Talk:Lord of the Universe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Arbitrary section header

Thanks for a well researched and meticulously sourced article. I will add some more material to provide some needed context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Do you have hyperlinks for these reviews you have added? I fear that there may be quoted portions of the reviews missing, and quotes in place appearing out of context. Also, the Dupont Award is very notable and should be mentioned early in the article. I will place the WIP tag. PLEASE respect. Smee 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
No, I do not have URLs of free online sources. I use several online databases that require payment.
  1. I have restored the context for Offman as it is pertinent to the article. True, people can hyperlink, but there is no harm in providing context for Hoffman and Davies which you described in your edit as an "activist".
  2. I have moved the award to the appropriate section rather than the lead, as done with many other award-winning documentaries.
  3. I re-ordered the reviews in chronological fashion of their appearance as before. Could you also please provide the exact date for the Los Angeles Times review? Otherwise is not verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I will work on getting the citation date. I will restore the Awards section. This is common for most films articles. Smee 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I already did. It is now in the lead. I understand that there is a review that was published on The Christian Science Monitor, but I cannot locate it. Maybe you could? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. I will try. Smee 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you explain why you removed the text and described my edits as "POV pushing", when the fact is that Abbie Hoffman was one of the Chicago Seven and notable because of that? I would also appreciate that rather than making such opinions in edit summaries, you address your concerns in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT what Abbie Hoffman is most known for. He is most know for his book, Steal this Book. At any rate, that is not something for us to decide, that is for the editors of the Abbie Hoffman article to decide over there. Allow the reader to read the article there, and don't try to denigrate him here with a few words of POV pushing. It is inappropriate. Smee 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
This is eerily similar to those editors who love to write "Example cult expert, comma, and anti-cult activist, comma, believes such and such." This is inappropriate for editors to go POV pushing with labels all over Wikipedia. Better to restrict this to articles about the subject themselves, and leave either no rejoinder or a very simple one here. Smee 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
This is a very interesting conversation. You believe that it is denigrating to say about Hoffman that he was a member of the Chicago Seven. For others, that is actually a positive fact of Hoffman's life as it shows his determination to fight the establishment and enhances his image of a protester. I could argue that the one pushing a POV, may be you, with your removal of that fact. Maybe time for a WP:THIRD opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It reminds me of another dispute at Charismatic authority in which some editors were asking for adding a person and other asking from removing the same person, as each side believed that the addition or removal was "pushing a POV" (some saw this as a positive and others a s a negative). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us talk about the content. Just how much space in this article do we need for context about Abbie Hoffman? He is notable for lots of things. Shall we devote an entire paragraph just to describing context about Abbie Hoffman? How about a paragraph of context for each of the individuals mentioned in the article? The companies? There is such a thing as too much context, especially if other articles on Wikipedia already exist on these individuals. Smee 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
This is the only movie he directed. He makes fun of Rennie Davies on it (I am researching exact quotes), etc. As such, information about Davies and Hoffman need to be sufficient to provide basic context for readers. I am off now for a while. Will return to expand the article later in the evening or tomorrow morining. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I like your compromise about the Abbie Hoffman context for the moment. Smee 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I think we have a pretty good article. I remember reading about a Hoffman vs Davies interlude during the taping, but I cannot locate the source. I'll keep looking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interlude? What do you mean? I wonder if this can be given a tighter classification in the films wikiproject... Smee 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I meant that as a metaphor... i.e as an "interlude" in a section in music between one person's solo and another's. Davies speaks of Hoffman and Hoffman speaks of Davies during the taping of the film I remember reading something about that. The films wikiproject usually deals with films rather than with TV documentaries, but you could try. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We shall see. Smee 02:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Film?

Jossi (talk · contribs)
How does a TV documentary that was shot in video tape using Portapak, and shown in PBS , suddenly becames a film? What sources describe the TV show as a film? The award, for example, was given for Broadcast journalism. Not for a "film". I do not understand the need to "upgrade" this documentary from what it is: a TV documentary. Placing request at WP:THIRD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Smeelgova (talk · contribs)
...
Third opinion

If the source (which source please?) states "Film (sic)", that suggests the use of the term "film" to describe this production is not correct, in the opinion of that source.

