Talk:Wayne Dyer

Removal of Audio Book Publications & Rant

Why is there no list of Dyer's books, with their release dates? It seems that you're all too busy bashing each other, to actually make a useful entry. Wayne Dyer exists. He writes books and makes Audio Books, get off your high horse, and put the list in here. Jeez!

S.R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.8.188 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wayne W. Dyer - 101 Ways to Transform Your Life

Wayne W. Dyer - Applying the 10 Secrets for Success and Inner Peace

Wayne W. Dyer - Change Your Thoughts Meditation

Wayne W. Dyer - Choosing your own Greatness

Wayne W. Dyer - Depak Chopra - Creating Your World the Way You Really Want It to Be

Wayne W. Dyer - Depak Chopra - How to get what you Really Really Really Really WANT

Wayne W. Dyer - Depak Chopra - Living Beyond Miracles

Wayne W. Dyer - Depak Chopra - Living Without Limits

Wayne W. Dyer - Four Pathways To Success

Wayne W. Dyer - How to be a No Limit Person

Wayne W. Dyer - How To Get What You Really, Really, Really, Really Want

Wayne W. Dyer - Improve Your Life Using the Wisdom of the Ages

Wayne W. Dyer - Meditations for Manifesting

Wayne W. Dyer - Power of Intuition

Wayne W. Dyer - Secrets of the Universe

Wayne W. Dyer - The Keys to Higher Awareness

Wayne W. Dyer - The Secrets of an Inspirational (In-Spirit) Life

Wayne W. Dyer - The Secrets of Manifesting your Destiny

Wayne W. Dyer - The Secrets of The Power of Intention Learning to Co-Create Your World Your Way

Wayne W. Dyer - The Secrets Of Your Own Healing Power

Wayne W. Dyer - The Universe Within You

Wayne W. Dyer - Transformation

Wayne W. Dyer - Wisdom of the Masters

Wayne W. Dyer - Your Journey to Enlightenment

Wayne W. Dyer - Your Life Begins Now!

Who's the idiot who removed all his audio publications listed above? I had years published and ISBN numbers and all kinds of crap. I do all this work and someone undoes it. And what's this other crap listed from these people who haven't even read his works? I've read 49 of his books, and I don't think you should be able to bashing his work unless you've actually read it. some of you "skeptics" (which I don't believe in, BTW) are the reason why the wikipedia a co-founder called wikipedia "broken beyond repair" WANNA REFERENCE?

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/04/11/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair-co-founder-says

that article says: Mind you, Sanger has something of an axe to grind as he's just launched his own encyclopaedia, citizendium.org, which will be monitored by boffins.

So dude, you are guilty yourself of manipulating quotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.243.183 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I have read just about everything of his and he has NEVER mentioned in any way shape of form the "new thought movement" Strike THREE, it's out.

There is no criticism from his work except from know-nothing, well uninformed, non-reading whiners that have never helped anyone do anything great. These kinds of people who sit in wikipedia and destroy others work, there has to be a term for these people. I will go toe-to-toe with anyone claiming to be a "Wayne Dyer" expert who is trying to squeeze their "pseudoscience and self-help idiocy" into his profile. How many millions do I have to make more than you because I've followed his teachings he brings from the worlds greatest thinkers before you will stop whining and start reading? Wayne Dyer teachers the teachings from ALL religious groups from all time. This is someone who unites, not some intolerant "skeptic" tearing down society with their useless nonconstructive whining. We need more people like this.

/rant. --Eckre (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Influences

I moved this here because it is all unsourced Pgc512 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC):

Wayne Dyer is influenced by and publicly gives credit to the Sufi poet Rumi, Taoism, and Jesus Christ. Some also see in his work influences from the work of Napoleon Hill ("thoughts are things"). Alan Watts [[1]] is not mention by Dyer but certainly is one of his influences.

We have to get sources

There are no sources and I can't find anyone.........this is going to go into the wikipedia trash bin soon if there are not sources....any suggestions? Tmtoulouse 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also it is clearly an ad for Wayne Dyer, its ganked from his bio on his site and is mostly praise and a book list. This guy is a proponent for pseudoscience and self-help idiocy, the positive claims need sources and it needs a criticism section. But to do this we need sources, which there are none that I can find. Anyone know where I should look?Tmtoulouse 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source that is worth checking out for a different point of view. This could add more substance to the article. It starts with one article and it looks like there are 13 more which give a different views. This would be for the "critical thinking" phase of the Dyer article. Anyway here it is Assesssing Dr. Wayne Dyer http://www.helium.com/items/759437-assessing-dr-wayne-w-dyer. Ti-30X (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He mentions just about all of those authors in each book. I've read 42 to date. you want page numbers of ever book?, audio time stamps - what? he does mention Nap Hill in at least ten books.

"pseudoscience and self-help idiocy"

Is there any way we can work this into the article? Just kidding .... Pgc512 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with their point though, there is no criticsm of work. The insane 'Banana incident' was on there for ages! Gareth E Kegg 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Best Selling Book

TMT, what is the need for fact checking - See List of Best-Selling Books. It is already sourced there. Pgc512 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, and can not be used to source a claim, you need a WP:ATT source. Tmtoulouse 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Does only 35 million sold make it "one of the best selling books of all time"? It's barely even in the top 40, marked as #36 in the list cited above, and would also fall around that range on most of the other "all time best selling" lists that are out there. Where does one draw the line before hyperbole and fan-ism kick in? The bible and quran aren't listed on that list either, and I'm pretty sure that they'd be on the first list driving that book even further down the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobM NH (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

PBS

TMT, the article you reference says that it is safe to assume Dyer was popular and effective and that there were some letters from people who were disturbed in the way I described --- there is no indication of something widespread. Pgc512 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look through it again. Tmtoulouse 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Thought Movement

It is misleading to single out "New Thought" as THE label for Dyer's message. I can't recall him mentioning "New Thought" in any of the books, audio tapes, videos that I have seen. More often he mentions Christ, Buddha, Sai Baba, St. Francis, etc. So we could use many labels to describe his perspective. Better not to single one out. What do others think? Pgc512 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it strikes me that to put the "New Thought" label on Dyer is original research. Where is the source? What is one good reference? Pgc512 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

also in regards to this in particular, the closest dr dyer comes to mentioning for instance "the law of attraction" would be his reference in 'power of intention' he states more than once 'thoughts become things' but never actually categorizes it

Schulte123 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Iyanla Vanzant

First you you removed the whole list, I think a list of similar writers is handy for those looking for other spiritual text. Do you know what New Thought is, he has mentioned other spritual writers who belong to the movement and not. Iyanla Vanzant is one. There is a philosophcial connection between these writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't agree with the attempts to lace this article with "New Thought" references throughout, giving the impression that somehow this is what Dyer is all about.

I have been involved with Unity and other New Thought resources for a long time, and I have been editing and watching this page for a long time and if we start listing writers with a "philosophcial connection", we ought to include the follwing: Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Michelangelo, Emily Dickinson, Herman Melville, William Blake, Emerson, Thoreau, Shelley, Shakespeare, Yeats, Kipling, Shaw, Chief Seattle, Confucius, Langston Hughes and Dorothy Parker (At least he has spoken of these ...)

There are plenty of New Thought References left.

The Dyer article should not be used as a vehicle to promote any "Movement". Pgc512 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I see you or someone has added a bunch of these people to the "See Also" section. Personally I think it is silly looking. The relevant ones could be linked from the article itself. Some already are. Any other thoughts? Pgc512 21:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Claims as a prophet

He happened to be on the public station yesterday and I heard him make a joke "I'm a prophet, I get paid by the thought"

It was probably nothing, but that's a rather charged word and that's all I've seen of him saying it. I'm just wondering if there's any place where he's explained this term of application or claim of 'prophethood.' Peter Deer (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What he said was " I am a philosopher, I get paid by the thought".  : )

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Dyer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

religiouse beliefs/ personal life?

I have a copy of every book dr dyer ever wrote (not including 'gifts from eykis", I think his 'beliefs' have changed drastically over the course of huis work (most notably with the power of intention and his work on the tao 'change your thoughts change your life')

to say dr. dyer has 'spiritual beliefs' might be alot more accurate but youd have to make the ASSUMPTION (assumptions arent good for encyclopedias) that his most recent work reflects his beliefs, maybe more appropriate would be a summary of the message he is giving in a book by book format?

also the personal life shouldnt just mention his current home and family, when I get time I'll check some of his older works but I believe it would be useful to mention that he lived in an orphanage for a period (although referencing his own words in regard to that might not be the best citation) , also his visit to his fathers grave had a notable influence on al of his writings.

Schulte123 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Marital Status: Does anyone have a good source to support knowledge that Wayne and his third wife Marcelene are now divorced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unigami (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What he said was " I am a philosopher, I get paid by the thought".  : )

Has anybody noticed that there are two birth years in this article? I believe that 1940 is correct, but I see in the sidebar that 1941 is used. Mfjps1 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. Mr. Dyer was, indeed, born in 1940, and it has been corrected.Mk5384 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Linus

Is there a cd or dvd of Sky, musical performances? Reminds one of Yanni at the Acropolis. Advertising is difficult enough! Just wanted to share appreciation, and how powerful musical talent is, in atmospheres, and Universal polarity to be reached with transmissions. Gary Null, Advocate *)75.201.135.132 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Byron Katie 'New Age'?

In describing the legal dispute between her husband and Dyer, Byron Katie is described as a 'New Age author'; given that the phrase 'New Age' doesn't occur in the page about Katie, this claim seems to require a citation (or removal). Is it true that Katie is considered 'New Age'? (Can you absolutely know it's true? :~P)

Personal info parked here until sources can be found

In, or around, July of 2009, Wayne Dyer stated on his radio show "Excuses Begone" that he had "some things going on in his body." He did not elaborate on it at that time. However, later, during Dr. Dyer's program on Hay House Radio, a caller referenced the aforementioned comment. This time, Dyer provided some details behind his health situation. Dyer stated that he has "Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia" (CLL) which he says is "not life threatening" for him. Dr. Dyer stated that he is "totally confident and at peace with it." He went on to say that he will be spending some time at The Chopra Center, operated by his longtime friend, Dr. Deepak Chopra.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Reception is a bit one-sided/bias by supplying one against reception it makes it appear there exists no positive receptions, which causes an necessary bias in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.122.227 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Obsession with taxation

In more than one of his audio works, he has show anger towards government taxation. What are his hangups on this? 180.183.132.6 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. What improvement are you proposing? Do you have a secondary source supporting this improvement? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Death Hoax?

Hay House his publisher have confirmed his death to me for a news article I am writing and they have also released a facebook post https://www.facebook.com/hayhouse/posts/10153604249998259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.237.254 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There continues to be a large number of edits concerning Mr. Dyer's supposed death. However, there fails to be any sourcing for these edits. I'm hoping a Moderator can put a lock on this article until such time as it can be sourced. Until then it any attempt to indicate the death of Mr. Dyer should be met with suspicion of a Hoax/Vandalism. 24.8.145.133 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm done for the evening, and I hope others will continue to remove the "Death" edits until such time as they are properly sourced. There is nothing in a sourceable article. And in the past there have been too may hoaxes using Facebook as the starting point. I wish you all well, let's try to keep this encyclopedic. 24.8.145.133 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Death: links to info: https://www.facebook.com/drwaynedyer?fref=ts - https://twitter.com/DrWayneWDyer - still waiting on news sources to confirm. Mjp1976 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are now some news sources for his death, if more are found please add to list. Please see below. 2601:280:4200:A5A1:501E:5724:EDC8:1077 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216536/Ellen-DeGe.html (however it should be noted that Daily Mail is considered tabloid and so is not reliable.)

Considering that this is posted on his official facebook page, I do not see how this can be considered a hoax, his page is facebook verified. Mjp1976 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

- Facebook Pages get hacked all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources His Facebook page would fall under Fansite category. 2601:280:4200:A5A1:501E:5724:EDC8:1077 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

- considering it has not been removed from the page yet. I would assume it to be true. Mjp1976 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

- Facebook sources about as reliable as Wikipedia. His publisher has officially announced the news as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.237.254 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

if his publisher has announced the news, than I would take that as fact? Mjp1976 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes once his publisher announced it on their business website, not just their facebook page, it became much more reliable. 2601:280:4200:A5A1:501E:5724:EDC8:1077 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cause of Death

