Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal nr2/talk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the time being, I will focus on re-structuring the copy of the old version, not on shortening. Andries 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:article length[edit]

I counted 6.074 words of readable prose in this version 16:39, 13 May 2007. See Wikipedia:article length. Andries 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making good progress Andries. You've removed nearly 300 words from the "bloated" version. Improved chronology and shifted Hunt from "Techniques" to "Teachings" where it belongs. Added more Downton to support Singer. Added Messer material on "mind".Will you integrate the "crticism" into the article or would you like me too?Momento 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More material for the article[edit]

Andries

Alternative versions[edit]

Andries 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Note: These reviews don't apply to this article.Momento 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good article review
  • Peer reviews

Andries 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which version to use as a basis for this re-write?[edit]

I disagree with your approach,as you are dismissing the questions and skirting the issue raised. If you want to be helpful, start from the verison that was deemed better by the independent reviewer, which I have copied here as a way to state my disagreement. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not, because the re-write by Momenot has too many flaws and it is too much work to correct it. These flaws are not present in this version, though, I admit of course that my re-write has flaws, but other flaws when compared to Momento's re-write. Andries 12:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be helpful then please make sure that the many constructive suggestions on Momento's re-write that I made at talk:Prem Rawat are implemented in Momento's rewrite. Andries 12:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be helpful, you should stop. I have no interest in commenting on this. I am taking a break today.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you comment on a re-write? You repeatedly requested me to comment on Momento's re-write which I did extensively and in detail, though, I admit, not exhaustively. Andries 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melton's quote[edit]

Melton's quote is ambiguous - "Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration" - could mean that "Maharaj Ji claims to be a Perfect Master, and also claims that a Perfect Master is an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration".Momento 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the quote is ambiguous then paraphrasing will be difficult as we have seen so often in the past. Do not change what is within the quotation marks, such as you did here please. [2]I reverted your edit, because you changed the quote. [3] Andries 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't make it clear, I'll have to find Rawat's descriptiion of a Perfect Master.Momento 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you get somewhat bogged down, Momento, and it causes you to use sources incorrectly, which in turn, causes the article to become original research. In Wikipedia, it isn't the editor's place to interpret what a source/scholar has written. That's why paraphrasing someone's writing accurately is so very important. S/he's the scholar, not us; s/he's published, not us; s/he has the reputation as a scholar, not us. What's important, is to use a variety of writing styles, such as quoting the scholar by using a combination of prose and source-quotes in order to express as closely as possible the source's own writings, not an editor's meaning or intent, or even the subject's (Rawat's) meaning or intent. Also important is to have trust in the reader. Thanks. Sylviecyn 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balance and Fairness[edit]

One (perhaps the only one) advantage of the Momento rewrite is that it resolved to some degree the imbalanced presentation of Rawat’s critics, in that it avoided the sentence and link that remains in the orginal article:

In a FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them. [121]

^ "Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey"

Last November, I proposed a resolution of the imbalance caused by the inclusion of this item, that involved the addition of the following sentence:

The Elan Vital organisation has published an affidavit which claims to identify members of an active 'critics' group of Ex premies. Of those named one - Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit [4] (Prem Rawat Talk Forum.Wright [[5]] rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists but commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat [6] (Prem Rawat Maharaji Info) and [7] (Prem Rawat Critique)

This text was rejected on a number of grounds, and referal to Mediation and Arbitration achieved no resolution, although both mediator and arbitration panel suggested reference back to Wikimedia where the issue remains unaddressed. As the arbitrators also included the opinion that the matter was an issue of ‘content’ it seems that the conflict could now be addressed simply by taking the Momento route and deleting all external links to Elan Vital from the existing article. I have dealt with the deficiencies in the linked Elan Vital material and the problem of imbalance in the way that former followers are dealt with within the Rawat article at: [[8]]

Nik Wright2 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Geaves Article[edit]

