Talk:Peace Revolution

Peace rebels in Egypt

"Peace Revolution's first Peace On Demand event was held in Egypt in 2010 during the International Day of Peace.[32] In the following years, numerous Peace on Demand events have been organized worldwide,... "

The Egyptian event must have been very successful. Shortly afterwards, they instigated the Egyptian revolution of 2011 there! Congrats;)

Post-hippie Millenials: what could go wrong?

OK, more to the WP's point - I miss the real sponsors, real goals, real effects in this art. Zezen (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this reference https://peacerevolution.net/index.php/docs/en/peace-partners the platform has a few sponsors and partners. This is a primary source though. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I gathered, its just a resource to help introduce meditation to people online. Kind of like Headspace but not commercial. With the idea that you can improve the world by getting more people to meditate. Which is in line with what the sources are saying, for instance this external link breaks it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumSHodBkVA Is it not clear by how the article is written? Id love feedback to improve it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, please add an explanation to the tags you have made per WP:DRIVEBY, so other editors can work on the problems. It would also seem that the two tags overlap.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes can you elaborate on the issues? The tags are a but vague and i dont really understand how to improve it. Maybe I'm biased but I personally don't see anything wrong with it, the article seems to just explain what it is which is what a lot of the other pages I contribute to essentially do. So it'd be useful to hear something specifically wrong with it (word choice, weight on content etc.)Wikiman5676 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Farang Rak Tham and Wikiman5676: Well; thanks for the ping. Unfortunately I didn't get it- so we should all be grateful that a previously unknown (to me) editor who 'thanked' me for that very edit, thus drawing my attention back here. To business, gentlemen. Firstly, indeed they do overlap- in fact prootional material often dictates a partisan POV :) however, having examined Wikiman's other endevours here, I am willing to accept that they have no personal axe to grid, and apologise for any insinuation otherwise. Thus, I will remove the POV tag myself. But as for what can be summed up as perhaps WP:PROMO.- not, you will note, that it is in any way irretrievable or 100%, because that is what WP:G11 is for. However, both the tone and the subject occasionally hedge towards the sympathetic. Descriptions of online courses, for example- completely transient, of interest only to those who would want to take them (see WP:DIRECTORY); likewise for fellowships offered. Indeed, I would suggest that most of the 'Activies' section(s) could be pared down.

Anyway, that's probably enough to be getting on with for the moment. Take care, and cheers — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, a lot of the prose reads as promotional, appropriate for the organization's brochure. One example of many:

The Peace Revolution website provides numerous free online resources to facilitate the practice of meditation, this includes Peace Revolution's forty-two day self-development program, which features guided meditations, as well as a written walk-through on meditation, videos highlighting tips for meditation, and several guided meditations in various languages available to the public at anytime.

Needs a lot of rewrite. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I note that the article was rejected several times last year, at least once for advertisement concerns. Wikiman5676, is WP:COI a concern here in any way? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Very helpful example from the user with long IP. Thank you Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no COI. I am not getting paid nor do I have an official tie with Peace Revolution in anyway. My only relation is that I have a friend who works for them and that's how I found out about the site. I'm active on Wikipedia anyways and I thought it would be cool to create a page for the website because they do some cool stuff and I was able to find some secondary sources anyways.Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a wonderful organization. I would trim some of the prose, and perhaps use their website as a source a bit less. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the very helpful feedback. I didnt notice these points until you pointed them out. I will do my best to make it in line with Wikipedia policy. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty and constructive criticism, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now done some major editing. Some of the news and scholarly articles cited could be "mined" for more analytical information. For now, I think the article is okay as start class. There is also an interview in Arabian linked, which unfortunately is not subtitled. It would be fascinating if someone would translate this, as I have never heard anyone from that part of the world talk about meditation. (Although that could also be my Eurocentrism). Anyway, let me know what you guys think.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made some edits and removed some of the brochurey language. If theres anything else in the article that sounds too promotional please point it out so editors can work on it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I did not copy anything. According to that revolvy site which is the basis for the copywrite infringement the article was copied from Wikipedia. Which would make sense since this is my own writing. I copied nothing. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is, apologies. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement Tag

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have decided to remove the written like an advertisement tag on the article. The reason is major edits have been made since the article was tagged and nobody has responded to my comments in the POV section above about additional ways to improve the article. The article would be in tag limbo otherwise so to get the ball rolling I think removing the tag is best. Of course if any editors don't think the issue has been fully addressed yet feel free to add the tag back in, but please specify on the talk page ways to improve it so editors will know how to improve it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Structure section

Hello all,

I would like to reach a consensus on whether a section on Peace Revolution's structure should be included in the article. According to the website the organization has several unique classifications for users (Peace Rebel, Peace Agent, etc.). This section on this article was removed earlier but I would like feedback as to whether this should be added back. I feel like this can add valuable encyclopedic knowledge to the article and be informative for readers. WP policy allows a limited use of primary sources within reason so I believe this is allowed. An example of other Wikipedia pages that convey similar information are pages on certain video games, the race section on Eve Online or character section in Maple Story for instance. Another good example would be the emoji section on the Snapchat article. I feel like these pretty much fit the same category and convey similar information to the Peace Revolution structure section, which is why I think it would add value to the page to add that section back. Thoughts? Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this information can also be found in the secondary sources you are citing. I have read some of them, and I noticed they mention several steps in consecutive training in the youth camps. The benefit of a description from a secondary source would be that you will have an outsider's perspective, which helps make the subject matter more accessible. Or you could do both—citing secondary sources and add in some details from primary sources. Primary source information is allowed if no expertise is required to interpret the information. It is good practice to mention the source of the information inline though, so you are not using the "voice of Wikipedia" to express what comes from a source with possibly little editorial control.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added back the section since there is no dissenters. If any editor feels the section does not belong on the page for any reason please explain here before removing it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just checking back here--no, I don't think the section belongs. It's mostly primary sourced, and doesn't serve a purpose here except on a promotional/brochure level. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well I don't agree with it being out of place. If there is some type of wikipolicy it violates i would certainly concede and remove it. But I think its simply informative. If you think its worded in a way that's promotional or something it can be reworded but i wouldnt agree with removing the section entirely. Wikipedia allows for primary sources to be used under limited cases and from what I've seen this seems to be one of them, especially for websites. A few examples of similar things are this section on Snap Chat, this section on the online game Maple Story and this section on The Independent, all of which got these informative breakdowns pretty much entirely from primary sources. I would agree to rewording it if it seems promotional to you, but I honestly don't see it as out of place as lots of wikipages have similar things and i would consider this useful information for somebody wanting to know more about the subject. The page on Bangkok Post also has a similar style section as well and doesnt even provide any in line citations, let alone secondary ones. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And don't even get me started on the Map and champions sections on the League of Legends page lol. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Citing the other articles doesn't mean anything--many of those 'structure' sections are unsourced and unnecessary as well. Let's stick with this article. There's no reason to define peace agent, peace rebel, etc. We're not a brochure or directory for the institution. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Even tho the other articles sections are unnecessary it still shows that such content doesn't warrant deletion. Especially on a page as viewed as Snapchat. Either way I would still disagree with removing the section entirely. I think it's informative and can be useful for the reader just to understand the organization. I would at most support rewording to get rid of promotional language. Wikiman5676 (talk) 14:58

Serial Number 54129 while I would agree you're probably right i woulda appreciated it you had put your argument here first per WP:CONSENSUS. I probably would've conceded after you brought up WP:NOTYELLOW anyways. Either way its not a big deal, same result in just one less step. I am going to bring back one small part of that section though. Nothing directory-ish tho. Feel free to review my edit. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)