Jump to content

Talk:Esalen Institute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Inside view

I have spent time at Esalen, and this page needs major, major work. It should be a much longer, more thorough article. I wonder if someone at Esalen can do a draft? --Brw12 16:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly more information would be welcome. However, keep in mind that Wikipedia attempts to adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). If edits are made which make unsubstantiated claims or attempt to cast Esalen in a light which is not purely factual, expect other editors to voice concern and/or edit down the article until it adheres to NPOV standards.
Good luck, and happy editing! -Harmil 18:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete or rewrite?

The entire contents of this article have been lifted, verbatim, from http://www.esalen.org/artsfestival05/ArtsFestFacts.pdf and http://www.orgonomictherapy.com/reichian-workshops.htm. The article needs to be either completely rewritten or deleted. As it is, it doesn't adhere to NPOV. I lack the knowledge of Esalen to write a better article, but I lean a bit toward inclusion in Wikipedia, so I'd rather not delete it. I'll wait a few days or a week to see if anyone decides to rewrite it. If they don't, I'll nominate it for deletion (it's probably high time I learned how to do that, anyway). —CKA3KA (Skazka) 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Complete Rewrite template. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite a bit has been added—principally, I think, by Goethean—since I posted my last comment, but little, if anything has been removed or rewritten. The article is still largely lifted from other web sites and reads like a promotional brochure rather than an encyclopedia article.
Hats off to you, Goethean, for taking this in hand as far as you have. As I said before, I tend slightly toward being an inclusionist so I'd prefer to see the article improved rather than deleted, even though I'm not sure, just from reading the article, that the Esalen Institute is any more notable than any other high-end spiritual retreat. However, I lack the knowledge to rewrite the article myself, and, as it is, it just doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic.
Since I'm relatively new at this, I'm going to see if I can get any second opinions from other Wikipedians before I take any steps toward recomending the article for deletion. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. Esalen is definitely notable -- here's a book about it published by Indiana U Press and written by Jeffrey Kripal. I don't have much knowledge about it to contribute. It wouldn't bother me if this article was reduced to a stub and started over. — goethean ॐ 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very much like an advertisement for esalen. All the sources and quotations are connected esalen . Does not meet NPOV at all.

Trillian

Not quite all, anymore, but the article still does need a rewrite. There can be no serious question of deleting it for the subject is relevant. I have just added a major contemporary evaluation.

(I am also removed a less relevant and very POV praragraph about a psychiatry conference. DGG 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't read like an advertisement to me, although it is written with affection. Except for the "Current" section, which is very (and disapprovingly) POV. It makes the earlier, more affectionate sections look like nostalgia. Deaconse 08:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Esalen

I am startled that anyone would propose to delete Esalen from Wikipedia. There wouldn't be a Wikipedia if, decades earlier, there hadn't been an Esalen. The whole proposition that gifted amateurs might have something to teach a profession gone rigid is Esalen. The very mood and tone of Wikipedia is Esalen. Profhum (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 09:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Official name of springs

The article claims, "the official name was “Big Sur Hot Springs” though it was more generally referred to as “Slate’s Hot Springs”." I have seen a United States Geological Survey map pair of California, from around 1960. It says "Slate's Hot Springs." So I think this was reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True, it shows up on maps both ways. I changed to official "business" name as the business name was "Big Sur Hot Springs" from the 1950s until it took on the Esalen name. I have period photos of the roadside sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.52.136 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Fox

There is a "Matthew Fox" listed as a Past Teacher at Esalen. When the name is clicked, it leads to a disambiguation page. While my guess is that the Fox in question is the priest listed (and not the "Lost" actor), I lack the complete confidence I'd need to make the change. Can anyone resolve this permanently? Hannibal V Constantine (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems pretty biased to me. I don't know how to fix this, but maybe adding some things like "the institute claims to be..." instead of "the institute is..." Anyway, I think the bias tag is warranted and should remain either until the article is changed or just as a heads up to people reading this article. Anyway, I think the first paragraph is a good example of bias just in the way it's written:

"Part think-tank for the emerging world culture, part college and lab for transformative practices, and part restorative retreat, Esalen is dedicated to exploring work in the humanities and sciences that furthers the full realization of what Aldous Huxley called the “human potential”.

