![]() | 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. |
Jim and John (and whoever), please consider that the "usenet banter" form of edit ideas placed within heated discussion blocks is rather inefficient. I think many of your edit ideas have merit, but the people you're usually addressing them to are highly unlikely ever to implement them, and it's tough for others like me to comb through the discussions to find them all. I would suggest you:
I would actually urge the former, but the latter will do. -- Gary D 23:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a particular rush to finish? I hesitate to make any edits because I'm auotmatically considered a liar (a characteriztion made by the sources Melton and Introvigne).
Also,under "Sources of Criticism" second par. 1st sentence, it was not since the 1980s...the sentence should read since the 1990s... Former followers of Rawat didn't start discussing him on the internet until the mid-90s and TPRF didn't even exist until a couple of years ago.
Additionally, all ex-premies are not "disgruntled" and all are not former employees. All were not fired, either. The pro-Rawat camp is making assertions in the article that make them sound like fact.
Finally, who's the owner of One-Reality.net? Is there a copyright permission somewhere to verify that source?
CynthiaG 15:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I note we are saying on this page that "Supporters acknowledge these techniques are referred to throughout Indian history in writings and poems, maintaining the important point is instead that Rawat is skilled at teaching them." Yet we have received requests not to publish them in Wikipedia that say the followers will be very upset if we do. I would like to get a "consistency check" between these two points, preferrably from a supporter who doesn't want the kriyas published here. (E-mailing me is fine.) Are the techniques intended to be secret (putting aside the recent Internet disclosures) or not? -- Gary D 00:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
After reaching a situation in which the article was discussed and edited and somewhat sabilized, to have Jim and others "suddenly" waking up and trying to make this article a soap box for their basesles allegations, is a travesty. They have been plaining this all along. They do not believe on NPOV. They are wasting our time.
Three guys and a cat posting baseless allegations on a webpage, does not warrant to have an article full of innuendo and lies, even if these are rebuted one by one by one.
I will vigorously oppose any attempt by the hate-group to use this as a platform for peddling their innuendo and smear campaing against law-abiding people. They have their website: let them spew their stuff there, not on WP! Enough is enough!
This articlec ould be just one sentece: there is a small group of ex-followers (less that 25 for pete's sake!) that have the stated mission to harass Prem Rawat and his students and to discredit them. If you want to know more click here. Finito. -- 64.81.88.140 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my brief, intermittent forays into these discussions I have noticed that other ex-premies and myself have been chastised unhesitantly for saying anything even slightly undecorous, let alone actually insulting, against premies and their supporters. We've even been threatened with banning from Wikipedia for little more than pressing for responsive answers which, I take it, is a bit too aggressive and unseemly for Wikipedia. If you doubt this, just read the archives of the main article. You'll see.
So why is it that anonymous premies like the fellows above enjoy carte blanche privileges to insult as they do? You can just imagine the response I would get, for instance, if I carried on like them. Gary? You seem to be more or less at the helm right now. Can you answer this please?
Thanks,
-- Jim
Left this article for less than 24 hrs and what happened?
I would kindy request from everyone to take a deep breath and look at the article as is. At this rate we will need to expand this article to a second page. I tend to agree with anon above, that posting allegations one after another that are all sourced from the same website creates an innacurate picture. Next, we will see claims that PR beats his wife, has an harem and abuses cocaine... and because someone said that on a critic's website, we will allow it to stay in the article. This is unacceptable, even with a rebuttal following. My feeling is that the current sectioning of the article is creating a POV that is unbalanced. We need to collapse the sections and abbreviate the text. Let us remember that the criticism is all coming from the same group of people and referenced the same website. This needs to be reflected in the article. -- Zappaz 03:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I have copyedited the last substantive subsection, the "credibility" subsection in the miscellaneous criticism section. I know it's going to be controversial, but there's no point pussyfooting around the allegations with vague text. Love or hate Dettmers, believe or disbelieve him, this is what he's claiming, and the text now clearly sets it forth. I would argue this text, so long as it is clearly attributed—and it is in its current edition—should stay, because it has what lawyers would call "indicia of reliability" that raise its potential above gossipy ravings. I do not want to wade into the firestorm of characterizing Dettmers' credibility; rather, what merits its inclusion here is Dettmer's organizational position that could plausibly have given him the personal access he claims, his claim that he personally witnessed or participated in the events claimed, and that Mishler's statement corroborates some of the drinking part of Dettmers' story. If there is a more detailed rebuttal attack against Dettmers' credibility than the general denial currently included, it should be given here as well. -- Gary D 08:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Although IMHO it starts to go into trivial detail, the page is very smoothly edited. I suspect when it comes to this subject, no detail is too small if it will either smear or defend Rawat, depending where one's sympathies lie.
I made a few tweaks. In the Dettmers section, I contextualized the time period. I find the allegations distasteful, but there they are, the reader will just have to decide if they give a damn about whther he smoked pot. Maybe I'm a freak about this, but it is always important to say WHEN an event took place. I also went back and tried to encapsulate the context for what the premies were complaining about with the Scattini business. Sometimes I think that Internet access ought to be a licensed affair!!! ;-)
Richard G. 11:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cannot always be objective. To do so implies that we can get at the "real truth".
