Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

Pages, too, reincarnate
Andries, I agree with you that this is a better title under which to gather omnibus criticism than "ex-premies," which is too limiting. I urge patience on the whole split/merged issue, and I think you should just crank it up here to contruct the best, most comprehensive criticism article possible. The merge thing will take care of itself in time, and you will have all the raw material ready in any event. Also, with the recent proliferation of related articles, maybe it's time to consider a gathering category. I would propose "Maharaji" as the name of such a category rather than "Prem Rawat," since the former is how the world better knows this topic area. --Gary D 10:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't see the need for a gathering category. As far as I can see there are two main articles. One about the man and his movement and one about the criticism. The other pages are just stubs that don't warrant their own articles IMO.


 * Agree with Gary D that the merge, if at all possible, will take care of itself with time and patience. Let the critics write an NPOV article about their grievances and claims. That would be interesting to se if they can do that. Andries: given your affinity with their POV, you may need to help them with NPOVing, given that for them that is a very foreign concept. I have seen other articles you edited and know that you are very capable. I hope your own negative past experiece does not obfuscate your abilities as a Wikipeda editor to maintain NPOV when editing. -- Zappaz 21:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cooperation
I get the impression that Zappaz has a somehat favorable view of Rawat, while Gary has a somewhat unfavorable view. Each of you, however, have good writing ability and (at least in the last week) have communicated courteously with each other. So I suggest the following:
 * Gary & Zappaz as lead authors
 * Andries as fact checker
 * Jim as major supplier of "negative" info & views
 * Jossi and others too numerous to mention, keep on doing as before
 * I will continue to offer suggestions on how we can accommodate all views withou falling into bias or inaccuracy. --Uncle Ed 18:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I will put myself in a "basically neutral" category. I am neither a premie nor an ex-premie. In fact, I know precious little about the topic. Generally, I have an interest in and tolerance to mild support for most things religious/spiritual. In this instance, my first edit was mostly a response to the immediate situation: the last remaining critical section had just been deleted by the "pro" guys, so I promoted the status of the criticism article's link in an attempt to avert a revert war I believed was imminent. I am happy to continue contributing and copyediting here, but my said knowing precious little probably prevents me from contributing anything too substantive. If a mass of facts, for and against, were all to be just dumped on the page, I would be happy to smooth them all together. --Gary D 19:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just realized that this is the criticism article's talk page. My offer above is actually more geared to the main article. I am happy to provide a similar copyediting function for the criticism article as well, but an "anti" guy like Andries or Jim would need to provide the main body of material. --Gary D 19:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the proposal, Ed. Seems like a sensible one. I attest that my view of Prem Rawat may be seen as positive, due to the fact that so far I have been the only editor that has held up the fort to avoid being overrun by critics with an anti NPOV agenda. This has resulted in me being grouped with the supporters (and therefore victim of the fallacy of Guilt_by_association). The fact is that I am editing this article out of an academic interest and that I have been researching this subject for the past 10 months or so.  My intentions over the next weeks are:
 * To edit a new main article at Prem_Rawat/temp1 in which I will incorporate a summary of the critics POV as it develops, in preparation of a peer review if we ever need one;
 * Keeping an eye on the Ex-premie article, mainly NPOVing ex-premies contributions (particularly as they are either newbies or opposed to the NPOV policy, like Jim);
 * Keeping an eye on this and other related articles for same reasons as in (2)
 * -- Zappaz 20:35, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed warning
Jossi, what are the disputed facts in this article? You gave it a disputed warning. Or if it is a disputed because of omission then what is missing? Thanks in advance. Andries 19:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Given the current split state of the project, I would almost say both articles are in dispute by their very nature, LOL. Andries, Jossi might be able to give you specifics, and that would be good, but if not I would still suggest a wide berth on ancillary issues. I repeat my conviction that these articles will not remain in their current split configuration, and now is a time to be building, building, building. Two weeks or a month from now, the best text will win the day, and intermediate steps will be submerged into the haze of edit history posterity. Intermediate jabs, jousts, hits, and wins will mean little, and those who "kept their eyes on the prize" will be rewarded. In other words, I believe research, substantiate, write, edit, perfect remains the order of the day. --Gary D 20:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, do not remove the frames/sections, this is normal Wikipedia practice
Please, Jossi, try to be constructive and read the guidelines before you revert. Andries 22:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry: I will continue to remove these. This is a lame attempt by you and will not be tolerated. Show me where these guidelines are. Or should I spend my time educating you on WP guidelines? -- &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can not find it in the guidelines so quickly but it is standard practice in other articles. I have read it somewhere. Here is an example Tank_history Andries 23:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * HUGE difference. Tanks is not a controversial issue, and NPOV there is hence, pretty easy. Here, the labels of the sections, without any text are pure advertisng of your POV. What is the rush, tell me? There is no rush... just your ill intentions to promote your POV withhout dpoing any serious research and basing ALL your information on the words of a few individuals whose credibility is zero.
 * Do your research, write some good original text, then let me and others NPOV your edit. I cannot NPOV a section title. Understand now? -- &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * okay, I see you point now and I think it is fair but it still written in the guidelines. 23:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merging
We need to start merging this article with the Ex-premie article as it contains more or less same topics, namely criticism and rebutals. Don't see the reason for two articles. I would suggest keeping this one as the main one and merge the contents of the other here. Andries: you have been contributing the most to this subject, would you care to undertake the merging? --168.143.113.138 03:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Zappaz (somehow I cannot login to WP today? Ay changes made on the logon process to WP?)


