Talk:Richard Tarnas

message: I removed a "linkfarm" a collection of internal links to a selection of miscellaneous highpoints in cultural history, that serves more to increase the visibility of this article than to provide information about the details of one of the authors books. 
I also removed a repeated detailed  statement of his positions. Further copyediting  for conciseness is no doubt needed. DGG (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The material currently tagged for citation should either be referenced (within a reasonable time) or removed. The section also reads like the back of book blurb and generally needs improvement. Verbal chat 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited material 

message: Where do you get this from? When I view the WSJ website, it says "Books". There is another section, "Columns and Blogs", but the cited article is not under that heading. As far as I can tell, the cited article is a book review, not an op-ed piece. — goethean ॐ 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gothean - point taken. It is a review. Granted, not all that balanced, but it's a book review.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioxinfreak (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the more I look at it, it becomes more clear that the writer of the review didn't even attempt to understand what Tarnas was doing (which, admittedly, is quite esoteric). In retrospect, it probably should not have been added to the article, although I have no hope of achieving a consensus to remove it. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in context, the WSJ piece is demonstrative of how difficult it is to convey the particular worldview the book conveys -- or any significantly different worldview than the one that most people accept and swallow without thought. Out of context, it's a very problematic quote. Nobody can really call someone with a solid intellectual track record, who takes 30 years of his life and studies two millennia of history, a crackpot and also deserve to be taken that seriously. I think that the paradigm shift suggested by this book deserves to be part of this article, including how and why it is controversial. It may be part of the subtext of this conversation. I recognize that people with scientifically oriented minds can struggle with the astrological perspective, but speaking as an astrologer with a science background, I would say that about 90% of the time the astrological perspective lacks credibility. It's not often, and may indeed be unprecedented, that someone does this much work, this carefully, devoted to astrology; particularly an established academic. I suggest that we be careful in casting or thinking of astrology as being outside the mainstream of Western thought. If you look at its history and place in society through the ages, it is indeed specifically part of the mainstream of Western thought; its ideas contain the rudiments of astronomy, psychology and philosophy; and like anything else from lawyering to medical practice, it is as only as effective as the person whose hands it is in.Dioxinfreak (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. We need to look at the journal databases and see if there were any perceptive articles written on Cosmos & Psyche. That way, the article can report on what transpired in the secondary literature rather than us trying to non-controversially summarize a potentially controversial book. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSJ = op-ed 

message: Hi all, your old friend Dioxin Freak here. I'm wondering how it is that as sourced/verifiable material is edited into this article, then someone comes along and edits it out. That would be known as vandalism, because it is messing specifically with the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia, for no warranted purpose. Wiki has an initiative -- the astrology project -- designed to make improvements to the astrology pages. People with an expertise in the field are involved with the development of this page. Those with some objection not as yet stated need to stand back and allow this work to proceed -- or state your issue honestly.Dioxinfreak (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which edits you are referring to. — goethean ॐ 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that who ever is removing reviews from the article knows what I am talking about. I haven't done an analysis of the editing history, but will soon. Since the person removing the reviews is taking such an interest in this page, I assume they are reading the talk pages as well.Dioxinfreak (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did remove some blurbs, but they were unsourced and blurbs are unencyclopedic anyways. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redactions

message: Hi All, I just wanted to let you know that I'm moving the part about Passion being conceived as a precursor to Cosmos and Psyche to the section on Cosmos since it's in the later book that he mentions this fact.  I think having it in the Passion section is a slight misrepresentation of that work since he seems to have intentionally never mentioned this fact in the earlier book.  Does that make sense to everyone?Murgy (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified your language slightly. Someone else fixed your cite error. You should use edit summaries to concisely explain your changes. Bache has a precis of the conclusion of Passion here. When possible, we should let other writers explain what Tarnas is doing philosophically so as to avoid doing original research. — goethean ॐ 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passion 

message: I'm considering removing the Renn Butler review, now that it appears that the website on which his review appeared has no relation to the magazine New Age Journal. He is a health care worker, and so the review is no more notable than any other website page or weblog entry. If you look at the section, there are plenty of both positive and negative reviews, so there is no compelling reason to include Butler. Does anyone feel strongly about this? — goethean ॐ 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renn Butler 

message: The categories say he is an astrologer but the text doesn't. Is it referenced? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a source to cite that explicitly says that he an astrologer, but Cosmos and Psyche is a work of astrology, containing birth charts. — goethean ॐ 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the book is a work of astrology I wonder if we should have a source that explicit says he is an astrologer due to the BLP issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that he'd object. He's spoken before the National Council of Geocosmic Research Annual Conference ,  he refers to "we" astrologers in the video (starting at :47). — goethean ॐ 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. His self identification is good enough for me. I'll restore the category. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he an astrologer or not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Tarnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100409060738/http://www.cbc.ca:80/tapestry/archives/2006/031906.html to http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2006/031906.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Richard Tarnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150422000633/http://www.jung.org:80/tarnas%20book%20review.html to http://www.jung.org/tarnas%20book%20review.html
*Added  tag to http://www.lilipoh.com/articles/2006/summer/the_disenchantment_of_the_modern_universe_and_the_tale_of_two_suitors.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120503073703/http://www.ciis.edu/About_CIIS/Publications/CIIS_Today_Spring_2009/John_Cleese.html to http://www.ciis.edu/About_CIIS/Publications/CIIS_Today_Spring_2009/John_Cleese.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101214115703/http://ciis.edu/Academics/Faculty/Richard_Tarnas_Bio.html to http://www.ciis.edu/academics/faculty/richard_tarnas_bio.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060206071340/http://www.ciis.edu:80/academics/pcc.html to http://www.ciis.edu/academics/pcc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Tarnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111070217/http://www.entheogen.tv/ to http://www.entheogen.tv/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified