This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Momento (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 7 February 2014 (editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:01, 7 February 2014 by Momento (talk | contribs) (editors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)EDIT HISTORY BEFORE BEING TOPIC BANNED AND REVERTED
- Note: Prem Rawat is being watched by 446 editors. All of whom have the opportunity to object to edits clearly proposed in the talk page and 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected.
REASON - As per PR talk - TWO INDEPENDENT EDITORS MAKE THIS POINT -
Thought on Misplaced Pages: Weight and Misplaced Pages: Fringe
- Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given. Not judging one way or the other just points to consider. I've isolated these comments here so as to not intrude on the actual discussion. These are just some asides that may or may not be useful.(olive (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
- You make an excellent point. WP:WEIGHT has some good advice on how to deal with this. As an aside, certain interactions I have had recently with an individual who wants the passage in question removed for reasons that violate Misplaced Pages policy in no way implies that I have any problem with the above, which is an argument to remove the passage in question removed for reasons that follow Misplaced Pages policy. (I really don't care what the content of the article is. I just want the rules to be followed.) In my opinion, (and of course my opinion carries no special weight) you are correct, and the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader. Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I WAITED TWO WEEKS AND PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING -
Undue weight
As suggested by several editors "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults. Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use and that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill. The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission", comes under the category "Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given". I propose removing it.Momento (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FOLLOWED BY - If there are no policy based arguments, I'll remove it in 24 hours.Momento (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FOLLOWED BY - "removed as per talk" Momento 03:11, 10 November 201 2"
NUMBER OF EDITORS INVOLVED - 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my proposal.
POS or NEG? - Two positive sentences and one negative.
REMOVED - "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees".
REASON - As per talk "Who ever this witness is (in bold), I don't believe they deserve so much space and should be removed".
POS or NEG? - All POS.
REASON - Putting travelling before learning to fly is logical. No material removed.
REASON - Try to get better balance with photos. No material removed. Photos put back.
REASON - Re-arranged material for better chronology and flow. No material removed.
REASON - Replaced photos. No material removed.
REMOVED - "Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts. Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.
RETAINED - Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy with some media saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".
REASON - As per talk "This paragraph is far too long. We just need to say Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy and the premies rebuttal for NPOV. We can do without the material in bold - the argument between premies and the media is repetitive and including a biased individual's unsubstantiated quote is undue weight etc - "Critics said etc".
NUMBER OF EDITORS INVOLVED - 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected.
POS or NEG? - Removed three positive sentences and two negative (tit for tat)
REMOVED - "self" from "self pilots" as redundant.
REASON: Not necessary to include future name when link will connect to it.
- CONCLUSION - MORE SUPERFLUOUS POSITIVE MATERIAL REMOVED THAN NEGATIVE