The New York Times states that a spokeswoman for his publisher, Hay House, said that the cause of his death was a heart attack. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/arts/wayne-w-dyer-prolific-author-of-self-help-books-dies-at-75.html?_r=0 98.244.78.33 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Presently someone is trying hard to to present unsubstantiated claims in the Death section that Dyer was cancer-free at time of death. They have posted a "Source"/Link to an article from The Inquistor which offers no such claim. The article provides links to Dyer's FB page but those links do not lead to any claims or credible sources to verify said claims. Most people do NOT own a Facebook account. I do not own one. Perhaps if I did those FB links would lead to different pages that members only can view? Unless you can provide a link to a credible news agency that is claiming to have seen the autopsy report or has spoken with the coroner and been told that Dyer was completely cancer-free at time of death, then I will continue to remove said claims from this article and/or request this article to be LOCKED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkibbingtonVonSkubber (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am his daughter and the autopsy results stated no trace of leukemia in his blood. He died of a heart attack which was brought on from heart disease. --68.173.231.132 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Statements claiming Dr. Dyer was cancer\leukemia free at the time of his death should not be included without a source from the autopsy report or doctor who performed it. That his blood was free of leukemia at death was a claim posted by a family member on social media just one day after his death, yet subsequently a person representing herself to be Dr. Dyer's daughter makes that same claim on this site but attributes it to an autopsy performed "a few days after his death." There was obviously an effort to spin the leukemia-free claim before it was actually possible to know if that was factual. - PizzaAddict (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

UK & US Obituaries

The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11844251/Wayne-Dyer-positive-thinking-advocate-obituary.html The Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3217657/Erroneous-Zones-author-self-help-guru-Wayne-W-Dyer-dies.html New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/arts/wayne-w-dyer-prolific-author-of-self-help-books-dies-at-75.html?_r=0

Veryscarymary (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What date did Dyer die, August 29 or 30, 2015?

It has been pointed out about the sources differing slightly, with some saying he died on Sunday (Aug. 30), and others saying Saturday night (Aug. 29). The article presently shows August 30, though this edit, which I reverted as the user provided no explanation, changed it to the 29th. Deaths in August 2015 shows the date as August 29, which as I recall was initially reported as August 30 there (when it was in Recent deaths). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This has his daughter saying he died "late Saturday or early Sunday", which suggests to me that he died in his sleep when there was nobody present to witness it, and he was discovered dead on Sunday morning, and his time/date of death had to be estimated, and the confidence interval was too wide to be able to say definitively which side of midnight he passed away.

I guess we'd have to be guided by his death certificate, if we ever get access to it. His official site still makes no mention of his death, so that's no help. It looks like all the media reports have just made up what they felt was the most likely date. Fwiw, the majority of them do say he died "late Saturday" (= 29th), rather than "early Sunday". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am his daughter and I have his death certificate. He died on Aug 30th. He died in his sleep and it was initially unknown whether it was late on the 29th or during the morning of the 30th, however his autopsy indicated with certainty that he died between the hours of 4-6 am on the 30th. Please edit this. --68.173.231.132 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I found this on Wayne Dyer's Facebook page, which was supposedly posted by Reid Tracy. It talks about the death of Louise Hay, which occurred on August 30, 2017, but he mentions that Dyer also passed away on August 30, two years earlier. Mentioned below in the semiprotected edit request is that Tracy was Dyer's publisher. Some light could be shed on the details pertaining to Dyer's close friends and colleagues, as I have no idea about the connections. At this point, if there's gonna be any change to Dyer's death date in the article, this may be reliable to confirm the later date is correct, but as this is a primary source, I'm hesitant to use this and it's still better to have confirmation from an independent secondary source per WP:RS. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