So we cannot say objectively that a certain group is a " cult" or a " hate group". Such designations will always be hotly contested, if for no other reason than the fact that even someone who knowingly starts or joins one of these has obvious motives for concealing its real nature. There are other equally important reasons...
Anyway, all we can do for controversial religious groups (and their opponents) is to list the praise and criticism which various sources give them. Okay?
So Prem Rawat is "considered a cult leader" by Joe Blow of Asian Breezes, a major ex-premie group -- and "considered the world's best guru" by his followers.
And the ex-premie group is "considered a hate group" by Raja Genstdamasheen, public affairs director of Elan Vital, the leading pro-Rawat group.
But Wikipedia won't be able to draw any conclusions or give any definite answers. At best, it will be able to provide enough information so that readers can make up their own minds. -- Uncle Ed 14:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Folks, I removed the sub-sub heading of other criminal complaints, and deleted the bit about this Canadian lawyer being charged with something or other. (Is that the same "Jim" who keeps quitting and coming back here?). In either event, there's no citation for it, (yes, I saw it above, but marginalia isn't citable, and it has now mysteriously diappeared!) it's more "piling on", and just as I really and truly think the anti-group is hell-bent on going overboard and shoving every negative thing thay can think of, the same has to apply for the pro guys, too.
Look everyone, (especially John Brauns, who is doing his side's edits, ostensibly with the direction of ex chatroom participants Andries and Jim) there is way too much gilding the lilly. Trust me, you have each made your point -- IN SPADES-- that the other side is evil, lacks crdibility, is crazy, and is not to be trusted. Now you're just piling on the mud. I mean really, I saw one part where is said "Critics further allege.." This is NOT a legal pleading!!!
I think Uncle Ed could not have said it better. The goal is to present the main points and allow readers to dig deepr if they want. It is NOT public trial to determine the validity of Prem Rawat(sorry, Jim) nor a police investigation (sorry, Andries) nor a puff piece (sorry, PR folks). Richard G. 16:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can we get this out of the article? It think it is non-essential and as it is phrased now, it gives a one sided view of the matter. I could correct it but then it wil become lengthy. By the way, I think that ex-premies have gone too far and I will say so at forum8. Andries 16:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, if you sincerely believe they have gone too far, they why don't you say so in the chat room of which you are a member? Just wondering... Richard G. 19:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before anyone gets to reverting, may I take a swing at editing this passage? --
Gary D 18:45, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Go for it Gary. By the way, here's an interesting article about how newspapers are now backing away from anonymous allegations and, and they put it, "rants." http://www.shreveporttimes.com/alanenglish/html/2E6C5ED4-C6D6-43E5-9D17-3B5974426260.shtml There IS hope :-) Richard G. 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Reaction edits to recent material and edits, and work on the Geaves thing...
Okay, I think that's everything I have on the substantive sections. Thanks, all. -- Gary D 21:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I do not think that ex-premie is critical of Maharaji's students but mainly of M. himself and the organizations that support his work. I changed it accordingly. Andries 08:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, you need to read the ex-premie page more carefully. There are dozens of attacks and defamtory statements about individual premies. The ex-premies with which you have aligned yourself in their chat room have posted many many horrible things about Maharaji's students. Look at the archives of the chat that is accessible on the ex-webpage. I will not rename them here, but many people have been subjected to malicious and downright nasty and intrusive personal attacks at home and at work. Jim and the other core haters live for this stuff. It is shameful and hateful. The hatemongers have a right-wing talk-radio kind of pattern of response, one that we've seen here on this page over and over:
Jim has done this on many chat rooms and has done it here. Look at the archives of this page. It got so bad that reportedly some misguided premie tried to respond in kind, and using the example set by Jim, started writing to ex-premies' employers. I have seen your postings on the expremie chatroom, and you have clearly been acting as a surrogate for these people. It's too obvious. I calls it like I sees it. -Skippy
Andries the Greaves attack is by no means of measure a a legitimate attempt to inform the public about flawed and fraudulent scholarship and to stop abuse of academic credentials. Deleted. Ask for concensus about that attack. You are blinded. -- 64.81.88.140 15:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I mean, what the article refers to are narratives "evil", "capture", and powerful theoretical concepts as "mind control", and "brainwashing", not concrete stories about drinking too much, and the teacher not living according to his own standards, as written down in the current Wikipedia article. Hence I removed this sentence accordingly. Andries 13:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
64.81.88.140, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm Why did you removed that in the article? it is a documented fact. Thanks in advance for your explanation. Andries 15:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Listen, premies, I know that it's hard trying to defend the indefensible but will you give it up already on the irrelevant personal attacks and lies on me? I've never emailed anyone's employer or even suggested it.
I don't know of any exes who have.
No matter how often you repeat a lie like that, it doesn't just get tired one day and turn into the truth. Sorry about that. It IS true that one of you made some bogus and forged law society complaints against ME, though. I mean if you really want to talk about it.
