This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The article now says:
I think this is inaccurate. Introvigne does not say in that article that these allegations are typically made by apostates, nor does he explain the causes. Please state where Introvigne says so, if you disagree. Note that Dettmer's, Mishler's and Donner's story as told in Wikipedia only tell about his behavior, not about narratives of capture and branding the old organization as evil. I will change it. Andries 17:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RE: Professional enemies according to Intovigne. It would be more accurate to say amateur enemies. Don't know of any ex-premie who gets paid to be a critic of Rawat.
Another Ex-Premie 14:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's no surprise that Wikipedia, unlike the rest of the world, favours indefensible ideas. That's the price of its NPOV policy and philosophy. If one has an indefensible idea of any sort which might otherwise be attacked and ridiculed, its proponents can present it on Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that the earnest Wiki editors will guarantee that it does not get laughed off, shouted down, cornered, exposed or any of the other things that fortunately happen to false ideas.
As Ed said, quite happily I'm sure, Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. In fact, perhaps that should be Wikipedia's subtitle:
Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia where Truth is Meaningless
A little truth in advertising, perhaps?
Oh no, there's that word again!
-- Jim
Ahem. I do not recall saying that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. On the contrary, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia editorial policy is accuracy. I believe this means getting as close to the truth as possible.
Perhaps you are confusing "neutrality" with "indifference". You wouldn't be the first to make this mistake.
It is not because we are indifferent to the truth, but because we recognize that it's supremely difficult to GET to the truth, that Jimbo created his neutrality policy. It bears re-reading from time to time; it says that when we CAN'T GET at the truth, due to irresolvable conflicts between sources, THEN we will forbear to take a position on the matter, and stand above the controversy by merely reporting what the various sides claim.
It's like a judge who throws out a lawsuit or, better, a "hung jury" which returs no verdict -- not because they think the matter unimportant, but because they could not AGREE on the truth. Rather than getting bogged down in limbo, Wikipedia simply says, "We don't know."
Some people say Wikipedia has no " values", but honesty is actually a Wikipedian value. When we honestly don't know, we say so. -- Uncle Ed 14:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Zappaz, the world is indeed a judge in the sense that history leads to some ineluctable conclusions. It's undeniable now that the American revolution was timely and justified. It's undeniable now that American slavery was an idea whose time was up. It's undeniable now that the earth circles the sun and it's equally undeniable that we are the products of evolution. It's also undeniable that there have been people and movements who have tricked and exploited people with religious tomfoolery and that these groups can be fairly called cults. It's a pejorative word but isn't that exactly the word you want for such negative, destructive exploitation which can lead to all sorts of unnecessary human suffering even death? Heaven's Gate was a cult. Would the NRM scholars say otherwise?
And it's safe to say that the world scoffs at Heaven's Gate, just as it does the Moonies, Peoples' Temple and Scientology.
If Wikipedia wants to ignore the world, so be it. It trivializes itself in the process.
-- Jim
Andries, is there a translated edition of that book or paper? If there is, please provide the info an ISBN (if it is a book). If there is no translation, its place its not here but in the "nl" version of this article once it is translated. -- Zappaz 18:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the translations. Some corrections to the issues presented by this author (BTW: what was the year this book was written? Things have evolved a lot over the years...)
So, now that you have translated this, I still do not see any refrenece to the text you wrote. Did you translate the "wrong" paragraph? -- 64.81.88.140 05:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A "Criticism of .." article should not be created unless the section in question becomes dominant, in which case it should be summarized in the main article. The main article Prem Rawat contains nothing but a link to the criticisms. That is entirely unacceptable per our NPOV policy.-- Eloquence *
This is work in progress: read the summary of the process at Talk:Prem Rawat-- 64.81.88.140 14:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The research I'm doing over on the /temp1 page has led me to revise the financial section here, now that I understand each side's arguments better. Among other things, the nature of the critics' arguments has led me to re-insert the value of the various assets even though PR is not their listed owner. BTW, I don't know if it will make any difference to Jim, but this is a place where that classic point-counterpoint-rebuttal-surrebuttal sequence of presenting arguments that I was discussing with him earlier on this page leads to his side's argument being given the final say. -- Gary D 08:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
This is from Wiki's site on evolution:
EvoWiki's goal is to promote general evolution education, and to give mainstream scientific responses to the fallacious arguments of creationism, the Intelligent Design movement, and other antievolutionists. See our goals, editorial philosophy and suggested uses of EvoWiki.
