|
Some comments
- No mention of the date of these studies, and that is needed
- No mention of the size of the sample studied, and that is also needed. As I have argued enough by now, context is always needed.
- We need to add material from other studies. Galanter, and Conway, Flo & Siegelman are noted for their POV. We need material from other studies/observations made, for balance, i.e. Downton, Barret, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also missing from that summary are other results from the study, such as social cohesiveness, and decline of distress upon joining (p.8). BTW, Galanter states that survey was based on 119 people that received questionnaires (p.29), but he does not describe how many responded. The date of the survey is not noted, but the book was printed in 1999. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Conway, Flo & Siegelman, is there a reason you omitted other findings from that study? Also note that the sample used is quite strange as it is described as being based on on a total of 353 members of 48 different groups, without saying how many of these were from the DLM (!)≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note who Stillpoint Press is [1] (publishers of Comway/Siegelman). WP:SPS? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SPS indeed: Stillpoint Press, 20 Park Ave., New York, NY, United States, founded in 1995 - Corporate officers: Siegelman, James; Conway Flo. Source: Company Intelligence Database, Thomson Gale; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the second edition of Snapping is self-published. The study was included inthe first edition, so that's a moot point. If you'd like to improve the material with the other studies and greater context then please do. The text posted is just a starting point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which edition you are quoting? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still awaiting for an answer to this: Which edition have you consulted for your edits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the citation. The copy I have in hand is the 1995 edition. I can obtain the 1st edition if it matters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Se, how do we know that the "study" was included in any non-self published edition? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1995 edition is self-published. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awaiting for a response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with leaving the Snapping study out of this revision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Proposal 1, with these additions/changes:
- Added context for the survey, instead of just raw numbers
- Stated the size of the sample, and the method of survey
- Tightened some of the text
- Formatted source ref
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work yuo did on the Galanter material is fine, though it makes it quite a bit longer. Why did you delete the Snapping study? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Because the data is meaningless: 353 members of 48 groups total were used in that "study". Meaning that the sample used for numbers of one group is statistically irrelevant, and to put their statistics in that context is simply too much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that just your opinion, or are has this source been deprecated in more reliable sources? If it's just your opinion it doesn't count for much, no disrespect intended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please tell me, Will, how this data can be anything but unusable? 353 people of 48 groups (as explained in that "study") make it what, an average of 7 people per group? How is that sample meaningful? I am not going to abandon my good judgment, Will, and if you want that material added, we will have to present that information to our readers. My point is: it is not worth the effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, do you know who the authors are? What are their credentials used to assert relevancy, if any? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not for us to second-guess research methodologies in reliable sources. Are you arguing that this is not a reliable source? For the record, another editor has said he think it's a reliable source. "Having said that, there is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are an acceptable source in the overall panorama of sources. Jayen466 18:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)" We allow Geaves, who has a viewpoint. Having a viewpoint does not exclude a source. Anyway, keep writing your other material and we can just add this study to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not second guessing, am I? I am just stating the facts: a "study" of 353 members of 48 groups 'total, one of which was the DLM, is statistically meaningless. An opinion is one thing, Will, but this material is not presented as an opinion, thus my concern about including it as you did. Read the last sentence of your proposal. Read it and tell me how does it reads, as a fact, or as an opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we attribute it then the authors are responsible for their views. We can include the groups size and let readers decide how valid it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to add that material with the numbers and attribution to your proposal. I will not bother with it, as I think it is useless information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward, in what books or papers do Downton and Barret describe the demographics of the membership? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages 227 to 231 of Downton's "Sacred Journeys" contain a description of the method used to collect demographic information via questionnaires during Downton's study as well as detailed demographics based on the sample he studied. Do you have the book? If you don't, I'll need to find some time and scan these six pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also many references to demographics and comparisons throughout the book. These will take more time to find and summarize. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have those pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this proposal. Prop 1 includes people who are no longer members and prop 3 makes unnecessary comparisons with other groups.Momento (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken Jossi's P2 and added a summary of Downton's study. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Mometno's comment above. Downton is a reliable source. The comparisons to other groups are necessary context, which is why the study included them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think it is necessary. This is not an article about comparisons with other groups. Do we have material about the DLM in the Hare Krishna article? Don't think so. Pairing it down to the relevant material is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think it's useful to see what the numbers are for similar groups. It puts the psychedelic drug use in context, for example. But if editors think context is unnecessary then I suppose we can remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly object to deleting the Hare Krisha membes while keeping the college students. Jossis; selective deletion doesn't jibe with his explanation that we don't mention the DLM in the Hare Krishna article - we don't mention the DLM in the College article either. That selective deletion misstates the study and is dishonest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not appreciate the "dishonest" bit, Will. Do you have any proposals on how to address the concerns? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not appreciate it but it's true. To include one study group but pretend the other didn't occur is dishonest. I see no legitimate reason to delete that context. We should describe the actual study. If your concern is that the Hare Krishan article doesn't incluce a mention of the study then we can propsoe adding it there too. I don't really see a need for them both to mention it. The study was primarily about DLM members, not Hare Krishana members who were just there for comparison to a similar group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't appreciate you comment, regardless what you may consider to be true or not. This article is about the DLM, not about other groups. So, one possibility is to summarize the material in a way that present the study as it relates to the DLM only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already mention the Hare Krishna elsewhere in this article. The fact of the matter is that the two groups were often considered together. Anyway, if this is the way you feel then why did you leave in one of the control groups? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 3 is essentially sound except that the forms of the two studies (Galanter and Downton)were not specified. Addressing this in Prop.5 has two benefits - firstly the reader can be provided with a WP link [[2]] to assist their understanding of the process involved in the Galanter study, unfortunately there is no comparable source for Comparative study. Secondly and specific to the Rawat articles, previous use of Galanter in the WP articles has been obscurantist with poor contextualisation seeming to suggest that Galanter concluded that the DLM meditation conferred psychological health benefits. Galanter certainly did not suggest direct benefits from meditation, but identifies the meditation as important to group cohesion - the cohesion being the identified source of benefit: "The relevance of such experience to participation in a charismatic group may be clarified by considering how these members attribute meaning to their daily experiences. A compelling alteration in a person's subjective state, whether from drugs or to a novel social context, leaves the person open to ascribing new meaning to experiences. This certainly applies to the altered consciousness associated with meditation, which serves as a vehicle for destabilizing old attitudes and preparing the meditator to accept the group's beliefs. It acts to support the group's cohesiveness and stabilize and even enhance a member's acceptance of the group."
Downton makes a useful contrast with Galanter. Jossi's proposal to exclude 'party' data from a Comparative study is misguided at best - it certainly is not Encyclopaedic; to argue to neuter Downton's work in that way is to argue against the validity of Downton as whole, even I wouldn't go that far although I find Downton's perspective on Gurusim somewhat dubious.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the study is about "Group Cohesiveness" and not specifically about the DLM, why are we using that material in an article about the DLM? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a study of group cohesiveness among DLM members. It's directly relevant to the subject. Are you actually suggesting that it isn't a proper source for the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this an article about group cohesiveness theories? or an article about an organization called DLM? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in this proposal is about members of the DLM. What the rest of the book says is irrelevant. We use other sources that aren't primarily about the DLM. I've never heard anyone ever suggest that a source must solely be about the subject. We use the relvant parts of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jossi, would you please clarify whether you consider Galanter and Downton to be reliable sources, and if you do not please explain why. Your apparent objections to the use of the material in Proposals 3. and 5. seems at face value to be utterly perverse. You have elsewhere stated that Galanter and Price are not neutral sources and I recall that previously you have objected to Foss & Larkin, which suggests you are unhappy with four out of five of the only first hand academic studies of Rawat's followers and associated organisations. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no need to provide clarifications about if these sources are RS or not, as I have consistently argued that RS can only be assessed in the context they are used. If we decide to use Galanter or Downton, we need to carefully summarize them as it relates to the subject of the article, ensuring that the summary does not extend beyond it. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is anyone proposing changes to Prop.5 or are we ready to add the text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready. Proposal 5 has several problems, including
a wikilink to an unrelated article, and the assertion that the study "A study of the effects of Group Cohesiveness" which is OR. The study was not on the effects, it was just a "Study of Group Cohesiveness" in the context of what Galanter describes as "charismatic groups"[sic] It also has factually inaccurate information (by 119 DLM members attending a festival in 1978). That is not correct as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to change Nik's proposal, so I added P6, which is identical to P5 except it removes "effects of", per your concern. As for the scope fo the study, Galanter writes, We...gfave copies to 119 subjects who were active members of the Divine Light Mission, selcted at random from the festival registration lines. How is the summary in the proposal incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the summary in the proposal incorrect? It is incorrect because it reads:based on questionnaire responses given by 119 DLM members attending a festival in 1978. Where that comes from? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see your objection. The quote I gave you confirms that it was given to 119 DLM members at a festival. Is the 1978 date the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the study was conducted in 1974, and first reported in 1978. I'll fix that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at a festival, but at festivals. There is no other information provided by Galanter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so you only object is the omission of an "s"? Fine. I'll add the "s" and we can post this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it and made it closer to the source: A study of group cohesiveness carried out by Marc Galanter in 1974, based on questionnaire responses given by 119 DLM members randomly chosen from festival registration lines,... Glad we could work that out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we'd solved all of the issues. Is there anything more that can't be fixed by editng the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like it, but as this is part of the mediation process, it is up to Steve, the mediator, to assess consensus as per his request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asking for help from the mediator on another issue and hadn't heard anything. I assumed he was AWOL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the latest version, that's a radical improvement in quality over the original. So, first off, well done, guys.
- One thing that would be very nice to include is baseline comparisons for the Galanter study. You may have noticed, Dowton's study offers a statistical analysis against a baseline, "college students". Jossi rightly points out that context is very important, and that baseline in Dowton is the context. I'd be surprised if Galanter's study didn't offer something similar by way of reference to other studies or surveys from the same time frame, even if he didn't have his own control group for his study. If we could offer up those numbers, if they're available, that would be great. It would make stats like the 45% of members who smoked pot before joining have more meaning if we knew what that stat looked like for the general population (for example). The study might have that info for us already...researchers are (usually) good like that.
- I see you're referencing a book...if I could have the name of the 1974 study itself and any other publication info you could give, I could try and track it down. Mael-Num (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would also be helpful if Galanter's defines "seriously distressed", we could provide his criteria for the definition. Mael-Num (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another couple of minor points. Could we change "tripping on LSD" to "under the influence of LSD" or "while using LSD" or something similar? "Tripping" isn't really encyclopedia-speak. And this sentence:
- Compared to the college students, fewer DLM members had had religious upbringings and they tended to have had worse family experiences though only 17% came from "broken homes".
- Could use a little clarification. What is meant by having "had worse family experiences"? Is it a matter of more of them having bad family experiences compared to control, or that there was some metric employed to guage relative family experience, and that DLM members tended to score worse? Also, what's a "broken home"? It probably means it means "having experienced a divorce in the household, regardless of remarrying", but back then they might have only been looking at single parent situations. Whatever it is, say that instead of "broken homes". Mael-Num (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mael-Num, most of that language is taken straight from Downton, including "tripping" and "broken homes". "Worse family experiences" comes from Premies tended to be considerably more critical of their family experiencs. They were more likely to rate their family experiences on the "poor" side than nonfollowers, who tended to rate theirs as "average." Premies also tended to come from homes where there was less equality between their parents: 25 percent of nonfollowers viewed the relative dominance of their parents as "equal", while only 9 percent of prmies and 10 percent of Krishnas felt that way. There were also a number of similarities between the two groups. On average, neither premies nor college students were likey to have come from broken homes, the figures being 15 and 15 percent, respectively. As for Galanter's "seriously distressed", he used something called the "Psychological Distress Scale". The average of all items on that scale was 71 before joining and 37 at the time of the study. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the original "1974" Galanter study, I believe it's this:
- 1978 Galanter, M., and Buckely, P. "Evangelical religion and meditation: Psychotheapeutic effect". Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 166 685-691
- I don't have easy access to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Will. I'll try and pull it tomorrow and see what I can see. And again, great work thus far. Mael-Num (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Psychological Distress Scale" appears to have been an ad hoc tool devised for the study rather than a standard test. It has 8 questions, each with a numerical asnwer from 1 to 5. The questions are things like, "I feel nervous and tense", "I had thoughts of ending my life", "I got into trouble with my job, at schoo, or with the law". etc. Downton notes what aspect of distress each symptom is connected to: anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, referrential thinking, anomie, behavioral, hearing voices, and general emotional maladaption. Drug use was also gauged in a other set of questions. Lastly, a third set of questions coverred gropu cohesiveness. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments" to this proposal, let's post it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- + 9 hours from now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen these sources, so am happy if those who do are in agreement. I feel a little disquieted by the apparent lack of a control group for this data gathering, I would like to see a comparison with people of the same age, race, educational level and gender in the general population. How unusual were these people before joining, and how unusual were their reported changes? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that all that control information would be dandy, but if it's not there it's not there. We can't do the research for the researchers. It doesn't look like it was terribly germane to the study, what he was trying to prove, in any case. I think it's okay without it. Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment above aside, I don't really like the word "tripping" and the phrase "broken home". I don't think the ideas of stigma and political correctness had yet dawned on the world of academia in the 70's, but we have them now. Even if it's paraphrasing, I think we should do that. Suggest: "using" and "families that have experiened a divorce" (assuming that's what he's calling a broken home). That sound OK? Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tripping" has only one meaning, so saying "while hallucinating on LSD" would be the equivalent. "Broken homes" could include parents that have split without divorce, and is more vague. Perhaps he uses more "encyclopedic" terminology in his earlier papers? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mael-Num. It isn't revisionism or OR to apply today's standards to the tone of an encyclopedia article. Today's standards are more mature, in just about every field of thought. But as I said, I don't have a problem with this stuff. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine to use more modern terminology when we know for sure what the author meant. If there's any doubt we should stick to the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't know for sure what the author meant, we should not include that author's writings. Otherwise we could be contradicting all manner of Wikipedia rules without knowing it. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
