Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:31, 8 September 2007

I think the way forward might be to tell the story as we see it and then find the quotes that support the story.Momento 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Such an approach amounts to fitting evidence to support a POV, it is intellectually bankrupt. The only sustainable approach is to assemble all the evidence and present in a coherent fashion, hardly something that is difficult with a subject as thin as Rawat's teachings.

--Nik Wright2 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NikWright2 that the proposed method to write an article by Momento is too much prone to positive or negative bias of the contributors. Andries 11:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think putting "one scholar says" is bound to cause problems.Momento 14:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point that you have stated before, but I think (possible) minority view points can be included, but not in the summary/intro. Andries 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The attribution "one scholar wrote" makes it clear to the reader that a possible minority view point follows in the text. Andries 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case it shouldn't be in the article.Momento 14:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, signficant minority views can be included. Andries 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And a criticism section suggests there should be a "Praise" section.Momento 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A praise section is highlly unusual in Misplaced Pages, but may be a short description of positive effects of e.g. Knowledge is appropriate. Andries 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will focus on improving the references including long excerpts in the refernces with the goal of reducing (accusations of) out of context quoting and if there is out-of-context quoting making it less serious. After all, out of context quoting cannot be a serious offense if the interested reader can read the context with a mouse click on a foot note. Please note that different contributors consider different things important so please keep assuming good faith. Andries 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, Andries, requests to WP:AGF can only be taken cum grano salis. The proof is in the pudding. Hope that through your edits you can demonstrate that editors can assume the good faith of your edits. At best, Andries, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which I do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly been accused for selective quoting and yes I omitted statements that I considered unimportant, because naturally I cannot quote everything. Andries 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to avoid sentences like "Important aspects of Rawat's teachings were surrender to the guru, warnings against the "mind", and four meditation techniques called Knowledge. As of 2007, the latter continues to be an important aspect." Which are obviously OR with Undue Weight. Let' s stick to scholars consensus.Momento 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit that these sentences may have to be re-written. Andries 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it into stating that surrender to the guru, warnings against the mind, and techniques of Knowledge were aspects of Rawat's teaching. Andries 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

there are three sources for warnings agains the mind, and more than three about surrender to the guru, and also at at least three for techniques of knowledge, so this is neither undue weight nor original research. Andries 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't just take three "aspects" out of dozens. You might as well include that "peace is within, God is energy, humans prefer joy". I don't think it would be helpful for me to edit this article as it is until you have had time to work out the content and balance things up.Momento 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find at least three scholary sources for it then I have no problem if you add it to the summary. Andries 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I took great care to write down in the summary only statements that are sourced to multiple reputable scholarly sources. I have no problem if you add more. Andries 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The article may be out of balance, but not in the way you think. Again, I see no need to remove statements from the summary when all statements there are sourced to at least three reputable sources. Andries 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in quote mining with you Andries. You write the article as you see fit and then we can see if it needs further editing.Momento 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem if you add aspects of Rawat's teachings to the summary as long as they are supported by at least three reputable sources. Andries 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have repeated this many times and will do it once last time: Sourcing is only one aspect. You are writing this sandbox, to call a spade a spade, with the intention to paint a distorted picture of PRs teachings, by choosing to highlight specific viewpoints to the detriment of others, by quote mining, and by quoting out of context (such as time-related contexts and others). This is not a competition on number of sources, Andries, but about having a section or an article about PRs teachings that presents an accurate, balanced, and verifiable picture. If your intention is that, which I hope it is, you would make an effort to comb all the sources available on the subject and present an accurate summary of the viewpoints. As it stands now, it does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

An example, is your lead to this sandbox. Read it and tell me if that is anything but what I say above: A distorted picture. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)