Talk:The Celestine Prophecy

Hyphen

When an adjective and noun form a noun phrase (such as "He's a Christian anarchist") there's no hyphen; when it forms an adjectival phrase (such as "He's a Christian-anarchist writer") it takes a hyphen. Standard English grammar, designed in part to avoid ambiguity (there's a difference between being an anarchist and a Christian and being a Christian anarchist; in the former case there wouldn't be a hyphen). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Did it bother anyone...

that the prophecy scrolls were supposedly written 600 B.C., but they made predictions about what would happen in the "second millennium," which the protagonists took to mean the present day. I guess the scrolls also foresaw the birth of Christ.

The manuscript and story is fiction, but the insights are true. I too have experienced them. 189.162.49.108 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be revised

This is only a rather bland view of the book and of the Insights, perhaps a more in depth discussion of each Insight could be done as well as a reference to the Experimental Guide which offers a lot to help people underdtand the book. --Katana Geldar 21:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "bland" might be Wikipedia's "balanced". It is not the job of Wikipedia to promote a religion or philosophy or prophecy by making it sound exciting. Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Title

Why is this book called The Celestine Prophecy? Hanfresco 09:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The title " The Celestine Prophecy " in code for the ideas Noosphere to Omega" Noosphere being Celestine and Omega being Prophecy .The whole book The Celestine Prophecy is a plagurized copy of Pierre Teilhard with the coinicidence-synchronicity stolen from the ideas of Carl Jung whereas Dan Brown has been exposed for stealing James Redfieldgainst Teilhard's ideas on evolution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.219.88 (talk • contribs) 18:02, March 15, 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, Etc.?

A section on criticism would be especially helpful: Was the book well-received by critics, poorly received? What has been written about the book in other sources, such as popular magazines, film magazines, etc.

Also, a section on the movie and it's reception by critics and the public would be helpful.

Furthemore, I would like to know if the author really believes in the metaphysical aspects of the book, or is this, too, fiction, in his opinion?

Finally, has the book created a following of persons who believe/practice the metaphysical aspects of the book (i.e., who did not do so beforehand) -- in other words, is the book considered by some to be a proselytizing tool of sorts, used by the author to convert people to his beliefs (if he does indeed believe them)?

The criticism for this has come from both the Catholic Church as well as skeptics of spirituality

Skeptics of spirtituality? What does that mean? Skepticisim of The Celestine Prophecy does not imply a skepticism of spirituality. This could use a citation. It seems also that the notes section has been deleted, making the footnotes in this article useless.

--76.90.140.101 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the citation for "literary critics" and replaced it with a citation needed, on the basis that the citation given wasn't appropriate under Wikipedia's referencing rules - it needs to be a reliable source, and the source was just some angry person (whom I highly doubt belongs to any literary community, due to their poor writing skills) ranting about how much they personally hate The Celestine Prophecy; their criticism is juvenile and doesn't use any of the proper tools of literary criticism. I'm going to assume in good faith that the author of the website didn't just insert their own link to try and improve their SEO. Either a better source is needed or the statement of there being "criticism from the literary community" needs to be removed. Here's some help for identifying what constitutes an appropriate reference or source for Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Date: January 2016.

Fair use rationale for Image:Thecelestineprophecy.jpg

Image:Thecelestineprophecy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for multiple issues

The Insights section is written like a religious tract or New Age promotional piece. It uses "we" without identifying any particular group or person. It presents prediction as fact. It does not cite any particular passages of any primary or secondary source. It could probably be significantly condensed or summarized. Among other issues. Yakushima (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out the entire Insights section is a verbatim copy from this [1] source. Unattributed (therefore arguably plagiarism) and definitely copyright violation either way. Out it goes. Yakushima (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Title

This article should have at least a brief mention of why the book is entitled The Celestine Prophecy. Does it have any reference to any of the "Celestines" from this Wikipedia article (Celestine)? Does anyone know for sure? Can someone please include this in the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Celestine Prophecy. 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/20130929192233/http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm to http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929192233/http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm to http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716203133/http://www.writersdigest.com:80/articles/interview/refield_celestine_prophecy.asp?secondarycategory=Nonfiction+Subhome+Page to http://www.writersdigest.com/articles/interview/refield_celestine_prophecy.asp?secondarycategory=Nonfiction+Subhome+Page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011104617/http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_celestineprophecy.htm to http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_celestineprophecy.htm

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) 18:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)