Esalen Institute was founded by Michael Murphy and Dick Price in 1962, and soon became known for its blend of East/West philosophies, experiential/didactic workshops, and a steady influx of philosophers, psychologists, artists, and religious thinkers."

Maybe we need some citations or something this just looks biased to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.86.184 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hilarious. You need to imagine it read in gushing tones by a female NPR journalist. 118.208.141.163 (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PoV

this article is laughably biased, i think it should be deleted until its no longer an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.89.245 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced promotional marketing

This is one of the worst NPOV cases I have ever seen on wikipedia. No mention is made of the psychologically unhealthy personalities involved in Esalen, and its status as a emotionally coercive brainwashing cult. Where is the editorial objectivity here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.127.106 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has lived and worked at Esalen - and spent much of my childhood there during the 1960s - (I no longer live or work there), I find the above absurd.

Esalen has had a very broad range of teachers and presenters and it certainly is true than some have been controversial but Esalen is hardly coercive - a primary ethos being "Maximum availability, minimum coercion" and is not nearly unified enough to even remotely be classified as a cult. To the Institute's credit, Esalen has resisted central 'charismatic leaders', does not have people change names, break off contact with families, sign assets over, pressure conformity, or any of the other exploitive characteristics of cults. I have seen no legitimate data to substantiate claims of brainwashing or being a cult beyond specious, lunatic fringe, conspiracy theory websites - which obviously know nothing of the actual place and Institution. —Preceding unsigned 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about this place, and happened upon it from a link to it. It does very much strike me as something written as a promotional marketing piece rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article.

For instance, why is their a "pre-esalen" section? What does the actual piece of land this place sits on have to do with the institute? Pre-esalen is, by definition, out of topic since the article is about the institute. My only conclusion is this section is related to the "philosophy" of the place. Great it you're into that, but hardly NPOV.

The intro-article (which colors the rest of the page) reads like a marketing statement. Part this, part that, part everything. If it's so undefinable, why try to define it? I'm left with really no idea what this place is, except some kind of imagined hippy-dippy, find yourself, everything-you-know-is-wrong kind of un-place. In short, the intro sounds like it was written by a "true believer". That's maybe great for other "true believers", but no so great for someone coming to a page that just wants to understand what this place is.

If there really is controversy about this place, it needs to be referenced and explained. But in general I agree the article is horrible and needs to be drastically cleaned up. --Vellmont (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have never heard about this institute before following a link to it, but I was interested in the "Pre-Esalen" section. If it is considered for deletion, I'd rather it be added to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esselen page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.25.198 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement and needs lot of cleanup. Yawp (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-American Exchange Program

I deleted this section. I am against section blanking but half of this was unrelated at all to the article and the rest had dubious at best connection to this place. The whole thing was unsourced and violating NPOV. If anyone is of the opinion that this needs restoration then be my guest and I will not revert. However, I feel that sourcing and cleanup would be required for this to fit Wikipedia standards. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm doing some cleanup on this page. If anyone has a problem with my edits, please comment here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved this to talk until we can fit it into the right place. As it was, it interrupted the flow of the text and didn't provide any chronological information or source: "Joan Baez was in residence at this time as was Hunter S. Thompson (who was employed, and later fired, by Vinnie Murphy as a security guard) and Henry Miller was a regular visitor." Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kripal's book confirms the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.104.237 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues

The POV issues with this article, going back to 2008, have still not been addressed properly, and the article still reads like an advertorial. Laval (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been no genuine issues raised. This article consists of statements of fact that are both affirmative and critical of Esalen Institute. Genuine, documented criticism has been incorporated to provide balance. Now the article has been challenged by mere speculation and unsupported conclusions, characteristic of "hit and run" editors who haven't done their homework. If any of the material in this article continues to be specifically disputed, that will require reference to contradictory facts contained in reliable sources. Of course, that will require study and genuine work to produce. Perhaps, if that work is actually done to support specific challenges, and reliable factual material is produced to support contradictory claims, then the end product will be improved. We will see if challengers can fish or merely cut bait. Callaban (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough!

