Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 18 June 2008

Proposal1

Presumably "Proposal 0" is the current text. What is tht proposed change? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it, see proposal #1 which is not completed yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to roll my sleeves up :-)

If the purpose of this lead/lede is to summarize this section, including criticism, then I think we first need to discuss/debate the scope of the section before agreeing the actual wording of the lead.

I feel that writing the lead now before agreeing the sections is a bit too ‘top down’. I think that consensus on this very contentious section can only be agreed by painfully agreeing on each sub-section first, then producing the lead based on the agreed sub-sections.

However, the rest of my comments cover the ‘top down’ approach of agreeing the lead first, should other editors feel that this should become the agreed approach.

My initial reaction to Proposal 1 is that it purely summarizes a narrow range of very academic material, whilst the material in this section is much broader. I suggest that we first agree the key areas of ‘reception’, then ensure that the lead section fairly reflects this consensus and the section itself.

My first stab/brainstorm of key points to consider includes:

• Early success/growth of movement, especially internationally (in existing proposal)
• Counterpoint of decline after peak growth.
• Lack of intellectual content
• Focus on practical teachings as counterpoint to above point
• ‘Sumptuous’ lifestyle (or other words to reflect this point)
• Perception of divine nature and/or religious/supernatural claims
• Skeptical / rationalist counterpoint to above point
• Anti Rawat movement (if accepted as notable)
• Claims relating to brainwashing/deprogramming and related counterpoints

Of course this is too much for a 2 sentence lead to this section, so would appreciate any suggestions of how to summarize the essence of this section. Savlonn (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this approach would work, as it would mean to leave the rest of the article solely for biographical information. I would prefer to use the current approach in which biographical aspects are intervened with other narratives and viewpoints not necessarily biographical per se. This section, as it stands now, could focus on salient aspects related on how he was/is received, hence the name of the section. That is, significant opinions across the board about these aspects. Having said that, and as this is a proposal page, you can start a new section and develop content and suitable subsections as you have described above. As time progresses, we may merge different portions, conflate others, create new ones, etc. So, roll your sleeves indeed! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just about everyone who has written about the subject could be added to this section. "Salient aspects" is a broad mandate. I hope editors are prepared for this to grow very large. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No necessarily, Will. I am re-reading the sources and there is specific material that can be used. Not all material is suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What material is unsuitable, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tons. You can give it a try by reading some of 50-odd sources that we have used in the article and will easily spot what may be useful for this section and what would not. That is what I am doing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said before I see lots, maybe even "tons", of sources that could be used for this section. You say that some are unsuitable. I'm asking why and which ones. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am re-reading and adding material that I find fits this section and discarding what I think is not. I would argue my additions, but will not argue text that I am not adding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that there are many, many sources that discuss Rawat's reception. You've said that not all of those are suitable but have refused to give any explanation. Fair enough. But don't be surprised at seeing proposals that include far more sources than P6.1. Furthmore, it appears that P6.1 wold delete a large amout of imformation if it entirely replaces P6.0. Deleting that previously-agreed upon material is not likely to gain a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the at the end of Proposal #1, denoting that I will be adding more material from the existing version as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us know when you're done and ready for input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

However I'd suggest taking this one subsection at a time. Its going to be harder to edit and gain consensus for two or more sections at once. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let "us" know? Do you represent a specific faction, or something? You are welcome to comment as these proposals are developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Us", the other editors. Are you finished with Propsoal 1 or are you still developing it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the tag at the top of my proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's new. I suggest again breaking the proposal down into smaller pieces. We spent over 16,000 words of discussion before agreeing on the roughly 190 words in Proposal 1. This proposal is already nearly 900 words long. Do we want to spend 90,000 words discussing it? Why not just take it a paragraph at a time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to big, IMO. I will continue working of the material for the section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

I'm not discouraging that the content be worked on, expanded, trimmed, rearranged, or improved in whatever way or negotiated in whatever appropriate place, with future consensus for other subsection headers (on the contrary, and I'd play an active role there too!), but here's my proposal, for the time being, with the current content and arrangement:

==Reception==

• Following (remains)
• Media → Media coverage
• Authority → Charisma and leadership
• Critical viewpoints → Rawat's students
• (new, after Schnabel/VdLans para and before Barbour para:) Former followers

(copied here per Savlonn's suggestion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Subsection headers with current content (proposal) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I agree, and would like to focus here on creating this structure, and agreeing scope of the 'Reception' section, ideally keeping the discussion at a high level initially to avoid getting bogged down too early in disputes about specific sources.

The first question I would like to discuss is: How much emphasis should be placed on having all related material under a broad 'Reception' section, as opposed to blending material into the main article? The two extremes are to have all subjective material here, and to completely remove the section and have all material blended into the chronographically arranged sections. I know this has been discussed ad-infinitum previously, so feel free to reference previous discussions. The difference this time is that hopefully the structured mediation framework will enable some consensus to be reached.

