Talk:Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book)

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.
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
An entry from Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 May 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Started the article...

... with (16) citations to reputable sourced material. Smee 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Note that the book does not have an ISBN. The number you are citing is the Amnazon SKU number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Here is the source for the (apparently faulty) ISBN: [1] Smee 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
I checked that ISBN and is indeed mistaken. The book does not have an ISBN number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some concerns

1. This text:

In the introduction, Davis described the arrival of Guru Maharaj Ji as, "The greatest event in history...If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."[2] Texas Monthly cited Davis as stating: "This city is going to be remembered through all the ages of human civilization."[3]. An Op-ed in The San Francisco Sunday Examiner said about Davis "whether [he] had undergone a lobotomy: If not, maybe he should try one." [4]
  • Misquoted. Davis said "He is the greatest event in history and we sleep through it", not the arrival. You may have copied that from somewhere else than the book itself?
  • The quote seemed cherry picked for effect
  • Is violating WP:SYN. Neither the SF Sunday Examiner, nor the Texas monthly refer to this book. This is not an article about Davis, but about the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not find in the ref you provided, any mention of Davies saying that it is an authorized biography? Care to provide the page number? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you refer to the cover, it says that it is the "authentic authorized story of the 15-year old Guru whose message of peace has changed millions of lives" and not "The book is an authorized biography." Please stay close to the source, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also object to the EL you added, as incompatible with WP:EL guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as per WP:BLP Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception. (my highlight) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Also note that all the books in that EL, are already referenced in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi's points, above.

Jossi, thank you for providing these points in such a polite manner.

  1. However, I do object to your usage of the term "cherry picked for effect." We can discuss this further, but it seems highly notable that secondary sources addressed Davis and his comments in the introduction of the work. This was most certainly not "cherry picked", however, it was material already sourced to reputable citations in a different article, so I used it here as well, as highly relevant.
  2. Yes, the "authorized", was from the cover. I did also see mention of it being an "authorized" biography in other reputable sources, I will add these as well.
  3. The quotation is not misquoted. It is as quoted in the secondary sourced citations. It may have been misquoted there, but you would have to contact the authors of those reputable secondary sources.
  4. If you object to the EL, please do not remove the entire EL subsection, but just "comment out", the EL. In this particular case, the EL lists books pertaining to the Subject, so this is highly relevant and correlated.

Smee 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

There was only one EL, so I removed the section. The EL list books that are already referenced in addition to have BLP violations. If there are other books there that are not referred in the article, you are welcome to add them to the article as references. I have no problem with the quote, if we stay close to the source, quoting Davies as saying: "He is the greatest event in history and we sleep through it", as the rest of it. The other sources do not refer to the book, but to Davies and are WP:SYN, and should be removed. Sorry if I used the term "cherry picked for effect", but it sounded that way. Again, I apologize. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for maintaining a polite demeanor, and apologizing for the inappropriate comment. As for the quote, I will research this further in the citations, and get back to you. Any ideas on other good ELs that could go in the EL section, that you would not object to? Smee 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
You are welcome. In the meantime, and until you look for other sources, I would appreciate it if you re-edit that paragrah staying close to the source, as welll as removing the unrelated material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I made a correction related to the correct quotation from the book introduction. I would appreciate if you look into the concern related to the statement on made on the op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Jossi, I said I would look into it already. Please, be patient, I am not superhuman. Smee 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Sure. Take your time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Thanks. Smee 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I do not see the problem in citing the book directly. Why not? This is an article about the book, and if we are citing from the introduction to the book, the more appropriate and relevant ref will be the book itself. We do that all the time, don't we? quote, source, page number. It should not be any different here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • But it is notable that this was cited in another source. And as that source is a reputable secondary sourced citation, it can be cited as well. Smee 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
The book is cited in Brown's book? I will need to check this, but I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The quote is cited, and the quote is from the book. Smee 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, Brown does not mention the book at all, the quote is not correct, and we don't know what he used as a reference. He may have been referring to another source for all we know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you know Brown does not mention the book? And where else would he get a quote so precise? It is uncanny. Smee 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Because I have access to that book. The extensive bibliography section at the back (three pages, starting on page 308) does not mention the book. But that begs another question, if you do not have access to Brown's book, how are you quoting from it? In any case, the quote is not precise. He may have picked that up from one of the reviews of TVV's documentary or somewhere else. The fact is that we do not know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the part of the quote that is precise in the Brown book: "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet." -- You are saying that Davis may have used these exact words in more places than just the book? Smee 23:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
What I am saying is that Brown does not include this book in his bibliography. Thus, we cannot say that he is citing this book, and this article is about the book and not about Davis. Adding this book as a source for this article defies WP:V. As for your question about other places in which Davis may have made these statements, I do not know. Maybe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It is "Davis", not "Davies". Actually, Brown, is citing San Francisco Sunday Examiner. Therefore, it is most likely the San Francisco Sunday Examiner that cited the book. And I will look into this. At any rate, for the time being, it is most likely that the quote could have come from no other source. And the Sunday Examiner is a reputable source. Smee 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
We cannot speculate, Smee. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I also do not think that the Texas newspaper is useful or pertinent in this article. This is is not an article about the writer of the introduction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not speculating. It is the exact same quote. However, in the meantime, I will look into the Sunday Examiner source. Can you provide the citation for that from the Brown book? Smee 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
    • We don't need to. Is in the book itself. Why to quote from another book that does not cite this book? Or maybe I am not understanding your request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for citation
  • Let me ask this another way. You stated above that you have access to the Brown book. Can you please provide the full citation for the quote from the Sunday Examiner, as cited in the Brown book? Smee 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Sure. Here it is: "... But he [Davis] had grown disenchanted with radical politics. Davis described the arrival of Guru Maharaj Ji as, 'The greatest event in history ... If we knew who he was, we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet.' The San Francisco Sunday Examiner publicly wondered whether Davis had undergone a lobotomy: 'If not,' an article on the op-ed page declared, 'maybe he should try one.'" page 196 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarification: -- No, that is not what I meant. Can you please provide the full citation, as provided in the book, for the Sunday Examiner article itself? Smee 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
        • That is all there is, Smee. The bibliography does not have a ref for that Op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Hrm, that is a shame. That makes it a tad more difficult to find the actual original Sunday Examiner article, itself, that makes use of the quote, but we shall endeavour to do so. Smee 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Additional sources

