| Revision as of 14:49, 30 June 2008 view sourceRumiton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,137 edits →P3.8: comments on Prop9?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:04, 14 March 2023 view source MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{hat}} | |||
| <div id="coordinates" class="plainlinks"><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Tahoma, sans serif;">Steve's Status:{{#switch:{{User:Steve_Crossin/Status}} | |||
| | #default = ] <font color="gray"> '''Somewhere'''</font> | |||
| | online = ] <font color="green"> '''Online'''</font> | |||
| | busy = ] <font color="Blue"> '''Busy'''</font> | |||
| | sleep = ] <font color="Purple"> '''Sleeping'''</font> | |||
| | offline = ] <font color="red"> '''Offline'''</font> | |||
| | wikibreak = ] <font color="grey"> '''Quit'''</font> | |||
| }} | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Proposal 1== | ==Proposal 1== | ||
| Millennium '73 was an important event in the life of the subject. However by many accounts he had little active involvement in it besides his role as centerpiece. The event is covered in detail at ]. All this article needs is a summary. Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additonal material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. But details about the DLM, its finances, and so on are out of place. Let's avoid unneccessary duplication between articles. ]] ] 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | Millennium '73 was an important event in the life of the subject. However by many accounts he had little active involvement in it besides his role as centerpiece. The event is covered in detail at ]. All this article needs is a summary. Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additonal material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. But details about the DLM, its finances, and so on are out of place. Let's avoid unneccessary duplication between articles. ]] ] 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 7: | ||
| ::I'm not planning to add any more. I was leaving the door open for others to propose more material if they wanted to. ]] ] 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ::I'm not planning to add any more. I was leaving the door open for others to propose more material if they wanted to. ]] ] 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Could you double-check your version of Melton re the passage "the failure of the event to meet expectations generated negative publicity and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt"? Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992, p. 219) does not mention negative publicity resulting from the event; the passage on Millennium reads, "... an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji's father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs." --< |
:Could you double-check your version of Melton re the passage "the failure of the event to meet expectations generated negative publicity and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt"? Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992, p. 219) does not mention negative publicity resulting from the event; the passage on Millennium reads, "... an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji's father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs." --]] 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Collier mentions the negative publicity, but we can find a better source. Let me dig through my research. ]] ] 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | ::Collier mentions the negative publicity, but we can find a better source. Let me dig through my research. ]] ] 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 26: | ||
| :''Note (again) about these proposal pages'': I don't know about anyone else, but I find the way these proposal pages are set to be unwieldy. It goes against the grain of my decades-long experience in technical, procedural manual, and business writing. These page headings must include the title of the specific proposals, eg, "Proposal 3 - DLM Millennium," (so one doesn't have to write down on ''paper'' what these edit drafts respresent -- especially in this the age of technology!). Then each "proposal proposal" (that labeling just goes again my grain!) :) should be labeled "Draft1, 2, 3..." not "Proposal 1, 2, 3..." and should include editor's signature. I dunno what the big problem is with making this process more simple -- I already proposed this to Steve and got no response. I don't have eight hours a day to devote to Misplaced Pages as some other do. ] (]) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | :''Note (again) about these proposal pages'': I don't know about anyone else, but I find the way these proposal pages are set to be unwieldy. It goes against the grain of my decades-long experience in technical, procedural manual, and business writing. These page headings must include the title of the specific proposals, eg, "Proposal 3 - DLM Millennium," (so one doesn't have to write down on ''paper'' what these edit drafts respresent -- especially in this the age of technology!). Then each "proposal proposal" (that labeling just goes again my grain!) :) should be labeled "Draft1, 2, 3..." not "Proposal 1, 2, 3..." and should include editor's signature. I dunno what the big problem is with making this process more simple -- I already proposed this to Steve and got no response. I don't have eight hours a day to devote to Misplaced Pages as some other do. ] (]) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Indeed, and your comment wasn't ignored. Generally, these mediation cases only have one proposal page, this is the first case that has had more than one proposals page. I could do a page move to a more descriptive title, however I really am not so sure how it would be very, well useful. I generally think that on these pages, they shouldn't be signed with 4 tildes, I used this idea in the ] case, and the editors discussed each version on the article talk page. Now, signing the comments, I suppose you can if you really want to, but I don't see the necessity, it could cause issues, such as, "Editor X wrote proposal Y, look at their bias by mentioning/including/not including Z". Could cause some issues. < |