I have tried to maintain respectable standards of quality for the ongoing editing of this article. When I started a couple of years ago it was a total personal embarrassment for me to read. It was a complete mess, full of nonsense and bad English. Now there are no serious inaccuracies, and there is much information that the current management team at Esalen probably would like to see removed. I have had over forty years of personal, first-hand experience with Esalen Insitute, both in Big Sur and the old Esalen office in San Francisco. I have read and re-read all the Esalen histories. I have studied many of the disciplines taught at Esalen over the years. I have known many of the foundational figures in Esalen’s long history. I count many Esalen leaders as my personal friends. And I am definitely not a close ally of Esalen’s management. I admit that I once received a small check for teaching T’ai Chi at Esalen, which I endorsed over to my local state Bar Association. And I have written extensively about some Esalen related subjects. But otherwise, I am objective. I have many concerns about the current state of Esalen management. And I have expressed my concerns openly in the proper forum. I can honestly say that there are no substantial inaccuracies in the current article. I have provided serious references where there were hardly any before. Now, on balance, it is a pretty good portrait of the Institute. It is inevitably abbreviated. Full accounts of Esalen’s history fill hundreds of pages. And crackpots write blogs full of criticism. I removed material that was merely "puffery." I admit that I have allowed some verifiable language written by others to remain in the article, which might be considered as complimentary by the uninformed. However, Esalen truly is an amazing place, and any attempt to describe it violates the inevitable limitations of language. There are very few places open to the public that can boast equivalent esthetic attributes or intellectual credentials. And Esalen has had an indisputable impact on American culture. Dick Price had an impact on the practice of psychology that continues to this day. And Michael Murphy really did have an impact on relations with Russia toward the end of the Cold War. Long lists of luminaries who have taught at Esalen don't convey what happened there. Normal people like me were able to befriend cultural giants like Joseph Campbell and Gregory Bateson, sitting with them in the Lodge. At the same time, there are serious problems at Esalen, especially right now. Over the last decade, there has been a major transformation of Esalen’s business model, which has negatively impacted the lives of many people. But there are references in this article to materials which would not be here unless I made sure they were included. There’s a reference to Marion Goldman’s book, which is disfavored by senior Esalen management, and last time I checked was not carried by the Esalen Bookstore. There are links to newspaper articles which contain stinging criticism of Esalen. There is a reference to Chris Price’s departure. And I included problems, like the risk of fire, which management would probably just as soon see excluded. And there is a report of the truly explosive management survey. Any talented journalist could find leads for a critical review of Esalen. Of course, if you don’t know the subject matter, you really have no idea what has been included here. But, at the same time, there are many unreported disputes that are currently in progress at Esalen, which do not belong in a Wikipedia article. There are many problems that remain unresolved. But this is not a forum for “yellow journalism.” This is a site for factual reporting rather than inflammatory litigation of disputes. At least, that has been my understanding of the ongoing nature of this project. So, criticism of the current article will no doubt serve to invite irresponsible behavior. Over the last couple of years I've have seen this kind of behavior creep into the editing of this article. What may happen? No doubt, there will be an impulse toward nonsense without reference. There may be people who try to promote their favorite group leader from the past, or promote themselves! Current Esalen management may recognize an invitation to transform this article into a marketing tool to attract business and to solicit contributions. Disgruntled employees may be encouraged to ventilate grievances. Disappointed tourists with bruised egos may see an opportunity to act out. I did my best. I’ve worked on this article without, frankly, knowing why. Perhaps it was to insure that a record of something important survived. But I suspect that Esalen Institute will probably survive Wikipedia, Esalen's current management team, me and you. Callaban (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything you just wrote in that massive wall of text above basically illustrates the POV problems with this article. It is written like an advertorial. Wikipedia is not here to promote the Esalen Institute, no matter how wonderful you claim it is. WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Laval (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's easy to attack. It's easy to be destructive. It takes work to be constructive - to take a mess and give it structure and verifiable content; it takes knowledge, research and hard work. Unfortunately, Wikipedia allows anybody with a keyboard and a connection to snipe and criticize. Destructiveness and empty attack are cheap ways of gaining quick gratification. There has been nothing responsible or substantive about the current attack on this article. There has been nothing that represents real work. Callaban (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's more than obvious that you've got a very personal connection to the subject of this article, and that itself is a problem since you are way too biased in favor of the subject. That you suggest the article should actually be uncritical demonstrates that you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia in general. Please read WP:NPOV -- this article can't under any circumstances be considered "neutral", again for the same reason that you're the primary author & you've got a close, personal connection to the subject. Esalen has plenty of criticism leveled against it, which this article basically ignores. The whole article is a whitewash & practically an advertisement. Scientologists tried doing that with the Scientology articles & ended up being banned, and Scientology critics tried similar tactics from an opposing perspective & many of them also got banned. So Wikipedia is about presenting all possible sides & perspectives, so long as the sources are reliable & verifiable. Stop taking everything so personally. Laval (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
On this, I agree with Laval. The amount of space devoted to criticisms is minute, and the details of the criticisms are not spelt out. On any controversial topic space and detail need to be balanced. This topic is controversial, and it is not balanced at present. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I don't even know where to start with this horribly biased article. Obviously, the tactics of "hey this isn't biased, you don't understand it, go do your homework" have succeded as the discussion has apparently gone on for a decade. I arrived at the article as a diversion from the Rajneesh page which is quite funny because Rajneesh/Osho was a highly controversial sect guru, but the page on him is much more informational and neutral than this load of *CENSORED*.

