|
|
|
Then, the real capper, Rumiton suggests to Cynthia that her writing "glows" when she talks about the "good times" with Rawat. This is hilarious. "Good times" Rumiton? Read it again, pal. Read it again.
|
|
|
|
First, I hope no one minds my contributing a few Wiki ideas from the sidelines like this. As I've said, I don't seem to have the time, stamina or temperment for editing there although I'm continuously impressed by those who do. These days that's Cynthia, Andries and Pat W. I'd buy any one of you a king-size diet coke if you were in town. Indeed. Anyway, I just noticed that Jossi's scoffing again at the suggestion that he should disclose the nature of his COI working the article. He even has the temerity to suggest that Cynthia has her own COI just because she's an ex. No one who understands the term would ever agree with either proposition. An interest is not a conflict of interest. The latter arises when, as in Jossi's case, he's being paid money by the cult to do this or that. It may even arise without money changing hands, so long as he has a formal, expected loyalty or dedication as would be inherent in a position like Jossi has. Also, as others have noted more than a few times, it seems beyond comprehension that EPO can't be linked or that no source material such as what's on the Gallery, stuff that really proves beyond all doubt just what this stupid cult and its leader are about, can't be either. Has Vassayana ever been specifically asked about that? I know, I know, it's all back-seat driving. So ignore me if you want. I must add this though. Pat and Cynthia are gifted communicators. 
|
|
|
|
You've certainly done your share of arguing things through Jim For something less time consuming but probably equally high profile (on a day-to-day newsworthy basis, I mean) perhaps you could find the time to join in a discussion about cults on the UK's largest (non-commercial) bulletin boards? Don't get the wrong idea here. I can cope just fine without you  . But hey, if you want to help out, well, I'd certainly appreciate that. There's a long (and quite thoughtful) thread to be found right here. Something to read, even if you don't feel like taking part. (You may need to create a user name and password to log in)
Modified by jonti at Wed, May 16, 2007, 04:32:48
|
|
|
|
I agree. ..they write superbly. The to and fro on Wiki is very amusing ..it could and maybe should be written up and produced as a stage farce. I just loved the discussion about 'Krishna costumes' , blue paint and flutes oddly mutating into some vaguely Indian style of dress. Anyway, of course M wouldn't have painted himself blue ..he wasn't pretending to be Krishna but the new improved ..more powerful than ever before ..'golden' Krishna. It is priceless stuff ...even if Pat, Andries and Cynthia don't succeed in getting any truth or perspective into the Wiki article they will at least have written half of a great comedy script best Tim
|
|
|
|
It's kind of funny how things work in the Wikiworld. They give each other badges for being good little Wiki boys and girls and then they protect the hell out of each other. In this case, they're saying that it's wrong to demand that Jossi disclose the nature and extent of his COI because he's not editing the article. For one thing, he's most definitely editing it, even if it's just by standing there as a goal keeper telling everyone else how to edit it. But more fundamentally, their policy's absurd. What if, for argument's sake, Rawat owned a company and Jossi was his new CEO with profit interests and all the other interests one might imagine? The whole point of a COI is that it taints the process. Jossi shouldn't be anywhere near the article and, yes, by the real world rules he would have to disclose the full nature of his connection. Idiots!
|
|
|
|
I think it's just the 'law of the playground' in a school run by a Humpty Dumpty administration - the favourite kids get a pat on the head and freedom to kick the bad kids all on the logical basis of: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
I knew I was right, thanks for saying it better than I could. The mentality is basically: "I have a conflict of interest, but you can trust me to monitor myself. If you knew what I know about myself and my COI, you'd agree with me." There's a huge amount of behavior and mind control going on over there. I found this recently on the Apostasy talk page: Dettmers is one of the few direct wittnesses of Rawat's private behavior . That is different than just a private a website (Mark Dunlop's) writing about a very general subject. Andries 21:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC) - I know Prem Rawat personally, and I can assure you that Dettmers statements are a figment of a sick imagination. Would you then quote me in that article? ≈ jossi ≈ 01:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, May 17, 2007, 09:03:06
|
|
|
|
I just got spanked very hard for pressing too much on the COI thing. I just don't have any clout over there. Unfortunately, I'm just not a special Wikipedian at all in the special Wikipedian cult club. I'll have to take Vassyana's advice from a few weeks ago and get myself into that Wikipedia state of mind... 
