Talk:Barry Long

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Flag
Portal
 Barry Long is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Barry Long & Eckhart Tolle

I have been with Barry Long on two occasions when he was in Germany. The first time around he came across as "not authentic" but many friends of mine insisted it must be my intepretation so I gave it a second shot. I should have known better as my intuition usually is quite on the spot. He is something but not what he proposes to be. As opposed to E. Tolle whom I never even met - but his first audio CD convinced me within minutes of his true enlightenment (not really convinced in a mental way but in an intuitive way). To state that Tolle was a disciple of Long is putting the cart before the horse. I have encountered many "enlightened" ones, real ones and fake ones, I usually tell them apart quite easily. I just need to tune in.

[edit] Barry Long's Teachings

The explanation demonstates a simple yet fundamental misunderstanding of BL's message. The only advice he gave was to still the mind and love each other. He propounded no belief system, therefore cannot be considered to have started any 'cult'. He had no 'followers' (unless they misunderstood what he was going on about).

He denounced 'belief' full-stop as irresponsible and indeed precarious (cult members take note!) Did he charge a fee for his sessions?! To even refer to this in relation to his teaching suggests the 'historian' has little interest in a serious appraisal of Barry Long's work.

[edit] "Continued controversy"

I'm not sure if I would describe two individual articles (Vineeto & Tapert) and posting by a few individuals on Blog of Death as 'continued controversy'. Any comments? 212.32.118.160 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have allowed 6 days for any comments on the above and as none have been made have made the following changes:

Removed paragraph on 'continued controversy' and links associated with it.

Why? The information is still available through the link to the 'Blog of Death' and the 'What is Enlightenment' article at the end of the page. To call these items 'continued controversy' and link to them both within the article and at the end is to give them more prominence than they deserve. Indeed, some of the comments on the Blog of Death have become farcical. 212.32.81.3 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Continued Controversy 2"

I happened not to look at this article during those 6 days but, yes, I have some comments.

There is more material on the web questioning and critiquing Mr Long's teaching than that which you mention. There is for example the letters page from WIE magazine following the interview of Barry by Andrew Cohen. Even if that were the total of such material, that would not mean that there is no continuing controversy. Those documents clearly show that there is. There is also discussion and controversy in "spiritual" circles and meetings which doesn't get onto the web and therefore cannot be referenced here, save as hearsay.

If this Wikipedia article and the Barry Long Foundation's website were the only two websites giving information about Barry Long, would that mean that there was no information about Barry Long? No, it wouldn't. Obviously it would mean the opposite. Hopefully you see your faulty logic.

Providing one link to all the WIE material on Barry long was helpful. Thanks. I have added a separate link to the letters sent to WIE in response to the Cohen-Long interview since this is not referenced by the page to which you link.

I don't see the validity of removing the link to Maggie Tapert's article. She has an informed and strongly held view on Barry's teaching which may be interesting to those using this page for research. Her piece is clearly a polemic, but then so is the majority of this Wikipedia article, cut-and-pasted as it is from one of Barry's publications.

It is indeed a real pity that the Blog of Death page has degenerated into such silliness. There are some detailed, seriously intended and well informed critiques on that webpage which have unfortunately become obscured.

I think that it is quite valid to include a one-line reference (or two lines, depending on the width of your screen and the font size that you use) to the continued controversy surrounding some of Barry's teaching and some of his actions, in the middle of several hundred lines of uncritical (although accurate as far as it goes) precis of his teaching and direct cut-and-paste of Barry's words. Indeed not to include mention of the controversy, which is a simply verifiable fact, would leave this article in danger of bias.

I have therefore reinserted a similar line to the one removed, taking into account the changes in links at the bottom of the page. I think, on reflection, that it is confusing to include these comments in with the section on Barry's teaching, so I have separated the line with a title.

It is, by the way, very common in Wikipedia to have links referenced both in the body of the article and at the bottom of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.8.24 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Gurus listing

Don't just revert without some explanation. I'm with the person who removed the gurus listing. Read the article Guru -- it has a specific meaning that's inapplicable here. We have no evidence that Long himself or any of his followers called him a guru or used that term. Or that he had much involvement with Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism, the three religions that use that term.

