Talk:Charles Eisenstein

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it relates to a person whose work is of enormous significance for the future of humanity. Please go through the cited references to learn about Charles' work.--Orangehues (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Here are some more references that may help develop the article: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --64Winters (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Eisenstein has only gotten more notable not less since this article was proposed for deletion. Maybe it's time to remove the notability warning? 119.30.38.134 (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Removal is needed more than ever before. 81.159.124.94 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Case for Notability

I believe this author satisfies the notability guidelines set out for authors (see: Wikipedia:AUTHOR). The two primary qualifications given by wikipedia are: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." I think this holds true for the regard this author receives within his field, and the significance and influence of his work (specifically his recent book "Sacred Economics.") Even though the subject matter of this author may not be (yet) considered mainstream, it is becoming more widely recognised outside of his field—indicated by articles from news organisations such as The Guardian and The Huffington Post—as awareness of the financial crises, its causes and ramifications, continues to grow. 64Winters (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I found 3 places in Wikipedia that already mentioned Charles Eisenstein. Does their existence support notability? I made them WL here. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Charles_Eisenstein — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As one proof of Eisenstein´s influence on peers might be regarded that reading "Sacred Economics" inspired the filmmakers Ian MacKenzie and Velcrow Ripper to produce a short film in order to promote the book. MacKenzie says:

"I loved the book so much that I flew out to film Charles and create this short film to spread his message. [...] I feel his ideas are hugely important to spread in the world, as what we really need right now is the imagination to create new ways of being human and in relationship to the world. [...] After reading Charles Eisenstein’s book Sacred Economics, which speaks eloquently about the return of the “gift economy”, I felt compelled to gift back. The best way I knew how was to use my filmmaking skills to share Charles’ work, and spread it to communities around the globe. His vision of “the more beautiful world our hearts tell us is possible” is the salve that so many of us need at this time, in the age of great transition. My hope is this film catalyzes those who work with passion and dedication to live this world right now."N1K0W1N (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This may meet notability, but the arguments here aren't very strong. What's needed are multiple articles from reliable sources about him. The several interviews with him don't hurt, but primary references like his blogs for Huff Post don't mean a lot. The recent spate of edits by COI accounts aren't helping, either. Better objective sources needed. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead we get this [5], so it's fair to say we're getting closer to seeking administrative intervention. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the concerns raised here are legitimate. Charles Eisenstein's work is largely unrecognized in mainstream channels. He has no credentials. He isn't published, in an academic sense. Most of the people that are interested in his work are similarly on the fringe. Thus, when we try to write a Wikipedia article about Charles, most of the editors are new to Wikipedia, and likely to trigger WP:COI. Hopefully with a little time, we can find the appropriate mainstream, secondary sources to keep this article on WP. Please WP:DNB. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 01:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. He sounds great, but my experience with a Google search parallels your comments. No desire to bite the newbies, but if they're WP:SPAs with a largely non-neutral interest..... thanks, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Methinks the newbies need to be bit [6], and probably we're dealing with a series of sock or meat puppets. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This Facebook discussion may help explain some of the recent edits. Perhaps it is a case of "too soon". Regardless, let's be careful of throwing labels at people. The guidelines of WP:MEAT and WP:NICE would seem to apply here. Thanks. 64Winters (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 64Winters. That link, and your comments at the SPI page are helpful. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Sacred Economics is highly ranked on Amazon. This is particularly remarkable considering that C.E. has no economics credentials. I'm not sure if that fact is a suitable support for WP:NOTABILITY, but I edited bodly. I trust you'll undo if I'm wrong. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That it's the 11th best selling 'money and monetary' book on Amazon is good for him, but it doesn't establish notability, and it surely doesn't belong in the lede. Now, about the extra-Wiki campaign: As long as Mr. Eisenstein's followers are devoting a Facebook page to support this article, and since Mr. Eisenstein has engaged in the discussion, they owe it to him to be honest about their involvement here: the recent attempts to edit have included copyright violation (in the publishing industry this remains illegal), a persistent addition of unsourced and non-neutral text (not merely the province of the power structure, but also used by devotees of a person or cause), and the implementation of meat or sockpuppets, which users sometimes resort to in an effort to game the system. I'd submit that their problem lies not with Wikipedia, and that these users have very little interest in the site or its guidelines; rather, this is about not getting what they wanted, an encomium to someone they admire. If we agree that objectivity is nigh impossible, we can be grateful that the encyclopedia has guidelines that seek to prevent, among other things, using it for the purpose of advocacy. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite shocking to see the insinuations that those who have been inspired by the work and teaching of Charles Eisenstein should be termed meat/sock puppets. Charles has taught at noted ecological school, the Schumacher Centre in Devon, England. He has written for the Guardian and presumably there can be some citation given from Yale University where he studied. I understand Wikipedia's need to clarify, and I have not edited before, but I would like to know how else can a noted writer outside the mainstream have his information cited on Wikipedia if it is not by the many and varied people who have been influenced by his work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.184.71 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fear I've been misconstrued, since I wasn't insinuating anything. Rather, I was observing the obvious. An administrator opened an inquiry here [7], which concluded that while sockpuppeting could not be proved, meatpuppeting was likely. Per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY, which are further broken down to subcategories for academics and authors, personalities 'outside the mainstream' are often, by definition, unlikely to meet notability guidelines. Doesn't mean they're not inspiring presences, it just means their notability hasn't yet been established for encyclopedic purposes. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how his notability is at issue. He may be "outside the mainstream" in the world of economics, but he's had a book published by a reputable publisher (North Atlantic Books) which has been reviewed in multiple established publications (Common Ground, New Conciousness Review) and he writes for a major newspaper.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Remove close connection banner?

