Talk:A New Earth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A New Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Spirituality Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

publication

First published in 2005.

yep, sure was! 24.235.198.240 (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced Tag

This article gives way too much content on the intricate aspects of this book, and actually this ends up coming off as an advertisement for the book, as well as a fansite created by someone that's devoted to Tolle and/or the book. There's a recommended structure for nonfiction books, particularly in the way of synopsis. I think this article needs some serious trimming. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for book reports. We also need more content on book reviews and other text from secondary sources who describe, review and evaluate the book.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We also need more content on book reviews and other text from secondary sources who describe, review and evaluate the book." Excellent. That is correct. Go and do that, instead of promoting the removal of cited content on each article I contribute to as if that were somehow useful. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show due weight by citing secondary sources for the description of the chapters or it should be removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" section, or at least some unbiased reviews, are wanted. 80.98.186.223 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold face

According to WP:MOSBOLD, bold is to be used only for a list of defined terms, and is not appropriate to create emphasis for words in the middle of a sentence. However, italics can be used instead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

Hi, Keithbob requested that I glance at this article, which needs improvement, and add my suggestions here. I do agree there's way too much opinion in the article, and a lot of the statements need to be either trimmed, deleted, or cited/replaced with secondary-source material. The article needs some reviews, from neutral sources, including at least one negative or neutral one if possible. The "how the book was written" needs to be removed from he lede (how promotional can you get?), and placed in a body-text section. I'm not even sure the other author's quote (what the book is about) should be in the lede, but I'm OK with it being there. I'm not sure we need to know the format of Stillness Speaks. Keithbob, I think if you copyedit/trim (and make neutral) the Synopsis section like you did with PON, that might possibly also be good, although it's not as bad as the pre-edited PON sections were, and I'm OK with how it is now if it is accurate. Anyway, I haven't read the book (although I've read the first page, and in 2008 and following I saw all the stuff Oprah had on her show about it). Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I went ahead and made a few of of those edits myself. I will leave it to KB etc. to make the rest and to add citations and reviews. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SL, When I have time I'll find some secondary sources and see what I can do to further purify the article and make secondary sources the foundation of the article per WP:RS. I appreciate your input and assistance in improving the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, I don't think the article needs the "unbalanced" tag at present. There's nothing really wrong with it at present (with the possible exception of that uncited bit about how the book was "inspired but not channeled"), considering it's a beginning of what will be a longer more fleshed out article once you add some stuff. I mean the book was a mega-best-seller; it's not really that unusual for this Wiki article to be focused on the book and what it says. Could it use some cites and some reviews? Yes. Does it absolutely have to have those things to be a reasonable and neutral Wiki article? No, not necessarily in my opinion. I'd take the tag off for now, especially since you are planning to add to it. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I disagree that the Oprah EL should not be there. It's not a promotional link -- it's an educational link. It includes: 10 90-minute webcasts (audio or video), one for each chapter, all downloadable; transcripts of each of these classes (downloadable and printable); and 6 audio meditations (downloadable as well). Plus a Workbook for each of the 10 chapters. All of this is free of charge and on-demand. If that's not unique information about the book, then I don't know what is. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Therefore, with permission I'd like to re-post it as:[reply]

Study materials (webcasts, transcripts, workbook, meditations) at Oprah.com

-- Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given the lack of objection, I'm going to place the study materials as an External Link. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A New Earth. 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/20101127180223/http://nysna.org/images/pdfs/communications/journal/spg_smr08.pdf to http://www.nysna.org/images/pdfs/communications/journal/spg_smr08.pdf

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) 12:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]