The "spiritual writers" category is much more apt. Msalt 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The facts:
1. The person who removed the 'Guru' category gave no explanation.
2. One of Barry Long's first public announcements was titled, 'I am guru, who are you?', the text of which is in the book 'The Way In'.
3. As Wiki stands, the category 'Spiritual Teacher' defaults to 'Guru'.
4. The 'Guru' article allows for usage other than solely within the religions stated above.
5. Barry Long was not only a writer. His main means of communication was speaking to the people at seminars and allowing the people to question him.
I will leave reinstating the category giving a chance for responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.73.123 (talk • contribs) .
I agree that it was wrong for Spiritual Teacher to default to Guru, so I fixed that. I might also agree that Spiritual Teacher is a better term than Spiritual Writer, but the distinction is not significant. Nearly every writer also speaks. And very few teachers don't write, certainly ones of encyclopedic importance. Is David Sedaris a comedic teacher because he gives lectures as well as writing?
If you read the Guru article, while it of course references the variant uses (I've been called a computer guru), it's very clear what the general meaning of the term is. We have no sourced information that places him in the tradition of gurus. Clearly it's not appropriate to place everyone who claims to be a guru in that category.


The prime activity in this case is 'teaching' (David Sedaris is quite clearly a writer who also speaks about his writings - it would be absurd to call him a 'comedic teacher'). The writings of Barry Long are a teaching. Re: 'Guru' - A dictionary definition is 'spiritual teacher'. I would therefore place Barry Long in both 'Guru' and 'Spiritual Teachers' with 'Spiritual Teachers' being a seperate category to 'Spiritual Writers' - the difference is in fact very significant. 212.32.86.162 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The first definition of guru (here on the wiktionary) is "Noun guru (plural gurus) 1. A Hindu spiritual teacher. 2. A mentor" The only spiritual meaning relates to the specific religious traditions that use that term. Any other meaning is a generic term taken from that, not even religious necssarily. Seriously, have you LOOKED at the gurus listed in that category? Barry Long clearly does not belong.
As for the broader issue of Spiritual writers vs. spiritual teachers, if you are really concerned with that I started a discussion on the Spiritual writers category talk page, where I proposed reversing the two categories. But I strong feel that one should redirect into the other. Take the Venn diagram of encyclopedia-worthy Spiritual writers, and encyclopedia-worthy spiritual teachers; the overlap is 95% or more.Msalt 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately all I am concerned with, 'Is what Barry Long says the truth for me?'. Only the individual can know that for him/herself and for that you need to go directly to his books and recordings. I'm bowing out of this discussion for now to let wiki go on its way and I'll come back later to see what has transpired. Just out of interest (just asking the questions, no judgement intended) did you (Msalt) ever attend a Barry Long seminar or video seminar. Have you read any of his books and practiced what he taught? 62.164.251.220 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent attempted vandalism

That was me, sorry, this is the first time I have edited a wikipedia article, went a little overboard in adding content, and then tried to restrain it a little.

[edit] Linkspam

After looking up the definition of linkspam I have undone the edit by Herrick that removed two links to wie.com pages. To me these links are a valid contribution to the article. A similar previous edit was also re-instated by another person. Looking at other edits, Herrick seems to have some concern about links to wie.com pages. Perhaps Herrick would like to explain his/her concerns. 89.240.2.29 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and sources

This article is written entirely from Long's own material, does anyone outside his organization think he is important? --Peta 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following link [1]gives details of international publications where articles by / about him have been printed. His obituary was published in the Sydney Morning Herald [2]and possibly elsewhere. He was known to thousands of people in Australia, England, Netherlands, Scandinavia, USA and many other countries around the world. He spoke in numerous countries and his books are published in 11 languages.

Note that not all of the sources are connected with the organisation. The Barry Long Foundation International exists solely to publish and disseminate Barry Long's work. There is no membership or anything to join.

