This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think a reading of her bio will indicate that she is a founder of a large group of people. I believe she is relatively well known among Budhists in the United States. She has her talks recorded on the IMCW website: http://www.imcw.org/audio/audio.php

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I made some additional changes for clarity and to avoid redundancy.

She is well known among both Buddhists and psychologists in the United States. However, many of the clinical psychologists who have read her work will not necessarily know she is the founder of a large local organization, be familiar with its name, or have any idea that her internationally popular talks are given away on the IMCW organization's website for free.

I can indicate that in the article if necessarily.

I'd love to understand how the article seems non-neutral as the biography presented is the one presented when introducing her before conferences. Please also help to understand where any weasel words appear and how best to adhere to Wikipedia's quality standards. Does the article still need additional sources?

I will make some changes now.

Thank you.

Jlchan29 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC) It would helpful to know why this person does not meet the notability guidelines as she has been prominently featured by many notable secondary sources.[reply]

I do see that references to several of those sources have been deleted. I will re-list but ask the editors to monitor whether they are deleted again. Thank you. Janna Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the author's notability has been now established by her association with teachers, conference centers, and companies considered notable by Wikipedia as well articles from reputable sources featuring her work. If editors disagree what other sources would be helpful in establishing notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove one source: we don't allow citation "by example" and don't allow citation by search link. A web search that shows products for sale is not a reference. A reference is a review or mention in a newspaper, journal, book, or website and it is generally better if the website is not affiliated with the subject. When a subject gives teachings or presentations at a center, they usually write their own biography page: that's not a reliable source. A report in the local paper about the teaching, a review of the presentation by a third party in a yoga journal, these are the sort of thing we are looking for.

I agree that the new sources tend to establish that the subject is notable, but too many of the sources are affiliated with the subject in a way that they stand to profit by promoting the subject. These sources need to be replaced by neutral accounts not affiliated with the subject.

Also, the language was much too promotional. We do not call people or organizations "prominent", "excellent", or "noted". These are editorial judgements. We can report that some third party has called the subject these things, but we can't just arbitrarily assert such things in the article, as it makes it start to sound like an advert. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yworo. All references that seemed commercial or promotional were added in an attempt to establish the subject's notability. I am not employed by this person and do not benefit in any way from this article. I simply believe that this person is notable and deserves a Wikipedia articles as as such. Since the issue of notability is no longer officially in question, I believe, I will search for more neutral references. Thank you. Jlchan29 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding link rot, I attempted to reformat the links in APA format and that change appears to have been undone. What would help fix the link rot problem. Thank you. Jlchan29 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I guess that the link rot problem has been resolved Jlchan29 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most biography pages for people in this field, such as the ones for Jack Kornfield and Mark Epstein don't require verification of Academic credentials. Why is this subject being held to a different standard? Thanks for your helpSueanne0310 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that an editor expressed concern that the educational and professional section of this subject is not well cited. It now seems better cited than the biographies of this subject's peers such as Mark Epstein and Jack Kornfield. If editors still feel that section needs further citations please which indicate what information needs to better cited to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.Sueanne0310 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would also appreciate any general help or information from experienced editors regarding this entire article. Thank you. Sueanne0310 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources have been added to this article since August 2011. Can the tag at the top indicating that the article needs additional resources be removed? If not, what else needs to be done? Thanks to all. Sueanne0310 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it and corrected some confusion in the article. The bibliography section is only for work *by* the subject, not works that simply mention her. Reference quality works that are not used as references go in the "Further reading" section. It would improve the article to source some things from them and use them as references. Yworo (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in improving the article. Sueanne0310 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very glossy and doesn’t really give me many details outside of pedigree and publications. - Scarpy (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more content. Nnev66 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku We seem to disagree on content to include in this article. The book "Radical Acceptance" generated a lot of attention and explains what the subject learned from her past (which I think is worth including in early life so will add back). The RAIN acronym is often cited by the subject and noted in references so I'm adding that back as well. I don't consider any of this fluff - if there's policy you think the content is violating please cite it so I can better understand. Nnev66 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnev66 I'm happy to have this discussion with you here, per WP:BRD, but your preferred content should not be restored until we've reached some kind of understanding/compromise.