 * I agree that merging is a good thing and I welcome rebuttals from followers on this article on the condition that the critics view can be included as well in the Prem Rawat article. Doing otherwise would be unfair. Andries 17:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't stress out too much over the inclusion of critics' views in the main article. Let me make my own position clear to both sides, if I haven't already: PR is controversial, and as far as I can recall has been so for as long as he has been in America; hence I think, and unless something changes I will vote, that any final version of the main article has to include a full discussion of that controversy. I'm pretty sure that's Ed's position, too, and I will hazard a guess that it will quickly become the strong WP consensus if and when we bring in additional people from RfC. (There was some discussion of pushing off the criticism section if the article became too large; if size indeed becomes a problem, I frankly think something else would have to be pushed off before losing the controversy discussion, it's that central.) I have updated the status report on the main article's talk page to offer some options for how this could be done. One of those options is to merge this criticism article back into the main article as a criticism section. Hence, I would suggest taking an eventualist view and, rather than conditioning supporters' views being included in this article upon critical views being immediately included in the main article (which might hold up progress here or lead us down the revert path), thinking of this article as the prototype for the criticism/controversy section of the main article, and working with the other editors and evaluating their contributions on that basis. --Gary D 19:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also agree with what I think is an emerging consensus that the bulk of the criticism material should go in here, and the ex-premie article reduced to strictly information pertaining to that group, or if not much survives there, even reduced to a redirect to this article. --Gary D 19:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary: I respect you and your opinion, but I must disagree with both your points. I agree that Prem Rawat is seen as controversial. That is not the issue. As such, we need to indicate in the article that fact and provide a summary of that controversy. Having said that, 99% of the criticism comes from one source and one source alone: the ex-premies. Making the article focused on the controvesy would not be right from a NPOV, in particular as the majority of the criticism comes from a TINY group of people that use moslty circular references to substantiate their claims.
 * I am getting quite upset by the lack of acceptance of that simple fact.
 * Since the late 1970's there has been little or no antagonism to Prem Rawat besides the one generated by the ex-premies. It would be thoroughly unfair, to showcase their criticism instead of presenting an article on what Prem Rawat does. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper interested in "juicy" stories.
 * I will tell you what is central to the story:
 * that Prem Rawat has hundred of thousands of students in 80 countries
 * that he is invited to speak at high profile venues and forums
 * that he has been trabslated to more than 60 languages
 * that he travels 11 months of a year (flying himself) to reach millions of people (last year 1 million people in Inid a alone)
 * that he receives ZERO dollars for all that work
 * and yes: that there are 25 obsessed ex-students from the 1970's that are stuck in that era, are unable to move one and have made it their mission to discredit and harrass Prem Rawat and his students'. And they continue to do so here in WP as well.