I understand where user:Jossi is coming from in that the term "film" tends to connote a feature-length production; however, TV documentary redirects to Documentary film, suggesting that the term "film" encompasses any video recording. What is "common usage" for the term depends on which side of the pond you're on. Since the term "Television Documentary" implies the production is also a type of film, and the term "film" may be confusing in this context, I suggest letting the term "TV Documentary" stand.

Oddly, the article mentions this production's staff are responsible for "five more films", implying that this production is also a film (and it is). Whichever way this goes, the wording should be changed so as to be consistent across the entire article. Flakeloaf 04:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that the source for "five more films" does not say that. It says "five TVTV programs". See Lord_of_the_Universe_(documentary)#_note-video_history_project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Film" is made of celluloid, "video" is made of magnetic tape. "documentaries" and "movies" can be made on either film or video. As this was made on 1/2" videotape, we know it is a "video," regardless of how many people use the term "film" incorrectly. Poorsara 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see all of the sources on this below. Smee 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Those are people incorrectly using the word "film" to mean "movie." This was one of the pioneering works of early 1/2" video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poorsara (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Do you have secondary sources for these assertions? Smee 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Op-eds

As far as I know, op-eds are not reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would concur, since they are presented as the opinion of an individual reporter and not of the news agency as a whole. Do news agencies even express opinions? Flakeloaf 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case that is irrelevant, because the op-ed was described in the book by Mick Brown The Spiritual Tourist. Andries 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Staying close to the sources

I have edited the article to be as close as possible to the sources provided. Each edit is explained in the edit summaries. Still to be corrected in the lead in which it is still referred as a documentary film, rather than a TV documentary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources that refer to Lord of the Universe as a "FILM"

  • Sources that refer to Lord of the Universe as a "FILM"
  1. MediaRights Listed in Directory "film", note, states "rate this film", and "film description..."
  2. Williams. Bob, "On the Air," New York Post, February 25, 1974 - refers to it as "deplorable film", and yet a film, nonetheless...
  3. Megan Williams, producer of the film, referred to as a independent documentary film producer, and not an "independent TV Documentary producer"... hrm...
  4. Video History Project, quoting: "If you take Top Value's product, and look at it very objectively, it looks like documentary film."
  • Will add more momentarily... Smee 06:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Please stay as close to the source as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That is MediaRight default settings for all customer reviews and customer ratings. That does not make this TV documentary a film (what is wrong with TV documentary, anyway?) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
independent documentary film producer does not make this a film, does it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the contested "film" categories as these are not supported by the sources. Added Category:Television_documentaries instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I will add more sources to clarify. These are justified by the sources. Please wait. Thank you for your patience. Smee 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure, but note that I had to fix many of your edits as these were not kept close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob Williams said "film". OK. But every one else is saying "TV documentary", program, etc. We should respect the third opinion, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As your "TV Documentary", is merely a redirect to "Documentary Film", it is in line with the Third Opinion to change the wikilink to TV Documentary, and yet keep the Film Categories. Smee 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
In fact, most of the sources refer to it as simply "Documentary" and not TV Documentary. This is in effect POV pushing that is not "kept close to the source". Smee 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Where does the third opinion said to keep the film categories? We kept documentary film in the lead as TV documentary redirects there, but this production is not a film, but a TV program as per the abundant sources provided. As for your baseless accusations of POV pushing, note that I did not use "TV documentary" but stayed close to the source in fixing your additions of "film" "cinematographers", "film crew", etc. that were not in the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and those edits you made, are actually fine. But for the simple reason itself that TV Documentary redirects to Documentary film, and the fact that virtually all of the sources refer to the program as "program", "TVTV program" "award-winning documentary" or "documentary", the film categories can remain and are inclusive. Smee 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
I disagree, Smee. This is not a film and categorizing the article as such is not right. I will ask the third opinion user to comment again. Good night for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Even more sources that describe the film and the film company as a film and/or a documentary film. In addition, most of the producers of the film are entitled: documentary film makers. Smee 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Should I make a list in which sources describes this production as a TV program, or TV documentary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you must, please do so in a new section. However, I contend that the simple fact that so many refer to it as a film or documentary film and its producers as documentary film makers, suggest that at the very least both classification and categories apply. Smee 07:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
  • emerging video technologies, thus pioneering a new means of imagemaking for television. [1]
  • to commission five more TVTV programs[2]
  • first Portapak video documentary produced for national television [3]
  • This was the first program originally made on 1/2-inch video tape to be broadcast nationally [4]
  • The TVTV style [...] has smoothed out considerably since the group first won national recognition for programs on the 1972 conventionsLord_of_the_Universe_(documentary)#_note-16
  • and as a peek into the future of television. Lord_of_the_Universe_(documentary)#_note-17