This is the kind of article that gives wikipedia a bad reputation.

I mean, a section on "travel and fire safety" -- are you kidding me? How is this of relevance in an encyclopedia? Come on, tell me landslides on Highway 1 and forest fires in the area are a focal point illustrating the connectedness of Esalen disciples with nature and Gestalt, and just it needs more elaboration on how it will lead to a cure for cancer and world peace; and therefore it's more relevant than landslides in my kids' sandbox and forest fires in Burkina Faso (the latter probably in fact relevant to many more people).

I understand some interesting people have been in Esalen, as such I an article is warranted. But please, please add information, remove "affectionate" (as one earlier commentor called it) marketing blurb and text entropy. --85.181.128.49 (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Esalen - Dates

In the Pre-Esalen section it states that there has been a human presence in that location since 2600 BP. The footnote indicates that BP means "Before Present." According to [1], "In scientific and academic contexts, BP (before present) is often used. This is calibrated from January 1, 1950, not from the date of publication." The distinction may not be significant given the inexact nature of carbon dating; however, since this is not really an academic or scientific context - the article is generally about a cultural-historical movement/organization, readers getting here may not be aware of the distinction. I recommend that we create a definitional link for those unfamiliar with the abbreviation.

Moreover, the Manual of Style states that the format of dates should be "18,000 BP." Does this mean that the date should be given as "2,600 BP"?

This section by itself seems unrelated to what the article is generally about unless the reader has read the very last sentence of the introductory section. I recommend moving that sentence to the beginning of this section. Ileanadu (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is 2600 BP (or 2,600 BP) correct? The footnote states that

Documentation provided by Steven Harper of radiocarbon dating, performed by members of the Sonoma State University Cultural Resources Faculty, that produced the following results: 4,630 +/- 100 years BP (before present). Harper notes confirmation by similar tests from Big Creek (4-5 miles south of Esalen Institute), which produced: 6,400 years BP, as cited in The Prehistory of Big Creek by Terry Jones (2000).

Should 2,600 really be 4,600 BP or is it supposed to be 2,600 BCE, which is about 4,630 minus 1950?

