Talk:Ram Dass

Possible WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV issues

In the lede it describes Be Here Now as "seminal" - a term of praise which sounds like WP:PEACOCK. I had previously rephrased the sentence to remove the word "seminal" and moved the references to the end of the sentence. User:Skyerise disagreed and reverted the sentence, saying in the comment that a properly cited acclaimation is not WP:PEACOCK. It seems to me that if sources X and Y praise the book as seminal, the article should say that the book was praised by X and Y as seminal, rather than claiming it as seminal. Consider the example paragraphs about Bob Dylan in WP:PEACOCK - the Peacock example uses words of praise such as "defining" and "brilliant", while the "Just the facts" version lists (with citations) what others have said about Bob Dylan. As it stands, the article is making a value statement about the book (that it is seminal) rather than adopting a neutral view of what has been said about the book. Autarch (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. I would also call the book seminal, but that is only another opinion. It should be presented just as you say. ragity (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just reverted for attempting to fix this. Preloading the book with these terms is undue regardless of how true it is. Popcornfud (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It's already been fixed. It's been taken out of the lead and is has be re-written in a way that makes clear these are statements from reviews. That's perfectly legit and isn't broken. WP:PEACOCK refers to unsourced "used without attribution" positive-spin. It doesn't prohibit quotations from positive reviews. You are welcome to add a contrasting sourced opinion. Skyerise (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I'd say we're still well in peacock territory.

WP:PEACOCK lists a bunch of dangerous words, such a "famous, renowned, acclaimed, notable" etc, and "widely known" is functionally identical. It's unnecessary when we immediately say that it helped popularize spiritualism etc, which presumably makes it "widely known" by some metric. The "seminal" quote would be slightly less problematic if the text actually named the source, Taos News, in the prose (again, see the examples in WP:PEACOCK), but it's potentially WP:undue - it's just one source, so what makes it so worthwhile to call out here? Popcornfud (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK does not applied to cited quotations. If you think otherwise, take the issue to an appropriate noticeboard. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you haven't really responded to what I said. "widely known" is not a quotation, and "seminal" is potentially an WP:UNDUE issue. Popcornfud (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what you're talking about. Every effing reviewer calls it "seminal". Have a nice day! Skyerise (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, so now you're just being WP:POINTY and smothering claims with citations (WP:CITEOVERKILL). Additionally, the lead shouldn't contain stuff that isn't in the article body - it's supposed to be a summary of the main points. I'll see if I can help sort out the body a bit and then return to the issues with the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It already in the body. You were wrong. You lost. Just leave it and go do something useful elsewhere, hmm? Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please drop the attitude - it doesn't make you more convincing.

I'm not denying that anyone called the book "seminal". What I'm talking about is how information is presented in the article and how well it's following Wikipedia policies. The situation we have now is slightly absurd - the lead is apparently so bent on describing the book with this one word, "seminal", that it's been tagged with eight citations. That's not the right solution either!

What would be more sensible, more neutral and more useful to readers would be to explain, in a sentence or two, what was actually important (or seminal) about this book. edit: in fact, the following wording, and helped popularize Eastern spirituality and yoga with the baby boomer generation in the West, does this well, and makes the entire "seminal" thing unnecessary. This, in turn, should be a summary a larger account in the body of the article, which in my view is currently not clearly expressed or clearly sourced. Popcornfud (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the article. But remember that there's just two of us here and you have no consensus for removals. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So just to confirm, you think it is necessary to say that the book sold two million copies and and that it was a bestseller? Popcornfud (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that most articles about authors with best-selling books state that fact in the lead. Can you show me on the doll where Ram Dass hurt you... Skyerise (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hanuman

Why is "Hanuman Foundation" done as a link when it just redirects back to here?

It's link 'status' should be removed. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

contradicted

The article, based on this[1] source, is saying Alpert had a bar mitzvah but was "disappointed by its essential hollowness". This[2] source says My Jewish trip was primarily political Judaism, I mean I was never Bar Mitzvahed, confirmed, and so on. Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible WP:PEACOCK problems in lead

Does the wording in the lead around "best-selling" and "seminal" pose WP:PEACOCK problems? Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a neutrally phrased question as required by RfC. Skyerise (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• No - WP:PEACOCK clearly states that it only applies to "Words ... used without attribution." Both terms are attributed and cited. WP:PEACOCK was never meant to be applied to cited information, only to unsupported promotional language. The lead neutrally reports that this is a best-selling author and truthfully summarizes the consensus opinion about his best-selling work. Nearly all articles about best-selling authors, which is a primary claim to notability, put this material in the lead. The lead is supposed to clearly show why the subject is notable. While such information should also be detailed in the body of the article, the lead is supposed to summarize the important points as well. This is clearly information that merits inclusion in both the body and the lead. Skyerise (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, what ^ said. Can't say enough good things about Ram Dass and his work, especially cited good things. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I originally identified some WP:PEACOCK issues in the lead when it said the book was "seminal" and "widely known" (both uncited). After some discussion (see above), Skyerise replaced "widely known" with "best-selling"; I think this is an improvement but unnecessary when we can simply say the book sold two million copies (cited in article body). I am more concerned by "seminal", to which Skyerise has now attached eight citations. I think this is a case of WP:CITEOVERKILL and smacks of a desire to get this one word in the lead at any cost - and is not as meaningful or important to communicate as the actual impact of the book (how was it seminal?), which is conveyed immediately afterwards. Popcornfud (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seminal: "(Of a work, event, or person) Having much social influence on later developments." That fits. Yes, eight cites, if they stick, a bit much, but apparently needed in the here and now to make the point. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No argument from me that the work was hella seminal. But I'd say it'd be preferable to just state that it was influential and how, rather than depend on saying "and it was described by these 8 people as 'X'". That, to me, is not a lot better than dropping promo-y like terms such as "award-winning" into prose. Popcornfud (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Big difference actually. "Award winning" applies to thousands of things, while including the book in the class of 'seminal' things accurately describes its importance and influence. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, the terms themselves have different meanings. For me it's a question of how it's presented.