It looks like the bits of text added by alleged puppets has been removed from the article. Can we remove the banner about close connection now? — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps others will disagree, but the editing history of the last few days suggests that the concern is relevant. Even now, I'm not sure that the passage on 'Sacred Economics' is appropriate, as it references a HuffPost blog, which I think isn't considered a reliable source. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many novice editors who are also fans of Eisenstein have come here, and made the expected mistakes. It looks like experienced editors have removed the inappropriate content, so the banner no longer correctly represents the state of the article. Even when new, inappropriate content is added, it is quickly removed. I'm going to remove the banner, but obviously I still expect us to monitor future edits to this page. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Grand revert

I had to revert Nigelj's edits, here. While the text they added may not necessarily be promotional, they are sourced to the subject's own articles and website and to Amazon, and that's not OK. Moreover, content like what was added here adds nothing of encyclopedic value: we don't list articles and don't discuss them--unless they are noted in secondary sources, which would prove their relevance. Note also the edit summary: we're not for resumes. Sorry, but this can't continue, this resume-ing of a BLP. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you've not heard of The Guardian? Oh well, if you say this can't continue, I suppose you know best. I based the sections you deleted on the similar sections in the WP:BLP articles of other authors. I won't list them here in case you don't like them either, and go and delete them too. --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the publications haven't been noted by multiple reliable third party sources, then they don't get listed in an article. Of course it's done in Wikipedia entries all the time, but so are all manner of promotional edits--doesn't make it acceptable. It's appropriate when the subject is a major author [8], [9], but even then the listings are likely to contain 'selected works'....and these are authors of universal note. By contrast, it hasn't been concluded that the current subject meets notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. As for the Guardian: it's an acceptable source, however, there's no reason to add a listing of each article the subject has written. A single sentence could state that the paper has published his articles, and the footnote could then link to one or several examples. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove {{advertisement}}

It looks like the concerns around {{advertisement}} have been addressed, so I am removing that banner. Obviously, we should remain vigilant for promotional and other inappropriate content in the future. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture

Yesterday C.E. gave the keynote at the PASA conference: http://conference.pasafarming.org/?page_id=562. Is this fact appropriate to include in this WP page? Maybe if it appears in the press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette peice

Is this article useful as a reference here? http://www.montrealgazette.com/Welcome+Reunion+Sacred+Economics/7926949/story.html — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the PASA item is usable, until, as you suggest, it receives coverage from objective sources. The Montreal piece looks fine--good find. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This is ridiculous. SageRad (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Eisenstein. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014211452/http://charleseisenstein.net/events/upcoming-events/ to http://charleseisenstein.net/events/upcoming-events/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)