Change Wayne Dyer's date of death from Aug 29, 2015 to Aug 30, 2015. I am his daughter and have his death certificate. He died on the 30th. 2604:2000:F103:F500:30CB:5070:7284:FFC7 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you physically want for this to be changed???? I can't give you the death certificate. My name is Saje Dyer, I am his daughter. My Dad died in his sleep and it was at first unknown whether or not this occurred on the night of the 29th or in the early hours of the 30th, because he was discovered around 9am Hawaii time. SO the date was misquoted for several days. However the autopsy results a few days after his death, confirmed that he died in the early hours of the 30th (specifically between 4-6am). I do not know what other proof you want, but as his daughter I'm pretty sure I would know better than you folks who are just speculating. What is your proof that it is the 29th? There is none, because it's false information. His publisher, Reid Tracy, has posted several times about it being the 30th. Look at my, or any of my siblings facebooks- it was the 30th! Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F103:F500:7C4D:4E8A:B9C9:4892 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We will still need independent, reliable sources, which state the definitive date of his death. Even that statement from Tracy, which might satisfy this requirement but I'm not completely sure, needs to be provided as a citation. Current sources in the article have stated both dates, including one published about a year ago that said August 29. Consensus needs to be established to change the date where there is dispute about it. Since you are posting under an IP, there's no way we can verify the identity of you being related to Dyer; even with a registered account, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to verify such a claim. And we can't use Facebook posts except if it's from a verified account, confirming that the person posting it is who they say they are (which is also not foolproof). Even at that, Facebook posts qualify as primary sources, and they can only be used to verify facts about the person owning the Facebook account, with extra caution needed about info regarding someone else, including the date of their death. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My Dad's Facebook page IS VERIFIED! Look at it. It has over 3 million followers and is run by Hay House - his publishers. They quote his death as Aug 30th. NEWSFLASH - the people closest to him (i.e. his family, his publisher) would know the specifics of his death over a complete stranger. This is a far more reliable source then you just picking between various news sources that do not have a consensus. I will register myself with wikipedia if that will help, and you can check me out however you want to verify that I am his daughter. My name is Saje Dyer. Joining now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:f103:f500:542a:19d4:bea3:f173 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We have already explained that you need a reliable source. Please read WP:RS before continuing, specifically this. Until you provide what we have asked for, do not reopen this edit request unless it is for a different edit entirely. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the OTRS system still running? Can it not be used for her to submit her evidence while retaining copyright of it? Samsara 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: I'm not familiar with OTRS, but perhaps another editor could guide her to it. Certainly, there needs to be some resolution to add credence to her claim and allow the change of Dyer's death date in the article (absent any additional independent sources to back it). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Information on ORTS can be found at (surprise!) WP:ORTS. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad we have that redirect, you were keyboard challenged last night (if my comment is cryptic, it's OTRS not ORTS)

SajeDyer Please see John's post above. It might help your situation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

SajeDyer, please understand that anyone can pretend to be anyone on the Internet. I'm not doubting you are who you say you are, but on the other hand, you wouldn't want us to accept information from a joker claiming to be you, right? WP:ORTS is the system we use to do that. You will need to contact them directly by email. The page I linked above is probably too detailed to be of any assistance in the immediate situation. The email address is info-en-qwikimedia.org . Their page says they are considerably backlogged (like everything else at Wikipedia, ORTS is staffed entirely by volunteers), so some patience may be required. John from Idegon (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Hmm, wouldn't the e-mail address have an "@" somewhere in it? I'm wondering if you meant [email protected]. (Saw that on the contact page and it looked close to what you wrote.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be correct. I seem to be very keyboard challenged tonight. Just broke ANI 3 times trying to close a report. Time for bed. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Would you be willing to help guide this process? It seems there's a general consensus that OTRS is the way ahead, I'm just not terribly familiar with it. Thanks! Samsara 12:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I will look into it in approx. an hour.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe OTRS will be able to help which I'm sure will come as a disappointment. I respond partially as an OTRS agent, partially as an editor.

It is true that OTRS plays a role in verification of identities, and is my guess that's why I received this ping. (As an aside, verification of identities is tougher than one might imagine, because we have a prohibition against receipt of primary document such as passports drivers licenses , birth and death certificates, in other words, most of the document used to verify identity in the real world). Our verification of identity is generally limited to one specific situation, which doesn't apply here. On occasion, someone will create a username which corresponds to a famous person — roughly speaking and almost always the case, the subject of some article in Wikipedia. While we permit a broad array of names to be used as usernames, we don't want to permit someone to create a username which might suggest they are the subject, unless they actually are the subject. In those cases, the username is temporarily blocked until they can provide proof that they are the subject.

While John is correct that we cannot know for sure that the person posting this information is who they say they are, it wouldn't be sufficient for them to prove they are they say they are. I am in complete agreement the family members are more likely to know the facts than outsiders, and for this reason it seems obvious that we should take steps to verify that the individual is a family member. However, early in the history of Wikipedia we had to make a decision on what types of information are permitted and which are not, and we reached the decision that we follow today — if anything is challenged or likely to be challenged, it can only remain if it can be supported by a reliable, published source.

