)John Schofield, Feb. 1, 2009

Australian TV interview, 7 Network

In this interview [[2]] there is a man saying, "ultimately I think this is a type of madness" Who is this man? Thank you. 78.146.120.132 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He is Australian theologian David Millikan (he is named later in the video). 89.240.13.162 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I've made some significant addition to this article and was wondering if someone could rate it again and give suggestions for further improvement. Thank you! Gregcaletta (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. You have enriched the piece by adding valuable current information, esp. material from the recent, major article in Macleans magazine. You also add relevant details that help us understand the scope of the subject and his notability, such as the new online TV operation, and the new book. Your dozen or so copy edits are fine. You have removed awkwardnesses and have rearranged here andthere in such a way as to improve readability. Also helpful are your explanations (or refinement of existing explanations) of some of Tolle's key terms, such as "ego" and "pain body."

For improvement of the article, I personally would like to see more detail explaining the notability of the subject. For example, the account of his book sales is quite skimpy. I had a look at the Macleans article that you helpfully made ref to, and his book sales are definitely worth mentioning. Just saying that two of his books made the NYT bestsellers list really doesn't do justice to it. T Also, his partnership with Oprah deserves space. She has been featuring book authors for years, but her relatonship with Tolle has gone far beyond the usual. For example, the Macleans article notes that they together did a 10 week webinar that attracted a huge audience. That deserves mention, and what did they talk about that attracted 35 million listeners?

Also, the Early Life section needs filling out. What was his degree from U of London? What did he do between ages 29 and 47?

Nice work, and good luck with it. Early morning person (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, Tolle's association with Oprah is clearly of significance, and should be mentioned in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nwlaw63 that the association with Oprah is of significance and should definitely be in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice article. Well structured and referenced. One suggestion is that the last sentence in the lede should be moved. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the article and entice the reader. The specifics about illustrator, most recent work etc. don't belong in a lede paragraph. I have not read the whole article but overall it has a good look and feel to it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the last sentence of the lede is inappropriate there - it's a random detail, and not one that is particularly relevant to Tolle's core work. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved the recent book mention to the book section, as per this discussion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NWlaw63- per your suggestion I added a mention of the work Tolle has been doing with Oprah. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New Religion

It seems that there is significant opinion that Eckart Tolle is creating a new religion. I want to be sure to follow WP:BLP and would be interested to hear what others think. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Source? — goethean ॐ 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is one example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351545,00.html I would love people's opinions.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece in the "Celebrity Gossip" section of Fox News. It is not the most reliable source in the world, to put it very mildly. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Publication date

"The Power of Now" was actually first published in 1998 by Namaste Publishing. Eckahrt explains this in the foreword to the more recent editions of the book. It was first published under copyright in 1999 by by New World Library, which is probably why the New York Times made the mistake of saying that is when it was first published. Can I put this in and used THe Power of Now itself as the source? Gregcaletta (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think when we have conflicting sources we have to note both. I'm not sure it would be proper to disqualify a report by a rock solid source like the NYT because of a conflicting report from a primary source (Tolle). This is a small point, but just for my own knowledge I am going to post a note on the Reliable Source noticeboard WP:RSN and see what other editors who are very knowledgeable in this area have to say about it. YOu can click here to see their comments. [3] Meanwhile, you can do whatever you feel is right. We can always adjust later. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Greg did you see the input from the editors on the RS noticeboard? If not please click the link in the above comment. Peace! -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that mate. I'm trying to find out if it was actually 1997 or 1998. Once I'm sure I'll think about how to put it in. For now, should we just remove the date? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "soon after", just for the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reception" section

