Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 10

message: Agree to remove disputed tag.
--64.81.88.140 00:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [64.81.88.140]

message: I agree to remove the disputed label.
Must go
*Lineage challenge (Misc. criticism section) - This is much better covered in the main article Prem Rawat
*Copyvio issues (to fulfill the GNU FDL and Wikipedia policy)
**Unless copyvio issues are resolved, all links to scanned images and pages sourced from www.forum8.org need to go. If they want to claim "fair use", we need credits: name of publication, source, and date. Otherwise these need to go.
**Links to documents from www.ex-premie.org that are blatant copyvio (such as full books, magazines tranbscribed or scanned) need to go as well.
Must stay
*Agree with Gary, everything must stay (including the above if copyvio issues are resolved), including the characterization of critics and the legal actions against them.
Other
*House in Queensland - we need a source for that data.
*Financial explotation section needs some NPOVing
*Credibility - concerns about some of the statements as these were made by one person only, without any other reliable reference beyond hearsay. (e.g. hospitalization, ulcer, extra-marital affairs, etc.). These can stay only if this is clearly explained.
--Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zappaz 

message: *It looks pretty good to me. Don't see a reason to keep the  template. 
*Some of the paragraphs need some NPOV'ing, so I look forward to Gary's final cleanup.
--Senegal 05:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Senegal

message: I have removed the sentence, 'Supporters claim that he Mishler was fired and had an ax to grind when he made these statements.' I will be happy for a version to be reinstated if any evidence can be provided that he was fired. As Bob Mishler was President of Divine Light Mission (the most senior position) at the time, such evidence should include who sacked him. Bob Mishler himself says that he resigned, and I remember at the time the story among premies was that he had left voluntarily. I believe the sentence was inserted by someone with no direct knowledge who simply wanted to try to discredit Mishler's testimony. I am happy to be proved wrong on this. If a version of the sentence is reinstated with appropriate evidence, then it should also include that Mishler claims he resigned. I have also made a minor change to the sentence on the number of people who have contributed to the ex-premie internet chat rooms. --John Brauns 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: John Brauns - Re: Bob Mishler

message: Including the Scattini letter here is, I believe, wrong. There have been many attacks of ex-premies that I am sure were by premies but I have no evidence. Should I include them all here? I have no idea who wrote the Scattini letter, and I think there is a small possibility it was done by a premie to discredit ex-premies. You cannot include the article without at least, as I did, saying there is no evidence it was sent by an ex-premie. So can I reinstate it? --John Brauns 22:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be joking. To attempt to put the blame of the Scatinni affair on a premie. That is just too funny. Oh man... unbelievable the state of denial that pervades the ex-premie culture. --64.81.88.140 22:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: .140 I agree that is probably an ex-premie but if there is no evidence then this must be stated. Andries 22:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I will add it back. But note that people are not stupid, they will know exactly who did this.  --64.81.88.140 22:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scattini letter '''(resolved)'''

message: Did you know?
*Did you know that Andries is offering the ex-premies to create a website and host the copyrighted materials in Forum8.org in the Netherlands in an attempt to bypass Wikipedia copyright guidelines? http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6614.html
*Did you know that Another Ex-Premie a.k.a "Toby" is accusing WP editors to be paid consultants by Rawat? http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6645.html
*Did you know that ex-premies talk of a sinister conspirancy in Wikipedia http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6051.html
LOL!
--4.8.16.157
yuhuuu yippi you must be james bond. i am toby and yes i suppose zappaz is paid. i did not say he is, this is my opinion.he is too blatant intelligent to believe this stuff , why should he give so much efford in it. maybe he is in love with rawat. that is fine with me. didn't i tell you to ask zappaz before you accuse somebody or make allegations? anothers premie's english is much better than mine which obviously has a foreign touch. the anti-anti-cult front from cesnur is documented and the can-scientology link is the greatest favour you could give.and i am the only neurotic who talks about that, why  the plural? are we in propagation again? btw. do you have a written permission by EV to watch f8?
:All fascinating. Now everyone back to work. --Gary D 01:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
::Very busy with work, so I won't be able to do anything until the weekend.  Popped in to say I'm not Toby. :-) 
::Another Ex-Premie 19:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know?

message: I am proposing that we work to close all still-open "must have" article disputes by 00:01 UTC October 5, the beginning of next Tuesday Greenwich Time. That would give us seven days to get the current controversies resolved. At that time we would:
*Pull the "disputed tags" from the article (maybe leave on a "controversial article" tag to direct people to the talk page)
*Establish the article's then-current version as a baseline consensus reference which future editors could return to or draw from heavily if future versions get out of hand
*Band together, pro and anti editors alike, to protect the page, which would mean:
**Revert any reposting of "diputed tags" to the article, unless the article changes significantly
**Scrutinize and liberally revert any future block deletes (say, more than two consecutive sentences) from the agreed-on version, unless there is compensating text added
**Scrutinize any large adds
**In case of doubt, respect and generally defer to the agreed-on version
*Generally get on with our lives and other Wikipedia articles (do I sound tired?)
This does not mean the article would be frozen. It does mean, however, that the wide-ranging disputes that have raged in the past would be considered settled, and we would resist re-opening them, unless new material or sources were brought up.
I am making the suggestion at this particular point in time as it appears the active anti editors appear to have finished at least making a talk-page reference to all the remaining things they feel they must have. People who have walked away in disgust, them we will never satisfy, anyway. However, if there are people, especially "anti" people, who don't feel comfortable doing the writing themselves but who want something more included, leave a specific item mention on the talk page, along with a reference to where on ex-premie.org or elsewhere the material can be found, and I (and I'm hoping Andries) will be happy to take a look at it and include it here if we can. In addition, I plan to perform in the next few days and before my proposed deadline a minor-substance-but-mostly-style edit on the entire article, of the type I have performed before, with corresponding commentary on the talk page, also as before. I will run my edit sufficiently in advance of the deadline that any feathers I ruffle with the edit can be smoothed in the meantime. --Gary D 01:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds like a good and timely plan, Gary. Look forward to your proposed version --Zappaz 03:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for article resolution by October 5

message: Thanks, everyone, for pitching in to "burn down" several of the remaining unresolved issues. You know, this is sort of like NASA's procedure for resolving issues before a shuttle launch; whether you take that as a positive or a negative is up to you, LOL. Additional unresolved issues that at least have proposed solutions I will also be including in my edit pass, now planned for 05:00 UTC on October 1. --Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
::Well, I would hope that NASA doesn't launch too often before resolving issues. LOL! Because I don't have time to even familiarize myself with NPOV until this weekend, I suppose I missed this launch.  However, as I understand it, Wiki articles are never absolutely finished and can be edited any time.  Is that correct?
::Another Ex-Premie 18:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another_Ex-Premie, yes, it is formally true that a Wikipedia article is never finished but I, and I think Gary_D and others too, would appreciate it very much, if we could finish it and move on. The trenched nature of the subject made the article difficult and tedious to edit. So I would appreciate if you could write down the items that you would like to include to speed up things. Andries 19:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Ex-premie: Read Gary's proposal above (Proposal for article resolution by October 5). In it it explains what is the proposed agreement on what we can do and cannot do after October 5. If you do what Andries request, it will be the easiest. Gary can then wave your text into his edit. --Zappaz 21:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Prouda yous fellas