Talk:Eckhart Tolle/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is actually original in his thought? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this necessary? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact or Opinion? 

message: Why is A Course in Miracles italicized? --Emesee (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more. Proxy User (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Course in Miracles Italicization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Educational Course of Study & Degrees 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Business Organization 

message: Yes, the biography section definitely needs much more detail. 
99.231.221.164 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: In this interview [] 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)
thread_title:  Australian TV interview, 7 Network 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Source? — goethean ॐ 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Religion 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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.  Meanwhile, you can do whatever you feel is right. We can always adjust later. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk •  21:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Publication date 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Reception" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove paragraph from Reception section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Format for Quotes in the Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ye, that looks like a good spot for it.  Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for hashing this out with me.  :-)  -- — Kbob • Talk •  14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, good point.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose quality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I removed it on the ninth? Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of publication 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Audio List

message: :: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I removed it on the ninth? Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Video List