Look at that! Wiki willing to actually get off the fence and take a position for a change.
So why not here? Surely anyone with half a brain can see how "fallacious" EV's arguments such as those in its FAQs? Why the double-standard?
I've looked around at other controversial groups like the Mormons, Moonies and Scientologists and I can't see anything that comes close to the ugly ad hominem attacks this website allows against Rawat's critics. Am I missing something? Jim
As Wikipedia's resident "Moonie", I can say tell you why the Unification Church & Sun Myung Moon pages have not descended into a whirlpool of hate speech:
There were some problems with the Mormon articles, but I spent a significant amount of time mediating there, so that contributors would be nice to each other.... --- Uncle Ed 19:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wrong as usual, Zappaz. My understanding is that this Criticism article is merely a temporary construct which will eventually be integrated into the main article which is, obviously, about Prem Rawat and Prem Rawat alone. It is not an article about us and we are not fair game as subject matter anymore than are ex-mormons, ex-scientologists or ex-moonies. Yes, EV has resorted to ad hominem, bullshit attacks in its FAQs but the premies here and their friends, like you, shouldn't repeat those spurious, defamatory allegations as if they were either true or relevant.
-- Jim
Zappaz,
It's not that anyone not 100% supportive of my point of view is either a premie or their friend but you have proven to be a stalwart defender of this cult indeed. Your extremely dishonest and ultimately evasive handling of the evidence that Rawat bullied his followers into worshipping him as God as recently as 1990 proved that. That's beyond dispute, Zappaz, but you pretended to not see that and, when pressed to rationally defend that view, dissembled. It would only stand to reason that an outsider like you should be flexible and receptive to being corrected by someone like me who actually knows much, much more about this group than you'll ever dream about. But your own philosophical predeliction that makes you defensive of cults like Rawat's makes that impossible. In the result, at a crossroad, you chose dishonesty. When Rawat's own official Indian publication quoted him scolding his followers for forgetting that the guru (i.e. him) was really Hari -- which that publication itself translated as "God" lest there be any possible misunderstanding -- acknowledging that Rawat claimed to be God in that instance was a proven fact beyond dispute. Your evasive dance around that was truly disgusting. You know, disgust is a natural reaction to dishonesty in some cases. That was definitely how I felt watching you then.
Perhaps you think I make too much of this one little issue. I don't. I see it as critical for several reasons. One is that the fact that Rawat made that claim then proves that Geaves, who you have no apparent qualms about despite his very questionable ethics in hiding his conflict of interest in this area, is seriously wrong about Rawat's "evolution". That quote completely undermines his entire revisionist theory which scapegoats everyone and their mother -- literally, his mother -- for the sins of the guru. It's also important as it puts the lie to EV's representations too. Finally, it's important because it should have been enough to stop you in your tracks and make you realize that if it was the truth you sought in your alleged research about Rawat, you'd bet on the wrong horse. A lot hinged on that issue.
But you chose dishonesty and proved that there's no reasoning with you about this group.
-- Jim
You're the guy who thought CAN was an authoritative citation, right? LOL! I can only guess what you're really all about. Listen, Senegal, take a look at the other articles on other alleged cults and you'll see. When an investigative journalist writes a piece on Scientology, does it matter if he got busted for growing dope? No, of course not. It's a question of relevance. The "character" of Rawat's opponents is a non-issue.
-- Jim
School has started and I've been quite busy...
snipped some dupliciative language
clarity about the back and forth about how many former students are or aren't still around. Added context to that argument.
Left the bit about the value of the aircraft but there was a lot of repetitous arguing from both sides that didn;t do any work.
added back to financial section the disclaimer that rawat not charged with wrongdoing
why finch page gets three seperate links? You could do that with ANY site. One frontpage link is good enough. Someone's try to load up the ball. (Got baseball on my mind!) Richard G. 01:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is Zappaz right when he says that the articles won't be merged? Both the Scientology and Moon sites display the Controversy sections early and prominently. Why should Rawat get any different treatment? What matters most, I believe, is what a relatively passive reader sees on his or her first read, assuming that they'll do no further clicking. When someone's as controversial as Rawat, the former Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, the primary page should reflect that. Instead, it seems like the cult and its apologist friends have succeeded in bloating the article sufficiently to displace the real story off in some sidebar. People aren't going to look up the Crticism of Prem Rawat, at least not as readily as they might Prem Rawat himself. Obviously.
-- Jim
This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The article now says:
I think this is inaccurate. Introvigne does not say in that article that these allegations are typically made by apostates, nor does he explain the causes. Please state where Introvigne says so, if you disagree. Note that Dettmer's, Mishler's and Donner's story as told in Wikipedia only tell about his behavior, not about narratives of capture and branding the old organization as evil. I will change it. Andries 17:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RE: Professional enemies according to Intovigne. It would be more accurate to say amateur enemies. Don't know of any ex-premie who gets paid to be a critic of Rawat.
Another Ex-Premie 14:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's no surprise that Wikipedia, unlike the rest of the world, favours indefensible ideas. That's the price of its NPOV policy and philosophy. If one has an indefensible idea of any sort which might otherwise be attacked and ridiculed, its proponents can present it on Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that the earnest Wiki editors will guarantee that it does not get laughed off, shouted down, cornered, exposed or any of the other things that fortunately happen to false ideas.
As Ed said, quite happily I'm sure, Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. In fact, perhaps that should be Wikipedia's subtitle:
Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia where Truth is Meaningless
A little truth in advertising, perhaps?
Oh no, there's that word again!
-- Jim
Ahem. I do not recall saying that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. On the contrary, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia editorial policy is accuracy. I believe this means getting as close to the truth as possible.
Perhaps you are confusing "neutrality" with "indifference". You wouldn't be the first to make this mistake.
It is not because we are indifferent to the truth, but because we recognize that it's supremely difficult to GET to the truth, that Jimbo created his neutrality policy. It bears re-reading from time to time; it says that when we CAN'T GET at the truth, due to irresolvable conflicts between sources, THEN we will forbear to take a position on the matter, and stand above the controversy by merely reporting what the various sides claim.
It's like a judge who throws out a lawsuit or, better, a "hung jury" which returs no verdict -- not because they think the matter unimportant, but because they could not AGREE on the truth. Rather than getting bogged down in limbo, Wikipedia simply says, "We don't know."
Some people say Wikipedia has no " values", but honesty is actually a Wikipedian value. When we honestly don't know, we say so. -- Uncle Ed 14:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Zappaz, the world is indeed a judge in the sense that history leads to some ineluctable conclusions. It's undeniable now that the American revolution was timely and justified. It's undeniable now that American slavery was an idea whose time was up. It's undeniable now that the earth circles the sun and it's equally undeniable that we are the products of evolution. It's also undeniable that there have been people and movements who have tricked and exploited people with religious tomfoolery and that these groups can be fairly called cults. It's a pejorative word but isn't that exactly the word you want for such negative, destructive exploitation which can lead to all sorts of unnecessary human suffering even death? Heaven's Gate was a cult. Would the NRM scholars say otherwise?
And it's safe to say that the world scoffs at Heaven's Gate, just as it does the Moonies, Peoples' Temple and Scientology.
If Wikipedia wants to ignore the world, so be it. It trivializes itself in the process.
-- Jim
Andries, is there a translated edition of that book or paper? If there is, please provide the info an ISBN (if it is a book). If there is no translation, its place its not here but in the "nl" version of this article once it is translated. -- Zappaz 18:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the translations. Some corrections to the issues presented by this author (BTW: what was the year this book was written? Things have evolved a lot over the years...)
So, now that you have translated this, I still do not see any refrenece to the text you wrote. Did you translate the "wrong" paragraph? -- 64.81.88.140 05:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A "Criticism of .." article should not be created unless the section in question becomes dominant, in which case it should be summarized in the main article. The main article Prem Rawat contains nothing but a link to the criticisms. That is entirely unacceptable per our NPOV policy.-- Eloquence *
This is work in progress: read the summary of the process at Talk:Prem Rawat-- 64.81.88.140 14:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The research I'm doing over on the /temp1 page has led me to revise the financial section here, now that I understand each side's arguments better. Among other things, the nature of the critics' arguments has led me to re-insert the value of the various assets even though PR is not their listed owner. BTW, I don't know if it will make any difference to Jim, but this is a place where that classic point-counterpoint-rebuttal-surrebuttal sequence of presenting arguments that I was discussing with him earlier on this page leads to his side's argument being given the final say. -- Gary D 08:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
This is from Wiki's site on evolution:
EvoWiki's goal is to promote general evolution education, and to give mainstream scientific responses to the fallacious arguments of creationism, the Intelligent Design movement, and other antievolutionists. See our goals, editorial philosophy and suggested uses of EvoWiki.
Look at that! Wiki willing to actually get off the fence and take a position for a change.
So why not here? Surely anyone with half a brain can see how "fallacious" EV's arguments such as those in its FAQs? Why the double-standard?
I've looked around at other controversial groups like the Mormons, Moonies and Scientologists and I can't see anything that comes close to the ugly ad hominem attacks this website allows against Rawat's critics. Am I missing something? Jim
As Wikipedia's resident "Moonie", I can say tell you why the Unification Church & Sun Myung Moon pages have not descended into a whirlpool of hate speech:
There were some problems with the Mormon articles, but I spent a significant amount of time mediating there, so that contributors would be nice to each other.... --- Uncle Ed 19:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wrong as usual, Zappaz. My understanding is that this Criticism article is merely a temporary construct which will eventually be integrated into the main article which is, obviously, about Prem Rawat and Prem Rawat alone. It is not an article about us and we are not fair game as subject matter anymore than are ex-mormons, ex-scientologists or ex-moonies. Yes, EV has resorted to ad hominem, bullshit attacks in its FAQs but the premies here and their friends, like you, shouldn't repeat those spurious, defamatory allegations as if they were either true or relevant.
-- Jim
Zappaz,
It's not that anyone not 100% supportive of my point of view is either a premie or their friend but you have proven to be a stalwart defender of this cult indeed. Your extremely dishonest and ultimately evasive handling of the evidence that Rawat bullied his followers into worshipping him as God as recently as 1990 proved that. That's beyond dispute, Zappaz, but you pretended to not see that and, when pressed to rationally defend that view, dissembled. It would only stand to reason that an outsider like you should be flexible and receptive to being corrected by someone like me who actually knows much, much more about this group than you'll ever dream about. But your own philosophical predeliction that makes you defensive of cults like Rawat's makes that impossible. In the result, at a crossroad, you chose dishonesty. When Rawat's own official Indian publication quoted him scolding his followers for forgetting that the guru (i.e. him) was really Hari -- which that publication itself translated as "God" lest there be any possible misunderstanding -- acknowledging that Rawat claimed to be God in that instance was a proven fact beyond dispute. Your evasive dance around that was truly disgusting. You know, disgust is a natural reaction to dishonesty in some cases. That was definitely how I felt watching you then.
Perhaps you think I make too much of this one little issue. I don't. I see it as critical for several reasons. One is that the fact that Rawat made that claim then proves that Geaves, who you have no apparent qualms about despite his very questionable ethics in hiding his conflict of interest in this area, is seriously wrong about Rawat's "evolution". That quote completely undermines his entire revisionist theory which scapegoats everyone and their mother -- literally, his mother -- for the sins of the guru. It's also important as it puts the lie to EV's representations too. Finally, it's important because it should have been enough to stop you in your tracks and make you realize that if it was the truth you sought in your alleged research about Rawat, you'd bet on the wrong horse. A lot hinged on that issue.
But you chose dishonesty and proved that there's no reasoning with you about this group.
-- Jim
You're the guy who thought CAN was an authoritative citation, right? LOL! I can only guess what you're really all about. Listen, Senegal, take a look at the other articles on other alleged cults and you'll see. When an investigative journalist writes a piece on Scientology, does it matter if he got busted for growing dope? No, of course not. It's a question of relevance. The "character" of Rawat's opponents is a non-issue.
-- Jim
School has started and I've been quite busy...
snipped some dupliciative language
clarity about the back and forth about how many former students are or aren't still around. Added context to that argument.
Left the bit about the value of the aircraft but there was a lot of repetitous arguing from both sides that didn;t do any work.
added back to financial section the disclaimer that rawat not charged with wrongdoing
why finch page gets three seperate links? You could do that with ANY site. One frontpage link is good enough. Someone's try to load up the ball. (Got baseball on my mind!) Richard G. 01:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is Zappaz right when he says that the articles won't be merged? Both the Scientology and Moon sites display the Controversy sections early and prominently. Why should Rawat get any different treatment? What matters most, I believe, is what a relatively passive reader sees on his or her first read, assuming that they'll do no further clicking. When someone's as controversial as Rawat, the former Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, the primary page should reflect that. Instead, it seems like the cult and its apologist friends have succeeded in bloating the article sufficiently to displace the real story off in some sidebar. People aren't going to look up the Crticism of Prem Rawat, at least not as readily as they might Prem Rawat himself. Obviously.
-- Jim