Talk:Teal Swan

Cult leader

I am changing this back to spiritual teacher, to fit with other, similar pages like Mooji and Eckhart Tolle. I don't think that cult leader is an unbiased desciption of this person. Totorotroll (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

At what point according to you does "cult leader" become unbiased and instead becomes fact? Jmajchrz (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are using Cult leader in the sense that she leads a following of people while espousing unorthodox spiritual/religious views, then I would have to agree that Swan qualifies.

However, the term Cult leader carries such a pejorative connotation in our society, that she would have to exhibit some pretty controlling behaviour, such as isolating followers from their family and friends, controlling who they associate with, and the kinds of interactions they can have with those associates. I do not see any evidence of this sort of "leadership" in the article.

And, of course, such behaviours would have to be backed up by WP: RSs. If you are aware of such sources, by all means, add to the article using the sources to back up whatever content you supply. Then, bring the question of use of the term Cult leader back to this Talk page to gain a consensus for its use.

But, as the article stands now, I see no way to justify use of such a pejorative term.

This, of course, is just one editor's opinion.

Shortsword (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I Agree with you. As of 5th July 2023 though, the article’s first sentence still refers to Teal Swan as a ‘cult leader’. This is erroneous and should be changed to ‘spiritual teacher’ or something similar. 122.107.170.106 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither is "spiritual techer". Thats a self entitlement. What about "spiritual influencer"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.144.244 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. How about adding “self-proclaimed”? 72.235.159.141 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted large edit

I recently reverted edits by User:Stichodactyla. A number of references were removed (including Huffington Post Canada and Ozy) to be replaced with primary sources, such as a Nadav Nadler blog, which is a million miles away from being a reliable source. The titling also indicates this could be heading towards Wikipedia:Attack page territory. For example, "the Claims of supernatural ability" section doesn't have a single third party reference. Removing non-controversial information about her upbringing, to reference blogs talking about her supernatural ability shouldn't be on the encyclopedia.

It's also factually inaccurate to state American Association of Suicidology made a statement about Swan because they didn't. This collective action worries me that WP:NPOV was not followed by the user during the large scale edit, hence the revert.RedKiteFlyer (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2020

change "are potentially harmful, such as the way Swan compares followers with" TO : "MAY potentially be harmful [Sources and concrete examples] Such as the way Teal Swan MAY compares followers with..."

No sources, examples or precedent seems to be given to such an allegation of consequences. Though comparisons are subjected to interpretations of the figurative. 82.227.91.81 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is sourced, so watering down what the source says is inappropriate. Your request otherwise makes no sense. I did reword it slightly for self-consistency though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, "potentially" already contains a "may". It would be just bad writing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Explained section is linked to another Wikipedia article

• This sub-section is entirely based on the other Wikipedia article, which is clearly against Wikipedia's rules. In order to create this section, proper sources must be provided. For now the source led to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explained_(TV_series) and there is no mention of Teal Swan on that page. In 2019, Swan's teachings were analyzed by the Netflix series, Explained. The episode's general premise was to study online communities and how they influenced vulnerable people to carry out acts of violence or act completely out of character. It studied the vulnerability of the people who moved to Jonestown with Jim Jones, and how rational people could be driven to make strange decisions.

Swan's teachings were first mentioned when severe social isolation was discussed, explaining how people in those situations are often the most vulnerable. Swan was then linked to this online community, as this is the type of person she attempts to assist with her advice and guidance. The commentator then spoke about online communities like Swan's, likening it to tech communities like Facebook groups or Reddit, but also the roles online communities can play in helping vulnerable people.

--Habibiroyal (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it very clearly cited an episode of that series, not that article. Big difference. I'm undoing your whitewashing of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Removing Grayfaction blog as unreliable source of information

Hello, Epachamo. I saw you brought back a greyfaction source. I'd like to discuss with you and other editors why you consider the source eligible for use on Wikipedia.

In short, the information is supported by a blog Grayfaction belonging a group with specific views and mission. The source is not eligible for use on Wikipedia because it expresses an opinion on controversial information that is not found in any other reliable sources. Therefore, it is prudent to remove it together with the source which doesn’t add any value to the article. Here is the blog’s link and statement:

https://greyfaction.org/about/mission/

“Grey Faction is a campaign of The Satanic Temple dedicated to ending the ongoing Satanic Panic in the mental health field. We believe patients deserve to be treated using methods based on the best available science and with a spirit of compassion. We seek to hold accountable therapists that perpetuate harmful pseudoscience and long-debunked conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience have no place in the therapeutic environment, nor should they be accepted at ostensibly "academic" conferences.

The best way to keep up with our work is to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and to check out our blog on our home page.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

I believe the opinion in the blog contradicts Wikipedia policy for acceptable reliable sources. It is not cleat with me how this blog "with mission" is an objective source of information. Until the better sources are found, I propose to remove it.--Onetimememorial (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Onetimememorial: I agree, greyfaction is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have replaced those sources and softened the language in the paragraph. Epachamo (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Spiritual teacher or influencer

Epachamo, I don't think "leader of a movement" defines correctly the person and it actually makes it worse despite your best intention to escape "cult leader", it definitely makes it closer. The definition "spiritual teacher was here for quite a long". However, I agree that it is not perfect, so I propose to discuss it here. I saw "spiritual influencer" above, which could be one an addition. For example, "spiritual influencer and teacher" or just "spiritual influencer". However, she teaches in her courses. Another way to look at it is to find similar pages. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B41B:DDC6:D695:E4DA (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with just "spiritual influencer" as a temporary compromise until we can get more consensus, even though I still feel "leader of a movement" better captures who she is. She is much more than a "teacher". Math teachers don't have a following. She definitely has a following. Most teachers at schools aren't the founders of their own subject matter, like she does. Epachamo (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Spiritual teacher is used to describe, for example Eckhart_Tolle and Mooji - so there are precedents. Spiritual teacher seems to be a term used differently than Math teacher, in contexts like these. Totorotroll (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So yeah, searching for spiritual influencer on wikipedia brings up Teal Swan and no-one else. Like her or not, it may be the case that Teal Swan is more of a teacher than the sort of lifestyle guru that influencer refers to. Totorotroll (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on rules, not on precedent. Your findings are a reason to change those two other articles rather than this one.

"Spiritual teacher" seems to have positive connotations, "cult leader" has negative ones. The influencer wording was introduced to avoid both, as you can see in a discussion on this very page. It is not optimal, but if you have another suggestion that also avoids a value judgment, let us have it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob, I was mostly responding to "Another way to look at it is to find similar pages." in the initial post. Figures like, say, Ram Dass (another "spiritual teacher" according to wikipedia) or Mooji might fit more into the category of guru in the sense that what they have or had to say can be situated in some sort of guru-disciple tradition; and then the word guru seems to mean something along the lines of teacher. So we have words like "mentor" and "guide" as alternative meanings of the word guru. I get it that Teal Swan is a controversial figure and maybe assigning to her a word with positive connotations is perhaps a bit more tricky than calling a seemingly more wholesome and less troubling personality like Eckhart Tolle a teacher. Totorotroll (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A potential issue with replacing "spiritual teacher" with "spiritual influencer" is the fact that "influencer" is a contemporary designation, connected to social media. Here on wikipedia it is synonymous with internet celebrity. How should we refer to spiritual teachers who lived before the age of social media? Buddha, for example, is referred to on wikipedia as a spiritual teacher. Totorotroll (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You are still trying to achieve consistency with other articles. That is not a goal. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we're in agreement - please see WP:When_to_use_or_avoid_"other_stuff_exists"_arguments#Precedent_in_usage Totorotroll (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to mirror reliable sources. We could go with what the BBC used, "self-declared spiritual teacher". I'd be ok with that. Epachamo (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

To do list / notes to self

• Add a carefully written section on claims of inflaming suicidality along with extensive counterbalance. PI from Deep End dismisses claim, for example.
• Add basic biographical timeline -- high school graduate? University student? Year of parenthood, dates of marriage (though probably not spouse names)
• Earliest date of SRA claims? Eventually move out of childhood to proper place in timeline.
• Pin down date of therapy with SRA regression therapist Barbara Snow (therapist). Claims predate or postdate Snow?
• First date of surname Swan. Add 'Teal Scott'?
• Characterize first film as hagiographic using RSes
• date of ABC 6 On Your Side feature on Swan (sampled in Deep End)
• intentional community
• Marriage to man with surname Scott (2006-13)
• Marriage to man with surname Swan (2014-16)
• Marriage to another man whose name she did not take (2016-2018)
• Suicide attempt, trip to china, suicide attempt again at 18 (Gateway #2)
• Jennings Brown ep 2: "Teal told me me a lot about this alleged abuser. We'll discuss this part of her life more later in the series, because it's a really important part of why people follow her".

Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review the current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards about the state of the article and what sources to put WP:WEIGHT on.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a wishlist, not necessarily what will actually be born out by RSes. The connection with Snow is extra tricky. Feoffer (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Gizmodo ep 2 is source for first conference in salt lake at age 27. Previously removed as unsourced by me Feoffer (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Including 2016 interview

In 2016, Swan gave an interview to the Huffington Post detailing SRA claims. Salon later quoted the HuffPo piece. Morbidthoughts removed this material citing WP:SALON.COM. That link advises that "Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed."

By all means, we could explicitly attribute Salon, but I somehow suspect that wouldn't resolve Morbid's objection. I don't see the problem: Swan is obviously a RS for her own claims, and WP:V is undoubtedly met. No one is suggesting that Salon fabricated a quote, after all. Nor is this something infringing on Swan's privacy -- it's a frequent topic of discussion. Feoffer (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Right now there is an active discussion on this very topic here. You should document your viewpoints there I think. Epachamo (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) has again removed well-sourced material claiming a BLP violation. I'm going to ask again -- how is this a BLP problem? Swan's abuse claims are an un-debated integral portion of public persona and well-sourced. As a reader, I want to know how far back the claims go and what forums featured her claims during her rise to prominence. Feoffer (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Her abuse claims are already acknowledged in the text. Putting more WP:WEIGHT on them by citing to opinion columns or documentaries is inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing -- agreed that this is a question of due weight. Unlike someone with independent notability outside of the abuse claims, RSes report Swan's abuse claims are an inseparable part of her career. To document the publicity about her claims is to also document the rise of her career. Her 2011 book discussed abuse claims, which led to local newspaper coverage in 2011, which led to even wider publicity in 2014 and 2016.

We should reinstate the dates of the interviews, and we should give Swan a paragraph or two to summarize the unusual nature of the claims.Feoffer (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Not every detail has to be fleshed out. Focus on what high quality sources report on, like the BBC, Guardian, and LA Times citations that are in the article rather than what you think should be important. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How to characterize 2005 criminal complaint???

In 2005, Swan filed a complaint against an person she claimed had abused her based on recovered memories; No one has or should reported on the name of the individual. RSes report "Deputy County Attorney Barbara Lachmar acknowledged the existence of Scott’s complaint". So, Swan's BLP interests say we should include it, while the unnamed living person's BLP interest mean we have to protect that person's privacy, and WP:FRINGE calls on us to not mislead readers into thinking Swan's fringe claims have merit in reality. Anyone wanna try to thread that needle? Feoffer (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

Change

"Teal Swan (born Mary Teal Bosworth; June 16, 1984) is an American spiritual influencer and author.[1] A number of publications, including Eonline, The Guardian and the BBC noted that some of Swan’s teaching methods on how to manage mental health issues had been found controversial by her critics, which Swan and her supporters deny. Swan and her teachings are the subject of documentaries and podcasts.[2][3][4]"

to

"Teal Swan (born Mary Teal Bosworth; June 16, 1984) is an American spiritual influencer and author.[1] A number of publications, including Eonline, The Guardian and the BBC noted that some of Swan’s teaching methods on how to manage mental health issues are available for public access and utilization within everyday life, Swan and her teachings are the subject of documentaries and podcasts.[2][3][4]"

Reasoning: "how to manage mental health issues had been found controversial by her critics, which Swan and her supporters deny" creates bias to the initial reader. Bias is created by initially starting the article with the idea/sense there is questionable opposition already against her that is significant to her personhood. Neutrality is lacking. Truthtothelight111 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a summary of coverage in reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Article improvement

To be honest, this article is terrible. Apart from talking about spirituality and asking people to visualize their deaths, the article says almost nothing about her, or her teachings. It is also filled with vague statements that say almost nothing. Examples include:

