Talk:Bruce Moen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bruce Moen article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
PEER A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the project.

Contents

[edit] Discussion: Notability Confirmed / Speedy Delete removed

I think this page about Bruce Moen should not be deleted. He is a important person in the field of afterlife exploration. He invented the principle of 'retrievals'. He is unique because he teaches people how to actually explore the afterlife themselves. His books has received several reviews (just do a Google search on 'review "bruce moen"' and you get more than a thousand hits). Waninge 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've removed the speedy tag, since you assert notability. But please be sure to add some verifiable reliable sources showing this person's notability soon. Also, I'd feel a lot better if you could assure me that this isn't a WP:AUTO. Thanks. VoiceOfReason 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a WP:AUTO. I am not Bruce Moen, but an interested reader of his books. But I would not know how to prove that. I have created this account because I wanted to write an article about him, but I may write articles about other subjects in the future. I will add some sources to show Moen's notability. Waninge 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No proof necessary, your assurance will do just fine :) VoiceOfReason 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Waninge, why do you say that Moen invented the principle of retrievals? From his books, Robert Monroe appears to have been the first to do it, and even started a teaching course on the technique at TMI. Huwie 08:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit too enthusiastic. I meant that he expanded the practice of doing retrievals with his books, workshops and website, teaching many participants a most effective method for accessing the afterlife they would not have learned at TMI. Waninge 09:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the concept of retrievals is to say the least a bit shallow. more like recovering parts of peoples "souls" that are generally experienced with the uncovering of a supressed memory. helping lost spirits wouldn`t fall under this catagory. if i can phrase bett er ill update later.

[edit] Focus levels

Should that long list of focus levels be in the Bruce Moen article? Surely they'd be better off in the Monroe Institute or Robert Monroe articles and just linked to in this one? Huwie 09:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there are at least 3 articles related to Focus levels perhaps it's best to create a new article for it. Then any related article can link to it. Waninge 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be deleted

This page should be removed, or at least made objective. Bruce Moen is selling a product. The product isn't cheap and it promises, quite literally, the sky. This entire article is simply an advertisement for that product. It was put here by 'Wanginge', who is clearly not a disinterested party in any way.

To discuss Moen's spiritual theories without pointing out the fact that they are part of a book-and-CD sales machine is wrong. Can anyone imagine this article showing up in an encyclopedia?

This is exactly the reason wikipedia lacks credibility. The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.153.9 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2007

  • The fact that Moen is selling a product doesn't mean this article should be deleted. In that case we could start deleting all articles about writers, musicians etcetera. This article is here because this person and what he does is notable. Also, the suggestion that I have an interest in this article is simply wrong. It is also a personal attack and beside the point. And please sign your posts. Waninge 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal attack? Nonsense. Pointing out the fact that you created the page and therefore have an interest in the topic doesn't constitute a personal attack. Or does you saying it's an attack make it one? Do you deny that you created the page?

Moen's notoriety is in a clearly different class from that of a writer or a musician. And I reiterate: this 'article' is simply a commercial for his products. In spite of its use of the word 'claims' at the top of the page, Moen's exotic theories of other worlds are discussed as if they had a factual basis. Waninge, you created the page. You wrote the page. You're responsible for the commercial. If saying so means this is a personal attack, then so be it. (And no, I will not sign this post. You don't have authority to order me to do anything at all.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.153.9 (talk) 11:54, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  • You are incorrect to assume that anyone who creates an article has an interest (commercial interest, so you seem to think) in that article. I really don't have any commercial interest in that article, I am a curious reader of his books, thats all. And I don't feel like continuing this discussion because that's useless with such a biased person (yes, that's a personal attack, too). Waninge 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bias is a personal attack only when the bias is against the person, not her/his ideas. But I'm not even biased against your ideas. I'm just telling you that the material as you've presented it here isn't objective. It doesn't contain the other side of the story. It amounts to a sales pitch. If you want to see an example of how to do it correctly, look at your own article on the NDE of the singer from Atlanta. That presents both sides. This piece doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.153.9 (talk) 10:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • This article that I created a year ago was more objective, but since that time other people have made it more POV. What you are basically saying is that the article lacks a Critical section and that the general tone of the article is somewhat POV. That can be changed. I can do it, if you give me some time (maybe weeks). Or you can do it yourself, of course. Waninge 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trip to Australia

In the course of investigating this Bruce Moen character, I learned that it was Duncan Roads (of Nexus Magazine) who had funded his infamous trip to Australia to "clairvoyantly" determine what had become of somebody's dead dog for the bargain-basement price of AU $250, plus other antics. I'll never forget it. In fact, I mean to immortalize that tale. "Spotty is wagging his tail, wondering why you won't come play with him," Moen determined with his Special Powers.