*Indeed, and your comment wasn't ignored. Generally, these mediation cases only have one proposal page, this is the first case that has had more than one proposals page. I could do a page move to a more descriptive title, however I really am not so sure how it would be very, well useful. I generally think that on these pages, they shouldn't be signed with 4 tildes, I used this idea in the ] case, and the editors discussed each version on the article talk page. Now, signing the comments, I suppose you can if you really want to, but I don't see the necessity, it could cause issues, such as, "Editor X wrote proposal Y, look at their bias by mentioning/including/not including Z". Could cause some issues. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks, Steve. I didn't say you ignored me, I said I got no response. :) Anyway, even though I think the way you've set these proposal pages is tedious and unwieldy, I have a request that when folks are talking about a particular Proposal of a Proposal (which should be titled "Draft" for ease of reference) on the corresponding talk pages, it would be very helpful if editors would be so kind as to preface their discussion with the proposal number to which they are referring. Btw, looking over the Second Intifada page didn't demonstrate anything to me at all, so I'm not sure what your point was. Thanks. ] (]) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Thanks, Steve. I didn't say you ignored me, I said I got no response. :) Anyway, even though I think the way you've set these proposal pages is tedious and unwieldy, I have a request that when folks are talking about a particular Proposal of a Proposal (which should be titled "Draft" for ease of reference) on the corresponding talk pages, it would be very helpful if editors would be so kind as to preface their discussion with the proposal number to which they are referring. Btw, looking over the Second Intifada page didn't demonstrate anything to me at all, so I'm not sure what your point was. Thanks. ] (]) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *I was referring to the Second Intifada talk page, in the large collpasible box, but never mind :) < |
*I was referring to the Second Intifada talk page, in the large collpasible box, but never mind :) <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *To Sylvicyn regarding the Hans Jayanti festival: This was also discussed at ]. My reasoning is that the Hans Jayanti was an important biographical event in two successive years, 1972 and '73. Since it's mentioned twice it's a useful detail. I'm not tied to including it, I just think it's easier to include than to exclude it. If other editors prefer to delete it I won't object. ]] ] 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | *To Sylvicyn regarding the Hans Jayanti festival: This was also discussed at ]. My reasoning is that the Hans Jayanti was an important biographical event in two successive years, 1972 and '73. Since it's mentioned twice it's a useful detail. I'm not tied to including it, I just think it's easier to include than to exclude it. If other editors prefer to delete it I won't object. ]] ] 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 87: | Line 79: | ||
| ::::Do you have "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments"? I don't see any. Let's move forward with the text we've got and then continue discussing further improvements. ]] ] 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ::::Do you have "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments"? I don't see any. Let's move forward with the text we've got and then continue discussing further improvements. ]] ] 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yes. Saying someone reached the high of the popularity without explaining what that is is meaningless. Either the the whole description of his popularity at the time of the festival should be included or none. Thanks.] (]) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Yes. Saying someone reached the high of the popularity without explaining what that is is meaningless. Either the the whole description of his popularity at the time of the festival should be included or none. Thanks.] (]) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Momento, you said that ''The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that.''. Perhaps suggest how to do so? < |
*Momento, you said that ''The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that.''. Perhaps suggest how to do so? <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've done that in Prop 5.] (]) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ::I've done that in Prop 5.] (]) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Just about , for this piece of text, "''...which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world.''", that seems like a piece of text that may need an ], as it appears to be an exceptional claim. Is that boox availible on Google Books? < |
*Just about , for this piece of text, "''...which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world.''", that seems like a piece of text that may need an ], as it appears to be an exceptional claim. Is that boox availible on Google Books? <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 09:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Steve, I've quoted some of the material in this section, see above. The author is a ]. While he writes in a somewhat breezy-style, he is a valuable source because he's approaching the subject from an Indian perspective and context while most of the sources for this topic are Western. I can send you (or anyone who'd like it) a scan of the material if you email me a request. ]] ] 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Steve's link doesn't work - did he mean the Mangalwadi material or the Downton?) | *Steve, I've quoted some of the material in this section, see above. The author is a ]. While he writes in a somewhat breezy-style, he is a valuable source because he's approaching the subject from an Indian perspective and context while most of the sources for this topic are Western. I can send you (or anyone who'd like it) a scan of the material if you email me a request. ]] ] 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Steve's link doesn't work - did he mean the Mangalwadi material or the Downton?) | ||
| *Yes, I'd like to see it very much, not that I dispute the content at all. I'll send you an email right away, so be ready for it. Thanks, < |
*Yes, I'd like to see it very much, not that I dispute the content at all. I'll send you an email right away, so be ready for it. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Getting back to Momento's point, we have more sources than just Mangalwadi commenting about the Millennium (and the marriage) being the turning points of the popularity of the subject, some by name: | *Getting back to Momento's point, we have more sources than just Mangalwadi commenting about the Millennium (and the marriage) being the turning points of the popularity of the subject, some by name: | ||
| Line 105: | Line 97: | ||
| *Those are just the ones at hand. There are others that more specifically mention the Millenium festival and the marriage as turning points in the subject's prominence. I think we could devote three paragroah to the topic, but it'd be better to keep it shorter. Is there a reason to hold up the rest of the text while we seek agreement on this addition? ]] ] 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | *Those are just the ones at hand. There are others that more specifically mention the Millenium festival and the marriage as turning points in the subject's prominence. I think we could devote three paragroah to the topic, but it'd be better to keep it shorter. Is there a reason to hold up the rest of the text while we seek agreement on this addition? ]] ] 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Just to note, I've seen the quoted text, and it says, from what I read, "''It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the time his popularity overshadowed that of all gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing.''". I think if it's made clear that this is the opinion of the writer, about the subject's popularity, and add somewhere, as neutrally as possible, that the popularity over time reduced (just so we aren't paraphrasing), I think that could work. Can the editors think of a way to do that? < |
*Just to note, I've seen the quoted text, and it says, from what I read, "''It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the time his popularity overshadowed that of all gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing.''". I think if it's made clear that this is the opinion of the writer, about the subject's popularity, and add somewhere, as neutrally as possible, that the popularity over time reduced (just so we aren't paraphrasing), I think that could work. Can the editors think of a way to do that? <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Rather than interrupting the paragraph about the Millennium to talk about general popularity, why don't we move some of the material from the "follower" section up here and do a paragraph on the rising popularity of the subject in the same section, "Leaving India"? The "spectacular beginning" of Rawat and the "wild growth" of his following are worth noting. But it shouldn't be in the middle of the Millennium paragraph. ]] ] 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | *Rather than interrupting the paragraph about the Millennium to talk about general popularity, why don't we move some of the material from the "follower" section up here and do a paragraph on the rising popularity of the subject in the same section, "Leaving India"? The "spectacular beginning" of Rawat and the "wild growth" of his following are worth noting. But it shouldn't be in the middle of the Millennium paragraph. ]] ] 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *That's up to the parties here, whatever works best is fine with me :-) < |
*That's up to the parties here, whatever works best is fine with me :-) <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;">] ]]</span> 11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ===4a=== | ===4a=== | ||
| Line 228: | Line 220: | ||
| ::This article is about PR, not PR's mother and brother. We include critical material about them in the DLM article, which covers the Millennium festival in detail. This article is just about Prem Rawat, aso we should keep the focus on him. ]] ] 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ::This article is about PR, not PR's mother and brother. We include critical material about them in the DLM article, which covers the Millennium festival in detail. This article is just about Prem Rawat, aso we should keep the focus on him. ]] ] 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Comments about his family are relevant to the extent that they were operating in support of his aims. Their reportedly poor performance in their roles is therefore notable. |
:::Comments about his family are relevant to the extent that they were operating in support of his aims. Their reportedly poor performance in their roles is therefore notable. More is better now. See Proposal 9. ] (]) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Please retract that personal attack. It is uncalled for. I am making a good faith effort to improve this article. If you persist in making remarks like that I will ask for sanctions. ]] ] 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ::::Please retract that personal attack. It is uncalled for. I am making a good faith effort to improve this article. If you persist in making remarks like that I will ask for sanctions. ]] ] 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions ''re'' this article. You have changed your interpretations of Misplaced Pages's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest. On the other hand, if you really do want to trim these articles I am all in favor of it. Start with the house and the fire brigade. ] (]) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | :::::I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions ''re'' this article. You have changed your interpretations of Misplaced Pages's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest. On the other hand, if you really do want to trim these articles I am all in favor of it. Start with the house and the fire brigade. ] (]) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::You may see things any way you like, but when you post comments on Misplaced Pages they ''must'' be civil. ]. Civility is a requirement, not an option. I see that despite my request you have not withdrawn your remark, so I've refactored it. If you make uncivil comments about editors again I will ask for sanctions. ]] ] 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You should ask an uninvolved admin to review these comments instead of