EDIT HISTORY BEFORE BEING TOPIC BANNED AND REVERTED edit
- Note: Prem Rawat is being watched by 446 editors. All of whom have the opportunity to object to edits clearly proposed in the talk page and 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected.
- EDIT ONE [1]
REASON - As per PR talk - TWO INDEPENDENT EDITORS MAKE THIS POINT -
Thought on Wikipedia: Weight and Wikipedia: Fringe
- Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given. Not judging one way or the other just points to consider. I've isolated these comments here so as to not intrude on the actual discussion. These are just some asides that may or may not be useful.(olive (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
- You make an excellent point. WP:WEIGHT has some good advice on how to deal with this. As an aside, certain interactions I have had recently with an individual who wants the passage in question removed for reasons that violate Wikipedia policy in no way implies that I have any problem with the above, which is an argument to remove the passage in question removed for reasons that follow Wikipedia policy. (I really don't care what the content of the article is. I just want the rules to be followed.) In my opinion, (and of course my opinion carries no special weight) you are correct, and the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader. Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I WAITED TWO WEEKS AND PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING -
Undue weight
As suggested by several editors "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.[65] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use and that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill. The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission", comes under the category "Content from sources that is only mentioned once or even twice in years possibly would not carry enough weight to be included in an article and especially a BLP. As well, such content may be fringe content and again consideration should be given as to how much weight if any such content should be given". I propose removing it.Momento (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FOLLOWED BY - If there are no policy based arguments, I'll remove it in 24 hours.Momento (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[2]
FOLLOWED BY - "removed as per talk" Momento 03:11, 10 November 201 2" [3]
NUMBER OF EDITORS INVOLVED - 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my proposal.
POS or NEG? - Two positive sentences and one negative.
- EDIT TWO [4]
REMOVED - "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees".
REASON - As per talk "Who ever this witness is (in bold), I don't believe they deserve so much space and should be removed".
POS or NEG? - All POS.
- EDIT THREE [5]
REASON - Putting travelling before learning to fly is logical. No material removed.
- EDITs FOUR to TEN [6]
REASON - Try to get better balance with photos. No material removed. Photos put back.
- EDIT ELEVEN [7]
REASON - Re-arranged material for better chronology and flow. No material removed.
- EDIT TWELVE and THIRTEEN [8]
REASON - Replaced photos. No material removed.
- EDIT FOURTEEN [9]
REMOVED - "Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts. Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.
RETAINED - Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy with some media saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".
REASON - As per talk "This paragraph is far too long. We just need to say Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy and the premies rebuttal for NPOV. We can do without the material in bold - the argument between premies and the media is repetitive and including a biased individual's unsubstantiated quote is undue weight etc - "Critics said etc".
NUMBER OF EDITORS INVOLVED - 17 editors has edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected.
POS or NEG? - Removed three positive sentences and two negative (tit for tat)
- EDIT FIFTEEN [10]
REMOVED - "self" from "self pilots" as redundant.
REASON: Not necessary to include future name when link will connect to it.
- CONCLUSION - MORE SUPERFLUOUS POSITIVE MATERIAL REMOVED THAN NEGATIVE
ANOTHER APPEAL
On Nov 15th, 2012 I was indefinitely Topic Ban from all Prem Rawat articles for “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” by The Blade of the Northern Lights.[13] TBOTNL gave no warning to me nor did he provide any diffs to support his claim I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Fifteen months later when I appealed my ban at WP:AE he provided three diffs to justify continuing my ban with the “I'm not giving my own point of view on the truth or validity of any additions or removals”. [14] The first edit I made was the result of two other editors who came to the conclusion that “the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader.”.. [15] I waited two weeks for any objection to their opinion and then I proposed making the edit. When no one objected to the proposed edit I waited a further 24 hours and then made the edit.[16] The second edit I made was on the talk page in response to a proposal by another editor (“Good suggestion. I'm happy with that”). [17] The edit proposed was to remove a superfluous martial the majority of which was a quote from Prem Rawat. [18] The third edit involved removing excess opinion, both positive and negative, not necessary to express the crux of the matter which was that “Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s” which I retained.[19] None of the edits I made, or the talk discussion that preceded them, show “Persistent Battleground Behavior," incivility or tendentious editing and the attached synopsis of the other edits made at the same time show that I was editing according to the best policies of Wikipedia. [20] My criteria for every edit was to improve the article. I am a writer by profession and arguably an expert on the subject of Prem Rawat. I have removed both positive and negative material that bloated the article without adding value. At the time of the editing Prem Rawat was being watched by 446 editors and seventeen editors edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my edits.