Tom Dark, Special:Contributions/67.0.114.102

[edit] Removed {fact} tags

I removed the {fact} tags once more, because:

  • In the sentence "This process is based on the assumed ability to perceive beyond the material world by using curiosity and imagination to move through the various focus levels." it is not clear which passage exactly is incomplete without a cited source of information.
  • In the sentence "Nobody, including Bruce Moen, has scientifically proven the existence of an afterlife yet." it is nearly impossible to find a source of information which makes this statement. It is just common sense that nobody has scientifically proven the existence of an afterlife. Waninge 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
First request: it's for the whole paragraph, standard procedure with citation requests.
Second request: What you say is quite true, that's why the citation request is there. You need to attribute the statement, which would be easy. It isn't appropriate to remove citation requests. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be a reliable source that says no evidence for the afterlife has been found. Susan Blackmore springs to mind, but who else is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added to Paranormal Parapsychology Group

It's paranormal. Welcome aboard! Maxwellordinary 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added to Biography Group

This is a biography of a living person, and now properly noted. Talk header also added. Peer review requested. Clean up underway, as promised. Maxwellordinary 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal Wikiproject peer review

From reading the article and following the links, i believe that Bruce Moen is notable and and that there should be an article on Wikipedia omn him. Having said that, this article has several problems:

  • Regarding the "Afterlife Knowledge" references - AK is a message board; message boards are not acceptable as reliable sources (because anyone can say anything they like on them without supporting evidence). In this case the problem is doubled as the message board is part of Moen's own website. These references should be replaced.
  • The only criticism is of his reliance on imagination (sujective) to prove the afterlife (objective). there needs to be some reference to investigation of his methods and the equipment he makes.
  • The external link to the Ronald Bryan PDF: this docoment mentions him once, in passing, and lists his books in the references. It's probably not necessary.
  • The youtube link is him selling his stuff again.
  • the Hampton Roads link is (surprise!) his publisher.

To sum up, this is a very one-sided article, which puts up Moen as an important person in his field (he isn't, he just writes books and makes claims), and has no referenced support or criticism that is not connected to him or his products. The whole article needs major work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards of neutrality and verifiablity. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Review

Thanks for the input. I share some of these concerns. From a biographical perspective the strongest data can best be gleaned from his books, which are autobiographical in nature. There one can learn of his beginnings, his exposure to Hemi-Sync, his association with Robert Monroe, and the fallout.

And, yes, there has been fallout. His first marriage ended (detailed in his books), for example. Does that merit mention in Wikipedia? I believe so because Moen's story and his stories provide necessary information to people who might consider following the course that he did. That's not to say that the outcome has been all bad, but there were consequences that others may learn from. Where Wikipedia stands out from your typical Google search, is it's NPOV that can and should provide a rounded perspective on people, such as Moen.

I'm in favor of seeing this article reworked in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. It's too easy to wash-out these articles rapid-fire, without considering the larger (and implicit) role that Wikipedia is playing in shaping media culture specifically and the overall culture generally. It's a view that seems to be gaining a foothold among the long-term and visionary editors who populate this project. Simply put, Wikipedia stands heads and shoulders above the rest because it has the space for the content, and the courage to share what other media cannot.

I'll work on this as time permits because I think the whole story behind Moen is what makes him notable, not so much his methods. I also think it'd be helpful if previous contributing editors would re-work sourcing, and flesh out bibliographical data so that this reads more like a BLP. WP:BIOGRAPHY WPP:BIO Respectfully submitted, --Maxwellordinary (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Moen's personal life, but I don't think it belongs in the article unless it relates directly to his work. There's too much gossip-rag stuff on Wikipedia as it is. Is it possible to find information about Moen that doesn't come from stuff he sells? magazine and web interviews would be good (there's one here) but only if they reveal something useful for the article - searching questions, usable critique of his work, etc. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, and the link is a great lead. Moen is very candid in his books, so the divorce news isn't gossip at all. We're dealing with a proclaimed leader in the paranormal world, and he's shared huge elements of his life. Moreover, he was a fixture at the Monroe Institute prior to Robert Monroe's death, and details quite a bit of that, and his association with Mr. Monroe, in his books. So his notability gains more strength as one cross-references his book's data to Robert Monroe and the Monroe Institute. Also, Moen is roundly criticized on his forum from time-to-time, a fact that does add balance, but probably isn't good for his business ledger. It's an extremely weak source of critical essays, even if those particular posts remained over time. Regards, --Maxwellordinary (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with the message boards is that they can't be cited as reliable sources (although they have their uses) because anybody can comment on them under a pseudonym. Generally a reliable source is a work with a reputation for uninvolved honest reporting, and usually with someone's name put to the piece (although The Economist) house style eschews bylines). I could register on a message board and say anything I choose, despite never reading any of Moen's work. That can't be reliable. So we are stuck for a reliable, neutral source of critique. Even CSICOP has nothing about him. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. I do have some thoughts relating to the difficulties, but not about this article per se on my talk page. I does seem that things are at an impasse for the moment. I'll continue to nose around. Thanks. --Maxwellordinary (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)