Talk:Prem Rawat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#REDIRECTUser talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat
This page is a soft redirect.

A request has been made to the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.


 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.
Good article Prem Rawat was a nominee for Philosophy and religion good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
06 February 2008 Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe' Cade Metz – The Register
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents


#REDIRECTUser talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat
This page is a soft redirect.

[edit] Visualisation of footnotes

(please keep this section lower on the page than any footnotes that are to be visualised)


[edit] Consensus

I've spotted this on my watchlist, as I've watchlisted all the articles in the mediation. As requested before, and while I can't directly impose it, I would prefer that consensus be sought before making controversial edits. If need be, add them to the list on the MedCab case. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission#Proposed addition to #Issues to be Mediated. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine with me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a good faith edit by an uninvolved editors is being summarily deleted? [1]. Not acceptable, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Your revert prior to talk page discussion was not the right response, anyway. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Your revert prior to discussing the merit of that edit, which BTW, has already been challenged by others, is what is at fault here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that violating 3RR here, is a serious issue. I cannot impose anything on this article, though I strongly urge editors to discuss changes before making them. Additionally, constant reversion of material is a very serious issue. Please, all, be careful. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a response to the talk page discussion as I see it. After monitoring this discussion, it seems to be getting rather heated. I think it's best I make my suggestion clear. This, and the other articles in this mediation, are under dispute. In my experience as a mediator, when dealing with contentious topics, I tend to advise working towards consensus when editing. Looking over this discussion, and the recent article history, I would strongly urge that edits achieve a consensus before they are made, except standard edits such as copyediting, changing words, etc. Contentious portions of the article, and editing portions that are under mediation, would be best for consensus to be achieved here. If necessary, I'll mediate side issues on the talk page as well, it's something I have done before, and I see no reason why it can't be done here. Also remember that the article is under Article probation. It's in the editors best interests here to attempt to reach a consensus before making changes that could be disputed. That said, be careful to not violate 3RR or edit war. I'll keep watching the discussion, as always, just keep this in mind. And, in accordance with the protection policy for content disputes, I may have the article protected, if extreme circumstances present themselves. That's not a threat. It's just something that may happen, if things like 3RR violations occur. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Look forward to your assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, now as I see it, there are several articles under mediation, as listed on the case page. I wonder, can a full list of issues, split up by article, be put into, say, a wikitable, on the case page? That way, we are clear on what article is being referred to, when an issue is mentioned. And all parties, don't be too hesitant to add an issue to the list of matters to be mediated. I'm in this mediation for the long run, whether it takes six weeks or six months, I'll continue mediation. Hopefully, it doesn't take 6 months. But, I'll continue to mediate this as long as the issues have been addressed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your approach Steve, and being more organized will be a big help. For the record, I'm not concerned about the amount of time it takes -- this article has been ongoing for four+ years. Thanks for your help. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there are articles that have been heavily edited for longer. It only means that there are strong POVs at play, and that some articles take longer than others to reach stability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of agreement to proposal by mediator

  • Well, as I've seen things, again, changes, have been made without consensus. This includes the removing and addition of content. So, here's what I propose. Let's take a topic, as in, a section of the article, and each of you write up your section on a proposals page. That way, each of you can write your own versions, and then, each version can be discussed, and a compromise can be negotiated. As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here. Consensus isn't also about when everyone agrees, it's when a solution has been made that everyone can live with. Please note, that continued tenacious editing of controversial sections, without consensus, under the terms of the article probation, could have severe consequences, and we all don't want that, do we? :) So, once the first topic has been decided, as to which section the content is under dispute, I can create a proposals page for it. What say you all? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that changes should not be made without consensus, and I agree that consensus means content that everyone can live with. I do not have the time or will to write my own versions of each section of content although I am happy to comment on others' versions as time allows. --John Brauns (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, time permitting for writing of each version. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Momento (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, missed this section in the swirling maelstrom (another mael? also not funny I bet...) of comments on these pages, sorry for the delay. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, though I'd like to say in advance that consensus also doesn't mean unanimity, in the event of a pernicious hold-out (or two) Mael-Num (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But I also strongly oppose to possible knee-jerk reverts without giving serious reason other than "you have no consensus" which basically means "I don't like your haircut". I've seen this in some articles. Mukadderat (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree tooPatW (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fully aware of that, and I noted that in the proposal. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, and as per Steve's proposal, consensus does not mean unanimity, neither majority. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Jossi, I personally am able to determine when there is consensus for something, and when there is no consensus. And it's not about counting "votes". I'll be the "judge" as to when there's consensus or not, I feel I'm more than capable of doing so. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent, Steve. That will make it much easier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Concensus" means "agreement" and for our purposes that means agreement within the confines of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's not go overboard with redefining the English language. (I've been dying to say this.) It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a known practice in WP, that consensus cannot trump the spirit of WP's content policies. Consensus applies, though, to the application of such policies in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you say: "For the record ... consensus does not mean unanimity, neither majority". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Would you care to explain this attempt of yours to re-define the word's meaning as regards majority? It appears to fly in the face of all dictionary definitions I'm familiar with! Revera (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some editors that have yet to agree or disagree to the mediator's suggestion: User:Mael-Num, User:Maelefique, and User:Rumiton. It would be useful to know their decision on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the other parties that haven't either accepted or rejected the idea, please do so?. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a reminder in these editor's talk pages? It would be useful to know if there is such an agreement in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting to invite User:Mukadderat too. If nobody objects, or beats me to posting such invitation, I'll add a notice to this effect to this user's page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mukadderat#Invitation --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Now that active editors have declared their intention to abide by Steve's proposal, do we need to keep the article protected? I would argue that having the article unprotected would allow an easier way to add agreed content via the Proposals pages, as well as continuing doing the wkignoming such as Francis' corrections of references, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see any urgency to unprotect. Last time we protected it too soon. While there is an agreement not to edit war, we don't want to have to keep calling on mediators or admins to enforce it. As for the wikignome edits to the mirrored version, if there are no objections I sggest that they be copied into the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I see no urgency to unprotect the page. I made a mirrored copy of the article, specifically so edits could be made to it, where the arbcom probation didn't actually apply. My main reason for protection was that editors were edit warring/making edits with no consensus, and this was leading to blocks from AE. These blocks stall the mediation, which as we all know, won't be a brief one, it will probably last a month, probably longer. An unprotection at this time, I feel may not be in the best interests of the mediation, not yet anyway. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update proposed

{{editprotected}} Anyone having any problem w.r.t. having this series of updates I applied to the test page, being brought over to the Rawat article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for fixing those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Happy‑melon 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed update #2: 1972 Hans Jayanti and grouping of Downton refs

I prepared a second series of updates on the test page. This series has two components:

  • Relating to User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 (1972 Hans Jayanti in India and the customs incident), where I inserted the version of the text now in User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 8. That version avoids some issues currently without consensus at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1, but I go from the assumption that everyone will agree that the intermediate version I used is at least an improvement over the current version of that paragraph in the Prem Rawat article. If agreement on the other points regarding Proposal1 is reached, of course they can be inserted in future versions.
  • Grouping the Downton refs. All verbatim quotes from Downton's book have been moved to Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Downton (please click that link and see if you can add some more page numbers for those quotes, in order to make the Downton refs even more consistent). I tried to maximise ref re-use, getting rid of approx 4000k of ref text.

Unless someone objects I suggest to update the Prem Rawat article with these changes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus - unanimity

Jossi, you say: "For the record ... consensus does not mean unanimity, neither majority". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Would you care to explain this attempt of yours to re-define the word's meaning as regards majority? It appears to fly in the face of all dictionary definitions I'm familiar with! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Consensus: In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Given the agreement of all active editors at #Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator not to make edits without consensus, the fact that progress is being made in the mediation Proposal pages, as well as the fact that this article is under probation, I don't see any reason for keeping this article protected. I know that there are comments above about "no urgency to unprotect", but that is not the point; Per WP:PROTECT, protection should only be temporary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I personally will leave it up to an administrator, given the circumstances, if it was me, I'd unprotect, but, I'm not the one that has the "unprotect" tab :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Administrative note: Unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I would argue that doing small edits and corrections is permissible under our agreement above, but doing substantial edits such as this] it would be better discussed in talk first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, what is your comment on the edit? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem and you keep editing without asking for consensus first via a proposal page? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the agreement which you comitted to abide by #Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator. I have requested from the mediator to comment and intervene. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't seen your comment here until after the next edit.
Content-wise, what are your thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jossi pointed me here from my talk page. Now, read over this again and be clear on it. Specifically, "As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here". The question is, are the recent edits controversial? If so, then they should probably be reverted. This was the reason the article was protected, but, well, let's just have the current issue discussed here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that the edits are undone and discussed first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Francis abdicating his commitment? If that is not the case, he should do the right thing and self-revert. I would hate to see this article protected again, now that progress is being made at the mediation proposals pages ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy with the content of some of your edits, Francis, they are certainly contentious. And especially not with their being posted undiscussed. They mostly do not improve the article and I am surprised at you. I also agree that self-reversion is the way to go. Rumiton (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer that AE be used as a last resort, and that either the edits be undone, or immediately discussed. I would prefer page protection rather than requesting sanctions be imposed, however. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Page protection penalizes these that are abiding by the agreements made, and that is unfair. Best would be if Francis self-reverts and makes a proposal in a new proposal page as all other active editors are doing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take this to ANI, get a wider input. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any complaints with the contents of the edit, or is this just about the process? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology

Psychology: What is the context of writing the psychology? "the divine nature of the guru is a standard element of Eastern religion, but removed from its cultural context, and confounded with the Western understanding of God as a father, what is lost is the difference between the guru's person and that which the guru symbolizes—resulting in what they refer as limitless personality worship."

Do we over emphasize in this content; persuading the readers, not to listen/follow to him? I guess criticism is good, but in not good taste in this para. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)


[edit] References

  • Aagaard, Johannes, "Who Is Who In Guruism?" (1980), in Update, Vol. 4.3, October 1980

I can't find any journal called Update. Is this correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)