Talk:Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?

message: ... with (16) citations to reputable sourced material.  Smee 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked that ISBN and is indeed mistaken. The book does not have an ISBN number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started the article... 

message: * Another source you can add is Soul friend: spiritual direction in the modern world, by Kennneth Leech, HarperOne (1992),  which cites the book.
*As well as Encyclopedia of Religion and Society William H. Swatos, Jr. (Ed.), AltaMira Press,  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: Replaced image with a better version, from a self-scan of the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other

message: Why to place Richardson's entry in the EL section? It should be moved to the "cited in secondary sources" section, as the others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richardson

message: Smee, could you provide page number for that cite? I cannot find it in my copy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a mention of the book on page 113, but it says nothing about "being publicized". It just mentions a pile of materials on "the floor and tables" that included a "recently issued paperback by Bantam".  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stone: The 70s 

message: An Op-ed in The San Francisco Sunday Examiner later criticized Davis for his views[4].
This statement is factual, and most certainly backed up by the citation.  The statement does not say his direct writings in the book, though it is very highly presumable that that is what is being critiqued, but rather his views.  And this is relevant to the article.  Smee 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. Unless the source describes the statement by Davis in this book, its addition is a violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it isn't. You are (a) providing a source that quotes another source; (b) Neither the original source, nor the provided source describes this book, or the introduction to this book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I looked into the archives I have access to and could not find such article. Do you have a link for it? A date? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is what you know, what was quoted in Brown.  Smee 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we should not use it at all. We don't know what that op-ed said, in which context, if it was published before the book was published, etc. A violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  It was quoted in a reputable secondary source.  Citing the article itself would actually be less reputable and more leaning towards OR, than citing a reputable secondary source that discusses the article.  Smee 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) The book by Brown does not cite this book. (b) this article is about a book, not about the person that wrote the introduction; (d) there is no evidence that the article in question was published before the printing of this book; (e) there is no evidence that the article referred to tis book either. A clear violation of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do not know why do we need a source that we are not sure that refers to this book, is needed for something that is in the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a possibility. As we do not have a source for other mentions, we should simply use the direct citation from the book. I simply do not see the point of pressing on this issue... It is in the book, we cite the book that is 100% verifiable. That's enough. If we find more sources, as the ones you found in which the book is discussed, we can add them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why edit war about something so basic, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Look, Smee: This is becoming really silly. I would argue that your point of view as it relates to this disputed source, is unsustainable. No editor will support such a source, when you have a verifiable page number to support that quote, and the other quote does not refer to the book. It is a waste of time, really. I will ask for a third opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. It will be good to also move the ELs to the further reading section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday Examiner 

