I suggest you seek consensus before proceeding with this proposal. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The whole aim is to get a consensus. Do you have any objections to this material? ·:· Will Beback·:· 10:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think that The Register is not a very good source for anything, and particularly not for any controversial claims. I encourage all editors to review all the related articles to ensure that there is no "double standard" in play regarding sourcing, particularly for negative claims about living people.
— Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, I knew you'd say that. :-) However, I also think that the Register is not a very good source to use here. ;-) Jayen466 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Which makes it clear what are the problems with that source. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
This draft contains material already present in the article. I will make my arguments about other aspects if this draft, once the duplicated material is removed. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps the intent of the draft is to move that material to this section. If so, could Francis please say so? ·:· Will Beback·:· 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, Jossi should better list what he perceives as double content. "contains material already present in the article" is too vague, I don't know what he's talking about. Not the Pilarzyk para about media: it is currently not in the article, but I'd discuss that at topic E nonetheless, as it is an issue accross several proposals. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
If there are no specific objections to the material it should be posted. ·:· Will Beback·:· 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's ready yet; editors have been preoccupied elsewhere, so give it a few more days for discussion to take place. I'll place a note on Talk:Prem_Rawat. Jayen466 12:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is badly written and long-winded, and repeats material under consideration on other pages. That stuff needs to be sorted out first. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I believe this is proposal is based on the fact that Proposal6 is stalled due to its size. This is a piece of that proposal. Do you have any specific objections? ·:· Will Beback·:· 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I trust I don't really have to spell out to the experienced editors assembled here why The Register is not an appropriate WP:RS for the statements sourced to it here. Jayen466 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, so if we write draft that omits the Register as a source that'd be acceptable? ·:· Will Beback·:· 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The first two sentences are not reader-friendly. We tell the reader there were articles in Newsweek and Time and move swiftly on to Pilarzyk. The reader has not learnt anything useful. We could either drop, or at the very least contract them: "From the early 1970s Rawat's movement received press coverage both from establishment mass media such as Newsweek and Time, and from youth movement sources." But actually, press coverage seems to haven been ubiquitous, with all major papers reporting, so I don't see a rationale for singling out Newsweek and Time (OR). --Jayen466 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
How about: "From the early 1970s Rawat's movement received substantial press coverage both from establishment mass media and from youth movement sources." Jayen466 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I presume that "youth movement sources" refres to periodicals like the Rolling Stone or Fifth Estate. Those are more frequently described as "counterculture". Perhaps that or a similar term would be a better descriptor of the non-establishment sources. Otherwise I think Jayen's suggestion is good. ·:· Will Beback·:· 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fifth Estate would be described as anarchist, and thus in a very different category to Rolling Stone, which could be seen as positively commercial. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fifth Estate later became an anarchist publication, but it wasn't at the time the articles in question were written. Read the WP article for an explanation. ·:· Will Beback·:· 08:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Maybe have a look at Pilarzyk:
The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past political activists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973). Premie and former political leftist Rene Davis became a popular target of such publications (see Davis, 1974). In general, most accounts have been quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's point of view. However, it should be noted that the movement has received positive comments from such youth culture "folk heroes" as anti-war activist Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. Typical reactions by DLM converts to the negative reports varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. ... 2. For example, one can compare reports by establishment mass media with youth movement sources. For the former, see Newsweek (August 2, 1971), Pfarrer (1973), Morgan (1973), du Plessix Gray (1973) and Baxter (1974). For the latter, see Jacobi' (1972), Reed (1973), Kelley (1974), Davis (1974) and Levine (1974).
Or,
"Establishment mass media":
Newsweek (August 2, 1971)
Pfarrer (1973) → Pfarrer, Donald. "The Guru" in The Milwaukee Journal. October 1973
Morgan (1973) → Morgan, Ted. "Oz in the Astrodome" in New York Times. December 9, 1973
du Plessix Gray (1973) → du Plessix Gray, Francine. "Blissing out in Houston" in The New York Review of Books Vol. 20 No. 20 (December 13, 1973)
Baxter (1974) → Baxter, Ernie. "The multi-million dollar religion ripoff: The Perfect Master may lift your spirit – He'll certainly lift your purse" in Argosy 380. August 1974, 72; 77-81.
"Youth culture publications"/"Youth movement sources" ("most of these ... leftist")
Jacobi (1972) → Jacobi, Judy. "Will the world see the light?" in Bugle-American. December 1972.
Reed (1973) → Reed, Pat. "A million dollar cosmic flop" in Bugle-American. November - December 1973, pp. 8-12.
Kelley (1974) → Kelley, Ken "Guru Maharaj Ji: Over the Hill at 16?" in Ramparts. February 1974 Note however that Kelley was not limited to leftist ... youth culture, not even in 1974:
Kelley, Ken "Get Your Red-Hot Panaceas!" in New York Times. January 19, 1974
Kelley, Ken "An East Indian Teen-Ager Says He Is God" in Vogue. March 1974
Kelley, Ken "I See The Light" in Penthouse. July 1974, pp. 98-100, 137-138, 146, 148, & 150-151.
Davis (1974) → Davis, Tom. "Primo premie and the Divine Light 'Kid'" in Bugle-American. April 1974, pp. 36-43
Levine (1974) → Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50.
