![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As I mentioned above, I believe it is about time to begin the final consensus edit of this article. No Wikipedia page is ever finished, so I am not proposing a static final version that will never be changed. I am instead defining a "final and successfully edited" version as one that gains a consensus on all sides to protect it from future attacks and to return to it as a baseline reference if future edits get out of control. I would take as a proxy for this a consensus to remove the "disputed tag" from this article. (I note that .140 has already removed the "disputed tag" from the main PR article, and since my revamp of that article more often gores the ox of .140 and the supporters' side than that of the critics's side, I expect that removal will stick.)
So, rather than just having everybody start making edit passes that may be provocative or at cross purposes, I suggest we start by finding out the essentials of just what it will take for everyone to agree to remove the "disputed tag" and support the article version (even if unenthusiastically). Once we know what everyone simply must have, we can negotiate these main points and then go in together with non-startling edit passes to move those things into or out of the article. Accordingly, I am asking everyone on both sides to post here below what you cannot live with in the current article. Feel free either to list general items, or to give specific edits if the differences you want are text-specific. I am not talking about including here every nit or smoothing you might like to see, but everything currently in the article that must be removed and everything currently not in the artcle that must be included before you will agree to remove the "disputed tag" and thereafter basically hold your peace with the article.
I would remind everyone that NPOV and factual accuracy do not mean that you agree with everything that someone says within the article; rather, they mean that you are not offended by any unattributed statement made directly by the article, that all attributed statements have a basis (not for what is being asserted, but that the assertion was actually made by the cited person), and that all viewpoints are fully represented.
I will start, and I invite everyone on all sides to participate. -- Gary D 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Agree to remove disputed tag.
-- 64.81.88.140 00:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree to remove the disputed label.
Must go
Must stay
Other
-- Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regardless the above comments, and with the hope that these will be addresed, I reluctantly agree to remove the dispute label. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree with the removal of Haan's excerpt. I can not find a scholarly resource in English that said the same. Only Singer a bit but she is far more controversial than authors in the CESNUR affiliate book series Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland. I am willing to send a copy of the article to another Dutch contributor so s/he can check whether I have been accurate Andries 06:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"
As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.
Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.
-- Jim
This is the ex-premie game:
-- 64.81.88.140 01:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- Senegal 05:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with removing the disputed tag. Is there some kind of deadline on this article? It needs more work and clarification with references. I'm going to ignore Jossi's comments on her interpretation of ex-premie motives because Jossi doesn't know what my motives are in coming here late in the editing process.
Also can't see why anyone would complain about extending the time to allow former followers to add to the article (with disputed tag).
Sorry in advance for verbosity, but looking at the size of main article on Prem Rawat, it sounds like the pot calling the kettle, etc. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 11:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] ( http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] ( http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] ( http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)
I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e
Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4th paragraph, "Sources of Criticism":
"A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge." (My emphasis on convince)
This is inaccurate. Ex-premies who post on forum 8 will engage in conversation with people who register to post messages on the forum. When premies/students (of their own free will) choose to register and post about pro-Rawat POVs they are challenged. No one is forced to register and post, especially any current students. The stated purpose of the forum is in the guidelines and can be read here:
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/public/guidelines.htm
If someone chooses to register and post on the forum, then they might ask for personal support in leaving the practice of knowledge. This is an option and an individual choice.
Additionally, no one (former follower or student) is forced to open the EPO website and read it.
Therefore, this sentence should also be deleted or rewritten.
Another Ex-Premie 16:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the archives of the chat room, and many many times, whenever a new document is "revealed" or another charge is made, there are several dozen postings from the anti-folks about whether this will "open the premies eyes" or more directly "whether this will convince others to leave Rawat." The archives are full of this, and I don;t understand why the anti-folks are being coy about this goal. The evidence seems to be pretty strong that it is a fundamental "mission" of the expremie organization. Richard G. 19:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with removing disputed status This Holy Breath nonsense is foolish gamesmanship. The anti-folks who refuse to do real work will NEVER be satisfied, and there will always be one more "last minute" addition and complaint. It's called building a straw man to challenge to legitimacy of your opponent. Like a third-rate lawyer who repeatedly claims to discover new secret evidence that will rescue his client at the last minute. Someone is watching too much Matlock!
Too late in the game and this is pure obstructionism. They have had plenty of time, and these additional factoids they want to jam in here just don't add to the discourse: it's just another oppportunity to say more "bad" things.
The "I quit, now I'm back, do it my way, I quit again, you're all on the TPRF payroll, I'm back" game is tiresome. People have worked hard on this.