What suggestions do you have to improve the article? 89.240.7.173 10:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have removed NPOV marker. Re: 'does anyone think he is important?' above; notability was discussed at the beginning of writing of this article. Re: NPOV; at present there is very little third party material available. The article includes interviews with BL, liks to sites of detractors and links to excerpts of his work. If anyone wishes to see what he was actually about then it is easy to get an overview from the article and follow links for further info. The basic biography and description of his teaching have been kept very simple so as to not be NPOV, and links provided to third party/actual quotes and articles. 89.240.14.144 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Have removed link as there is no evidence that the man concerned was connected in any way with the Barry Long Foundation. 89.240.15.218 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two external links as the contributor is obviously trying to put forward a POV and the articles were both inaccurate: 1. The Barry Long Foundation does not have any members 2. The Barry Long Foundation is not a cult or spiritualist organisation. 89.240.14.121 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The Barry Long Foundation has no connection with the occult. 89.240.14.121 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted the two external links deleted on 29 April. NPOV means providing a wide range of information on a topic so that readers can come to their own POV. It does not mean censoring information with which you disagree. That's a POV.

By defintion the Barry Long Foundation must have members or it could not exist as an organisation - and it does exist. In some people's opinion, it has many of the characteristics of a cult.

Barry wrote a section of almost 1500 words in his book "The Way In" about Ascended Masters, in which he addresses them directly, the following ones by name: Kuthumi, Djwhal Khul, Morya, Maitreya, Archangel Michael, Serapis, Hilarion, Ramtha. I can't see how it can be claimed that he wasn't a spiritualist. (I have added a link to the extract).62.189.189.132 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the links because I disagreed with them. Disagreement is an opinion. Incorrect facts are incorrect facts. I would re-iterate that the organisation doesn't have members. There are people who work on publishing material and organising events but no members. See the answer to the question, " If I came to a Barry Long video session would it be like joining a group or cult?" [[3]]. Barry Long's words are presented simply to the individual who may or may not see any value in them. Re ascended masters; to speak on Christianity does not make one a Christian, likewise to speak on spiritualism does not make one a spiritualist. Re: Use of the word cult in a newspaper articles; newspapers are sensationalist - they will use such words to evoke an emotional reaction and sell newspapers, not in the interests of accurate reporting. 89.240.13.216 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum. Do we really have to do this? Obviously an organisation must have members, or it wouldn't exist. The Barry Long Foundation exists, so it has members. Who do you think works "on publishing material and organising events"?! You are right that speaking on Christianity doesn't make one a Christian ... but to pray to the Christian God does. To speak on spiritualism does not make one a spirtualist, but to address spritual entities directly by name, as if they exist, does make one a spirtualist.

I'm not going to waste time engaging in a "reversion war" on two links to newspaper articles, but, by your censorship of access to public information about the actions of someone involved with Barry Long, and clearly so deeply affected by that experience that he killed himself, you have shown yourself for what you are. 62.189.189.132 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that there is no evidence of the depth of any involvement with Barry Long and more importantly no evidence that this was what caused him to kill himself. This is the problem with short sensation seeking newspaper articles like this which are often lacking in correct factual information. How do you know that the man was 'clearly so deeply affected by that experience that he killed himself'? Did you know him?
To have a small group of people working to put on events and publish books is different to having members.
And another question, how do you know that these entities do not exist?89.240.13.12 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How tedious. The man's brother gave some pretty good evidence. Is that what you wanted to censor? Re members, I am employed by a company and I am a member of that company. Same with the people who work for the Barry Long Foundation. Perfectly normal use of the English language. Not difficult. What's your problem with it? How do I know that these entities don't exist? I don't, and nowhere did I say that I did. But I don't know that they do exist either. Nobody's shown me any evidence that they do, and until I see some I shan't consider the matter any further. Anyway, how is that relevant? The point is that Barry Long obviously thinks they exist (so much so that he talks to them) and that was part of his teaching. 86.137.167.119 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

