Talk:Roy Eugene Davis

Failed verification

• Yoga Gems p108 does not support that "Roy Eugene Davis (born 9 March 1931) is an American Kriya Yoga master" (it only give a Davis quotation)

The book is Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters. It is a collection of yogic quotes from masters. If Roy Eugene Davis is not considered by the author as a yoga master his words will not be quoted there. But there are many styles of yoga so we put Kriya Yoga to be specific. WP articles are not meant to be verbatim copies of what is written in the references.

• So the book doeasn't state that he's a yoga master, it merely assumes that he's one -- very reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The book doesn't state that it's a book either, are we both merely assuming that it is one or are we applying something called commonsense in instantly coming to the conclusion that it is? The book is a book of quotes from masters, if a quote of Davis is included there then, at least in the author's opinion, Davis is a master (sip a little coffee and jump 3 times to get your brain working again, maybe you'll figure it out). The author, by the way, is no other than Georg Feuerstein. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating what you believe a book to be "assuming" is WP:Synthesis. It is not permissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't do anything if your seriously-flawed comprehension prowess found it too challenging to grasp the essence of WP:Synthesis. I suggest that you re-read it. There is absolutely nothing there in favor of, or even remotely relevant to, your anti-context argument in this portion of the discussion. That the book of spiritual quotes Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters quotes only people whom the author deems to be "masters" is not a mere "assumption" but the very nature of the book. Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Centering: A Guide to Inner Growth p188 does not support that he is "a widely-recognized authority in meditation and creative imagination" only that the author of that book cites another author as citing Davis as "an expert on yoga, meditation, and creative imagination" -- two authors is "widely"? I don't think so.

That is just your flawed comprehension again. The authors were not quoting David Graham when they said that Roy Eugene Davis is an expert on yoga, meditation and creative imagination, they were introducing Davis to the reader(s)... using their own words. Let me quote the entire paragraph as a slap on the face of your retarded comprehension:

"In Dream Your Way to Happiness and Awareness, David Graham cites Roy Eugene Davis, an expert on yoga, meditation, and creative imagination, who claims that 'yoga masters teach that everything (all cosmic manifestation) this side of the Absolute non-dual aspect of Consciousness is taking place in the universal mind and is, therefore, God's dream."

See? Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it wrong the first time. It is only the co-authors of Centering, Laurie & Tucker, not Graham, who thinks this. But this makes little difference to my argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it makes a huge difference, it shows how you confidently and relentlessly go on (and on) in forcing your conclusions about matters that, in reality, you haven't even began to grasp. And this is the whole story behind your pointless and disruptive editing of this article. Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We have three third-party authors now who agree that the subject, whom you personally believe to be unnotable, is an expert on the subject. How much more references do you need? There are a lot of WP articles whose information are not referenced this way. What is your problem with Roy Eugene Davis?

No we don't -- all we have is one pair of co-authors and your impermissible synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course we do, and it is only in this particular portion of the discussion that we have three authors (Sanders G. Laurie and Melvin J. Tacker plus David Graham) and two books, but apart from these we have many others, some of them have been mentioned here. Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• No -- we only have two -- one of which only does it by citation, not by direct statement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Additionally, neither of these first two references are remotely "scholarly", so are at best very marginal sources.)

Nope, we have three: Sanders G. Laurie and Melvin J. Tacker plus David Graham. Those are 3 third-party authors from this portion of the discussion alone. But I have given more here. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is a "scholarly reference" for a particular subject? We are merely establishing notability. The Paramahansa Yogananda article only have one major reference, and that is the Yogananda's autobiography. In fact Surrendered Love, Redeeming Grace is enough reference for the little information about Roy Eugene Davis in this article, since it is a biography of a living person. But you have asked for third party references in order to establish notability and some have already been provided. Now you want the paragraphs to be verbatim quotes of what are written in the references. That is just "ridiculous".

• Fine -- I'll be happy to put a notability-tag & primarysources-tag on that article also. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Japanese New Religions in the West p. 53 is only to a footnote "Roy Eugene Davis, Miracle Man of Japan (Lakemont, GA: CSA Press 1970)"

Yes, because Roy Eugene Davis' Miracle Man of Japan is the biography of the later Mr. Taniguchi of Seicho-No-Ie.

• Then cite Miracle Man of Japan -- because Japanese New Religions in the West says nothing about this! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Path: One Man's Quest on the Only Path There is p. 367 is to a photograph of a shrine dedication ceremony. Davis is listed as being in it, but it contains not further information.

Absolutely wrong. The information about Davis is in the footnote. Purchase a copy of the books instead of relying on the Amazon.com previews. You are supposed to have the references at hand, otherwise you are not capable of verifying them.

• Says who? There is nothing in WP:V that states that it has to be based upon a hard-copy. If your copy is from a different edition to the ISBN number you cite (which the Amazon search is an electronic facsimile of), then that's your problem.