I am off to bed, hopefully the third opinion edit can give us a hand with this ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Good. If these above named reputable sources have referred to it as a "film", "documentary", "program", "documentary film"', "video documentary", "videotape broadcast nationally", and its producers as "documentary filmmakers", we begin to see a picture. At the very least - this points to a logical conclusion of classification and categorization in both domains of "Documentary film", "film", and "TV documentary". Smee 07:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
      • Third Opinion The OED defines documentary [5] as "Factual, realistic; applied esp. to a film or literary work, etc., based on real events or circumstances, and intended primarily for instruction or record purposes". This implies that a production must first be a film before one can consider referring to it as a documentary. It goes on to define documentarist as "One who makes documentary films". The choice of "documentary films" vs. "documentaries" suggests that the two terms are synonymous. All documentaries (that aren't literary works) must therefore also be films, so this article should belong in Category:Films and any of cat:film's subcategories deemed appropriate with a view to the documenta film subject's content. Flakeloaf 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I think that clarifies things nicely as to the inclusiveness of the term "Documentary film", and thus also "Category:Films" and associated classifications. Smee 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
I am not absolutely happy with categorizing this TV documentary as a "film", but I could live with it. I just read Film (an interesting article, BTW) and could not find any references to TV programs being called "films". I will check if there are additional TV-related categories that this article can be added to as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, it sounds like we are both working towards compromising on a consensus. Feel free to add more TV-related categories if they are appropriate to the documenatry genre as well. A very interesting source/commentary put forth by the Third Opinion above. Smee 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
The only pertinent one that I could find was Category:Television documentaries, and it was already in the article. So, I think we are done with this now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, great. I must say it does seem that when you and I avail ourselves of the Wikipedia processes, and strive to utilize kind language on talk pages, refraining from bold, italics, caps, whenever possible, etc., it seems that we are actually doing some good work together. Hope you are doing well. Smee 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes. You are right. I am doing so, so, down with the flu... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

12 inch tape

  • As per the sourced quote: "first program originally made on 1/2-inch video tape to be broadcast nationally" - backed up by citation. Smee 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Director

I had a suspicion that Hoffman was not the director. The intermix source does not name Hoffman. The rolling credits on the documentary does not list Hoffman either. Note that many listings in Amazon are user generated and not checked for accuracy. It reads:

Directors: Abbie Hoffman, Rennie Davis, Guru Maharaj Ji, Hudson Marquez, Allen Rucker

Most definitively wrong!

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not wrong actually, we just do not have secondary sources for this at the moment. Smee 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Actually, wrong, Smee. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, right. Just haven't found more citations yet. But I will allow the change for now without dispute... Smee 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
The page at Amazom was created by a user that sells old copies of the film. He/she made the blunder of naming Hoffman, Davis, Guru Maharaj Ji, and others as directors. I have sent a message to Amazon to correct the mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Amazon corrected the obvious mistake about Hoffman. Let this be a lesson for all us and not trust sources without digging in a bit... See http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Universe-Michael-Shamberg/dp/B00001OX01 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you send a message to Amazon in your capacity as a Wikipedia user, or something else? Smee 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Amazon.com encourages all users to assist in the proper identification of their products. Below the "Products Details" section of any book or video, there is a link "Would you like to update product info". You can then provide them with feedback about mistakes in their listings. They have a team that then check with multiple sources to verify the info. They are quite good at it, they respond with an email message telling you if they have fixed it or not. The reason for this is that there are tens of thousands of products in Amazon that have been added by users that sell second hand, out-of-print books, so they are interested in fixing any mistakes in their listings, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That did not answer my question... Smee 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Oh... sorry, I think I did. I just sent feedback as myself. I am a long-time customer of Amazon (spending too much of my money on books... if I may says so...) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel the same way... Smee 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Undue weight

