Talk:Richard Rose (mystic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Rose (mystic) 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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on September 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Spam by Hare Krishna devotees 2 Advert 2.1 Not an advert. Nothing for sale 2.2 Including Color 3 Ladder metaphor

[edit] Spam by Hare Krishna devotees

Recently this article has been spammed by Hare Krishna devotees. Their additions do refer to documented facts, that in the late 1960s certain other Hare Krishna devotees obtained from Richard Rose some farm property under a long term lease for a nominal sum. One of these devotees was the convicted criminal Keith Ham, who later became the head of the West Virginia ashram New Vrindaban, part of which was built on the Rose property.

While this information may be titillating, its inclusion, along with other salacious details such as a "hit man" supposedly hired by the Hare Krishna criminals, is peripheral to the focus of the Wikipedia article on Richard Rose. While a bad property deal and conflicts with neighbors may be of interest to those who wish an in-depth study of Richard Rose's life, it's inclusion in the Wikipedia article violates Wikipedia policies regarding the acceptable level of detail. Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia rather than a biography and certainly rather than a compendium of all facts known on the subject, however interesting they may be.

There have been prior battles over the contents of this article, as documented in the archives, and the outcome, reached by consensus, is to abide by Wikipedia policies with respect to content. Other such material has already been removed, by agreement of the contributing writers.

There are voluminous details on the colorful life and personality of Richard Rose - many can be read in the excellent biography by David Gold - that have been left out of the article in order to keep it focused and concise. It does not add to the article to take the reader's mind down peripheral avenues which are irrelevant to the main focus of the article, which is the significance of Richard Roses life and teachings within his area of work.

It is noteworthy that the Hare Krishna material was added by user HenryDoktorski, who has claimed to be a participant in the New Vrindaban community during the time it was headed by the criminal referred to above. He has inserted links to his own Wikipedia articles on the subject, thereby creating somewhat the effect of spamming the Richard Rose article with his own writing.

While Mr. Doktorski's work may be valuable, his spamming not only distracts the reader of the Richard Rose article from the main focus, it also has the effect of creating an unwarranted nexus between Richard Rose and the Hare Krishna criminals who deceived him. Perhaps this is intentional, perhaps not.

I would encourage HenryDoktorski to either remove the material or attempt to justify its inclusion, here on this discussion page. The content of the current article was achieved by consensus among many writers after some fairly intense battles. This consensus should not be discounted, and above all, Wikipedia policies should not be violated. Steve Harnish (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I just read your letter of Feburary 9 2008, and I thank you for your thoughts. I did not realize my input would be regarded as spam. I am not attached to keeping my contribution to this article as written. I merely thought the information might have been of interest to readers, and perhaps ended credibility to the article by providing the only three references for the entire article. I have no intention of forcing any issue and will be happy to abide by the consensus. If editing is necessary, I have no objections. Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I have deleted the material you requested. I hope what I left is OK. Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am not (and never was) a Hare Krishna or anything like that, but I think it's crappy that this article doesn't even state that Rose leased or sold some of his land in Marshall County, West Virginia to the Hare Krishnas, who then built the New Vrindaban community as well as Prabhupada's Palace of Gold there. These items are probably more well known than Rose or his works ever were (and probably ever will be). To not include even a mention of this in the article seems both foolish and silly. Steve Harnish tried to claim that the inclusion of this information is "unencyclopedic". What a load of bull, because this type of information is very encyclopedic and definitely worth mention in the article. What's the deal? What, if anything, are you trying to hide? I wish to lobby for the inclusion of this information in the article. Geneisner (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advert

I tagged the article as lacking neutrality and appearing as an advertisement, in part because there are no citations of neutral third-party scholarship for claims like "his direct, iconoclastic approach" and "gurus were popular and could have presented himself as one" and also because of language like "There was always a purpose-driven aspect of his teaching" and "Rose's writings were typically brief and to the point", etc. It sounds like a fair amount of original research as well, but I'm not an expert in this gentleman. I would just ask the editors here to take a neutral point of view and clean this article up so that it has a truly neutral, encyclopedic perspective. Thank you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not an advert. Nothing for sale

Each of those phrases you object to is strictly factual.