Of what? I didn't try to convince anybody of anything, nor was I convinced of pretty much after combing through the list:
Pilarzyk did not attempt to give a comprehensive list of types of publications on Rawat (Oui, Penthouse, Playboy are in a different league from the two categories he mentions), nor was that needed for his analysis: he was trying to get at the youth culture's perspective on the issue.
Seems like Pilarzyk is a bit extrapolating on the Milwaukee situation (The Milwaukee Journal vs. Bugle-American), and trying to range his other sources along these two, but imho hardly successful: see e.g. Ken Kelley's palmares (not even mentioned: Kelley also published in The New York Review of Books, cooperating with du Plessix Gray [1][2]). Press typology surely was not as simple as it might have seemed like from a Milwaukee perspective (imho!). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am working on Draft 2 for comment. Stand by. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
How much longer? Do you have any specific complaints about Draft 1? This practice of creating competing drafts without discussing the pros and cons of each one has the effect of parties talking past each other. We want to create one draft we all agree on, not sets of drafts to fight over. It'd be more helpful to fix Draft 1 than to create another flawed draft. This draft has been here for a week with no almost specific complaints. If editors care so little let's just address the complaints that have been made and post it. ·:· Will Beback·:· 08:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have been up in the mountains on a missing person search, just catching up now. Editors care, oh yes, we do. I think you are a little off track here, we well as unnecessarily hurried. The preamble to this page says to "Add their proposed wording to a new section" rather than amend the previous. My new section draft is my proposed wording, attempting to take editors' remarks into consideration. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The only specific remarks here are about the use of the Register as a source. ·:· Will Beback·:· 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Draft 1 (v. 2)
Tweaks, mainly involving chronology and refs: e.g. moved the August 1973 pieing incident to the start of the 2nd paragraph (the declaration by the PR staff is otherwise difficult to understand on first reading). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a great improvement, Francis, especially regarding NPOV. The cameraman talking to his camera particularly went right over my head. Here is my Draft 2.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Condensed, but perhaps still a bit verbose. The section listing the names of reporters who attended Millenium seemed irrelevant, but for the time being I have left it in. Omissions are largely for neutrality of tone or eliminating redundancy. Discussions welcome. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure of the need to include the list of reporters. We cover the Millennium festival in the article once already, and it'd be better to keep it together. The main treatment of the festival is on the DLM page, and that's where the list would be best placed. I see you deleted the pie incident. That should be covered chronologically, and I intend to propose an addition once we finish some of the other outstanding proposals. What's the source for the number of YouTube hits? That might run afould of WP:NOR. We already mention Words of Peace in the "2000s" section, so it's redundant here. ·:· Will Beback·:· 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also DMOZ is not a usable source. ("Prem Rawat links at Open directory project (DMOZ)"). ·:· Will Beback·:· 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Draft 3
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The pie is still there if you look, I just modified the language. If it has not previously been mentioned, it should be. I don't think WP:NOR is violated, as the YouTube info is verifiable by anyone. I think once we get all of this together we will still need to go though and fine tune. Only then will it become clear what belongs in which section. You are probably right about WoP ending up in the 2000s section only. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, the Brazilian award was a media prize, so including it in the Media Response section seems apposite. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The WoP should only be in one place. I think as much as possible we should cover things chronologically, such as the pie and the WoP. The pie incident is mentioned with no context whatsoever, so readers are left not knowing what was being reported on. As for thi draft in general, I sugges that in the future if there are only small changes it'd be better to make a version 2, as Francis did, rather than posting a whole separate draft. The only significnat change I see is the deletion of the list of reporters at Millennium. Did I miss anything? ·:· Will Beback·:· 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
You have made that suggestion before, and I have pointed out before that the preamble specifically advises against it. Not change the wording of proposals, they should add a new proposal with the changed wording. Yes, deleting the list of reporters was the main change. I agree that the Halley incident deserves fuller coverage, but Media Response is not the place for it, chron or no chron. Rumiton (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let;s ask Steve. I think he meant that users shouldn't change each other's drafts. ·:· Will Beback·:· 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's correct. I'll just clarify what that means, as it is somewhat vague. It means that you shouldn't change or alter the wording of another user's proposal. In other words, don't edit other user's proposals, unless correcting a clear error with a reference, as in, something that is causing an error at the {{reflist}} at the bottom, or for obvious typo errors. I'd generally adivse against editing other proposals altogether, but I'm leaving some room for leeway. Though I think posting a 2nd version is a more viable alternative than writing a whole new proposal. Best, Steve Crossin(contact) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that clarification, Steve. But, could this be a good reason to have editors start signing their drafts? It's not like we don't know who's writing what, and it would simplify the process to have signatures on the drafts. Thanks for your (oft-undeserved patience. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm fine to waive that original idea. Feel free to sign away. Steve Crossin(contact) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
"The summer 1976 issue of And It Is Divine announced it needed a "very conscious focus on Guru Maharaj Ji", and would stop experiments of providing "non-Knowledge oriented material".[49] By the end of the decade the movement had almost disappeared from public view in the United States, apart from some reports about the defection of significant former adherents.[8][30] By then there was some presence in the new media: some ex-followers had started websites devoted to their former guru," There was no Internet at the end of the seventies. --Jayen466 11:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that needs looking at. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The WoP should only be in one place. I think as much as possible we should cover things chronologically, such as the pie and the WoP. The pie incident is mentioned with no context whatsoever, so readers are left not knowing what was being reported on. ·:· Will Beback·:· 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
