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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rather than rely on arbitrary rule-making dating from years ago, let's move forward with a consensus-based process created in order to appropriately guide the article. Yworo, since you apparently are in disagreement with my editing choices (as witnessed in your edit war-style revisions, please begin this conversation by clearly stating what you think the inclusion criteria for this article should be. • Freechild talk 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that contributors stick to the notability guideline of WP:NLIST which requires reliable sources for every entry and most often the unambiguous notability required is determined by the name having an associated existing article, otherwise every case may be debatable unless they are, say, all winners of notable prizes. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been reviewing many of the linked articles and many of them say nothing about New Thought. Who exactly is classifying these writers as "New Thought writers"? I believe that we need first-person (self-identification) or third-party reliable sources (neutral and unaffiliated with the movement) that classify these writers specifically as "New Thought" writers. These sources need to be unaffiliated with the New Thought movement. For example, I am quite sure that Yogananda did not consider himself to be a "New Thought writer", so who exactly called him that? We need sources to establish clear inclusion in the category. We should in fact cite each entry, since Wikipedia articles can change, they cannot be relied on to continue in the same form. Yworo ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is Kahlil Gibran on this list?
What does he have to do with New Thought? He's more of a poet than a writer in the classical New Thought tradition. LizFL ( talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This does not belong on this list. It doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. Kybalion is a work of gnostic beliefs (hermeticism). It is a modern cliff notes version of alchemy. The reason you've included it here is because the Kybalion article on wikipedia itself has a completely unsubstantiated claim, making the error self-referential in nature:
"The book purports to be based upon ancient Hermeticism, though many of its ideas are relatively modern concepts arising from the New Thought movement."
This book says nothing about 'law of attraction' or 'manifesting your reality' or 'becoming who you think yourself to be'. The only commonality of kybalion and new thought is the suggestion that both have a more quantum physics ontological model rather than classical objective, material, empirical model for reality. So this conflation of the kybalion's perspective with New Thought derives from this extremely broad commonality with "the new age" or "occultism" generally, along with an apparent temporal bias of Kybalion's publication date being close to the emergence of the New Though movement.
Please take it off the list. kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.207.41 ( talk) 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should remove all the names of books. As the subjects all have articles, it is an easy matter to click through and see what they wrote. At the very least we should restrict the list to the one work for which they are most known and the titles should be italicized. They should also be presented in such a way as to make clear they are not references. The best way imo to do this is to make sure there is a citation directly after each author's name supporting their categorization as a "New Thought writer", before any book title is listed. Yworo ( talk) 14:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use self-published sources as references. In particular I refer to "Bella, B. (2010) Screw-Ups + Lessons Learned = Life. iUniverse. p 14." iUniverse is a self-publishing company and this self-published book is not a reliable source. Yworo ( talk) 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 edition of The Crystal Silence League has an invalid ISBN. I am already aware of this book: it is privately published, privately distributed, not available in Amazon or other bookstores, not available at libraries, not listed at WorldCat, and has a made-up ISBN. It's not a reliable source, especially any introductory or added material. The original version of the book may be used as a source, but not the 2011 edition. Yworo ( talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a big mistake! New Thought is not the same as New Age. For instance, Deepak Chopra is not a New Thought but a New Age author.
New Thought is a quasi-religion in the tradition of Mary Baker Eddy and Coué, the most prominent New Thought figures in the 20th century were Emmet Fox and Joseph Murphy. Compare them with Deepak Chopra (for the beginning just by their respective Wikipedia entries), and you see the difference.
I strongly recommend a major cleanup of this list! 79.193.56.76 ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few people on this list who have nothing to do with new thought at all. It seems every fan is promoting his favorite spiritual author to this list, not knowing anything about the new thought movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.30.230 ( talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Michael Murphy also does not belong on this list. As indicated by his book "The Future of the Body", he does not have a thought / mind / spirit metaphysics but is more interested in the integral totality of the mind-body-spirit-soul (etc.) As a leader of the Human Potential movement and founder of California's Esalen Center, he's more associated with Integral Theory and the Perennial Philosophy than with "New Thought".
Yworo, since this is such an issue for you I will continue my citation project this weekend. While I support WP:BOLD, I implore you to exercise some constraint before making radical revisions, and to seek WP:CONSENSUS before taking large steps. I should have this project completed soon, and will alert you when I am. • Freechild talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems incredible that R. Bach is not on here ??
Wouldn't he be, in fact, (indeed by far) the best-selling "New Thought" writer of all time?
His ideas - clearly stated, over and over, in many books - are the epitome of, the exact description of, "New Thought" as defined, let us say, in the first three paragraphs of the wikipedia "New Thought" article.
Should I click him in ?
