Talk:Wayne Dyer/Archive 1

old comments

Is this anything more than a promo for Wayne Dyer? Thes entinel 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does the vague accusation (above) cause the neutrality of this article to be in dispute? Pgc512 17:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://advice-on-demand.com/archives/wayne_dyer/Interview%20with%20Wayne%20Dyer-000036.html does not work, so I am deleting it.

I have followed Dr. Dyers work for over 20 years now and encourage anyone interested in self actualizing and becoming a better person to read some of his works.

new comments

The information provided in this reference to Wayne Dyer is plagiarized from Dr. Dyer's own site. He probably doesn't mind the glowing review, which lends more credibility to his immodest claims, but I'm not sure Dr. Dyer has a NPOV about Dr. Dyer. The statement "Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, affectionately called the 'father of motivation' by his fans, is one of the most widely known and respected people in the field of self-empowerment," is brazen self-aggrandizement that somehow remains vague, irrelevant, and subjective. If he's widely known and respected, show stats from a survey; otherwise, it's just wishful thinking on his part. I'm sure many psychologists find it a bit mystifying that Dr. Dyer, who's not exactly known for his empirical research publications, somehow surpassed Pavlov, Skinner, Maslow, Adams, Vroom, and others to be the "father of motivation". (When did we vote on that?)

I'd find it more informative to read about where he got his Ph.D... or is it a PsyD, a D.O., or a general doctoral degree from the Kharmic University of Mountebanks? What do you get for a "doctorate in counseling psychotherapy"? That doesn't sound APA-accredited. What did he research for his dissertation (ha ha)? Maybe it would also be important to include a quote or two from Dr. Dyer that really showcases his special brand of insight; something like his own description of one of his talks: "Dr. Wayne W. Dyer explores intention as an all-pervading force in the universe that allows the act of creation to take place. Intention, he explains, is not something you do, but an energy you're a part of. Not only do you originate from the field of intention, but if you align yourself to it, your desires become fulfilled and you find yourself at peace." I defy anyone to make sense of that or in any way render it into any manner of falsifiable hypothesis or meaningful statement. It is utter blather. A NPOV perspective should stick to the facts and avoid the baseless claims he makes about himself and should perhaps mention that he's at least equally widely regarded as a charlatan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.151.155 (talk • contribs)

He actually holds 2 doctorates, if I'm not mistaken, one in counseling from Wayne State, and one in psychology from the University of Michigan. While I agree that this post is little more than an advertisement ripped from his website, maybe it should be considered that his website originates from his publisher, and not from Dr. Dyer himself.

152.15.101.122 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Dave P.

Wayne Dyer's popularity cannot be disputed. If you have an issue with such a statement, then your issue is misplaced, as your issue really exists with his teachings. And, if you have an issue with his teachings, it means the issue is with YOU, not with the teachings itself. There are different teachers to speak to people at different levels of consciousness. If you operate at a higher level of consciousness than Wayne, then congratulations. But, if you have an issue with his teachings then you only THINK that you operate at a higher level of consciousness.

The same holds true for all issues on his education.

Based upon my perception of his work, he is more humble than the average self-help bloke. He admits to limitations in his knowledge, and thus extensively quotes wiser people. That characteristic alone is something positive to spread.

--12:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is sufficiently modified and discussed to remove the "disputed" box on the main article. Pgc512 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching his PBS special right now, and was unaware of his work before tonight. I think I'm fairly objective, and I don't think this has been sufficiently discussed and I think it is reasonable to be considered 'in dispute'. At the least, why not get confirmation on his education and degrees? The post does seem to be mostly promotional, as it does not reference any academic work or studies. - March 6, 2006