And talk about cyberstalking and online harrassment? Are you serious? What do you think jimheller.info is? Or one-reality.net? Or the original CAC attacks or Glasser's first, ugly website where he called us all drug addicts, crazy and the like?
Or how about all the premie threats, like Catweasel warning he was going to smash me with a baseball bat or even shoot me, I think he said once, or Carlos' threat to try to get whatever dirt he could on any of us and "ruin" us all somehow (I've got a bunch of them saved, if you don't believe me)?
I mean, you want to talk harrassment, what do you think EV is doing lying about my joke -- WHICH I IMMEDIATELY SAID WAS JUST A JOKE -- about stealing money? Doesn't that just say it all, fellas? I mean, really, how can you possibly defend that kind of unconscionable libel?
Indeed, look at EV's ridiculous FAQs about all the exes who dare to speak out. Not a credible, rational, honest person amongst us, to hear them tell it. You know what that means, fellas? That means that you and your guru actually think that he can jump onto the world stage as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, get richer than hell one way or another over the next couple of decades, seriously affect countless lives, and even change his story so that, whatever else you can say, we all agree that he's no longer openly claiming much of his former stuff, and what? No one's going to ever criticize him? No one's going to actually try to analyze the whole trip?
And no, I don't mean Ron Geaves. I mean, SURE, Ron Geaves. Why not? Don't get me wrong. He can study and write whatever he wants about Rawat. It's too bad that he does so without disclosing that he's a premie. It's too bad he won't openly dialogue with his REAL peers in this area -- other premies and exes.
But Ron can do it. But you know what? So can we. We, too, can study, analyze your guru.
Better still, we can even criticize, question, challenge and condemn him. We can laugh at him just as we laugh at ourselves for ever taking him seriously. Your problem is that you can't defend him on the facts. You can't get past the fact that just 14 years ago he publically scolded his followers for forgetting that the guru's no regular teacher, he's Hari -- WHICH, YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION TRANSLATED AS "GOD". You can't answer stuff like that so you take to attacking us.
God, this is so obvious.
Well, quit lying about me here. I don't like it.
-- Jim
Skippy, I never telephoned anyone's employer either. That's a pure lie. What, are you trying to match EV or something? Other than that, your inability to answer my comments responsively and your tone say it all.
-- Jim
To Skippy/ 217.160.219.178
To 64.81.88.140
How can you say that this isn't about me when the whole issue in dispute is the fairness of the article passages that slag the character and activites of exes and me, amongst others, in particular? Exes are being accused of outrageous stuff, much of it lies. You say it's relevant, we say it's not. But the FOLLOWERS have made this an issue, not me or us. That's obvious.
And if this was about Rawat, you'd be all over the quality of proof. But if the allegations are about former premies, for some reason, you're not. Does it matter that so many of the premies' claims about exesa re lies and baseless, passed along ad nauseum through the cult, perhaps but lies and baseless nonetheless?
So, bottom line,it's fully relevant for me to rebut the allegations, at least as far as they apply to me (which the most definitely do) as I have. It's just not true that I or anyone I can think of has bothered someone's employer because they're premies. And anyone who says otherwise should back that claim up with some specificity and some proof because, as far as I know, it's just a lie, as stupid as claiming, as EV does, that I embezzled $18,000 dollars from them.
-- Jim
Zappaz, do you know? Andries 11:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, someone keeps editing without making notes here. Some also lunched up Gary's edits pretty badly, but derring to the process, I left as much as I could. A few changes, noted here:
Moved the testimonials link down to the other weblink sections. Its non sequitur where it was. Added NPOV approach to anti groups' characterizations of EV and PR. Someone added some redundant language, it appears elsewhere, so has been deleted.
Added "ex-premie" to Mishler. Important to qualify and disclose interests always.
Switched around sentences in last graf of financial section, to give anti group last word.
In Miscellaneous secion: Deleted the redundant loaded speculation about why or how Rawat cobbles up the false association with universities. There's no citation here, and as it was, it looks like conspiracy theory stuff. If you accuse someone of deceitful advertisning you really ought to at least cite something -- anything -- but don't just throw it out there. If you can show something to support this, it should go back in. Similary, deleted the premie rebuttal on this that is redundant.
Maybe I missed something here, but I couldn;t find reference to a ritual called "X-rating." I left in that Dettmers was in the inner circle -- I think that's the major point here, that he knows what he's talking about-- but referring to secret ceremonies is weird. If there was such a ceremony, it should be referenced if relevant. Cleaned up the rebuttal to this.
Dr. Greve's section: What is a "spoofed" website? It confuses reader. I looked at the page (which is excreble, IMHO)and it is NOT satire. Deleted "spoofed." I suspect it's one of those internet-specific words, but here it's made to look like a defense. Again, redundant language here (and poorly structred english, I might add). The allegation of academic fraud is made in middle of graf, not need to add it at the end again.