Here's a proposed compromise: we move the bulk "seminal" claim to the article body and trim some of the citations (for one thing, not all of them are WP:RS). Then we keep "seminal" in the lead, sans citations (per WP:CITELEAD). Perhaps ironically, the abundance of citations on the claim is what makes it seem so attention-seeking right now. Popcornfud (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Due solely to you wanting to remove it. You misstate above that it wasn't cited. That's not true, it's been cited for years with one citation, actually. Someone had simply moved the citation to the end of the sentence rather than leaving it on the quoted word where it should have been. Skyerise (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's cited, even moreso now. Some works will be seminal, no reason to avoid using that word. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• No, definitely not WP:PEACOCK. That said, there's too many citations. Can we cut it down to one citation in the lead from a good reliable source, and then switch to saying it is a seminal work in wikivoice please instead of having to attribute it like this? "Seminal" is clearly VERY well sourced, to the point where not simply stating it in wikivoice actually unduly diminishes the statement. Fieari (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bar Mitzvah: per subject, he didn't have one

The religionandspirituality.com source about the alleged Bar Mitzvah is not WP:RS. It says:

Others, though, dismiss their rites of passage, leave their religions of birth, but go on to pursue other forms of religion and spirituality. "Ram Dass (originally Richard Alpert) was so unaffected by his Bar Mitzvah, so disappointed by its essential hollowness, that during college, he seriously explored Quakerism, pioneered psychedelics with Tim Leary at Harvard and is now considered one of the great-granddaddies of modern spirituality in the U.S."

Notice that he is quoting someone, not Ram Dass, who is neither identified or cited. All we know here is that Ram Dass never said this, someone (maybe) said this about him. Unless you can find the source of this quotation, it's just hearsay and not WP:RS.

On the other hand, Ram Dass himself wrote "My Jewish trip was primarily political Judaism, I mean I was never Bar Mitzvahed, confirmed, and so on." Given an unsourced, unattributed quote vs Ram Dass' own statement, we assume his statement is true unless better sources (such as the rabbi or someone who attended the alleged bar mitzvah), we go with Ram Dass' own statement. Skyerise (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If he said different during an interview later in life, then we need to quote and cite the original publication of the interview, note the date and/or his age at the time of the interview, and present it as "Later in life, in x at the age of y, he said..." We should not use a summary of another writer's quotation of the alleged statement as a source. Skyerise (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Guru?

I noticed an academic article is cited stating the Ram Dass is "a guru of modern yoga." I can't access the article so can't confirm, but I've read a lot of Ram Dass's work and he's always made a point of saying that he is NOT a guru. Can anyone confirm what the article actually says? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a book. We use secondary sources, not what the subject said. It's a legitimate reference and if you disagree, the book can be found at libraries. It's up to you to show that the source doesn't verify the claim. I'm pretty sure the book does and has been used as a source for the linked Wikipedia article as well. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

seeking other editors comment on an edit

in this section:

Return to America[edit source]

In 1971, Richard Alpert traveled back to the United States to share his knowledge. He left the LSD bottle to Bhagavan Das with 53 more pills: his psychedelic phase ended there and his spiritual phase was initiated. Ram Dass also corresponded with Indian spiritual teacher Meher Baba and mentioned Baba in several of his books.

id like to make two edits but id greatly appreciate comment from others before doing so.

1. I was under impression that the LSD bottle that Alpert had was LSD in liquid form, and so im confused why this section says he gave the bottle to Bhagavan Das with 53 more pills. Would it be appropriate to change this to "53 remaining doses"? i cant find the book that this is referenced from, so im unsure if this was taken from the source or written this way through an editors interpretation.
2. im confused by the inclusion of the last sentence: "Ram Dass also corresponded with Indian spiritual teacher Meher Baba and mentioned Baba in several of his books." Since this section is specifcaaly about Ram Dass' "Return to America", what are your thoughts on removing or moving this sentence to another section?

any comments appreciated. thank you! Uhhhum (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I searched up that reference and it appears to have been self-published, so I removed the section. Skyerise (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your help on this @Skyerise! Uhhhum (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was away for a while and some bad edits got made to the article. I thought I'd cleaned them all up, but apparently missed some. Thank you for catching that. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome back! It's a great article and I've enjoyed reading through it. Thanks for your work on it! Uhhhum (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)