|
|
|
maybe tou could get sombody that was never associated with a guru . To have them list Guru Cults in wicked pedias article on CULT . good effort Andries
|
|
|
|
Given the ends justifies the means approach of many devotees of any stripe, I wonder how such a decision would be enforced.
|
|
|
|
Where are gurus mentioned as cults alot of links but non on gurus in 20th/21fst cen but they got Krishna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Modified by geo at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 11:22:11
|
|
|
|
Exactly Spark.How would anyone know who was and who wasn't a follower ! btw I have replied to your post again on the "broken heart" subject down the threads. You probably know this,but to save time searching for posts,you can click on "page 1" above, on the headers, and it reveals other search options like "Todays Posts", " Since Last Visit" etc Lexy
|
|
|
|
After some time it is easy to see, but I do not know what will be done if somebody denies it. Andries
|
|
|
|
It's incredible the way the mind starts working again once the guru is ditched 
|
|
|
|
It would have been much more helpful if the arbitrators' decisions were written in clear English so people could understand what they're saying. What? Do they think they're writing like lawyers? lol Where did they get those arbitrators anyway? I have an 8 year old neice who can expess her ideas more clearly and concisely in written and spoken English than that bunch of bananas! My conclusion is that with the Bio of living folks revisions, no one is going to get a good article to read about anyone who isn't dead. It's a pity, but not much of a loss, since it is Wikipedia.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 10:55:55
|
|
|
|
Modified by Andries at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 12:08:53
|
|
|
|
So if that's what it means "more or less" where to from here, Andries? How does the article get wrested from the hands of the cult members and redone properly at last?
|
|
|
|
It is not yet a decision, though I would be very suprised it were not accepted with now three votes supporting it. Policies can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies That is not all because there also guidelines. Please start with editing non-controversial article, because I find it is tedious to deal with inexperienced editors on heavily controversial articles. Andries
|
|
|
|
What's the process, Andries? What's next? And if it is accepted, what strength would it have given the clearly advisory nature of the language?
|
|
|
|
Jim, It's a "sort of" decision, depending upon what project Jossi Fresco is working on, basically. I would bank on Jossi continuing to edit the Rawat articles based on all the spiffy "do no harm" policies now engraved in stone. He's already got some of the Rawat articles poised for merging with the main one, which should make his Lord and the Lord's PR team very happy. With the approval of Maharaji, God, Jesus, and Jimbo Wales all the negative or bad stuff -- the real interesting material! -- will now be filtered out. That's the long and short of it. The policy talk page actually says "speak ill only of the dead." Freaky
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 18:34:19
|
|
|
|
I wish Andries, who must be so very fed up with us Wiki amateurs by now, would explain what this is, how, if at all, it changes anything and all that. Come on, Andries, you said it was a decision, then you said it wasn't. What the hell is it?
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim, Jossi posted identical comments on each of the SSB arbitrators' talk pages asking them to specifically comment about the decision to limit editing to non-guru followers. He pressed the issue with a veiled "you're discriminating against us believers/faithful" argument. I can't access Wiki right now. The site is down I think. One of the guys finally told Jossi that the SSB decision is not Wikipedia policy, but a decision for the SSB article only. That's all Jossi wanted out of it.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 11:32:44
|
|
|
|
Thanks Cynth, I tried to find the discussion but couldn't. I don't see how the decision (or whatever the hell it is -- thanks so much for answering, Andries) can be limited to SSB, can you? I can't even imagine a bullshit argument to distinguish him in this respect and would love to see what Jossi came up with and how he sold it.
|
|
|
|
Wikipedians make up their own rules as they go along. Jossi pressed for an answer and got the one he wanted, which is that the SSB decision sets a precedent, but isn't policy and applies to the SSB article only. Of course I disagree with the bonehead Wikipedians. Guaranteed: Now Jossi will be rewriting a policy to reflect what he got out of Charles Matthews. That's what he does for Rawat. Here's url for Fred Bauder's talk page "Editing your guru's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder URL for SimonP's talk page "Editing articles, arbCom case": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SimonP Text from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charles_Matthews ArbCom caseCharles, could you please read this: User_talk:SimonP#Editing_articles.2C_arbCom_case. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - Read it. I think your point is a stretch. Charles Matthews 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. My concern is that the ArbCom is making a distinction between students/disciples of spriritual leaders, and ex-disciples that are engaged in active critical activities against their former spiritual guide, as it pertains to theit ability to edit neutraly about the subject. Wouldn't you agree that both will encounter challenges when attempting to edit articles about their association with the subject? Should not be both warned about it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that the ruling reads (my highlight):
- "Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.