More normal usage would be that you are employed by a company therefore you are an employee or worker of that company. More normal everyday usage of the word member is in relation to joining a group (wiktionary - 'one who officially belongs to a group') whether paying for that privelige or not, not an employee or worker. Hence the word, 'membership' which the Barry Long Foundation doesn't have. Again, were you at the coroner's court or are you inferring 'pretty good evidence' from the reported speech of the brother statement as written by a newspaper (newspapers not being well known for the accuracy of their reporting). The articles are misinformation on several points. 89.240.7.174 20:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Where I come from I am a member of the company which employs me. Perhaps we speak different dialects of English. Are you British? The newspaper article was written in British English. You may be misunderstanding it if you speak a different dialect. Could you let us know specifically the "several points" on which the articles "are" misinformation? (Do you mean "give" misinformation or "consist of" misinformation?) Please correct the misinformation - it's what Wikipedia is all about. And please let us know the independent sources of information to which you have access and which enable you to judge these articles as innacurate. It would be helpful. Were you at the coroner's court, for example? Or did you know the man who killed himself?86.137.167.119 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I speak British English. You don't seem to be reading what I have written above. Eg. - the wiktionary definition and the points in my initial comments about the inaccuracies in the articles. And you are asking my questions back to me?? I have provided quite some detail as to my thoughts regarding these articles. 89.240.14.100 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I also suggest that the recent two external links added will soon make the links section longer than the article. The Woman and Love article is available on the barrylong.org website which is the first link. The 'Draconic Transverse' article as far as I can see is not on the barrylong.org website but the article does already contain a link to an excerpt from the same book. May I ask the specific reason for adding these two links? 89.240.14.100 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have read through the 'Draconic Transverse' article. It is quite a tour de force. I can see that this link provides insight into another area of BL's teaching. I would still be interested in your comments on the links though. 89.240.14.100 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this really has gone on long enough. There is no conflict between the wiktionary definition and the way that I am using the word "member". I officially belong to the company that employs me. I am a member of it. End of argument.

You say that there are inaccuracies in the newspaper articles but you have failed to point out specifically what they are apart from one. You have said that the Barry Long Foundation does not have members. It does. You have said that it is not a spiritualist organisation and that it has no connection with the occult. In fact it promulgates teachings which involve speaking directly to "Ascended Masters", which is both a spiritualist and an occult activity. You have said that it is not a cult. That is the one true statement that you made.

I can't see the problem with having a lengthy links section if there are lots of things to link to. If you think that the article itself should be longer you are free to lengthen it.

I added the links because I had not seen this material linked to before and I thought that they would be of interest to those researching Barry. I would have thought that was obvious. It is the same reason that I added the links to the newspaper articles which you deleted. If you think that there are duplicate links you are free to delete them.

As I noted above, you state that the articles "are" misinformation on several points but so far you have only demonstrated one. Please do not continue this correspondence unless it is to point out the other precise inaccuracies in the articles together with your sources of information. For example, were you at the inquest or did you know the people concerned? If you don't do so within, say, a week, I shall reinstate the links. 86.137.167.119 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed what I see as incorrect information in the links. I have looked at the articles several times and the two points that you disagree on - spiritualist/occult and 'member', I still see as incorrect information. No I was not at the inquest, did not know the man concerned and neither did you. But I can look at the articles and see what their content is and look at BL's teaching and see what is in it. Are you saying that this man was an employee of the BLFI (using your own definition of 'member' which seems to be only used by yourself)? If so then that is pretty bizarre. You know how newspapers work - anything for a story. Did you read the link provided I provided above[[4]]. There is nothing to join and there never was. 89.240.15.218 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly excessive number of external links

Re the external links template added today, I have removed one external link to an article that is already available through the barrylong.org link. Having such a long list with a relatively main body does make the article a little unbalanced. 89.240.15.218 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL fore some useful guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have reduced external links to what may be considered an acceptable number. Have removed three that are already referenced in the article and should in fact be references not external links. That is yet to be done. 89.240.15.218 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have retained third party links - in particular interviews. As stated above there is very little third party material available at present. BL presented his teaching to the individual and for the individual. It is up to the individual to see if it has value to him or her and if not to look elsewhere. 89.240.15.218 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the trimming of the external links section detailed here is in response to ≈ jossi ≈'s placing of the external links template (now removed) and my own perception that this section was becoming overlong. 89.240.13.152 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All links in the 'External links' section excepting the BL official site are now third party sites. 89.240.13.152 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Have removed primary sources template. Basic biographical details are referenced by the Sydney Morning Herald article and are not controversial. Details of his teaching are referenced to the actual teaching so the reader can see for themselves if the article accurately portrays what is in the teaching. In addition there are external links such as What is Enlightenment? magazine and Spirit Radio. If the reader wishes to look further than the barrylong.org website contains press quotes and articles on the books. There are also third party references to sites of those who have some criticism of BL's teaching. 89.240.15.42 08:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Third party book reviews are available on the Barry Long Books catalogue website [5] 89.240.13.116 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)