Hi Greg and others, I wanted to start a discussion regarding the text in the article taken from the book, the Rape of Sophia. I was the one who originally placed that text and ref in the article. However, recently it was removed by another editor who said it was self published. I did a little research and it is in fact a self published book. The book was published by Author House and you can see from their web site [4]that anyone can publish a book for $500. This means it is not a reliable secondary source. Also since this is a BLP and the text is a criticism that could be seen as contentious, I think we need to take the text out. I have not removed it because I don't want to edit war but we should remove it. Is this alright with you? Please let me know.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you can get rid of it. I think it is true though that many Christians have felt threatened by Tolle's work, so it would be good if we could find a more reliable source for it. There is no easy way to represent to reaction of "Christian contingent" but we could find some prominent spokesperson. I included a quote from a Dr David Millikan from this interview who is a professor of Theology and a Christian minister once but it has been removed. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reconsidered that perhaps it doesn't make sense to have a "Reception" section at all. It makes sense to include such a section in an article about a book or an artwork, but I can't find any other biographies of living persons which have a separate section "Reception". Move the all the reviews and criticism to the relevant pages on A New Earth and The Power of Now, and work the book-sales info into the rest of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found some comment on Tolle in Christianity Today and MacLean's magazine. I'll try to get work in some of that. Interesting point about the "Reception" section. I haven't seen that in any Wiki bios either. However, in a minority of cases--about 25%, from what I've seen so far--there is a "Criticism" section (or in the case of Paul McCartney, "Critique, recognition and achievments.") What usually happens is that an account of public reaction and media reaction is rolled into the "Career" section, or equivalent. I would like to see more of that kind of content in the Tolle article. I've been reading up on him, and find the range of viewpoints on his ideas quite fascinating. I would suggest that in any case that this kind of information, as it comes in, would best go in this article, vs. the articles on his books. Public reaction and media coverage to Tolle has come in response to his seminars as well as his books. Also, bios are all about a subject's notability, and that is to a large extent defined by media coverage and comment on his/her ideas. That kind of comment would seem to belong in this article, in order to give a balanced and satisfying account of Tolle's life.--Early morning person (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the "Reception" section should ultimately be integrated into the "Career" section. I think public reaction to Eckhart Tolle and his ideas in general is what is needed in a biography as well as the general success of his books, whereas specific criticisms of a specific book should be moved to the page for the book. What do you think about moving the criticism of "A New Earth" to the page for "A New Earth" and integrating the rest of the "Reception" section into the "Career" section? The second thing we would need to do is search for more general reactions on Eckhart's life and philosophy. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've worked the "Reception" section into the rest of the article, and added some criticism from TIME Magazine, which I think is more noteworthy than the previous piece of criticism we were using, although I have cited that in the "Career" section aswell. Let me know what you guys think. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Career section seems a bit unbalanced. The main phrase which would stick in a reader's mind is 'awash in spiritual mumbo jumbo' and the section seems to focus on criticism. Also Andrea Sach's article is hardly very considered - a journalist's typical few throwaway lines to fill a gap in the magazine. 78.151.190.8 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, Sorry I've been out of touch. Yes, if Christian criticism is available in a reliable source we should include it. Also, you are correct, that Wiki prefers that criticism be worked into the article rather than piled up in one section. Although, Reception Section is also OK if needed for some reason. So I'm ok with either format. Wiki guidelines prefer Reception rather than Criticism which implies POV. Reception means both pro and con which is more balanced. Can't cite the Wiki guide for it right now but will find it later if needed. Keep up the good work! -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove paragraph from Reception section

I propose that the paragraph below be removed from the article. It is excessive in its detail and only serve to repeat points already made in the paragraph above it.

• The London Independent goes on to say that "Some people might find him confusing but when he asserts that Descartes' major insight ("I think therefore I am") – one of the foundations of Western thinking – is ostensibly wrong, it's a conceptual challenge to how we think about ourselves. And that has always been the major assertion of Eastern religion: that thinking is not the core of who you are. The core of who you really are is that part of you that can watch yourself thinking – that's very Buddhist, very Eastern, very attuned to the whole field of transpersonal psychology." [9]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Format for Quotes in the Article

“ ”

I have reformatted the formatting style of the quotes in the article (removed the cquote template style of large blue quotation marks shown above) per WP:MOSQUOTE which says:"Block quotations: Format a long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template"-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't realise that "cquote" was supposed to be used for pull-out quotes only. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg, there is so much to learn on Wiki, there is no end to it. I find out new things everyday. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Text Removed

