Talk:Be Here Now (book)

Copyright

We are free to reproduce any part of the book with the permision of the publishers (according to the book). We should get a picture of the cover if possible! - Grinick - 4/25/2006

But not according to our CC license requirements. Here is the books statement: "This is made in love for love. Any portion of this may be reprinted to ring the bell of the dharma, but only with the prior written permission of Hanuman Foundation." thats a standard copyright statement. We thus must limit our quotations to brief excerpts.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the cleanup, but now theres no indication that the last paragraph is a quote from be here now, or even a quote for that matter. im not sure the proper format for resolving this. --Ganeshananda 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is from the book, and i am pretty sure this brief quote is acceptable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edition question

The copy I bought of this book (circa 1978) contained nothing but a poster and pages of tear-apart, 4x4 inch, double-sided cards. Each of them contained astrological, astronomical, religious, cultural, or anthropological images in black and white. Can anyone comment on this?RM Gillespie (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I Believe this was an earlier edition. What you describe is NOT the Crown publishing edition common since the 80's. your edition may go back to before 78.

Title of Oasis Album

Oasis have an album of the same title. Any idea if this book inspired that ? Kendirangu 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

the wikipedia article for the album Be Here Now says, "according to Noel Gallagher, the album name stems from a John Lennon quote. When asked what history was, Lennon replied "to be here now" . "Be Here Now" is also the title of a song by George Harrison." i believe it was Timothy Leary that turned on the Beatles, so i wouldnt be surprised if the album is a fairly indirect reference to Ram Dass. --Ganeshananda 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. One of the Beatles' physicians (a dentist I believe) turned them on to LSD circa 1965-1966.RM Gillespie (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That just goes to show how deep Oasis is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.177.72 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Be Here Now.gif

Image:Be Here Now.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember Be Here Now

Hi all, and thank you for the great article. I moved the name to its actual name, which is also a teaching and a guide in itself. I did make the change on other pages to reflect this page. The book was and is a big part of many lives. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The book may have this title (its not clear from the actual book), but its most notably known as "Be here now", the books spine lists it as such, and the copyright page doesnt help. the page describing how the funds are distributed calls it "be here now".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Carlos Castaneda, in his 1969 radio interview with Theodore Roszak, uses exactly this expression ("Be Here Now") at 33:20 to sum up how his alleged experiences with don Juan changed him. I thought that might be interesting to readers here, please excuse me if not. 216.239.71.235 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's no agreement that the book is the primary topic of the term, by either page views or use in sources. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Be Here Now (book) → Be Here Now — Be Here Now seems like the primary topic for this subject, and would take the article out of the disamb. page (where the next most prominent entry is the George Harrison song - a song about, and inspired by, this book). Comment Here Now. Randy Kryn 1:35 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

• Move, clearly the primary topic. Skyerise (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the nomination, but this is a malformed move request. Be Here Now must be requested to be moved to Be Here Now (disambiguation) (which I would support), as well. Red Slash 04:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Be Here Now (album) is a pretty sought for article too. User:Skyerise User:Red Slash are you sure that Richard Alpert is 66% of all Google Book references in last 10 years? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Don't you mean "51% of Google Book references"? That's an absolute majority (aka "more than all other uses combined"). Dohn joe (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean 66% as that's the normal benchmark we see applied. Otherwise we'd be zipping and flipping articles every month. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The album should indeed be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, according to last month's pageviews:
  • Be Here Now (album): 15,097 views
  • Be Here Now (song): 524 views
  • Be Here Now (book): 5,553 views

That's 71% of views for the album. Adding signature now. Dohn joe (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please rethink your oppose votes and take the other guideline on the WP:PT page into account: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." It's like if some group put out a popular album named 'Benjamin Franklin', and it became so popular that for years it was the most looked at name on all of Wikipedia. Even then the primary topic would be the American patriot, Benjamin Franklin. The group that made the album was surely aware of the name of the book and its popularity, and did a piggy-back on the name. Which topic will last as history and significance? The book. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:07 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

The album has been around long enough for it to have established its own long-term significance. Sometimes things named for something else can outshine their namesakes. Boston, not Boston, Lincolnshire is a good example. Dohn joe (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already losing its luster (from the album's page: "...retrospectively, however, the album is viewed by much of the music press, the public, and by most members of the band as over-indulgent and bloated."), so, in short, it "ain't no Boston". The book, on two other hands, is described as a counter-culture bible, and historically is seen as one of the most important books of the 1960's-'70s counter-culture era. A book that greatly influenced many of the major people of the era, including Steve Jobs and George Harrison. Randy Kryn 15:54 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose not the primary topic, by usage stats per Dohn joe, and not overwhelming in Gbooks per IIO -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment are you proposing to collapse the dab page into a hatnote if this article moves? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dohn joe. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not. If anything the Oasis album is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  Zarcadia, you are not taking long term significance into account, please weigh that factor. The albums page indicates that the quality of the album is actually so low that "music critic Jon Savage pinpointed Be Here Now as the moment where the Britpop movement ended". The album will not last as a historic moment in music history, whereas the book has and will be a topic in the counter-culture of the '60s and '70s, a field already studied as a historical era. Randy Kryn 13:02 16 April, 2015 (UTC)