When we did not know the mistake about Hoffman being the director, having a quote so prominent may have been OK. Now that we know that it was only a mention, and as it is already featured in the cover art, having that quote highlighted is undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


See {{Cquote}} that reads: It generally should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so. I do not see the justification for using this template for this quote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a prominently featured quote in the cover art, as you say, and has been widely disseminated. I will restore. Smee 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
That is a straw man argument. The quote is in the article, the format is what is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if you are aware of it, but we have both violated WP:3RR. You can undo your last revert, to avoid getting blocked, and I will do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am confused. Which was the last edit? Smee 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I have assumed good faith and reverted myself. I expect you to do the same as you have stated you would above... Smee 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Done. Now, note that we should not have to have done so. If we disagree with an edit, we can revert just once and discuss. And if we cannot reach agreement, we need to ask for help to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you show us both our respective DIFFs that show we reverted 3RR? I did not see that either of us had done so... Smee 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
(shhhh, we did, indeed). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. We both reverted ourselves in good faith to each other on this one... Smee 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Third opinion

Simoes (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (jossi (talk · contribs))
Initially, a mistake was made naming Abbie Hoffman as the director of this production. At that time having a quote from the director highlighted and made prominent by the use of the {{cquote}} template, was warranted. Now that we know that Hoffman only appears briefly in the video, having that quote highlighted is given undue weight to Hoffman, in particular when the quote is already prominent in the cover art of the VHS video. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (Smeelgova (talk · contribs))
It is a widely disseminated quote in multiple sources. The very fact that it is on the box cover suggests this is a nice way to highlight it, having been reproduced multiple times in other publications. Smee 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Third opinion by username
....

I'm going to have to side with Smee here. The "undue weight" argument doesn't really fly given that the quote is prominent enough to be on the box cover. That it is repeatedly reprinted elsewhere makes the undue weight concern negligible. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still disagree, but will accept the third opinion in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I am glad as well that Jossi and I were able to both self-revert, and wait for your comment in good faith. Smee 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Viewpoint by John Brumage

I was there, let me state that Michael Shamberg was pretty much the de facto director. In a documentary of this nature, of course, each videographer "directs" his or her segment as it is being shot. Nonetheless Michael, at an early morning meeting each day, commented on the previous day's footage, and assigned tasks to the crews. In this way, Lord of the Universe reflects the vision (direction) of Mr. Shamberg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.120.195.4 (talk • contribs).

Levitating the Astrodome

The article says - "According to the plot description at TVRO[14], the Video Data Bank[11], the University of California, Santa Cruz[15], and Art Journal[6], at the event, the 16-year old Guru promised to levitate the Houston Astrodome". I don't believe it. Has anybody got these quotes.Momento 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There were all "quoting" the same source, parroting a mistaken statement. It happens. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
The sources are all cited accurately. And no, they are not all "parroting the same statement" - the wording used in each instance is different. Smee 16:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Surely they are... Most certainly Rawat never made that statement. Unfortunately, we have to respect these sources and attribute the blunder to them. I am looking for sources that quote PR verbatim. I hope I can find these and dispel the myth of that statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I say that, is the PR never spoke of "levitation", "re-incarnation" or any other such mumbo-jumbo, as some "reputable sources" claim. Oh well... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not PR himself that made the statement, but rather the PR for the PR event involving PR... Smee 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
That could very well be, Smee... there were a lot of outrageous claims going around that time... I am looking to see if I can find any refs about that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Perhaps promotional publications about the event from that time... Smee 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Actually, the only place I could find a mention of the levitation idea is ... this documentary. Rennie Davis says that in the video... maybe as a metaphor. The reviewers picked up on that to write what they wrote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually is not Davis, by a bespectacled guy saying something weird about "green energy" and the Astrodome separating from earth... Time code on the video 9:05. Prem Rawat did not say that, I knew that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And yet, perhaps he did, just not on the documentary itself, but around that same time in relation to the event... Smee 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
I personally do not believe that Prem Rawat said this himself. May be his older brother. The rumor of approaching Aliens and levitation of the Houston Astrodome were widespread during Millenium '73. Why don't we move the contents of this article to Millenium '73 and expand it a bit? Andries 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that that is a good idea - and yet most of the citations refer directly to the documentary film. Why don't you first start the Millenium '73 article, and then add to it utilizing citations present in this article? Smee 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Just be aware that you will need to lose the categorization of this article, the photo cover (as per WP:FAIR), etc. I don't think that it is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I also do not think it is a good idea, along with Jossi. That is, unless there are enough citations available for Millenium '73 to be its own separate article. Smee 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

