User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

"This article is a Disgrace to Wikipedia"

Not my words but those of a recent visitor to Prem Rawat. A few years ago this article attracted considerable controversy when Rawat followers (headed by 'administrator' Jossi Fresco) conducted a massive and consistent clean-up operation of all articles even remotely connected to the subject. Most editors then simply gave up in the face of such zealous partisanship. There followed Arbcoms etc and the main offending followers were banned for a year. Most of those with interest and experience to edit the article had already thrown in the towel faced with the mammoth task of reconstructing the remaining mess. The banned followers have now returned with doubled determination to finish their job. Current impartial editors (attracted mainly by the controversy rather than knowledge of the subject) do not see the insiduous extent of misinformation but continue to express that the article appears disgracefully biased (as indicated above). A few exhausted editors think that to leave it alone is a preferable compromise. Their roles are now reduced to endless arguing over minutiae thrown at them by filibustering Rawat followers. No-one can possibly get around to tackling the bigger problems in these conditions. I'd like to but (like many others who've given up) don't have time to get past the 'owners' of the article. It's surely a major weakness that, despite all the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place to assure accuracy and fairness, determined partisans can successfully gain the upper hand over the years in this way. PatW (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, can you give me a list of 5-10 articles in this area to read, along with what you think to be the best 10 or so reliable sources to read? I can't become an instant expert, of course, but I could learn enough about the area to be able to make a more informed judgment and to study this case in more depth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do... after the match :-) PatW (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a match? (Haha, just an anti-American joke of sorts!) I am waiting for the world to get interested in a truly global sporting event like... the World Series!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he refereed to the final Spain vs. Netherlands in the FIFA world cup _→AzaToth 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm another editor from the Prem Rawat article, (I discovered the article as a mediator) and I would like to give you a slightly less extreme version of what PatW said above (no offense Pat, but you can get a bit extreme at times). Essentially, the article is under an extensive review to ensure that it complies with the current BLP policies. While doing this, a couple of editors noted (NickWright, PatW, and one or two others) that the article seemed a bit clean for such a controversial figure. PatW proposed the addition of a "Criticsims" box, but as you and I both know, those are POV and troll magnets that are often rife with poor writing. I suggested that we reivew the avalible sources and include critical content within the main body of the article. That's about where we are at this point in time. I can give you a couple of sources if you would like, but the best person to contact regarding Prem Rawat sources would be Will Beback a longtome editor of teh article who has composed a library of Rawat materials. Also in regards to sources, I am currently in the process of vetting some of the more controversial sources to ensure BLP compliance. Ronk01 talk, 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to check out the situation. A simple Google search leads to a plethora of sites that in turn lead to articles both critical and supportive of the subject. I tried to single out specific articles from these sites but decided it may be more useful to link to indexes on the whole. It's due to such an abundance of obvious critical material that I think many editors agree that the article still appears one-sided to the public.

Anti

• http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org
• http://www.rickross.com/groups/vital.html
• http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/
• http://ex-premie.org/
• http://ex-premie.org/gallery/news/index.html
• http://gurumaharaji.info/

Pro

• http://tprf.org/
• http://www.wopg.org/
• http://www.wordsofpeace.org.au/
• http://www.one-reality.net/wikipedia.htm  :-)
• http://maharaji.net/ (Official Website of Prem Rawat apparently)

The reliabilty of sources is historically the major bone of contention in this article. A current example is here where an editor is arguing to exclude the word 'scandal' despite it being used in an apparently reliable source. It's partly this type of constant, tiresome selective rejection of sources that resulted in this Arbcom decision. The 2 previously banned editors are again highly active on the article(s) and no-one wants the Talk Page to revert to a being 'battleground' again.

Recent reliable scholarly sources are rare but there are a lot of older ones, mostly which I don't have, and frankly my head is still spinning a bit as to what is reliable - the arguments never seem to end. At various stages these have been argued as reliable and then some not....

• http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/dlm_social_org.htm
• http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/charisma.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/wigm/wigm.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/sr/Soul_Rush.html

I have a few more recent in pdf format but don't know where to send them. Some of the more impartial, experienced editors have collections of sources which they are fond of. Hope this helps for the time-being. Thanks. PatW (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if my links have been too general but please understand that my involvement in this article has been necessarily fragmented and mainly limited to Talk Page discussions - in fact I have made few edits. However I am interested to help sort out the wheat from the chaff and will try to assemble pdf's of specific articles here for those who are interested to download.PatW (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll be taking a look at this later today and off and on this week. (I have a slight amount of post-Wikimania down time available.) My first instinct here was surprise that none of the sites you listed appear to me to be reliable sources at all. They mostly look like, at best, self-published websites. Activist websites for and against don't strike me as the kind of sources that are going to get us very far towards neutrality. But that's just a first thought, not a fully informed judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum: I see that what you linked to are indexes of news articles as well as self-published sites, so my first impression was mistaken. Thanks, I'm reading stuff.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid that your first impression would be that (in fact I've already been criticised for subjecting you to these links.) My reply was simply that I figured you'd have the wit to navigate to those articles - much as anyone might do who is interested in gaining a general picture of the subject. I agree that to refer to the pro and anti sites is itself potentially inflammatory on Wikipedia so perhaps it'd be better in future to simply go the filesharing route, although historically many of the articles existing sources have been most easily perused by editors via these anti sites.PatW (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I award you with this Barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I like your user page.  Polymathsj Talk 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Jimbo did not design his userpage but it was User:Phaedriel who did. Is this true?--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the colors. Do you like the new ones better? Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

IPs are meaningless

not sure why i got the hate mail when i checked wikipedia article

but it seems that you all seem to think that all IPs are fixed

may i suggest that you REQUIRE log in before editing an article

the IP approach is totally erroneous and bogus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.74 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

too hard to find a person or fix things

maybe wikipedia makes sense to you but to users wanting to fix problems or report same cannot do it unless they already know how

i got your name by accident when you all assumed that my dynamic IP of the day was the same as someone you wanted to ban or somesuch

otherwise i would still be hunting for a way to contact any person or even find a *DIRECT* way to make a correction/complaint that would be read not just disappear onto some "talk" page that noone ever looks at

you all need a direct email that will be read by some honch in a timely manner and for defamation or more serious issues a telephone number to reach someone with authority to fix the problem asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.74 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

HELP; PROBLEM CROATIAN GRAMMAR IS DELETING SERBIAN COLLABORATORS-SHOVINIST

• Croatian grammar is not Serbian or Serbo-Croatian grammar!
• Serbs ilegal copying and appropriation of Croatian texts and marking them the Serbian term (Serbo-Croatian) is the criminal !
• Why Serbian collaborators constantly deleted Croatian scientific texts or false. Example of deleting Croatian grammar and maliciously redirect the Serbo-Croatian, which is valid for the Croatian language!

1. Term Serbo-Croatian is not Croatian; Languales of Croatia!
2. Term Serbo-Croatian this is a Serbian nationalist term, who speak for the illegal appropriation of Croatian texts !
3. Serbian language and Croatian language is two differentes languages !
4. Croatian grammar 1604. (Croat Bartol Kašić, Croatia island Pag - city Dubrovnik form Croatia)
5. Croatian grammar 1997. Dragutin Raguž for Zagreb, Croatia
6. New Croatian grammar 2010. Stjepan Babić, Zagreb Croatia

• Serbian language and Croatian language is two indepedente languages
• Croatian and Serbian two legal languages
• History language map of Europe 1901. Croatian language and Serbian language is two differents languages
• Modern Slavic language map of Europe 2010. Croatian language and Serbian language is two differents languages