My opinion is that we need to have a fairly broad section here, as much of Rawat's notability is in respect to people's opinions of him personally, as opposed to his teachings and movement. To put it bluntly, the very polarized opinions of the editors here makes the case in point, though of course representing an insignificant minority. However, it does make sense in some cases to blend material where there is a strong correlation with a specific event or timeframe referenced in the rest of the biography. For example, we already have the rapid growth and subsequent decline of the movement (and thus Rawat's popularity) referred to in another section, so there is no need to repeat it here.

In addition to the sections nominated by Francis above, I would like to see a reference to perceptions and/or claims of divinity by his followers. Savlonn (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have that topic included in the "Rawat's students" subsection. I think it would make excellent sense in such section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed structure does not work for me; (a) Media, is too generic; We do not have a section called "Books" for example, event if we hare quoting from books, are we? (b) "Following" can contain material for students, numbers, as well as any suitable information about vocal critics. (c) Former followers does not deserve a separate section, any such material can be included in "Following". Again I do not see how we can discuss structure without the content, it seems to me to be strange, very strange.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with Jossis's points about "Following". Right now that section is narrowly focused on numbers of followers. I think that focus should be kept. "Vocal critics" should not be added to it. In general, I think that material should be kept as chronological as possible, and we should keep the non-chronological material to a minimum (which may still be a large minimum). I don't understand Francis' division between "students" and "former followers" - why not merge those and use them to include viewpoints of current and former students/followers? Overall, this mostly seems to divide up folks and then give their views. I think it's better to cover topics and give all views on those topics, as we do in the Authority/Charisma section. Can we pick out topics that get significant commentary, and create subsections on those instead? Regarding Jossi's last point, the benefit of working on structure first is to see what to research, what content to find. Picking out certain content will tend to support having a certain structure, whether intentional or not. Until we agree on what topics to cover we can't easily agree on what content we use to cover those topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we try going one level down to bullet pointing the main areas of content proposed for each sub-section. This will provide some context for the proposed structure of this section. I have made a quick attempt to summarise Proposal 1 as an example. However, it would be much better if Jossi did this in his own words for the purpose of any serious discussion. Again, I have just done this as an example. (maybe we should use the templates for this?)

• Reception Lead

Strong following from counterculture in 1971-73

Perception of divinity from followers

Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position

‘Banal’ speech in 1974

• Charisma & Leadership

as per proposal 2)

• Following

Early growth and later decline of movement

More on perception of divinity and later renouncement

• Public Image

DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance

• Public Appearances, honors & Awards

1 Million people at procession in New Delhi at age 12

Received ‘keys to the city’ (list of cities)

Now we can debate the structure without getting too hung up yet on specifics.

In this case, the four main heading titles (not including lead) are either neutral or positive. There’s no ‘critical viewpoints’ sub-section. As per the discussion over the last few months, that simply isn’t going to fly. Specifically, there’s nothing about the anti-Rawat movement and no reference to Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle. Etc, etc, etc…

The whole point is that with this approach we can have a very pragmatic debate about the structure and what is fair balance/weighting, hopefully in days instead of weeks, without stopping the whole show getting caught up in debate about the details and appropriate sources, etc. Yes – all that needs to happen, but I feel we can get there much faster with this approach. Savlonn (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach - it's better to start with an outline. However I think this proposed outline puts too much into the reception section that should be in the main article. For example:

• Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position
• ‘Banal’ speech in 1974
• DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance
• Public Appearances, honors & Awards

These all appear to be topics that can be handled chronologically. Why include them in "Reception" rather than in the chronology of the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Will, is your last point directed at Jossi or myself? Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to propose my idea of an outline for this section, but was attempting to objectively summarize Jossi's Proposal 1 into an example outline. Please disregard if your point was directed at Jossi. I envisaged that others would follow debate by creating their own versions of outlines for discussions - (perhaps using the proposal templates).Savlonn (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the outline. Perhaps Jossi can explain his thinking in creating this outline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to have some quality time with family. Will respond in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< Some of the material in my proposal can be easily incorporated into the chronology, and we should consider that as an option. The only material that would not fit, would be "Charisma and leadership", "Following". So we may need to revisit this. Ideas? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it? There is material in my proposal (that by the way it is not close to be completed) that could easily be placed in the chronology. So I am asking for ideas on how to address this editorial dilemma: Should all material that is time-sensitive be placed in the chronology, leaving other aspects that are not in the "Reception" section? Should the "Reception section" expand on existing chronological material? SHould the "Reception" section be also chronological. etc, etc. All editorial decisions, that in my view would be better discussed once we have new material for this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article, like all biographies, is best organized chronologically. Material which neither discusses a particular period or event, or which weren't notable when they were published, is the only kind that should be relegated to topical sections at the end. However, that means that editors need to accomodate sometimes critical material throughout the article. We've already seen in some other proposals that editors say things like "no opinions". Well, opinions belong in the article and if editors don't want a "criticism" section then they have to accept negative material elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be an excellent time for all of us to refresh our understanding of the stringent requirements of biographies of living persons, the letter and the spirit thereof. 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what Will is saying. The article already includes negative/critical material throughout the chronology. I do not understand also what is this argument of "no opinions" when we actually have plenty of scholarly opinions throughout the article already. I still look forward for ideas from others about what to do with this "Reception" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• No source provided for " The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.". In any case, we should stick with facts rather than opinions.Momento (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why you bring this up here, as I do not see any such comments from Momento in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted that quote because you seemed to be unaware that opinions were being discouraged by active editors of this article. My point is that we either have a criticism cestion, or we allow critical material throughout the article. Do we all agree that it's better to mix the critical material? or do people prefer to have a criticism section? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have critical material throughout the article, so I do not know why you are asking about "allowing critical materials throughout the article". Please re-read the article. And if other material is presented to be considered for inclusion, it will need to be done in the context of a balanced and neutral article, as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, not just WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, and there is much more to consider adding. Dogmatic assertions that we should only have facts instead of opinions are inappropriate. Opinions, aka viewpoints, are a vital part of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, I would strongly disagree with your opinion. There is abundant criticism already in the article. This is a biography of a living person, not a WP:COATRACK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<<<< I do not think it is very useful to make general and/or blanket comments about content, structure, etc without the content. There is only one way to do this and it is by creating and developing content. Only when you have content and you bring it to discussion (as we did with the content about charisma) it is useful. I would simply ignore theoretical conversations not supported by proposals that submit content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Saul V. Levine

There are some writings by Saul V. Levine which might add some counterpoint to material provided in Prop2. Levine is not from the sociological school of thought, rather, he's a psychiatrist who has studied and written papers/articles on NRMs/cult, including DLM. Not all scholars are sociologists of NRMs/cult. Some, like Margaret Singer, were/are clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who offer a different perspective than the group represented in the article. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some prose (with refs) of what you propose to be included in the Prem Rawat article. Also indicate where you think it can be incluced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Galanter is also not a sociologist, and we are using him in ths and related articles. Levine wrote one article in a 1989 book edited by Galanter, called "Cults and New Religious Movements". I do not see there anything that has not been covered already, besides making some general comments about the DLM being "vilified" and "held in low esteem", but nothing specific about Prem Rawat besides a comment about how parents see religious leaders living in "offensive opulence". Note that Levine advocates in his conclusion to his article for "the prosecution and persecution" of groups. Clearly Levine is a person with strong opinions about non-mainstream religious groups that cannot be ignored when assessing this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that characterize Levine's "strong opinions" then we can refer to them. (I wouldn't say that calling for the prosecution of groups that break the law, and tolerance for those that don't, is an especially strong opinion.) Sources don't need to be neutral. As for the general point, we need to be sure we differentiate Rawat form the DLM. Commentary about them belongs in their respective articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

P6.2

• According to the website of the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat received the keys to the cities of New York City, New Orleans, Oakland, Kyoto, Detroit, Miami Beach, Miami, and Quito, as well as numerous resolutions and proclamations from state and federal government officials in the US. http://prem-rawat.org/

Who is the author of the material on prem-rawat.org? Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The author is The Prem Rawat Foundation, the official website of that organization (see copyright notice bottom right). Added per WP:SELFQUEST ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So we don't know who actually wrote it? This material appears to violate WP:SELFQUEST because it is unduly self-serving and because there is reasonable doubt about who authored it. Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? If not I think it's better left out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 17 June 2008

(a) There is no reasonable doubt that this is an official website, same as if you would quote from a page at www.apple.com. (b) It is not unduly self-serving, unless you think that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving . This material is entirely appropriate for a biographical article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Making claims of awards and honors is self-serving. We don't know who the author is. It's not even clear what relationship Rawat has to TPRF, which would mean that if it's not his website then we can't use it at all. The TPRF website may be a usable as a source for itself, the article about that organization, but it's not Rawat's website so it can't be used about him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That argument is specious. Prem Rawat is the founder of that charitable organization, which carries his name. Most definitively usable material. As for your opinion that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving, that is simply incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If claiming to have received an honor isn't self-serving then please explain what is. As for using TPRF for Rawat, I don't see his name on the list of board members so his actual connection to the foundation isn't clear. We don't know the author of the material. I think it's unusable for this BLP, which requires the highest standards of sourcing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It could not be clearer. The TPRF site clearly credits him with inspiring their work and for founding the organisation (The Foundation, which he founded, provides nutritious food and clean water... etc.) It is getting harder to keep patience with your stubborn mean-spiritedness. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)