The article on the Esselen people itself places their presence "in the Big Sur since circa 2630 BCE." The footnote source for this is material from the Esalen institute. This suggests that the reference should be to "human presence as early as 2,600 BCE." Ileanadu (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

→ Interesting... I had absented myself from this page for a very long time, after frustration with the way responsible work on it drew mostly empty criticism. I was frankly shocked by how little has changed in the interim! It really is a good portrait of Esalen. However, this comment is exactly right. The main text contains a typo. I should be 2,600 BCE. The Somoma State research report, which Steve Harper produced, contained the "before present" notation. That's the source of the typo. I took the liberty of making the change, although I am grateful that you found it.Callaban (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just too biased

This article was interesting, and in many respects informative, but it is just too biased; all criticism is relegated to footnotes. Had those footnote been briefly summarized in a paragraph of accounts of criticism of the organization, i would have been much more satisfied with the article. Reading this biased article is likelier to make people more rather than less suspicious of the organization--79spirit (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Passion

As a newbie to this article, I'm glad to see so much passion here in the Talk page. In my uninformed opinion, the essence of Wikipedia is Passion. Not just about a specific topic, but a passion for contributing to the ease with which our world culture can now access information. My hope is to contribute my own passion for such a contribution by collaborating with kindred spirits like everyone who's added something to this Article and/or Talk page. My goal is to do that in a respectful and neutral tone. Thank you for your passion. Jw4nvc (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding! I'm happy. Passion is life. If you haven't already, steep yourself in the books, starting with Anderson and then Kripal, then Goldman. Anderson is good for the early days. Kripal has an admitted bias, and is now very close to Mike and Gordon. But he is a very fine academic. He interviewed all the players, read everything, and did a magnificent, factually trustworthy job. Goldman is unbiased, and a careful academic. She is excellent for biographies of David Price and Gordon Wheeler. (BTW, Al Wong is now a Ph.D. therapist in Marin.) Goldman talked to everybody and is well respected, but her book was not (how to put it) well received by some, because she can be critical of the players. Kripal's book of essays is very good because it contains multiple perspectives. Of special interest is the essay about Dick by "Eric" Erickson. Unfortunately, Eric died recently. Eric and Dick were very close. Eric's dissertation (about Dick and Esalen) is full of great information, but very difficult to read. Do not trust anything you read in the Press, except Kera Abraham with the Monterey Weekly. She did accurate reporting about some recent events. [added later: Don Lattin is an old-timer, and his article in the Post can be trusted] The Dick Price and Gestalt Practice Wiki-s are very trustworthy because they were reviewed by practitioners, friends and family. (David Price has a Wiki, but nobody else wants to interact with the Wikipedia environment, for obvious reasons.) An enjoyable read, and good for context, is Seymour Carter's interview, "Esalen's Resident Alien...." Seymour was an amazing guy. Unfortunately he died a couple of years ago in the Ukraine. For some particularly interesting information, check out Jane Fonda's web blog. Otherwise, have fun, and get in touch if you get stuck. Callaban (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gia-fu Feng

For academically accepted spelling, see link to the copyright page of his Tao Te Ching, here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FULLqv_uiDYC&lpg=PR4&dq=Tao%20te%20ching%20copyright%20%40%201972%20Feng%2C%20Gia-fu&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=Tao%20te%20ching%20copyright%20@%201972%20Feng,%20Gia-fu&f=false And I recommend that you read his biography, Still Point of the Turning World. He introduced Dick to his first wife, Bonnie, in SF. Then kept track of Esalen's financial records on an abacus. Amazing guy.... Callaban (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Callaban

Hi Callaban, please keep from writing long, emotional comments and appeals in the edit summary. The place for discussion is here. Not every edit you don't like is vandalism.--79.228.4.148 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Grow up! Do a little work before you vandalize articles. Callaban (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Mind this, please: WP:PERSONAL - no personal attacks! --79.228.24.102 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
How about actually doing research? Oops!...my bad. Callaban (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mind this, please: WP:OR, no original research. How about getting informed about Wikipedia rules and policies.--79.228.30.225 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Mind this, pretty please. How about you actually do some work for a change. Callaban (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How to make responsible contributions to this article.