If Rawat had said "I'm going to levitate the Astrodome", every source would have repeated that quote. The facts that their phrases differ is a dead give away.Momento 10:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, and perhaps not. All that we can draw from the multiple reputable secondary sources themselves is the information directly stated by them. Smee 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Unfortunately that is true. There is one stoned guy in the video saying something weird about "green energy" and the astrodome taking off from Earth, that's all. A good example of yellow journalism, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, the multiple reputable secondary sources might not have gotten their particular information from the DuPont-Columbia Award-winning documentary film itself. And "yellow journalism", is an interesting characterization, however unsourced, and yet a topic of discussion for a different article. Smee 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
I wish you were right, but unfortunately many "reliable sources" do not do the fact checking they suppose to do. "Levitating the Astrodome" is a "good line" and they all repeated it without verifying it. What can one do in these situations? Not much, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we simply do not know if "they all repeated it without verifying it", if they got it from the DuPont-Columbia Award-winning documentary film itself, or from other multiple sources. Those are all assumptions. Smee 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
I've checked the links. In fact, only one leads to a plot desctiption. The VDB says "Marahaj Ji attempts to levitate the Houston Astrodome in this 1973 DuPont award winning documentary" which is, of course, incorrect. Cruzcat says about GMJ "(its is said) he promised to levitate the Houston Astrodome", which of course is entirely different; WNET doesn't mention it; TVRO describes the movie as "Parody/Spoof/Satire" about GMJ "who promised to levitate the Houston Astrodome!" and the Art Journal article says about the Astrodome that "the guru promised would levitate at the close". So it is clear that descriBing these varying comments aS "According to the plot description at ....." is wrong. The claim is "according to the back cover". Momento 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, we don't know if the reputable secondary source citations got their info from the DuPont-Columbia Award-winning documentary film itself, or from other multiple sources. Any other conclusions would be assumptions. Smee 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Well we know for certain they didn't get their info from the film because it isn't in the film. And since the claim doesn't appear anywhere else except in reference to the film, the only conclusion is they took it from the packaging of the film. And that isn't a reliable source.Momento 07:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see your logic. We cannot infer anything about the source of the material. Sure, it may have come from the box of the DuPont-Columbia Award-winning documentary film, but most likely these reputable secondary citations got their material from other sources at the time of the event itself. Smee 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Your "context" is incorrect. Please do not make assumptions about secondary sources, where you think they got their information from, and their intentions. Smee 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
You reverted in error. I didn't remove any material. I a) changed comic punctuation marks as per MOS and added pertinent info about Hoffman; b) added info about levitation claim on packaging.Momento 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. I have re-added the mention of the levitation issue from the back packaging of the 1991 edition.
  2. The quotation formatting has already been heavily debated and resolved. Please read above on this talk page.
  3. Your clarifications/context about the other reputable secondary sources were incorrect, they do not refer to the DuPont-Columbia Award-winning documentary film, but to Guru Maharaj Ji's claims about the event itself... Smee 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
I've read the "debate" about comic commas, Jossi was right, I have changed them to conform to Wiki manual of style.Momento 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that since a WP:Third opinion was already consulted once with regards to this issue and upheld the quoted formatting version, that you leave it in the article. If you still object, it would be appropriate to leave it in the article until we can get more commentary from an RFC. Smee 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Abbie Hoffman

