Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 14

message: I have amended this edit
:It is standard practice in Wikipedia to list all the names for a subject on top and bolded. Please take into account that he used to be much more known than he is now and that is another reasons why those names deserve to be mentioned in the beginning. Andries 16:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the names paragraph to the section right after the TOC (Early years section), as suggested by Marvin ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: I really do not understnad the reason for re-hashing again and again the same disputes. The full hearsay story by Mishler was placed on Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession article, with just a small summary here based on the arguments provided. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, you may be right, I only restored the reference to the Mishler interview. Andries 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed ad nauseam and I continue to disagree. Andries 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will ask for a third opinion about this. Andries 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again? 

message: Clicking on the "edit" link for the references brings up a number of references which no longer reference anything, if they every did. In addition, in "Succession to his father's mantle" is a reference simply for "Singh", referring ot the Bihari Singh statement. However, clicking on the link in the text does no take one to the reference. I have deleted the text that referenced nothing and tried to correct the reference to Singh. **Armeisen 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Amersein. FYI, I intend to cleanup the reference section using the new citation format recently implemented by Wikipedia developers. In this new citaton format, we simply add the references near the text usinng this tags: Author, Reference name, year, publisher, etc.. This will automatically create the appropriate numberered reference in the reference section. I will all the refs in the intro as an example, and hopefuly you can help in the cleanup. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have transfered the  first 10 refs to the new format. Will continue working on it later today. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more done, but a lot yet to transfer. Will continue to tomorrow. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you have completed this. **Armeisen 18:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have removed the part of the sentence which claims that police did not act "possibly because of the reporter's political views." There is no evidence for this and the writer is simply attributing motive without any knowledge that is publicly accessible. **Armeisen 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Western student's passion 

message: I want to remove all redlinks for the article. I cannot find any info on these people:
*Daniel Foss (only found something about being a " computer programmer and data base manager for academic and government researchers)
*Ralph Larkin (could only find one book by this person called "Beyond Revolution" )
*Paul Schnabel (could only find a bio at the Club of Amsterdam website)
Can anyone help create stub articles for these, if notable enough to warrant an article in WP, that is. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Schnabel is certainly a notable person though this is not reflected in the google test. He and the organization that he presides is regularly in the news and he has a (weekly?) column in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Andries 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Could you please create stub article for Paul Schnabel? Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Same about Jan van der Lans. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Foss and Ralph Larkin 

message: I have added some information here about the claim that Rawat was setting up a religion. Indeed, the title of this section will have to be changed as well, as that title seems to have little relevance to the text. In addition, I will be adding some information that will replace the claims that Mishler is alleged to have made, as that new information is testable. Errol Vieth 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i appreciate your honesty concerning your editing under your IP number accidently, unlike Jossi who has never had the guts to admit that he was editing under 64.81.88.140 (BTW The stealth modus of the MacOSX firewall is far from perfect) Thomas h 08:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As said countless times before, your mistaken assessment proves only one thing: your tendency to see wrong where there is none. Food for thought, Thomas. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early plans to deny personal divinity 

message: I have removed the sentence "Rawat has never publicly taken personal credit or responsibility for making this change, but his critics generally claim he was the driving force behind it, demurring only as to his motivations for doing so." as their is no evidence for it. In addition, the point of the sentence is unclear. Is it supposed to be positive or negative? What is it supposed to explain, or show. Further, to say "Rawat has never publicly taken person credit.." is a bit like saying "Mr Jones has never publicly said that he was beating his wife" (or "...not beating his wife", depending on one's perspective). If this sentence can be rewritten to make a clearer point, and if evidence for its claims is presented, then it could stay. Errol Vieth 08:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the statement in this article is that there was a transition, right ?So, there is no evidence that he did inaugurate the change, nor that he didn't. So did it take place by itself? Or is it just that it happened somehow and it's not so important to clarify that?? In this case, if it is not so important, i don't understand why there must be such a blown up article for a more or less unimportant person.  Thomas h 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it ticks you that we have one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia about a notable living person, giving your very public animosity against Mr. Rawat and his students, but to understand the reason why do we have such a compehensive article about him in Wikipedia, you may need to read Wikipedia is not paper to understand. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah funny. Very well referenced, but a notable person? In your eyes maybe and in your effort to make him such. But who the hell started the changes? See, you and your type clearly try to avoid uncomfortable issues for the "living master". The whole article is in this flavour. Rawat is for you more important than Wikipedia is. This is a fact. And this attitude will always play the main part of whatever you do here. Thomas h 10:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing notablity within the context of Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:LIVING for information about notability of living persons in the scope of this project. As for my work in Wikipedia, facts speak stronger than words. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transition in the 1980s 

message: A press release states that 2004 was the first year where the number of new students has exceeded 50,00. : That number seems to need correction.--Rainer P. 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any newer press releases with an update of these numbers. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @
What does 50,00 mean? Is it 5,000 or 50,000? It appears formally ambigous to me, or mayme I'm not familiar enough with the way Numbers are displayed in the U.S.--Rainer P. 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be 50,000 (fifth thousand). ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of practitioners 

