Talk:Celia Green/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This is probably a vanity page. KSchutte 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have looked that way in March when there was little on the page other than links, but Celia Green is an author with several books published. I've never met her, but I do know of her and have read one of her books... so I'd say this page is justified. Mark Grant 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a vanity page. I came here because I'd heard her name mentioned but didn't know who she is; IMO, a brief summary like this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for! Orbicular 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete my edits to this page as this was not vandalism. This article should be edited or deleted for a number of reasons; (1) Celia Green is not a philosopher of any academic standing. (2) This is a vanity article. The main contributor to this article Ranger2006 is clearly closely linked to Celia Green if not Green herself. (3) The article, despite its length, has few references to justify claims, largely due to the fact that Celia Green is completely unheard of. (4) The article was referenced to in an advert in the Times by Green to get money for herself. Wikipedia should not be used like this for commercial purposes.86.139.76.130 01:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting my edits again Ranger2006 you will need to address the comments made here.86.160.229.161 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

86.139.76.130 (or 86.160.229.161, I assume you are the same person) – your points are without merit. Your edits do not improve this article, but seem to be in the nature of a personal attack.

- Whether Green is “a philosopher of any academic standing” is irrelevant to this article, which doesn’t claim that she is.

- The article has plenty of references and cross-links to other articles – considerably more than a large number of other Wikipedia biography articles.

- It is nonsense to suggest Green is “completely unheard of”.

- The fact that a Wikipedia article is referenced elsewhere, for whatever purpose, is irrelevant to the article itself. FWadel 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with this FWadel. In reply to your comments;

(1) The article claims in the first sentence that Celia Green is 'notable'; she is in no way notable and the issue of her notoriety and academic standing are extremely important in assessing the rationale for a wikipedia biography. Green is an amateur philosopher who has published works through her own funding, these are at best basic, at worst banal.

(2) The article contains few references, and only one reference that is to an organisaiton not run by Celia Green herself; this is to an interview with Celia Green and another amateur philosopher.

With reference to both these points, there are very few references to Green (outside ones that she has created herself) that could be found online, precisely because she is such an unknown.

(3) See point 1

(4) The issue of profiteering from this article is relevant. This article has been created by Green or someone in the 'Oxford Forum', to give credit to the idea that Green is a philosopher, and from which they could benefit financially . Furthermore, this article links to websites that ask people to give money to Green - which would also be given under this misassumption.

In sum, this article is a biased advertisement for a completely unheard of, not even second-rate philosopher. It should be heavily ammended or deleted.86.160.229.161 20:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comments

Itsmejudith - yes Green is primarily known as a writer. Her books have been translated into Dutch, German and Italian. Recently The Human Evasion was translated into Russian in an online version, by someone with no connection to Green.

However, Green also laid the foundations of research into lucid dreams and out-of-body experiences, by being the first to recognise and describe them as phenomena in their own right.

The issue of whether she should be described as a “philosopher” seems to hinge on what definition of philosophy one uses. If it’s what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer did, then it seems to me what she wrote in books like The Human Evasion and Advice to Clever Children is clearly philosophy, even if it's not much like anything currently done in academic philosophy departments. FWadel 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Notoriety and Academic Standing

It is an interesting argument Ranger2006 that, "by ‘philosopher with academic standing’ is meant ‘philosopher regarded as significant by his/her contemporaries in academia’, and few would disagree that certain philosophers were not given the credit or fame they deserved for views that we're later seen to be academically or historically important. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be used as a place to predicate future events. Perhaps in the future Celia Green may be seen as important, but she is not so now. As it currently stands, Celia Green's work has not been seen as academically rigorous or note-worthy and this biography should reflect that.

If references are found to support this article and the comments in here, such as Green laying foundations, then please put them in.

Lastly, thank you for clarifying Ranger2006 that you are not Celia Green. I would sincerely appreciate however if you could still elaborate on your relationship to Green and to any profit making organisations that are attempting to support themselves by referencing this article which you have so dilligently created in Green's favour.86.160.229.161 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on article

I saw the on the Wikiquette requests page, where I had posted about an issue of my own.

Two things need to be kept separate. 1) is the subject notable enough for an article? 2) if so, how can a neutral article be written.

My impressions are that 1) she is notable - Hamish Hamilton may be a minor publisher but it is not completely unknown 2) the key to a neutral article will be to keep it short and to the point.

Next question - what is Celia Green mainly notable for? I would say she is a writer, on a variety of topics. Itsmejudith 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

--- Rather, it would seem that CG is most notable for this sort of discussion, that is, that her status as philosopher, writer or academic is controversial at best. Previous browsing online for CG has come up variously with bits of her own site and/or people claiming she's crap. CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.84 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on article and anonymous edits

It is begging the question to conflate the concepts of ‘philosopher’ and ‘philosopher with academic standing’. Many of the philosophers of historical significance – possibly the majority – have had not an academic position at any stage in their career. Spinoza was even offered an academic post and turned it down.

If by ‘philosopher with academic standing’ is meant ‘philosopher regarded as significant by his/her contemporaries in academia’ this would also exclude many significant philosophers of the past for large portions of their career - Nietzsche, for example.

It is not clear what is meant by ‘claims’ in the anonymous comments. The biographical details are all in the public domain, and insofar as the article is largely concerned with giving an account of Green’s thought, the fairness and accuracy of the summaries can be checked against Green’s own writings. Certainly the account of her thinking seems to me to observe the Wikipedia guideline of NPOV (neutral point of view) better than any of the proposed changes, which are clearly hostile, and non-objective. Ranger2006 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what is meant is the distinction between someone who holds an academic teaching and/or research position and someone who writes on the topic but does not hold such a position. My current view is that the article subject is notable and that the article should remain but there is work to be done on the tone, and also in reducing the article to only those facts that are notable about the subject. WP is not a place for vanity articles. Itsmejudith 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The question has been posed, however, whether you - Ranger2006 - are Celia Green. A response would be helpful in establishing good faith. Anastrophe 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm I am not Celia Green. Ranger2006 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments of 86.160.229.161 and various others should be ignored – they are plainly not designed to improve the quality of the article but are poorly-disguised personal attacks, presumably by former short-term would-be associates. Any 'amendments' such persons make is vandalism and should be recognized as such. As for "notable", I believe she pioneered research into lucid dreaming. Rupert Sheldrake also told me personally that he was an avid reader of her work. She is mentioned also as a "brilliant" junior member of the SPR by Renée Haynes in The Society for Psychical Research 1882-1982: A History, who regarded Green's departure as a great loss. Even Green's Lucid Dreams CD has gained a cult following in ambient music circles. She is one the greatest Western existentialist philosophers, in my own opinion, but I think this is an insight that may only be available to those of a reasonably high IQ or those without a personal score to settle. Squirrel Nutkin (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that rules me out of judging because my IQ is only just high enough to cope with one existentialist at a time (Jean-Paul Sartre). Anyways and whatever, what we are after is what others have said about article subject, not what we ourselves surmise. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I surmise that you "are after" putting the boot in, my dear. I'd suggest reading Green instead of Sartre, though — look at the amount of time he wasted in being a silly Communist and then a miserable Anarchist. Anyway, I would take the points about it seeming like a vanity page, if the carefully crafted rejoinders of the main critics were not so obviously designed to piss her off rather than to offer constructive help. I'm surprised at the hostile, reactive emotions this apparently "unknown" third-rate scribber inspires. I shouldn't be — she's mentioned this trait often enough in her books. Squirrel Nutkin (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Crazy person or not?

And that is the question.

Is she a looney pseudo-philosopher or does she belong under the marquee of "Academics" is irrelevant. What should matter and matters are her thoughts. However, not all information is made equal. The bad part in everything is called noise. There is signal, there is noise. From my perspective, looking at the thing at it is ... Well, same does apply to almost all philosophers, real or imagined title, regardless placement in hierarchies, that some are causing noise. The stream of sensible and well-reasoned thought ends and KABOOM! Here comes a book titled "The Human Evasion and Advice to Clever Children".

Now, don't get me wrong. She might be a nice person and all, but those thought are fiction. Is that the great joke here? Am I not getting the joke? Do some people really live in that contrived worlds? I've read Nietzche, but I must say it is awfully taxing to get "into". Maybe I'm just a lucky guy.

It would be nice to discuss her theories because I am genuinely interested what this lady has to say, how she thinks and why she thinks the way she thinks.

bibehålls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.222.156 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Honorary research fellow at Liverpool?

The article states "Green is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool", however their website has been reorganized and Green is not listed at https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/. Is she still an honorary research fellow at Liverpool? cagliost (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re edits April 2017

I have changed ‘parapsychology’ in the introductory sentence back to ‘psychology'. It is incorrect to put parapsychology as one of Green's two main areas of work. Her two principal publications in the fields of psychology are her books 'Lucid Dreams' and 'Out-of-the-body Experiences', neither of which are parapsychological. They are about quasi-perceptual experiences, treated as hallucinations.

At the same time I have tidied up the Books section, as the edits on this had been left in an unfinished and incorrect state. Ranger2006 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Celia Green.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)