Talk:Eckhart Tolle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Eckhart 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.
June 26, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

GA Review[edit]

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)

Summary[edit]

  • 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)

  • 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)
  • Excellent, Thank you! There may be a problem with the photo now; I'll try to sort that out ASAP Gregcaletta (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception by Christian theologians[edit]

Why is this section relevant to this article? It is stated in the opening section of this article, "Tolle is not identified with any particular religion, but he has been influenced by a wide range of spiritual works." Why are a few Christian theologians highlighted as a reviewers of Tolle's work? This appears blatantly one-sided to me, as if the Christian religion is the only valid perspective to spiritual discussion. I would delete this section.

Zenqi (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me to be a sub-section title useful to divide the lengthy Reception section. And since Tolle writes in English and since the English-speaking world is dominated by the Christian religion and since Tolle is so widespread that there has been readership across the English-speaking world, there has been a good deal of Christian theologian commentary. That is my inference from the article. I don't see any reason to delete a section. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it is the section is quite relevant. It is important to show the significant debate and opposition to his ideas. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Many Wikipedia articles are becoming increasingly distorted by US-Christian positions. The rationale used above for retaining this overblown and rather irrelevant section is the claim that the English-speaking world is dominated by the Christian religion. That's a big claim, and can be dismissed as original research unless the editor making the claim can support it with creditable sources. But it is true that United States politics is infected with US-style Christian ideologies, and that many people influenced by these ideologies are keen to dominate other people. It is wishful thinking on the part of Christians to claim that the people in other parts of the English speaking world have succumbed to these attempts at domination. The section titled "Reception by Christian theologians" presents a chaotic and therefore unhelpful spectrum of US-Christian positions on Tolle. The views are chaotic because Christianity itself has no coherent or unified meditative tradition. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The Dutch part of the western world is not dominated by Christianity, but by atheism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An Icon[edit]

For most people struggling with depression,the fact that Eckart has come out of his lifelong depression ,is enough to bring you out of your own depression. Depression is just a mind game that envelops u in a vortex.To come out of the vortex ,you have to know that there is a way out.Eckart is proof. Poof !! Your depression is already gone. Nothing like awareness that its all make believe that you are going through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.170.38 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the content of the article? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Tolle was, according to the article, depressed for some of his 20s and then experienced a so-called 'inner transformation'. He is now 68. So his depression was either far from 'lifelong', or else has persisted, in which case his approach has conspicuously failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.168.222 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is to profoundly misunderstand Tolle's approach. He argues a person is two (the I and the Self). The Self can continue to suffer depression but the I observes and understands it as a passing state so it affects the individual far less, if at all. As such Tolle may have depression to this day. "Before Enlightenment I was depressed, after enlightenment I continued to be depressed" (a quote from Anthony de Mello whose base approach preceded Tolle's but was largely the same idea.) Polishwanderer (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Current section gives undue weight to one viewpoint, section should remain but be trimmed down to a more appropriate length and also (where possible) be expanded to include other viewpoints. Amortias (T)(C) 11:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article include the section Reception by Christian theologians? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I believe that this content is extremely informative, well sourced, and topically relevant to the article, and should therefore be included. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the section, as you restored it, is not unbalanced within itself. But it is deeply inappropriate. Christian theologians belong to a profession funded largely to articulate bookish intellectualism aimed at consolidating Christian elitism and hierarchical power. They are perhaps the last people to provide useful commentaries on Tolle. The Christian meditative tradition is exceptionally thin on the ground. If there is to be such a large section on "Reception by Christian theologians", then for a wider balance there should be much larger sections from people better equipped to make such assessments, such as "Reception by Buddhists" and "Reception by Hindus". At that point, the article will be dominated by all sorts of people expressing their own personal views, and very little on what Tolle has to say for himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild support - interesting, but WP:UNDUE in its current length. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The section is well cited, is relevant to a massively best-selling spirituality author who lives in and is read widely in Christendom, and has been stable for several years. It also bears relevance to Christians who may read or may be interested in reading any of Tolle's works, and to non-Christians who are interested in the works' assessment by practicing Christians and Christian theologians. See also Talk:Eckhart Tolle#Reception by Christian theologians. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The section is good, well referenced, and, due to the fact america is largely christian, I can see the correlation between his book in america and christian scholars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Summoned by bot. Needs to be trimmed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It seems a bit like a coat rack for the Christian point of view about Tolle. At a minimum it is undue weight. I don't see the need for Christian reception to be singled out. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:UNDUE applies. This subsection is larger than the rest of the Reception section when it really deserves a single paragraph at most. What NPOV reason is there for the extensive treatment of Christian views? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Given what he does, his reception by theologians is probably the single most important aspect of how his work is viewed. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Trim and add reception by other major religions. Eckhart Tolle is well known outside the US, so I don't see a particular reason to focus on Christianity so much. In fact, I'd be more interested in what Buddhists and Hindus have to say about him. DaßWölf 17:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

live link to replace dead one[edit]

sorry, this is my first contribution ever to Wikipedia so I'll ask someone else to do this edit, thanks

  1. 51

https://www.eckharttolle.com/article/Spirituality-And-The-Christian-Tradition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.234.17 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That link was already present in the article. I have now formatted it for clarity, and removed the dead link which was redundant to it. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception by Christian theologians[edit]

I condensed the Eckhart Tolle#Reception by Christian theologians section per the closed RfC. I also made more clear which were in support and which were criticism. It is still primarily quotes and should probably be paraphrased. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender has restored the following text to this subsection:

In 2008 The Independent noted that "Tolle does have fans in academic, even Christian, circles". It cited Andrew Ryder, a theologian at All Hallows College in Dublin, who wrote that "Tolle's writing is based on his own experience and personal reflection. This makes his approach to the challenge of living in the present moment both practical and fresh. While he may not use the language of traditional Christian spirituality, Tolle is very much concerned that, as we make our way through the ordinary events of the day, we keep in touch with the deepest source of our being."

I feel that this restores yet another extensive quote contrary to the mandate from the RfC to trim the section. I think we should limit the section to one paragraph each for pro and con. And why are we using all quotes for this section? Anyway, this does not seem like the most relevant quote as it is mostly general feelings about Tolle rather than a response from a Christian point of view. What do "personal reflection" and "practical and fresh" have to do with contrasting or comparing to Christian theology? —DIY Editor (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Right now we have quotes and reviews from: (1) Maclean's, a Canadian weekly news magazine; (2) a personal blog; (3) the National Catholic Reporter; (4) (a theologian posting on) Eckhart Tolle's own website; (5) The Independent, a widely and internationally read notable British newspaper. If we are going to trim anything further, we should probably trim in order of independence and notability; therefore the first to go should probably be in this order: Tolle's site; the blog; Maclean's / National Catholic Reporter (they're about equal in notability), and last of all The Independent. I personally don't think more than one of those should be trimmed, if any. There's also no reason to force the responses into one paragraph each of pro and con, especially if one section has more WP:RS sources than the other. We also don't paraphrase reviews -- that leads to inference and editorializing. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There was more to the article in question. For example it says "Tolle's theories are certainly seen by many as profoundly non-Christian, even though Tolle often quotes from the Bible," and generally gives the impression that Christians don't have a positive view of Tolle's work. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)