Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007

Moving on

Page archived as per discussion.

Now that we have some kind of tabula rassa, I would propose the following approach:

1. Allow Andries and Momento, and any other editor that wants to join them, to complete their work at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2;
2. Editors are also welcome to make further improvements at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal if they prefer to work on that version;
3. 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.;
4. 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;
5. 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)

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)

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)

No, Sylvienc. Not "for the time being". From now on, any further comments such as these will be reported to WP/ANI for harassment and disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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 ≈

(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)

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, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans, 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 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.

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. [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

Thanks. I left some comments in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 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)