Talk:List of New Thought writers

List criteria

Rather than rely on arbitrary rule-making dating from years ago, let's move forward with a consensus-based process created in order to appropriately guide the article. Yworo, since you apparently are in disagreement with my editing choices (as witnessed in your edit war-style revisions, please begin this conversation by clearly stating what you think the inclusion criteria for this article should be. • Freechildtalk 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I'm keeping the list clean of redlinks, which is completely normal and standard for this specific type of list. Since the list criteria has already been clearly stated and established, it is up you to demonstrate a clear consensus for changing the criteria. Until such a consensus is demonstrated, the established criteria should be used. A sole new editor does not constitute a consensus for changing a criteria established by consensus in the past. I don't need to state what I think it should be, as I agree with the previously established criteria stated clearly in the article lead. The list criteria have been in place for over a year (since May 2010) and no other editors have objected to these criteria. That means that the dozens of editors who've edited the article since then without changing the criteria are part of the consensus for keeping the criteria. Yworo (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am far from a new editor. While I respect your experience, I believe your assumption that I am is hindering your judgment. The criteria in the lede of this article is arbitrarily based and is not a hard and fast rule; it can be changed. That said, I would nominate that inclusion on this list be determined by WP:RS in lieu than the existence of a current article. An currently under-covered field on WP such as New Thought should have the opportunity to entice potential editors to create article through an article such as this. And please, be civil. • Freechildtalk 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

List articles aren't intended "to entice potential editors to create article through an article such as this". We have a perfectly functional requested articles process. Even when lists include names which don't have articles, they should not be included as redlinked entries but rather as unlinked entries with citations. Certainly when adding cited unlinked entries of notable writers, article creation should be requested at WP:RA. Once the article has been created, then it can be linked. While a few redlinks in a non-list article can be helpful, list articles should not have redlinked entries. Yworo (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean you were a new editor to Wikipedia. I meant that you are a new editor of this article. There are many things that are set by consensus as an article is being created and developed. Some of these things are simply not changed without a consensus to do so, such as the citation style, American vs. British English, date styles, and in this instance, list criteria. You may not arbitrarily change the criteria without a clear consensus to do so. As a new editor to this article, you follow the criteria established in the past until such time as a consensus develops to change it. Please wait for other editors interested in this article to share their opinions. In any case, a list article is required to be verifiable just like any other article. Adding redlinks without sourcing is violating WP:V and such added content may be removed by any editor. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As for your comments about "edit warring" and "be civil", please be informed that I consider both of these to be personal attacks. I am neither edit warring nor being uncivil in any way. If you think I am, then please take the matter to the appropriate noticeboard(s). Yworo (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing your talk page and talk page history I see that you have a history of contentious editing practices. I will refrain from communicating directly with you on this talk page, your talk page, or mine. I will continue to make edits to this page as I see fit. I do not want to perpetuate any belief that any one editor is the sole arbitrator or rule-maker for this page. I will bring contentious issues to the noticeboard and make the process open to arbitration, if necessary. • Freechildtalk 15:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You certainly aren't "the sole arbitrator or rule-maker for this page". Please try to avoid attempting to own pages that have been collaboratively created by multiple editors following Wikipedia's process of consensus. Please demonstrate consensus for any changes you make before changing the article. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that contributors stick to the notability guideline of WP:NLIST which requires reliable sources for every entry and most often the unambiguous notability required is determined by the name having an associated existing article, otherwise every case may be debatable unless they are, say, all winners of notable prizes. --Fæ (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need additional sourcing

I've been reviewing many of the linked articles and many of them say nothing about New Thought. Who exactly is classifying these writers as "New Thought writers"? I believe that we need first-person (self-identification) or third-party reliable sources (neutral and unaffiliated with the movement) that classify these writers specifically as "New Thought" writers. These sources need to be unaffiliated with the New Thought movement. For example, I am quite sure that Yogananda did not consider himself to be a "New Thought writer", so who exactly called him that? We need sources to establish clear inclusion in the category. We should in fact cite each entry, since Wikipedia articles can change, they cannot be relied on to continue in the same form. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kahlil Gibran

Why is Kahlil Gibran on this list?

What does he have to do with New Thought? He's more of a poet than a writer in the classical New Thought tradition. LizFL (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my point in the previous discussion section. We should have citations to the reliable third-party source which classifies Gibran as "New Thought". Otherwise it's simply the unsupported opinion of some Wikipedia editor (i.e. original research). As the assertion that Gibran is a "New Thought writer" is not mentioned in his article and is not supported by any references here, I will remove him. Yworo (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kybalion by Three Initiates

This does not belong on this list. It doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. Kybalion is a work of gnostic beliefs (hermeticism). It is a modern cliff notes version of alchemy. The reason you've included it here is because the Kybalion article on wikipedia itself has a completely unsubstantiated claim, making the error self-referential in nature:

"The book purports to be based upon ancient Hermeticism, though many of its ideas are relatively modern concepts arising from the New Thought movement."

This book says nothing about 'law of attraction' or 'manifesting your reality' or 'becoming who you think yourself to be'. The only commonality of kybalion and new thought is the suggestion that both have a more quantum physics ontological model rather than classical objective, material, empirical model for reality. So this conflation of the kybalion's perspective with New Thought derives from this extremely broad commonality with "the new age" or "occultism" generally, along with an apparent temporal bias of Kybalion's publication date being close to the emergence of the New Though movement.

Please take it off the list. kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.207.41 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Names of books

I think we should remove all the names of books. As the subjects all have articles, it is an easy matter to click through and see what they wrote. At the very least we should restrict the list to the one work for which they are most known and the titles should be italicized. They should also be presented in such a way as to make clear they are not references. The best way imo to do this is to make sure there is a citation directly after each author's name supporting their categorization as a "New Thought writer", before any book title is listed. Yworo (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Please don't use self-published sources as references. In particular I refer to "Bella, B. (2010) Screw-Ups + Lessons Learned = Life. iUniverse. p 14." iUniverse is a self-publishing company and this self-published book is not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable source

The 2011 edition of The Crystal Silence League has an invalid ISBN. I am already aware of this book: it is privately published, privately distributed, not available in Amazon or other bookstores, not available at libraries, not listed at WorldCat, and has a made-up ISBN. It's not a reliable source, especially any introductory or added material. The original version of the book may be used as a source, but not the 2011 edition. Yworo (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

comments

I think there is a big mistake! New Thought is not the same as New Age. For instance, Deepak Chopra is not a New Thought but a New Age author.

New Thought is a quasi-religion in the tradition of Mary Baker Eddy and Coué, the most prominent New Thought figures in the 20th century were Emmet Fox and Joseph Murphy. Compare them with Deepak Chopra (for the beginning just by their respective Wikipedia entries), and you see the difference.

I strongly recommend a major cleanup of this list! 79.193.56.76 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few people on this list who have nothing to do with new thought at all. It seems every fan is promoting his favorite spiritual author to this list, not knowing anything about the new thought movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.30.230 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Murphy also does not belong on this list. As indicated by his book "The Future of the Body", he does not have a thought / mind / spirit metaphysics but is more interested in the integral totality of the mind-body-spirit-soul (etc.) As a leader of the Human Potential movement and founder of California's Esalen Center, he's more associated with Integral Theory and the Perennial Philosophy than with "New Thought".

Uncited authors

Yworo, since this is such an issue for you I will continue my citation project this weekend. While I support WP:BOLD, I implore you to exercise some constraint before making radical revisions, and to seek WP:CONSENSUS before taking large steps. I should have this project completed soon, and will alert you when I am. • Freechildtalk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not need consensus to remove uncited entries. Consensus is for content issues, not whether or not to follow Wikipedia's verifiablity policy, which is not optional. It appeared to me that you'd stopped working on citing this article. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about this. I am asking you to seek consensus before you make radical revisions to the article, that's all. Deleting half the content of any article is radical, and at times, utterly appropriate. However, since this isn't a controversial topic, let's chill out a little and respect each others' contributions. I appreciate that you are determined for this article to comply to the strictest inclusion criteria; however, I simply implore you to take it easy. I'll do my share. • Freechildtalk 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I've not reverted your restoration of these uncited entries. However, even if names were removed, it's not a disaster as the history of the article can always be tapped in order to restore them with a citation. This is done all the time in uncited list articles. Yworo (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Bach ....

It seems incredible that R. Bach is not on here ??

Wouldn't he be, in fact, (indeed by far) the best-selling "New Thought" writer of all time?

His ideas - clearly stated, over and over, in many books - are the epitome of, the exact description of, "New Thought" as defined, let us say, in the first three paragraphs of the wikipedia "New Thought" article.

Should I click him in ?

Again, even IF someone here thinks he is "not quite exactly XYZ version of New Thought" - again he's basically (by far, a mile) the most well-selling New Thought author. It would literally be like leaving "the Bible" out of a chritianity list .. heh!! (in as much as The Bible is the best-selling Christianity book)

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.26.233.134 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)