If you want to do some good work on this article, then please, first carefully read (don't just skim) the following books -- The American Soul Rush: Esalen and the Rise of Spiritual Privilege, by Marion Goldman -- Esalen: America and the Religion of No Religion, by Jeffery Kripal -- the collection of essays entitled, On The Edge Of The Future: Esalen And The Evolution Of American Culture, edited by Jeff Kripal and Glenn Shuck -- and also, The Upstart Spring: Esalen and the Human Potential Movement: The First Twenty Years, by Walt Anderson. This basic foundation will give you a good understanding of the subject matter. Then, if you like, you will be able to explore collateral works on topics that attract you. Enjoy the experience.... Callaban (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Jw4nvc

I am very happy that someone with knowledge of the subject matter has chosen to work on this article. Most recent "editors" have been clueless or merely destructive. I became very discouraged to watch the article degenerate. On balance, the new changes and additions have been excellent. I will make a couple of minor alterations, and try to restore some essential information. And I will be happy to see any new work from someone who actually knows what they're doing for a change. Thank you, Jw4nvc. Callaban (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope people will expand the Criticism section, because that might appease those who object to the article (or Esalen itself). While it's true that there has indeed been much criticism of Esalen over the years, the article is relevant (other than the Criticism section) and relatively well written and annotated. As for the institution, one of my own criticisms is that they do not welcome casual "drop-in" visitors. While this makes perfect sense in terms of preserving the quiet "retreat" quality of the place, the experience of being turned away from an unscheduled visit attempt also prompted me to read more about it and add some material to this excellent wikipedia entry. So in essence, I agree both with those wanting to see more details about Criticism of Esalen and those who share my enjoyment of the place and its contributions to science and popular culture. Jw4nvc (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
NO people should NOT "expand the Criticism section". Doing so is in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:CSECTION / WP:STRUCTURE. What they should do is incorporate the positive and negative reactions throughout the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point in these links about troll bait though the terse style and lack of specific helpful suggestions may be in conflict with Talk page guidelines ("Be positive" and "Avoid excessive emphasis"). The problem I'm having in trying to integrate the material is in where to put it so that it flows with the article. Maybe someone has positive specific suggestions? Jw4nvc (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition to weaving content into the history, an "Impact and reception" section which covers both positive and negative aspects in the proportions they are held by third party mainstream academics is acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that it has been damaged by editors who have no knowledge of the subject matter. For instance, some misguided person removed references to several important figures in the history of the institute – among them, John Heider, Ph.D., author of “The Tao of Leadership” and son of Fritz Heider, the “founder” of Social Psychology. Such deletions are incomprehensible to anyone who knows anything about Esalen Institute. Furthermore, essential information about the history of Native Americans on the property was deleted, even though this information is foundational to contemporary claims of Native American “burial ground” status. This verges on racism, and is incomprehensible to anyone who has any understanding of the Institute. Uninformed interventions like these have discouraged responsible academics from having anything to do this article. Over the years, there have been many genuine criticisms of the Institute and of the human potentials movement, in general. While I did not necessarily agree with Lasch, he provided a stimulating counterpoint. To ignore such criticism is intellectually dishonest. Anyone who responsibly studies the history of the Institute must be directed to this kind of information. Kripal carefully deals with criticism of the Institute. Kripal demonstrates that neutrality can be based on either of two foundations – understanding or non-intervention. For those who have no understanding of the subject matter, the latter course is preferable. Callaban (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

We present what the reliable sources cover, not what Wikipedia editors claim to know from personal experience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting... That means you must have done a great deal of work before you felt competent to work on this article, considering the complexity of the subject matter. For example, I have studied this subject extensively. I have read all the histories several times. I have read the professional work of related authors. I have written about related topics. I have a professional degree with an unblemished professional record. You must have a similar background. What did you do to prepare? Did you read all the histories? What other books did you read in preparation? What sources did you reference? Have you accurately quoted your sources? Did you learn something about the California Native American heritage? You must have done all of this to "present what the reliable sources cover". ...Or perhaps not...Callaban (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Then provide sourced content that better represents how the mainstream academics view the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, there's currently lots of legitimate academic support for the content of this article. Did you know that? Did you do any research about the authors? Have you researched their academic backgrounds? Do you know anything about the subject matter? Did you do your homework? Callaban (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I just checked. A majority of the references cite to Ph.D.s who currently teach at major American universities. (Did you know that?) There's one Ph.D. clinician who is deceased. Most of the people referenced in this article had advanced degrees. Many were famous scholars. How does that compare with the work you did before intervening in this article? You would have had to do a lot of preparation to be qualified, don't you think? Or did you just kind of decide to dive right in without any preparation? Callaban (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Callaban: Making proclamations about what other editors do and do not know is completely unacceptable. Please strike. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
→Sure thing...done...no more proclamations! Callaban (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Callaban, it is rather awkward and hardly acceptable, how you have changed your previous text here, to which TheRedPenOfDoom responded, and thus circumventing and obscuring his criticism. So now a reader can no longer understand what exactly TheRedPenOfDoom referred to. The original context is distorted by your changes. Your original version is here: [[2]] --79.228.23.195 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Notice has been taken of the WARNINGS to “TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom” that were recently posted on that person’s "User talk" page. The current discussion of that person’s disruptive editing on the Administrators' noticeboard has been carefully reviewed. The acts of damage, disruption and vandalism perpetrated against this article were much worse. However, if there are no more disruptions of any kind committed against this article, there will be no reason to proceed further. Callaban (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the fact that you changed the text of your contribution here on the talk page to which TheRedPenOfDoom responded. You concealed your previous remarks. That is deceptive and unacceptable. Generally speaking you are not in the position to lecture or bully other editors as you have.done on this talk page quite a few times. Every editor can contribute whatever he or she wants, and can use whatever source he or she likes. Unfortunately you lack sufficient understanding of the nature of Wikipedia. --79.228.19.243 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


→The truly important point is that nobody seems to have done the work necessary to responsibly intervene in this article. That's why knowledgeable people stay away from it. Most of the distortions that appear in this article have been empty-headed nonsense or just somebody ventilating about some private grudge. For instance, if you really wanted to report about Fritz Perls' departure from Esalen, you would have to study the tension between Perls and Schutz in an objective way, and report Maslow's reaction to some of Perls' weird behavior. To do that you would have to carefully read the well documented histories that have been written by academics like Kripal. I have. It certainly doesn't seem that anybody else who meddles with the article has. If responsible editors would actually do their homework, that would be fine with me. I don't enjoy this. Quite frankly, I have more important work to do. So if editors actually spend the time researching this subject, and then write an excellent article, that would be great. Do a good job and I'll enjoy reading it. So will other knowledgable people. But that will not happen until contributors to this article start taking the time to thoroughly learn the subject matter before intervening. Read the histories. Read the collateral sources. Then do some truly responsible work on this article with my blessings. Callaban (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for further suggestions from [Antandrus] who has helped me with some other efforts to contribute. He suggested a section titled "cultural influence and legacy" so I'm going to take a crack at that. I hope you'll join me, or find another way to integrate the "criticism" material. Jw4nvc (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Perls, leaving Esalen, claims or facts?

I removed this text from the article: "his behavior was sometimes “childish”,<ref> Goldman, Marion S. The American Soul Rush: Esalen and the Rise of Spiritual Privilege. New York University Press. (2012) p. 153</ref>and he engaged in disruptive rivalries with Will Schutz, and others, before he left.<ref>Anderson, Walter Truett. The Upstart Spring: Esalen and the American Awakening, Addison Wesley Publishing Company (1983, 2004) pp. 5, 167, 169</ref>"

It is necessary to make a difference between facts and claims and personal views, according to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View WP:NPV. The text I removed does not clarify, if this is just the personal view of the authors, or if there is reliable evidence for the claims, and if yes, what the evidence is. And apart from that the text about critical views concerning Perls should be in an adequate length (that is: rather less than more) compared with what was said about Perls before. --79.228.8.63 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callaban:In your latest edit that I reverted you even extended the part that deals with critical views concerning Perls rather than making it shorter, and giving a summary. That leads to an inadequate domination of those views, and it misrepresents Perls in this article by the sheer amount of sentences. And again, please mind WP:NPV. That was still a problem in your edit. --79.228.17.51 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclaimers

If you are an employee or closely affiliated with the Esalen Institute, and you choose to edit this article, Wikipedia asks that you reveal any potential conflict of interest. This article is notorious for its bias and favorable point of view. It's been noted that a number of contributors' account names bear close resemblances to current employees, and the IP addresses also correspond to those associated with Esalen. Please add a disclaimer below stating your affiliation with Esalen. You should also commit to maintaining a neutral point of view and strive to present information in a balanced perspective. Otherwise your contributions may be removed. Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Callaban: has demonstrated in their edits to the article, their edit summary comments, and their talk page comments here an intimate familiarity with and close association with the Esalen Institute. This editor has made 27.4% of the edits to the page. The editor's user name bears a remarkable resemblance to a known author who has written about Esalen and had a long relationship with the resort. He's been asked on his user page to disclose here any possible COI and to not make further edits to the article, but to request changes on this talk page. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

When I found this article it was bereft of support, and it was a magnet for uninformed opinions. I am an attorney. I have an unblemished ethical record. I have no professional connection with Esalen Institute. However, I know a great deal about Esalen and its history. I have attempted to accurately document that history here and elsewhere. I have done so without any prospect of reward. All the contributions I have made have been rigorously documented. This article has attracted the worst kind of inaccuracies. It has been the target of both detractors and promoters. For a long time I tried to maintain some degree of quality. Finally I gave up. I decided it was a waste of my time, and I grew tired of the ignorance and insults that seem to be a part of this unregulated Wikipedia environment. I fully expect this article to degenerate in the future. Callaban (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

→ This unfounded attack on my credibility led to a review of recent edits. Much damage has been done. The most egregious and factually unsubstantiated misstatement will have to be corrected. However, I dislike having to involve myself with this article, anymore. As the article degenerates further I want to totally disengage myself from it. Callaban (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Callaban:, thanks for sharing your knowledge and for your contributions to the article. Wikipedia needs experts like you, as long as you contribute within the boundaries Wikipedia has set up to avoid conflict of interest that could lead to biased content. I'm not sure which "unfounded attack on your credibility" you're referring to. No one desires to attack you—that's against the rules!—only to understand your relationship with the topic of the article. If you are an attorney who has represented Esalen, or if you have a relationship with management, or if you are merely an appreciative participant, disclosing your relationship will help other editors to evaluate your content more equitably.
I agree it can be a challenge to develop quality articles on Wikipedia. And I have found that with patience, perseverance, and a collaborative attitude it is possible to write worthy content even about challenging topics.
I have been to Esalen on more than one occasion and appreciate its special place in many people's hearts. I hope you do continue to contribute, but you do need to more clearly disclose your relationship with the Institute. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not attempt to backpedal. You have published defamatory remarks in order to injure the reputation of an attorney. I do not have any problem with someone trying to improve this article. I do not have any argument with someone publishing true information that may not be flattering to Esalen Institute, if that is relevant. I have no professional relationship with the institute. Everything I have done is pro bono, as we say. I also have no problem with someone publishing flattering information about the institute, if true and relevant. I only care about the accuracy of this article. You have already attempted to publish questionable statements in the article, about which you have no knowledge (except, perhaps, gossip). Apparently, you did that with reckless disregarded of the truth. If you had made a studious attempt to examine the worthiness of my work, before you started making accusations, you would have discovered that my contributions have been accurate and balanced. Consequently, I believe my displeasure with your remarks is justified. Callaban (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Callaban:, let's not carry on this discussion in two places. Please see my reply to your exact same comments on your talk page. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Good. I am happy to dispose of this matter on the other page. Thank you. Callaban (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Esalen Institute. 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) 11:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esalen Institute. 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) 01:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Puff Piece

Just a quick scan of this article reveals it has no editorial "distance" from its topic. Essentially, it's no more insightful than what one might expect to find on the Esalen web site. This is a shame and lacking in credibility. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

In the third paragraph, there is a reference to keeping the Esalen Institute "profitable" - but the first paragraph had called the Esalen Institute a non-profit. Should this word be replaced with "solvent"? or is the implication meant to be that its not for profit status is in some way spurious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.237.53 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esalen_Institute/Archive_1&oldid=1124229365"