• direct approach
• iconoclastic approach
• gurus were popular at that time
• could have presented himself as one (but didn't)
• purpose-driven aspect
• writings brief and to the point

So the examples given do not support the objections raised. It's always interesting that some Wikipedia style enforcers who ostensibly have an interest in certain subject areas, roam Wikipedia threatening to remove the hard work of responsible writers and deface their articles with obtrusive tags at the top of the page. One wonders whether they truly have an interest in the underlying subject, or are rather simply egotistical in their interest in form over substance. If one checks the archives, it can be seen that there was much discussion and debate in the construction of the current article. The "enforcers" may take some comfort in knowing that in this world verbal teaching does exist and is often put into writing after the fact; consequently everything ever written (by a "scholar" or some less worthy human being) at some point can be nothing more than a matter of opinion. Obviously this is a heretical thought to any low-level scholar, but it is admitted by the best of them. It is also noteworthy that several organizations exist, people who studied with Richard Rose for decades, the oversight of which contributes to the accuracy of the article. No one is claiming perfection, but it's noteworthy that it takes much less work to raise an objection and tag an article, than to actually do the research (decades of effort) and then write the article (weeks of effort). Best wishes. Steve Harnish (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

my complaint is not about style but about neutrality - and articles about spiritual leaders need to have a high bar with respect to neutrality. gurus popular? in what measure of popularity exactly? how do we know he didn't present himself as a guru without a citation? etc. do his followers feel that way or does the general world feel that way? personally, i think many parts of the article are fine if citations were added. the lead paragraph is great. otherwise they're original research. but some parts like direct, iconoclastic, etc. read as a point of view. it's a perfectly reasonable point of view too, especially for his followers, but not in an encyclopedia unless non-follower commentators makes those assessments (with citations please / that's why i added the citation tag as well). basically, if neutral general reviewers of his work feel it was a "direct approach" then it makes sense to include in a neutral encyclopedia article about him. Or maybe claiming that "followers describe his approach as direct", that's less of a factual claim about him as the experience of him - though it still needs citation support. Otherwise, the article reads like a flyer in support of the person and their teachings and making definitive claims about him without anything that backs that up. Add the citations to demonstrate that neutral, non-followers would describe him that way too. Surely if he's notable then non-followers commented on his work. Sorry if I irritated you with this, but I'm attempting to follow and maintain the policy for neutrality in making the critique. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. I just did some searches in google books and amazon to find any textual commentaries that critique or otherwise discuss his work, and I couldn't find any. Do you know of any books that comment on him (that's not part of the organization or by followers)? I just checked all the sources listed currently in the "About Rose and his teachings" section here and all three - from Gold, Kent, and Martin - appear to be by followers. Perhaps we should change the title of that section to be "About Rose and his teachings by his followers". - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see this article did have a lot of work since the deletion discussion in 2005. Reframing my complaint in that context, the work to remove hagiographic language and provide a neutral, non-biased point of view has been great. It just needs to go a just a little further still. Please help me find some non-adherent citations though if you can. I can take a look at the adherent sources to add some basic footnotes. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if you indeed have a true interest in the subject, then acquaint yourself with RR's writings and recorded lectures and decide for yourself whether it is presented here accurately. On the other hand, if you're not that interested in the subject, then why bother trolling articles and adding uninformed opinions about the hard work of other writers? Such is your implication, anyway, in your search for opinions of disinterested writers, as if theirs would be more significant to you than writers who are deeply motivated to research the subject. Best of luck and perseverance in your search. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking the risk of coddling you too much, or on the other hand, of giving you more ammunition to raise your complaint, the reference to "esotericism" in the piece deals precisely with the circumstance there can be no such thing as non-follower informed opinions. It is well-established that spiritual methods cannot be understood from an external and purely intellectual manner, as blind men arguing over whether an elephant is more like a rope or a tree. If you read through the archives, you'll find the matter has already been argued. Steve Harnish (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COI yet? Of course people will edit articles they're interested in, or even expert in, but when one holds a biased view as an adherent of a philosophy or religion then extra care is needed to avoid introducing bias into the article. so it's probably the case non-adherents are better with respect to writing encyclopedia entries, in spite of your informed opinions logic. But I fear you're just missing the point of an encyclopedia. If only followers can have informed opinions, then this article or those aspects fail the Verifiability test. Or at least those components of the article would then fail verifiability, right? What I find when I read the archives of the discussion here is primarily that the article was spared deletion but not that all the issues with it were resolved. And when I read the article I also see point of view bias still... don't you want this article to meet wikipedia standards? even become an exemplary article? it still needs more neutral language and verifiable, third party citations. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your impression may result from the fact that during the early stages some language was introduced to "sell" the worth of the material to certain critics; they were telling us that the material was not "noteworthy" enough for Wikipedia and threatened to delete it. I'll have to tell you the article does contain certain inaccuracies which were necessarily included to satisfy these writers. You can be sure this was annoying and not something I wish to repeat. As for bias, you haven't clearly defined what your objection is. In fact, as noted above, your specific points have already been refuted. If you believe the presentation is biased, please state why you believe this. I wonder why you were attracted to this article as an object for you to exercise your criticism. Are you a frustrated English teacher or do you have a genuine interest in the material. If the former, I'm not willing to be your co-dependent. If the latter, I have all the patience in the world to help you with it. Sometimes offline communication is more productive than public postings. If you wish to discuss further, you can reach me at sharnish@att.net. Steve Harnish (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. My interest is just in helping produce a high quality encyclopedia and volunteering my time to move things in that direction, occasionally reviewing and editing all sorts of articles. Concern over advertising is not just related to selling books or material things, but also about selling ideas and philosophies. And an encyclopedia just can't advocate any particular viewpoint, just mirror established third-party consensus. Now to specifics, in this article the lead paragraph reads neutrally and is great. But then much of the rest is written like a biography without attributing who said what. So who believes his approach is "direct" and "iconoclastic"? Did Huston Smith make that assessment? someone else? Did he call himself that? it's an opinion about him so who held it? Right now it reads as fact not opinion. To state things as fact like that is to advocate them. Attributing the opinions and views removed the advocacy. How about this, instead of "The very area in which Rose worked is considered esotericism and his direct, iconoclastic approach would never attract a popular movement in the way some Eastern gurus did during his era." something like "So and so described his work as direct and iconoclastic and therefore he would not attract a popular movement; So and so categorized his work as esotericism"... just fill in the various so and so's so the opinions are attributed. I suggested if there is no clear attribution to say "His followers believe" which seems to be a common way to attribute adherents opinions on other new religious movement related articles, though it's not as specific. The rest of this article has numerous places like that where opinions are states as facts. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just edited a small subsection along those lines, to demonstrate what I mean. Perhaps we can talk about that specific sub section just as a way to flush out what I mean by fact versus opinion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are really butchering the article. I have no objection to removing the "advertising" words, but you are just making things up as you are going along. In other words, you are writing fiction in order to create what in your opinion is a more factual article. You don't know what you are doing. You are creating garbage in the name of truth. Your are replacing facts with your own opinions, which have no basis in knowledge. Before telling the world what Rose did with his life, what he spoke, what he wrote, why don't you learn a tiny bit about it? It's hilarious how you pretend to be a Wikipedia enforcer while your writing and your grasp of the material is at a very low level. If you were conscious about what you are doing, your edits could be considered vandalism. Steve Harnish (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? My goal is not to write fiction, but remove statements of opinion which read like they are facts (which is advertising), and instead attribute them to those who believe them. I'm not trying to declare any definitive truth, just attribute who believes what. Would you please help with that process instead of discouraging it? And please try to be civil. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily reading the works about him instead of his original source material, in order to find citations to attribute all of the opinions and facts. Secondary sources are better for encyclopedic attribution. I'm up to twenty citations now, but still there are many statements unattributed left to find or qualify. I also just attempted an organization of the teaching section into what he taught, who he recommended studying, and how he taught. You've put a lot of energy into gathering all that material, I left most of the prose verbatim. While finding the citations and reading the commentaries about his teachings it made sense to me to organize it a little into those three subsections. What do you think about the organization? Also, it seems like certain tenants of his teachings are worth mentioning further, like his views on sexuality for example. Your thoughts on that? Best regards. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the advert tag after my most recent edits. In summary, I added 26 citations. I restructured the article to match other biographies, with chronology first and then subdividing his teachings into subtopics. I added content about his teachings on "self" and lack of self, which seemed quite core to his view. And I made a detailed attempt to attribute all opinions so the article would read more encyclopedic. But mostly I took pains to leave as much of the previous language and writing as possible. In learning more about Mr. Rose, I'm quite impressed with what he accomplished and in particular that he accomplished it when the related ideas and concepts of selflessness and non-dualism were I think relatively infantile in the West. In just the last thirty years there is significantly more material available - with more each year translated from Eastern sources. But Rose came to similar points with much less support. He's remarkable to me especially for that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Including Color

Your effort is appreciated as effort, but you really have created some colorless and uninteresting copy. Rose was all about color - in brilliant and blinding hues. Rather than simply deleting material you can't verify using second-hand sources, why not read his original material, after which you'll find that what you deleted as "opinion" is indeed fact. The audio and video tapes will provide much of the color that might not be obvious in the written works. Would be happy to discuss via email. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopedia, not a biography. A related guideline on style and tone — Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles — reads The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. You'll find the sections on "Informational style and tone" there and "Use clear, precise, and accurate terms" directly relevant. Also, you might try browsing some of the wikipedia "Featured articles" about people as examples of biographic articles determined to be the highest quality. Portal:Featured content has a list.

My suggestion to convey his color might be to include quotes that both convey his style and also convey his philosophic view meaningfully. It's fine if those are from his multimedia recordings and not print. Not too many quotes, since we're just trying to summarize concisely. That way we add encyclopedic content - what he believed and said - in a concise way yet also convey a little more of what he was like. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ladder metaphor

Not sure this is something to include for comparison, or if it's just original research. But I found the following quote by Chögyam Trungpa that relates to Rose's ladder usage. Since it's to be published in the upcoming ocean of dharma book it could be citable as a comparison of the ladder metaphor. Anyone know which sutra this might relate to though? I'm not familiar.

In one of the sutras, or discourses by the Buddha, he says that those who practice shamatha meditation, or dwelling in peace, are building a staircase toward enlightenment. To construct such a staircase to enlightenment requires precise measurement and carpentry. The boards have to be completely measured and properly built. The steps must be built properly, the angles must be looked at, and then finally we have to choose certain particular nails that can bear the pressure of people walking on them, and then we hammer them in. So when we talk about shamatha practice, the sitting practice of meditation, we are talking about building a staircase very deliberately, according to the instructions of Buddha. We might ask," A staircase to what? What's it like at the top of the stairs?" It doesn't really matter. It's just a staircase. We are just building a staircase. No promise. No blame. Let us simplify the whole situation. Let us build this particular staircase very simply and directly.

From OCEAN OF DHARMA: The Everyday Wisdom of Chogyam Trungpa. 365 Teachings on Living Life with Courage and Compassion. Number 133. [Unpublished excerpt from Talk Two of Meditation: the Way of the Buddha, July, 1974, Naropa Institute, Boulder, Colorado.]