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, May 17, 2007, 08:49:15
|
|
|
|
Yes, I saw that. But here's a blurb from one of the articles about COI linked to from the Wiki article on the subject. Not the article about WikiCOI policy but the general one about Conflict of Interest which is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest That article links to an essay on COI called "Ethics and Conflict of Interest" (from my local UBC in fact) which includes the following obvious advice: But once you recognize that you are in or are headed into a conflict of interest situation, the ethical responses are straightforward: get out of the situation, or, if you can't, make known to all affected parties your private interest. These responses will preserve the trust essential to professional objectivity.
That article's here: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/people/mcdonald/conflict.htm So what's different here? Well, Jossi's neither "gotten out of the situation" nor "made known to all affected parties [his] private interest". In terms of "preserving trust" one would think the onus would be on him, the guy with the conflict, especially on such a seriously controversial subject, to bend over backwards to satisfy his obvious opponents that he's not unduly influenced by the conflict. That means answering specific questions about the nature of his interest not just throwing out a vague one-liner. This isn't about his "personal life". What a joke that confusion is! Thus, if it's a matter of appearances only, whatever, the onus is on him to make them right. Jossi needs to provide full disclosure for your comfort level. That's certainly part of the process or should be. Or would be in the real world. And with that full disclosure, there should be a fair, open discussion about the implications of any involvement on his part, a discussion he shouldn't begrudge anyone, given his respect for Wikipedia and supposed interest in the integrity of the article. But the other Wikidiots don't give a damn about that. The only comfort level they care about is Jossi's. That's obvious.
Related link: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/people/mcdonald/conflict.htm
Modified by Jim at Thu, May 17, 2007, 11:24:35
|
|
|
|
Jossi and his wikifriends claim that he's complying with the Wiki policy that people with COI's only use an article's talk page instead of editing. But they completely miss the point. Here's the actual guideline: Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article If you wish to suggest changes to an article, use that article's talk page. - You may wish to log in and create a user page for yourself that describes you and/or your professional background, using a real name or a pseudonym.
- Go to the talk page of the article.
- Create a new section by clicking the "+" at the top of the page. Title it "Proposed change" or "Proposed addition." Type in the changes you wish to have made, and sign your post by typing four tildes, ~~~~.
To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or category.
Clearly, the spirit of the policy isn't to suggest that someone with a COI perpetually police an article through its talk page as Jossi does. Rather, the idea is that people with COI's stay away but if they absolutely must suggest something, they do it this way. Jossi is indisputably perpetually refereeing, supervising, monitoring ... whatever word you like ... this article. A total perversion of the Wiki policy. As I read it anyway.
Modified by Jim at Thu, May 17, 2007, 12:37:41
|
|
|
|
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. I've reached my limit. I can't do this anymore. And I've tried so hard to be reasonable with those people. I'm at the point you've often reached, Jim, where you just want to reach out and shake someone (verbally) over there to find out if they're human or robots. Vassyana is such a f**king idiot. Read this exchange between myself and Vassyana (from my talk page, to which I replied on his talk page, and now he tries to have the the final word (on mine). All those experienced Wikipedians don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. You said on my talk page: Regardless of the validity of your claims regarding COI, please avoid badgering and aggressive posts.[1] If you feel it necessary, the situation can be reviewed by outside editors/admins by posting your concerns at WP:COI/N. However, flinging implications and accusations in such an aggressive tone is just not civil, and could be considered a personal attack. Please try and keep a cool head. I understand the situation can be frustrating and heated, however we should remain civil and polite. If you feel unable at any point to stay calm and courteous, it may be helpful to focus on other wiki articles and tasks. Take care! Vassyana 02:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sylviecyn" Vassyana, there was nothing in or about my post to Jossi that implied anything or accused him of anything. It is a strong request, I'll grant you that, but it doesn't come close to being a personal attack. It's interesting how it happened that you read my post to Jossi as hostile, because you filtered my words through your bias against me and other former followers of Rawat. You completely misread my post as aggressive, uncivil, hot, or a personal attack, etc., when I wasn't feeling frustrated, heated, aggressive, discourteous, nor agitated or not calm. Where did you get that from the words I wrote? That was a complete projection on your part. In fact, I was feeling quite calm, good, and happy when I wrote it. Look, I've been writing online for many, many years so I understand well how your reading of my post brought you to the incorrect assessment and conclusion about my state of mind. It's an easy mistake to make online because there's no eye contact, body language, or voice inflection for the reader to see and hear in this type of communication. I've seen this happen many, many times. But, where the rubber meets the road, you don't know how I felt when I wrote that and your characterization of me was totally off. Jossi consistently uses strong influence upon the conversations that take place on the Rawat talk pages, which in turn, strongly influences what's ultimately placed in the article. He's got a COI. I'm not the first nor last person to ask him to disclose what he does for a Prem Rawat organization, and I didn't ask him to name his employer. I'm not the only editor that feels this way about him. He consistently veers conversation away from pertinent issues concerning the Rawat article when it's important to have those dicussions. By the way, your post (copied above) came across to me as bullying. Isn't online conversation interesting? I think so. Be well. Sylviecyn 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Yes, cooked indeed. Join the club. How funny the way Vassayana simply accepts Bluejay or whatever his stupid name is' bona fides and judgement and skirts the substance of the issue. Cynth, you might want to just post a parting comment on the Prem Rawat page for the record and all. Or not. Whatever you do, your performance there was exemplary and thus I'm nominating you for an ex-premie Smart Card award. Three of those and you're eligible for ...
|
|
|
|
I may or may not make a final statement--haven't decided yet. I'm too mad today to do anything. The ranks closed in on me while hovering around Jossi, who made some comments and threats to report me if I don't drop the COI thing. How dare I question any Wikipedians!
|
|
|
|
Another 2 (pence) worth.. As far as I can understand it ..the rules on biographies of living persons require that they should written from a neutral POV and not subject anyone to libel or unfair defamation ...but equally neither should Wiki be misused as an opportunity for agrandisement and advertisement. As it stands the slanted Rawat article obviously fall foul of the latter ... .....Here's my 2 cents worth on something that would be (proportionately) shorter and neutral. Prem Rawat also known as Maharaji, formerly Guru Maharaj Ji, has been a speaker and teacher on the subject of "inner peace" since he was eight.[3] Born in Haridwar, North India on December 10, 1957, Rawat was initiated in the so-called techniques of "Knowledge" by his father Hans Ji Maharaj when he was six years old, and was accepted by some as a satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) or "Perfect Master" at his father's funeral in 1966.[4][5] In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles, and attracted substantial media attention that focused on his age, the claims of his followers, his own claims and those of his family. He established the Divine Light Mission in the West and attracted many followers from the hippie culture. Rawat's marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift, and Rawat's mother and his eldest brother Sat Pal returned to India.[6][7] Rawat remained in the West, where he was sometimes criticized for leading a luxurious lifestyle and for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings.[8][9][10][11] In the 1980s he began the process of adapting the style of his message for Western and international audiences, dropped "Guru" from his title and currently uses both Maharaji and Prem Rawat, his family name. [12][13] Rawat is a qualified pilot and tours the world extensively making use of a charitably funded private GulfStream V aircraft to present his message in person. His tours and costs are supported by the charitable efforts of Elan Vital and also The Prem Rawat Foundation which was established in 2001 not only to spearhead humanitarian efforts but also to promote his message. Apart from his talks in person his words and images are also currently distributed in eighty-eight countries, largely on video, print and television. He continues to attract large audiences in India where his brother SatPal also continues to teach his father’s techniques of ‘Knowledge’. However, elsewhere, he is no longer a widely known or recognisable figure. It is estimated that the ‘mahatmas’ of the messianic mission of the early 1970s initiated as many as 200,000 mainly young European, Australian and North Americans into the techniques of the so-called ‘Knowledge’ and audiences of 10, 000 or more were once quite usual at Prem Rawat’s speaking engagements. However, since then, and despite more than thirty years of continued ‘propogation’ supported by an annual multimillion pound budget (cf. 1.5 million pounds deriving from UK-derived charitable support in 2005 alone (ref)), Rawat’s ‘message’ has generated few new adherents outside India. In fact the vast majority of one-time followers (> 95%?) have long-since left and few have replaced them. In the ‘ West’ a core of a few thousand ‘active’ followers (‘premies’) remain to provide the financial and voluntary support for the charities that exist to support Rawat’s work. For the past 15-20 years audiences for Prem Rawat’s speaking engagements in Europe and North America have rarely attracted numbers of more than 3 or 4000 and these have overwhelmingly comprised the continuing core of his babyboomer followers,. The claim of his supporting charities that 'Prem Rawat is a leading voice for peace' would appear hard to substantiate. ....it all seems a question of which 'facts' get selected . ah well Tim
|
|
|
|
Hi Tommo (Tim),
Your post is really not so very different from the first Wiki article on
Maharaji in May 2004, written apparently by Mike Finch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=3637971
Interesting to see Jossi's initial talk comments. I think
when he was a newbie to Wiki, he was every bit as
opinionated and harsh in his comments as Cynthia is
accused of being now
But IMHO, the current article is pretty good. It may not
satisfy the true believers on either side, but it is probably
as close to a compromise as the 2 sides are likely to find.
Regards,
Sean
Modified by sean at Thu, May 17, 2007, 23:20:17
|
|
|
|
Sean, If the article had any guts it would include links to EPO and the Gallery which are replete with documentary evidence in Rawat's own words that put the lie to your cult's spin on who he is and what his life's been all about. That's just for starters.
|
|
|
|
Hello Sean, thanks I didn't know that Mike had put up something similar. I didn't explain my point very well but there really does seem to be a fundamental difficulty with the NPOV and the selection of what are key 'facts'. From a genuine NPOV Prem Rawat simply isn't notable since 99.999% of people have no clue who he is and couldn't care. By definition therefore anyone who has an interest in even writing a WIKI article on him does not have NPOV. Wiki clearly has the same problem with all of the living cult leader articles. Check out the Sri Chinmoy, Sri Sri etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Chinmoy Just like the Sri Chinmoy article (very good..have a read if you fancy a change ..looks a bit smug though) it really does seem entirely fair comment that, as in the Chimnoy case, the current article on Prem Rawat is effectively just an advertisment because some really key (and actually rather negative..but facts are facts) facts are simply missing. A key objective fact about Rawat is that he has spent 40 years travelling and proselytising his message ...in latter years mostly to the same old 'already converted' ....to no obvious effect other than the consumption of a good deal of charitable funding. You must see that too Sean? I went to events and local events regularly the past 10-15 years and it was pretty much just the same old faces ...could almost have been embarrassing if someone new had come in the room Everyone could doubtless nominate their own top ten important facts about Rawat and his teachings. I think myself that any balanced article should note that he styles himself the sole authority on 'his message' and 'The Knowledge' (whatever those terms might mean) and that he does not answer questions from his followers. It is fair to note that he has yet to deny or respond to the substance of any criticism directed towards him and that some of his adherents launched personal internet attacks on the character of some of his more vocal critics. It is equaly important to note that he has thus far failed either to comment or act (as he certainly could) to stop this. I don't agree that the current article is yet balanced ...but do see that it is a general problem that Wiki has in a number of Rawat-like areas best Tim
|
|
|
|
Please note that you cannot write anything on Wikipedia unless you have reputable sources.
Wikipedia prefers to follow what sociologist and religious scholars (third-party secondary sources) have written about Maharaji in the 1970s over what Maharaji wrote about himself in the 1970s. (primary source by the subject)
I want to thank John and esp. Ocker who added so many online sources lately.
Andries
Modified by Andries at Sat, May 19, 2007, 02:58:14
|
|
|