message: === Statement by involved editor ===
* We have a quote from the book this article is about. It is on the Introduction on page iv;
* There is a source (Brown) that does not cite this book in its bibliography, that reports about an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner. The Op-ed has not been found in any of the newspaper archives editors have access to;
* This article is about the book, and not about the person that wrote the short introduction
* My view is that as we have a direct citation for that quote (the book itself) and that is 100% verifiable, there is no need to cite a source that we are unsure about its provenance and the relation to this book;
* The argument about Primary source vs. secondary source is not applicable here. We are describing a fact, that the writer of the introduction wrote what he wrote. That is 100% verifiable.  We are not describing an opinion, or an assessment in which a secondary source may be superior;
* The writer may have made that statement in other situations, such as an interview, a film or other. We just do not know where the San Fancisco Chronicle found that information as we do not have the text of that op-ed.  For example (my highlight), Seraphim, Rose,Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future,  Xenia Skete Press,   "Typical of Maharaj-ji's convinced disciples was Rennie Davis, leftist demonstrator of the 1960's and one of the "Chicago Seven" accused of inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He spent the summer of 1973 giving press conferences and speeches to whoever would listen, telling America: "He is the greatest event in history and we sleep through it... I feel like shouting in the streets. If we knew who he was, we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet." 
* Here is the diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You surely can, in the article about the person that we are quoting, (see Rennie Davis, where that material is already there.) This is an article on a book, not on the person that wrote the introduction. Had the secondary source criticize the book, then it will be most appropriate. But the source mocks (rather that criticize, btw) Davis comments that he made throughout 1973, as per the source I provided above, and not the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop commenting in this thread, and allow time for User:Arkyan to answer my question, above.  Smee 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Arkyan can answer. I have to have a place to make my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ <;small>(talk)</small> 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  And you did.  Now please allow space for User:Arkyan to answer here.  Thank you.  Smee 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. But I do not understand why the animosity. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not an option in talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no animosity.  Now, please, let us both stop commenting in this thread, and leave space for User:Arkyan to reply.  And please, DO NOT remove, or reorganize my comments.  That is rude and inappropriate talk page demeanor.  Thanks.  Smee 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No sorry. What was inappropriate was your comment. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not acceptable. Now. If you want, we can remove all these comments and let the third opinion comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you do not have to make a comment after every single thing I say on a talk page.  I am fine with your first comment above.  But you then went ahead and commented after every one of my comments here, clogging up this thread.  This is now getting heated, which is exactly why we need to step back both of us, stop for a moment, and let a neutral third party comment as to my original question.  Please, stop.  And you refactoring and removal of our comments was rude, inappropriate, and in violation of Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me).  Smee 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already offered you to remove ALL these comments. But you keep pressing on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me), removal of comments is not the appropriate way to go.  Instead, utilizing  is more appropriate.  Smee 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can also use a placeholder, read the guideline. We can both agree and replace all the above, including your "Please stop" with [Refactored   discussion not pertinent to the article] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not comfortable with this, and would rather utilize , with a note below, [each editor crossed out their own comments, as not pertinent to the article].  Smee 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  That is the issue we have not being able to agree upon, Arkyan. The criticism was about the statements made by the author of the introduction Rennie Davis. My argument is that the criticism of that person, (actually an op-ed that referred to Davis as needing a lobotomy) does not belong in the article about the book, but certainly belongs to the article about Davis himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Coming from the Third Opinion page, I have to agree with Arkyan, having a tough time seeing why this is an issue at all. RomaC 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your polite comments.  Smee 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your assistance. Indeed, the criticism in that op-ed is not about the subject of this article, but about the person that wrote the introduction to the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting to note that Smee doesn't think this opinion applies Talk:Est Playing the Game in a very similar situation and has asked for yet another 3O. Lsi john 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting to note that that is an entirely different scenario, and I have asked for a 3O to avoid conflict with Lsi john.  He attacks me when I don't ask for a 3O, and he attacks me when I do ask for a 3O.  Caught between a rock and a hard place here...  Smee 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you interpreted my observation as an attack. Lsi john 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edconf) 3Os are not a panacea. If an editor keeps gong back to 3O on every article he edits, the editor may need to take a hard look at the way he is editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do.  Smee 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR the editor is simply engaging in disputes in every article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be an interesting statistical study to look at the percentages of 3O requests per editor. Its also an interesting observation that I have tried to edit 3 articles in the past 24 hours and every single time, I am reverted (rather than discussion) by the same editor. Lsi john 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then consider filing a user RFC, or request a mediator to assist you and that editor in finding a way to work together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried this before.  User:Lsi john left the mediation.  Smee 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that a MedCab or a MedCom? If the former, try the latter; if the latter, consider going to Arbitration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify MedCab versus MedCom?  Smee 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:MEDCAB is an informal mediation process. Wikipedia:Mediation is a formal process and official policy. Read both to understand the difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the latter.  Smee 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the next step should be opening a WP:RFARB case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not come to that yet.  Wikipedia:Mediation was never even finished.  Smee 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a MedCom case was not successful, an ArbCom case is the next step in WP:DR. Alternatively, you can file user RFC in which the community can give you feedback. See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  It is not that a MedCom case was not successful, it's that it was never given a chance to finish.  This should happen before anything else.  Smee 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then file another one. If it fails again, it will go straight to the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may yet file another one, after another ongoing Mediation involving this user ends.  Smee 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Third opinion 

message: * We have a quote from the book this article is about. It is on the Introduction on page iv;
* There is a source (Brown) that does not cite this book in its bibliography, that reports about an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner. The Op-ed has not been found in any of the newspaper archives editors have access to;
* This article is about the book, and not about the person that wrote the short introduction
* My view is that as we have a direct citation for that quote (the book itself) and that is 100% verifiable, there is no need to cite a source that we are unsure about its provenance and the relation to this book;
* The argument about Primary source vs. secondary source is not applicable here. We are describing a fact, that the writer of the introduction wrote what he wrote. That is 100% verifiable.  We are not describing an opinion, or an assessment in which a secondary source may be superior;
* The writer may have made that statement in other situations, such as an interview, a film or other. We just do not know where the San Fancisco Chronicle found that information as we do not have the text of that op-ed.  For example (my highlight), Seraphim, Rose,Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future,  Xenia Skete Press,   "Typical of Maharaj-ji's convinced disciples was Rennie Davis, leftist demonstrator of the 1960's and one of the "Chicago Seven" accused of inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He spent the summer of 1973 giving press conferences and speeches to whoever would listen, telling America: "He is the greatest event in history and we sleep through it... I feel like shouting in the streets. If we knew who he was, we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet." 
* Here is the diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by involved editor {{user|Jossi}}

message: *This is the quote in the book -- "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."
*This s the quote in the sourced secondary citation -- The quote is exactly the same. Are you saying that Rennie Davis said the exact same: "If we knew who he was we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at his feet."
*The two are exactly the same.
*It is better to have a citation from a reputable secondary source for this, in addition to the primary sourced citation to the quote itself in the book.  Smee 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by involved editor {{user|Smee}}