I have removed the text below because it placement in the Reception Section by a Wiki editor under the pretext that it is a "response" to reviews of his book or critiques of his work, is unsubstantiated by secondary sources and amounts to Original Research by an editor and is not good encyclopedic practice per WP:OR. In addition, placing the the text in block quotes gives it undue weight. And lastly, we already have an abundance of primary sources and quotes from Tolle in the article. I'm sure that the editor who placed it there did so with the best of intentions and was an innocent attempt to improve the article. Best to all,-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Tolle's own response to the reception: Tolle wrote in the preface to the 2004 edition of The Power of Now that "The more the dysfunction of the human mind plays itself out on the world stage, clearly visible to everyone in the daily television news reports, the greater the number of people who realise the urgent need for a radical change in human consciousness if humanity is not to destroy itself and the planet. This need, as well as the readiness in millions of people for the arising new consciousness, is the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood. This does not mean, of course, that everyone responds favourably to the book. In many people, as well as in most of the political and economic structures and the greater part of the media, the old consciousness is still deeply entrenched.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I put it in there. I think it adds to the article, but I won't bother arguing if you think it somehow makes the article worse. Just to clarify though, it doesn't count as "original research" just to quote somebody from a book that they have written. A quotation also doesn't need to be "substantiated by secondary sources". The terms "primary source" and "secondary source" apply to eye-witness testimonies, etc. vs text-books, etc. when it comes to stating a particular historical fact. Quotations can be taken from any source as long as it it not seriously disputed that the quotation is accurate. In this case the quotation came from a book written by Tolle. You can't get more "reliable" when it comes to quoting someone than from one of their own books. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many biographical articles, some with "Good article" status, which have far more extensive quotations than this one; the Nelson Mandela article, for example. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on J. R. R. Tolkien also includes extensive block quotations and is a featured article. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I understand your intention and do not fault you for that. Also you are correct in saying that primary sources are permitted in certain instances in biographies and that quotes don't need to be supported by secondary sources. My issue is with the way the quote was represented in the article and I am happy to discuss it if you like. That's why I brought the edit to the talk page. Let me know if you want to continue the discussion. Cheers, -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to clear up a few things, for example to make sure you understand the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". The article here on wikipedia says that a "primary source is "an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study". In other words, the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are used when referring to historical events. Quoting someone from a book they have written doesn't count as a "primary source" OR a "secondary source" if is not a documentation of a particular historical event. However, in the few cases where Tolle does make reference to historical events, for example when he says that " the human race ... has killed over 100 million members of their own species in the twentieth century alone/', it actually counts as a "secondary source", because he would be claiming it as a matter of historically accepted consensus, rather than claiming to be an eye-witness to the event.

However, the question is about whether or not the quotation adds to the quality of the article. The article is currently very short, considering the notoriety of the subject, and I along with several other editors have been trying to expand it. I think the quote was both relevant to the section of "Reception" because it gives Tolle's own opinions on the reception of his book, and also relevant to the article in general, in giving insight into Tolle's character and writing style. I also don't see any reason why it should not be in the article, as the article in general needs to be expanded rather than shortened. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg, My main objection is your characterization of the quote as "Tolle's own response to the reception". To me, that is an unsubstantiated assumption and/or judgment. WP:QUOTE[5] says: A quotation that does not ... directly support the information as it is presented should not be used, to avoid original research." So as a compromise I will remove that characterization and leave the quote there. Is that agreeable?-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. It'll need a new heading though, because it now falls under the heading of "Reception to theologians". If you want, you can move it somewhere else in the article instead. I'm curious though, do you think that the quote is not a response to the reception of his teachings? He says in the quote "This ... is the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood. This does not mean, of course, that everyone responds favourably to the book." So he is talking about the commercial success of the book and the negative reactions of some people towards it. Is this not clearly a "response to the reception"? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg and thanks for being willing to compromise. What I would suggest is that we put the quote after the criticism of the Power of Now as Tolle's remarks (in the preface?) of that book are made in the context of that book as you have indicated in your comment above. I'll do that now but I'm also open to other suggestions so let me know what you think. Also if we can find any other comments made by Tolle in an interview or article by a secondary source that would be very appropriate for the article and we certainly include that in the Reception section. Let me know what you think.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ye, that looks like a good spot for it. Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for hashing this out with me.  :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Prose quality

The prose quality of this article is up to "Good article" standards, but there is still huge room for improvement. Well done to those who have been improving the prose quality. Just be careful when doing so that you don't change the factual nature statement when fixing prose. The challenge is to get the prose nice and readable while still accurately representing the fact presented in the reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

External Links

These External Links have been removed from the Publications section per WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM. Wiki is not a collection of web links and generally a web site should only be listed once. Many of these links are to web sites already listed in the External Links section of the article and are therefore duplicates. Some links go to sites that promote paid subscriptions or the purchase of materials. Others do not directly relate to the subject and/or do not give information that is not already covered in the current article. Please read WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM before adding any of these links back into the article. Particularly the points below. Thanks!

WP:EL--Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.

WP:LINKSPAM--Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.

• Oprah's Book Club -- Webcast (2008) --This web page does not provide valid, encyclopedic information about Tolle. It is instead a promotional web site to obtain subscriptions for courses and workbooks on the subject of Tolle.
• The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos (2009)--Already listed in the EL section, see my cmt below
• Vancouver Peace Summit, 2009--Tolle is not even mentioned on this web page

• Sunday, September 27th, 2009--Tolle is not mentioned on the web page
• Tuesday, September 29th, 2009Tolle is not mentioned on teh web page

• Namaste Radio (2010)--This one may be OK, its a radio Interview
• Eckhart Tolle TV (Ongoing)--see my cmt below

• The Current Economy, July 2009--see my cmt below
• Spiritual Awakening in Daily Life, August 2009--see my cmt below
• To Think Or Not To Think, September 2009--See my cmt below
• The Tao Te Ching, October 2009--Redundant page from the Eckhart Teachings site already listed in EL
• Portals to Now, November 2009
• The Gift of Nature, December 2009--Redundant link, see my cmt below
• Meditation, January 2010 --see my cmt below
• Eckhart on Emerson, February 2010--see my cmt below
• The Tao Te Ching, Part Two, March 2010
• Living from the Depth of Presence, April 2010--see my cmt below
• The Mountain and the Valley, May 2010
• "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius, June 2010--See my cmt below-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have looked at WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM and cannot see any violation. Can you please point out which part these links are violating? The first set of links are free videos of notable public appearances mentioned in the article, for which there are no separate wikipedia articles. The second set are free videos from Eckhart Tolle official site. WP:SPAM says "Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed [see exception below]". The exception is "Generally, a video is not a spamming video if it refers to the official site associated with the Wikipedia article. For example, if the Wikipedia article is on a movie named "xyzMovie" and the official site for the movie is "xyzMovie.com" then links or references to "xyzMovie.com" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page" Howver, if you would like to the remove the wikilinking from the Tolle TV list, please remove the wikilinking, not the list. Also, please read my notes above on the lead. Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, thanks for taking a look at those guidelines. One of the core principles of WP:EL is that Wiki is not a collection of links and the number of links in the article should be relevant and minimal. It also says to avoid listing multiple links to the same web site. Since the web site www.echarttolletv.com is already listed in the EL section it is considered excessive to give additional links to separate web pages on the same web site. The reader can visit the web site and see the list and decide what to watch. The same is true for the Eckhart Teachings on You Tube web page. It is already listed in the EL section and all the videos are listed there. That is violation of WP:EL. I will make some notes next to some of the others to give more detailed explanation. — Keithbob • Talk • 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I quite agree with the policy for this particular case then, but I won't argue for making an exemption. However, if you want to go ahead and take out the links, can you please just remove the wikilinking, not the list itself? Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can you please respond to my explanation of the lead above before you go ahead with making anymore edits to the lead. Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. It's always difficult when there are just two people active on an article. As you know editors interpret the guidelines differently. So I've have placed a note on the EL noticeboard to get some input from other editors. Outside input always makes things easier. If you want to visit or comment on the page, here is the link to the discussion. [6] Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put these back in the article. Aside from the EL issue they make no mention of Tolle and are therefore not appropriate. Even if he was mentioned as a speaker it would not be appropriate to list this "appearance" because it is already mentioned in the Career section, which further invalidates this copy. Don't you agree?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted a couple of the links and moved the rest to the External Links section, so that we can discuss the merits of each of the remaining links individually. I actually found the the "External Links policy" page fairly unhelpful. It basically says "external links are bad, unless they are good". However, there were a few helpful things I extracted. Firstly, external links should not generally be included in the body of the article (I'm not sure if the list of publications counts as the body of the article; if it does, then I am happy that you remove the wikilinking, but not the list itself). Secondly, for the "External Links" section, it seems there are two types of link that should definitely be included, and one kind of link that can potentially be included but that should be decided on a case by case basis. The first type of link that should definitely be included are sites which are official sites of the subject of the article: I believe EckhartTolle.com, Eckhart Tolle TV, and Eckhart Tolle's official YouTube page all fall under this category. The second type of link that should definitely be included are sites relating to things mentioned in the article but not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia: I believe Eckhart Tolle's appearance on Oprah's Book Club and the Vancouver Peace Summit are two example of notable such events which do not yet have there own Wikipedia articles. So the fact that these things appear in the "Career" section is the reason why they should be included in the External Links section. Imagine you are reading the article and come across Vancouver Peace Simmit without having heard of it before. There is no Wikipedia article for it so we cannot wikilink, and we cannot include external links in the body of the article, so we include it at the bottom of the page. The kind of link which can potentially be included in the article is a link to any non-commercial page which includes info that cannot be integrated into the article, either because it is not quite considered a reliable source, or because the the information is presented in a non-encylopadic format (interactive media, diagrams, video etc.): I believe Eckhart's interviews on The Hour and Namaste Radio probably fall under this category, but I have removed them from the article in order focus on the links that should really stay. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the argument I have just given was for the links in the external links section, because I partly misunderstood which links exactly you had a problem with For the links in the publication section, I will post a response on the noticeboard. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

EL Noticeboard

OK, we are making progress, but it seems we are still not on the same page regarding the Oprah and Vancouver Summit links in the EL section so I've posted again on the External Links noticeboard and hopefully we will get some outside input to shift the issues one way or the other. If you want to make any commments here is the link.[7] Thanks for your participation in this process and for all your efforts to improve the article. It's coming along nicely. :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the consensus from the EL noticeboard (see summary below) I have made the changes as outlined below. I hope this is alright.

