Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 5

message: *His age at time of arrival irrelevant to scrutiny
*Specified scrutiny was from media
*Added back Singer material
*Added back ex-premie claim that they speak for former students, in an abbreviated form
*Removed reference to Mike Finch’s surrebuttal to the supporters; we’ve already given the viewpoints of both sides; if we aren’t going to give the actual points of that surrebuttal in the article, the reference isn’t necessary here; I believe it is given at the bottom
*Smoothed supporter claims against ex-premies into one sentence
:I would argue that age  of arrival is an important fact. He was a child prodigy, but still a child.--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard found an interesting article that may shed some light on the subject. You can read some excerpts here: Talk:Prem_Rawat/temp1#Type_III_Apostates. --Zappaz 20:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First Section

message: *Rewrote intro sentence explaining the criticism of the claim of divinity
*Changed to uniform name convention—“Prem Rawat” for first call in paragraph, “Rawat” thereafter
*Separated criticism from rebuttal, and clean up sequence
*Clarify the supporters' explanation of the cultural meaning of the former divinity rituals
*Clarify claims of Rawat as authoring the move away from divinity
*Revamp the split interpretations of throwing away old materials
*Clean up Mishler statements
*Generally rearrange for clarity
:Darshan is not for deities. It is for holy persons or places. I corrected this.--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zappaz, you are wrong, where is your reference for this? I do have a reference that it is for deities. Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and religion -3 Andries 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zappaz, I agree about darshan but you are wrong about arathi. I do have a reference that it is for deities. Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and religion. I only edited one version of the arthi version before it was merged but both versions only mentioned deities. I corrected it in the article.  Andries 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Section

message: Not yet done. I will say in advance though that I really don't think the sexual harrassment claim is of sufficient weight to remain. It wasn't against PR himself, and unless his organizations are being held to some higher standard, a harrassment claim against a decent-sized organization in the modern era just isn't probative of very much, certainly not very much related to the theological issues here.
:I would agree with you, but doubt that the ex-premies will agree to removal. By some reason, for them this is the second most important allegation, although it was an isolated case in a 30-year span--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that Maharaji knew about it and that he allowed Jagdeo continue his many molestations.  Will look it up. It was only Jagdeo, yes, that is true.  Andries 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Section

message: Okay, someone has to drop the hammer, and that's me, sort of. PR's knowledge and acquiescence in the Jagdeo wrongdoing would be the key to relevance/significance here, as Andries notes; John Brauns explains that the closest we're likely to get to that is a definite feeling that it all fits together with PR having knowledge if you know the situation and you know all the players, and we have a resulting clear consensus (including John) that this is not sufficient for encyclopedic inclusion. Yet I have taken the wussie way out and instead cleaned up the section and moved it over to the Elan Vital page rather than outright deleting it, so that we may give it one more chance over there in the context of that organization's history before we kill it altogether. I frankly don't think it deserves to survive over there, either, but I just hate to hit that "delete" key on any chunk of text before every angle has been exhausted. --Gary D 05:15, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
:I attempted to "fix" that entry over on the Elan Vital page, but I don't think it works, IMO. I am trying to get some more info on EV and expand that article if at all possible, We can then decide if to hit that delete key or not. --Zappaz 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagdeo finds a temporary new home

message: I removed  "they say" about publications of the DLM that contain claims of divinity. Why state documented proven facts not as documented facts? How can anyone with a little understanding of Hinduism say that calling yourself Brahma and Vishnu is not a claim of divinity? I really do not understand. Andries 16:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of divinity

message: If he does not like ~his private life being scrutinized then he should find another profession. I mean, I explained why people think this important. Andries 18:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are non-sensical utterances. I agree that a public person's life get scrutinized. What I am talking about is that to be quotable in WP you need more than that. Otherwise it is absolutely unacceptable. --64.81.88.140 18:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad taste, the personal life of Prem Rawat

message: It's extremely misleading and insufficient to state that supporters accuse critics of "character problems such as obsessive Internet postings, extensive illegal drug use and drug deal, criminal history and involvement with pornography" or "fitting the pyschological profile of "Type III" apostates who become "professional enemies of the formerly revered organization" and then only say that critics respond by claiming that these allegations are ad hominem attacks and that their character flaws are private and irrelevant as this gives the false impression that critics concede that there's some factual basis for these allegations.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  Thus the critics dispute the allegations in substance as well as relevance.  Moreover, with respect to the psychological profiling offered above, the article misleads by failing to mention the source of this extremely controversial analysis.
-- Jim
:Jim, may be we could add a sentence like "Supporters ~do not provide documented proof that unlawful activities by ex-premies are above average."Andries 23:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section about critics' motives is very unbalanced