No, it is your problem, because you don't own a copy of the book. Your inability to verify pages 367 and 368 of The Path: One Man's Quest on the Only Path There Is (ISBN 1565897331) should hinder only you and not others in having that factual and authoritative third-party published source cited in the article. Your personal limitations must not impact the whole article. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your claim has no basis in either Wikipedia policy or factual evidence -- it is thus worthless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is worthless is your perennial lamentations about being unable to find pages 367 and 368 of The Path: One Man's Quest on the Only Path There Is (ISBN 1565897331) where Davis is pictured and prominently identified. What WP policy states that because one editor don't have access to the information on a given reference then that portion of the reference should automatically be taken as non-existent and removed from the article? Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (which has the wrong ISBN listed)

Then provide the correct the ISBN, which is very easy to do. Every now and then an editor will make unintentional error, this is why WP is a collaborative work.

• There are multiple alternate ISBN numbers for this book. You added it -- you choose.

supports that he "headed the Self-Realization Fellowship center in Phoenix" (but not when) and that he later left, it does not however support that his leaving was because he was "aware of a need to learn to live effectively in the secular world", nor does it support that he spent "2 years in the U.S. Army Medical Corps at Fort Riley, Kansas". It supports that he "travelled around the country speaking, and this gave CSA a nationwide audience".

If you are not happy with the article then EDIT it instead of asking another editor to infringe other people's copyrights by reproducing the contents of their books verbatim in a WP article, or messing up an article with all the tags that you can possibly muster.

• I will eventually -- and will remove all the unsourced/unreliably sourced material. I am merely, as a courtesy, allowing you time to rectify the defects in your references. Edit summaries such as this one will of course reduce the courtesy accorded to you substantially. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Do that and I will simply reinstate them all because they are properly-sourced. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Only The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions citation is more than a passing mention -- and even it gives only one paragraph + one sentence -- hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide those things. Your only argument to begin with is possible unnotability, which has already been disproved, hence the removal of your tags. FScalano (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's up to the consensus. Your handful of junk references disprove nothing at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What junk references are you talking about? Books by Georg Feuerstein, James R. Lewis, and Wayne Dyer? All of these authors alludes to Davis as an authority as mentioned in the Afd discussion. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I am talking about sources that do not (without impermissible synthesis) support the claims ascribed to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All the references used to support the statements sourced from them, Hrafn. All you need to do is get hold of those references and read them when you're brain is functioning properly. What you actually did is you removed all third-party published sources and left only those that were written by Davis himself then complained that the article was "wholly-sourced-to-the-topic's-autobiography," which eventually generated the filing of the Afd. You've just been busted, Hrafn! Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks -- the references supported no such thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability and third party sources

This article has been tagged for notability for 8 months. It contains zero third party sources necessary for establishing notability per WP:BIO. If no substantial third party sources are found soon, I will be looking at redirecting/AfDing this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could it be because you removed them all as you have threatened to do in the above discussion? Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<slaps Shannon I Shout my name Rose in the face with a WP:TROUT> Because none of them (without impermissible synthesis) support the claims ascribed to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that somebody has decided to restore this short, wholly-sourced-to-the-topic's-autobiography stub. Since people are objecting to its being redirected to the yoga tradition that is his sole claim to fame, as that article doesn't mention him (itself indicative of a lack of notability), unless somebody finds third party sourcing or AfDs it, I will redirect it to the article on his mentor, Paramahansa Yogananda, which does at least mention him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is wholly-sourced-to-the-topic's-autobiography stub because you made it that way, you have such a short memory, Hrafn. It's like you have willfully-swallowed poison and now complains that you're dying. It was a robust well-sourced article before you butchered it. There are loads of sources available as well as the subject's autobiography. I have mentioned some in in here. Shannon Rose ^Talk 00:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<slaps Shannon I Shout my name Rose in the face with a WP:TROUT again> See above. And please stop shouting your name -- it's distracting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

'Lessons in Conscious Living' in Further readings

• Who is the author of this article (Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras/Chennai appears to be the publisher of Vedanta Kesari), and what is its relevance to Davis? Also, given that the Google Books link does not give any content (or even an abstract) of the article, is there any point in giving this link? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, link works for me. It should go to a snippet of a part of a review of Davis' book, Seven Lessons in Conscious Living. You could try searching for Davis' name in it, that should help. Silverseren^C 09:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote the review? And a 'snippet view' hardly provides useful 'further reading' -- which was why I was questioning the utility of the link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A member of the Ramakrishna Math wrote it? And Further reading states "Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited. Many editors prefer to list such sources on the article's talk page. The {{Expand further}} template encourages editors to use good sources currently listed in the Further reading section."

I was planning on using the references to make a beliefs section or otherwise expand upon Davis' version of New Thought yoga. The book reviews are the best source for this, since they directly discuss his views and critique and analyze them. You can go ahead and make such a section yourself though. I have to get to bed now, it's 4 AM. Silverseren^C 09:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that a 'snippet view' (which doesn't even say who the author is, let alone give a reasonable understanding of the content) is inadequate information to base a 'further reading' listing (which is a recommendation that the cited article may provide useful additional information), let alone an eventual reference in the article proper. I'm not arguing with the rest of the section (although I would point out that it's lopsided towards reviews of Davis' books) -- just that a currently-anonymous, sight-unseen, review in a probably-not-particularly-accessible publication is probably not the best recommendation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)