Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 4

message: Hi Zappaz et al,
I agree that shortening and editing the article is a needed direction. Regarding the proposed "controversy and critics" section, I looked at the Scientology article to compare and noticed it was titled, "controversy and criticism". This may seem a minor distinction, but part of the way cults deflect criticism is by labelling their critics "hate groups", focusing on the "critics" rather than the "criticism". See below, lifted from the Wiki article:
 
"Scientology vs. the Internet
Probably the most extensive undertaking of Scientology to address the growing exposure of what Scientology actually is and what it is about is Scientology's efforts to undermine and halt freedom of speech on the Internet. In 1995 Scientology attempted to silence the discussions taking place on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, an act that resulted in thousands of Internet users around the world taking a closer look at Scientology.
Scientology's response was to issue a statement insisting that their assault against free speech is actually an assault against hate speech, making numerous claims about hate and violence. The history of the ongoing Internet conflict is examined in the Wikipedia entry Scientology vs. the Internet."''
Compare this with the current Prem Rawat article which actually lists specifics against individual ex-followers who have spoken out, attempting to detract from their credibility, libel them, and give additional exposure to the cult's defamation of character campaign of its critics. I request that this subject be given a more neutral treatment, similar to the Scientology article. Thanks, Mary Mary Moore 11:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I will label that section "Controversy and Criticism".  As far as I can see, defamation of character is happening on both sides of the controversy. Good NPOV will mean to represent both. Hopefully I will be able to keep these to a minimum. Regarding testimonials, will you be able to get three testimonials from ex-students for the artcile? Must be kept at 150 words max. each--Zappaz 17:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, the difference between "defamation of character" of Prem Rawat with that of his critics is that his critics never claimed to be a great guru, great person or whatever. Critics of Prem Rawat compare his claims with his deeds and the results of his teachings. That is why I think that defamation of the character of the critics is not relevant for the article. An analogy, if I, for example, criticize George W. Bush about his intellectual ignorance about the Taliban and Iran then my character defects are not relevant. I never wanted to be a politician. I had a similar issue with the article on Sathya Sai Baba. It seems very common with controversial new religious movements. Andries 18:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have the time to engage on a debate about this issue, but the fact is that the moment a group of people claim to own the moral high-ground on a subject, they will become scruitinized not only on their claims, but on their behaviour as well.  So your examples do not apply.  I also checked the discussions on the Sai baba talk page, and I can see that your stance on this was challenged throughout, so I do not see what is your point in referring to that article. --141.76.1.122 21:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 141.76.1.122, I do not follow you. I only said that a person who chooses to pose as a guru and teach meditation techniques is open and should be open for public scrutiny. The people who believe and have followed this person and found him wanting and then openly criticize him are open to scrutiny, in so far, their involvement with this guru was serious, genuine and sincere. Their criticism of the guru is, of course, open to scrutiny too. Apart from the authenticity of their involvement with the guru, one could ask whether some of them have an ax to grind but this should not be based on  mere speculation or conspiracy theories. There should be some strong documented indication that they had an ax to grind otherwise no suspicions should be mentioned. With regards to the same thing with my former guru, this was a comparison that may give others more insight into my point of view and into the fact that this unfair, insulting character assasination of critics is very common by supporters of controversial new religous movements. The defenders have to resort to ad hominen attacks on the critics because they ran out of reasonable or logical ways to defend their guru.    Andries 07:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of critics

message: Thanks for the reference about "I did not want to be Satgugru".
Regarding all the arguments presented, I still cannot see how this applies to the article. The article clearly says that some people (i.e. critics) see all these statements as a claim of divinity. It follows by stating that official sites dismiss that in their FAQs. I certainly could argue to the contrary (e.g. the statement "I did not want to be satguru" can be see as candid and the total opposite of a claim of divinity). Many of the quotes presented as references have nothing to do with divinity. Maybe a good article about divinity and the differences of interpretation in within a specific cultural context is now due...
The position of Wikipedia is that people are not stupid.... and they can make up their own minds about a subject when information is presented in a NPOV fashion. So that is how the article reads now with data from both POVs (apostates and followers) well presented and well referenced. 
Another point to make is that if a group of followers joins in this debate (and I do not really know why they have stopped being involved...), they will surely fight as ferociously as the critics  to push their POV, and this article will never, never, settle (unfortunately some articles in Wikipedia remain and will continue to remain in that state.) 
Concerning the critics assessment of my ability or the ability of others to contribute to this article, I respectfully disagree. I can only state that so far, none of the critics commenting in this talk page have been able to write or contribute to this article within NPOV.   And this is the name of the game in Wikipedia Critics have their plattform to air their claims, grievances and POV in the ex-premie website (that, BTW is profusely referenced in this article) and followers have their official sites and blogs to do the same. 
The critics here contend to be the "bearers of the truth" about the subject, engage in personal attacks and bigotry (calling Ed a cult member and a "moonie" in a derogatory manner), completely dismiss the other side's POV, and disregard the fact that their POV is, most certainly the minority POV in this matter by all means of measure.
In summary: this is an encyclopaedic article written within clearly defined guidelines of NPOV, and my assessment is that the article in its current form is well on its way to be within these guidelines. It only needs that people take the time to understand what those are.--Zappaz 04:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics inability/unwillingness to understad NPOV