  • Another source you can add is Soul friend: spiritual direction in the modern world, by Kennneth Leech, HarperOne (1992), ISBN 0-060-65214-4 which cites the book.
  • And yet another is Pluralism Comes of Age: Religion in Twentieth-century America, Charles H. Lippy, M.E. Sharpe (2000), ISBN 0-765-60150-8, which cites this book in pp 114, and refers to Maharaj Ji as claiming "to awaken an inner light in devotees" and that "in the 1980's the Divine Light Mission dropped most of its Asian trappings". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sutton, Robert P., Modern American Communes: A Dictionary - pp. 44, Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-313-32181-7. "The communities practiced spiritual exercises in a daily regimen of instruction, meditation and work. They where vegetarians and lived a life of poverty and chastity., In the 1980's Maharaj Ji slowly dissolved most of the ashrams to become a lecturer., the communal aspects of the movements disappeared."

[edit] Other

Replaced image with a better version, from a self-scan of the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Smee 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Movie

According to a newspaper article that appeared in the Greeley Daily Tribune, (October 26, 2003), a 70 min documentary by the same name was judged best documentary at the Atlanta International Film Festival in September of that year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you provide the full citation for this? If that is really the case, it would be a most interesting documentary to view at some point, I wonder if it is available somewhere. Smee 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
  • "'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji', a 70 minute color film will be shown. The film was judged best documentary at the the Atlanta International Film Festival in September. No admission will be charged". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What was the title of the article in Greeley Daily Tribune? Do we know if this is the same promotional film produced by Shri Hans Productions in 1973, or something else entirely, that was made in 2003 by someone else? Any idea who produced this one? Smee 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
It also cited on the Nevada State Journal, July 27, 1975, referring to the "Golden Jury Award" it received. I think it was copyright same as the book. © Shri Hans Productions.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. It would probably be best to verify through a reputable source that this is indeed the same promotional film. Smee 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Actually, the book was published by Bantam. Smee 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Yes, but the book, which I also have, says "Copyright 1973 © Shri Hans Productions" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes, googling a search for "Shri Hans Productions", reveals that info, along with some other interesting stuff about the promotional/production efforts of the company. Most interesting. Smee 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
Citation info

Do you know the names of the actual articles in the 2 above citations you mentioned? Names of the authors of the articles? Stuff like that so we can generate full citations? Smee 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

