Talk:Lord of the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lord of the Universe article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Lord of the Universe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Journalism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Review 2 Request for Comment 2.1 Reasons to include 2.2 Reasons not to include 2.3 Responses

[edit] Review

The sentence from Bob Williams, can be helped with some context which is now missing. Also expanded on details for the source used:

Bob Williams of the New York Post called the documentary a "deplorable film" and "flat, pointless, television", and was critical of the airing of the tape during a PBS fund raising drive. He wrote: "The hour-long program was remiss in not providing some small examination of the available box-office take of the goofy kid guru, much less telling prospective contributors how it got involved in spending how much of its foundation grants and viewer subscription money in such a questionable venture without more inquisitive journalistic endeavor, or ignoring gurus."^[1]

The context is still missing, Highlighted above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why this context has not been added? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the bolded section adds context, unless this is an article about PBS fundraising. From that context, if I was to paraphrase, Isn't Bob saying essentially "this show isn't very good, and I don't know why PBS would show it during a time when they are trying to raise money"?. That's what I get from that, and then if we drop the irrelevant portion concerning PBS, we're left with what we have. How do you see it differently? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

RfC tag removed. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the article Lord of the Universe be categorized as satire? 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to include

Per this source: The Lord of the Universe - The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-10., which categorize this tape's genre as Parody/Spoof, Satire, Biography. The New York Times data is aggregated from two sources: Inbaseline [1] and All Media Guide [2], which are industry standards. This is not about what other sources do not categorize the genre as, but about what The New York Times does categorize the genre as.

Per WP:NPOV, and WP:V, this categorization is worthy of keeping in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons not to include

• Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, the responsibility for providing justification rests with an editor who wants to include material.

• No current source lists this film as satire. The New York Times citation simply references an outdated All Movie Guide mention, and the All Movie Guide article itself no longer lists this film as satire, but rather as: "Genre / Type - Spirituality & Philosophy, Biography, Religions & Belief Systems", and in the text description characterizes it as a "documentary" and a "biographical portrait".

• Multiple sources treat this film as a serious documentary. Several sample quotes:

1. "an hour-long documentary on the activities of the Guru Maharaj Ji"

   Mella, Leanne. "Set in Motion: The New York State Council on the Arts Celebrates 30 Years of Independents: On Television", Video History Project, 1994. Retrieved on 2008-04-11. 

2. "TVTV admirably succeeded in producing a document of the times that remains a classic"

   Boyle, Deirdre (Autumn, 1985). "Subject to Change". Art Journal 45 (3): pp. 228–232. 

3. "The TV Lab also includes in its support video documentary, "nonfiction" television. In February, 1974, WNET broadcast "The Lord of the Universe", a documentary about the guru Maharaj Ji, made by Top Value Television (TVTV). It was a landmark in broadcast television because it was the first time an entire documentary was made for broadcast from 1/2-inch wide video tape."

   Gill, Johanna. "Video: State of the Art", Video History Project, Experimental Television Center, p. 1 of 3. Retrieved on 2008-04-11. 

4. "Out of TV Lab came productions that were radically off-center from other television programming, and that today are landmarks in the history of independent video and the medium of television. As noted in one history of art and television: "THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, for example, a documentation of Guru Maharaj Ji's Millennium '73 revival meeting at the Houston Astrodome by Michael Shamberg's TVTV [Top Value Television] group, was edited at the TV Lab. This was the first program originally made on 1/2-inch video tape to be broadcast nationally."

   High, Kathy. "On Reel New York", thirteen WNET New York, WNET. Retrieved on 2008-04-11. 

5. "a fascinating hour documentary on the guru's three-day happening at the Houston Astrodome"

   Staff. "March On Television", The Oakland Tribune, March 11, 1974. 

More examples can be given upon request. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• This film won a Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, quoting from our article, "The Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award is an American award that honors excellence in broadcast journalism. The awards, administered since 1968 by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York City, are considered a broadcast equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize, another program administered by Columbia University". They don't give these (or Pulitzers) out for anything less than top notch journalism. Other winners include CBS News ("60 Minutes: The Mother of All Heists''"), MSNBC ("War Zone Diary"), NPR (Mandela: An Audio History) and CNN (for Coverage of the Tsunami Disaster in South Asia). A more complete list of previous year's winners is here, this year's winners are listed here. I can identify no winners that deal in humour or satire from that list, only serious journalism (disclaimer: I have not seen every program listed here).

• IMDB also classifies this film as a Documentary here,The Lord of the Universe (1974) (TV). www.imdb.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.

• Inbaseline is indicated as a source of aggregation by jossi above, but as you can see, Inbaseline has no record of this film, it is not a source at all. Search for Lord of the Universe - InBaseline. www.inbaseline.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.
• Allmovie.com (jossi indicates allmedia.com, but in this case, he's referring to allmovie.com, the subsidiary that deals with movies) is indicated as jossi's second source of the New York Times aggregation., as pointed out by Cirt above, this industry standard no longer classifies this movie as a satire or parody. As an industry standard we should value it as a reliable source. Maelefique ^(talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unless the producers or director consciously make this as a docu-drama, which does not seem to be the case, the film has to be considered a documentary, which of necessity, is a serious but "neutral" work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Responses

I would opine that it would look better if there could be some quotation cited which mentions it as a satire or satirical. (Quotation meaning from the body of the text of an article, not a database parameter.) That being said, if only one or two sources would characterize it as such, it probably would be more likely to merit that mention in the Responses section of the article, not in the lead or similar areas which attempt an objective and POV discussion of the film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay we've gotten some good outside feedback here from Bzuk (talk · contribs) and Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs), as well as some additional input/rationale from Maelefique (talk · contribs) - anyone object to closing this RfC at this point? Cirt (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We can close it indeed, and I see that someone has already done so. As per the feedback given, a mention in Reception section of the article would be appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I have written to MDB AMG with an inquiry about the sudden change of categorization, and they will be responding in a few weeks as per their reply. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, The Lord of the Universe entry at The New York Times, again, itself a reference to All Movie Guide, also no longer mentions any sort of parody/spoof/satire genre, but reads: Genre: Biography, Religions & Belief Systems. And what is "MDB" ? Do you mean you wrote to AMG? Cirt (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AMG. I will wait for their response and post it here when I receive it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)