Talk:Mantra-Rock Dance

Clothes

The article says the male devotees were wearing "merlin gowns" which is an obvious error. There is no such thing, especially in the Hare Krishna sect, I should know since I am a very long time member. I changed it to what they actually wore, and still wear today -- dhotis and kurtas -- but it was changed back claiming he or she has some source, whatever the source is, the source is wrong and simply didn't understand what they wore and then made up a name. In the Hare Krishna movement men have always worn the same thing -- what their guru wore -- traditional Indian dhoti and kurta, just do an image search for "Hare Krishna" and you'll see. I've seen pictures of the mantra-rock dance years ago (not on the Interent, if any are here it's under a different name) and it was no different, there were maybe 10 devotees dressed just like they always look. AGAIN -- there is no such thing as "merlin gowns," that's an obvious made up thing -- come on people! shiva das — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.191.180 (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Shiva das. In Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources. "Merlin gowns" came from one of such sources, a book called "Miracle on Second Avenue" by Mukunda Goswami, who was one of the organizers of the event. Unless you have similarly reliable evidence that dhotis were what the men on stage wore during the Mantra-Rock Dance, we will have to leave the gowns in and the dhotis out. Thanks for your interest and participation. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any proof, you just say you have proof, where is it? What kind of "reliability" is it on wikipedia when anyone can just name a book and say it's a source and that's that for that? Do a search online, the only place where "merlin gowns" is mentioned is in this article. Why? There is no such thing. Where is your proof? shiva das — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.191.180 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloom County flashback

Pear pimples for hairy fishnuts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just cough up some dough, Mac! :) Cinosaur (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Here, take my Admin's salary for January, that ought to cover it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather sign up for a monthly contribution? Cinosaur (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks, but if you'd like to, feel free. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cinosaur (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this under Hinduism?

Just because a rock group is sponsored and supported by a Hindu Cult does not make it part of Hinduism. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I am not sure what you mean by "a rock group is sponsored and supported by a Hindu Cult," but, according to the reliable sources cited in the article, the Mantra-Rock Dance became a major milestone in the development of ISKCON, a denomination of Hinduism, in the United States. This justifies the article's listing under Hinduism. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ISKON is not denomination of Hinduism. It was started as a separate religion by Srila Prabhupada. Just because a Rockmusic band is part of a Hindu Cult, it does not make it part of Hinduism. Matter of opinion. The article is Good. What is relevant is that we do have many music bands sponsored by other Hindu cults. They could also claim to be part of Hinduism.

Hinduism considers music to be Divine. We have a type of Upasana called Nada Upasana. Prayer through the medium of music. Of course not something to lose sleep about. Sankarrukku (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sankarrukku, it's an interesting topic, but a bit out of place here. Suffice it to say that there are reliable sources quoted in the article on ISKCON that state that ISKCON is part of Hinduism, like A concise encyclopedia of Hinduism by Klaus Klostermaier and Hinduism" by Lynne Gibson. If you have similarly reliable sources for making a convincing case to the contrary, take them to Talk:ISKCON and I will happily participate in the discussion there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

The list of sources seems to consist almost entirely of publications that are dedicated to the same ends as the promoters of this event: there seems to be no balance, no countering of bias. That an article constructed on such a biased base can make it to FA, and to the TFA slot on the main page, is frankly frightening. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the review process that promoted it to FA. No substantive issues seem to have been raised. Is this typical? I thought FA was about creating good articles, not about making random articles conform to MOS. [1] Sharktopus ^talk 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sharktopus, if you are unhappy with the way the FAC was dealt with, feel free to ask for a reassessment. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin McE, could you please elaborate on your claim about the sources being biased? There are 18 publications referred to in the article, and only 4 of them are authored by what you could call "promoters", the rest being purely academic or historical publications. As far as I know, the list includes pretty much every single reliable source on the subject available publicly to date, but you are most welcome to prove me wrong and include other reliable sources you seem to be aware of, to make the reference base less biased and the FA less frightening. Thanks for your interest. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be 18 referred to, but the article has 82 citations, of which 21 are from Goswami & Dasi, 8 from Siegel, 6 from Dasa Goswami. There are peacock claims from those that are presented, and being defended in recent edits, apparently unquestioningly. That is not appropriate, and should certainly have been picked up at FA review. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, can you please explain how these sources, albeit authored by participants and/or organizers of the event, can be dismissed as biased and promotional, while even the cited academic sources rely largely on their accounts? Unless and until you quote some WP:RSs to back up your claims that

1. the groups were not prominent,
2. Ginsberg et al did not boost the event's popularity by their participation,
3. the men on stage indeed wore dhotis, and not what the author wrote they did, and
4. the above authors' accounts are exaggerated and promotional (as if there is indeed something to promote by a mention of a 44-year-old event in a recently published book)

your edits themselves border on WP:BIAS, WP:POV, and WP:OR. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is inclusion that must be justified. Your only grounds for including these is recourse to books whose titles and whose publishers' websites make it very clear that they are extremely committed to the cause promoted by the concert. On that basis, they cannot be considered RS, at least in terms of impact and scale, although I would not challenge them over neutral statements of fact; ie, that they said Grateful Dead performed is fine, that they describe GD as having been one of America's leading bands at that time is not. You have made no attempt to describe what on earth is meant by Merlin robes, not a generally recognised item. You have not offered any objective standard by which groups who had never released a record were, at that time, considered leading bands. You have not provided any disinterested source that describes the speakers, rather than the musicians, as the main draw of the event. Sources can be considered biased and promotional (of the cause and principles, obviously not of the event per se) if they make unsubstantiated peacock claims: if a Wikipedia article does the same, it in turn seems to me liable to accusation of bias and POV. Kevin McE (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)