For the Nevada Journal, the title is "Reno Meditation Program to be Given". In any case, I do not think that these are RS. Best will be to find some material from the Atlanta Film Festival. I am searching. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I am intrigued that a promotional film produced by a company owned by the individual being depicted, received an award for the film, but that is quite interesting. Smee 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
I do not think that Maharaj Ji owned that company. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Who owned Shri Hans Productions? Smee 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
I don't know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This would be interesting to find out. Smee 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Shri Hans productions was probably owned by Divine Light Mission. Interesting t get a definitive answer though.PatW 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The magazine "And it is Divine" was published by Shri Hans Productions, 511 16th St, Denver, Colorado 80202, but the copyright was (c) Divine Light Mission - see tinyurl.com/2ss3he for scan.
The magazine's "Supreme Editor-in-Chief" (quite a modest title, considering the one he usually liked to be promoted as was "Lord of the Universe") was also the leader of Divine Light Mission - none other than the same Sant ji Maharaj, aka Guru Maharaj Ji, aka Balyogeshwar, aka Maharaji, aka Prem Rawat. The trail often leads to him. And how is your boss, Jossi?
And here's the certificate (dated 31 March 1973) from the State of Colorado which authorises Divine Light Mission Inc. to trade under the name of "Shri Hans Productions" http://i1.tinypic.com/54cdt2d.jpg
Revera 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


This source may work. "The Committee on Activities at Valparaiso will present the film "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" Monday. The movie is one of the recent products of Shri Hans Production, a small Los Angeles-based film company whose members are all followers of the 15 year-old Guru. The movie recently won a gold award and special Jury award at the Atlanta Film Festival, and has been entered in the Chicago Film Festival. It is an attempt to shed light on the question "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji." The film leads the viewer through episodes of the Guru's life, simulated mediation experiences, a cartoon sequence of one of humans search for meaning in life, and shots of recent spiritual festivals in London and Colorado." [1]

[edit] Richardson

Why to place Richardson's entry in the EL section? It should be moved to the "cited in secondary sources" section, as the others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I will add it there as well, soon. Smee 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Not need as well, Smee. The link can be provided in the ref as for the others ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It is a useful link, handier than digging through the refs section, Jossi. Smee 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Mmmm... Not sure of that. If a source is used in the article, it is quite OK to have the link in the ref. In any case, there is no much that link, is there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Not sure if I understand what you mean, but in any event, it will be added as a citation, shortly... Smee 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rolling Stone: The 70s

Smee, could you provide page number for that cite? I cannot find it in my copy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a mention of the book on page 113, but it says nothing about "being publicized". It just mentions a pile of materials on "the floor and tables" that included a "recently issued paperback by Bantam". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have changed this in the article to reflect more tightly to the citation itself. Smee 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sunday Examiner

An Op-ed in The San Francisco Sunday Examiner later criticized Davis for his views[4].

This statement is factual, and most certainly backed up by the citation. The statement does not say his direct writings in the book, though it is very highly presumable that that is what is being critiqued, but rather his views. And this is relevant to the article. Smee 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

No, it is not. Unless the source describes the statement by Davis in this book, its addition is a violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. The book contains an introduction which states Rennie Davis' views.
  2. The Sunday Examiner information is properly attributed as "views", and this is notable
  3. This is therefore not OR, but rather attribution to a reputable secondary source. Smee 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
No, it isn't. You are (a) providing a source that quotes another source; (b) Neither the original source, nor the provided source describes this book, or the introduction to this book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Davis addressed his "views" in the introduction.
  2. The Examiner criticized those views.
  3. This was then cited in another work, which makes this even more notable. Smee 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I will get a copy of the SF Sunday Examiner article and see what they refer to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Great. Then we can also use the full citation. Smee 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
I looked into the archives I have access to and could not find such article. Do you have a link for it? A date? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
All I know is what you know, what was quoted in Brown. Smee 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Then we should not use it at all. We don't know what that op-ed said, in which context, if it was published before the book was published, etc. A violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. It was quoted in a reputable secondary source. Citing the article itself would actually be less reputable and more leaning towards OR, than citing a reputable secondary source that discusses the article. Smee 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
(a) The book by Brown does not cite this book. (b) this article is about a book, not about the person that wrote the introduction; (d) there is no evidence that the article in question was published before the printing of this book; (e) there is no evidence that the article referred to tis book either. A clear violation of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Though I do not agree with your opinions, I will remove that portion of the article as a gesture of good faith. However, the citation will remain to back up the quote, as a reputable secondary source of the exact quote. Smee 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
I do not know why do we need a source that we are not sure that refers to this book, is needed for something that is in the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The quote is exactly the same. Are you saying that Rennie Davis said the exact same: "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet." -- more than once? Smee 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
That is a possibility. As we do not have a source for other mentions, we should simply use the direct citation from the book. I simply do not see the point of pressing on this issue... It is in the book, we cite the book that is 100% verifiable. That's enough. If we find more sources, as the ones you found in which the book is discussed, we can add them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why edit war about something so basic, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, Smee: This is becoming really silly. I would argue that your point of view as it relates to this disputed source, is unsustainable. No editor will support such a source, when you have a verifiable page number to support that quote, and the other quote does not refer to the book. It is a waste of time, really. I will ask for a third opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying you believe that Rennie Davis said "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet." on 2 different occassions? Smee 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I have moved the cite from a citation, to a note under "Further reading." Smee 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. It will be good to also move the ELs to the further reading section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Third opinion

