Talk:Outline of Prem Rawat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Outline of Prem Rawat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Outlines Low‑importance

	This article is an outline, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are within the scope of WikiProject Outlines, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Wikipedia. For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.OutlinesWikipedia:WikiProject OutlinesTemplate:WikiProject OutlinesOutlines articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Prem Rawat (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat articles

Arbitrary section header

I do not think we need this page. We have articles on the subject that are all in the necessary categories and templates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful list

I modeled it after List of Sikhism-related topics. It is a useful page that will be expanded upon. Smee 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sikhism is a large religion with many related articles that warrants such a "list". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article was only started minutes ago. Allow time for expansion. There are already "many related articles" that are listed here, to warrant such a "list". Smee 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why the duplication? Better to have links to the sister projects where media is available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modeled it after List of Sikhism-related topics. That is how the information is formatted there, and has been for quite some time now. Smee 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

VHS cover

Per the licensing tag for Videotape covers, the image may be used: to illustrate the videotape in question. That is exactly what we are doing here, as described specifically in the caption to the image. I will restore. Smee 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Read: Image:Lord_of_the_Universe_video_cover.jpg#Licensing. And if you do not believe me you can ask editors at Wikipedia:Fair use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the tag: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of videotape covers, to illustrate the videotape in question. In this case we are illustrating the videotape in question. We are saying: Here, this is the image of the videotape. That is all. I will restore. Smee 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The licensing tag does NOT specify usage only in articles about the video itself, merely that it only be used to illustrate said video in articles on Wikipedia. Smee 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are mistaken. Read Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). (my highlight). Please delete. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was somewhere... Here it is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use/Fair_use_rationale#Media_covers:

covers of various media are thought to be "fair use" when used on Wikipedia to illustrate articles directly pertaining to the item of media in question, with reference to the fact that the image is a cover of a specific item of media.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment to editors from article

Feel free to add more and to create missing pages.

Also, please consider working on those listed as stubs or needing attention and to update list as needed.

Jerry lavoie 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of Sikhism-related topics for comparison. Smee 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed that text from there as it is not appropriate text for article namespace. We welcome the same in all articles in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Ji?

Smee: note that "Mahatma Ji" is a generic name and not a name of a person. Mahatma Ji is a respectful way to address a person considered to be a great soul (maha atma, in Sanskit). There are hundreds of people that others referred to them as "Mahatma Ji". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Mahatma Ji was the way Mahatma Ghandi was addressed in India.

Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. [1]

(my highlight) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting for your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know his real name, this is only what he was referred to in the film. Smee 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK. My point is that an article on "a "generic" Mahatma Ji, would be akin as an article on a "generic" Priest. Not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please let me know on the basis of what information you placed this anonymous person in the "Past students" section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my only source for this individual (at the moment) is the documentary award-winning-film. So I really do not know much about Mahatma Ji yet. Have not yet endeavoured to find more secondary sources... Smee 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would suggest to remove until then, Smee. It looks really silly... In any case, I am interested to know what made you categorize this Mahatma as a "past student" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I have answered you above, I have yet to find more secondary sources, so honestly all I had based this classification on initially was the award-winning-film. I will find more secondary sources later. Smee 15:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

?????

Should we add a notable thing to each of the entries in this list? I don't think so. Each one of the articles in this list is notable, for one reason or another. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reasonable and respond to arguments rather that revert back to your preferred version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Perhaps, but this film was highly notable for the singular fact that it won the DuPont Award. This is a highly reputable award, akin to the Pulitzer Prize for documentaries. The reader should be made aware of this. Smee 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All articles in this list (those that have one, that is) are notable for one reason or another. Either we add a short comment to each article, or we leave all just as just wikilinks. I would go for the latter (but will not oppose the former). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either we add a short comment to each article, or we leave all just as just wikilinks - Command form grammar again Jossi? Issuing ultimatums to me of what we must to in one way or another Jossi? I am getting tired of your ultimatums and command form grammar. There are nicer ways to talk to editors on talk pages. This is not one of them if you wish for a cordial response from other editors. Smee 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Common, Smee.... I did not state that as an ultimatum, please. I proposed two options: add a comment to each or have bo comments at all. Please take these at face value instead of judging each comment, could you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out here, Smee. Could you tell me how should I have made that proposal in a manner that would not ruffle your feathers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your answer. I need to go to sleep now. I'll check tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not always need to "suggest two options" in such a manner as to state that these are the only two options, and to imply that we must pick one or the other and that's that, like you have made a declaration. "Either we do this, or we do this." Doesn't leave much room for negotiation from editors who are not administrators, not one bit. You could try being more open to suggestions, and dialogue, instead of making finality-sounding statements in such declaratory language. Smee 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So help me rephrase my proposal, so I can learn to work with you. Would this be any better?

"All articles in this list (those that have one, that is) are notable for one reason or another. We can add a short comment to each article, we can leave all just as just wikilinks, or maybe find another way to address this dispute. What do you think? I would go for the latter (but will not oppose the former). "

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much better way of suggesting something instead of demanding it. Thank you for being able to see how to modify language and work with others. Smee 07:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Let me think on your newly-phrased suggestions for a bit. After looking through other lists, it seems a commonality to list a phrase, perhaps 5 words or less, describing each entry, next to the entry in the list. This might work as a compromise. Smee 08:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Familiy names

Used the proper names rather than the titles. Note that only the of the brother may be notable enough to warrant an article in WP. I have left the other two brothers without redlinks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have not checked into availability of sources on those yet. Smee 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Notability

There are several people in the list that in my opinion, fail the WP:BIO notabilty guidelines, which I have listed below. Suggest these are removed from this list.

Eugene M. Elliot III, student of Jeffery Hadden
Daniel A. Foss, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Could not find any info beyond a couple of articles and review of other's people works. Greenwood Publishing group lists him as "has been employed as a computer programmer and data base manager for academic and government researchers." [2]
Ralph Larkin, a consultant [3] (only one article published with Foss above: Beyond Revolution: A New Theory of Social Movements. by Daniel A. Foss, Ralph Larkin)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting here first. I would point out that their research is referenced in other wiki articles. Perhaps those mentioned above could simply be listed here without wikilinks/redlinks. Smee 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That could work, but it is somewhat different than the treatment in other "list of related topics" in which only topics that have an article in WP are listed. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try it this way first and see how it goes. I actually think that some of the individuals listed above might be notable, I have found more sources that those you initially listed... Smee 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK. If we do not find material for articles about them we can always delete them later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary

The article is a GA, now going through FAR, and it reads: Lord of the Universe is a 1974 satirical documentary film ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? So? Most of the entries have no further description, and I think it would be a mistake to start adding descriptions to all of the entries. As it happens, that entry was mistakenly labelled a "parody" which is different from a "satire". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, add satire. It is an important qualifier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please either provide a source for Navi Rawat, or delete it. The article on Navi Rawat makes no such claim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced family members and those without articles. See WP:NOT. Do we have a source for the documentary being a satire? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names you deleted, Will, can be sourced to Cagan, Andrea (2007). Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press. ISBN 0-9788694-9-4.. If you need page numbers, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we listing the names of non-notalbe family members anyway? This isn't a genealogy. (If they're important to his life they should go in his bio). Nor do I see why we're listing the names of non-notable scholars with no sources. Unless there's a good reason to keep them I'll remove all of the redlinks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There is no need for these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I'm proposing renaming this list. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4/Current Article Issues#Category and template names. Will Beback talk 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]