• Summary:
  • Oprah Book Club link (1): GregCalletta = Keep, Keithbob and Vyeh = Remove. So the consensus is to remove it.
  • Oprah Archive of Tolle Webcast link (1): Gregcalletta, Vyeh and Keithbob agree this one can remain.
  • Vancouver Summit links (2): Gregcalleta = Keep, Keithbob, WhatamIdoing = Remove, So again the consensus is to remove these links-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Though there was consensus to remove the link to the Vancouver Summit info page (which I removed myself), I don't think there was consensus to remove the links to the Vancouver Summit videos. Eckhart appears in both videos, and they are non-promotional and non-self-published. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any videos about Tolle. Can you provide the link here so I can look? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Eckhart Tolle at the Vancouver Peace Summit, 2009

• 1. 1World Peace through Personal Peace, Sunday, September 27th
  2. 2Educating the Heart: Creativity and Well-Being and Heart-Mind Education Tuesday, September 29th

These videos his two non-promotional public appearances at the Vancouver Peace Summit were right at the bottom this revision of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for providing the links. I have tried these links before. I just wanted to make sure we are talking about the same links. The first link, #1 lists Tolle as one of the people on the video, however the video is non-functional and has been for some time. If the video gets repaired then I'm OK with this one as an External Link. The second link #2 is also non-functional and has been for some time and Tolle's name does not appear anywhere on the web page that I can see. So I agree with the commentator on the Noticeboard that if Tolle's name does not appear on the web page it shouldn't be used in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird. Both of them were working for me just a short while ago (and both have Eckhart in them). Of course, I happy not to include them if they are not even working. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

There is a fantastic picture of Eckhart Tolle, which appears appears in an article on suite101, but it the photo is credited as coming from "a fan site". (I can't post a link because suite101 is apparently blocked by the spam filter, annoyingly, but you can find it by searching for "Eckhart Tolle suite101" on Google Images) I believe the fan site in question, on which the photo originally appears, may have been at this location, but the site no longer exists.

It would be a pity if I can't even request permission to use the picture, because I can't find any decent public domain images of Tolle, not to mention one as good as this. Can anyone help me locate the copyright holder, or determine if there even is a copyright holder? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If we can't, we will have to settle for a lower quality picture that at least is clearly in the public domain, but so far I've had trouble locating even a half-decent such photo. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Under some circumstances you can use photos form Flickr.com. But the Wiki guidelines and instructions on how to obtain and verify copyright are complicated and confusing. I hope you have more success than I did.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't find any on flickr. I am going to ask permission from one more photographer, and I eventually might contact Eckhart's company itself and suggest that they supply a nice photo. It would be in their benefit to provide one, but I don't know how busy they are. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I'm sure they must have a press kit that they give out for PR. The'll give you one.Info@EckhartTolle.com Customer Service (+1) 604–893-8500 Monday – Friday 9:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to Lead

WP:LEAD says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." In my opinion the following sentences should be moved to the body of the article:

• The New York Times has called him "the most popular spiritual author in the nation".
• Tolle writes in the introduction to his second book, Stillness Speaks, that "A true spiritual teacher does not have anything to teach in the conventional sense of the word, does not have anything to give or add to you, such as new information, beliefs, or rules of conduct. The only function of such a teacher is to help you remove that which separates you from the truth ... The words are no more than signposts"
• He says he is not identified with any particular religion, but his work has been influenced by a wide range of spiritual teachings.
• He currently lives in Vancouver, Canada with his wife, Kim Eng.[3][4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment. it should have appeared on my watchlist... I agree with the point about his wife. The other three things you included on your list were all from a recent attempt by me to expand the lead, as it was previously very short. I have used the first paragraph to try to establish notability, which includes summarising the "Career" section; I have used the second paragraph to try to summarise the "Early life" and "Inner transformation" sections; and I have used the third paragraph to summarise the sections on "Teachings" including "Influences" and "Reception". Thus, exact section in the article gets one or two sentences in the lead, which I thought was a good way of summarising the article. Feel free to attempt any improvements, but first I will give you my rationale for the sentences I have used. I thought the the New York Times quote was good for explaining "why the subject is interesting or notable", by placing it in quotations we make it clear that "most popular in the nation" is only the opinion of the New York Times, but it is a notable statement for them to have made, and the reader gathers from this that the subject is notable for being very popular even if "most popular" is debatable. I thought the quote from Stillness Speaks was the single best quote I could find to summarise his teachings, along with the statement "he says he is not identified with any particular religion, but his work has been influenced by a wide range of spiritual teachings", which also summarises both the nature of his teaching (of no religion in particular) and the nature of his influences (of multiple religious and secular texts). The article was recently reviewed for Good Article status, and the reviewer did not have any particular problems with the lead, but of course the lead is not perfect, so feel free to attempt to make some improvements; if I disagree with your edits, we will discuss it further. I have moved the statement about his wife into the body of the article as you requested, obviously too trivial for the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg and thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your idea about having a few sentences for each section is a good. I support that. I think its the "how" that we may have some differences of opinion on. One point to keep in mind is that this is an encyclopedia and although it is based on reliable sources it is up to us as editors to summarize those sources in our own words and place that information in the article. In the case of the lead we are summarizing the most prominent aspects of the article. So we summarize sources in the body and then we summarize the body in the lead. So it doesn't make sense to have quotes in the lead. Personally, I don't like having the NY times quote in the lead as its is borderline promotional and gives undue emphasis to one writers opinion. But I left it there because I knew you would object  :-) and Wiki is all about collaboration, as you know, and I appreciate your continued civility and efforts at collaboration. (thank you!) As for the good article status review. Don't give it too much emphasis. Only one person reviewed it and though I respect their opinion they are just one person and no one on Wiki has more say about anything than anyone else and even GA articles continue to change and be improved. going forward in this discussion, let's be specific if we can. Is there a specific sentence that you want to change or put back in? Let me know and we can work out a deal together :-) All the best to you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PS my apologies for making changes to the lead in the middle of this discussion. I did not realize you had posted a response. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article actually should not really have GA status anymore, because it does not have a picture, but I'm trying to get hold of a picture as quickly as possible, so we don't have to put the article on hold again and have it reviewed a second time.

Our main disagreement on the lead seems to be over the two quotations: the quotation from the New York Times, which is still in there, and the quotation from Stillness Speaks, which I have removed. Of course I value your opinion more than the reviewer's opinion, because a reviewer does not have time to look at the article as closely as you have. I mentioned that the reviewer did not have problems with the quotations in the lead just to show that it is not generally a rule that quotations should not be included in the lead. I generally try to place myself in position of the reader when editing this article, particularly for the lead. As a reader, the first thing you want to know is "who is this person? why are they notable? And how notable are they?" Tolle is not just a best-selling author, as the first two sentences might imply. His popularity is something of a phenomenon. Although the rhetorical style of language makes it an "opinion", I don't even believe point is contentious or "promotional". The New York Times articles on Eckhart, including the one cited, are actually among the most negative and critical of him, but even the most critical articles of Tolle acknowledge his virtually unprecedented popularity, despite what they might say about the usefulness of his teachings. Now once you know that this is a very popular writer, your next question would probably be "OK, what does he teach and how does he write?". This can only be answered by a direct quote of the author. For example, in the lead for the featured James Joyce article there this quote: "For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal." This succinctly give san idea of the subject of Joyce's writing (Dublin), the broader themes of his work (He uses Dublin to examine cities and humanity in general), and most importantly, the quote gives an immediate demonstration of the particular writing style for which Joyce is famous, and thus give an insight into his personality. Of all the quotes I could find, the quote from Stillness Speaks is the single quote which most accurately represents Tolle's teaching, writing style and personality, in the most succinct way possible, thus my decision to include it in the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, Sorry its taken me so long to respond. I'm OK with leaving the NY Time quote about Eckhart being a famous spiritual leader, so we don't need to discuss that further. However, I'm uncomfortable having a quote from one of Tolle's books in the lead, for the reasons I've stated previously. Are you opposed to creating a summary of the Teachings section rather than using a quote from his latest book?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the introduction to Stillness Speaks

In order to make it easier to get a third opinion, I will present our arguments here. Keithbob objected to the inclusion of this in the lead:

• Tolle writes in the introduction to his second book, Stillness Speaks, that "A true spiritual teacher does not have anything to teach in the conventional sense of the word, does not have anything to give or add to you, such as new information, beliefs, or rules of conduct. The only function of such a teacher is to help you remove that which separates you from the truth ... The words are no more than signposts"

I said "the quote from Stillness Speaks was the single best quote I could find to summarise his teachings" and "once you know that this is a very popular writer, your next question would probably be "OK, what does he teach and how does he write?". This can only be answered by a direct quote of the author. For example, in the lead for the featured James Joyce article there this quote: "For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal." This succinctly give san idea of the subject of Joyce's writing (Dublin), the broader themes of his work (He uses Dublin to examine cities and humanity in general), and most importantly, the quote gives an immediate demonstration of the particular writing style for which Joyce is famous, and thus give an insight into his personality. Of all the quotes I could find, the quote from Stillness Speaks is the single quote which most accurately represents Tolle's teaching, writing style and personality, in the most succinct way possible, thus my decision to include it in the lead."

Keithbob said "I'm uncomfortable having a quote from one of Tolle's books in the lead, for the reasons I've stated previously. Are you opposed to creating a summary of the Teachings section rather than using a quote from his latest book?".

I would prefer no summary than a summary by us. I generally object to summaries of philosophical or spiritual writings by Wikipedians. This because if we present something in our "own words" we are not just presenting a summary, but inevitably also an interpretation, which I believe violates Wikipedia:No original research. I think all representations of philosophical or spiritual teachings should be represented by direct quotes, otherwise, the teaching may be misrepresented. I chose that particular quote because it seemed to be the best summary of his teaching I could find in his own words. It is certainly not a perfect summary though. I would prefer no summary to a summary done by us. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should not make a personal summary of what we feel Tolle's teachings are BUT we could and should create a summary of the sourced, verifiable information that is presented in the Teachings section of this article. That is not OR it is summarizing the section and it is standard procedure per WP:LEAD. I think that if we allow an individual editor to pick a quote that he/she feels is the essence of Tolle's teaching, it creates POV, however unintentional it may be. That said would you like to just leave the lead as it is now, without a quote or summary of the teachings section? Or do you have another suggestion. Let me know. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer no summary. If you would like to make a suggestion for a summary here on the talk page, I could discuss it with you. But I would prefer if you would look at Eckhart's work and pick a quote which you think best summarises his work, and we can then discuss that. I think you may have missed my point about why someone's teachings our writings should always be represented in their own words 9unless you are talking about analysis, rather than summary). On the Ralph Waldo Emerson page summarises Emerson's work in his own words saying the essence of his teaching is "the infinitude of the private man". For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal When asked to sum up his work, he said his central doctrine was "the infinitude of the private man". In the lead for the featured James Joyce article there this quote: "For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal". Instead, if a Wikipedia editor tried to summarise their work, something would be lost, and nothing would be gained. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer a good summary to no summary, and I would prefer no summary to a bad summary, and I assume you feel the same. The summary I offered using Tolle's own words is the best I can come up with. I cannot summarise he teachings better than he can. It is unfortunate that there are few editors of this article who are familiar with Tolle's teachings, and who could offer alternative summaries. I think we should use the summary that I offered until someone offers an alternative. I will add the quotation back into the article so I can request a third opinion on it here. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: I agree with Keithbob's reading of WP:LEAD and WP:POV. The lead of an article is meant to summarize the contents of the article, so adding a little quote like that is rather excessive and really doesn't help the article. Further, whatever quote is most meaningful to Gregcaletta is inherently subjective; if I was familiar with Tolle's writing, I may find meaning in a completely different quote. Including the quote really seems more like fan service than anything else. A summary based on verifiable text in the article would be acceptable, though. As an alternative, maybe the quote could be moved into one of the other sections and using one of the quotation templates? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why a summary of the author's work in his own words is more subjective than a summary by Wikipedians. All we do by summarising an author's work is place their teaching our own words, which merely is adding our interpretation to their words. Can you please explain how this makes it less subjective? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the word neutral fits better than subjective. This page isn't meant to laud Tolle; it's meant to be a neutral account of his life and his works. And the lead of the article is meant to be an accurate summary of the contents of the article. To accomplish this, articles usually just have some kind of broad text explaining how the person has been influential, the general focus of their works, or something like that. So to put a quote in the lead is odd enough, but to pick one and say "Well, I think this quote summarizes his work" doesn't really seem appropriate.

But even beyond that, I think what makes it wrong is WP:WEIGHT. By putting the quote in the lead, you're implicitly saying that this one quote is far more important than most of the text on the rest of the page. And I don't think that's something that we should be doing here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would echo all of these points made by User Hello. A very good rendering of relevant policies. I also respect and appreciate Gregcalletta's efforts to discuss and understand these points and his continued, good faith efforts to improve this article. Cheers to all!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll second that. I've given a lot of 3Os, and most of the editors are not nearly as respectful, calm or collected as you guys are. I applaud both of you for your efforts to keep things calm and happy. Well done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of publication