 * --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:21, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your respect, Jossi. We may not be all that far apart. You have said, "I agree that Prem Rawat is seen as controversial. ... As such, we need to indicate in the article that fact and provide a summary of that controversy." To me, that sounds very much like my position; I think we're in agreement that it needs to be in there. At most, then, we may disagree on how thorough a summary that should be, and to tell you the truth, I don't even know what my position on that is until I have seen the criticism material in a near-finished form. Hold on to your arguments regarding the amount of criticism to include; I think they'll come in handy down the road at the "reckoning/synthesis" phase.


 * Meanwhile, if we focus on the nearer term, I think you may see my statements above as actually helpful to your progress: my immediate goal is to assure Andries that it is not necessary at this point to insist that the criticism material be immediately included in the main PR article before he cooperates with allowing rebuttals in the criticism article. I am encouraging him to push forward with the editing and have faith that his cooperation with you will be rewarded with the criticism material being properly represented in the finished product. If he were to instead stop and insist on an immediate quid pro quo inclusion in both places, and unless your side is willing to merge the two articles right now, we might well be on the way to an edit/revert war on the criticism page, the main page, or both.


 * I am at present simply the cheerleader for cooperation and progress. You may have noticed that I am not doing any actual editing myself on these pages. I hesitate to do so, for fear of embroiling myself in a side controversy with one faction or the other during this delicate period when mutual trust appears to be coming back. I am trying to foster sufficient trust on everyone's part among the two factions to keep the writing and editing work moving forward. I of course welcome everyone to join me in this, and to show the maximum possible good faith in all their efforts. --Gary D 00:04, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary, please see the proposal on Talk:Prem_Rawat to use the same treatment as the Scientology and Scientology controversy articles. Don't see the reason from treating this any differently. (unless there a rational for doing otherwise that is devoid of hidden agendas and that will stand the scrutiny of other WP editors... :-)) . --Zappaz 23:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I read you, Gary, and appreciate your contribution even if these are just to keep the waters calm so we can sail through this without becoming green in our faces :). As long as the criticism is kept within context and does not take over the main article, I am game.  Please read in detail (if you have the time) the criticism and the rebutals. Then note that all the references provided by Andries/ex-premies come from one source: their own website. Then see the court papers, affidavits and other legal documents that are independently verifiable that show the true nature of these critics. It is so evident that it falls from the tree like a ripe mango. :) --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hesitate to merge
Hello, all. I've read all the background here, and respectfully, think that an entire merger is a mistake. It appears to me that your approach on the Scientology pages is an equitable and rational model. The problem you face here is what is called "The Heckler's Veto." When does a minority reach a tipping point of mass that should drive the agenda of the larger body? I've read through the ex-premie webpages, and it is so dense with allegations that it threatens to swallow the larger informational mission. The theme of that page, and the consensus among these people seems to be quite clearly that they are somehow "victims" of a very large, well funded and coordinated group of much larger size. That may or may not be. If that is the case, (and they are in fact little David) then how can in THIS context they present themselves as the Goliath of larger public opinion? That is internally inconsistent.

It is much more logical to summarize their allegations fairly and concisely, and provide a link where students/interested parties can learn more about the controversy and the Ex group's allegations. There is an important point to consider here: critique should not swallow the subject. A definitional experience should be related to veridical facts. For example, "A river runs through Paris" is veridical: it can be verified objectively. "Paris is a bad city" is not: it is a moral predicate, and can only be explained by reference to the writer's improvable likes and dislikes. Only in extreme cases can moral judgement rise to the level of veridical fact. For example, "Hitler was a bad man" passes the test, because there are enough independently verifiable facts about him that meet cross-cultural standards of moral obliquy. That is not even remotely the case here, and any argument to the contrary is absurd.

I must say that the ex pages are awfully thin on veridical facts and very long on moral predicate, especially given the self-referential nature of the allegations. Hearsay is not good research. One can report the fact that such hearsay exists, and the public should have access to that hearsay. But should hearsay really be elevated to the status of fact? This certainly doesn't invalidate the anti-group's views, and a seperate criticism page allows that view and those allegations to be aired. But it does not move forward the body of knowledge to DEFINE the subject by dint of criticism. This is what you risk here.

The only justification for soing so in this case seems to be the insistence that Prem Rawat is a "bad man" and these critics don't like him. Absent indepently verifiable material that he has ever broken a law, or been charged with something, merger of the critique (which is shocking, to be sure, emotionally charged, no doubt, but not VERIFIED so far) is neither good academics nor good editing. Given what appear to highly defamatory allegations, it does not strike me as particularly fair, either.

I understand that the maintenance of a seperate page might involve more edits/revisions/dialog, but easier work" is not a substitute for good research. I have seen some of the vitriol from the anti-group in the discussion archives, and hope that this comment is taken in the spirit in which it is meant. Richard G. 12:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Ed

 * I think I agree with Richard, at least in part. I think that for the time being, we should not merge the main Prem Rawat article with any of the "criticism" articles; I guess that is where we agree. In the future, it might be possible to merge the articles, but only if pro and con factions can agree on a neutral viewpoint.


 * A viable, neutral article must avoid drawing any conclusions -- while satisfying all parties that significant viewpoints are described accurately. For example, the Sun Myung Moon article says basically that his followers think he's the Messiah while a considerable (but diminishing) group of detractors think he's an awful fraud. This is accurate, because it describes (a) the followers' views; (b) the detractors' views; (c) the trend that the detractor/supporter ratio is going down. This is neutral, because the Wikipedia article does not endorse Rev. Moon as the Messiah; nor does it condemn him as a false Messiah. This is viable, because followers and detractors alike are satisfied that all their important ideas, attitudes, observations and experiences are described accurately and in sufficient detail in the article.


 * Another part of the successful development of the Sun Myung Moon article (and related articles like Unification Church) is that I almost never reverted anybody's edits -- not even anonymous users who offered no sources. I would take up to a week to incorporate opposing (i.e., pro-church) views (with sources). And I would discuss changes as much as needed on the talk pages. Summing up the thrust of someone's complaint often helps: "So you're saying he's no good because he's against gay rights, is that it?" Or, "You think he's a fraud in the religion department because (a) no Messiah is ever going to come and (b) you think he's just trying to amass political power for his own self-promotion?"


 * Opponents will usually tell you why they oppose someone. Then, as a Wikipedia editor your next step is to incorporate the opponents' objections into the article. They oppose him because they believe he is X or did Y. --Uncle Ed 13:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Andries

 * Richard_G., I disagree that "the ex pages are awfully thin on veridical facts". The www.ex-premie.org has about 1000 webpages that contain quite a lot of testimonies supplied under real names thus not hearsay. May be you haver overlooked some webpages/testimonies and articles. If there are enough independent negative testimonies then this is proof that something is wrong with Prem Rawat because of Prem Rawat's extraordinary claims and promises about himself and Knowledge. Andries 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries, you say that "The www.ex-premie.org has about 1000 webpages that contain quite a lot of testimonies supplied under real names thus not hearsay." My friend, that is STILL hearsay. That's the whole problem-- this stuff is highly circular:
 * 1) I say "X" is true;
 * 2) Here's where I say "X" is true and someone (with the same agenda) agrees with me;
 * 3) therefore "X" is true.