If you can imprive the article then please "be bold" and do it. -Will Beback 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have read most everything Dr. Dyer has written. However, these are valid points about the neutrality of the entry. A neutral entry means one without bias or passion either for or against the subject. The entry is obviously biased and the support for it clearly passionate. Neutrality is a very important component towards truth since without it any idea no matter how ridiculous could be considered truthful. For example, bigoted ideas about minorities could be considered truthful. By definition a "truth" is something that is universal and stands up to critique. Science is a method testing a given idea. While I think Dr. Dyer is very sincere and incorporates many things that can be objectively validated, I have never understood why consistently suggests banishing all doubt. Banishing all doubt is what the members of Heaven's Gate and the Jim Jones cult did. In those cases, doubt would have saved lives. In fact, I believe that even Dr. Dyer does not banish all doubt when it comes to topics such as racism, the justification for war or genocide, or any idea suggesting someone else less than someone else. It is not because Dr. Dyer believes, say, that racism is wrong, it is because fails to stand up to any form of critique. In fact, the idea of “race” at all fails to stand up to definition. If we banish all doubt, then we are asking to seriously consider such ideas as the inferiority of the Tutsi’s in Rwanda. Further, I would guess, based on my understanding of Dr. Dyer’s writings, that he doubts the authoritarian God of reward and punishment found in Christianity. In fact, Dr. Dyer casts doubts on many, many culturally accepted ideas and has encouraged his readers to question ideas we take for granted in Euro-centric culture. If questioning is good for certain established ideas, then why is it not good enough for his own? For example, should we not question the assertion that anything imagined can be mainfested—by anyone? While there are many cases that demonstrate some people can do extraordinary things (which he often cites), it is quite another to apply this to anyone. I have found it curious that he has never put this to the test on himself. I know that he cites his success in writing and public speaking as an example of “anyone can do anything,” but is it really? That is, is it really that uncommon that public speakers had to overcome difficulty with stage fright? Does this really support the notion that all people are capable of “anything?” I think it would make a much stronger case—and convincing readers is important if you want your message to spread—if he developed a completely unlikely talent in, say for example, a major advancement in mathematics, or leaning to play compose at the level of Mozart through shear “manifestation.” I think since extraordinary claims are being made it is only appropriate that extraordinary results be demonstrated. Despite the suggestions of Dr. Dyer that we do not need external validation, validation through others is still important. This is not to say the others are always right, but just believing you are right on your own opens up possibilities no one would seriously contemplate. Even Dr. Dyer uses the testimony of others to validate his claims. For example, demonstrating his daughter’s singing ability on PBS or having Ryan from “Ryan’s Well” is a form of external validation. That suggests that even he knows that just him making the claim without any other kind of support makes the claim questionable. Therefore, despite that I believe that Dr. Dyer is doing good for the world and champions the message that we should all take care of one another, I also think it is valid to state that this entry in the Wikipedia lacks objectivity and I think his claims should be questioned and doubted in the name of finding truth. It is not enough to merely proclaim truth.

Does anyone know why there is a link to St. Francis of Asissi in the see also ?--71.215.56.225 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dyer has referred to St. Francis extensively in his recent talks and books - "Power of Intention" I think. Pgc512 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've just found this article and have not picked up anything, at least so far as the state it is in now, to rouse suspicion or warrant any lengthy haggle regarding the credibility of his PhD. I have read at least two biographies which list WSU and MSU as schools with which he has studied and earned doctorates (though of course, I suppose this is meaningless in terms of giving credence to them, since it is from me). Nonetheless, why is the neutrality box still listed? Maybe some subjective material was present in its past editions, but the article is obviously now free of any over-induldged opinion or weaseling. - C.J. 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is disparriging - if there is such little information to offer, then why should an alcoholic father even be mentioned, for instance. The fact that it is so uneven and sparse in content is what makes the hostile undertone so prominent.

How is the article disparaging? The information that he had an alcoholic father is, I think, probably important: since I have read it was one of his primary reasons to do what he does (motivate). Other than the ugly neutrality box, it appears to me this article is in agreeable condition. If you're so intent on fixing 'disparaging' articles in Wikipedia then I would direct you to the Turkish Air Force page, where I think criticism of quality would be better directed. - C.J. 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can by any means oppose to the peaceful solutions that Wayne Dyer's teachings explains in the most accurate and humble language, you are most likely to be a fanatic coming from a religious, scientific or intellectual ground who share in common to have forgotten that we all once lived in the spirit of a smiling child.

Childrens do not care or mind about diplomas or the credibility of the thousands of spiritual Schools born on earth from man's mind.They care only to regain their inner state of joy each time something happen that takes it away from them.

That's my interpretation of what Wayne Dyer is try to tell us.

The above comment is beautiful smiling nonsense. Gareth E Kegg 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not see how any of that is actually relevant to the issue of the neutrality of this article. - C.J. 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense for the heartless like you, not for those who understand the meaning of a smiling kid !!

Thank you, but I do not see how that is actually relevant to the issue of the neutrality of this article. Gareth E Kegg 12:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dyer / Neutrality?

Does the article misstate the facts? With a public figure such as Dr. Dyer has become through his career and his ongoing promotion via public T.V., the truth - alcoholic father - placement in foster / orphanage - exists until proven otherwise. It is unlikely that inaccuracies, in the course of this person's over 30 years of public life, wouldn't come out.

Does the article ask people to believe something about Wayne Dyer? Is it advocating that readers sign up for his courses? Is it the statement that he is perceived to be a leader in the general category of self-improvement?

This claim is not unsupported by results: books published and sold; presentations offered and attended; reputation earned and maintained. So how exactly is this article non-neutral?

As such, regardless of how one feels about his beliefs, it would appear the snapshot in Wikipedia does not exceed the bounds of neutrality. If anything, it is circumspect, because it does not provide published sales figures or estimated sizes of audiences or devotees.

--- I agree 100% with the above. Can someone tell me how an article gets this "disputed" status? How it loses it? If this one is disputed, then all articles are suspect. Pgc512 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Many people, for whatever reasons, dislike “self-help gurus” like Dyer. Indeed, there is much to dislike about quite a few people who fall in the category because often they are shysters, snake oil salesmen, that type of thing. Some people just don’t like “touchy-feely” talking heads. Like Oprah; people love her and hate her for very subjective reasons. In my opinion, Dyer is different, more genuine, but that’s just a gut feeling on my part.

How do Wikipedia articles get the “disputed” designation? Usually, it is not through any formal discussion and very often through no discussion at all. You need simply edit the article to add it. Anyone can. And in my opinion, by the same rules (or lack there off) any one can delete it. Ideally, there should be discussion before it is added or removed, but that doesn’t seem to happen a lot. Jake b 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dissertation

Here is Dyer's dissertation:

Author Dyer, Wayne W. Title Group counseling leadership training in counselor education, by Wayne W. Dyer. Publication info. 1970.

Location Call No. Status NOTE Purdy-Kresge Library Dissertations D988 CHECKED IN Purdy-Kresge Library Dissertations D988 CHECKED IN Purdy-Kresge Library Research Support Ctr. Theses THESIS E2602 LIB USE ONLY

Description xii, 211 l. 29 cm. Note Vita. ALSO AVAILABLE IN MICROFORM. Thesis Thesis (Ed. D.)--Wayne State University, Dept. of Education. Bibliography Bibliography: l. 204-210. Subject Educational counseling. Added author Wayne State University. Thesis (Ed. D.)

Badagnani 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Banana Incident

Seriously, try this your self. Gareth E Kegg 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"See Also"

Marianne Williamson is the only one of these that makes sense. What have New Thought and Mary Marin got to do with Dr. Dyer? Pgc512 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Criticism Section

Beacuse it was an unreferenced opinion that a couple of things Dyer said were "questionable". See No Original Research. Pgc512 12:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you have links to Nisarg Dutta and others at the end of page below? The biography seems so incomplete and lack substance that it can simply be removed (and removal won't make much difference)!!!

please remove the ISBN numbers

I find the ISBN numbers make the bibliography difficult to read. They can be easily found using any book searching method so long as we keep the title, author, date of publication, and publisher (all are already listed).

So I think we should remove the ISBN numbers for easier reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.51.123 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).