User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat

←Backlink to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission‎
←Backlink to Talk:Prem Rawat‎

Summary of Issues to be mediated

Use of sources: Cagan Collier Geaves New York Times Randi Time Watts Wim Haan Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) What needs to be mediated here? Context- what additional material needs to be added about: Ted Patrick as it relates to criminal activities related to the kidnapping mention van Driel/Richardson, regarding his study of terminology in U.S. print media Context for religious persecution by the totalitarian military regimes in South America Membership numbers. Incomplete presentation of available estimates from a variety of sources Merging/splitting of related articles Use of a souce that is not a reliable source and that it is self-published (Manav Dharam and TPRF) website, to make self-serving claims, and claims about third parties. DLM in India section Exceptional claims Celibacy issue

Discussion

Issue/Discussion topic A

OK, leaping in joyfully here...in the article's "Following" section, the sentence "Outside the U.S., Paul Schnabel indicates a decreasing number of 150 DLM adherents, 15 of which living in a community setting, for Netherlands in 1980" is gibberish, but apparently informs us that there are only 150 adherents in the non-US world. If Schnabel is a reputable source (a pretty big "if") we need to know reliably what he wrote so he can be properly quoted. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel p. 53:

... de voor Nederland relevante cijfers ... begin 1981 ...		... numbers relevant for the Netherlands ... early 1981 ...
1.	Divine Light Mission - naar schatting hoogstens nog 150 aanhangers in Nederland, waarvan in 1980 ongeveer 15 in communaal verband leven. De beweging lijkt op zijn retour.	1.	Divine Light Mission - estimated at most 150 adherents remaining for the Netherlands, of which in 1980 approximately 15 lived in a community setting. The movement appears to be over the hill.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. This is rather different to what the article currently says. Are we to change the sandbox version here? Steve? It's getting a bit confusing. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, change this sandbox version, as it's not protected. Just look at the banner at the top first. :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic B: buzzwords

A few terms and policies are being tossed around in these discusions without clear applicability.

The terms "tabloid" and "editorializing" are used in without clearly definitions. Recently, "tabloid" was used to both argue for adding material and for deleting it. It appears that any fact which editors want to suppress is tabloidism, and having too many, or too few, facts is "tabloidesque". "Editorializing" has been used to condemn the addition of unchallenged facts. These vague, undefined or misapplied terms are not helpful to the discussions. Rather than using buzzwords editors should explain their arguments clearly.

I'm also concerned about the frequent use of two policy links: WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are used with little or no rationale. If an editor feels the need to resort to either of these policies I'd ask them to please give a full explanation of their reasoning, rather than just citing the link or posting the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Rationale for WP:REDFLAG are provided in policy, in particular: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;. This would apply, for example, to a controversial claim made by a person that first describes a living person as being an incarnation of God, only to reverse himself/herself after a dispute, by making another controversial claim such as being "materialistic and despicable" about the same person (!!!!).
2. "Editorializing" is the device used by some editors to reduce encyclopedic content to something more appropriate for an op-ed or a hatched job. This has been pervasive behavior by some editors.
3. WP:UNDUE has been used by all parties of the dispute. That has been an issue all along and that is why we are engaged in mediation: to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see unclarity in these Wikipedia policies. They are well-written and extremely clear in their applicability. "Tabloidism" may be harder to define, but it is easy to recognise. "Encyclopedic" is similar. Read a British afternoon paper (just about any one) then go read the Brittanica. Et voila! Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "editorializing" as:

• 1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
• 2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.

Jossi's definition appears to be his own. Reporting actual facts is not editorializing.

As for "tabloidism", if you can't define it then don't use it as an argument.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, if someone is claiming undue weight they should be able to explain why it applies and what "due weight" woulfd be. It doesn't bring us any closer to agreement for an editor to shout "WP:UNDUE!" without explanation.

Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG appears incorrect to me. It's intended to prevent editors from inserting fringe claims. Events and comments that are widely-reported no longer trigger that policy. For example, if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch, and of both of these comments are widely-reported, then it's not an extraordinary claim even though he is contradicting himself. The second point about REDFLAG is that even if a claim is extraordinary, if it has highly-reliable sources then it is still acceptable. News reports by major news organizations are not fringe claims.

Again, the problem with each of these four is when editors use them as buzzwords without taking the time or energy to explain precisely what they're complaing about and how to fix it. I suggest we entirely stop using "editorializing" and "tabloid" as arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that good philosophic points can degenerate into slogans, and we all need to work to prevent this happening. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing: To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report Exactly my point.

WP:REDFLAG is quite unambiguous about what it means and it is not only about fringe claims. In BLPs, WP:REDFLAG applies even more stringently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch: Wikipedia is not a tabloid, Will, and in a BLP we will not reproduce such stuff whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it wouldn't be an exceptional claim. To use a different example there could be a spokesman for a product who says it's great, but then later decides the product doesn't work and denounces it. If the facts are well-established then it isn't an exceptinal claim. That covers matters where someone is using poor sources to assert something that is otherwise contradictory to previously-known positions. That's not the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about a "product", it is about a living person. And as such, any sources that are proposed to be used need to clearly demonstrate its relevance to the person's notability. "She was a bitch" ain't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None of that has to do with WP:REDFLAG. Notability or relevance are not the issues, "exceptional claims" is the issue. The simple fact that someone changes their mind and adopts a position opposite to an earlier one is a common occurence. David Horowitz was once a liberal and now he's a conservative. That doesn't mean that reporting reporting on his conservative actions or writings is making claims that are exceptional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a common occurrence that sources reduce their credibility by reversing their previous opinions. We have to ask, "Will he do this again?" Nothing to do with exceptionality, everything to do with reliability. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would agree with you if a source flip-flopped on issues, but if, after time, a source changed his opinion, I think it is quite reasonable to accept the fact that time and further reflection could change one's opinion. People who don't change their minds despite everything going on around them are usually called extremists. In that light, it is probably more reliable to have a source that has changed his mind on issues. Of course, each source would have to be examined individually. We don't want someone who simply has a sudden obvious grudge against the subject being used. If George Bush comes out 10 years from now and says "We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, the reasons we had were insufficient", would you label him less reliable now (now being 10 years from now), or less reliable now? I think, obviously, you'd say he was more reliable now. Granted, George Bush is never going to be a reliable source for anything, it's just a hypothetical. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As interesting this debate is becoming, we are simply going off-topic. We are speaking here of an exceptional claim of a person X that one year describe third party Z as an incarnation of God which he/she venerated profusely, only to later on describe person Z as a spiritually despicable, and worse. That is a massive WP:REDFLAG that has to be acknowledged when editing the article of person Z, in particular when person Z is a living person. If the article was about person X, and the person changed his mind on a topic, that would be a very different story. For example, a politician's article can present prior and newer/competing viwepoints of the politician, and that would be perfectly OK. This is clearly not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<< If it were clear we wouldn't be having this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Care to explain what do you mean by that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I contend you are making your own idiosyncratic definition of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this and act on it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted a request for clarification, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Exceptional claims: Is a change of heart exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The initial response, from Brimba, confirms my interpretation of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it does not, as you have missed to explain the exact circumstances and the context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see how I left out anything important. You're welcome to go there and add whatever circumstances and context you think will give a different answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the important thing that was left out is the question of the testimony of NRM apostates. This is not just a "change of heart" it is a radical reversal of things they previously held dearest, a total emotional flip-flop which brings their intellectual stability into question. This [[1]] is pretty interesting on the subject. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving a new religious movement does not make one mentally unstable. But I can see why current followers would like to believe that. Zappaz even wrote the bio of Kliever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle

I'm hoping that editors will attempt to reach some consensus on this point here, rather than in the Lead section proposal. Savlonn (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)