 * And to say that "enough independent testimony" is a substitute for hard fact is simply not good scholarship. Volume is not the same thing as quality. You should hear my daughter's rock music sometime! :) Richard G. 02:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard G. I do not understand, I always thought that there is a big difference between first hand non-anonymous testimonies and hearsay. It may be my English. If first hand testimonies under real names can not serve as evidence then what what do you consider evidence? These testimonies were built up over a long period of time. May be you can refer me to a website in which good scholarship as you see it is explained because I may miss something. Andries 02:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Zappaz

 * Thanks Richard for an excellent summary of the discussion at hand. Andries, I have explored that site in-depth and I can say this: most of these pages contain 'self-serving" discussions designed to support their POV. That is OK with me, but to call that site a source of "veridical facts" requires a huge stretch of the imagination. Most pages do not have an author specified, others are "open letters", while others are IMO poorly written essays or "white papers". There are a few "journeys" and a few interviews with ex-employees, on one section called "ExChanges". But that's all. There is of course a large body of defamatory allegations, but I guess that is their bread and butter being as they are the main critics of PR. --Zappaz 22:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More criticism, less rebuttal
This is the article for criticism of Rawat -- not for extensive rebuttals of that criticism. Zappaz and others, please encourage Jim and the anonymous IP contributors to list all their criticisms in detail here. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Ed. The criticism is already well developed in the Ex-premie page. What Zappaz was referring to is to merge that article with this one as they both cover the same stuff. --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 16:09, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have wandered into the editing fray, and have attempted to move things along by lifting some of the more well-developed criticism text from the Ex-premie article and dumping it here, with some additional organization. I have made no attempt at this point to make it look pretty or flow well. I have not deleted it from that article, but I do think eventually all material that doesn't implicate ex-premies directly (once we have reached consensus on whom, exactly, that is) should be removed from there. --Gary D 22:44, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the fray...! I will chip in as well. I am sure Ed will help too. Andries is already engaged, and Richard just joined. All the effort combined will have this article in pretty good shape in no time.--Zappaz 00:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, what do you mean "they claim are now denied?
Why write "claim"? This is a fact. These claims of divinity are denied. Elan Vital now says that Lord of the universe is a common phrase in India. I mean, this is like saying that some people claim that 1+1=2 Andries 00:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is work in progress, Andries. The best of us here would do a final editing to make it read better. Gary D and Richard could do surely a better job. Give them a chance. Let's just bring all the facts/allegations/rebutals and let it percolate slowly... --Zappaz 00:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another thing, is it a fact that Mishler left because he was fired?
Or was Mishler "fired" because he wanted to leave? If we are not sure then we should not write it down as a fact, as you have done now. Andries 01:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries, Maharaji fired Bob Mishler because he (Rawat) was angry that Mishler told him he would have to vacate the Malibu residence due to the problems with the IRS and DLM at the time - 1976.


 * Read more about that here -- note this is a conversation on a previous ex-premie forum between Michael Dettmers and ex-premies. Michael Dettmers was Rawat's personal financial advisor for several years.  So far, no one from EV or Rawat himself has disputed what Dettmers said:


 * http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof10302000222548.htm#P_0VBQ


 * So that's two close associates of Maharaji, one dead, one still alive, who corrobate each other's testimony independently.


 * Cynthia, Sept. 5, 2004


 * Misheler was fired, and had a definite ax to grind. As for these accounts from Dettmers it shows one interesting fact, the fact that Rawat is not very keen on organizations, a thing that is consistent with the articles written by Greaves and explained in the main article. Clearly this Mishler crossed a line that he should not have, was fired and became embittered. It also points that at these early times some followers chose to give money to Rawat, and others chose to give it to the Denver HQ. --Zappaz 17:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)