Good work Zapp, Gary, Ed, Andries, Senegal. Richard G. 19:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We have been all very accommodating so far, but this last attempt by Brauns of making changes to the text without substantiation are without merit. I have and still have no problems if Brauns and others want to add new information, but doing edits or deleting text to "bend" the article's POV at this stage is inappropriate. For example, concerning the Scattini affair, he added (now deleted by me) No evidence that ex-premies were involved in this alleged forgery has been produced. That was most definitively the work of an ex-premie (who else would do that?). Add a disclaimer to your website and your forum, stating that you do not support that kind of harassment and then come here and add some text to that effect. -- 64.81.88.140 20:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
(Most of these are "delete/change" items culled from above. Feel free to cull "add" items down here from above as well if you feel them important, but then it would be best to actually produce the proposed text) -- Gary D 19:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Must go Lineage challenge (Misc. criticism section) - This is much better covered in the main article Prem Rawat --Zappaz
Must go 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.
All citations left in during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The excerpt from Wim Haan, selected by Andries is in Dutch. According to Wikipedia policy, the only reason for publish non-english sources is if information is not avalable elsewere. I ask for its removal. --jossi
The article says that A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge. . That is not entirely true. Their primary focus is to harass Maharaji, his students and the organizations involved, to interrupt and disrupt events, impose their negative views on the press and diminish people's freedom of belief. --jossi
Added sentence of supporter rebuttal regarding ex-premie intentions during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] ( http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] ( http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] ( http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)
I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e
Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Paragraph retained, ex-premie rebuttal allegation shortened, Finch reply reference deleted during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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)
No particular action during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I have added details of Elan Vital's attempt to remove Rawat's words from ex-premie websites and Google's cache under the legal action against ex-premies section. --
John Brauns 22:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--
64.81.88.140
Material retained, Chilling Effects reference shortened during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
House in Queensland - we need a source for that data. --
Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I think this is discussed in EPO in an Ivory's Rock article--can an "anti" person dig this up as a quickie? Thanks. --
Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Retained during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Attributions confirmed, material retained during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Claims of divinity have been denied by Maharaji publicly in numerous ocassions in the early days as well as nowadays. This fact is glaringly missing from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Added short excerpts from above quotes in October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions that ""he is a pilot that often files himself". This is incorrect, Maharaji always flies himself. (If anyone thinks that this is not "work" let them think that.)
≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
No particular action in October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I still want to insert the cyclist incident.... Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Add a version of the above paragraph in the October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I still want to insert...the complaints about closing the ashrams.
Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:What complain about the Ashrams, Andries? If you know about it, please add to the article? --
Senegal 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Please proceed, Andries. --
Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:::Nothing provided; not included in October 1 edit pass. --
Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
complaint has been added. Andries 08:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"
As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.
Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.
-- Jim
Apparently this is headed for the main article, so nothing added to this article in the October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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. ... -- John Brauns 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sentence reworked; despite no provision of citation for firing, references to firing left in for now in October 1 edit pass, due to their obvious vagueness. However, I would support them coming out altogether if no citation is found. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I have been moving text blocks into personal sections and negotiation sections to keep all focus on discrete text issues that need to be resolved. We might consider indicating, with strikeout or something, as each of these issues are resolved. Fix the disputes that remain, that's the deal, that's the goal. -- Gary D 04:55, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
For anyone puzzed by my continuous frenetic rearranging and commenting and busybodying here on the talk page, let me explain: As people in my profession are wont to do, I am building a paper trail. I am building a paper trail so that anyone digging back into this page when it has been archived will be able to see that everyone on all sides, whether they are willing to personally edit the article themselves or not, was given a full chance to raise and argue every point they wanted in or out. People can always say the consensus judgment calls came down wrong, but this way no one can claim a railroading or a refusal to consider absolutely everything they wanted to say. -- Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Finally, it is true I have started to apply pressure to everyone to get this process wrapped up. It is not that I am in a hurry, but I learned from the theme song to the old western TV show "Rawhide" that you have to "keep them doggies movin'" if you want a successful round up. -- Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
(...move 'em on, head 'em up, head 'em up, move 'em out...)
Did you know?
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?
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:
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)
(That's Latin for note well!) In almost every still-open negotiating point above, one side or the other is being asked to come up with something, either a citation or a (usually short) piece of text. If you want the text but don't want to write it, tell me and I'll write it, but then no complaining. None of these items or requests is so large or intractable that it can't be closed by the—well, okay, my—October 5 deadline. I'm openly pressing both sides: The time for "more time," at least for this go-round, is over; otherwise, we're just heatedly dithering to no avail. The onus is on you. If you don't produce on a point, nothing can happen in your favor on that point. And if you want it to be included in my edit pass, it needs to be provided real soon. -- Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am planning my edit pass for twenty-four hours from now, 05:00 UTC on October 1. -- Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Gary,
I want to ask you something. Of the various editors here, you seem like the closest to someone I can trust and respect. That is, you're smart enough, a good writer and I do think that you're simply into this Wikipedia project for its own sake. In other words, you don't have a particular dog in this fight, as they say. I certainly don't feel that way about some others who have, to my eyes, demonstrated quite the opposite.