Here are the contested points, along with my reasoning for removing them:

• Early life discussion about "sitting with her feelings of shame and fear" sounds too much like spiritual/psychotherapy fluff to be included in an encyclopedic article, and I'm not sure what value those specific details add to the content.
• Details from Radical Acceptance are definitely all fluffy, and once again, it isn't clear to me why her personal theories or reflections should be included in her bio.
• The RAIN acronym seems like more therapy/spirituality detail than what needs to be included in a page about Brach's life.

Please let me know your thoughts on the importance of including these points. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not policy and but rather an optional strategy for coming to consensus, and I feel restoring my content was reasonable, especially since you didn't explain why you deleted it other than it was "fluff", which I'd appreciate if you'd define. Do you mean trivial/unimportant? not relevant? Why can't a subject's teachings/experiences be included in their biography? Adding content which provides context for the subject's motivation that led to their work which made them notable seems not only reasonable but important for readers to have more insight into the subject's writings and teachings.

Also the subsection headings you added make no sense as the PhD is not about Buddhism but is in this subsection, and training meditation teachers is not about Writings/podcasts but is in that subsection. Furthermore, there is so little content in this section now it doesn't need subsections. I'm going to collapse all the sections into one called "Biography" since there are issues with all of them until we finish this discussion or agree on better ones.

You did make some nice copy edits and removed some details that really didn't need to be there. But you also removed important content and haven't explained why beyond that it's fluffy. Perhaps there needs to be more expansion of the article to make the context clearer. Do you have recommendations other than deletion? I'm OK with the RAIN acronym being left off for now unless there is more context. Nnev66 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnev66, I explained my reasons for removing the "fluff" in my previous comment: sentences like "sit with her feelings of shame and fear rather than run away from them", "She then began tuning in to her body and intuition", "she chose to practice self-compassion", "'trance of unworthiness' a state of internalized self-hatred that blocks a person's inherent worth", etc., is spiritual/psychotherapy lingo, and a lot of it just doesn't make good sense to the "uninitiated", so I don't think it's valuable to include it. Why do you think these phrases should be kept? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I think part of what you meant by "fluff" was that I used phrases that might not be understood by others who aren't in meditation, Buddhist, spiritual communities which is fair. Also, that I used language for the subject which could be written in a less personal way - if there is policy on staying away from this, if you could point me to it I'd appreciate it. Note I find the term "fluff" to be pejorative and non-descriptive, i.e. it doesn't help me understand the specific concerns.

I did some digging and there are at least five reviews of the "Radical Acceptance" book so it could have its own article, and not necessarily be included in this one - if it's too short I'd just make it a section of this article. Similarly for RAIN, it's a mindfulness tool used by the subject and could go under a "Teachings" section. I think the subject's journey to self-compassion in the ashram is important for this article, but could be stated in a less personal way for the sake of consensus. Not sure when I'll get to all of this but I plan to work on this article more. Nnev66 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnev66, yes, that is what I meant—thank you for rewording my thoughts in a clearer way. "Fluff" is certainly pejorative—as I intended it to be, but yes, it is also non-descriptive. I'd have to dig for a policy, assuming one exists on this topic, but is that necessary? My claim is that the language and specific details don't contribute value to the average reader, so in my opinion, it is best not to include it.

Radical Acceptance may very well warrant its own article—I have no strong opinion on that matter. As for RAIN—again, I'm not clear on the value of including it in an encyclopedic article. It's proprietary and niche, and if people have sufficient interest in learning more about it, they can read Brach's own work on it, no? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "talking" this through. I only ask about policy because I'm curious what we'd do if we came to a road block about article content that's sourced and relevant, but goes against what an editor feels should be included in an article. Nonetheless, I'll leave out details of a more personal nature if not essential for the biography, while including content that motivated the subject to pursue their work. Nnev66 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnev66, I suppose the easiest thing to do at that point, assuming neither one of us is aware of a relevant policy, would be to consult WP:TEA. Cheers (pun not intended)! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]