Since AH is so prominantly quoted on the cover and in this article about the Astrodome event, a reader could reasonably believe that Hoffman was either at the Astrodome or viewed the LotU video upon which his comments are printed. Since he was on the run in Nov 1973 and dead in 1989 it is clear that AH was not at the event or commenting about the video.Momento 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the undue weight given to Hoffman in this article. He only shows up on the movie for a few minutes, mainly attacking Rennie Davis and making disparaging comments overall. I know that a third opinion was given, but I am still uncomfortable with what I consider undue weight in the formatting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For a start Hoffman's quote should be moved to the VHS Video section since it is on the video cover that his comment is prominently featured. Taking his comment from the documentary itself is obviously selective quoting.Momento 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think I remember seeing somewhere that "the greatest event in human history" was not the Millenium event but Rawat's guru's birthday. Do you know where that comes from?Momento 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also found a quote of Davis's talking about his experience of what Rawat teaches. I think it is more informative for the reader than the one of Davis's opinion of what we should do if we knew who Rawat was. I have replaced it.Momento 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed the subjective opinion of what sort of documentary it is. Bob Williams, writing in the New York Post, calls it it a "deplorable film" and "flat, pointless, television". Rather than have opinion about it, let's just call it a "documentary" and avoid any suggestion of bias.Momento 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance and purpose of this Abbie Hoffman information? It seems to serve no other purpose but to attempt to disparage him. We could include plenty of other "context" as well, but we have been through this already. It is superfluous and the reader can find out more about him in his own article. Smee 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, AH is irrelevant. But since the distributors have put him on the cover in large print as their chosen spokesperson and an editor thinks this is so important it needs highlighting, editors have a duty to describe him for the many readers who don't know who AH is. It would be unfair to describe him in terms of "Chicago Seven" or "Steal this Book", he needs to be described as he was at the time of the video concerned ie November 1973. I don't think we have any choice?Momento 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the cites. The cruzcat review includes the format "VHS" so that means the 1991 video, TVRO refers to "this video" as opposed to this "documentary" and the Mediaburn review doesn't mention "levitation" at all. The Art Journal article is from 1985 and mentions "levitating the Astrodome". I have removed the Mediaburn cite.Momento 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [6]. --Stwalkerbot 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Citation templates

  • Looks like some of the cites in the article are formatted with WP:CIT, and yet some are not. I will go ahead and make this uniform throughout the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Thanks for the help with the wikignoming stuff, needs to get done at some point.  :) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
      • How about we each pick one subsect to wikignome, that way we are not overlapping duplicate work? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Guardian article

Do you have that article in front of you? If you had, you would have realized why is not usable for this article. In any case, these paper printed a retraction acknowledging that these statements were incorrect and that the photo was of the wrong person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please be cautious and check you sources and their provenance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have some sort of verification that the article printed a retraction? What did they retract, specifically? I was able to view the entire article in an online database, so clearly it is verifiable and reliable, as to that it said what it said at that period of time. If a retraction was printed, we should say that as well, but not remove it outright from the article, rather, say both - the initial information, and the retraction, directly afterwards. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
  1. Was the entire article recanted?
  2. If not, why not?
  3. If not, what was recanted, specifically?
  4. Was there an apology issued?
  5. Does a "retraction" invalidate the fact that they printed the prior information, and make it no longer verifiable if it is readily accessible in an online database?
  6. Is not the fact that the information was printed and whatever "retraction" you claim occurred both notable and both satisfying WP:RS?

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC).