Audio List

Hi Greg, You've done a nice job researching the other publications but where did this list of Audios come from? Is there a reliable source for them? Also who are they published by? Any info you can provide would be helpful. thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Audio" list was actually already there before I started editing, but I made some additions to the "DVD" list from EckhartTolle's official store, and I believe that may be where the rest of the list comes from. I think it is generally accepted at Wikipedia that reliable sources are not needed for lists of publications, unless one has particular reason to doubt its publication, because one could always cite the publication its self as proof o the existence of the publication, as long as the author is notable enough. You could check pages for other writers and musicians and see what they do. I think you'll find that even featured biographies such as The Beatles and James Joyce do not provide citations for a "Discography" or a list of "Works". Gregcaletta (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What's important is the priciples, not so much what others have done on other articles that may or may not be compliant. Wikipedia is based on information provided by reliable sources. WP:BLP says that if information that is not sourced is challenged by an editor than it can and should be removed. If they are published Audios then there should be a source. I've placed a tag there for the time being. I'll wait a few days and after that I would like to move any unsourced publications here to the talk page and as sources are found we can add them back in the article. Information should be sourced, per WP:V is a pillar of Wikipedia and doubly so in a BLP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY explains that not everything on Wikipedia needs a citation, only that which is "challenged or likely to be challenged". WP:BLP says that any information can be removed if it is unsorted and "contentious". Are you really contending that these audio products have been published? I agree that what is important is the principles. This is why I mention not just some but every featured article I can find on a musician, writer, or director does not provide citations for the "Discography", Filmography", "Publications" or "Works" segment. The reason I mentioned this, is to point out that it is not merely a mistake that all those article are making; there is principle behind this. Here is the principle: if a particular fact about the Vietnam War is included in a Wikipedia article, we need to provide a citation, for example from a history book, but the article does not also need to provide a citation to show the existence of the history book. The reason why is that the publication of the history book itself is proof of its publication. We don't need the publication of each text to be published in some other publication. The publication of "The Power of Now" is proof of its publication, we don't really need a separate source commenting on its publication, unless there is disagreement about the exact date on which it was published. The same principle applies to all of Tolle's audio products. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You could find all of these products individually and cite the ISBN numbers, etc. Such information may be available on Tolle's official store. But, it's not really necessary. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern is with publications that are self published and have no ISBN. If the audios have ISBN numbers and they are listed on a web page than we can cite that page one time at the bottom of the Audio List in this article. That would satisfy me. Are you OK with that? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Any products which you can't find at http://www.eckharttolle.com/eckhartstore/home/ with the ISBN you can remove from the list. I imagine the are most if not all of them are there though. Be aware that there are five sections for audio: audiobooks, talk series, intensive series, retreat series and teacher series. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Video List

I would like to discuss why the list of Eckhart TV appearances should remain, even if you decide to remove the wikilinking. Almost all biographies of writers provide a comprehensive list of the publications of that writer and I believe this is sensible. In the same way, film directors and musicians almost always have "Discographies" or "FIlmographies". If the list of publications is very long, it is sometimes given a whole page of its own, as in List_of_books_by_P._G._Wodehouse. Eckhart Tolle's list is not yet long enough to make this necessary. The reason Eckhart's list is slightly more controversial than other lists, is that although he is generally noted as a "writer", he has far more publications in audio and video format than in book format. So while it is easy to include a "publications" list for writers, a "filmography" for directors and a "discography" for musicians, Eckhart Tolle comes from a rarer breed than writers, directors and musicians, in that he is first and foremost not a writer but a spiritual teacher. This means that his main profession is sitting down and talking to a group of people, ad lib. There are few equivalent biographical subject on Wikipedia, and the way he current chooses to "publish" by a video subscription service, is almost unprecedented, but likely to eventually become the norm, so I believe all of his Audio, DVDs and video streaming "publications" deserve to be on the list along side his books. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I have removed the EL's from the Video list per the EL notice board input and consensus here. The remaining issue for me is not the videos themselves but that they are self published. If he had written 50 books (or videos) that were edited and printed etc. by an independent publisher I would have no objection. Tolle recording his own videos and posting them his own own website and then us promoting them by listing them in an encyclopdic article seems like spam to me. However, that' just my take. We can agree to disagree and get opinions from others and see what they think. Would you like me to post something on the BLP noticeboard and see what others think abou it? Just let me know your thoughts. thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the problem. Lots of musicians, once they become very successful, start there own record company. These CDs would still need to be mentioned in the article for the musician, under any list of their albums. I don't really see any significant difference here, except that Eckhart's form of "publishing" is slightly original. You can get a second opinion if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I've posted a note at the BLP Noticeboard.[8] Let's see what other editors say.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The feedback from the noticeboard, including a comment from the GA reviewer is that the list of self published videos should be removed. Shall I remove it?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it on the ninth? Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry I didn't notice. Most of the time its just me and Greg here. Welcome aboard!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)