Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 18

message: Please do not remove the KSGV reference. Both Derks are Lans and associated with the KSGV, Derks is the current chairman and the author of several books published by the KSGV. Same with Lans. Can I ask what is the problem? with this? Whay do you want to hide this fact? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to provide evidence that they were associated with the KSGV at the time that they wrote the article (1986). The website that you use as evidence dates from 2006. Yes, van der Lans wrote one book for the KSGV in 1981, but if that is all then it is not  enough to warrant a mentioning of association. And even if it is true then it is largely irrelevant because the 1986 article did not appear in a publication of th KSGV. What is far more relevant is that Derks and van der Lans presented a paper about the difference between the DLM and Bhagwan movement in a scientific congress of psychologists of religion. Andries 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to present such evidence. Lans was trained as a Catholic priest, Derks is the chairman of the KSGV, both are authors sponsored by the KSGV to write books from the "Cristian tradition" (exact wording from the KSGV website). As per pour discussions about Geaves and others, declaring the affiliations of scholars or authors is important and warranted.  FYI, Lans wrote numerous books for the KSGV, not just one. Please get your facts checked before your assert them so convincingy. See Lans books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#LANS Derks books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#DERKS ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 10:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that some of the books of Jan van der Lans were sponsored or published by the KSGV. I admit that van der Lans and Derks became much later chairpersons of the KSGV, but I am still waiting for evidence that they were in 1986 associated with the KSGV and also an explanation why this is relevant, taking into account that this particular article was not published by the KSGV. Please note that the article already states that they were associated with the Catholic University of Nijmegen. If the KSGV is relevant here then following the same reason it is also relevant to state that van der Lans and Derks published an article about the DLM in a book edited by Eileen Barker. Of course, there is a difference when strong bias can be expected, such as in the case of Geaves, but in the case of cult apologists van der Lans and Derks it is not so important. Should we also mention the denomination of J. Gordon Melton? Andries 10:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If something relevant should be mentioned here then it is that Van der Lans interviewed many Dutch followers of the DLM. Derks and Van der Lans were cult apologists (as also more or less described in van der Lans' book "Followers of the guru") and certainly not heavily biased against non-Christian faith. Andries 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's put in the article that Melton and Introvigne like to dress up like Dracula at the International Dracula Society or some such!  Seriously, I'm not sure what the problem is with this.  But, it does appear that by saying someone is affiliated with Catholics is smearing them. If the KSGV reference ends up in the article, I think that it would be better to say "Catholic Study Center on Mental Health known as KSGV," with a link to his bio on wiki. Geaves is a different matter because he wrote on PR/DLM/EV as a scholar, but didn't disclose his personal affiliation as a premie.  That's a whole different thing.  Lans is dead, so he's not affiliated with anyone anymore. :-) Jan van der Lans  Sylviecyn 12:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very interesting that you believe that stating affiliation is "smearing" them. On the contrary. Just that  it is good practice to assert the affiliations of scholars, to provide context. If you read the cite by Lans and Derks, without knowing that they are writing from a Catholic tradition perspective, you do not understand what they mean. But if you know their affiliation, then you get a better understanding of what they say. Please note that   it is not a value judgement on the authors, but verifiable facts for readers. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood or I misstated, sorry. I don't believe that at all, quite the contrary.  Most of my extended family are Roman Catholics.  My point was that I do think by putting in the reference it may be construed to be a value judgment, and that could be appealing to the reader's bias, imo. Lans writes as a scholar of the psychology of religion, but one doesn't know if he's a liberal or conservative Catholic and the article's not about him.  Also agree with Andries that if the affiliation is mentioned for Lans and Derks, then religious affiliation should be noted for all scholars, which I think is not appropriate or necessary, but particularly in this case, because there is a page on wiki to which Lans can be linked using his name.  Sylviecyn 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Affiliation of scholars, that is verifiable, can remain in articles as it provides context. As far as I can see, any scholar whose affiliation is relevant to the article that affiliation is described. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing KSGV reference

message: I invite all editors of this article to rather than just edit this article again, and again, and again, that you spend some time adding value to this project by editing other articles, creating new ones, etc. You will find this endeavor to be very rewarding and may help to reduce the level of stress associated with endless disputes and edit wars. I am sure that you all have other interests than the subject of this article, and you can contribute your expertise and interests for the benefit of this encyclopedia. User:Jossi 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Jossi from another computer. He forgot to log on.Momento 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also thanks, Jossi, but presently the Rawat articles are my only area of interest and my time is very limited.  Sylviecyn 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, the level of stress I experience editing this article is minimal.  In other words, this stuff doesn't stress me out at all, it's really no problem for me whatsoever. Sylviecyn 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I never intended to do so much edits on guru or cult articles when I entered Wikipedia. It turned out to be that I was however hyper sensitive to what I perceived as propaganda about or from gurus due to my background. Andries 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe that "one-article" editors are usually consumed by POV and create an agressive environment that is not conducive to editing. Edit other articles, take a wiki break, etc. It will do wonders to you, to fellow editors and eventually to this article.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been a a "one article" editor. Andries 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation 

message: Added several references and citations from:
* Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American religions 7th edition. Thomson (2003) p.2328 ISBN 0-786-6384-0
and
* Bowker, John (Ed.) The Oxford Dictionary odf World Religions Divine Light Mission. p. 287. Oxford University Press, New York (1997) 
≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Here's an example of some more typical biased text from the article. I propose it should be re-phrased with NPOV.
 Stephen A. Kent makes self-admitted subjective criticism (lacking substance) based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat and treats the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.
I wondered if Mr Kent would really describe his work as "lacking substance" so I wrote and asked him! His reply was very courteous. He commented that it looked like a long-term premie wrote the piece, said that he has a thick skin regarding criticism but "By no means, however, would I object if someone else were to look at what I actually said about the group and then bring those comments into a discussion about the article's accuracy or 'spin.'"PatW 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, I am not mistaken this edit was made by Andries. If so, maybe Andries can comment on his edit. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, I agree.  I also notice that particular text and wondered about it, especially the "lacking substance" part.  I would also like to know what Andries' comments are why he wrote it that way. Sylviecyn 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased reference to work of Steven A. Kent