Jump to content

Talk:Eckhart Tolle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cigarlover (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 24 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleEckhart Tolle has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eckhart Tolle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Claritas § 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality
B. MoS compliance
    • There are a few sentences which need tweaking - for example:
      • "He describes his childhood as unhappy, especially the years up to age 13, spent in Germany" - sounds odd, needs restructuring.
      • " Tolle gives speeches and workshops, most of which are given in English, but occasionally gives talks in German and in Spanish" - similarly, slightly awkward.
  • Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
  • Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
  • Is it neutral ?
Fair representation without bias:
  • Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
  • Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
The copyright status of the portrait of Tolle needs to be clarified. It's currently lacking a description. - own work of a user, I'm satisfied that there are no copyright issues.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  • Overall:

Pass or Fail:

This article is generally compliant WP:WIAGA, but the photograph of Tolle needs to be copyright tagged, and the prose needs tweaking before it can be awarded Good Article status. I'm therefore putting it on hold. Claritas § 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reviewed recent edits made to the article, and I'm satisfied that the main issues with the prose have been sorted, and I'm therefore promoting it. Any editors who may be looking to bring this article to Featured Article status should bear in mind that the FA prose criteria are stricter and more work may be need on this area. Claritas § 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas is not existent anymore. Article passed in 2010 ... see below on "bias".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eckhart Tolle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of article

The tone of this article strikes me as overly promotional. Too much of the text is devoted to quotes from magazines, the subject himself or his marketing materials. We need to get some more scholarly analysis of where he fits into modern spiritual discourse. Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Often, a sentence with a citation is immediately preceded by an unsubstantiated, marketing-speak claim, which adds no facts, only opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.79 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars are not qualified to pontificate on the nature of subject, which is what Tolle talks about. Tolle himself says his words are pointers to non-verbal reality, so how can a scholar do anything except say "Waaaaaahh ! He criticized words !" 162.205.217.211 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning attempt to unbias this article, because it is obviously biased in favor of its subject, and is promotional rather than impartial.

Please bear with me as I am beginning the attempt to unbias this article, because it is obviously biased in favor of its subject, and is promotional rather than impartial. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Sincerely, Magenta30.Magenta30 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what happened? same in German wiki on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:CF14:BE00:CD2C:8E0A:AB78:FB58 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME

MagicatthemovieS, please stop changing the WP:COMMONNAME of Lao Tzu, to an orthography which is confusing and scarcely used by anyone, and does not match citations. Please see:

versus

--Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings

Is it really important to state that he references figures from popular culture?

I think this section should either be removed or be expanded to state what he has to teach about figures in intellectual or popular culture. A paragraph listing the people he uses as examples feels like it completely lacks the points he wants to make about them. Lessons in high-level life strategy are pretty abstract, so it's not particularly surprising Tolle uses relatable concrete examples.

The purpose of listing many other people, regardless of relevance, is to improve search rankings and thus publicity and promotion of the business. In this the article succeeds.

It would be interesting and relevant to include a section on his business and income. Such information would tend to refute or support his claim that his focus is on spirituality rather than business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.43.98 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

(@Joshua Jonathan:) I just wanted to bring to your attention, that you have violated the WP:3RR. Also, you have now deleted cited contents that criticise ET. It appears you have a strong bias in boosting ET's public impression by ensuring wide criticism of him is not included in the wiki article. At this point please take this as notice, and refrain yourself any further reverts, to avoid escalation. Do you get paid or work for ET ? Cigarlover (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC) You have now reverted a total of 6 edits WP:3RR on 28 December 2024 content of a WP:LIVE person, just because it does not present a favorable view of him. This violates the neutrality of the wiki article, which is against the WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier on Jun 21st, you reverted contents 9 times.[reply]

WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone improve NPOV and basic content of opening paragraph?

Just read this article for the first time and the opening paragraph doesn’t read like the openers of most other bios - seems loaded with opinions that aren’t the kinds of facts we lead with.

I’m logged in via phone and can’t edit well - anyone reading this want to take a look? DrMel (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an editor on a crusade; I've reverted most of his edits, and warned them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an edit that seemed over-the-top, but after that revert, the lead seems more-or-less neutral. The "spiritual teacher" description seems odd, though, and I'm curious about other opinions. Rray (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section isn't appropriate for the lead (or really at all)

Here are the sentences that are contentious:

"Even though Oprah Winfrey’s endorsements have catapulted Eckhart Tolle into one of the world’s most famous living spiritual teachers, he still isn’t taken seriously by the mainstream media. While Tolle has sold millions of copies of his book 'The Power of Now', the media typically dismiss him as a near-comical “guru.” His books don’t get reviewed."

Describing him as one of the "world's most famous living spiritual teachers" is dubious at best and promotional at worst.

Stating that he isn't taken seriously by the mainstream media represents a POV. It's also vague.

"Millions of copies of his book..." is vague and promotional at the same time.

The first time a book is used in the lead, it should link to the Wikipedia article. Book titles should also be italicized rather than put in quotes.

"The media typically dismiss him as a near-comical guru" is also POV.

"His books don't get reviewed" is unlikely to be true.

Just because a citation to a newspaper article has been included doesn't make something appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Some of this MIGHT, if rewritten, be appropriate later in the article, but it's not appropriate in the lead.

User:Rray I would disagree with you here, as I would take a published mainstream newspaper article with higher credibility than to dismiss it based on your personal preference. User:C.Fred, please feel free to correct me here.
Another user here on the talk page has already explained why this is an inappropriate addition to the lead -- I agree with those, obviously, and I'll let my earlier comments stand. Rray (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the objectivity in your disagreement. The solution does not have to be a democratic decision, but should be fact-driven and objective. I clearly see that you are acting against the principle of WIKI in terms WP:BALANCE User: C.Fred please help arbitrate here.
Actually, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. It might be worthwhile for you to review it. Rray (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is unrelated to this above issue. What is the objective reason to not include a published criticism of ET in this page? You seem to be acting in the interest to protect ET's image as you are in strong disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, this message is specific to Cigarlover (cool username, btw, I smoke Padrons almost daily myself): the way things work here is that you generally make a bold edit, have it reverted, then discuss it on the talk page. Reverting back to your preferred addition repeatedly and "warning" other editors doesn't contribute to building a consensus about the changes you want to make to the page. You'll have more success taking a different approach. You might take a look at BOLD, revert, discuss -- it's an essay about a method for building consensus. Hope that's helpful. Rray (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's on a crusade, violating basics Wiki-policies like WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:3RR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text they added to the lead is WP:UNDUE, violates WP:NPOV, and does not belong in the WP:LEAD, whih summarizes the article. The source, Douglas Todd (Feb 11, 2008), title=Eckhart Tolle has insights, but not The Answer, Vancouver Sun, is a "Staff Blog." That's a lousy source for such statements. Let's have a closer look:
  • "Even though Oprah Winfrey’s endorsements have catapulted Eckhart Tolle into one of the world’s most famous living spiritual teachers, he still isn’t taken seriously by the mainstream media." - that's a direct copy from the source, that is, a WP:COPYVIO. It should be attributed, not placed in the lead, an not given WP:UNDUE weight.
  • "Tolle has sold millions of copies of his books, including The Power of Now, but the media typically dismiss him as a near-comical “guru.” His books don’t get reviewed." - this is a near-exact copy from Douglas Todd. Same problems.
Author and Vancouver Sun writer Douglas Todd is one of the few mainstream religion and ethics journalists to seriously look at Tolle’s work. So why should his criticism on ET be omitted from this wiki page ? User:C.Fred please arbitrate. --Cigarlover (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.macleans.ca/culture/eckhart-tolle-vs-god/

User:Rray Please see the top of this talk page. It clearly states that this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.


Obviously, Cigarlover is WP:NOTHERE, intend to trash the subject of the article, and violating a number of Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus discussion at this page on the content of the article, not on other editors. Concerns about other editors, if you have enough evidence to back up the claims, can be taken to WP:ANI or another noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content with citation that is urelated

The wiki page for Eckhart has references cited to content which are failing the cross-check. Please see the history on the edit and corresponding remarks>> here is a few example.

We need to escalate this, C.Fred, please respond on the next steps to clean up fake content from this page. This page seemed to be produced in a concerted effort by a 70$ Million dollar Eckhart Empire to boost Eckhart's image.--Cigarlover (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be specific, and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS? Take that as a warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan We cannot make progress in a objective way in restoring the biased page on ET, until you first WP:DISCLOSE if you are affiliated to ET. Once you confirm that, we can make reasonable progress and we will able to converse in an unbiased way.--Cigarlover (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred : I would like to point out that the below statement in the wiki page Tolle said he was depressed for much of his life until age 29 when he experienced an "inner transformation." He then spent years wandering "in a state of deep bliss" before becoming a spiritual teacher, publishing his first book, The Power of Now, in 1997,[4] reaching The New York Times Best Seller list in 2000.[5]

is self propaganda.

Let me explain, why using terms like 'inner transformation is a huge issue in articles like this. The citation used here is from Eckhart's own writing and hence cannot be used as the primary basis to support this statement. Given this is a biography of a living person, we need WP:BLPBALANCE:: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

This would have not been an issue of WP:COI if ET was not running a commercial venture. If Dalai Lama or some recognized expert on the field of spirituality would have endorsed ET, then it can be used as a secondary reference and the statement can be supported.


User: C.Fred please note that this entire page needs to be audited and statements that are cited with primary reference that originates from Eckhart's own writings and claims need to removed unless there is a verifiable secondary reliable source. FYI.. User:Joshua Jonathan User:Rray User:HelloAnnyong - can you please add your 2 cents. We need to turn this propaganda page to Wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Eckhart Tolle: He turns dogmas into factual statements

Quote from a video: "What matters is: There is the burst of something entirely new on the planet" Tolle thinks there is a planetary upheaval towards "expansion of consciousness" right now. That is a quote that can also be heard by many shallow-water spirituals and "2012 believers". When you hear about Palestine, Eastern Ukraine, and Isis on the evening news, then you realize that you could also logically justify the opposite scenario. (No one knows what really is.)

Eckhart Tolle has some theories he believes that he proclaims as fact. However, they do not constitute any higher knowledge.


Here is the second example of a dogma, from the same video: "And awakening is a cosmic event. Since it is happening on this planet here, we can virtually be certain it is happening elsewhere in the universe - it is an awakening of the universe into a completely different level of consciousness. That is how important your life is. "

Whether there is an awakening in the entire universe, is again just an assumption, a dogma a theory ... no more. Eckhart Tolle has a number of beliefs that he declares as a facts. It is not higher knowledge that leads to awakening; at most, it leads to the ego-enhancing thought to be someone special, who contributes to something special (the awakening of the universe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cigarlover: And this analysis is per what source? —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred:. Please see here.. https://www.poehm.com/en/eckhart-tolle-criticism/

User:HelloAnnyong, User:Ashmoo - can you please add your 2 cents. We need to turn this propaganda page to Wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarlover (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eckhart_Tolle&oldid=1030274993"