Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Guru

The page has an oversized criticism section which is being held to apply to Gurus of any teaching, wether it be Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or NRM.

The perpetrator of this criticism, Andries, who, according to his user page is counter-cults, and is using his POV to criticise religious teachers of all religious movements.

It has been proposed that the criticism in the article either:

• Feature on the Guru-in-question's article or

• Be merged into a new one, titled 'Criticism of religious teachers' or another title which would be less biased to Asian religions, and would take away the implied idea that all Gurus are corrupt, egomaniacs and charlatans after seekers money. I asked for peer review, since other editors are making no headway with Andries, who maintains that his POV should dictate what is featured in the article.

Sfacets 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost all criticisms are generic and do not criticize particular gurus. Apart from that the criticism are notable or sourced to reputable sources, perfectly in accordance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you think that the criticism section is too big relative to its size then you can add more positive material. Andries 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of Andries' modus operani. What he fails to mention is that as you add neutral information about gurus, he will continue to expand his anti-guru section, insuring that the article is more than half negative information. Andries, by the way, is a professional anti-guru advocate who has admitted that he uses Wikipedia articles as vehicles for his anti-guru agenda. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Professional? I would love to get paid for editing Wikipedia. Can you please stop making ad hominem comments and get back to discussing the article? Thanks. Andries 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I will add more criticism/assessment information to the guru article if I find something published in reputable sources that makes sense to me. Andries 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

'Professional' doesn't imply remuneration, what Goethean meant was that you make it your job to criticise and add your POV. My advice to you is to read What Wikipedia is not in particular Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ad hominem? All he os trying to do is make sure the article is NPOV, as per wikipedia guidelines. Sfacets 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. So where in the article guru do I voice my personal opinion, instead of using reputable sources? Andries 15:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox)

(...)Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

Do you do that on purpose? Read only what you want to read in a paragraph? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to your inaccurate reading habits. Sfacets 16:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I had read that, but I do not see advocacy and propaganda in the article. How do you recognize propaganda or advocay? One way of recognizing it is to look for unsourced positive or negative statements. The latter are not present. Andries 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Someone's actually using the peer review! awesome!--Dangerous-Boy 19:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets, wrote on talk:guru when arguing about the nr. of external links that "[..] The crtiicism section is small when compared to the combined sections on religions, and in relevance when compared to the sheer size in numbers of adherants to these religions. Which is the point we have been trying to establish since the begining, when you started pilling on the critical links." Sfacets 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that Sfacets complains here about an "oversized criticism section" but suddenly contradicts himself when it helps him to push his POV. Andries 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it is ironic that you are talking about others "pushing their POV" when you just engaged in it today yourself: Reference 1. Not to talk about your POV pushing on the Guru article: Reference 2. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with a peer review of the article guru? You can discuss this subject at talk:list of groups referred to as cults. You can also make a Wikipedia:Request_for_comments#User-conduct_RfC against me as an user. Please do not make off-topic comments here or anywhere else in Wikipedia Thanks. Andries 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga

Article looks very chaotic, One of the most important articles related to Hinduism needs much more improvement. - Holy Ganga 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs alot of work. It's way too long, in my opinion, because of repetition and too much wordiness in each section. Also, as I suggested in the Talk:Yoga section, I think that both Notable Contemporary Yogis and Notable Yogis should each have their own separate page. This article should be about 'Yoga' and the others should be about 'Yogis'. I imagine that other topics have the 'Notable thises and thats' on the same page, but it makes this article too long. ॐ Priyanath 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)