Talk:M. Scott Peck

message: I just added some biographical material, then noticed that somebody had recently (and maybe inadvertently) deleted a lot of similar stuff. I don't know how to easily restore that which was deleted, or whether it was quality material or not. Surely the article needs material about Peck, and not just about one of his books. Lou Sander 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical Material 

message: The article states that Peck goes to great lenghts to discuss evil on a scientific basis, but then, in the very next sentence, describes how Peck characterizes evil in regards to God and the Devil.  Now, I'm not saying anything for or against belief in such concepts, but even most devoutly Christian scientists do not equate faith with science.Minaker 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the section on evil 

message: This article contains two chapters titled "Biography:" chapter 1 and chapter 6. Chapter 1 contains actual biographical information. Chapter 6 contains a single line: "The Road He Travelled: The Revealing Biography of M Scott Peck by Arthur Jones (Rider Books, 2007)." I propose deleting Chapter 6 and adding a line to Chapter 1, something like: "For more information on the life of Scott Peck, see The Road He Travelled: etc." Feeline (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing the duplication.  Wikipedia's Manual of Style provides a different solution, though.  Books by the bio subject are listed under "Works" or, as here, "Bibliography".  Then follows a "Further reading" section for material about the bio subject.  I've eliminated the second "Biography" and combined that book listing with the articles listed in a new "Further reading" section.  See Wikipedia:Layout for the preferred style, which I think I've followed in correcting the error you noted. JamesMLane t c 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks James. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't know about the manual of style. I will check it out. Feeline (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Biography Sections 

message: Editor Xtheuniverse (who has no user page) appears to be mainly interested in editing this article. The amount of work is considerable and impressive. However this editor seems repeatedly to fall foul of WP:NOR. Assuming good faith, I would ask this editor to look back over their work after having reread the policy - and I would ask other editors to look at the article in its present state and see what improvements they suggest. 
I for one have just rv an encyclopaedic contribution from some time back, the removal of which Xtheuniverse justified with the words:
::I think it is reasonable to suggest that he was discerning about Malachi Martin and was willing to disagree if he found the evidence, consequently any controversy about Malachi Martin's own accounts is therefore irrelevant. (although I acknowledge that in the Arthur Jones biography the author considers that Peck viewed Martin as a father figure, even if this is true I think it is very unlikely it would have affected Peck's own perception of his experiences) Furthermore it is not like Peck and Martin are the only ones with similar views on this topic there are many eg. Gabriele Amorth (I also rewrote the section giving a summary of Peck's views on spiritual evil)
WP:NOR ??? 
Testbed (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Xtheuniverse]] and [[WP:NOR]] 

message: I was recommending M. Scott Peck to someone online, and they come back with "well, I'll look into it, but I don't like his idea that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured".  I have never heard that in all my years of recommending M. Scott Peck's work, and I'm frippin' 42.
Of course, I check the Wikipedia page and lo and behold!
===Homosexuality===
The book contains occasional references to homosexuality, which assume that it is a mental condition in need of treatment and capable of cure. By 1978 the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association had ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder.
My memory of this book may be fuzzy, but it's not that fuzzy. The point is moot, however; it's completely unsourced and there is absolutely nothing on the web that comes close to this statement.  In fact, when you google M. Scott Peck and homosexuality, you get the exact opposite view - that Gay people were "created by God".
But what really boils my cheese is that there appears to be some sort of heated discussion about some (probably) minute point, and the last entry in this discussion was frippin' two days ago. Whoever any of you are, if none of you can do rudimentary fact checking on a shocking, inflammatory statement about a dead man that's contrary to all of his other writing, then find another hobby.--NinaOdell | Talk 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What the hell???

message: The book contains occasional references to homosexuality, which assume that it is a mental condition in need of treatment and capable of cure. By 1978 the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association had ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder.
</blockquote>
My memory of this book may be fuzzy, but it's not that fuzzy. The point is moot, however; it's completely unsourced and there is absolutely nothing on the web that comes close to this statement.  In fact, when you google M. Scott Peck and homosexuality, you get the exact opposite view - that Gay people were "created by God".
But what really boils my cheese is that there appears to be some sort of heated discussion about some (probably) minute point, and the last entry in this discussion was frippin' two days ago. Whoever any of you are, if none of you can do rudimentary fact checking on a shocking, inflammatory statement about a dead man that's contrary to all of his other writing, then find another hobby.--NinaOdell | Talk 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: Hey. i altered the section under Stage IV of personal development to change 'difficult' to prove spirituality scientifically to 'so-far impossible'. I personally don't close my mind to the existence of 'forces' which human understanding can't comprehend yet, but surely if it was just 'difficult' then that implies that there exists evidence somewhere? Which far as i'm aware, there isn't. Evidence to the contraray needs to be provided before making claims like that. Also, this entire article reads like an advertisement of the man and his teachings; not at all like an unbiased over view of a humans life and work. I have read just a little of the book and though i love a lot of what he says can find considerable criticisms, surely there are more structured, perhqaps ideaologically based criticism (and from reading this talk page thier are) that are valid enough to be put on the page? Surely he didnt just go through life with everybody agreeing with him, which is certainly the sense one gets from this page?  129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Viewpoint?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on M. Scott Peck. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/whkinfo1/malachi_martinsophia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although Peck served in the United States military during the Vietnam War, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served in Vietnam during the war. Accordingly, :Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam War service

message: These merit brief treatments, maybe one or two paragraphs each.--Artaxerxes 19:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories 

message: WASP is a term that describes White Anglo Saxon Protestants, which means Christian. By WP:Neutrality people do not belong in certain sectors. 108.65.249.149 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a WASP? 

message: This article is too long, too many details about his prescriptions, reads like a fan club. Tallard (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to propose edits or improvements...SONORAMA (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a positive book review