message: Back to the Mishler interview. I've rewritten the sentence to make the meaning a little clearer. Neverthless, I am not convinced of the reality of the Mishler interview. I'm happy to be proven wrong. When the "interview" first appeared on the EPO website back in the mid-late 90s, it was never claimed that it was a real interview. It began, if my memory is accurate, with a statement to the effec that this is what Mishler would have said. However, many people claim that it did happen. It would be interesting to find out, but I doubt that radio station records would go back that far. Hence the problem with unpublished material. Makes for interesting discussions though. Errol V 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. You may want to follow the discussion about radio interviews that I started at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Radio_interview. Editors are arguing that only if an interview was available for verification, it is within policy to include it. Editors are unclear as to how possible it is to gain access to tapes or transcripts of radio and television transmissions for verification purposes from the broadcasters, and that this would be a flaw in the verifiability chain that would have to be examined. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You may need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand the reason for the questioning about the verifiability (as it is described in Wikipedia content policies) of an interview and its transcription. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Jossi, I read it and regarding that the Mishler interview on the website also has an audio file so you can compare the transcript to the audio file for verifiability. When compared to the other sources used on this websites such as postings on websites of followers it is a superior source. Let's use the same standards for inclusion and exclusion of material to maintain NPOV. Andries 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Andries, but this source is not any superior. Read Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Radio_interview ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 14:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Splitting hairs yet again? Prem Rawat spearheads these initiatives through the foundation to which he has lent his name and stature. Princeton's WordNet definition: Spearhead: someone who leads or initiates an activity. The statement is accurate. You may want to visit the website of The Prem Rawat Foundation, where these humanitarian initiatives are described http://tprf.org/humanitarian_initiatives/.  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, last year Mr. Rawat donated works of art that raised $700,000 in an auction performed by the foundation (See:http://www.tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_press_21.htm). In any case, I have no intention in engaging in discussions and speculation about Mr. Rawat's involvement in his Foundation, if he is or not a figurehead, if this is "deflating grandiose spin" or not, etc., with a person whose only interest in the subject is to denigrate the subject of this article. You may want to write a message to the Foundation asking for that information, if so you wish (you can do so here: https://secure.tprf.org/helpdesk/newticket.php.) FYI, discussion pages in Wikipedia are for one purpose only: to discuss the article. If you want to continue these speculative discussions you may try other, more suitable places such as USENET, chatrooms, and the like. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page, to understand the intended usage of this discussion page. Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And the point is? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview

message: (moved here from above for clarity) ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, I'm Jim Heller and there's no interview of mine on EPO. Did you get that misinformation from the same "people [you] trust"?  Who are they, by the way, and why won't you name them?  The fact is, the Mishler interview is completely authentic and many followers of that time heard it and many more were aware of it.  The fact that the Lord's right-hand man would break ranks and speak out against him like that was earth-shaking in our world.  Besides, as I've said, I received the tape personally from Rick Wallace who's brother taped it off the radio.  I had no difficulty at all recognizing Bob Mishler's distinctive voice and speech patterns.  If you're calling me a liar I think it's only fair that you name your source. Don't you? --24.69.14.159 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do whith calling anyone a liar. What is being challenged is our ability to verify the fact that the interview took place and that the transcript published and reformatted in the critics' website is true to the original. I will contact the KOA AM station in Denver and inquiry about the purported radio program and if it is possible to have an official transcript of that program. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was to Errol, not you.  But seeing as you've commented, do you actually doubt the authenticity of the Mishler interview?
--24.69.14.159 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That the interview took place is undisputed. The only dispute seems to be about the transcript which seems to be excessively skeptical. Andries 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview discussion

message: I think that you have made a mistake, Bishonen.  is a critical ex-follower and the owner of all the ex-followees websites. He removed that link because it is not  a critical website, but most probably a spoof :)  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, thanks. You mean to say the critics-of-Rawat movement is big and prominent enough to generate spoof sites, eh? I can't say you've been giving me that impression. :-P Bishonen | talk 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Websites today, are a dime a dozen, as you know :D ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You can ask them about the size of their group. What is being reported is that there are a but small group. I would not call them a "movement" per se. Although they dislike being called a "group" and prefer to be called a "number of internationally dispersed individuals". ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it, Bishonen, if you refactor the above vituperation, as per WP:NPA. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'd rather not, please ask someeone else if you feel strongly about it. WP:NPA is policy but WP:RPA is not, and I'm not much of a fan of it. --Bishonen | talk 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I have reverted the deletion of that comment by anon, and refactored just the abusive language against me.  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: I has been a pretty intense week, to put it mildly, as I am not used to be the recipient of so much hostility. But I guess this is the price one has to pay if one cares about basic human freedoms, which I do. I am taking a short and well deserved wikibreak and will resume my duties as an administrator and editing this article in a couple of days. If there is anything that needs urgent attention, you can drop me a line via email. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak