Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 23 December 2008

Jossi can't have it both ways

Durova, if I may be allowed to comment here. You say: "Yet that isn’t quite the whole story either. Perhaps there’s a fine distinction to be made here between religion and new religious movement. Or perhaps not; Jossi has categorized Prem Rawat’s following as a religion. As early as 2005 Jossi called it a church, and in April 2008 Jossi again proposed sources that call it a religion. Jossi can’t have it both ways."

The fact is that while Rawat's students do not perceive themselves as practising a religion, outside views are fairly unanimous in ascribing a religious nature to his movement. And it is a legal fact that the DLM was incorporated as a church in the U.S. Anyone familiar with the literature on this movement will come up against these contradictions. Editors are usually commended if they bring sources to the table that contradict their personal opinions, or illustrate a variety of views. If Jossi cites a world-leading scholar – Bromley is such a scholar – that calls the movement a religion, contrary to his own views, then that is just good research, reporting significant viewpoints in accordance with their prominence. I am sure you know this, too, but let the effort of what you were trying to do here get the better of you.

Jossi has retired – I hope he may change his mind one day – and Christmas is coming up. Perhaps it is just as well if we all take a rest now. Happy holidays, and see you in these pages in the New Year. Cheers, Jayen466 10:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Jayen. I wouldn't have included that on the strength of the Bromley citation alone, since you certainly have a good point about that diff. Let's both hope things work out somehow. Every year I wish for peace on earth. Someday we may get there. Durova 04:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

PatW's comment

In reponse to:

If it takes a Wikipedian of Cirt's dedication to withstand Jossi's wikihounding, then how many other editors did we lose altogether?

You lost me for one PatW (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Durova has conceded the irrelevance of most of this evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Durova has argued against the undeletion of User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova by citing the comments of arbitrators who stated that "I don't see how the talk pages of accounts which have not been used in over a year would be relevant here. Is it expected that there might be comments which would have some bearing on the present matter?" and "I believe there's no relevance here. We are in the business of dealing with current issues, not old history.". However, such comments are only still applicable to the extent that the arbitrators ignore Durova's evidence of the interaction of Jossi and Cirt beginning in 2006, when Cirt was editing as Smeelgova. Effectively, then, Durova has argued that most of the evidence she has presented on this page is irrelevant to the current arbitration case. John254 03:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You were just directed by an Arb on the DRV page to stop doing this. Please stop your harassment and outing attempts immediately, or I will ask for you to be made to stop. Protest to the AC if you are unhappy with this, but if you don't, you are now into dangerous harassment territory, and you will be stopped from harassing Cirt. rootology (C)(T) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)