Again, even IF someone here thinks he is "not quite exactly XYZ version of New Thought" - again he's basically (by far, a mile) the most well-selling New Thought author. It would literally be like leaving "the Bible" out of a chritianity list .. heh!! (in as much as The Bible is the best-selling Christianity book)
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.26.233.134 ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rather than rely on arbitrary rule-making dating from years ago, let's move forward with a consensus-based process created in order to appropriately guide the article. Yworo, since you apparently are in disagreement with my editing choices (as witnessed in your edit war-style revisions, please begin this conversation by clearly stating what you think the inclusion criteria for this article should be. • Freechild talk 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that contributors stick to the notability guideline of WP:NLIST which requires reliable sources for every entry and most often the unambiguous notability required is determined by the name having an associated existing article, otherwise every case may be debatable unless they are, say, all winners of notable prizes. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been reviewing many of the linked articles and many of them say nothing about New Thought. Who exactly is classifying these writers as "New Thought writers"? I believe that we need first-person (self-identification) or third-party reliable sources (neutral and unaffiliated with the movement) that classify these writers specifically as "New Thought" writers. These sources need to be unaffiliated with the New Thought movement. For example, I am quite sure that Yogananda did not consider himself to be a "New Thought writer", so who exactly called him that? We need sources to establish clear inclusion in the category. We should in fact cite each entry, since Wikipedia articles can change, they cannot be relied on to continue in the same form. Yworo ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is Kahlil Gibran on this list?
What does he have to do with New Thought? He's more of a poet than a writer in the classical New Thought tradition. LizFL ( talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This does not belong on this list. It doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. Kybalion is a work of gnostic beliefs (hermeticism). It is a modern cliff notes version of alchemy. The reason you've included it here is because the Kybalion article on wikipedia itself has a completely unsubstantiated claim, making the error self-referential in nature:
"The book purports to be based upon ancient Hermeticism, though many of its ideas are relatively modern concepts arising from the New Thought movement."
This book says nothing about 'law of attraction' or 'manifesting your reality' or 'becoming who you think yourself to be'. The only commonality of kybalion and new thought is the suggestion that both have a more quantum physics ontological model rather than classical objective, material, empirical model for reality. So this conflation of the kybalion's perspective with New Thought derives from this extremely broad commonality with "the new age" or "occultism" generally, along with an apparent temporal bias of Kybalion's publication date being close to the emergence of the New Though movement.
Please take it off the list. kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.207.41 ( talk) 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should remove all the names of books. As the subjects all have articles, it is an easy matter to click through and see what they wrote. At the very least we should restrict the list to the one work for which they are most known and the titles should be italicized. They should also be presented in such a way as to make clear they are not references. The best way imo to do this is to make sure there is a citation directly after each author's name supporting their categorization as a "New Thought writer", before any book title is listed. Yworo ( talk) 14:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use self-published sources as references. In particular I refer to "Bella, B. (2010) Screw-Ups + Lessons Learned = Life. iUniverse. p 14." iUniverse is a self-publishing company and this self-published book is not a reliable source. Yworo ( talk) 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 edition of The Crystal Silence League has an invalid ISBN. I am already aware of this book: it is privately published, privately distributed, not available in Amazon or other bookstores, not available at libraries, not listed at WorldCat, and has a made-up ISBN. It's not a reliable source, especially any introductory or added material. The original version of the book may be used as a source, but not the 2011 edition. Yworo ( talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a big mistake! New Thought is not the same as New Age. For instance, Deepak Chopra is not a New Thought but a New Age author.
New Thought is a quasi-religion in the tradition of Mary Baker Eddy and Coué, the most prominent New Thought figures in the 20th century were Emmet Fox and Joseph Murphy. Compare them with Deepak Chopra (for the beginning just by their respective Wikipedia entries), and you see the difference.
I strongly recommend a major cleanup of this list! 79.193.56.76 ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few people on this list who have nothing to do with new thought at all. It seems every fan is promoting his favorite spiritual author to this list, not knowing anything about the new thought movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.30.230 ( talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Michael Murphy also does not belong on this list. As indicated by his book "The Future of the Body", he does not have a thought / mind / spirit metaphysics but is more interested in the integral totality of the mind-body-spirit-soul (etc.) As a leader of the Human Potential movement and founder of California's Esalen Center, he's more associated with Integral Theory and the Perennial Philosophy than with "New Thought".
Yworo, since this is such an issue for you I will continue my citation project this weekend. While I support WP:BOLD, I implore you to exercise some constraint before making radical revisions, and to seek WP:CONSENSUS before taking large steps. I should have this project completed soon, and will alert you when I am. • Freechild talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems incredible that R. Bach is not on here ??
Wouldn't he be, in fact, (indeed by far) the best-selling "New Thought" writer of all time?
His ideas - clearly stated, over and over, in many books - are the epitome of, the exact description of, "New Thought" as defined, let us say, in the first three paragraphs of the wikipedia "New Thought" article.
Should I click him in ?
Again, even IF someone here thinks he is "not quite exactly XYZ version of New Thought" - again he's basically (by far, a mile) the most well-selling New Thought author. It would literally be like leaving "the Bible" out of a chritianity list .. heh!! (in as much as The Bible is the best-selling Christianity book)
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.26.233.134 ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)