Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
I think all the claims I have read from Lans are contradictable by the clear facts, no scholars' opinions needed. If someone says "Prem Rawat has green hair" we don't need to find a scholar who says "Prem Rawat does not have green hair." Prem Rawat's diligence and sincerity in spreading his message have been obvious to all but the most bigoted for decades. The facts and figures speak for themselves. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
I think all the claims I have read from Lans are contradictable by the clear facts, no scholars' opinions needed. If someone says "Prem Rawat has green hair" we don't need to find a scholar who says "Prem Rawat does not have green hair." Prem Rawat's diligence and sincerity in spreading his message have been obvious to all but the most bigoted for decades. The facts and figures speak for themselves. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
I appreciate Kranenborg's words as interpreted by Babelfish. They are ensuring that human translators stay employed, regardless of the ill |
I appreciate Kranenborg's words as interpreted by Babelfish. They are ensuring that human translators stay employed, regardless of the ill feeling generated by our mate Andries' occasional lapses into POV. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:25, 22 May 2007
![]() | Biography B‑class ![]() | |||||||||
|
Moving on
Page archived as per discussion.
Now that we have some kind of tabula rassa, I would propose the following approach:
- Allow Andries and Momento, and any other editor that wants to join them, to complete their work at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2;
- Editors are also welcome to make further improvements at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal if they prefer to work on that version;
- In 30 days or so, or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions and cannot improve these any further, we can engage Wikipedia:Peer review, WP:RFC and GA reviewers to give feedback on which versions is more encyclopedic, NPOV, etc.;
- In the meantime if we all agree to a self-imposed moratorium in editing the current article, as to afford editors the time and space to focus in improving versions in response to the GA review, that would be excellent;
- We can also agree to discuss edits and not the editor, and if we need an outlet to discuss editors, to do that in user namespace rather than here.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't consider the slate to be wiped clean. I only agreed to the archive of the previous talk page, nothing more. I definitely don't agree to a 30 day or any time limit. There's no good reason for a time limit. I also don't agree to any moratoria on the existing article. Any as far as I can see, no one has been disallowing Momento and Andries or anyone else from continuing work on the article drafts, so I don't get your point on that. But, what really needs to be discussed is your own Conflict of Interest, since you have taken such a strong and influential role on the talk pages in such an authoritarian manner for so long, that certainly affects the outcome of the article's content, and how that interfers with producing an good, honest article. Sylviecyn 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh... I cannot be blamed for not trying. Note that I did not suggested a time limit. See the caveat "or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions." The moratorium proposed is on the current article, as to not to do double work, proposing than editors focus their efforts in the two versions proposed instead. As for your repeated COI argument, please read WP:COI where you can find the detail on the behaviors expected of editors with COIs. (Note that this policy may applies to you as well. A person that has spent 20 years as a follower and is now a actively engaged as per your own statement, may be too close to the subject and have a COI as well.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can be blamed for exerting too much influence and authoritarianism on the talk pages. I don't have a COI. Goes to show you don't understand what COI really is. I'm not employed by Rawat or anyone connected to Rawat or ex-premies. I'm not a member of anything as you are a member of this new religious movement. You've said you are a personal friend of Prem Rawat. The most you can say of me is that I may have a particular point of view, but, I'm only interested in making sure there is enough honesty and balance in the article. Do you own or prepare any websites for Prem Rawat, his organizations, or do you have any editorial control over their content? Do you have anything whatsoever to do with the public relations of Prem Rawat or his related orgs? Please answer. Sylviecyn 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) oops!
- I cannot exert any authority in this or any other article in WP. This is a wiki, and in my capacity as as administrator in Wikipedia, I cannot use any of my admin privileges in this or any other article in which I am involved actively. You have as much authority as any other contributor to the project, and your edits and comments in talk are and will be evaluated on its merits by other editors. You also need to read WP:COI to understand how it applies in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can be blamed for exerting too much influence and authoritarianism on the talk pages. I don't have a COI. Goes to show you don't understand what COI really is. I'm not employed by Rawat or anyone connected to Rawat or ex-premies. I'm not a member of anything as you are a member of this new religious movement. You've said you are a personal friend of Prem Rawat. The most you can say of me is that I may have a particular point of view, but, I'm only interested in making sure there is enough honesty and balance in the article. Do you own or prepare any websites for Prem Rawat, his organizations, or do you have any editorial control over their content? Do you have anything whatsoever to do with the public relations of Prem Rawat or his related orgs? Please answer. Sylviecyn 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) oops!
- 20 years' experience and insight into a subject is something most encyclopedias would pay good money for, Jossi. Talking of which, we know that Wikipedia doesn't pay its editors or administrators, so how come the position you've taken that you describe as "a conflict of interest" allows you to spend so much time (presumably during your working day) editing Wikipedia? Isn't that certain someone therefore paying you for what you do here? Now, if that's the case, there surely must be a Wiki policy on it somewhere? If there is, please enlighten us.
- Revera 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Read WP:COI. It is all there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're looking for someone to hold your sword while you fall on it. Well, having declared your conflict of interest, you could do the decent thing and leave the article about your employer well alone. You could, couldn't you? Or would that entail you having to relinquish your 'position' with your paymasters?
- Revera 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Read WP:COI. It is all there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.Momento 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Versions, versions, versions
I think Andries new version is already substantially better than the current version although it is longer at 6819 words versus 6592 words for the current version (the proposal is 2500 words).Momento 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI
Please see Template talk:Prem Rawat. Smee 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Jossi's Conflict of Interest
Jossi, you still are not answering the specific questions about your role(s) in the organization(s), related to Prem Rawat, which if left unanswered, leaves suspect any of your edits, both on talk pages and on articles. For instance, if you do website design or public relations work, it is important for you to disclose this. But, those are just examples. This isn't something that I'm suddenly bringing up, your situation on October 15, 2006 [Disclosures.] Btw, that disclosure is not easy to find on your user page. You declared this in writing and yet demand that people blindly trust you to make judgments about your own edits, vis a vis, whether or not you are abusing your COI or not by your request of other editors to provide you with the diffs. That's backwards. Refusing to disclose what you do for the related organization is not a show of good faith and this is improper behavior for an administrator and editor of Wikipedia. The onus is upon you to clear the air, not other editors. You have declared that you know Prem Rawat personally and that he's your friend, then you declared you work for a related organization. It doesn't matter if you are paid or work as a volunteer employee, you still work for a related organization. You have declared proudly that Rawat has been your teacher for 20 or so years.
I'm not asking you to name the organization(s), although why that also remains undisclosed is also suspect. Why not? Other people on Wikipedia with conflicts of interest disclose that information. But, you do indeed need to state your specific role(s) within the organization that you yourself stated you have, so that others can fairly judge whether or not you are or are not exerting undue influence or breaking Wiki policies here. See the "Close Relationships" section of the COI policy. You may need to recuse yourself from these articles altogether, but no one can make this determination without proper information about your situation. Part of the COI policy also warns against advocacy and propaganda. That you participated in the many revisions of that COI policy also places you in a poor light, given you have stated your own conflict of interest here, on an article of a living person who also happens to be your friend, teacher, etc. The same goes for the fact that you played a large role in writing the policy of biographies of living persons. These kinds of things don't go on in the real world without a lot of scrutiny, and I don't think you have any good reasons to ignore the questions and requests that have been made of you regarding your COI, since you originally stated it in writing on the Prem Rawat talk page and on your user page. Avoiding the questions isn't acceptable by quoting the COI policy. Please answer. Sylviecyn 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did answer. Copying it here.
- I have already told you all I needed to tell you.
- If you have concerns that I have breached any of these terms as outlined in WP:COI, please let me know:
- Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:::
- 1 editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
- 2 participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
- 3 linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:::
- 4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.
- (1) I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy. I am contributing via the talk page, encouraging interested editors to collaborate civilly and apply the content policies of WP.
- (2) I am not participating in deletion discussions
- (3) I am not spamming Wikipedia
- (4) I am not breaching any content policies.
- I would also like to bring to your attention this portion of the guideline:
- Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. (from WP:COI)
- I have never used my administrator privileges in this article. If you have any concerns about abuse of admin privileges, you can report it at WP:ANI, where it will be evaluated by fellow administrators
- So, if you have any specific incidents that you want to discuss, please provide diffs to support them.
- Also note that as an editor of this encyclopedia, I have collaborated with other Wikipedians in the shaping and monitoring of its policies. If you have any concerns about these policies, you can raise them in corresponding the policies' talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sylviecyn, Wikipedia editors have a right to privacy. jossi is operating well within the WP:COI guidelines, and there is no reason for him to reveal any more information than he has already revealed. Please move on from this line of questioning, which itself is veering into policy-violation territory. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also to the point, this is the talk page. If someone has a conflict of interest, and still wants to contribute, the talk page is exactly where that person should be editing. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and Jossi's position in this regard is correct. Wikipedia allows pseudonymous and anonymous editing, and as long is it does, continued harassment such as this is not acceptable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg has it quite right that Jossi is acting well within the guidelines at WP:COI. If you feel otherwise, you are free to post a request that the matter be considered/investigated on the conflict of interest noticeboard. However, such vigorous badgering of another editor working clearly within the guidelines verges uncomfortably close to incivility, if not personal attacks. Please be more cautious in your approach. Vassyana 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not vigorously badgering or personally attacking anyone. Wow. Where do you get that from, Vassyana? I disagree with all of you on your assessment of COI policy and COI in general. Jossi uses his influence on the talk pages all of the time which definitely influences what's ultimately placed in the article. If that's not abusing COI, I don't know what is. I'm not the first nor last person to ask Jossi to further disclose his role in the related organization so that fellow editors can assess if he is breaking policy, but now you're all giving him free license to ignore the policy. Also, I never asked him to disclose private details about himself or his life. But, I'm willing to let this drop for the time being, since everyone's so hot about my post above, which btw, I wrote with a clear, calm state of mind. Sylviecyn
- jossi is doing exactly what WP:COI says he should be doing; using the Talk: page, not editing the article. Rather than violating policy, he is scrupulously adhering to it; see WP:COI#Suggesting_changes_to_articles.2C_or_requesting_a_new_article. Moreover, you do not need to know anything more about jossi to know whether he is "breaking policy", since even if he were Prem Rawat himself, nothing he is doing in any way violates policy. You are the only person violating policy here. I suggest you refrain from further mis-characterizations of both policy and jossi's actions, and instead devote your time to reviewing WP:COI and discussing article content. Jayjg (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not vigorously badgering or personally attacking anyone. Wow. Where do you get that from, Vassyana? I disagree with all of you on your assessment of COI policy and COI in general. Jossi uses his influence on the talk pages all of the time which definitely influences what's ultimately placed in the article. If that's not abusing COI, I don't know what is. I'm not the first nor last person to ask Jossi to further disclose his role in the related organization so that fellow editors can assess if he is breaking policy, but now you're all giving him free license to ignore the policy. Also, I never asked him to disclose private details about himself or his life. But, I'm willing to let this drop for the time being, since everyone's so hot about my post above, which btw, I wrote with a clear, calm state of mind. Sylviecyn
The point of Andries' proposal
The point of Andries' proposal was to respond to the GA review. As Vassyana noted - "The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written... Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" Andries disagreed and decided to rewrite the old flawed version. The result is we have Andries' version that is even longer and has not addressed many of the GA concerns which were addressed in the first proposal. After a brief spurt of activity, Andries' proposal has slowed to a crawl. I propose we replace the existing article with the first proposal until Andries' proposal addresses some of the pressing issues brought up in the GA review.Momento 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid a further edit war ensuing, it would be best if you ask Andries if he is done with his work on the alternative version. If he says he is, we could ask GA reviewers and Peer Review editors to take a look and give some feedback on the two proposed versions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please be patient. Andries has only just started working on his draft rewrite. The draft you worked on and watched over took a couple months to put together. This new draft proposal has just gotten started. At the same time, there's no reason the shorter draft cannot be revised, tweaked and updated to account for any concerns the other editors have expressed. Thanks! Vassyana 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea Jossi. So as not to push Andries if he needs more time, let's replace the old article wiith the first proposal and let other editor's improve it where they can, and Andries can take all the time he needs with his proposal.Momento 02:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm, not so sure, Momento. Last time that happened, all hell broke loose unnecessarily. ≈ jossi ≈
- Good idea Jossi. So as not to push Andries if he needs more time, let's replace the old article wiith the first proposal and let other editor's improve it where they can, and Andries can take all the time he needs with his proposal.Momento 02:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(talk) 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only question that is important is whether a new version is better than a previous one. Of course, I oppose using Momento's draft replacing the old version, because I think it is worse, but I disagree with Jossi's reason. If a new better version causes edit wars then so be it. Andries 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Edit wars are never welcome. Edit wars cause page protection. Continuing edit wars bring blocks. Protracted edit wars bring sanctions like topic banning and 1RR probation. Edit wars and disruptive behaviour are always unwelcome, regardless of the justification. Please reconsider your position. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- After reconsideration I still think that I am right and you are wrong. Andries 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are you really saying the edit wars are appropriate, Andries? I think that you need to refresh your memory: Wikipedia:Edit war. No accepting these basic ground rules is not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I meant to say that an edit war with reverts to two reasonably good versions is preferably to retaining a bad version only to avoid an edit war. Andries 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit wars are never acceptable. At the least, they will get the page protected until the dispute settles down and agreements are reached. It will most likely be frozen as The Wrong Version. On the worse side, edit warring leads to blocks, topic bans and other sanctions. There are a number of means to achieve dispute resolution. Edit warring is not one of them. I beg of you to reconsider your stance and review the appropriate policies and guidelines. Vassyana 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reconsidered and I still think that when we have to choose between
- 1. A version that is considered bad by all involved parties versus
- 2. A version that is considered better by all involved parties but that is subject to edits wars
- Then I prefer option nr. 2 which I believe helps the encyclopedia more than option nr.1
- Andries 08:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reconsidered and I still think that when we have to choose between
- Edit wars are never acceptable. At the least, they will get the page protected until the dispute settles down and agreements are reached. It will most likely be frozen as The Wrong Version. On the worse side, edit warring leads to blocks, topic bans and other sanctions. There are a number of means to achieve dispute resolution. Edit warring is not one of them. I beg of you to reconsider your stance and review the appropriate policies and guidelines. Vassyana 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I meant to say that an edit war with reverts to two reasonably good versions is preferably to retaining a bad version only to avoid an edit war. Andries 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are you really saying the edit wars are appropriate, Andries? I think that you need to refresh your memory: Wikipedia:Edit war. No accepting these basic ground rules is not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The point of my proposal was to combine the good aspects of both the old version as well as Momento's rewrite. Momento's proposal is worse than the old version for reasons that I have made abundantly clear. Let us try to get readable prose of the draft that I started below 6,000 words as advised in Wikipedia:article length. The draft was 6,074 readable prose, but is now more, among others because Momento's edits made it longer (from 93k to 104k total bytes). Andries 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I want to state that I see merit in Momento's re-write, but I think it is flawed as whole. Andries 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki article length guidlines say (readable prose)-
- > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up
- > 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
- > 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
- < 30 KB Length alone does not justify division.
I have already helped create a readable, well organised article wth 45 KB of readable prose. Your new version comes in at 89 KB, about the same length as the articles on Elizabeth II and Jesus Christ and 20 KB bigger than Albert Einstein. It is much too big and this was a major factor in failing the GA. If you think the first proposal leaves stuff out, give yourslef another 5 KB and try for 50 KB. Anything bigger is a waste of time.Momento 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stop complaining about article lenght while at the same time repeatedly making many edits that lengthen the article. Are you intentionally disruptive or do I miss a good reason for your seemingly contradictory behavior? Andries 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think your proposal is full of edited, cherry picked quotes from biased Christian clerics who see Rawat as being a heretic. As long as you have this stuff in your proposal you will need a little balance. You will note that the first proposal is full of facts and has very few quotes. If you eliminate all the "opinion" and sticks to the facts, you'll create a much shorter and more accurate article. If you like, I'll remove 20 KB of fluff in 24 hours.Momento 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- You mean religious scholars and psychologists of religion, like Hummel, Melton, Kranenborg, Frans Derks, Wim Haan who published peer reviewed articles about the DLM? Andries 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that Momento is unwilling the agree with a concise version as long it contains summaries of the writings by Hummel, Melton, Kranenborg, Frans Derks, Wim Haan. I will not agree with a version that omits their writings. He feels that he has to compensate their writings with lengthy materials. The conclusion is that a concise version of Prem Rawat is impossible when both Andries and Momento edit the article. Andries 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- By all means summarise but a dozen quotes from Christian critics is too much. It's like asking Muslim Imams to review Buddhism. How can they not find fault?Momento 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who (specifically) are the Christian clerics to whom you refer? Do you have evidence of their bias? What makes their bias more of a concern to article neutrality compared to supporters and followers who have written reference material used? Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hummel is a Lutheran pastor and long time leader of the Protestant Centre for Questions on World Views; Melton was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist church in 1968 and remains under bishop's appointment to this day; Kranenborg is Minister and employed at an Orthodox Protestant university; Van der Lans spent spent 15 years in a Catholic monastery until he was employed by the Catholic University, Nijmegen and Frans Derks is also employed by the Catholic University, Nijmegen. A central tenet of the organisations who employ them is that the only way to God is via Jesus Christ and any one who claims otherwise is a heretic. Geaves is the only follower of Rawat quoted and he is not employed by a Rawat organisation or Rawat University with an established and promoted dogma. As for bias, anything these "scholars" write is predicated by the fact that, in their hearts and in their words, they believe Rawat is in "grave error" and leading people astray. The problem for the article is that their opinions are given undue weight. Where Geaves is relegated to talking about the Sant history of Rawat's teachings, our Christian "scholars" are allowed to voice their personal opinions of Rawat. Kranenborg notes - "He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life". Van der lars - "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings". And if not giving their negative views of Rawat, they express their bias by careless reporting. Hummel incorrectly tells us - " that Rawat's satsangs are different from Hindu satsangs, by the demand for faith and the portrayal of himself as as the reincarnation of the eternal "Guru Maharaj Ji". Lans and Derks wrote - ""that according to Maharaj Ji, "all evil should be attributed to the mind", and that such concept of mind indicates the obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds, referring primarily to a "state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust". Even an obscure a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands is given a paragraph. In the new proposal the dozens of sentences given to the Christian critics is more appropriately summarised as -"His early teachings, which were essentially Hindu in origin, were frequently criticized by Christian scholars and anti-cult organisations. Critics described his public talks as "banal" and like "Christian evangelization campaigns. Christian scholars described his teachings as "lacking intellectual content," and saw Rawat himself as immature, with behavior that was “unpredictable” or “nonsensical," and unworthy of a religious leader".Momento 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I need some time to respond to your comments that is filled with distortions and inaccuracies. Andries 05:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Melton, Kranenborg, Wim Haan, [1] Hummel, Van der Lans, Frans Derks are in the first place religious scholars, observers, and psychologists of religion who tried to write neutrally and factually. They are not Christian countercultists. I am very well aware of this kind of literature and I did not include it, mainly because I do not like them myself. I am very well aware of the sometimes willing distortions, ignorance and prejudice of Christians against Hinduism, but I do not think that any of the writers listed here above have done so. They are reasonably well-respected in academic circles, though also heavily criticized, esp. Melton for being too lenient on cults. I think it is telling about Momento’s degree of bias that he finds the writings of cult apologists too critical for this article. They are also Christians whose writings may be somewhat biased, but their bias is nothing compared to the writings by the follower Geaves who is extensively cited. They are independent from each other and their POV cannot be lumped together as if they belong to one group. So they cannot be considered having too much weight as a group.
- Hummel was not yet a leader of the Protestant Centre for Questions on World Views at the time of the cited publication. (1980) The cited publication was considered so good that he gained the right to lecture at the uni of Heidelberg.
- I can find only one Christian criticism of Rawat in the article (by the religious scholar Kranenborg), clearly labeled as such and self admitted by the source, segregated by the source from more neutral descriptions of Rawat and DLM. This is, I think, very little, taken into account that Rawat chose to get followers in countries in which Christianity dominated.
- Haan’s article was based on his involvement during two years with the Dutch DLM and was published in the best magazine about religious movements in the Netherlands. Haan’s article was referred to in the Dutch version of Eileen Barker’s “Introduction to new religious movements” Barker is not known for having Christian sympathies, but more for her moderate anti-anti-cult stance. In other words, the writings by the so called Christians are considered a reputable sources by non-Christians and academic circles. Haan wrote that he gave premies the opportunity to comment on the article before it was published. Unlike Geaves, had the honesty to reveal his background in his article to enable the readers to assess his possible bias. Haan's honesty is now abused by Momento and Jossi to denigrate Haan as a source to the maximum, both on the talk page as well as in the article.
- I admit that Kranenborg, Derks and Van der Lans were affiliated with Vrije Universiteit and Catholic Universiteit, but to say that they did not try to write neutrally is something I strongly disagree with. It takes quite a lot of knowledge of the Dutch situation to assess this which I believe Momento does not have. For example, the 1981 book by Van Der Lans “Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru” was cited as an example how innocent cults are. [2] Another example, the journal in which Haan published his article also occasionally included guest articles by followers of NRMs clearly designated as such but without critical comments by the editors. (Braak André van der, (Dutch language) Verlichting als evolutionair proces: Een studie van Andrew Cohen en zijn leefgemeenschap written as a guest article when he was still a follower in the book series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr 29 Sekten, published by the Free University Amsterdam, (1994) ISBN 9053833412)
- Here is a word count from the draft that I started. Lead section is excluded. The word count shows that Derks, Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans do not have disproportionate amount of space. And in the case of Melton and Derks & Van Der Lans, user:Momento himself gave them more space. Hunt has the most word i.e. 404, then follows Geaves with 308 and then Downton with 305.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2&oldid=131944277
- User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/word_count (details of the word count)
- Barrett (short article in book about many religious groups,) words:172
- Collier, (memoirs of a follower, possibly written while being an ex-follower (greatly and repeatedly expanded by user:Momento 262
- Chryssides religious scholar 33
- Derks & Van der Lans and psychologists of religion, from lengthy article based on their research of the Dutch branch of the DLM, somewhat expanded by user:Momento 116
- Downton (from sociological book about the DLM, based on his research of the American branch of the DLM) 305
- Geaves religious scholar and follower) 308
- Haan, (lengthy article in official university magazine about religious movements, based on involvement during two years with the DLM) 62
- Hadden and Elliot 72
- Hummel religious scholar 27
- Hunt from a sociological book about many religious movements 414
- Kranenborg religious scholar from a lengthy article plus encyclopedia 170
- Lans psychologist of religion in a book written on request for KSGV, Catholic organization 76
- Levine article in a book by Galanter report of the APA 87
- Melton (religious scholar, encyclopedist) significantly lengthened by user:Momento 194
- Messer (article from sociological book, follower) 111
- Andries 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- By all means summarise but a dozen quotes from Christian critics is too much. It's like asking Muslim Imams to review Buddhism. How can they not find fault?Momento 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You say "Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans, Derks are in the first place religious scholars, observers, and psychologists of religion". They are not. In the first place, before anything else, they are Christians. And not just "Sunday" Christians, they are Elders, priests, pastors, monks and employees of Christian religious organisations.Momento 09:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Totally untrue. I did not use Melton's sermons in the church as sources for the article or something like that. I used their writings in which they tried to be a neutral scholars. The only exception is Kranenborg's criticism that he self admits to be Christian based. Andries 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The truth of what I wrote can be verified with only a mouse-click. From Melton (I personally sometimes dislike Melton writings because of what I see his unjustified leniency reg. cults)
- "He explains his perceived and apparent reluctance to pursue the apologetic concerns of his colleagues in the Christian countercult movement:
- "My encounter with many Evangelical Christians who write about other religions has, to some extent, helped shape my life's work. However, over the years I have been mostly disappointed with the Christian writing in this area. Instead of attempting to understand the teachings of a group, too frequently writers only compared quotes from the group's literature with biblical passages, both often out of context. Then, as I began to visit the groups, I often encountered the anger at the church many members had because of Christian writers who had written supposedly authoritative books but who had distorted members' positions and had condemned them for believing things they had never taught ... I have always thought the church deserved better, and many years ago I committed myself to providing it with the information it needed both to live at peace with its new neighbors and to carry on its missional life with a high level of integrity.'" (Melton in his book Finding Enlightenment, p. 162)"
- Andries 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, you have misunderstood what I meant by "Sunday" Christians. "Sunday" Christians are people who's only connection with Christianity is going to church on Sunday. Unlike these "scholars" who are ordained and/or employed by Christian organisation. Secondly, you write that you dislike Melton's writings "because of what you see as his unjustified leniency towards religious cults"! "Unjustified leniency"? Why should religious cults be punished? And thirdly, Melton is absolutely right ..."Christian writers who had written supposedly authoritative books but who had distorted members' positions and had condemned them for believing things they had never taught ". I couldn't have said it better myself.Momento 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Momento, two days ago you praised the article and now you've doing an about-face. I understand why you might be feeling impatient. You took all the time you needed for your draft, so, it's only fair to allow Andries the time he needs. Once again, not everybody has all day, every day to write on Wikipedia, so please have patience. It may even take Andries three or four months to complete his draft. I don't see the urgency here. The currewnt article has been live for years. I think there are good parts in all three versions of the article that can be incorporated into one very good final version. Thanks. Sylviecyn 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) What do you think the strong points of the three are? What do you think their weak points are? Specifics aren't needed. I am just curious as to what you see as valuable and harmful in each version in a general sense. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite SylvieCyn. I said Andries' proposal was "substantially better than the current version", but the current version is a complete mess, especially in comparison with the first proposal. And Andries' version is still way too long and badly written. As Vassyana said "I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written". And suggested we "work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" I agree. It could take Andries years to rewrite the poorly-written and organized version. That's why we should replace the biased and poorly written version with the well-written and organised version.Momento 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please give Andries some time. It took weeks for serious progress to be made on the first draft proposal. It took a couple months for it to reach the point that is has. If he is working on another proposal, please give him the time to do so. If another viable proposal results from the effort, it would be of benefit. We could then move forward on choosing between the two proposals, soliciting outside opinion about them or merging the two to provide a better article than either. If the other draft is never finished, or otherwise unusable, it can still be used as a point of reference to improve the other draft. Unless there are biography policy problems, which can be (and must be) resolved immediately, it is not going to hurt anything to take a bit more time to try to work out an article acceptable to most participants. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Vassyana, Andries can take all the time he likes but not at the expense of having the current "messy", "poorly written", "poorly organised", "bloated" and "over long" article remain as Wikipedia's attempt at a Prem Rawat article. We should immediately replace it with the first proposal which can be improved by interested editors and Andries can put up his proposal for consideration by others when he's ready. Having seen what a good article can look like, I am ready to "merciless edit" the current article.Momento 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- how can I make a concise version if Momento keeps adding lenghty material to the draft? Momento's demand for a concise version in combination with his repeated edits that make the draft significantly longer is disruptive. Andries 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Vassyana, Andries can take all the time he likes but not at the expense of having the current "messy", "poorly written", "poorly organised", "bloated" and "over long" article remain as Wikipedia's attempt at a Prem Rawat article. We should immediately replace it with the first proposal which can be improved by interested editors and Andries can put up his proposal for consideration by others when he's ready. Having seen what a good article can look like, I am ready to "merciless edit" the current article.Momento 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is significant opposition to putting the original draft proposal in place. There is also understandably some concern about a disputed draft becoming the de facto article. Please consider that. Vassyana 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Andries, you can make a concise version the same way I did, by removing most of the irrelevant material and sticking to undisputed facts. No one is stopping you. Vassyana, I think it's time you asked yourself - why would anyone oppose replacing a "messy, bloated. badly written and organised article" with one that isn't? The only explanation I can come up with is that some pople prefer that the Prem Rawat article be "messy, bloated, badly written and organised". I think its time for RFC.Momento 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have explicitly and repeatedly explained that I disagree with your draft because of omissions and distortion of sources and have also detailed which sources. I also wrote that you are probably right that your draft is better organized than the old version. That is why I started another draft that tries to combine the best of your draft and the old version. However, I am severely hindered in that by your repeated edits that make the draft that I started very lengthy and bloated, though you also demand that the article remains concise. At best your behavior borders on disruption. Andries 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Andries, you can make a concise version the same way I did, by removing most of the irrelevant material and sticking to undisputed facts. No one is stopping you. Vassyana, I think it's time you asked yourself - why would anyone oppose replacing a "messy, bloated. badly written and organised article" with one that isn't? The only explanation I can come up with is that some pople prefer that the Prem Rawat article be "messy, bloated, badly written and organised". I think its time for RFC.Momento 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In one way, and having done quite a lot of work myself on the first proposal, I agree with you. But the wording still needs to be better. It has to keep a lot of very different people at least somewhat contented. Just putting in strongly counter-balancing arguments for each point made doesn't do it, the whole thing becomes unreadable. I think we have spoken about this problem before, and I think Andries will come up against it shortly. It is going to take some very clever word choosing, and I have found with word choosing that a bit of time and subconscious contemplation sometimes leads to the Ahaa! moment. Rumiton 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please lower your tone. It's only been a couple of days, Momento, again, please have some patience. I don't agree with your proposal to replace the current article with your draft. Your draft still doesn't follow the sources correctly and accurately, (see Andries's comments in archives), which is something Vassyana can't know because he's not well-informed about Prem Rawat and the NRM. I question Vassyana's ability to assess this article anymore, so I'm not going to take everything he says as written in stone, either. We need a more neutral opinion because it appears that Vassyana is biased pro-Rawat camp, or he simply doesn't have the ability to understand the nuances (there are many) of the facts about Rawat's life, etc. Your article is not ready to go live. Again, please show some patience while we work the new draft. Thank you and have a great day. Btw, I just saw a beautiful Indigo Bunting at the birdfeeder outside my office this a.m. Never saw one here before. A real thrill for a birdwatcher like me. what a color! I love it! :-) Sylviecyn 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Please avoid such personal comments. Again, if you feel my opinion cannot be trusted, please feel free to address those concerns politely on my talk page, or seek outside input from informal mediation or a request for comment. On the bird, that's quite awesome! I tend to watch the squirrels under the bird feeder. :P Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Vassyana is pro-Rawat, just not anti-Rawat. Perhaps you can help with the first proposal by pointing out the errors you see. I must be too close to it because I still think it is far better than the current version.Momento 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sylvienc, you are exhausting my patience and the patience of others with your continuous demonstration of bad faith and your comments on other editors. How dare you to say things like yo say above? Vassyana pro-Rawat? He does not see the nuances? Are you the only one that understands the subject, or are you the only one incapable to see how bad you look here by your comments? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Boys and girls, please! Deep breaths all round. Rumiton 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not easy, Rumiton. Not easy when she is unable to listen to comments made by disinterested parties, and keep making sneering comments right and left, rather than put any effort in fixing anything. This is becoming a farce, in which she uses this pages not to help, but to disrupt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Jossi, please be careful with your tone and implications. Such comments could be construed as personal attacks. I understand things can get frustrating and heated. However, we should keep cool and limit our comments to the content not the contributors. As you know, if someone's behaviour is a concern, a polite warning is OK and there are places where such concerns can be reported to outside parties. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. Strike-through. In the future, rather than respond to personal attacks, I will report these in one of the noticeboards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe go outside and look at birds...I dunno where you are, Jossi, but me, I've been watching a Lazuli Bunting, and it sure is more fun to watch birds than get tense about Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI
Created new article on book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Was pleased I was able to find lots of reputable citations for this article. Further discussion can go on the article's talk page, but thought you would like to know. Smee 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Weird fork
- Now try us - It has a different structure to the article, that is quite interesting. Smee 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
- Oh... that is just one old version of the article picked up by one of the many Wikipedia:Forks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Van der Lans
Van der Lans comment that "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life" and "one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings" is an "exceptional claim" as defined by Wikipedia. That is, it is a claim that is "not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". No other scholar has claimed that Rawat is a charlatan or a fraud, or supported van der Lans' claim and, on the contrary, all scholars accept that Rawat is a guru/teacher from a bona fide teaching lineage. Wiki requires that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding biographies of living people. There isn't one single, reliable source that supports van der Lans. Therefore van der Lans claim does not belong in this or any other article about Rawat. I have removed it.Momento 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kranenborg mentions the same information. Andries 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your view that Van der Lans makes an exceptional claim. Andries 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- What in particular do you disagree about? If only Van der Lans makes this claim, it is an "exceptional claim". If all Kranenborg does is quote van der Lans, then that isn't supporting VDL nor does it count as a separate source.Momento 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apart from extensively quoting Van Der Lans, Kranenborg wrote on page 66 that Jos Lammers made similar statements as Van Der Lans. Andries 11:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- What in particular do you disagree about? If only Van der Lans makes this claim, it is an "exceptional claim". If all Kranenborg does is quote van der Lans, then that isn't supporting VDL nor does it count as a separate source.Momento 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- We need an English translation as well as the original van der Lans and Kronenborg. And in keeping with BLP, I would like you to remove it until you supply verifiable material.Momento 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had already supplied translations several times. Check talk:Prem Rawat and the history of Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat, its history and talk pages. Andries 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Kranenborg_.281982.29_Dutch_original. Andries 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This material from Kranenborg doesn't say anything about Rawt being a "charlatan" or "leading a double life" or "one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings". What else does Kranenborg say?Momento 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I omitted Kranenborg's quoting of Van der Lans. I will provide a translation of the rest. Andries 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- How can what I said be untrue if you admit omitting it.Momento 11:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had explicitly written down that I omitted it. Andries 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This material from Kranenborg doesn't say anything about Rawt being a "charlatan" or "leading a double life" or "one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings". What else does Kranenborg say?Momento 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- See here for Dutch originals User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English. Andries 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There can be no doubt you have seriously misrepresented Kranenborg's position. He does not support Van der Lans at all. You have also seriously misrepresented Van der Lans by excluding (in your translation) that the basis of his claim that Rawat "is a charlatan with a double life" is his claim that Rawat was forced to be a guru "apparently by his mother". That comment alone shows van der Lans whole theory is unique and unsupported and contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. All other scholars note that in the beginning Rawat claimed the guruship against his mother's wishes, that he went to the west to spread his message against his mother's wishes and finally took legal action against his mother to take control of DLM. By leaving out van der Lans absurd claim that Rawat was "forced" to be a guru by his mother, you have distorted vdL's theory in an attempt to give it a legitimacy it doesn't have. Further more you also omitted the critical information that vdL bases his claim that Rawat's "private life is one of idleness and pleasure" because when Rawat "visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is rented for him and his family, he only visits the "premies" occasionally and spends the rest of his time watching TV or rented videos and visiting night clubs". What a joke. I have removed it.Momento 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- A reputable source does not suddenly becomes disreputable only because they make statement that you do not agree with. Andries 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that your repeated attempts to remove statements that you do not like but that are properly sourced to reputable sources disruptive. Please follow the rules. I do. Andries 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- "forced" is probably not a good translation of the Dutch original. I will check. Andries 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that I have misreprented Kranenborg or Van der Lans's works then correct this by citing missing statements, but do not remove statements that are properly sourced to reputable sources. Andries 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There can be no doubt you have seriously misrepresented Kranenborg's position. He does not support Van der Lans at all. You have also seriously misrepresented Van der Lans by excluding (in your translation) that the basis of his claim that Rawat "is a charlatan with a double life" is his claim that Rawat was forced to be a guru "apparently by his mother". That comment alone shows van der Lans whole theory is unique and unsupported and contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. All other scholars note that in the beginning Rawat claimed the guruship against his mother's wishes, that he went to the west to spread his message against his mother's wishes and finally took legal action against his mother to take control of DLM. By leaving out van der Lans absurd claim that Rawat was "forced" to be a guru by his mother, you have distorted vdL's theory in an attempt to give it a legitimacy it doesn't have. Further more you also omitted the critical information that vdL bases his claim that Rawat's "private life is one of idleness and pleasure" because when Rawat "visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is rented for him and his family, he only visits the "premies" occasionally and spends the rest of his time watching TV or rented videos and visiting night clubs". What a joke. I have removed it.Momento 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you edit warring about this? I understood that editors were focusing on working on the alternative versions with a view to ask others to help with assessing which version is better as the basis for further improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The same disputes will re-surface no matter what alternative draft versions we are woking on. Andries 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you edit warring about this? I understood that editors were focusing on working on the alternative versions with a view to ask others to help with assessing which version is better as the basis for further improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring. I have discovered that Andries has deleted critical parts of van der Lans' theory. What is now clear is his unsupported theory that Rawat's mother forced him to become a guru is an "exceptional claim" that is not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. His claim therefore needs multiple, supporting, reliable sources. It does not and therefore shouldn't be used.Momento 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then omit the part that is uncorrobortated i.e. that Rawat was "forced" by his mother.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs)
- None of it is corroborated. If you take out van der Lans' false claim that Rawat was "forced by his mother" to be a guru, then Rawat is not trying "to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced" and therefore he is not "an example of a guru who is leading a double life" and therefore he has not "become a charlatan". And since there is no "double life", there is no "on the one hand". It is all a fabrication. It is van der Lans, who could be considered either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. Momento 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can write that in the article Jan van der Lans if you find a reputable source. Andries 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of it is corroborated. If you take out van der Lans' false claim that Rawat was "forced by his mother" to be a guru, then Rawat is not trying "to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced" and therefore he is not "an example of a guru who is leading a double life" and therefore he has not "become a charlatan". And since there is no "double life", there is no "on the one hand". It is all a fabrication. It is van der Lans, who could be considered either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. Momento 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't miss the point Andries. If van der Lans claim about Rawat's mother forcing him to become a Guru is uncorroborated, then the whole argument that follows - that he led a double life because of it and became a charlatan etc - is uncorroborated. It is "an exceptional claim" that is provably false and you should remove it.Momento 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- LIt is voiced in several reputable sources. That is enough for inclusion. Your disagreement of what the reputable sources state is not enough for exclusion. Andries 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a dispute about reputable sources, this is about a source making an "exceptional claim" that is not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. His claim therefore needs multiple, supporting, reliable sources. It does not and therefore shouldn't be used. There is no corroboration for van der Lans "exceptional claim" that Rawat's mother forced him to become a Guru. Kranenborg doesn't voice it, he writes - "This is what van der Lans writes". Momento 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kraneborg cites what Van der Lans wrote and in additiond wrote that ex-premie Lammers made a similar statement as Van der Lans. You cannot make two reputable sources into zero reputable sources with all the reasoning of the world. Andries 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You label claims that you do not agree with as extraordinary simply to raise the bar for inclusion higher and higher. Andries 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is an "exceptional claim" according to Wik = That is, it is a claim that is "not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". Kranenborg only quotes van der Lans, he doesn't supply additional material or say he agrees with vdL. Lammers does not call Rawat a charlatan, does not claim his mother forced him to become a guru, does not claim he leads a double life, does not claim he leads a life of idleness and pleasure. It's over Andries. Van der Lans claim is a claim that is, and I'm quoting Wiki exactly here, "not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". But you are right, Wiki demands a higher level of corroboration for a claim that is "not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community".Momento 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kranenborg does say that Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers. So we have two reputable sources. How many sources do you have that contradict Van der Lans. Where are they? Andries 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For a start Lammers is not a "reputable source" but that's beside the point because Kronenborg doesn't say " Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers".Momento 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- He may not say it literally, but it comes very close. Andries 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- And even if some aspects of Van Der Lans writings are contradicted then this is not sufficient reasons to dismiss all his writings about Rawat as a insignificant minority view. I admit that if you find many sources that contradict Van Der Lans' statement that Rawat was forced by his mother or his followers to remain a guru then this statement should probably not be in the article. However you cannot dismiss all the writings of a scholar about a subejct only because he has made one statement that is a insignificant minority view. Andries 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a dispute about reputable sources, this is about a source making an "exceptional claim" that is not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. His claim therefore needs multiple, supporting, reliable sources. It does not and therefore shouldn't be used. There is no corroboration for van der Lans "exceptional claim" that Rawat's mother forced him to become a Guru. Kranenborg doesn't voice it, he writes - "This is what van der Lans writes". Momento 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Incredible! At 22:51 you claim that "Kranenborg does say that Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers". At 23:06 you say "He may not say it literally, but it comes very close". He doesn't even come close Andries and even coming very close isn't good enough. Here's Hunt contradicting vdL - "When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And Melton & Partridge - "It is stated that his father had chosen him as the person best suited to carry the teachings forward in an international arena as well as in India. Maharaji's childhood is full of accounts of how he would encourage his father's followers to practice the teachings and speak publicly at his father's events". And Downton "In another sense, the elevation of the youngest to spiritual prominence was no surprise at all, for stories are told about his extraordinary dedication to the Knowledge,* which he demonstrated almost from the moment when his father, and guru, had revealed the life force to him. From the age of six, he is said to have voluntarily immersed himself in spiritual practices, sometimes meditating for hours at a time. His exuberance for the Knowledge made him a sensation at satsang,* where premies say he spoke spontaneously to mass audiences with the assurance of someone many years older". Remove vdL's statement from the article.Momento 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the alleged contradiction is unconvincing. Van der Lans writes that Rawat became a charlatan. He may have wanted it in the beginning, but later remained loyal to his role from which he could no longer escape. Andries 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Incredible! At 22:51 you claim that "Kranenborg does say that Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers". At 23:06 you say "He may not say it literally, but it comes very close". He doesn't even come close Andries and even coming very close isn't good enough. Here's Hunt contradicting vdL - "When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And Melton & Partridge - "It is stated that his father had chosen him as the person best suited to carry the teachings forward in an international arena as well as in India. Maharaji's childhood is full of accounts of how he would encourage his father's followers to practice the teachings and speak publicly at his father's events". And Downton "In another sense, the elevation of the youngest to spiritual prominence was no surprise at all, for stories are told about his extraordinary dedication to the Knowledge,* which he demonstrated almost from the moment when his father, and guru, had revealed the life force to him. From the age of six, he is said to have voluntarily immersed himself in spiritual practices, sometimes meditating for hours at a time. His exuberance for the Knowledge made him a sensation at satsang,* where premies say he spoke spontaneously to mass audiences with the assurance of someone many years older". Remove vdL's statement from the article.Momento 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Van der Lans is not unique in describing Rawat as a charlatan.
- "Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears;
- Van der Lans is not unique in describing Rawat as a charlatan.
- Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru
- By Chip Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer
- Monday, February 15, 1982 ;
- At 19 Emily was a legal adult, old enough to vote, drink and generally do what she pleased. But for two days her parents held her captive while three strangers vied for her mind.
- Emily wanted something else. What she found changed her life and skewed the lives of her parents as well. She was a willful, restless, girl of 15 when she devoted herself to Guru Maharaj Ji, the spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission. Her parents watched unwittingly at first as their once freethinking child became increasingly involved with an adolescent guru who seemed to them to be nothing more than a charlatan with a weakness for cliches and a talent for fatuous analogies. [..]."
- Andries 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I will say that both Momento and Andries have a point. Momento is correct that odd claims, or those that run counter to conventional wisdom, need multiple reliable secondary sources for inclusion. He is also correct that parts of individual points should not be cherry-picked independent of context. Andries is correct that even if a particular view or argument of a scholar is inaccurate or incorrect, that is does not invalidate that author as a reliable source. That said, I would politely ask that you both walk away from this and come back to it after a bit. This back and forth is unproductive and will only serve to raise blood pressure. Vassyana 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. Btw, the mentioning of the parents of that girl is most definitively useless as it pertains to a scholarly assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the question what constitute "odd claims, or those that run counter to conventional wisdom" is subjective. It will be clear that I think that the statement that a guru is a charlatan does not run against conventional wisdom. Andries 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, just so you're clear. I haven't said van der Lans is an "unreliable source", it is irrelevant to this situation. What I do say, is that van der Lans claim that Rawat has "tried to remain loyal to a role into which he was forced by his mother" is an "exceptional claim" that is "not supported (by other sources)" and is "contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community".Momento 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the claim is exceptional then this is irrelevant because the claim is not in the article. Andries 05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Van der Lans makes five "exceptional claims", defined by Wiki as," claims not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". They are -
- Rawat is a charlatan leading a double life.
- Rawat was forced to become a guru.
- His mother forced him to become a guru.
- His private life is one of idleness and pleasure.
- He is either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings.
They are all exceptional claims and every one needs to be "be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially in the case of BLP. Momento 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the requirements of Wiki "Biographies of Living Persons," which are much more strenuous than those for general articles, mean that writings such as this by Van der Lans which clearly border on defamation should be tossed out without further discussion. The benefit of doubt goes heavily to the subject of the article. For that matter, as "extraordinary claims" they should not be used in any other article either. Rumiton 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting WP:BLP well-sourced negative statements can stay in the article. Andries 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand how Momento can call these claims extraordinary when there is another reputable source (Kranenborg) that makes them, apart from Lans. Momento has yet to provide multiple reliable source that contradict Lans and Kranenborg. Andries 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, a source says "Mr XYZ's sister is a whore". Now find a source that says "Mr. XYZ's sister is not a whore". That is a very poor argument, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two reputable sources are enough for inclusion. Andries 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if source "A" says "Mr XYZ's sister is a whore", and source B says "source "A says 'Mr XYZ's sister is a whore'", and no other source on the subject says anything about Mr XYZ's sister being a whore, that is enough to conclude that it is a "claim not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, Kranenborg wrote that Lammers made similar statements as van Der Lans. So we have two reputable sources. How many sources contradict Van der Lans? None, as far as I know. Andries 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If we can include only statements that have at least three supporting reputable sources then the article will be very, very short. Andries 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, a source says "Mr XYZ's sister is a whore". Now find a source that says "Mr. XYZ's sister is not a whore". That is a very poor argument, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Andries with your long history of mistranslating quotes it is necessary that you immediately provide the original Dutch and an English translation of Kronenborg writing about Lammers and the text before and after the Lammers quoute. All I can find of Kranenborg citing Lammers is (according to a babelfish translation) - ' Ex-premie ' Jos Lammers says: Learn know itself and learn appreciate, your contacts with others learn make, fortunately learn be, it is all no simple klus. And there comes look at a lot more for than four meditation techniques and blindly following a leader.Momento 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Straw man argument, Andries. We are only discussing statements that may violate WP:BLP, and this persons Lammers is not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue for two reasons. The interview with Lamers was published in a reliable source and 2. the interview was cited by Kraneborg who commented that Lammers made similar statements as Van der Lans.
- You cannot reason away that there are two reputable sources not matter how much you dislike what the source say. Andries 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If your way of reasoning is that we we need at least three reputable sources for statments that you do not like, then please say so. Saying so will at least give some clarity in the discussion. Andries 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- More straw-man arguments, Andries. I have said all what I could to make you see this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot convince me that two reputable sources mean zero reputable sources. Andries 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- More straw-man arguments, Andries. I have said all what I could to make you see this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Straw man argument, Andries. We are only discussing statements that may violate WP:BLP, and this persons Lammers is not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think all the claims I have read from Lans are contradictable by the clear facts, no scholars' opinions needed. If someone says "Prem Rawat has green hair" we don't need to find a scholar who says "Prem Rawat does not have green hair." Prem Rawat's diligence and sincerity in spreading his message have been obvious to all but the most bigoted for decades. The facts and figures speak for themselves. Rumiton 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate Kranenborg's words as interpreted by Babelfish. They are ensuring that human translators stay employed, regardless of the ill feeling generated by our mate Andries' occasional lapses into POV. Rumiton 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)