refactoring them yourself. Fascinating how quick you react to refactoring material, when it is you that is the target of criticism. ] <small>]</small> 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I was not quick. I asked the maker of the comment to remove it and he did not. Refactoring uncivil remarks is something that any editor can do. Jossi has removed plenty of remarks from these talk pages, so it's inappropriate for him to condem refactoring by others. Condemning incivility would be helpful, but I guess that's too much to expect given the circumstances. ]] ] 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: That was not that "uncivil", IMO. Show me any material that I have refractored from talk in the last year, please. In the recent past I have archived material, but not deleted comments outright. I can remind you of your unwillingness to refactor some of the most obnoxious and repugnant comments that others made, which you witness and all you did was to place a warning in their talk page. So before you try to hold me accountable, hold yourself accountable first. ] <small>]</small> 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Jossi, I've seen you delete material from talk pages within the last year. If you ha ve forgotten or wish to deny it then that's your business. Civility is a requirement on this project. ]] ] 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Civility has aspects. We are asked to be civil to the living subjects of biographies too, as they "can be hurt by what we write." This seems to be a point you are determined not to understand. ] (]) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Be that as it may, please do not make negative personal remarks about other editors or assume bad faith on their part. You've been warned before. ]] ] 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==P3.9== | |||
| ::I think Prop 9 is the best so far and its length is commensurate with its importance.] (]) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ::I think Prop 9 is the best so far and its length is commensurate with its importance.] (]) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::It seems to say everything needed. Comments from others? ] (]) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | :::It seems to say everything needed. Comments from others? ] (]) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Is Thomas Pilarzyk classed as a sociologist? ] (]) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm happy with Prop 9. Any objections?] (]) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It needs a source for ""a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", but otherwise I can live with it.] <small>]</small> 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *How is this an improvement over what's in the article already? I don't see any significant difference. ]] ] 03:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Me neither. Also, I can't see that there is much wrong with the version we have. ]] 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *The point of the original proposal was to shorten the material, since it is covered in great detail in the DLM article. All this article needs is a summary. ]] ] 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sure, summarizing is OK. Removing material and keeping other material arbitrarily is not. ] <small>]</small> 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing was removed "arbitrarily". ]] ] 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:04, 14 March 2023
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
Proposal 1Millennium '73 was an important event in the life of the subject. However by many accounts he had little active involvement in it besides his role as centerpiece. The event is covered in detail at Divine Light Mission#Millennium '73. All this article needs is a summary. Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additonal material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. But details about the DLM, its finances, and so on are out of place. Let's avoid unneccessary duplication between articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ready?It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal 2An editor has posted "Proposal 2". Could he please describe the changes from Proposal 1 and explain the reasoning? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Prop.3I've posted Prop.3. It's drafted to incorporate some of the text from Prop.2 as well as the discussion on this page. It includes some assessment of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal #4It is about time that editors make an effort to attribute opinions to those that hold them, rather than asserting these opinions as if they were facts (which are obviously not). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4a
If we can agree to put in the first paragraph now, without the Mangalwadi at all, then we can make a new proposal about adding the popularity material that Momento wants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal 6
P3.7I've posted P3.7. It builds on Joss's 3.4, but doens't attribute the undisputred assertion that the festival was th4 high point (zenith) of Rawat's prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Status of this proposalWhat is holding us back with this proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
P3.8Momento, the version you just posted is virtually identical to the material that's already in the article. The reason we're trying to give less space to the festival in this article is that we cover it at great length in the DLM article. You've mentioned your concerns about the legnth of the artile again and again, so we should take opportunities to trim redundant material wherever we can. Nothing you've added back to the proposal isn't already in the DLM article. Let me ask you, do you endorse the idea of having a shorter veriosn here or are you going to keep insisting on retaining the version you wrote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
P3.9
|
- Olson, Carl R. (2007). The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-Historical Introduction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. pp. p.343. ISBN 0-8135-4068-2.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145
- Downton 1979. p.6
- Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus. Vikas Publishing House New Delhi 1977. p.219