As for the chat room back and forth on this page: Skippy: relax, dude. Have a beer. Works for me. Richard G. 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's right here- "they allege that Geaves published papers they believe favorable to Rawat in academic publications allegedly without informing the publications that he was a follower of Rawat' Pretty clear. Also, it's not the reference to X-rating, it's the description of it as a "ritual." That's an important distinction. The WP text went further than the source. Richard G. 13:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it goes a bit too far to put the adjective controversial before any scholar or person mentioned in this article. I mean, to be fair, Introvigne is controversial too. Can we just leave that adjective out. Who is not controversial who writes about NRMs? Andries 15:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any references for the assertion in the article that Mike Donner was fired? Ex-premie seems to suggests that he left voluntarily. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No you are incorrect, 140. Dettmers testimony refers to Bob Mishler's firing by Maharaji, not Michael Donner. Reverted CynthiaG 22:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Above he says he never telephoned anyone about premies.
But here's what he says on the hate group message board, defending his cyber-stalking:
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/5721.html
My goodness, how obsessed can one man be? --Skippy
Skippy, the allegation was that exes, including myself, have contacted premies' employers. Nova Religio is not Geaves' employer, it's a journal that published his article about Rawat without knowing that he's a premie. Think of my call like a letter to the editor. Or would that be "harrassment" too? LOL!
By the way, Skippy, do you think Geaves should have disclosed the fact that he's a follower? :) -- Jim
It's not shown that he hasn't. It's not "like" a letter to the editor. It's a hell of a lot closer to interefering with his employment...but the courts will probaby decide that. --HaveFun
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my action. How else could I or anyone find out if Geaves had disclosed that he was a premie? Don't forget, he refuses to communicate with any of us, apparently. And yes, Geaves should have disclosed that fact. At least according to generally accepted principles of academic scholarship. Can't you see what a conflict of interest he's in? On the one hand, he's making videos and posting testimonials to assist Rawat in promulgating his "message". On the other hand, he's analyzing Rawat's history in the west and finding that Rawat's not to blame for anything. Obviously, he's trying to help Rawat. Anyone reading his article without that knowledge is duped.
Simple logic. -- Jim
Every policy statement on the subject I can find says that authors must disclose this kind of conflict of interest:
6. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
6.1 Disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is essential for the responsible conduct of research. Researchers have an obligation to disclose any affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers. A conflict of interest may also arise if any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter provides direct benefits to the researchers such as sponsorship of the investigation, or indirect benefits such as the provision of materials or facilities or the support of individuals such as provision of travel or accommodation expenses to attend conferences.
from: http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm
6) Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of interest are those of an authors commitments that may not be fully apparent to the reader of a paper or those commitments that may influence the judgements of reviewers or editors. The key question is whether the subsequent revelation of these commitments would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. Commitments may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. Relevant interests must be declared to editors by authors. A conflict of interest can only constitute misconduct if there is a deliberate deception of editors, referees and readers.
from: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=0141-9889
Here's another:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence judgment. These activities may include academic competition or personal relationships, although financial relationships of industry are considered the most important. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how these conflicts of interest are handled. Some journals do not accept submissions from authors with a conflict of interest.
Financial relationships and their effects are less easily-detected than other conflicts of interest. The authors should disclose to the editors any commercial associations, contractual relations, or proprietary considerations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. All sources of funding for the work, personal connections, and institutional affiliations of the authors should be acknowledged in a footnote on the title page.
According to these policies, what Geaves did was unethical. -- Jim
You're flailing there, pal. Typical. :) -- Jim
I am not flailing and I am not (thank God!) your pal. I am your nemesis. -- 64.81.88.140 04:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This talk page is not a discussion forum. Thanks Andries 21:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prem_Rawat/
You're contradicting yourself, Andries. You said above you thought I was entitled to try to defend myself against allegations here. Anyway, I've got no intention of going to your imaginary cyber closet. Thanks anyway.
-- Jim
Why thank you once again for your balance and perceptive observations, Zappaz! My mistake. I thought the article had taken on some scurrillous, unsubstantiated slurs against former followers and that I, amongst others, was pointed out in particular. And so, I mistakenly thought, this was the place to try to rectify that. But I see now how tiring that verbiage must be for you. Why, it's almost as bad as a full-blown class five polemic, isn't it?
Zappaz, until you deal with your obvious dissembling over Rawat's 1990 claim to be God AS PUBLISHED BY HIS OWN ORGANIZATION, your involvement here is a travesty of scholarship or whatever hat you think you're wearing. Anything you have to say to me is seen through that lens.
But if you have something to say about whether or not Geaves behaved ethically in not disclosing his relationship with Rawat, I'm all ears.
-- Jim
what about an article with comparison of the former terms like e.g. "propagation" and satsang and those used today? likes Satsang then, now inspiration through the speaker, service then, now participation, and so on. also the attempt to adress western culture with e.g. quotes from sokrates . but having rawat refer to devotion as the highest goal,on closed meetings, still is very intersting, because of the controversy compared to the introducing events.i mean you come for peace maybe or self-knowledge and later you will find out that this is only reachable by devotion to the master. some may find that deceiptive.thomas
I was reading this page and found this description to be 100% accurate of the work of the critics here at WP. I have added a couple of things:
My take? This article is providing them with yet another venue to engage in their obsession. That is why they do not want this to end. Compulsive behaviour at its best. -- 64.81.88.140 16:28, 13 Sep 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. |
Jim and John (and whoever), please consider that the "usenet banter" form of edit ideas placed within heated discussion blocks is rather inefficient. I think many of your edit ideas have merit, but the people you're usually addressing them to are highly unlikely ever to implement them, and it's tough for others like me to comb through the discussions to find them all. I would suggest you:
I would actually urge the former, but the latter will do. -- Gary D 23:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a particular rush to finish? I hesitate to make any edits because I'm auotmatically considered a liar (a characteriztion made by the sources Melton and Introvigne).