  Isn't "the moment where the Britpop movement ended" a pretty significant event in itself? Dohn joe (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, if Britpop itself has any lasting historical value. But compare the historical value of a musical subgenre which existed for four or five years, and will (I take out my WP:CRYSTAL here) slide into obscurity as the decades roll on, with the counter-culture of the 1960s and '70s, which significantly sub-branched into the human potential movement of the era. Richard Alpert's work, which turned him into Baba Ram Das, overlaps those eras and significantly contributes to the latter. Randy Kryn 13:26 16 April, 2015 (UTC)

To the closer

• To the Closer Hi. Since this request is being 'voted down' on stats, I'll ask that you consider moving the page to primary on the stated criteria at WP:PT: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." (and yes, a dab hatnote for the article) The book is historically important in the culture of the era, in the way it introduced yoga and related topics of human development and consciousness to a generation, and in the history of the author who, along with Leary and others, explored consciousness in a way that hadn't been reported on before (at least in western culture). As to "substantially greater...educational value...", yes, the book contains a very large amount of educational material, material which was shared with its readers who, like Steve Jobs, went on to change the culture for the better. The other listings, the George Harrison song is not the primary topic, and it was based on this book which Harrison honored. The touted album, as mentioned above, is already losing its initial luster even though it has more daily hits than the book. Can others comment on this request, using the criteria above as a discussion point? Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:14 10 April, 2015 (UTC)

You've already lost on this count. This is not the primary topic according to Google Book Search; as pointed out by several people. If this were of long-term significance, and since this is an old book, it should show up in the works of many other people. Except, bgc does not show this as anywhere near a primary topic. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic is not determined simply by counts. It's data, but it's not compelling. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

True. As to long-term significance, which is a criteria for primary topic, this is from the page itself (section:Cultural influence): "Be Here Now is one of the first guides for those not born Hindu to becoming a yogi, by a person himself not born a Hindu. For its influence on the Hippie movement and subsequent spiritual movements it has been described as a "countercultural bible". In addition to introducing its title phrase into common use, Be Here Now has influenced numerous other writers and yoga practitioners, including Steve Jobs, Wayne Dyer, and Michael Crichton." WP:PT's long-term significance clause, bolded in my post above, seems written for cases like this. Randy Kryn 20:28 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV issues

In the lede it describes the book as "seminal" - a term of praise which sounds like WP:PEACOCK. I had previously rephrased the sentence to remove the word "seminal" and moved the references to the end of the sentence. User:Skyerise disagreed and reverted the sentence, saying in the comment that a properly cited acclaimation is not WP:PEACOCK. It seems to me that if sources X and Y praise the book as seminal, the article should say that the book was praised by X and Y as seminal, rather than claiming it as seminal. Consider the example paragraphs about Bob Dylan in WP:PEACOCK - the Peacock example uses words of praise such as "defining" and "brilliant", while the "Just the facts" version lists (with citations) what others have said about Bob Dylan. As it stands, the article is making a value statement about the book (that it is seminal) rather than adopting a neutral view of what has been said about the book. Autarch (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it's not seminal (or an equivalent word)? Seminal means very important, and that seems about right. Be Here Now was a major work of the era (and why it's not the direct link for the name seems odd, at least to me), influenced major figures who went on to shape a nice percentage of modern western society, and brought about quite a bit. If you haven't read it, highly recommended, why a movie hasn't been made is a question just popped into my mind. I'd pay to see it. But being here now, maybe another wordage? How about replacing "seminal" with "very important", including the 'very', which would fit the reference by definition. Randy Kryn 20:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Merely replacing "seminal" with "very important" doesn't change the issue - it would leave the article stating an opinion as fact - see WP:WikiVoice. Instead, the article should prefer nonjudgemental language, rather than language with positive or negative terms. It should also follow WP:VERIFY and use verifiable facts (e.g. awards won, sales, number of editions) using reliable sources. Autarch (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right Autarch, I stand corrected and in agreement. Moved the word 'seminal' and its references from the lead to the section 'Cultural influence' where it seems more appropriate. Randy Kryn 4:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Reimagined copy of From Bindu to Ojas called "More Than Ever"

Wondering whether this publication received permission from the original publisher or current copyright holder.If not, it will have to be removed from the article. Skyerise (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)