[edit] Statement by involved editor Jossi (talk · contribs)

  • We have a quote from the book this article is about. It is on the Introduction on page iv;
  • There is a source (Brown) that does not cite this book in its bibliography, that reports about an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner. The Op-ed has not been found in any of the newspaper archives editors have access to;
  • This article is about the book, and not about the person that wrote the short introduction
  • My view is that as we have a direct citation for that quote (the book itself) and that is 100% verifiable, there is no need to cite a source that we are unsure about its provenance and the relation to this book;
  • The argument about Primary source vs. secondary source is not applicable here. We are describing a fact, that the writer of the introduction wrote what he wrote. That is 100% verifiable. We are not describing an opinion, or an assessment in which a secondary source may be superior;
  • The writer may have made that statement in other situations, such as an interview, a film or other. We just do not know where the San Fancisco Chronicle found that information as we do not have the text of that op-ed. For example (my highlight), Seraphim, Rose,Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Xenia Skete Press, ISBN 1-887-90400-X "Typical of Maharaj-ji's convinced disciples was Rennie Davis, leftist demonstrator of the 1960's and one of the "Chicago Seven" accused of inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He spent the summer of 1973 giving press conferences and speeches to whoever would listen, telling America: "He is the greatest event in history and we sleep through it... I feel like shouting in the streets. If we knew who he was, we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."
  • Here is the diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by involved editor Smee (talk · contribs)

  • This is the quote in the book -- "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."
  • This s the quote in the sourced secondary citation -- The quote is exactly the same. Are you saying that Rennie Davis said the exact same: "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."
  • The two are exactly the same.
  • It is better to have a citation from a reputable secondary source for this, in addition to the primary sourced citation to the quote itself in the book. Smee 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third opinions

The quote is precisely the same whether it is from the primary source (the book itself) or a secondary source, so this disagreement seems to be a little odd. For what it's worth, though, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual, descriptive information and that's precisely what a quote is. Secondary sources are there to provide interpretation and analysis, and thus are preferable for that purpose. However when what one is looking for is a direct quote it is better to quote the original source then force it through a secondary source for the sole sake of having it be a secondary source. Why is it better to quote source B that quotes source A when you can simply quote source A to begin with? Arkyan • (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Question for Third Opinion provider

User:Arkyan, if the quote is precisely the same, as you say, can we include commentary in the article from a reputable secondary source that quoted this exact quote, and criticized it? Smee 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

You surely can, in the article about the person that we are quoting, (see Rennie Davis, where that material is already there.) This is an article on a book, not on the person that wrote the introduction. Had the secondary source criticize the book, then it will be most appropriate. But the source mocks (rather that criticize, btw) Davis comments that he made throughout 1973, as per the source I provided above, and not the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop commenting in this thread, and allow time for User:Arkyan to answer my question, above. Smee 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
User:Arkyan can answer. I have to have a place to make my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ <;small>(talk) 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And you did. Now please allow space for User:Arkyan to answer here. Thank you. Smee 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Sure. But I do not understand why the animosity. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not an option in talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no animosity. Now, please, let us both stop commenting in this thread, and leave space for User:Arkyan to reply. And please, DO NOT remove, or reorganize my comments. That is rude and inappropriate talk page demeanor. Thanks. Smee 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
No sorry. What was inappropriate was your comment. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not acceptable. Now. If you want, we can remove all these comments and let the third opinion comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, you do not have to make a comment after every single thing I say on a talk page. I am fine with your first comment above. But you then went ahead and commented after every one of my comments here, clogging up this thread. This is now getting heated, which is exactly why we need to step back both of us, stop for a moment, and let a neutral third party comment as to my original question. Please, stop. And you refactoring and removal of our comments was rude, inappropriate, and in violation of Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me). Smee 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
I have already offered you to remove ALL these comments. But you keep pressing on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me), removal of comments is not the appropriate way to go. Instead, utilizing <s></s> is more appropriate. Smee 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
You can also use a placeholder, read the guideline. We can both agree and replace all the above, including your "Please stop" with [Refactored discussion not pertinent to the article] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with this, and would rather utilize <s></s>, with a note below, [each editor crossed out their own comments, as not pertinent to the article]. Smee 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[each editor crossed out their own comments, as not pertinent to the article]