- Is it not the case that we all need to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? Editing of articles in which we have vested interests (political, religous, economic and otherwise) is always difficult, but we have our policies to guide our editing, and these apply to all subjects, including this one. Why making this distinction? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I imagine disciples as having a level of loyalty to their teacher that is higher than what they feel they owe to this project. That will not always apply. And it will not always vitiate their edits. On the other hand, recognition of this kind of 'moral hazard' can be useful all round. People are generally counselled not to edit on matters to which they have too close a personal connection. Charles Matthews 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - That is what I mean, Charles. A critical ex-disciple that is an activist against his former guru, has a "too close a personal connection" with the subject, don't you think?. But we are not warning him about it in this ruling. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jossi ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To summarize my concern abut this proposed ruling: - The challenge that a disciple will have in neutrally editing the article about his spiritual teacher, is being acknowledged. Fair enough.
- The challenge that an ex-disciple that is an active critic of a spiritual teacher is not being acknowledged. This despite the abundant evidenced that both sides struggled in maintaining neutrality while editing related articles
- Most concerning, is that a distinction is being made in tis case, about the bias of a disciple of a spiritual teacher, as being different than other biases such as strong political, religious, economic, or scientific. This is of particular concern.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC) No, I still dispute the equation. It is clearly the case that an ex-disciple may have problems of objectivity. But they are not the same problems as those in the relationship implied by discipleship. Charles Matthews 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) - I am not referring to just an ex-disciple. I am referring to an ex-disciple that is an active critic of his former teacher, that manages a large website critical of his former teacher, and that spends an extraordinary amount of (both on and off wiki) time in the pursuit of such criticism. I find this difficult to swallow that such a person has less of a challenge than a disciple. I am interested to learn from you why the problems of objectivity are any different. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
They obviously are, in the sense that negative feelings are different from positive ones. In any case, I don't see the position in the same way as you do. Charles Matthews 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC) - I appreciate the candid response. May this be due to a specific viewpoint on your part that a "positive" feeling is inherently more complex than an "negative" one as it relates to an editor's ability to edit within policies? I am still sincerely curious and interested to understand your position in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would really appreciate a clarification on your position. So far, none of the arbitrators that have voted for this remedy have explained why they are discouraging the edit of articles by disciples, while not discouraging ex-disciples that are active critics of the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Implications of this ArbCom rulingIn thinking this further, the implication of this ruling would be: All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for Is this not a precendent of discriminating against followers certain faiths in Wikipedia? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Budhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when they learn about this... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) - Look, we never discourage critics: critics have a point of view, and our articles are supposed to be comprehensive, and include in a fair way all points of view. You are obviously going to persist in this line of questioning. But it is our policy, also, that those too close to a subject (their own biographies, for instance) should be discouraged from writing on it. While it is clearly the case that very aggressive critics may have a problem with being fair, we do not attempt to write that specially into policy. Everyone should respect NPOV: that's it. Charles Matthews 08:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I will persist in seeking clarification, because I see this ruling to have the potential to be setting a very controversial precedent. The fact that everyone should respect Wikipedia content policies, is no being disputed, on the contrary! This ruling is not only discriminating against people of certain beliefs (put aside for a moment my argument about critics), while sparing others as per the examples above that you have not addressed, but is also going to be close to be in violation of two Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF and WP:NPA, the latter that reads "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
- All I am asking is that you consider changing the wording of the ruling to include something more generic and non-discriminating. Something along the lines of what you say: "people too close to subjects should be discouraged from writing on it, and everyone should respect NPOV", or done without altogether. Otherwise the message that this ruling is sending is: "If you are a Sikh, a Tibetan or Tantric Buddhist, a Ravidasi, or a practicioner of the Bakthi marg, or any other brach of Hinduism, Wikipedia does not trust you can edit articles about your guru". A dangerous precedent indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The actual wording: Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. Only discouraged, not discounted. Yes, this does cast some doubt on the objectivity of disciples. I think guru here is not an ideal word; but such a comment from the ArbCom on its principles is not a policy, in itself. Charles Matthews 11:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) - You acknowledge that this ruling casts doubts on the objectivity of disciples, but note that as currently worded it only cast that doubt on of certain disciples: those related to Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism. That is the concern. So, if you agree that "guru" is not the ideal word, you can suggest to change it to something less discriminating and more generic.
- ArbCom cases are not policy but set important precedents for our project and are used more and more as the basis for rulings on other cases.
- Also note that Wikipedia:Autobiography is mentioned in the ruling, and although it is a guideline and not policy, it contains much stronger wording than "discourage"
- ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said, ArbCom rulings are not policy. The principles stated do not have policy status, and you cannot expect them to be drafted in the way policy is. Any actual policy occurs on a page, with associated discussion, and any actual policy document can be edited by concerned parties. I think there is not much point my trying to defend what has been written, as if it were a policy document. It simply indicates a line of reasoning that Arbitrators have come up with, in a particular case. Charles Matthews 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC) I understand then, that this proposed principle is to be looked at and applied in the context of this ArbCom case only. Thank you for the clarification and your patience in ressponding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Aug 23, 2006, 06:27:51
|
|
|
|
There are so many good reasons why ex-followers would be more likely to be fair and accurate, perhaps none greater than the fact that the outside world doesn't suppress or control information flow, investigation and analysis like any guru would. I've half a mind to try to contact Charles and offer him a little support but he seems to be pretty clear about all this. As far as it all goes which, apparently, isn't too far at all though.
|
|
|
|
Jossi wants absolute authority over the article and he goes to any lengths to obtain that. Hope you're well. Having a nice summer? Cynth
|
|
|
|
The Wiki guidelines Andreas linked to state that:
7) Editing an article concerning a guru (my bold) you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias ...Having a peach of a summer. You?
|
|
|
|
according to Chambers guru "in Hinduism, a spiritual teacher ; (often facetious) a revered intstructor, mentor or pundit disciple " a person who professes to receive instruction from another; a person who believes in or follows in the doctrine of another...." By any objective criterion M and his followers fall within the broad guru/ disciple definition irrespective of whether they themselves would define themselves as being such.
|
|
|
|
I "receive instruction" from my line manager at work, but that doesn't make me her disciple!And as for the "Hindu spiritual teacher" definition - Rawat has long since dropped any claims to being one of those, in fact, he said in 1998 "Knowledge is not spiritual, nor is it a religion. Knowledge belongs in neither of those two categories.” Which, of course, raises the question of why Elan Vital is registered as a Church in the US - with all its consequent tax breaks. That's a question I'd love to see answered!
Modified by cq at Thu, Aug 24, 2006, 08:57:20
|
|
|
|
....he wouldn't expect me to listen to 70h of DVDs of his 'doctrine' and I certainly wouldn't want to put pictures of his mug up anywhere that I could see. The 'reverence' and 'following a doctrine' surely make for a 'functional' definition of 'guru'. I suppose that my question really was about the validity of a 'self-definition'. What is the point of having a rule that treats Guru's and their disciples in a certain way if it can be evaded simply by the group redefining itself as something else? East Germany was a totalitarian regime but called itself a Democratic socialist republic...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet etc.. just making a completely obvious point about the inadequacy of Wiki I suppose
best regards T
|
|
|
|
Editing your guru's article7) Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect. - Support:
- Fred Bauder 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- SimonP 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite see how this is a decision, Andries. It sounds more like a bit of toothless advice. I mean, isn't the whole point that there's a problem with current followers editing these articles in spite of the various Wiki principles sited? Indeed, why does this "decision" even mention them as the fact that they apply is a given throughout Wikipedia? In short, shouldn't this "decision" simply say that current followers should not edit articles about their gurus due to inherent bias and leave it at that?
Modified by Jim at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 15:08:08
|
|
|
|
It seems to me, Jim, that the way for exes to deal with Wiki should be 'all or nothing'. Andries is concerned that Wiki should be an honest, well-sourced information resource. The world at large already knows Wiki will never be that - especially experts in any given field who already have publishing outlets and have no need nor desire to have their thoughts tinkered and tampered with by an amateur, self-appointed editorship. Google-searching your chosen area of interest gets you further and faster. Wiki is crap, and the bigger it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes - more blogosphere than reputable encyclopedia. But, pragmatically, it would make sense if every forum member joined in the editing there, if only to make Jossi Fresco work for a living and discredit Rawat in the process. Just join in, a phrase here and there, change or remove things that are false, add things that are missing, generally raise hell? Alternatively, we could all stay clear and have nothing to do with this blatent pro-guru vanity piece. What we shouldn't do any more is attempt lengthy Pat W-style discussions aimed at achieving 'consensus' among Wiki eds. (Though full marks to Pat - and Cynthia and others, too - for trying). I say just either dive in and edit the fu*cker silly, however you see fit, hit-and-run style, or leave well alone. But do it for fun, if you do it at all. Wiki is not as important as its editors would have us believe.
Modified by Nigel at Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 11:34:33
|
|
|
|
Case dismissed with prejuduce and settled / Just Like Micheal Jackson Andres ;Baba will magically keep pulling money out of his ass the more you go after him the more money he will pull magically out of his ass .Yeah it is a frikin miracle allright .Andres the wicked pedia article on this guy is pretty nasty and most new readers would not think highly of Baba after reading it . Lewis Kreydick, in a sworn and videotaped deposition [66], said that he did not believe Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse allegations against Sathya Sai Baba because he had a very close relationship with Alaya during the time the alleged misconduct occurred. Kreydick testified that Alaya shared private information with him that he had not divulged to his own parents. Some of this information included Alaya's sexual activities with girls. Kreydick also testified that Alaya shared all the details to each of the interviews he had with Sathya Sai Baba in 1995 and 1997, and Alaya never made any comments suggesting wrongdoing, impropriety or sexual misconduct. Kreydick said that Alaya was very happy, smiling, laughing and full of self-confidence after his interviews. Kreydick further testified that he was present in some of these interviews in which Alaya was later to claim to have been sexually abused [67]. Kreydick's statements in his depositions are supported by eulogistic talks that were given by Alaya Rahm and his family at Sai Conferences shortly after the alleged misconduct was said to have occurred. The talks were recorded on audio cassettes, distributed through Sai Centers and transcribed [68].
Self-Dismissed Court CaseAlaya Rahm (an alleged victim who gave was interviewed in the Seduced by Sai Baba documentary, the Secret Swami programme, the India Today magazine and the Divine Downfall interview) filed a court case against the Sathya Sai Baba Society, seeking money damages. The case, Alaya Rahm vs. Sathya Sai Baba Society, was filed in the Superior Court of California on January 6th 2005, County Of Orange - USA, Case No. 05cc01931. Alaya Rahm filed his case 2 days before the statute of limitations was to expire [69]. The plaintiff (Alaya Rahm) self-dismissed his own case on April 19th 2006 and therefore the counter-suit was also dismissed. No offers of settlement were made in this case and no money or other considerations were paid for the dismissal of these cases. This case was dismissed "with prejudice" [70]. This means that all parties in the case entered into a final and binding agreement that would prevent them from pursuing the same matter in any court of law (in the USA or in India).
Modified by geo at Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 12:32:30
|
|
|
|
from wicked pedias CULT PAGE Usually, the most dramatic allegations, as well as the most systematic and detailed ones, will come from adult former members and to a lesser extent from persons who were raised in the in groups considered cults, although a fair percentage of former members in these categories are not strongly critical of their former spiritual or ideological home. The former members who voice strong criticisms are termed "apostates" by some scholars. But this term is regarded as pejorative by other scholars — and also as misleading because the term's religious connotation doesn't apply readily to non-religious cults. One scholar who uses the term "apostate" frequently is Gordon Melton, who in turn has been labelled a cult apologist by scholars strongly critical of cults. The allegations of former members include: sexual abuse by the leader; failed promises and failed prophecy; causing suicides through neglect or abuse; failing to allow an ex-cult parent to have access to his or her child or children being raised within the cult; leaders who neither admit nor apologize for mistakes; false, irrational, or even contradictory teachings; exclusivism; deception in recruitment (by using "front groups"; pressure to engage in illegal financial activity or manipulative sexual behavior; demands to turn over all (or an excessive amount) of one's assets and income; demands for total immersion in the religious mission, ideological cause or day to day organizational activities of the group at the expense of career, education, family, and friends; and more. The role of former members in the controversy surrounding cults has been widely studied by social scientists. Former members in this context are those individuals who become public opponents against their former movement. The former members' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, the validity of their testimony, and the kinds of narratives they construct, are controversial with some scholars who suspect that at least some of the narratives are made by a need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates[2], and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents turning them into major incidents[3]. while other scholars conclude that testimonies of former members are at least as accurate as testimonies of current members HOWEVER get these guyz on your side were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. Scholars who tend to side more with critical former members include David C. Lane, Louis Jolyon West, Margaret Singer, Stephen A. Kent, Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi and Benjamin Zablocki. The latter performed an empirical study that showed that the reliability of former members is equal to that of stayers in one particular group. Philip Lucas found the same empirical results. whereas this guy idealizes the crap T.Miller get some professers to write about the harmulf effects of recent gurus ,name names , etc in the recent west and submit articles to wicked pedia on the cult page with links on them TIMOTHY MILLER
Professor
Office: 11 Smith Hall
Office Phone: (785) 864-7263
e-mail address: tkansas@ku.edu">tkansas@ku.edu Timothy Miller is a historian of religion in America whose special interest is new and alternative religions and the history of communitarianism. He received a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Kansas. Among the books he has authored and edited are Following In His Steps: A Biography of Charles M. Sheldon, The Hippies and American Values, America's Alternative Religions, The Quest for Utopia in Twentieth-Century America, and The 60s Communes. Professor Miller will be on sabbatical in Fall 2004 and working on a research project through a grant from the University of Kansas Hall Center for the Humanities in Spring 2005
Modified by geo at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 19:06:21
|
|
|
|
Because there is a critical page in w p about M and stuff in there that says alot of his believers belive him to be = to God ! THAT IS A BIG RED FLAG !and damning ! Both sides are presented even though it seems tame and also paints him as a good guy aswell .What exactly do you want changed and to do . then I could maybe think of something for you being new to your plight .
Modified by geo at Sat, Aug 19, 2006, 19:27:23
|
|
|
|
wicked pedias ,article on the sai baba in the orange rob and afro seems pretty damnig ! way more than the one on M
|
|
|
