Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:06, 2 April 2008

Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

This article has been merged into Prem Rawat#Criticism. See the archives for past discussions. Avb 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

unredirected

Unredirected because the place that it redirected to had been deleted, i.e. the Criticism section of the Prem Rawat article. Unable to replace the deleted section in that article because that article is currently locked. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree. The criticism has been scrubbed from the main article for reasons currently being arbitrated about. This article seems quite encyclopedic. If people want to blank it, they can take it through AfD. In fact, I submit we should consider further blanking to be vandalism. - Merzbow (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes... if you squint real hard, you can find 4 sentences in the main article that could be classified as criticism. All followed by sentences presented as rebuttals (several "original research" rebuttals at that - i.e. material not presented by the source as a rebuttal, but presented by the editor as such). 4 sentences out of an 11-page article, and condensed down from this article, which is is 3 and a half, and well-referenced with quotes from major newspapers? - Merzbow (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbCom case is about editor's behavior at these articles and not about a content dispute. You are welcome to discuss the redirection or merge at the main article's talk page: As it stands now this is a POV fork. If there are sources here that are not been used in the main article and that are suitable for inclusion, please discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not necessarily a POV fork. So long as the contents are summarized in the main article is may be considered a subsidiary article. Regardless of that it is unhelpful to have anonymous accounts reverting to recreate and remerge this article without discussion. If it continues I'll ask for some form of page protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The un-redirected article is a POV fork. If you look at WP:SUMMARY, you can see that it speaks of a sub-topic (a section) that grows to a point in which it is needed to spin-off into its own article. The main article Prem Rawat uses most of the sources in the unredirected article throughout the article and not in its own section. Also read Misplaced Pages:SUMMARY#Avoidance_of_POV_forks and Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the back and forth reversion, it does not matter if these are anons or not. What is not acceptable is that there is no discussion and no attempt to find consensus about the redirect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as a neutral summary of the material is in the main article, it shouldn't be a problem.

• Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Misplaced Pages's content policies.
• Misplaced Pages:Content forking, Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

If I understand correctly, Momento has repeatedly said that more critical material cannot be included in Prem Rawat because doing so would make the article too long. The answer is not to prohibit critical material but to spin it out into a separate article. The main article can be restructured to better summarize the spun-out material. So long as all of the material is presented neutrally, and isn't intended to give different viewpoints in different articles then it should be compliant. I hope that editors will use discussion pages to find a resolution that everyone can live with rather than making dogmatic statements or reverting without discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about is exactly what a POV fork is: creating an article in which only criticism is displayed about a subject, without the opportunity for readers to see other related material. The sources in the now redirected article, that have not been used in the main article (most has been used, btw), can be incorporated in the proper context and after discussion about suitability. This is not a dogmatic approach, Will. POV forks are easy to spot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine jossi's claim that most sources have been used in the main article. Here are the critical references in this (the criticism) article, by cite number:

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

The vast majority appear to be from solidly reliable sources. In the main article, I can only find 11, 15, 19, 31, 32, 33 used to source criticism. 12, 14, 30 are used to source just facts or neutral analysis only (check out 14; if you only read the main article, you'd never know that Lans thought that "example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life"). And several other sources are listed in the "References" section, but not actually used in the text as a source. I've already pointed out how the criticism in the main article is shoehorned into 4 or 5 short sentences, followed by problematic "rebuttals", out of 11 pages. Clearly a great deal more of this can and should be used in the main article. - Merzbow (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of just listing the sources. You need to check them:

• Wim Haan - Not used in the main article, but used in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article
• Hunt - Used in the main article
• Kent - Used in the main article
• Kranenborg - Some of it is not "criticism" per se, and the text about the lifestyle not being compatible with Christian values, could be added.
• van der Lans - if his opinion about being a charlatan is considered useful, it can be added to the main article, alongside other comments about life-style
• Schnabel - Used in the main article
• Melton (Mishler) - Used in the main article
• Larkin, Foss - Used in the main article
• Singer - some of it is not "criticism" (i.e. Physcology today article "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader" can be incorporated in the main article in the teachings section alongside other sourced opinions). The text about Divine Light Mission can be added to that article, alongside other comments on the subject
• As for the text of these opinions being placed alongside other opinions, these are not "rebuttals", but NPOV writing 101. Per Misplaced Pages:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

I would argue that such material can be easily incorporated into the main article, for an accurate and fair representation of all significant opinions on the subject. POV forks are not useful, not encyclopedic, and subvert NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When a sentence that begins with "Although.." immediately follows a sentence of criticism, it had better be intended as a rebuttal by the source, or the "although" is original research. The phrase "standard anti cult charges" is quite dismissive of said charges, as well. Anyways, it appears you're not opposed on principle to adding more of this material to the main. If others like Momento are, then we have a problem. - Merzbow (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article can be expanded to cover the full reception of the subject, positive and negative. That's the heading of the section in the main article. That would leave the main article to deal strictly with biographical info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not work either, Will. There is no reason that I see for working backwards. If there is a section that expands beyond a certain size it can then be considered for splitting. Let's work in adding material that is missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento has been vociferous in his opposition to expanding the size of the Prem Rawat article. Do you support expanding that article so the material from this article can be included? If we can get a consensus to include it all there then the existence of this article is unnecessary. On the other hand, if editors say that that article is too long then the only alternative is to spin out some of the material, such as here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. What is needed is to start incorporating useful material in the appropriate places in the main article. Once the arbCom case is closed, hopefully we will have a disruption-free framework in which these debates can take place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean you support expanding the Prem Rawat article to include the material from this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I support any efforts to make the article better, by building consensus on how best to incorporate new material and in what context. As I said above, Will, what is needed is to start incorporating useful material in the appropriate places in the main article. The decision about what is useful material is for the consensus of editors to decide, as it would be in any other article in Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, you don't agree with Momento (if I understand his position correctly) that the Prem Rawat article must be kept to its present length? And you agree that the material in this article is neutral and properly sourced? In other words, your only objection to this material is having it in a separate article, and that it can all be moved to the Prem Rawat article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To be specific again, I'm not asking about the consensus of all editors- I'm asking about what you personally will agree or disagree to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have attempted that line of questioning before, Will, and I will not oblige by providing a blanket statement. Bring these sources one at the time to talk page, and lets debate with others about what sources are useful, how to best incorporate these sources into the article, and in which context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the length issue, the GA review advised to reduce the article substantially, which editors did. Of course, that is not set in stone and could be re-evaluated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid a situation where one editor (you) says that the material should be in "Prem Rawat", and another editor (Momento) instists that it doesn't belong there either. In that situation there's no consensus and the material doens't have a home. Obviously if any substantial amount of text is going to be moved from this article to the main article the main article will have to be expanded. Do you support an expansion of the article, or do you support Momento's position (apparently derived from the GA process) that the article must not be made longer? I'm asking you what your position is going to be. If you and Momento do not support a longer Prem Rawat article then I think it's best to deal with this material as a separate article here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clearer - unless Jossi supports lengthening the Prem Rawat article in order to include material from this article then I think that this article should be resurrected on account of the fact that it contains a significant amount of sourced, neutral material about the subject. I'm sure it would need improvements, but if the main article can't be expanded then a spin-off is our only alternative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it's time to create a section on the main's talk page, with an entry for every specific source that's in the Criticism article and not there, and gather opinions on why it should/should not be added. - Merzbow (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to help, I'm working on the "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" article.Momento (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)