I would have to agree with Jossi, if the source was not discussing the book itself, then the comment would not be relevant to this article, which is about the book. Lsi john 04:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My question is to the original Third Opinion commentator. Smee 04:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Assuming a quote is relevant to the article and well sourced then by all means there's no reason not to include information that provides a critical view. Not being terribly familiar with the subject, I can't speak for this particular example, but again, as long as the criticism is relevant to the subject of the article (the book and not just the author) I'd not see a problem. Arkyan • (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you Arkyan. I believe that is the same thing that Jossi said. Lsi john 04:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the issue we have not being able to agree upon, Arkyan. The criticism was about the statements made by the author of the introduction Rennie Davis. My argument is that the criticism of that person, (actually an op-ed that referred to Davis as needing a lobotomy) does not belong in the article about the book, but certainly belongs to the article about Davis himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Arkyan, for your polite comments. I believe that resolves this issue. Smee 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Coming from the Third Opinion page, I have to agree with Arkyan, having a tough time seeing why this is an issue at all. RomaC 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite comments. Smee 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for your assistance. Indeed, the criticism in that op-ed is not about the subject of this article, but about the person that wrote the introduction to the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that Smee doesn't think this opinion applies Talk:Est Playing the Game in a very similar situation and has asked for yet another 3O. Lsi john 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that that is an entirely different scenario, and I have asked for a 3O to avoid conflict with Lsi john. He attacks me when I don't ask for a 3O, and he attacks me when I do ask for a 3O. Caught between a rock and a hard place here... Smee 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry that you interpreted my observation as an attack. Lsi john 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(edconf) 3Os are not a panacea. If an editor keeps gong back to 3O on every article he edits, the editor may need to take a hard look at the way he is editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do. Smee 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
OR the editor is simply engaging in disputes in every article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be an interesting statistical study to look at the percentages of 3O requests per editor. Its also an interesting observation that I have tried to edit 3 articles in the past 24 hours and every single time, I am reverted (rather than discussion) by the same editor. Lsi john 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Then consider filing a user RFC, or request a mediator to assist you and that editor in finding a way to work together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We tried this before. User:Lsi john left the mediation. Smee 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Was that a MedCab or a MedCom? If the former, try the latter; if the latter, consider going to Arbitration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify MedCab versus MedCom? Smee 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
WP:MEDCAB is an informal mediation process. Wikipedia:Mediation is a formal process and official policy. Read both to understand the difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It was the latter. Smee 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Then the next step should be opening a WP:RFARB case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It has not come to that yet. Wikipedia:Mediation was never even finished. Smee 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
If a MedCom case was not successful, an ArbCom case is the next step in WP:DR. Alternatively, you can file user RFC in which the community can give you feedback. See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It is not that a MedCom case was not successful, it's that it was never given a chance to finish. This should happen before anything else. Smee 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Then file another one. If it fails again, it will go straight to the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I may yet file another one, after another ongoing Mediation involving this user ends. Smee 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lead/Intro

Could you please stop edit warring (even if not reverts) for a couple minutes so that I can edit without getting an edit conflict. Your petty edits, while I'm reworking the LEAD are inappropriate. Lsi john 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I will give you some time to rework the lead, however your spacing as well as calling Maharaj Ji "The Guru..." are inappropriate, we should not use "the" in such a way. Smee 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I still dont understand why you feel the need to edit war.. and why you must own every article you edit (which is shown by the fact that your entire watch-list has you as the last editor). Lsi john 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not understand why you feel the need to discuss individual editors on article talk pages. Smee 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC).