Talk:Ex-premie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ex-premie article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

/Archive 1

[edit] Disambig

  • This page now is appropriate as a disambig page. Disambig pages frequently define a term, and refer the reader on to other articles for more information. This is exactly what this article is doing. Smeelgova 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
You are duplicating content that already exist in an other page that deals with the subject. That is not what a disambig page is about. You may want to ask other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I am defining terms used in association with "ex-premie", and utilizing sources to back up these terms. Disambig pages frequently do this. Smeelgova 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Let us stop reverting and discuss. What in particular do you have issue with that is currently in this article's page??? Let us discuss this point-by-point. Smeelgova 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure.
  1. disambig pages that link to existing content, do not require sources;
  2. material in disambing pages that do not have an article, sometime requires sources; and
  3. material that is already in the encyclopedia can be linked to rather than duplicating it here. See examples at Wikipedia:Links_to_disambiguating_pages
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If (1) is the case, why are there citations about premature birth? Smeelgova 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Because there is no mention of "ex-premie" in this context on the article about premature birth. It would be better to move the source there, with a mention of the term. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have done so. I think I have a good idea for a compromise, in-line with other disambig articles. I have put up the Work In Progress tag. Please respect for a moment. Smeelgova 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Good work, Smeelgova. I just removed the web link as these do not need to be disambiguated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I have restored the web mention, as a redlink for a future article, as there are references in secondary sources and may be more in the future. Smeelgova 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
That site does not meet our notability guidelines. See WP:WEB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the website meets criterion number 1. Second off, it will most likely be worthy of an independent article in the future, as more secondary citations become available. In any event, most readers searching for "ex-premie" are looking for either this derivation of the term, or the website specifically. It is a good idea to briefly mention it on the disambig page. Smeelgova 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
No. The site does not meet the criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It does. It has been reported on in enough other sources. In any event, it may meet the criteria in the future, we are not debating this. It deserves to be at the very least mentioned, with a redlink. It does not even need to fit any criteria for this to occur. Smeelgova 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
(a) the site is already described and linked to in the Criticism article. (b) The site does not meet WP:WEB, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
(a) The purpose of the disambig page is not to describe, but to mention. I have already adjusted this page accordingly and received your thanks for it above. Therefore it is appropriate to briefly mention it here as we have, and elaborate in the Criticism article, as this is a common use of the term. (b) Whether or not the site meets WP:WEB, is irrelevant to the present discussion, sites that do not at present meet WP:WEB, can still be mentioned on Wikipedia and redlinked. Smeelgova 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
There is no need to disambiguate web pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, this page needs to be deleted or redirected. Disambiguation pages are designed to list articles associated with the same title, and not to be used as a dicdef page. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Dictionary_definitions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the source of the term 'ex-premie'?

Jossi, if you are citing ex-premies themselves as the source then you have to recognise that ex-premies define the term as any former follower of Prem Rawat. If you are not using ex-premies as the source then what is your source for this restrictive definition? --John Brauns 07:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe's source? Being the public contact on press releases for all things Prem Rawat. --Pax Arcane 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh? Here are the sources: A small but vociferous dissatisfied opposition of ex-members [1]; Left between a reality they rejected and one that could not be implemented, ex-movement participants experienced life as arbitrary and senseless.[2]; "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement[3]; several ex-members became vocal critics, [4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, the term 'ex-premie' does not appear to be mentioned in any of your sources.--John Brauns (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Then delete the entry on this disambig page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The term 'ex-premie' has two distinct meanings (as evidenced by a google search), hence the need for this disambig page. If one of the entries was removed, the whole page would have to go. If the entry for a former premie remains, then the question arises as to how it should be defined. The term was coined by former followers of Rawat to mean any former follower of Rawat, by using the standard english prefix 'ex-' (as in ex-President, or ex-husband). If the term is to remain it should retain the definition intended by those who coined the word, and by normal english usage. --John Brauns (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really... The Ex-Christian does not have a page; it redirects to Apostasy. Ex-wife redirects to Divorce, Ex-president does not have an article. I have redirected this page as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine by me - anyone coming across the term with reference to Rawat will simply do a Google search after not finding any information on Wikipedia. --John Brauns (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Courier Mail article in 2002 is the earliest verifiable reference I've been able to find for the term ex-premie. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have looked very hard, took 12 seconds with jayen466's google scholar search to turn up a reference older than that. But really, there's no significance to that point anyway. Many terms come and go from our language and everyday/common usage. If in 10 years the term is no longer in use, the page can reflect that. As it stands the term has several meanings in current usage. Our pages should reflect that.-- Maelefique (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflist

  1. ^ Geaves, Ron, From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara), paper delivered to the 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22–24 March 2002.
  2. ^ Worshipping the Absurd 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' Article by Daniel Foss and Larkin in Sociological Analysis, 1978
  3. ^ Lewis, James, The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, p.210, Prometheus Books
  4. ^ Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America p.143, Garland Publishing (1986)
Don't act surprised. It's insulting. --Pax Arcane 05:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)