Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 13

message: Zappaz wrote a list of scholars who do not refer to criticism, but he incorrectly added Dupertuis who referred to criticism and Melton who mentioned criticism by Mishler. I will remove or re-write that. Read e.g Dupertuis "and when the surrounding society, nurtured on traditional psychology's negative views of religious ecstacy and sociology's distrust of authoritarianism, became critical, DLM withdrew into introversionism."  Andries 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it wrong, Andries. There is a difference between scholars that leveled criticism against Rawat, such as Levine and there are scholars the reported on the criticism of others. Read my edit.--ZappaZ  14:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucy Dupertuis and Gordon Melton

message: If you revert an edit, it is customary to give your reasons for these reverts of editors. The fact that these are either newbies or anons does not give anyone the right to revert without an explanation.  Restored. --ZappaZ  14:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How far can you go in the use of double standard in Wikipedia and extremely biased editing, Zappaz? Restoring blatant POV edits such as here is just one the latest example of this.  It is time to admit this and to apologize and to change your behavior before you make other editors angry too. And please then do not again complain about personal attacks and abuse against you on inappropriate places, such as the request for Admin entry, instead of defending and explaining your own behavior there.  Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I did explain on the talk page of the editor. The edits are blatant POV and untrue. Kranenborg did provide references. And I do not see any rebuttal in the quotes, just personal opinions. Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The edit by anon wrote that ex-premies provide no evidence that Rawat made claims of divinity. That is a personal opinion and should be removed. I reverted. Andries 17:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if ex-premies have provided evidence of claims to personal divinity, could it be indicated on these pages? Clearly, there is evidence to the contrary, and sources have been provided. To revert this means you have to provide evidence where claims of personal divinity are made. Assertion is one thing; evidence is another. **Armeisen 23:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts? 

message: I am also waiting for an answer  from you why your vehement opposition against using the UVA website for the article on Prem Rawat and the use by you of the same website for David C. Lane is not a blantant case of double standards. Thanks. Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to lower your tone, Andries. I have answered in that article's talk. Note that I will not tolerate accusations or your attempts to escalate a simple edit into a fight. It seems that your anger feeds on these little edits. No way I will fuel that anger.. Bye for now and until Monday. --ZappaZ  14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, you fuel my anger by your POV pushing, your use of double standard, your refusal to explain yourself and your unwillingness to admit mistakes. How can anyone not admit using double standards and apologize in such a clear cut case? I simply do not understand this.  Andries 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am suprized that you write that this is a small thing ("simple edit", "little edits") for you after your extensive and elaborate discussion between us on the topic of using the UVa website for Prem Rawat on Talk:Prem Rawat. Andries 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this not using double standard?

message: I re-inserted (among others) the long quote by Levine in the article because I do not know how to summarize this quote that is already condensed. I admit that I generally oppose long quotes in any article in Wikipidia, but this one is really informative about the psychology of followers and, again, I cannot shorten it. Andries 14:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The long quote and the re-addition of allegations will only result in my addition of rebuttals. Reverted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Concerning Levine's quote and yourt "inability" to shorten it, I find that the short citation is more than sufficient. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not argued why my additions are irrelevant, or not notable. Please do not removed relevant information from the article. Thanks. Andries 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't thank me, Andries, unless you mean it. The article was paired down by Zappaz a few months ago, in a manner that the allegations as well as the rebuttals were removed. So, please do not play games with me about "please do not remove relevant information", as if nothing had happened for the last two years with this article. That version stayed stable for a few months. If you want to restart the war again, be my guest. It is a waste of time.  ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I never agreed with Zappaz version and the only reason why I did not change it was because I wanted to think about his edits and my lack of time. In contrast, you started endorsing and reverting to a new version with a completely different structure, though you and everybody involved had given your more or less formal consent to another version. Andries 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your agreement ot lack thereof is of no consequence, as this is not your article. Tens of editors have contributed since last time you did. Note that any type of personal acussations will be  totally ignored by me and not addressed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Jossi, I know that you do not trust me, but if you doubt my sincerity when I state that I am unable to summarize Levine's long quote then I suggest you try to do it yourself. Andries 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot summarize it, you can ask for help. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What is there still to discuss? We have discussed everything at nauseam. I see that you are only interested in removing critical information, including the testimony published in the media of the worldwide ex-president of the DLM, Bob Mishler and scholarly attributed criticisms, such as the one by Levine. Andries 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me remind you, Andries, that you yourself edited this current version several times in October, if fact accepting the compromise edit by Zappaz. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I reverted several times to the old concencus version, but got reverted and hence I started changing the contents. Andries 16:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am placing a request for violation of WP:3RR≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Back at this again, Andries? I was under the impression that this was a resolved issue, but I  see I am mistaken.  I was warned by Jossi of your attempt to open the can of worms yet once again. I was having a great time away from Wikipedia and thought that you were over this already. You proved me wrong. --ZappaZ  19:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, Can you please explain why you removed the comments by Bob Mishler, the ex-president of the DLM? Same for Levine. Thanks. Andries 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: in spite of the unresolved topic i have reverted to Antaeus last edit. Come on, let's talk about it first. What's the problem? Thomas h 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long quote by Levine

message: I've unprotected the article - it has been protected for almost three weeks. Please do not resort to edit warring if not all disputed issues have been resolved, but discuss on the talk page or try one of the established means of dispute resolution. Thanks. Izehar 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been discussed to death and many request for comments have been placed and the opposing faction continue to disagree. Do you have any other suggestions? Andries 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I have reworded this part somewhat. The original suggested that there was quite a deal of discussion of Rawat in the media during the 1970s but only two references were provided. This is hardly a "fair amount" in a decade; rather it is minimal. Certainly, if a reasonable number of references could be provided that cover the decade of the 70s, then the original wording of the article could be reinstated.**Armeisen 06:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was quite a lot of media attention. I will check and add some more. Andries 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism in the media 

