Talk:Stephen J. Hunt

message: Thanks for the creation of this well researched  article. I would argue that there is no need to link in the see also section the article Criticism of Prem Rawat. This is the full text (my highlight). As you can see there is only one sentence about criticism.
By Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 
    The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's. It was his young age which made him different from other eastern gurus who had established similar Hindu-inspired movements at the time. He was the son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, who began the DLM in India in 1960, based on the teachings of his own variety of enlightenment through the acquisition of spiritual knowledge. When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching. His global tour in 1971 helped to establish a large following in Britain and the USA. In 1973, he held what was intended to have been a vast, much publicized event in the Houston Astrodome. 'Millenium '73' was mean to launch the spiritual millenium, but the event attracted very few and had little wider influence.
    Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context. He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings. He therefore changed the style of his message and relinquished the the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices. Hence, today the teachings do not concern themselves with reincarnation, heaven, or life after death. The movement now focuses entirely on "Knowledge", which is a set of simple instructions on how adherents should live. This Westernization of an essentially eastern message is not seen as a dilemma or contradiction. In the early 1980's, Maharaji altered the name of the movement to Elan Vital to reflect this change in emphasis. Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru. Now, the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and its benefit to the individual adherents to his movement. Maharaji also dismantled the structure of ashrams (communal homes).
    The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.
    For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma. The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. He has occasionally referred to the existence of the two gods—the one created by humankind and the one which creates humankind. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion. It is not clear whether it is possible to receive Knowledge from anyone other than Maharaji. He claims only to encourage people to "experience the present reality of life now." Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers.[ However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs. 
If at all, the link should be to Prem Rawat, or rather not at all. Otherwise we will need to wikilink to all the people, and groups he wrote about....
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that it is unnecessary to add to the see also section. Usually the see also section is used to list related articles, and not articles about which an author has made one mention of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing your opinion.  However the article is related, relevant, and one of the only articles on Wikipedia that mention the subject.  More articles should be linked/cited to this one as well, and when they are, they should also be added to the see also section.  Smeelgova 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thank you for sharing yours. I still disagree with adding these two to the see also section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added another relevant article (in which Hunt is mentioned/cited) to the see also section.  I have also alphabetically sorted the see also section.  Smeelgova 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention of the see also section, is not to list all articles in which a mention of a scholar is made. Can you imagine adding a massive list of articles to  the see also section of J. Gordon Melton, or Steven Hassan, or any other author for that matter? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  See WP:GTL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance the existing wikilinks in the see also section are appropriate.  Thank you for adding the relevant links that you did.  Smeelgova 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, I disagree with your assessment. Given that we have been unable to reach consensus, would you ask for a third opinion? or shall I? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just created the article, literally minutes ago.  You are already going to contest and contest something like this?  Can't you just leave the article alone for a while and see how it develops first?  Smeelgova 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What type of "consensus" would you like to attempt to propose?  Smeelgova 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that consensus is not "proposed" but "arrived at". As it seems that we cannot agree on this point (inclusion in the See also section of all articles that have a small mention of this scholar), there is no consensus for the current state of the article. That is why I invited you to ask for a third opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I ask:  What type of compromise do you propose/offer?  Your statement above "Otherwise we will need to wikilink to all the people, and groups he wrote about...." - I had discounted, because it sounded like another ultimatum in the "command" form of grammar, e.g. "we will have to" which sounded highly inappropriate.  However if you can propose some sort of reasonable solution/compromise, I will listen.  Smeelgova 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you make an effort not to take my comments in that negative way? Please?  (and do not take that as a command, but as a request asked in good faith. OK?) My argument was simply to show the implications of adding articles to the "see also" section on the basis that there is small mention of this scholar (or any other scholar) in the linked article. The compromise would be to delete all these articles from the "see also" section, and only list those that are related to the subject as per the examples you and I added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make an effort not to take your comments in a negative way, and I hope that you will make an effort to stop using (A) the Command form of grammar, and (B) Ultimatums.  Your compromise does not sound like a compromise at all, merely a restating of your initial request from above.  Can you put forth some sort of suggestion that will satisfy both of us?  Smeelgova 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova, could you consider that "the command form of grammar" may be just your perception? As I said, it is obvious that we are in a stalemate, that is when it is needed we ask for a third opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, could you consider that you might need to be more careful with the way in which you utilize command form grammar and ultimatums?  Your choice of wording certainly sounds like that, and I have not been the only editor to voice this concern.  I gather from your prior comment that you do not wish to suggest an option which might be agreeable to both of us, and yet which is a modification from your initial first posting above?  Smeelgova 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback, Smeelgova. At this point, given that neither you nor I are willing to compromise on our position regarding this issue, I have suggested several times to ask for a third opinion. I also asked you if you want to seek that third option or if I should do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will post a WP:RFC.  Smeelgova 19:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An RFC is an overkill, IMO. Please consider placing a request at WP:THIRD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An RFC is not "overkill" in this instance.  I have lodged a request for comment at the appropriate page.  Smeelgova 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems we cannot reach any agreement on anything... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, perhaps not.  But at least - at the moment - we are not spouting rhetoric at each other in bold, CAPS, etc.  Smeelgova 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: *This section is for comments from involved editors, in addition to subsection above.  Smeelgova 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by involved editors

message: *Whether or not to include Criticism of Prem Rawat, in which article subject is mentioned, in the See also section at article on sociologist Stephen J. Hunt.  Smeelgova 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: See also section inclusion of [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]] 

message: *Thank you for fixing the bio header.  Smee 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Jossi. 

message: Checking the editorial details, he is not the editor of the BJS or the JCR. I've removed the "lifecourse" footnote in that section as it doesn't appear to help here; the Pentecostudies detail is given by that footnote, so either we'd be duplicating that point or citing an incorrect source. Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorships