Talk:Celia Green
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
This is probably a vanity page. KSchutte 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- It may have looked that way in March when there was little on the page other than links, but Celia Green is an author with several books published. I've never met her, but I do know of her and have read one of her books... so I'd say this page is justified. Mark Grant 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not a vanity page. I came here because I'd heard her name mentioned but didn't know who she is; IMO, a brief summary like this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for! Orbicular 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete my edits to this page as this was not vandalism. This article should be edited or deleted for a number of reasons; (1) Celia Green is not a philosopher of any academic standing. (2) This is a vanity article. The main contributor to this article Ranger2006 is clearly closely linked to Celia Green if not Green herself. (3) The article, despite its length, has few references to justify claims, largely due to the fact that Celia Green is completely unheard of. (4) The article was referenced to in an advert in the Times by Green to get money for herself. Wikipedia should not be used like this for commercial purposes.86.139.76.130 01:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Before deleting my edits again Ranger2006 you will need to address the comments made here.86.160.229.161 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
86.139.76.130 (or 86.160.229.161, I assume you are the same person) – your points are without merit. Your edits do not improve this article, but seem to be in the nature of a personal attack.
- Whether Green is “a philosopher of any academic standing” is irrelevant to this article, which doesn’t claim that she is.
- The article has plenty of references and cross-links to other articles – considerably more than a large number of other Wikipedia biography articles.
- It is nonsense to suggest Green is “completely unheard of”.
- The fact that a Wikipedia article is referenced elsewhere, for whatever purpose, is irrelevant to the article itself. FWadel 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with this FWadel. In reply to your comments;
(1) The article claims in the first sentence that Celia Green is 'notable'; she is in no way notable and the issue of her notoriety and academic standing are extremely important in assessing the rationale for a wikipedia biography. Green is an amateur philosopher who has published works through her own funding, these are at best basic, at worst banal.
(2) The article contains few references, and only one reference that is to an organisaiton not run by Celia Green herself; this is to an interview with Celia Green and another amateur philosopher.
With reference to both these points, there are very few references to Green (outside ones that she has created herself) that could be found online, precisely because she is such an unknown.
(3) See point 1
(4) The issue of profiteering from this article is relevant. This article has been created by Green or someone in the 'Oxford Forum', to give credit to the idea that Green is a philosopher, and from which they could benefit financially . Furthermore, this article links to websites that ask people to give money to Green - which would also be given under this misassumption.
In sum, this article is a biased advertisement for a completely unheard of, not even second-rate philosopher. It should be heavily ammended or deleted.86.160.229.161 20:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Comment on article
I saw the on the Wikiquette requests page, where I had posted about an issue of my own.
Two things need to be kept separate. 1) is the subject notable enough for an article? 2) if so, how can a neutral article be written.
My impressions are that 1) she is notable - Hamish Hamilton may be a minor publisher but it is not completely unknown 2) the key to a neutral article will be to keep it short and to the point.
Next question - what is Celia Green mainly notable for? I would say she is a writer, on a variety of topics. Itsmejudith 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
--- Rather, it would seem that CG is most notable for this sort of discussion, that is, that her status as philosopher, writer or academic is controversial at best. Previous browsing online for CG has come up variously with bits of her own site and/or people claiming she's crap. CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.84 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comment on article and anonymous edits
It is begging the question to conflate the concepts of ‘philosopher’ and ‘philosopher with academic standing’. Many of the philosophers of historical significance – possibly the majority – have had not an academic position at any stage in their career. Spinoza was even offered an academic post and turned it down.
If by ‘philosopher with academic standing’ is meant ‘philosopher regarded as significant by his/her contemporaries in academia’ this would also exclude many significant philosophers of the past for large portions of their career - Nietzsche, for example.
It is not clear what is meant by ‘claims’ in the anonymous comments. The biographical details are all in the public domain, and insofar as the article is largely concerned with giving an account of Green’s thought, the fairness and accuracy of the summaries can be checked against Green’s own writings. Certainly the account of her thinking seems to me to observe the Wikipedia guideline of NPOV (neutral point of view) better than any of the proposed changes, which are clearly hostile, and non-objective. Ranger2006 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think what is meant is the distinction between someone who holds an academic teaching and/or research position and someone who writes on the topic but does not hold such a position. My current view is that the article subject is notable and that the article should remain but there is work to be done on the tone, and also in reducing the article to only those facts that are notable about the subject. WP is not a place for vanity articles. Itsmejudith 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The question has been posed, however, whether you - Ranger2006 - are Celia Green. A response would be helpful in establishing good faith. Anastrophe 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm I am not Celia Green. Ranger2006 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Further comments
Itsmejudith - yes Green is primarily known as a writer. Her books have been translated into Dutch, German and Italian. Recently The Human Evasion was translated into Russian in an online version, by someone with no connection to Green.
However, Green also laid the foundations of research into lucid dreams and out-of-body experiences, by being the first to recognise and describe them as phenomena in their own right.
The issue of whether she should be described as a “philosopher” seems to hinge on what definition of philosophy one uses. If it’s what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer did, then it seems to me what she wrote in books like The Human Evasion and Advice to Clever Children is clearly philosophy, even if it's not much like anything currently done in academic philosophy departments. FWadel 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notoriety and Academic Standing
It is an interesting argument Ranger2006 that, "by ‘philosopher with academic standing’ is meant ‘philosopher regarded as significant by his/her contemporaries in academia’, and few would disagree that certain philosophers were not given the credit or fame they deserved for views that we're later seen to be academically or historically important. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be used as a place to predicate future events. Perhaps in the future Celia Green may be seen as important, but she is not so now. As it currently stands, Celia Green's work has not been seen as academically rigorous or note-worthy and this biography should reflect that.
If references are found to support this article and the comments in here, such as Green laying foundations, then please put them in.
Lastly, thank you for clarifying Ranger2006 that you are not Celia Green. I would sincerely appreciate however if you could still elaborate on your relationship to Green and to any profit making organisations that are attempting to support themselves by referencing this article which you have so dilligently created in Green's favour.86.160.229.161 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
