Talk:My Life in Orange/Archive 1

Indian Express

[1] [2] = Trimmed, was WP:Undue weight to one singular source, devoting an entire paragraph to it and more text/quotes from that source in the Reception section than other sources.

I object to that trimming. I think the author's considered view of Rajneesh after writing and publishing the book is of interest here. It is well sourced and should be allowed to stand. Jayen466 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay the current presentation is alright. It is still a bit much weighting to that one source, compared to all the other sources in the Reception section. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Contents

The Contents subsection was constructed entirely using secondary sources. I'd rather we not begin to rely too much on primary sources, and rather use primary sources sparingly. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I only used the primary source in cases of clear error. One of these is now replaced again with a secondary that has it right. One primary ref is left – the secondary source had the birth year wrong (he was born in 1975 according to multiple pages in the book). Jayen466 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced primary source with secondary source, The Kansas City Star. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The death

of the author is easily worth being clearly displayed. Please stop reverting my edits without discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

It is already displayed. There is no need for it to have its own one-sentence paragraph. He is noteworthy for his life, not his death, and in the article about one book he wrote during that life, it does not need more than one sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not separate it for a few days to allow it to be a bit more visible to people that come to the page and after a few days merge it with the other comment, it is not actually a paragraph, it was one comment and now it is two comments, why not? allow it to have a bit of emphasis for a few days after the death? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

I am sorry if you are upset that I added a comment to your page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Could you please explain to me what problem it will cause to separate the comment about the authors very recent death for a few days? to give it a little extra prominence for the people that perhaps will come to view the page as a result of his death? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

It is not a big deal, on average there are ten viewings of this page every day , see here [[3]] and most of those ten are probably bots. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the death itself is noteworthy for its own sake somehow, that not only would it need its own paragraph in the article about the individual himself, but also necessitates an entire paragraph devoted to the death, in the article about a book written by the author - then there is no need for a whole paragraph devoted to the death of the author, beyond a one-sentence mention as is already included in the current paragraph. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Guest

Should lots of the biographical detail be moved to Tim Guest? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

The current size in this article is sufficient. However, feel free to use these sources at the article Tim Guest, that is perfectly fine. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Excerpts

Here's a piece from the Telegraph obit cited:

Barnaby Burch, who grew up with Guest in a commune in Suffolk, said his family were "devastated" by his untimely demise.

Mr Burch, who also goes by his Osho name Majid, said that he last saw Mr Guest for his stag party in Berlin in October and his wedding to Jo at Islington Town Hall the week afterwards. He said his death had come as a "huge shock".

"He was in his mid-30s, had his whole life ahead of him, starting to really make his name in journalism and writing, he had just got married and was really, really happy," he said. "It was a really good time for him and his death is all the more tragic for that. I can only imagine how Jo must be feeling.

"I just remember him as my geeky, gawky friend, and the days of roaming around Hamstead Heath on our bikes, playing computer games, sharing our favourite books. I got to see him blossom and develop into a grown man, but I will always remember him as a nine-year-old boy."

This "Majid" is saying that a) he remained in contact with TG - seems quite closely - and b) he continues to "go by his Osho name".

I think this is something worth including. I must admit that it has surprised me, though, reading abstracts from the present book, to read;

"I had no other evidence of my commune childhood. I had lost touch with the other commune kids..... Then, in January 1990, when I was fourteen, in the back of the newspaper on my mother's kitchen table I found an article about the commune. I carried that clipping around with me because I finally had one single piece of concrete evidence: at last, something outside of me existed to confirm it had all taken place. I treasured the clipping because it was a single piece of ballast: something to hold me to the ground, to make my history real."

Something does not add up, and it seems to me the article requires the introduction of critical and comparative apparatus to establish the veracity of TGs account. Redheylin (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be WP:SYNTH. Do any secondary sources themselves make this sort of analysis, as opposed to Wikipedians? Cirt (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See under Tim Guest please for the moment. Redheylin (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That article is a bit small, and POV considering his criticism of the Rajneesh movement experiences. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA successful

This article was successfully reviewed and promoted to GA. The review is at Talk:My Life in Orange/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)