message: The quote is precisely the same whether it is from the primary source (the book itself) or a secondary source, so this disagreement seems to be a little odd.  For what it's worth, though, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual, descriptive information and that's precisely what a quote is.  Secondary sources are there to provide interpretation and analysis, and thus are preferable for that purpose.  However when what one is looking for is a direct quote it is better to quote the original source then force it through a secondary source for the sole sake of having it be a secondary source.  Why is it better to quote source B that quotes source A when you can simply quote source A to begin with? Arkyan • (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You surely can, in the article about the person that we are quoting, (see Rennie Davis, where that material is already there.) This is an article on a book, not on the person that wrote the introduction. Had the secondary source criticize the book, then it will be most appropriate. But the source mocks (rather that criticize, btw) Davis comments that he made throughout 1973, as per the source I provided above, and not the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop commenting in this thread, and allow time for User:Arkyan to answer my question, above.  Smee 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Arkyan can answer. I have to have a place to make my comments. ≈ jossi ≈ <;small>(talk)</small> 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  And you did.  Now please allow space for User:Arkyan to answer here.  Thank you.  Smee 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. But I do not understand why the animosity. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not an option in talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no animosity.  Now, please, let us both stop commenting in this thread, and leave space for User:Arkyan to reply.  And please, DO NOT remove, or reorganize my comments.  That is rude and inappropriate talk page demeanor.  Thanks.  Smee 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No sorry. What was inappropriate was your comment. "Please stop commenting on this thread" is not acceptable. Now. If you want, we can remove all these comments and let the third opinion comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you do not have to make a comment after every single thing I say on a talk page.  I am fine with your first comment above.  But you then went ahead and commented after every one of my comments here, clogging up this thread.  This is now getting heated, which is exactly why we need to step back both of us, stop for a moment, and let a neutral third party comment as to my original question.  Please, stop.  And you refactoring and removal of our comments was rude, inappropriate, and in violation of Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me).  Smee 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already offered you to remove ALL these comments. But you keep pressing on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines(read me), removal of comments is not the appropriate way to go.  Instead, utilizing  is more appropriate.  Smee 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can also use a placeholder, read the guideline. We can both agree and replace all the above, including your "Please stop" with [Refactored   discussion not pertinent to the article] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not comfortable with this, and would rather utilize , with a note below, [each editor crossed out their own comments, as not pertinent to the article].  Smee 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  That is the issue we have not being able to agree upon, Arkyan. The criticism was about the statements made by the author of the introduction Rennie Davis. My argument is that the criticism of that person, (actually an op-ed that referred to Davis as needing a lobotomy) does not belong in the article about the book, but certainly belongs to the article about Davis himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Coming from the Third Opinion page, I have to agree with Arkyan, having a tough time seeing why this is an issue at all. RomaC 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your polite comments.  Smee 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your assistance. Indeed, the criticism in that op-ed is not about the subject of this article, but about the person that wrote the introduction to the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting to note that Smee doesn't think this opinion applies Talk:Est Playing the Game in a very similar situation and has asked for yet another 3O. Lsi john 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting to note that that is an entirely different scenario, and I have asked for a 3O to avoid conflict with Lsi john.  He attacks me when I don't ask for a 3O, and he attacks me when I do ask for a 3O.  Caught between a rock and a hard place here...  Smee 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you interpreted my observation as an attack. Lsi john 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edconf) 3Os are not a panacea. If an editor keeps gong back to 3O on every article he edits, the editor may need to take a hard look at the way he is editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do.  Smee 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR the editor is simply engaging in disputes in every article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be an interesting statistical study to look at the percentages of 3O requests per editor. Its also an interesting observation that I have tried to edit 3 articles in the past 24 hours and every single time, I am reverted (rather than discussion) by the same editor. Lsi john 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then consider filing a user RFC, or request a mediator to assist you and that editor in finding a way to work together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried this before.  User:Lsi john left the mediation.  Smee 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that a MedCab or a MedCom? If the former, try the latter; if the latter, consider going to Arbitration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify MedCab versus MedCom?  Smee 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:MEDCAB is an informal mediation process. Wikipedia:Mediation is a formal process and official policy. Read both to understand the difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the latter.  Smee 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the next step should be opening a WP:RFARB case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not come to that yet.  Wikipedia:Mediation was never even finished.  Smee 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a MedCom case was not successful, an ArbCom case is the next step in WP:DR. Alternatively, you can file user RFC in which the community can give you feedback. See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  It is not that a MedCom case was not successful, it's that it was never given a chance to finish.  This should happen before anything else.  Smee 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then file another one. If it fails again, it will go straight to the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may yet file another one, after another ongoing Mediation involving this user ends.  Smee 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinions 

message: Could you please stop edit warring (even if not reverts) for a couple minutes so that I can edit without getting an edit conflict. Your petty edits, while I'm reworking the LEAD are inappropriate. Lsi john 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still dont understand why you feel the need to edit war.. and why you must own every article you edit (which is shown by the fact that your entire watch-list has you as the last editor). Lsi john 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I do not understand why you feel the need to discuss individual editors on article talk pages.  Smee 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead/Intro 

message: Substituted at 02:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment