Jump to content

Talk:Richard Tarnas

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

Untitled

[edit]

I removed a "linkfarm" a collection of internal links to a selection of miscellaneous highpoints in cultural history, that serves more to increase the visibility of this article than to provide information about the details of one of the authors books. I also removed a repeated detailed statement of his positions. Further copyediting for conciseness is no doubt needed. DGG (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hi all,

Would someone please explain why this may not meet the notability guidelines? Tarnas has written one text that is used in thousands of philosophy classes, and then came back with one of the most credible, historically documented books on astrology ever written. Both of these books have received many reviews. If we have a citation issue that's another issue, but I'm going to remove this tag in a week if I don't see any substantial claim to a lack of notability. Dioxinfreak (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the tag you have to show that he does meet out notability criteria. Have a look at WP:NOTE. Thanks; Verbal chat 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is down, but I did not remove it. However, I am researching the many reviews of his books and will have some additions. My understanding is that in essence, notability means mainstream media references. Dioxinfreak (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, it seems to me that the Wall Street Journal article is not representative of the general reception of "Cosmos and Psyche" and, in fact, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that book's argument. Since having this anomalous article as the only one cited in the introductory section of the Wikipedia article seems to be a misrepresentation of the overall response, I am provisionally removing it until we can come to a consensus. I think it might be more appropriate, and more accurate, to have a section, perhaps after "Ideas," called "Reception" in which the many reviews of Tarnas' two books are presented in a more balanced way. Does this make sense to everyone?

Also, the issue of notability seems to me to be a non-issue. "The Passion of the Western Mind" was a best-seller, "Cosmos and Psyche" won the Book of the Year Prize from the Scientific and Medical Network in the UK, and Tarnas has spoken before members of parliament in the Netherlands on creating a sustainable society, all of which would seem to amply constitute notability.Murgy (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murgy, I'm with you on this. The WSJ quotation seemed to be out of nowhere, particularly given the excellent reception this book has had, and the number of reviews that have treated it with intelligence and sensitivity. This also obviates the "notability" non-issue.Dioxinfreak (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm removing the "notability" tag. Also, I've added biographical citations so I'm removing that tag as well. Good work everyone.Murgy (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how he meets our notability criteria, and provide RS for these claims. Verbal chat 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be vandalism on this page -- the Wall Street Journal lead is reverted and the notability tag has been replaced, as has the citation tag. I think the person who did this simply reverted their version of the page. I need to check if these are edits by a registered user.Dioxinfreak (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you contesting the WSJ as a WP:RS? Have a look at WP:NOTVAND too. The edits are also not a revert, and I don't understand your registered user comments. Click the history tab. Verbal chat 11:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I am saying that WSJ and the many other places that have reviewed this work, granted, understanding it better, are indeed reliable sources. But WSJ's view is not automatically the bottom line for "being presumed the most notable because the most people have heard of it." I recently had occasion to fact check a WSJ story and the whole piece was incorrect, meaning that the views of public officials were so badly misrepresented that the piece was meaningless. That does not challenge WSJ as notability source, but I think that a reviewer more capable of understanding the topic would be appropriate. To start the piece calling the subject of the article a crackpot is not even vaguely objective, no matter what the Wall Street Journal critic thinks. Indeed it is highly prejudicial and not encyclopedic.Dioxinfreak (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with the WSJ article that has popped up a couple of times referenced in the lead: it is an opinion article. Under the living bio guidelines, this distinction is clear. "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text." We may agree or disagree that WSJ is a "high quality news organization," but this is an opinion piece from the Op-Ed page, and that fact needs to be stated. It is not even a proper review. Presented as "news" or as a review, it is particularly deceptive, and its use is potentially revealing of a bias and is questionable for inclusion anywhere in the article; but certainly not in the lead that establishes the overall tone of the entry, unfairly raising into question the credibility of its subject. There is an editing guideline issue here, as well as a significant intellectual integrity issue.Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article merely claims that Thomas Meaney wrote such-and-such in the WSJ. If the article claimed that Passion was in fact a liberal education in one volume, you would have a point. But it does not. It only claims that Meaney wrote x. The article does not claim that x is a fact. Meaney's claims are correctly attributed to Meaney. — goethean ॐ 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has still not been established. Please restore the tag or state how this bio passes our notability criteria, with WP:RS. Verbal chat 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? — goethean ॐ 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretend that I am (per agf), and that I know nothing about this guy (hypothetical). Which criteria does he pass and why, with RS please. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet (per agf), let's take your comments seriously and try to make sense out of them. Either you believe that a conservative author writing in the WSJ who called Tarnas' work "crack-pottery" exaggerated his notability, or else you believe that a book can be "a staple in some college curriculums" while avoiding making "a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." Both horns are either absurd or self-contradictory. — goethean ॐ 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one answers the question I will restore the tag. If you feel he meets the criteria, please say which and why rather than engaging in rhetoric. Thanks, Verbal chat 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, as you'll see in the Reception section, there's a substantial literature on Tarnas from a wide range of reputable sources, all footnoted. This constitutes notability. Satisfied? Murgy (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria are you saying is met, and by which RS? Please answer that question. I'm not shifting the goal posts, I just want an answer I can check. Verbal chat 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the article on notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Hellenic Journal, The Observer, and The Utne Reader are all reliable sources that significantly cover Tarnas' work. Please see footnotes in Reception section. Murgy (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Murgy, I will check that when I have time. The claim is that he meets the significant coverage in multiple RS criteria of WP:GNG. Verbal chat 13:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is like dealing with a bot. — goethean ॐ 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel he meets the criteria, please say which and why rather than engaging in rhetoric.
If you will take the time to read my comment, you will see that I quoted one of the notability requirements. You need to start reading people's comments and engaging them in an reasoned way rather than ignoring talk page comments and robotically repeating yourself. — goethean ॐ 12:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Verbal chat 13:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it yourself. Your failure to engage with my comments is itself a violation of civility. This is apparently a habit of yours as has been noted by another user. — goethean ॐ 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-starting this conversation with a framework: there are five notability criteria. Let's go through them one at a time. I think they are easy criteria to meet. I will list them. Significant coverage. Reliable sources. Secondary sources. Independent of the subject. Presumed notable.

Both of these books have received substantive press coverage and reviews in reliable secondary sources. "Passion" is an acclaimed work, still in print after decades (not easy in modern book publishing).

Once you start accumulating mainstream media coverage and you establish that the subject is not a flash in the pan (temporary notoriety), basically the criteria are met. There is not a higher set of criteria for an astrology author. In other words, we don't add to this list Carl Sagan's idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That is not scientific. Proof is proof and notable means that the subject has been repeatedly noted, based on the five points listed.Dioxinfreak (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point. It might be that his books are notable but not him. Is their significant coverage of him in multiple independent RS that is not primerily about one or more of his books? Carl Sagan has books and scholarly articles in RS written about him (not just his books), does Tarnas? Verbal chat 14:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that his books are notable but not him.
There is no precedent for this absurd idea in Wikipedia policy or practice. You are grasping at straws. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there's appropriateness to assume the author is notable through the notability guideline for academics as both books appear to be well under the first clause and more explicit under the "Note and Examples", item 1 of that guideline. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up User:Verbal's curious ideas about notability in a few forums and consensus was that Tarnas is clearly notable.[1][2]— goethean ॐ 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material

[edit]

The material currently tagged for citation should either be referenced (within a reasonable time) or removed. The section also reads like the back of book blurb and generally needs improvement. Verbal chat 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ = op-ed

[edit]

Where do you get this from? When I view the WSJ website, it says "Books". There is another section, "Columns and Blogs", but the cited article is not under that heading. As far as I can tell, the cited article is a book review, not an op-ed piece. — goethean ॐ 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothean - point taken. It is a review. Granted, not all that balanced, but it's a book review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioxinfreak (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the more I look at it, it becomes more clear that the writer of the review didn't even attempt to understand what Tarnas was doing (which, admittedly, is quite esoteric). In retrospect, it probably should not have been added to the article, although I have no hope of achieving a consensus to remove it. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in context, the WSJ piece is demonstrative of how difficult it is to convey the particular worldview the book conveys -- or any significantly different worldview than the one that most people accept and swallow without thought. Out of context, it's a very problematic quote. Nobody can really call someone with a solid intellectual track record, who takes 30 years of his life and studies two millennia of history, a crackpot and also deserve to be taken that seriously. I think that the paradigm shift suggested by this book deserves to be part of this article, including how and why it is controversial. It may be part of the subtext of this conversation. I recognize that people with scientifically oriented minds can struggle with the astrological perspective, but speaking as an astrologer with a science background, I would say that about 90% of the time the astrological perspective lacks credibility. It's not often, and may indeed be unprecedented, that someone does this much work, this carefully, devoted to astrology; particularly an established academic. I suggest that we be careful in casting or thinking of astrology as being outside the mainstream of Western thought. If you look at its history and place in society through the ages, it is indeed specifically part of the mainstream of Western thought; its ideas contain the rudiments of astronomy, psychology and philosophy; and like anything else from lawyering to medical practice, it is as only as effective as the person whose hands it is in.Dioxinfreak (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We need to look at the journal databases and see if there were any perceptive articles written on Cosmos & Psyche. That way, the article can report on what transpired in the secondary literature rather than us trying to non-controversially summarize a potentially controversial book. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redactions

[edit]

Hi all, your old friend Dioxin Freak here. I'm wondering how it is that as sourced/verifiable material is edited into this article, then someone comes along and edits it out. That would be known as vandalism, because it is messing specifically with the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia, for no warranted purpose. Wiki has an initiative -- the astrology project -- designed to make improvements to the astrology pages. People with an expertise in the field are involved with the development of this page. Those with some objection not as yet stated need to stand back and allow this work to proceed -- or state your issue honestly.Dioxinfreak (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which edits you are referring to. — goethean ॐ 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that who ever is removing reviews from the article knows what I am talking about. I haven't done an analysis of the editing history, but will soon. Since the person removing the reviews is taking such an interest in this page, I assume they are reading the talk pages as well.Dioxinfreak (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did remove some blurbs, but they were unsourced and blurbs are unencyclopedic anyways. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passion

[edit]

Hi All, I just wanted to let you know that I'm moving the part about Passion being conceived as a precursor to Cosmos and Psyche to the section on Cosmos since it's in the later book that he mentions this fact. I think having it in the Passion section is a slight misrepresentation of that work since he seems to have intentionally never mentioned this fact in the earlier book. Does that make sense to everyone?Murgy (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I'm making a few other minor changes so please let me know if there are any edits that you'd like me to explain.Murgy (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Also, there's a "cite error" under the reception section for Passion but I can't figure out what's wrong. Can somebody take a look at it? Thanks.Murgy (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified your language slightly. Someone else fixed your cite error. You should use edit summaries to concisely explain your changes. Bache has a precis of the conclusion of Passion here. When possible, we should let other writers explain what Tarnas is doing philosophically so as to avoid doing original research. — goethean ॐ 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renn Butler

[edit]

I'm considering removing the Renn Butler review, now that it appears that the website on which his review appeared has no relation to the magazine New Age Journal. He is a health care worker, and so the review is no more notable than any other website page or weblog entry. If you look at the section, there are plenty of both positive and negative reviews, so there is no compelling reason to include Butler. Does anyone feel strongly about this? — goethean ॐ 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he an astrologer or not?

[edit]

The categories say he is an astrologer but the text doesn't. Is it referenced? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a source to cite that explicitly says that he an astrologer, but Cosmos and Psyche is a work of astrology, containing birth charts. — goethean ॐ 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the book is a work of astrology I wonder if we should have a source that explicit says he is an astrologer due to the BLP issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that he'd object. He's spoken before the National Council of Geocosmic Research Annual Conference [3], [4] he refers to "we" astrologers in the video (starting at :47). — goethean ॐ 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. His self identification is good enough for me. I'll restore the category. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Tarnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard Tarnas. 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, 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) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Tarnas. 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) 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Tarnas&oldid=1207817867"