So here's my question. It might have no bearing on where this article finally settles but I'll still ask: how do you feel about this article? Do you honestly feel that it fairly represents who and what Rawat is really all about? Do you really think it presents us former followers in a fair light? Is it such an outrageous thing in this Wiki Wiki environment to ask you what your honest opinion is of Rawat and why? Also, while we're at it, how do you feel about the fact that Rawat's critics are focussed upon and disparaged far, far more than are our counterparts for other, ahem, "New Religious Movements"?
Finally -- and this might be the toughest question of all for you -- do you think that people like me who have expressed our disgust at the way this article has shaped up are just simply blinded by our prejudice, our "Level III Apostate Syndrome" etc. or do you think that, truth be told, we might actually be right and this entire gloss on Rawat is simply a shiny coat of shellac on a most undeserving subject? That any real investigative journalism -- which I know is anethmatic to Wikipedia -- would expose Rawat in muhc, much harsher, but more accurate, light?
Just curious.
Thank you in advance for giving this some real consideration.
-- 24.64.223.205 00:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Jim
If language is the problem then just write what you think should be inserted in German on the talk page. I can translate it into English. Andries 12:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Danke Andries für das Angebot. Mir ist aufgefallen das es für das Verhalten von Rawat aus der sogenannten Antisicht kaum theoretische Untermauerung gibt. Ich meine das Buch "The Guru Papers" findet zum Beispiel keine Erwähnung, wo doch die Symptome von Rawat ziemlich eindeutig dem in diesem Buche aufgezeigten Modellen entsprechen. Das Magengeschwür , der Alkoholismus, die Nichtherausforderbarkeit(unchallengable), usw.. Vielleicht sollten wir das mal zusammen ausarbeiten.thomas
Andries, that was a classy assist. -- Gary D 06:07, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As I mentioned above, I believe it is about time to begin the final consensus edit of this article. No Wikipedia page is ever finished, so I am not proposing a static final version that will never be changed. I am instead defining a "final and successfully edited" version as one that gains a consensus on all sides to protect it from future attacks and to return to it as a baseline reference if future edits get out of control. I would take as a proxy for this a consensus to remove the "disputed tag" from this article. (I note that .140 has already removed the "disputed tag" from the main PR article, and since my revamp of that article more often gores the ox of .140 and the supporters' side than that of the critics's side, I expect that removal will stick.)
So, rather than just having everybody start making edit passes that may be provocative or at cross purposes, I suggest we start by finding out the essentials of just what it will take for everyone to agree to remove the "disputed tag" and support the article version (even if unenthusiastically). Once we know what everyone simply must have, we can negotiate these main points and then go in together with non-startling edit passes to move those things into or out of the article. Accordingly, I am asking everyone on both sides to post here below what you cannot live with in the current article. Feel free either to list general items, or to give specific edits if the differences you want are text-specific. I am not talking about including here every nit or smoothing you might like to see, but everything currently in the article that must be removed and everything currently not in the artcle that must be included before you will agree to remove the "disputed tag" and thereafter basically hold your peace with the article.
I would remind everyone that NPOV and factual accuracy do not mean that you agree with everything that someone says within the article; rather, they mean that you are not offended by any unattributed statement made directly by the article, that all attributed statements have a basis (not for what is being asserted, but that the assertion was actually made by the cited person), and that all viewpoints are fully represented.
I will start, and I invite everyone on all sides to participate. -- Gary D 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Agree to remove disputed tag.
-- 64.81.88.140 00:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree to remove the disputed label.
Must go
Must stay
Other
-- Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regardless the above comments, and with the hope that these will be addresed, I reluctantly agree to remove the dispute label. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree with the removal of Haan's excerpt. I can not find a scholarly resource in English that said the same. Only Singer a bit but she is far more controversial than authors in the CESNUR affiliate book series Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland. I am willing to send a copy of the article to another Dutch contributor so s/he can check whether I have been accurate Andries 06:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"
As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.
Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.
-- Jim
This is the ex-premie game:
-- 64.81.88.140 01:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- Senegal 05:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with removing the disputed tag. Is there some kind of deadline on this article? It needs more work and clarification with references. I'm going to ignore Jossi's comments on her interpretation of ex-premie motives because Jossi doesn't know what my motives are in coming here late in the editing process.
Also can't see why anyone would complain about extending the time to allow former followers to add to the article (with disputed tag).
Sorry in advance for verbosity, but looking at the size of main article on Prem Rawat, it sounds like the pot calling the kettle, etc. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 11:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] ( http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] ( http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] ( http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)
I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e
Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4th paragraph, "Sources of Criticism":
"A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge." (My emphasis on convince)
This is inaccurate. Ex-premies who post on forum 8 will engage in conversation with people who register to post messages on the forum. When premies/students (of their own free will) choose to register and post about pro-Rawat POVs they are challenged. No one is forced to register and post, especially any current students. The stated purpose of the forum is in the guidelines and can be read here:
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/public/guidelines.htm
If someone chooses to register and post on the forum, then they might ask for personal support in leaving the practice of knowledge. This is an option and an individual choice.
Additionally, no one (former follower or student) is forced to open the EPO website and read it.
Therefore, this sentence should also be deleted or rewritten.
Another Ex-Premie 16:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the archives of the chat room, and many many times, whenever a new document is "revealed" or another charge is made, there are several dozen postings from the anti-folks about whether this will "open the premies eyes" or more directly "whether this will convince others to leave Rawat." The archives are full of this, and I don;t understand why the anti-folks are being coy about this goal. The evidence seems to be pretty strong that it is a fundamental "mission" of the expremie organization. Richard G. 19:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with removing disputed status This Holy Breath nonsense is foolish gamesmanship. The anti-folks who refuse to do real work will NEVER be satisfied, and there will always be one more "last minute" addition and complaint. It's called building a straw man to challenge to legitimacy of your opponent. Like a third-rate lawyer who repeatedly claims to discover new secret evidence that will rescue his client at the last minute. Someone is watching too much Matlock!
Too late in the game and this is pure obstructionism. They have had plenty of time, and these additional factoids they want to jam in here just don't add to the discourse: it's just another oppportunity to say more "bad" things.
The "I quit, now I'm back, do it my way, I quit again, you're all on the TPRF payroll, I'm back" game is tiresome. People have worked hard on this.
Good work Zapp, Gary, Ed, Andries, Senegal. Richard G. 19:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We have been all very accommodating so far, but this last attempt by Brauns of making changes to the text without substantiation are without merit. I have and still have no problems if Brauns and others want to add new information, but doing edits or deleting text to "bend" the article's POV at this stage is inappropriate. For example, concerning the Scattini affair, he added (now deleted by me) No evidence that ex-premies were involved in this alleged forgery has been produced. That was most definitively the work of an ex-premie (who else would do that?). Add a disclaimer to your website and your forum, stating that you do not support that kind of harassment and then come here and add some text to that effect. -- 64.81.88.140 20:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
(Most of these are "delete/change" items culled from above. Feel free to cull "add" items down here from above as well if you feel them important, but then it would be best to actually produce the proposed text) -- Gary D 19:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Must go Lineage challenge (Misc. criticism section) - This is much better covered in the main article Prem Rawat --Zappaz
Must go 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.
All citations left in during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The excerpt from Wim Haan, selected by Andries is in Dutch. According to Wikipedia policy, the only reason for publish non-english sources is if information is not avalable elsewere. I ask for its removal. --jossi
The article says that A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge. . That is not entirely true. Their primary focus is to harass Maharaji, his students and the organizations involved, to interrupt and disrupt events, impose their negative views on the press and diminish people's freedom of belief. --jossi
Added sentence of supporter rebuttal regarding ex-premie intentions during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] ( http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] ( http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] ( http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)
I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e
Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Paragraph retained, ex-premie rebuttal allegation shortened, Finch reply reference deleted during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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)
No particular action during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I have added details of Elan Vital's attempt to remove Rawat's words from ex-premie websites and Google's cache under the legal action against ex-premies section. --
John Brauns 22:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--
64.81.88.140
Material retained, Chilling Effects reference shortened during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
House in Queensland - we need a source for that data. --
Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I think this is discussed in EPO in an Ivory's Rock article--can an "anti" person dig this up as a quickie? Thanks. --
Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Retained during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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)
Attributions confirmed, material retained during October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Claims of divinity have been denied by Maharaji publicly in numerous ocassions in the early days as well as nowadays. This fact is glaringly missing from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Added short excerpts from above quotes in October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions that ""he is a pilot that often files himself". This is incorrect, Maharaji always flies himself. (If anyone thinks that this is not "work" let them think that.)
≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
No particular action in October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I still want to insert the cyclist incident.... Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Add a version of the above paragraph in the October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I still want to insert...the complaints about closing the ashrams.
Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:What complain about the Ashrams, Andries? If you know about it, please add to the article? --
Senegal 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Please proceed, Andries. --
Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:::Nothing provided; not included in October 1 edit pass. --
Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
complaint has been added. Andries 08:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"
As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.
Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.
-- Jim
Apparently this is headed for the main article, so nothing added to this article in the October 1 edit pass. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
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. ... -- John Brauns 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sentence reworked; despite no provision of citation for firing, references to firing left in for now in October 1 edit pass, due to their obvious vagueness. However, I would support them coming out altogether if no citation is found. -- Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I have been moving text blocks into personal sections and negotiation sections to keep all focus on discrete text issues that need to be resolved. We might consider indicating, with strikeout or something, as each of these issues are resolved. Fix the disputes that remain, that's the deal, that's the goal. -- Gary D 04:55, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
For anyone puzzed by my continuous frenetic rearranging and commenting and busybodying here on the talk page, let me explain: As people in my profession are wont to do, I am building a paper trail. I am building a paper trail so that anyone digging back into this page when it has been archived will be able to see that everyone on all sides, whether they are willing to personally edit the article themselves or not, was given a full chance to raise and argue every point they wanted in or out. People can always say the consensus judgment calls came down wrong, but this way no one can claim a railroading or a refusal to consider absolutely everything they wanted to say. -- Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Finally, it is true I have started to apply pressure to everyone to get this process wrapped up. It is not that I am in a hurry, but I learned from the theme song to the old western TV show "Rawhide" that you have to "keep them doggies movin'" if you want a successful round up. -- Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
(...move 'em on, head 'em up, head 'em up, move 'em out...)
Did you know?
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?
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:
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)
(That's Latin for note well!) In almost every still-open negotiating point above, one side or the other is being asked to come up with something, either a citation or a (usually short) piece of text. If you want the text but don't want to write it, tell me and I'll write it, but then no complaining. None of these items or requests is so large or intractable that it can't be closed by the—well, okay, my—October 5 deadline. I'm openly pressing both sides: The time for "more time," at least for this go-round, is over; otherwise, we're just heatedly dithering to no avail. The onus is on you. If you don't produce on a point, nothing can happen in your favor on that point. And if you want it to be included in my edit pass, it needs to be provided real soon. -- Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am planning my edit pass for twenty-four hours from now, 05:00 UTC on October 1. -- Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Gary,
I want to ask you something. Of the various editors here, you seem like the closest to someone I can trust and respect. That is, you're smart enough, a good writer and I do think that you're simply into this Wikipedia project for its own sake. In other words, you don't have a particular dog in this fight, as they say. I certainly don't feel that way about some others who have, to my eyes, demonstrated quite the opposite.
So here's my question. It might have no bearing on where this article finally settles but I'll still ask: how do you feel about this article? Do you honestly feel that it fairly represents who and what Rawat is really all about? Do you really think it presents us former followers in a fair light? Is it such an outrageous thing in this Wiki Wiki environment to ask you what your honest opinion is of Rawat and why? Also, while we're at it, how do you feel about the fact that Rawat's critics are focussed upon and disparaged far, far more than are our counterparts for other, ahem, "New Religious Movements"?
Finally -- and this might be the toughest question of all for you -- do you think that people like me who have expressed our disgust at the way this article has shaped up are just simply blinded by our prejudice, our "Level III Apostate Syndrome" etc. or do you think that, truth be told, we might actually be right and this entire gloss on Rawat is simply a shiny coat of shellac on a most undeserving subject? That any real investigative journalism -- which I know is anethmatic to Wikipedia -- would expose Rawat in muhc, much harsher, but more accurate, light?
Just curious.
Thank you in advance for giving this some real consideration.
-- 24.64.223.205 00:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Jim
If language is the problem then just write what you think should be inserted in German on the talk page. I can translate it into English. Andries 12:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Danke Andries für das Angebot. Mir ist aufgefallen das es für das Verhalten von Rawat aus der sogenannten Antisicht kaum theoretische Untermauerung gibt. Ich meine das Buch "The Guru Papers" findet zum Beispiel keine Erwähnung, wo doch die Symptome von Rawat ziemlich eindeutig dem in diesem Buche aufgezeigten Modellen entsprechen. Das Magengeschwür , der Alkoholismus, die Nichtherausforderbarkeit(unchallengable), usw.. Vielleicht sollten wir das mal zusammen ausarbeiten.thomas
Andries, that was a classy assist. -- Gary D 06:07, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
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)