I have no intention of getting involved in the wider issues of this article - however it should be put on record that Ron Geaves' 2004 paper From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond contains numerous factual errors which I have presented here -[9]

Nik Wright2 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Brown about 'Millennium '73'[edit]

Here is what the cited source states (The Spiritual Tourist Brown, Mick Bloomsbury publishing ISBN 1-58234-034-X Chapter Her Master's Voice' pp. 197-198)

"In 1973 he rented the Houston Astrodome, for 'Millennium '73', describing it as 'the most significant and holy event in the history of mankind'."

edit by Momento in which he changes citation of Mick Brown about Millenium '73 I think that Momento's "correction" distorts the source. I reverted. Andries 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browen's source is Rawat's letter and Rawat wrote "This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.” Clearly he is talking about "Hans Jayanti" not "Millennium". Brown is distorting the source and so are you.Momento 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Brown is not distorting the quote, You misintrepret the quote in a primary source in a very implausible way and that is why Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources i.e. Brown's book. Andries

Introuction of Reinhart Hummel[edit]

I strongly disagree with the way Momento introduces Reinhart Hummel to the reader. [10] He was in the first place a religious scholar who did researched Eastern movement and who wrote a book for the uni that gave him tenure there. He may have been somewhat biased because of his Christian background but he was not a Christian countercult writer in the cited book and only in the second place he was in the cited book someone who may have been somewhat biased because of his Christian background. That is not so important I will revert. Andries 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Geaves and Messer, who are not ministers in Rawat's religion must have their allegiance noted, every Christian minister must be described. You can't have a double standard Andries. These scholars are devotees of a Master also.Momento 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Collier is too long[edit]

It should be shorter. Andries 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Brown, Hummel, Derks etc are going to have large parts of their material included, in fairness we should do the same with Collier. As you know PatW and SylvieCyn were adamant about including more Collier and I was criticised for omiting some. On the other hand the new article avoids all these issues this proposal creates.Momento 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Hoffman[edit]

It is extraordinary that you think Hoffman's famous claim shouldn't be in this article. If the comments of a Dutch theology student from a small town in an article in a university magazine deserves to have eight lines in this article, how can you possible justify removing a famous person like Hoffman's equally famous sentence? Reinserted.Momento 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main basis to determine inclusion of a comment is reputability of the source in which the comment appeared. Fame of the person making the comments is largely irrelevant. E.g. we do not quote Einstein about subjects unrelated to his profession merely because Einstein was famous. Andries 05:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not "reputability". Hoffman was famous as a social commentator, his quote was notable, it was featured in an award winning film, it can be clearly read on the cover of the video. It is easily and immediately verifiable by going to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Universe. Hoffman commenting on American society is the equivalent of Einstein talking about science. On the other hand Wim Haan is not important, his quote was not notable, it was featured in an university magazine and cannot be eaily verified.Momento 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Festival[edit]

Rawat certainly did not speak at the first Glastonbury festival (who made that up ?) which was held in 1970 see [11]

Nik Wright2 07:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Andries, Survival of the Coolest by William Pryor.Momento 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki article "Glastonbury Festival" the 1970 event in the area was named the Pilton Festival, though some recall it as the Worthy Farm Festival. There were still earlier events in the area through the 1920s. The first "Glastonbury" named event was the Glastonbury Fayre, of 1971. This was where Prem Rawat spoke. Events since that time have all retrospectively become known as Glastonbury Festivals. Rumiton 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity[edit]

Andries, I applaud what you are doing here, but I can see problems. We are not writing a biography, we don't have space. So we need to find a way to give a fair impression of what happened without giving ALL the pros and cons, which will take many thousands of words. The issue of the Krishna Costume (garb, apparel, raiment, clothing) comes to mind. The quote that Momento gave tells the story as I recall it pretty well, but it is too long. We are all looking for an article which is aceptable to each other and ourselves so we are all looking basically for the same article. We need to get good at shortening. End of lecture. Rumiton 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messer[edit]