message: The sentence, 'They call themselves "ex-premies," based on the practice, largely discontinued in the West but still used by Rawat, of Rawat's students calling themselves "premies."' does not make a lot of sense in the second part. On the one hand, the claim is that Rawat uses the term, and then so do his students; yet the practice is "discontinued". So, if it is "discontinued", who still uses it? I've changed the sentence to make it more internally coherent, to this: "They call themselves 'ex-premies,' based on the practice that was used in the 1970s and 1980s of calling Rawat's followers 'premies'. Outside India, that practice has been discontinued." **Armeisen 06:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism by the ex-premie group 

message: The third paragraph of this section makes claims about Rawat's statements at Millenium 73. Is anyone able to verify these statements? If not, they should be removed. If they were reported, then there will be a source somewhere. There are many other verifiable instances when Rawat spoke about God and did not indicate that he was God. However, the source for the Millenium exchange would be good, because it is one of the few places where Rawat specifically diavows that he was god.**Armeisen 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These quotes are from the press conference at the Astroworld Hotel in Houston, Texas on Nov 9, 1973.≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of personal divinity 

message: I've tidied up some of the sentences and footnotes so that they read more clearly. This is a minor edit. I've also done the same for footnote 7 in "Criticism in the media". **Armeisen 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction  

message: In the Divinity Claims section, there is this reference to a 1979 interview with Rawat in Miami Magazine:-
In an interview with the Miami Magazine, in 1979, Prem Rawat spoke of what he believed God to be. In answer to the question, "If God is within, can't people experience God without the help of someone else?", Prem Rawat said, "God being within is one thing, and experiencing God is another. Just like having water in front of you is one thing, and drinking is another. God is within you. God is omnipresent."[14].
The link '14' does not appear to work, and I cannot find any reference to Miami Magazine in the references section.  Could the editor who added this section please correct this?  Thank you.  --John Brauns 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add it, but I am trying to find out the date and issue number of that magazine were the interview apeeared. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article history, it appears the interview was in a publication called 'The Golden Age', from July 1979.  I understand this is long out of print and that Rawat's followers were asked to hand back copies in the early 1980s.  Do Wiki rules allow such a reference?  Should the magazine article be scanned somewhere before reference is made in Wiki?  --John Brauns 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scan of a magazine article from a known magazine is not needed to be published as it is a copyright violation in most cases. Nevertheless, if the date and/or issue number of that magazine can be found, that would be acceptable as it would be verifiable. The cite refers to a the "Miami Magazine". I am making enquiries to find out information about such magazine and the date/issue in which it was published. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jossi.  I hope you can find a verifiable reference for this.  It it clear that the editor who inserted the paragraph was quoting from The Golden Age, and not Miami Magazine, so it is more likely that we will find a copy of the former.  I hope you would agree that in cases where the publication is long out of print, then a published scan of the publication is required, especially where, as is so often the case with these Rawat articles, the content is disputed.  --John Brauns 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some unknown reason, those references were deleted. You are right, John, I was quoting from an interview in the Miami Magazine, reproduced in the Golden Age. I have a copy of that interview. Errol V 11:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami Magazine reference missing 

message: I'm working through these references so that they all appear in a consistent format. For a while, they will not appear to be at all coherent. Please bear with me, for the final result will be worthwhile, as some references do not even appear at the moment. Errol V 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "The sources of criticism come from individuals related to the anti-cult movement of the 1970s, some media articles from the 1970s and 1980s, articles by several scholars in the 1970s and early 1980s, and since the 1990s, some former students who call themselves "ex-premies."[1] The criticism is levelled at what they consider claims of divinity made by Prem Rawat, their unresolved dissonance between their former belief in Rawat's personal divinity, and his newer image as human teacher; at what they view as apparent historical revisionism, financial exploitation, hypocrisy, encouragement of uncritical acceptance, and at other issues."
This paragraph has problems.  First, Rawat's divinity isn't the only complaint of ex-premies, there are 14 objections, which I think must  be listed or at least summarized because this is the criticism article.  Second, the mention of "cognitive dissonance" is unsourced, not to mention incorrect.  In other words, "cognitive dissonance" is definitely not a complaint being made ex-premies. Using that term is POV and must come out. Sylviecyn 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph attempts to summarize the criticism, not just the criticism of the small group of people that call trhemselves "ex-premies". I would argue that their POV is a minority POV and too bloated and over-represented. I would condense all the criticism by this small group to a couple of paragraphs. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Paragraph

message: Jossi, the following sentence was changed to include the word pejoratively as follows:
"The criticism by ex-premies is pejoratively dismissed by Elan Vital as allegations typical of apostates."
It's not POV plus I included the link to the proper place in Wiki to show it's not POV.  According to Wikipedia, in the section  Category:Pejoratives, the word apostasy is a pejorative term just as the word cult is listed as a pejorative.  I added the fact that EV is using a pejorative word to describe ex-premies, that's all.  Whether or not I think apostate is a pejorative is immaterial because Wikipedia defines it as such.  Let's not have a revert war, Jossi.  What this edit does is to provide the reader with a clearer and more accurate description of EV's characterization of ex-premies when they refer to them as apostates. We can discuss this, or you can change it back to my edit.  If you refuse both, I'll be reverting it the morning as I don't have the time now.  Thanks!   Sylviecyn 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot say that Ean Vital uses apostasy as a pejorative. You can only say that they use the term. See WP:NPOV. Attributing a value judgement to a source is not POV. For example, saying "XYZ is stupid" is POV, but saying "A stament made by ABC says that XYZ is stupid" is NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Paragraph:  Pejoratives - Cult/Apostasy