Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 11

message: *In the financial allegations changed "donations" to "money gifts". That is more accurate. You cannot "donate" to PR. He is a person, not a 503(c)
*Changed "taken donations", to "accepting money gifts". Again, that is more acurate as PR does not take donations.
*Added date of purchase of house in Malibu. In the 70's that parcel did not cost a very small fraction of today's value. Good investment!
*Closure of the Ashrams. NPOV'ed Andries entry and corrected grammar.
*Corrected date of talking to one million people. It was in 2004.
I counted 34 links to to ex-premie.org and forum8.org. This is way to many links for a WP article. I propose to remove all the links to these (as well as these for TRPF and EV), Leaving a small collection of links in the external links section.
--64.81.88.140 21:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 140, for the reasons stated below, your proposal is inappropriate. --John Brauns 00:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several small edits 

message: I have removed this link:-
*Benschop, Albert. CyberStalking: menaced on the internet Social & Behavioral Sciences/Media Studies, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
as I can't see what relevance it has to critism of Prem Rawat. As always I am happy to be pursuaded it is relevant. --John Brauns 23:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot delete anything unless first you discuss it here. I have reverted that delete.  --64.81.88.140 01:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you have given no reason for the inclusion of that link. There is no mention of cyberstalking in the article so the link should go. If you support its inclusion, you must give a reason. I have found nothing in these discussions to explain why it is there. --John Brauns 07:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: John, there is a mention oc cyberstalking in the Ron Geaves paragraph.Andries 08:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I wasn't sure where to add this. 
who say they once believed in Rawat's divinity see this change—which they do not see as a liberation but as a dodge—as a primary source of their disillusionment, and now .... 
''
I have removed this clause as it is incorrect. No ex-premie I know believes this. Those of us who continued believing in Rawat during that change believed that he was hiding his divinity to enable new people to better approach him. Our disillusionment came from other sources. --John Brauns 23:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot remove an important point without discussing it first. That was the agreement. This paragraph explains one of the most visible aspects of the ex-premies. It needs to stay.--64.81.88.140 01:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 140, the clause is simply wrong, and is clearly not one of the most visible aspects of the ex-premies. Show me one journey on ex-premie.org or one post on the forum where the writer says this. It must go. --John Brauns 07:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of incorrect clause 

message: .140 I think the names of Prem Rawat should be bold in the first paragraph. From Wikipedia%3AGuide_to_Layout"
:"The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold text (subject) at a natural place in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. The name of the subject may appear slightly different from the title of the page, or may include variations, but normally it is identical to the page title."
Andries 16:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But then it is logical that the other names of Prem Rawat is made bold too. I mean, for me this is common sense. Andries 17:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It doesn't. See Garys's comment above #October_1_edit_pass. Also, adding Pal Sing is irrelevant here, as now one calls him that. Add it if you wish to the main article.--64.81.88.140 20:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The names of Prem Rawat should be bold

message: .140 Please give a list of criticism against Prem Rawat's students including names and dates of criticism. Thanks. Andries 17:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters you have the recent geaves campaing. That alone warrants inclusion given the allegations made in the Elan Vital FAQs. Reead also my plans below.--64.81.88.140 17:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will agree with the inclusion if you can show me documenations of your claim. Until you have provide it, I think it is fair that the statement stays out of  the article. Andries 17:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. it stays. Tell me: how do you defend what they have done to Geaves? How? You are as blinded by your POV as the ex-premies. --64.81.88.140 17:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not defend the anonymous website against Ron Geaves. Andries 17:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Then help me keep the sentence that talks about harassment of students. --64.81.88.140 17:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Geaves is one student. Andries 20:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And Dettmers is one ex-student. If his "testimony" is good enough to be quoted here at lenght. Then one student's harrassment by ex-premies should count as well. Got that? --64.81.88.140 01:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism against Prem Rawat's students

message: As agreed, we are working to reach a point in which we can remove the  tags and protect the article from vandalism and major deletions and edits. I kindly encourage everyone to try and stay on purpose. If you want to conduct large discussions as the ones above, please  do that on Usenet or on the many forums available out there. Thanks.
I would propose that we go ahead and commit to the article after the promised "final" edit pass by Gary D. Otherwise it is an endless and all consuming effort and there are other articles out there to take care of. 
And please peel your eyes for vandalism on the ancillary articles and revert as soon as you see that. Someone with IP 204.203.22.98 (that says he is a critic) has been vandalizing the articles with obscene comments and promising to continue doing just that. Let us all deny him that pleasure.
--Zappaz 02:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's stay on purpose 

message: Phew....! After all that hard work, we find ourselves here, alive but somewhat exhausted. I am sure that neither side is 100% happy but hopefully reached the stage of "can live with it, although reluctantly". 
Thanks to all for the hard work and in particular Gary D for the commitment to see this through and the patience to deal with our passionated POVs. Let's now go work on other articles (keep an eye on this and ancillary articles as vandalism was rampant today.) --Zappaz 00:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tags removed