• "a number of publications, including Eonline, The Guardian and the BBC noted that some of Swan’s teaching methods on how to manage mental health issues had been found controversial by her critics." Which critics? Are the critics skeptics, mental health professionals, past clients? What criticisms do they have? This should all be mentioned here. And we don't need to mention that Eonline, etc have noted it. We can just state what the critics have said.
• "Swan and her teachings are the subject of documentaries and podcasts" This is also a banal statement for the lede. Most people who have a wikipedia article have featured in a documentary or at least a podcast, since they are notable enough for an article. This should be removed or mention why the documentary/podcast is notable enough to be mentioned. Ashmoo (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Swan has described interactions with the mental health profession in childhood." This is almost laughably vague. What sort of interaction?
• " In her early childhood, Swan received therapy from Barbara Snow." Again, what sort of therapy? And at what age?
• "In 2015, Swan was mentioned in a post by Cleveland-area columnist Regina Brett." What was the nature of the mentioning? Were they just noting her existence? Or did they have a viewpoint?

I am going to start trying to improve the article. Please respond here if you feel strongly about the contents of the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Look at the history, it used to be much longer. Teal Swan is pretty controversial and keeps getting pared down. Before you make deletions, please look at the sources, in most cases you can find the answer. I would object if you started deleting stuff. Epachamo (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience beliefs

Strange that the article doesn't mention/list any of her pseudoscientific beliefs that she uses to purport her remedies, such as reality only being subjective, water having psychic memory forming symbiotic effects, that it is time travel to alternative dimensions when we interact with our thoughts... these are three egregious examples that I've noted so far from her "Completion Process" and "How to love yourself" books. The rest are are only interpretive claims rather than objective claims, so can slide. The article can play a role here in informing the naive. Balupton (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources noted those ideas, we can use those. If they did not, we can't, since it is not up to Wikipedia users to scan the primary literature for bullshit. See WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So findings/opinions just need to be published to one of those first? What about supplying direct quotes to the article without commentary nor interpretation, does that also require such? Balupton (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Supplying direct quotes to the article without commentary nor interpretation would violate WP:FRINGE (a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight). It would be tantamount to giving the pseudoscience proponent a megaphone for spreading their crazy ideas.

When someone writes nonsense, the only way to add it to Wikipedia is via a reliable source quoting and refuting it (or at least putting it in context). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Information and content

I think my topic here was possibly deleted or something like that. It is slander and it is illegal what you wrote in this article. Wikipedia is for information not for subjective opinions. In case my entry was indeed deleted, I'm sure that the author/s are well aware that they are doing something fundamentally wrong, otherwise this issue would be addressed adequately. The German Wikipedia page in this case manages to inform without a personal hate campaign. Curious how that seems to be possible. 2001:9E8:1B56:E400:E8A8:5897:3F3:593D (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You imply that it isn't being addressed adequately because they know that what they're doing is wrong. Conversely, if they didn't know that what they're doing is wrong, then it would be addressed adequately. That makes no sense.

How do you know that Teal Swan doesn't consider herself a cult leader? Why are you assuming that people who lead cults disagree that they're cults? Largoplazo (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

When did she go to Barbara Snow?

Right now it says: "In her early childhood, Swan received therapy[when?] from Barbara Snow."

Maybe the exact ages is not written anywhere, but if something about age for this is mentioned somewhere it could possibly be that she did it either in her teens or in her 20s, or both. In any case a good detail to check. Mats33 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a source that says she was Show's patient in 2006, but it's not clear when that relationship started and ended. I'll put it in. Also, from reading the sources that go a little more in depth, I think it's important to make the link between Swan and the satanic panic of the eighties more explicit. I'll attempt something, feedback and corrections welcomed. Robincantin (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Suicide ideation and the use of the BBC source

Hello. I'm uncomfortable with the way the BBC news report is used in the article. We have a blockquote from the journalist themselves, while quotes from actual experts within the text are ignored. I suggest replacing with the following:

Her approach to suicide ideation has been described as irresponsible and dangerous by mental health experts. Addressing her followers, Swan described suicide as "safety net or our re-set button that's always available to us" and invited them to visualize their death. Former President of the American Association of Suicidology Jonathan Singer commented on her approach that it amount to "telling them "to practice it in their minds (...), a very effective way of improving your ability to do something." Ged Flynn, CEO of a suicide prevention charity in the United Kingdom, believes Swan's technique "can only lead to the risk of harm and even death." Robincantin (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)