Also,under "Sources of Criticism" second par. 1st sentence, it was not since the 1980s...the sentence should read since the 1990s... Former followers of Rawat didn't start discussing him on the internet until the mid-90s and TPRF didn't even exist until a couple of years ago.
Additionally, all ex-premies are not "disgruntled" and all are not former employees. All were not fired, either. The pro-Rawat camp is making assertions in the article that make them sound like fact.
Finally, who's the owner of One-Reality.net? Is there a copyright permission somewhere to verify that source?
CynthiaG 15:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I note we are saying on this page that "Supporters acknowledge these techniques are referred to throughout Indian history in writings and poems, maintaining the important point is instead that Rawat is skilled at teaching them." Yet we have received requests not to publish them in Wikipedia that say the followers will be very upset if we do. I would like to get a "consistency check" between these two points, preferrably from a supporter who doesn't want the kriyas published here. (E-mailing me is fine.) Are the techniques intended to be secret (putting aside the recent Internet disclosures) or not? -- Gary D 00:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
After reaching a situation in which the article was discussed and edited and somewhat sabilized, to have Jim and others "suddenly" waking up and trying to make this article a soap box for their basesles allegations, is a travesty. They have been plaining this all along. They do not believe on NPOV. They are wasting our time.
Three guys and a cat posting baseless allegations on a webpage, does not warrant to have an article full of innuendo and lies, even if these are rebuted one by one by one.
I will vigorously oppose any attempt by the hate-group to use this as a platform for peddling their innuendo and smear campaing against law-abiding people. They have their website: let them spew their stuff there, not on WP! Enough is enough!
This articlec ould be just one sentece: there is a small group of ex-followers (less that 25 for pete's sake!) that have the stated mission to harass Prem Rawat and his students and to discredit them. If you want to know more click here. Finito. -- 64.81.88.140 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my brief, intermittent forays into these discussions I have noticed that other ex-premies and myself have been chastised unhesitantly for saying anything even slightly undecorous, let alone actually insulting, against premies and their supporters. We've even been threatened with banning from Wikipedia for little more than pressing for responsive answers which, I take it, is a bit too aggressive and unseemly for Wikipedia. If you doubt this, just read the archives of the main article. You'll see.
So why is it that anonymous premies like the fellows above enjoy carte blanche privileges to insult as they do? You can just imagine the response I would get, for instance, if I carried on like them. Gary? You seem to be more or less at the helm right now. Can you answer this please?
Thanks,
-- Jim
Left this article for less than 24 hrs and what happened?
I would kindy request from everyone to take a deep breath and look at the article as is. At this rate we will need to expand this article to a second page. I tend to agree with anon above, that posting allegations one after another that are all sourced from the same website creates an innacurate picture. Next, we will see claims that PR beats his wife, has an harem and abuses cocaine... and because someone said that on a critic's website, we will allow it to stay in the article. This is unacceptable, even with a rebuttal following. My feeling is that the current sectioning of the article is creating a POV that is unbalanced. We need to collapse the sections and abbreviate the text. Let us remember that the criticism is all coming from the same group of people and referenced the same website. This needs to be reflected in the article. -- Zappaz 03:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I have copyedited the last substantive subsection, the "credibility" subsection in the miscellaneous criticism section. I know it's going to be controversial, but there's no point pussyfooting around the allegations with vague text. Love or hate Dettmers, believe or disbelieve him, this is what he's claiming, and the text now clearly sets it forth. I would argue this text, so long as it is clearly attributed—and it is in its current edition—should stay, because it has what lawyers would call "indicia of reliability" that raise its potential above gossipy ravings. I do not want to wade into the firestorm of characterizing Dettmers' credibility; rather, what merits its inclusion here is Dettmer's organizational position that could plausibly have given him the personal access he claims, his claim that he personally witnessed or participated in the events claimed, and that Mishler's statement corroborates some of the drinking part of Dettmers' story. If there is a more detailed rebuttal attack against Dettmers' credibility than the general denial currently included, it should be given here as well. -- Gary D 08:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Although IMHO it starts to go into trivial detail, the page is very smoothly edited. I suspect when it comes to this subject, no detail is too small if it will either smear or defend Rawat, depending where one's sympathies lie.
I made a few tweaks. In the Dettmers section, I contextualized the time period. I find the allegations distasteful, but there they are, the reader will just have to decide if they give a damn about whther he smoked pot. Maybe I'm a freak about this, but it is always important to say WHEN an event took place. I also went back and tried to encapsulate the context for what the premies were complaining about with the Scattini business. Sometimes I think that Internet access ought to be a licensed affair!!! ;-)
Richard G. 11:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cannot always be objective. To do so implies that we can get at the "real truth".
So we cannot say objectively that a certain group is a " cult" or a " hate group". Such designations will always be hotly contested, if for no other reason than the fact that even someone who knowingly starts or joins one of these has obvious motives for concealing its real nature. There are other equally important reasons...
Anyway, all we can do for controversial religious groups (and their opponents) is to list the praise and criticism which various sources give them. Okay?
So Prem Rawat is "considered a cult leader" by Joe Blow of Asian Breezes, a major ex-premie group -- and "considered the world's best guru" by his followers.
And the ex-premie group is "considered a hate group" by Raja Genstdamasheen, public affairs director of Elan Vital, the leading pro-Rawat group.
But Wikipedia won't be able to draw any conclusions or give any definite answers. At best, it will be able to provide enough information so that readers can make up their own minds. -- Uncle Ed 14:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Folks, I removed the sub-sub heading of other criminal complaints, and deleted the bit about this Canadian lawyer being charged with something or other. (Is that the same "Jim" who keeps quitting and coming back here?). In either event, there's no citation for it, (yes, I saw it above, but marginalia isn't citable, and it has now mysteriously diappeared!) it's more "piling on", and just as I really and truly think the anti-group is hell-bent on going overboard and shoving every negative thing thay can think of, the same has to apply for the pro guys, too.
Look everyone, (especially John Brauns, who is doing his side's edits, ostensibly with the direction of ex chatroom participants Andries and Jim) there is way too much gilding the lilly. Trust me, you have each made your point -- IN SPADES-- that the other side is evil, lacks crdibility, is crazy, and is not to be trusted. Now you're just piling on the mud. I mean really, I saw one part where is said "Critics further allege.." This is NOT a legal pleading!!!
I think Uncle Ed could not have said it better. The goal is to present the main points and allow readers to dig deepr if they want. It is NOT public trial to determine the validity of Prem Rawat(sorry, Jim) nor a police investigation (sorry, Andries) nor a puff piece (sorry, PR folks). Richard G. 16:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can we get this out of the article? It think it is non-essential and as it is phrased now, it gives a one sided view of the matter. I could correct it but then it wil become lengthy. By the way, I think that ex-premies have gone too far and I will say so at forum8. Andries 16:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, if you sincerely believe they have gone too far, they why don't you say so in the chat room of which you are a member? Just wondering... Richard G. 19:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before anyone gets to reverting, may I take a swing at editing this passage? --
Gary D 18:45, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Go for it Gary. By the way, here's an interesting article about how newspapers are now backing away from anonymous allegations and, and they put it, "rants." http://www.shreveporttimes.com/alanenglish/html/2E6C5ED4-C6D6-43E5-9D17-3B5974426260.shtml There IS hope :-) Richard G. 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Reaction edits to recent material and edits, and work on the Geaves thing...
Okay, I think that's everything I have on the substantive sections. Thanks, all. -- Gary D 21:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I do not think that ex-premie is critical of Maharaji's students but mainly of M. himself and the organizations that support his work. I changed it accordingly. Andries 08:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andries, you need to read the ex-premie page more carefully. There are dozens of attacks and defamtory statements about individual premies. The ex-premies with which you have aligned yourself in their chat room have posted many many horrible things about Maharaji's students. Look at the archives of the chat that is accessible on the ex-webpage. I will not rename them here, but many people have been subjected to malicious and downright nasty and intrusive personal attacks at home and at work. Jim and the other core haters live for this stuff. It is shameful and hateful. The hatemongers have a right-wing talk-radio kind of pattern of response, one that we've seen here on this page over and over:
Jim has done this on many chat rooms and has done it here. Look at the archives of this page. It got so bad that reportedly some misguided premie tried to respond in kind, and using the example set by Jim, started writing to ex-premies' employers. I have seen your postings on the expremie chatroom, and you have clearly been acting as a surrogate for these people. It's too obvious. I calls it like I sees it. -Skippy
Andries the Greaves attack is by no means of measure a a legitimate attempt to inform the public about flawed and fraudulent scholarship and to stop abuse of academic credentials. Deleted. Ask for concensus about that attack. You are blinded. -- 64.81.88.140 15:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I mean, what the article refers to are narratives "evil", "capture", and powerful theoretical concepts as "mind control", and "brainwashing", not concrete stories about drinking too much, and the teacher not living according to his own standards, as written down in the current Wikipedia article. Hence I removed this sentence accordingly. Andries 13:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
64.81.88.140, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm Why did you removed that in the article? it is a documented fact. Thanks in advance for your explanation. Andries 15:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Listen, premies, I know that it's hard trying to defend the indefensible but will you give it up already on the irrelevant personal attacks and lies on me? I've never emailed anyone's employer or even suggested it.
I don't know of any exes who have.
No matter how often you repeat a lie like that, it doesn't just get tired one day and turn into the truth. Sorry about that. It IS true that one of you made some bogus and forged law society complaints against ME, though. I mean if you really want to talk about it.
And talk about cyberstalking and online harrassment? Are you serious? What do you think jimheller.info is? Or one-reality.net? Or the original CAC attacks or Glasser's first, ugly website where he called us all drug addicts, crazy and the like?
Or how about all the premie threats, like Catweasel warning he was going to smash me with a baseball bat or even shoot me, I think he said once, or Carlos' threat to try to get whatever dirt he could on any of us and "ruin" us all somehow (I've got a bunch of them saved, if you don't believe me)?
I mean, you want to talk harrassment, what do you think EV is doing lying about my joke -- WHICH I IMMEDIATELY SAID WAS JUST A JOKE -- about stealing money? Doesn't that just say it all, fellas? I mean, really, how can you possibly defend that kind of unconscionable libel?
Indeed, look at EV's ridiculous FAQs about all the exes who dare to speak out. Not a credible, rational, honest person amongst us, to hear them tell it. You know what that means, fellas? That means that you and your guru actually think that he can jump onto the world stage as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, get richer than hell one way or another over the next couple of decades, seriously affect countless lives, and even change his story so that, whatever else you can say, we all agree that he's no longer openly claiming much of his former stuff, and what? No one's going to ever criticize him? No one's going to actually try to analyze the whole trip?
And no, I don't mean Ron Geaves. I mean, SURE, Ron Geaves. Why not? Don't get me wrong. He can study and write whatever he wants about Rawat. It's too bad that he does so without disclosing that he's a premie. It's too bad he won't openly dialogue with his REAL peers in this area -- other premies and exes.
But Ron can do it. But you know what? So can we. We, too, can study, analyze your guru.
Better still, we can even criticize, question, challenge and condemn him. We can laugh at him just as we laugh at ourselves for ever taking him seriously. Your problem is that you can't defend him on the facts. You can't get past the fact that just 14 years ago he publically scolded his followers for forgetting that the guru's no regular teacher, he's Hari -- WHICH, YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION TRANSLATED AS "GOD". You can't answer stuff like that so you take to attacking us.
God, this is so obvious.
Well, quit lying about me here. I don't like it.
-- Jim
Skippy, I never telephoned anyone's employer either. That's a pure lie. What, are you trying to match EV or something? Other than that, your inability to answer my comments responsively and your tone say it all.
-- Jim
To Skippy/ 217.160.219.178
To 64.81.88.140
How can you say that this isn't about me when the whole issue in dispute is the fairness of the article passages that slag the character and activites of exes and me, amongst others, in particular? Exes are being accused of outrageous stuff, much of it lies. You say it's relevant, we say it's not. But the FOLLOWERS have made this an issue, not me or us. That's obvious.
And if this was about Rawat, you'd be all over the quality of proof. But if the allegations are about former premies, for some reason, you're not. Does it matter that so many of the premies' claims about exesa re lies and baseless, passed along ad nauseum through the cult, perhaps but lies and baseless nonetheless?
So, bottom line,it's fully relevant for me to rebut the allegations, at least as far as they apply to me (which the most definitely do) as I have. It's just not true that I or anyone I can think of has bothered someone's employer because they're premies. And anyone who says otherwise should back that claim up with some specificity and some proof because, as far as I know, it's just a lie, as stupid as claiming, as EV does, that I embezzled $18,000 dollars from them.
-- Jim
Zappaz, do you know? Andries 11:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, someone keeps editing without making notes here. Some also lunched up Gary's edits pretty badly, but derring to the process, I left as much as I could. A few changes, noted here:
Moved the testimonials link down to the other weblink sections. Its non sequitur where it was. Added NPOV approach to anti groups' characterizations of EV and PR. Someone added some redundant language, it appears elsewhere, so has been deleted.
Added "ex-premie" to Mishler. Important to qualify and disclose interests always.
Switched around sentences in last graf of financial section, to give anti group last word.
In Miscellaneous secion: Deleted the redundant loaded speculation about why or how Rawat cobbles up the false association with universities. There's no citation here, and as it was, it looks like conspiracy theory stuff. If you accuse someone of deceitful advertisning you really ought to at least cite something -- anything -- but don't just throw it out there. If you can show something to support this, it should go back in. Similary, deleted the premie rebuttal on this that is redundant.
Maybe I missed something here, but I couldn;t find reference to a ritual called "X-rating." I left in that Dettmers was in the inner circle -- I think that's the major point here, that he knows what he's talking about-- but referring to secret ceremonies is weird. If there was such a ceremony, it should be referenced if relevant. Cleaned up the rebuttal to this.
Dr. Greve's section: What is a "spoofed" website? It confuses reader. I looked at the page (which is excreble, IMHO)and it is NOT satire. Deleted "spoofed." I suspect it's one of those internet-specific words, but here it's made to look like a defense. Again, redundant language here (and poorly structred english, I might add). The allegation of academic fraud is made in middle of graf, not need to add it at the end again.
As for the chat room back and forth on this page: Skippy: relax, dude. Have a beer. Works for me. Richard G. 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's right here- "they allege that Geaves published papers they believe favorable to Rawat in academic publications allegedly without informing the publications that he was a follower of Rawat' Pretty clear. Also, it's not the reference to X-rating, it's the description of it as a "ritual." That's an important distinction. The WP text went further than the source. Richard G. 13:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it goes a bit too far to put the adjective controversial before any scholar or person mentioned in this article. I mean, to be fair, Introvigne is controversial too. Can we just leave that adjective out. Who is not controversial who writes about NRMs? Andries 15:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any references for the assertion in the article that Mike Donner was fired? Ex-premie seems to suggests that he left voluntarily. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No you are incorrect, 140. Dettmers testimony refers to Bob Mishler's firing by Maharaji, not Michael Donner. Reverted CynthiaG 22:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Above he says he never telephoned anyone about premies.
But here's what he says on the hate group message board, defending his cyber-stalking:
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/5721.html
My goodness, how obsessed can one man be? --Skippy
Skippy, the allegation was that exes, including myself, have contacted premies' employers. Nova Religio is not Geaves' employer, it's a journal that published his article about Rawat without knowing that he's a premie. Think of my call like a letter to the editor. Or would that be "harrassment" too? LOL!
By the way, Skippy, do you think Geaves should have disclosed the fact that he's a follower? :) -- Jim
It's not shown that he hasn't. It's not "like" a letter to the editor. It's a hell of a lot closer to interefering with his employment...but the courts will probaby decide that. --HaveFun
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my action. How else could I or anyone find out if Geaves had disclosed that he was a premie? Don't forget, he refuses to communicate with any of us, apparently. And yes, Geaves should have disclosed that fact. At least according to generally accepted principles of academic scholarship. Can't you see what a conflict of interest he's in? On the one hand, he's making videos and posting testimonials to assist Rawat in promulgating his "message". On the other hand, he's analyzing Rawat's history in the west and finding that Rawat's not to blame for anything. Obviously, he's trying to help Rawat. Anyone reading his article without that knowledge is duped.
Simple logic. -- Jim
Every policy statement on the subject I can find says that authors must disclose this kind of conflict of interest:
6. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
6.1 Disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is essential for the responsible conduct of research. Researchers have an obligation to disclose any affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers. A conflict of interest may also arise if any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter provides direct benefits to the researchers such as sponsorship of the investigation, or indirect benefits such as the provision of materials or facilities or the support of individuals such as provision of travel or accommodation expenses to attend conferences.
from: http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm
6) Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of interest are those of an authors commitments that may not be fully apparent to the reader of a paper or those commitments that may influence the judgements of reviewers or editors. The key question is whether the subsequent revelation of these commitments would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. Commitments may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. Relevant interests must be declared to editors by authors. A conflict of interest can only constitute misconduct if there is a deliberate deception of editors, referees and readers.
from: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=0141-9889
Here's another:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence judgment. These activities may include academic competition or personal relationships, although financial relationships of industry are considered the most important. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how these conflicts of interest are handled. Some journals do not accept submissions from authors with a conflict of interest.
Financial relationships and their effects are less easily-detected than other conflicts of interest. The authors should disclose to the editors any commercial associations, contractual relations, or proprietary considerations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. All sources of funding for the work, personal connections, and institutional affiliations of the authors should be acknowledged in a footnote on the title page.
According to these policies, what Geaves did was unethical. -- Jim
You're flailing there, pal. Typical. :) -- Jim
I am not flailing and I am not (thank God!) your pal. I am your nemesis. -- 64.81.88.140 04:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This talk page is not a discussion forum. Thanks Andries 21:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prem_Rawat/
You're contradicting yourself, Andries. You said above you thought I was entitled to try to defend myself against allegations here. Anyway, I've got no intention of going to your imaginary cyber closet. Thanks anyway.
-- Jim
Why thank you once again for your balance and perceptive observations, Zappaz! My mistake. I thought the article had taken on some scurrillous, unsubstantiated slurs against former followers and that I, amongst others, was pointed out in particular. And so, I mistakenly thought, this was the place to try to rectify that. But I see now how tiring that verbiage must be for you. Why, it's almost as bad as a full-blown class five polemic, isn't it?
Zappaz, until you deal with your obvious dissembling over Rawat's 1990 claim to be God AS PUBLISHED BY HIS OWN ORGANIZATION, your involvement here is a travesty of scholarship or whatever hat you think you're wearing. Anything you have to say to me is seen through that lens.
But if you have something to say about whether or not Geaves behaved ethically in not disclosing his relationship with Rawat, I'm all ears.
-- Jim
what about an article with comparison of the former terms like e.g. "propagation" and satsang and those used today? likes Satsang then, now inspiration through the speaker, service then, now participation, and so on. also the attempt to adress western culture with e.g. quotes from sokrates . but having rawat refer to devotion as the highest goal,on closed meetings, still is very intersting, because of the controversy compared to the introducing events.i mean you come for peace maybe or self-knowledge and later you will find out that this is only reachable by devotion to the master. some may find that deceiptive.thomas
I was reading this page and found this description to be 100% accurate of the work of the critics here at WP. I have added a couple of things:
My take? This article is providing them with yet another venue to engage in their obsession. That is why they do not want this to end. Compulsive behaviour at its best. -- 64.81.88.140 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)