Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

message: Jossi, what are the disputed facts in this article? You gave it a disputed warning. Or if it is a disputed because of omission then what is missing? Thanks in advance. Andries 19:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current split state of the project, I would almost say both articles are in dispute by their very nature, LOL. Andries, Jossi might be able to give you specifics, and that would be good, but if not I would still suggest a wide berth on ancillary issues. I repeat my conviction that these articles will not remain in their current split configuration, and now is a time to be building, building, building. Two weeks or a month from now, the best text will win the day, and intermediate steps will be submerged into the haze of edit history posterity. Intermediate jabs, jousts, hits, and wins will mean little, and those who "kept their eyes on the prize" will be rewarded. In other words, I believe research, substantiate, write, edit, perfect remains the order of the day. --Gary D 20:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed warning

message: :I think I agree with Richard, at least in part. I think that for the time being, we should not merge the main Prem Rawat article with any of the "criticism" articles; I guess that is where we agree. In the future, it might be possible to merge the articles, but only if pro and con factions can agree on a neutral viewpoint.
:A viable, neutral article must avoid drawing any conclusions -- while satisfying all parties that significant viewpoints are described accurately. For example, the Sun Myung Moon article says basically that his followers think he's the Messiah while a considerable (but diminishing) group of detractors think he's an awful fraud. This is accurate, because it describes (a) the followers' views; (b) the detractors' views; (c) the trend that the detractor/supporter ratio is going down. This is neutral, because the Wikipedia article does not endorse Rev. Moon as the Messiah; nor does it condemn him as a false Messiah. This is viable, because followers and detractors alike are satisfied that all their important ideas, attitudes, observations and experiences are described accurately and in sufficient detail in the article.
:Another part of the successful development of the Sun Myung Moon article (and related articles like Unification Church) is that I almost never reverted anybody's edits -- not even anonymous users who offered no sources. I would take up to a week to incorporate opposing (i.e., pro-church) views (with sources). And I would discuss changes as much as needed on the talk pages. Summing up the thrust of someone's complaint often helps: "So you're saying he's no good because he's against gay rights, is that it?" Or, "You think he's a fraud in the religion department because (a) no Messiah is ever going to come and (b) you think he's just trying to amass political power for his own self-promotion?"
:Opponents will usually tell you why they oppose someone. Then, as a Wikipedia editor your next step is to incorporate the opponents' objections into the article. They oppose him because they believe he is X or did Y. --Uncle Ed 13:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Ed 

message: :Thanks Richard for an excellent summary of the discussion at hand. Andries, I have explored that site in-depth and I can say this: most of these pages contain 'self-serving" discussions designed to support their POV. That is OK with me, but to call that site a source of "veridical facts" requires a huge stretch of the imagination. Most pages do not have an author specified, others are "open letters", while others are  IMO poorly written essays or "white papers". There are a few "journeys" and a few interviews with ex-employees, on one section called "ExChanges". But that's all. There is of course a large body of defamatory allegations, but I guess that is their bread and butter being as they are the main critics of PR. --Zappaz 22:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Zappaz

message: Why write "claim"? This is a fact. These claims of divinity are denied. Elan Vital now says that Lord of the universe is a common phrase in India. I mean, this is like saying that some people claim that 1+1=2 Andries 00:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is work in progress, Andries. The best of us here would do a final editing to make it read better. Gary D and Richard could do surely a better job. Give them a chance. Let's just bring all the facts/allegations/rebutals and let it percolate slowly... --Zappaz 00:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zappaz, what do you mean "they claim are now denied?