Which "online database" did you read it from? You can can check the same online database and find the retraction that was printed on July 22, 1999, under their "Corrections and clarifications" section.
There were many mistakes in that article:
  • Such was his appeal that by the end of the decade he owned 93 Rolls-Royce. This is actually a mistake by the journalist confusing him with Rajneesh. You can check the hundreds of sources available about that claim. That was retracted
  • The photo illustrating the article was of Swami Prabhupada, ISKON leader, under which a caption stated "This is Maharaji"; the mistake was acknowledged in the retraction
  • The "exploding Love Bomb", is a another mistake that was retracted;
  • and had run up a $4m bill for back-taxes, also incorrect there has been no back taxes issues ever, probably also a mistake with Rajneesh which had a pending investigation at that time. That also was retracted
Seems that tabloid journalism do not care much about fact-checking, which is obvious in this case. As such, and given the retraction printed, this article could not be considered an RS for a LP. If the paper printed so many mistakes, there is no need to perpetuate these mistakes in Wikipedia. Your claim "it is an RS" does not work; yes, it is verifiable that they did not pursue any fact-checking, rendering it as not reliable in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide the text and full citation and date of this "retraction" that you speak of. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
    • My apologies, I did not see the full date you gave, above, thank you. I will try to check this. If you can, I would appreciate what the wording of the "retraction" actually said. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
It was not a "retraction", but a retraction which IMO, puts The Guardian in the company of the worst of tabloid journalism. I will dig it out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

I'm wondering why the following sentences appear in an article about a movie? The article is about a specific movie "Lord of the Universe", not the phrase "Lord of the Universe".Momento 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) "Rolling Stone Magazine subsequently wrote an article in 1974 utilizing the term "Lord of the Universe".[9] A compilation of articles in Rolling Stone described a press conference with Maharaj ji on the second day of the "Millennium" event. A reporter asked Maharaj ji about the extraordinary claims made by his followers, to which he responds: "Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in the world." The reporter then asks why there is such a contradiction between what he says about himself and what his followers say about him, to which Maharaj Ji responded: "Well... why don't you do me a favor ... Why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?"[10] A later article in 1975 in TIME Magazine reported on the use of the term "Lord of the Universe", by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission.[11]"

  • Well, it is an article that reports on events which occurred in the documentary film. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
    • You are correct here. I moved info not directly pertinent to the film itself, but still directly pertinent and discussing the "Millenium '73" event, to a "Further reading" subsect of the References section. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

This is the retraction:

In an item headed The Mail man, the Maharaji and the exploding love bomb, page 5, G2, July 14, we said Guru Maharaj Ji (or Maharaji) once owned 93 Rolls Royces and had run up a bill in unpaid tax of $4m. Those statements were incorrect and referred to a different guru, unconnected with Maharaji. We were also wrong to say Maharaji had described himself as the Exploding Love Bomb. The photograph used to illustrate the piece showed the wrong person, again unconnected with Maharaji. The Guardian, Corrections and Clarifications section, July 22, 1999

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I've found some other good WP:RS sources, so we don't have to use that anyways. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

It is not all about good sources. It is about how we use them. That is called good editorial judgment and good research and scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. But if we don't have good sources to begin with, we won't have much of an article now will we? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Content section

Per the norm for WP:FA film articles, in common practice by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film folks, it's usually standard for the Content section of a film article to simply summarize events in the film. This is verifiable back to the film itself, and as the 1991 VHS edition of this film is still readily available, it is verifiable here too. I will work on expanding the Content section with this in mind, in the near future.

More on this from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films members Bignole (talk · contribs) DIFF, Erik (talk · contribs) DIFF, and Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs) DIFF.

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

  • Actually, so far I am finding some good WP:RS secondary sources for the actual content of the film itself, so for now I am using these. If later on I expand upon the content section with the primary source, I will note that with a citation at the end of every sentence sourced in such a manner, so that there is no confusion. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Thanks for the grammar corrections and wikignoming.  :) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Lead/Intro

The reason I reverted you there is because the Lead/Intro is supposed to summarize the article. Therefore, there will be some information in the lead that is initially stated, and then expanded upon in more detail later on in the article. I still have to add a summary of the now expanded "Production" section to the Lead, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Then summarize the article, not just a detail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in the midst of summarizing the article right now, perhaps take a short break from the article, give me a chance to summarize what I have just written/expanded upon, and then you can feel free to critique it and change things if you feel the need to? That way we won't be editing over each other. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
That is not editing over each other, you are edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As are you. Will you take a break and give me a couple of minutes to summarize the article? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
I think that is a good example of cherry picking what to summarize and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, great, now we are getting somewhere. What do you think should be summarized, and what not? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
Will you answer my question? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
See my edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! No problems here. Good job. I would only say that per WP:LEAD there should only be 4 total paragraphs in the Lead/Intro, so that tiny first paragraph should be merged with the 2nd. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
My mistake, there are four currently. But a one sentence first paragraph doesn't look good. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Jossi, I'm sorry for reverting you earlier about the Lead/Intro. You did a great job summarizing the content section. I would self-revert, but at this point your version looks great. I'm sorry we got into a brief tiffy about that, and thank you again for your grammar and wikignoming edits to the article. It's starting to look good. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I hope that you can understand that I do feel sorry for reverting you earlier. You really did do nice work on the Lead. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
Apology accepted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, thanks. Next time, I'll ask for your input first on the talk page, before reverting your changes. That is, unless it's a small matter like a typo or something. Again, thanks for your help on the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

External links

Addition of unsourced material to Content section

  • Please do not add unsourced material to the article without a citation to a WP:RS/WP:V source. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

an event held at the Houston Astrodome in November 1973 to commemorate the birth of Hans Ji Maharaj

  • This material is unsourced and should be removed from the article. In addition, it does not belong in the "Content" section of the article, unless this statement was discussed in the film itself. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Do you have a source that says that this above statement was discussed in the content of the film? Cirt (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

Apologies, the Hans Maharaji but may not have been discussed in the film. It was included in the letter written by GMJ inviting people to M73.Momento (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
The actual quote shown in text in the film says "This year the most holy and significant event in human history will take place in America" which was taken from the invitation. But in the letter GMJ was referring to his father/guru's birthday which was celebrated every year in Nov. So it is incorrect to claim in the content that M73 was "billed" as etc. How would you handle this.Momento (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
One sec, let me come up with an NPOV solution that will hopefully be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
I'm just watching "LOTU" and Rennie's quote in the "content" -"When I went to see Guru Maharaj Ji, it was not to embrace God, but to see what he could show me. And all I can do now is be honest about what happened. Guru Maharaj Ji showed me God" is not in the film but from a book.Momento (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done - Removed both quoted pieces you mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
I think the content section needs a complete re-write. Who ever wrote it has cherry picked quotes and scenes that give an entirely subjective view of the content. Momento (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was cherry picked. The content section utilizes material backed up to secondary sources instead of simply summarizing the film itself as a primary source. If you can find additional content mentioned in other secondary sources not currently used in the article, feel free to expand it with more citations. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

GA Pass

Meets the needs. Vikrant Phadkay 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: "
3. Broad in coverage?: "
4. Neutral point of view?: "
5. Article stability? {{{stable}}}
6. Images?: "

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Vikrant Phadkay 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Glad to know you feel the article passes as a Good Article on all of the above points. Cirt 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Well done.Momento 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Satirical

I don't think we can characterize this as a "satirical" documentary, with only the one source All Movie Guide, which puts it in the Genre/Type of: "Spirituality & Philosophy, Biography, Religions & Belief Systems" - and only mentions that the "tone" is humorous. I searched but have not come across any other secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that refer to this documentary as a "satire", "satirical", "parody", or "comedy", but am willing to be corrected if other sources are provided. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre: Parody/Spoof, Satire, Biography. The Lord of the Universe - The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-10. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please restore the category you just deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not The New York Times, but rather All Movie Guide, and the more recent version of the All Movie Guide page is here (same as initial link given above). Cirt (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is in the New York Times, and was in the All Movie Guide for many years as well, until someone changed it recently. All it takes is an email to feedback@allmovie.com. I have emailed them and asked them about the sudden change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate you asking a question, and at the same time deleting the category and changing the lead. This is a FA article, btw, so thread with caution. I will place a note at the FAR in this regard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)