Folloers of Maharaji were in the 1970 described as followers, not as students. Andries 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about Rawat's teachings, and we are, then a teacher has students not followers.Momento 05:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone in a published reliable source named Messer "a follower", we can have that. If she was called "a student" we can do that in the article, and if she was not called anything, we call her anything beyond her professional title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van der Lans[edit]

Trained as a Roman Catholic priest [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no proof that he was ordained. Andries 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supplied source - After his secondary education he studied from 1953 until 1960 philosophy and theology at the abbey of Berne in Heeswijk. He was a member of this monastery until 1968.Momento 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment of the cited publication Van der Lans was not in monastery nor was Frans Derks involved in the KSGV. Andries 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Van der Lans can't live in a monastery without being a monk and unless he was defrocked he was still ordained. You should be able to establish where Derks has been for the last 30 years. If he's chairman of KSGV, he obviously very involved with the church.Momento 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monks are not necessarily priests. Andries 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleric probably covers the most ground, so Van der Lars, a Roman Catholic cleric.Momento 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Momento 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that Van der Lans was a cleric at the moment of publishing of the cited publication. Andries 05:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Van der Lans lived in a Catholic monastery for 15 years, VDL was a Catholic cleric. Unless he renounced Catholicism he remained a Catholic cleric..Momento 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he stopped being a cleric when he stopped being a monk in 1968 which was well before the time the cited publication. Andries 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the monastery doesn't necessarily revert his vows? In the Roman Catholic Church, the vows of members of religious orders and congregations are regulated by canons 654-658 of the Canon law. The vows are usually of two durations: temporary, and, after a few years, final vows (permanent or "perpetual"). VDL left the monastery in 1968 after he was is accepted as a full-time employee of a Catholic university.Momento 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reputable source that Van der Lans was a cleric at the time of cite publication (1986)? I cannot find it. He left the monastery in 1968. Where is the reputable source that states that Frans Derks was involved in the KSGV at the time of the cited publication (1986)? I cannot find it. Andries 09:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of writing Jan M. van der Lans is associate professor of psychology of culture and religion at Catholic University, Nijmegen. He has published several books and articles on new religious movements. Frans Derks is a research assistant with the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.). he is currently working at the department of psychology of culture and religion at Catholic University. Nijmegen to investigate the relationship between religious attitudes and cognitive psychology. I'll amend the text.Momento 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a conference in 1981 A Comparison Between Members of Two Eastern Guru Movements: The Bhagwan Movement and the Divine Light Mission" Jan Van Der Lans and Frans Derks, Psychology of Culture and Religion, Catholic University, Nijmegen, Holland. I'll add this contect to the earlier quote.Momento 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree on scholars and other sources[edit]

I'm disappointed that editors are still trying to characterize the religions of certain scholars as if their religions give a particular bias about their writing. That's pure speculation without proof or evidence of a bias. That information has nothing to do with the subject of this article and has been a huge waste of time in the past. If they are published scholars of NRM that's enough information, no more characterization of them is required, nor is it a form of good writing. A link to their own Wiki article if one exists, is more than adequate. That's a good way to cut down on word count, and another way to show good faith that we trust readers to draw their own conclusions.

This article is about Prem Rawat only, not the sources. Instead of getting bogged down about whether someone was a Catholic priest, a monk, a Lutheran, a Prostestant, etc., let's focus upon writing the article using the best published sources available that have been written about Prem Rawat. Of course, the only exception to this must be Ron Geaves, (the only published scholar that does have a conflict of interest which I've explained extensively before). Why? Because Geaves is the only religious scholar who both writes about the subject of this biography, Prem Rawat, and is a decades-long follower/premie of Maharaji. That's a distintive difference from the other published scholars. Additionally, Geaves committed a large academic no-no when he did not disclose his personal association to Rawat to his academic peers when he published papers about Prem Rawat. There's nothing to discuss about the other scholars, otherwise you're getting into a slippery slope of religious bigotry if you try to characterize a scholar's writing about Rawat based on their personal religious affiliation, not to mention to do so is original thought. Sylviecyn 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is nothing improper in stating that a religious scholar is of a specific denomination. Why would this be considered "bigotry"?
  2. Your assessment of Geaves, is baseless. If you have any specific evidence of such purported "no-no", I am sure editors here would like to see it.
  3. Providing a brief mention of a religious scholar denomination is not OR. It is what is called "context". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to hear more specifics on your own stated conflict of interest, Jossi. You use your position as admin. here and your employment by a Rawat-related organization, to use undue influence on the Rawat articles' talk pages. Until you give an adequate explanation about your COI with specifics, I won't be responding to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviecyn (talk • contribs)
I have already told you all I needed to tell you.
If you have concerns that I have breached any of these terms as outlined in WP:COI, please let me know:
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:::
1 editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2 participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3 linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:::
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.
(1) I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy. I am contributing via the talk page, encouraging interested editors to collaborate civilly and apply the content policies of WP.
(2) I am not participating in deletion discussions
(3) I am not spamming Wikipedia
(4) I am not breaching any content policies.
I would also like to bring to your attention this portion of the guideline:
Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. (from WP:COI)
I have never used my administrator privileges in this article. If you have any concerns about abuse of admin privileges, you can report it at WP:ANI, where it will be evaluated by fellow administrators
So, if you have any specific incidents that you want to discuss, please provide diffs to support them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Conflict of Interest[edit]

It is not necessary for an editor to have to prove that a source is COI, rather the burden lays with the quoted author/source to ensure that approriate statements are given with regard to any potential COI in all relevant works. In Geaves' case there is no contention that he is not a follower of Rawat and has been for decades, yet there is no published statement attached to any of Geaves' writings about Rawat that declares Geaves' position. This is not a question of Geaves' general religious beliefs - if he were Hindu or Sikh that may not warrant any comment, even though a Hindu or Sikh may share a degree of commonality with Rawat's 'philosophy'. What is at issue however is Geaves' capacity for disinterest when dealing with his personal teacher. It is true that certain groupings of sociologists of Religion have advanced the notion that they are not obliged to reveal COIs, however this is at variance with the general direction of profesional ethics - the following is from:[12]

On Being A Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research

Conflicts of Interest

Sometimes values conflict. For example, a particular circumstance might compromise-or appear to compromise-professional judgments. Maybe a researcher has a financial interest in a particular company, which might create a bias in scientific decisions affecting the future of that company (as might be the case if a researcher with stock in a company were paid to determine the usefulness of a new device produced by the company). Or a scientist might receive a manuscript or proposal to review that discusses work similar to but a step ahead of that being done by the reviewer. These are difficult situations that require trade-offs and hard choices, and the scientific community is still debating what is and is not proper when many of these situations arise.

Virtually all institutions that conduct research now have policies and procedures for managing conflicts of interest. In addition, many editors of scientific journals have established explicit policies regarding conflicts of interest. These policies and procedures are designed to protect the integrity of the scientific process, the missions of the institutions, the investment of stakeholders in institutions (including the investments of parents and students in universities), and public confidence in the integrity of research.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest subjects these concerns to the same social mechanisms that are so effective elsewhere in society. In some cases it may only be necessary for a researcher to inform a journal editor of a potential conflict of interest, leaving it for the editor to decide what action is necessary. In other cases careful monitoring of research activities can allow important research with a potential conflict of interest to go forward while protecting the integrity of the institution and of science. In any of these cases the intent is to involve outside monitors or otherwise create checks to reduce the possibility that bias will enter into science.

Nik Wright2 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this proposal[edit]

The whole point of this proposal was to respond to the GA review. As Vassyana noted - "The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written... Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" Andries disagreed and decided to rewrite the old flawed version. The result is we have this version that is even longer and has not addressed many of the GA concerns which were addressed in the first proposal. After a brief spurt of activity, this proposal has slowed to a crawl. I propose we replace the existing article with the first proposal until this proposal addresses some of the pressing issues brought up in the GA review.Momento 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at talk:Prem Rawat. Andries 05:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium[edit]

Your POV editing the remove the words (In bold) from Rawat's quote is unacceptable. It completely changes the meaning by removing the words that clearly show Rawat was talking about his father's birthday not just Millennium - "This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.” Clearly he is talking about "Hans Jayanti" not "Millennium". Momento 08:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is not supported by secondary sources. Andries 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. BLP says - Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

it is relevant to the subject's notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. Rawat's statement on Millennium is acceptable. Quite frankly, I think quoting Rawat on Millennium is undue weight. It will certainly have to go if you intend to "merciless edit" this "bloated" article. In the meantime, if you insist on putting it in, at least be accurate.Momento 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the secondary source accurately. You did not. You motivation of your edit reveals an interpretation of the primary source that is contradicted by the secondary source. Andries 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interpreting the primary source, I'm inserting it.Momento 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are, Momento, and I can easily see your point, but it is making the article unreadably long and tedious. That is why the only solution, as I see it, is brilliant paraphrasing of sources, not slavish repetition. Why does nobody else see this? Ah God, it's hard to soar with the eagles when you... :-) Rumiton 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries' and Brown's paraphrase of Rawat's easily veriable original completely changes its meaning, I am putting the full quote in to stop Andries promoting Brown's obviously incorrect paraphrase. An interesting thing is Andries' goes to the trouble to remove a word like "hence" from "claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth and hence a fitting object of worship and veneration". Which changes the meaning. And yet an insignificant Dutch theology student gets - "An article published in the official magazine about religious movements of the Free university of Amsterdam, a private Protestant university, written by Wim Haan, a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands states..." I'm also waiting for Andries to "mercilessly edit" this "bloated and too long" proposal.Momento 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of your demand for a concise version and your repeated edits that make this draft significantly longer is disruptive. Andries 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is either, or, Andries. If you chose to use quotes in the article, then we use quotes in the article in other places as well, not only on these paragraphs that you want them, but in those that Momento wants as well. If you do not use quotes, and relegate them to the footnotes, summarizing the key aspects of these sources, you may end up with a better version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are quite short and the main reason why they were introduced is because the subject is so sensitive and controversial that paraphrasing and sunmmarizing led to heavy disputes and accusations of distortion and selective quoting. Andries 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome accurate paraphrasing of quote, but we could never agree about the paraphrasing and that is why we eventually resorted to quotes in the cases of e.g. Kranenborg and Melton. Andries 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you want quotes, you can have them but allow others to use them. If you want paraphrasing do it properly. Better still, stick to facts and rely less on opinion.Momento 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there can be no agreement on "correct" paraphrasing of translated work, the only alternative is to disqualify ALL non-English sources. Rumiton 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is largely unrelated to translations. Melton's and Derks' writings in English are also quoted, not paraphrased. Andries 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want help or not[edit]

With your permission Andries, I will remove 20 KB of material from this proposal in 24 hours.Momento 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a try. I will probably not liken the result, but I cannot be sure. Andries 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't, I will. This is the most irritating piece of verbosity I have seen in a long time. Rumiton 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Please keep the citations very close to the contents that it supports, not at the end of paragraph but at the end of the sentence or even for a certain word. Not doing so is confusing and hinders editing by others. Andries 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of 16 KB[edit]

Thye problem now is that Andries' version goes straight from the 1974 split to the '80's without anything about '75 to 1980.Momento 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the "Leaving INdia" and "Teachings" sections untouched but they need the most work. Comments so far Andries.Momento 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word count per source[edit]

Here is a word count from the draft that I started. Lead section is excluded. The word count shows that in contrast to what Momento states, Derks, Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans do not have disproportionate amount of space. And in the case of Melton and Derks & Van Der Lans, user:Momento himself gave them more space. Hunt has the most word i.e. 404, then follows Geaves with 308 and then Downton with 305. The version for the word count is here [13] User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/word_count (details of the word count)

  • Barrett (short article in book about many religious groups,) words:172
  • Collier, (memoirs of a follower, possibly written while being an ex-follower (greatly and repeatedly expanded by user:Momento 262
  • Chryssides religious scholar 33
  • Derks & Van der Lans and psychologists of religion, from lengthy article based on their research of the Dutch branch of the DLM, somewhat expanded by user:Momento 116
  • Downton (from sociological book about the DLM, based on his research of the American branch of the DLM) 305
  • Geaves religious scholar and follower) 308
  • Haan, (lengthy article in official university magazine about religious movements, based on involvement during two years with the DLM) 62
  • Hadden and Elliot 72
  • Hummel religious scholar 27
  • Hunt from a sociological book about many religious movements 414
  • Kranenborg religious scholar from a lengthy article plus encyclopedia 170
  • Lans psychologist of religion in a book written on request for KSGV, Catholic organization 76
  • Levine article in a book by Galanter report of the APA 87
  • Melton (religious scholar, encyclopedist) significantly lengthened by user:Momento 194
  • Messer (article from sociological book, follower) 111

Andries 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That in contrast to what Momento states, Derks, Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans do not have a disproportionate amount of space and that Momento's complaints are partially based on the edits he made himself. Andries 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word count does not explain the fact that the draft reads poorly, is bloated, and contains undue weight and policy violations. Finding sources is only a third of the equation. You need to add NPOV, NOR and BLP to the equation as well. It is not enough to have some sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight to Geaves and Hunt? Andries 15:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight *in general*. This is not about pro sources vs anti sources, Andries. This ia about having a neutral article about a living person that is readable and factually accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Undue weight *in general*"? What is that supposed to mean? Andries 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Means that it is bloated, useless prose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can please be a bit more specific with your criticism? Andries 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of feedback has already been given. You can start that the GA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Version[edit]

Updated version posted at [Rawat Bioproposal nr2]

Problems addressed: 1. Lack of Rhetorical and Semantic neutrality. 2. Lack of coherence between text and quoted references 3. Lack of balance in spread and number of quoted sources. 4. Lack of coherence between references and Bibliography

Having read through all of the existing reference material I have come to the view that rather than a criticism section in the biography much of the scholarly material would be far more appropriate to the [| Techniques of Knowledge article]. It seems to me that past editing of the PR articles has led to a confusion of a personal Biography with the history of a belief system, the practice of meditation, and the functional history of organisations. For any progress to be made I think these various strands have to be unwound if articles useful to readers unfamiliar with the territory are to be created.

A good example of the kind of problems that have arisen is the way in which the term Westernisation has been used liberally in previous versions. Without being given a clear context the term Westernisation can be ambiguous, it is certainly true that some of scholarly references use the term but this seems variably to refer to organisational, presentational and social contexts. In a Biography the default reference is to the individual; where the references are from authors who were not writing a biography, great caution has to be taken as to what the relevance is of a specific term to the life story being presented. Does it refer to personal behaviour, or to personal belief, or to activities recommended to others, or to requirements made of individuals, businesses and institutions made from a position of power or influence ?

I understand that it may be painful for those who have had long involvement with the Rawat articles to now get involved in a process of deconstruction but without a careful process of looking at what words actually mean there will never be any stability.

--Nik Wright2 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will save yourself and us a great deal of time if your learn what is acceptable to Wiki. Your selection from Hansadesh is not.Momento 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Jan Var der Lans". phsycweb.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2/talk&oldid=902547069"