Because of one of the five pillars — to achieve a neutral point of view we want to "strive for verifiable accuracy". Verifiability means that any reader can look for the supporting reference and track it down. While that may be difficult in some cases because it might be a pay only reference, it is at least in principle possible. The information in OTRS is confidential, so it would not satisfy the goal of verifiability.

It seems clear that there was some confusion regarding the exact date initially, as is often the case. I can understand that the family might want the date reported accurately but this desire should extend to reliable publications not just Wikipedia. As soon as it is reported in a reliable publication, we can follow suit. We don't want to be in the position where all reliable published sources say one thing and Wikipedia says another thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

2 October 2017‎ Wayne Dyer page, Reverted 1 edit by Dante Dos 2nd try

Sir, I am at a lost to suppose the reason and remedy for your 'revert'. I believe the source references of Sun Sentinel are reliable. Perhaps the wording is not right? Can an edit correct this? Thank you

In November 1991 Dyer was involved with soliciting a female for prostitution, a misdemeanor as a patron of an escort service busted by Florida state officials. He subsequently pleaded no contest to inducing and enticing a lewd act in May 1992 and paid $5,000. Dante Dos (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Discussion of content disputes belong on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, was unsure of how to proceed. Entry was reverted without explanation other than needs consensus. Dante Dos (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Dante Dos (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the only explanation you need. If someone tells you something needs consensus, then you start a discussion on the article talk page, not one complaining about its removal, but justifying why it needs to be in the article. If others agree it goes in. If they don't it doesn't. There is absolutely no need to leave a message in either my or anyone else's talk page. Most Wikipedia editors have more interests than just making sure one person looks as bad as possible unlike you, Dante Dos. Please don't leave any further messages here. John from Idegon (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dante Dos: The content you were adding, given Dyer's overall nature as demonstrated currently in the article, is an exceptional claim and likely pretty sensitive for his surviving family. For a biography of living persons article (even though Dyer has been deceased for two years), this will require multiple, independent, high-quality sources. Even coverage in these sources doesn't guarantee inclusion, as again, this is quite sensitive material and irregular when compared to his notability as a motivational speaker or author. I don't speak for other editors, but I'm against the addition unless this material, with additional sources notwithstanding, can be demonstrated to have had a significant impact on his career or family. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude got arrested for a misdomeaner, was not even found guilty. No way this belongs, even with much better sourcing. If the guy was still alive, the original post would have been redacted too. There is no reason to ever include trivial negative info on a talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the wording of the two sentence entry. Objectively, this is an absolute statement of fact directly taken from sited references, Sun Sentinel being a reliable source. It should not be passed off as being a 'claim' , exceptional or otherwise. As to it's being a trivial matter, etc. It is common practice for solicitation and other misdemeanors to accept pleas of 'no contest' and pay a fine to avoid court and court records. This is not a parking ticket. Wikipedia has many entries of notable people with similar offenses and similar outcomes, without regard to it's being sensitive material. As an example, see Sam Shepard , the actor has a whole page of listed accomplishments. And a four sentence entry relating a (trivial?) drunk driving charge.

This entry on Dyer is a Fact, and can be verified as such. Strictly speaking, Facts are neither negative, positive, trivial, important or sensitive or insensitive. But, our opinions of Facts are what makes them so. Obviously, the acceptance of facts is a highly subjective process. Wayne Dyer had become a celebrity/notable person who was touted as a spiritual teacher and guru. And in later life, his very profitable business was writing and speaking his thoughts on divine love, spirituality and planes of existence. Even this Wayne Dyer Wikipedia page is placed in a religion category. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the entry be allowed. In much the same way as if Dyer were a priest or religious leader, politician or celebrity. The contrast of these facts and the previously reported substance of his life has merit. Dante Dos (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Factuality does not guarantee inclusion. To me your arguments are not compelling. A misdomeaner, reported only locally, is not significant enough to include. John from Idegon (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne Dyer. 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/20131204230323/http://www.hayhouse.com/details.php?id=127 to http://www.hayhouse.com/details.php?id=127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)