User talk:Janice Rowe

Welcome!

Hello, Janice Rowe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alf 16:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aw... Thank you. Janice Rowe 16:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janice, with regards to Prem Rawat please keep in mind that Mishler is not the only former inner circle member who makes allegations of heavy drinking. Other people are Michael Dettmers, Rawat's former finance managaer. Dettmers first posted on a chat room but his indentity was verified [1] , and Michael Donner, former American coordinator of the Divine Light Mission, also verified. [2] Here is Rawat's response [3] Andries 10:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read with interest the comments in the discussion page. To me it looks like a straight case of character assassination by three former employees. Nevertheless, these accounts belong were they are: a website in which critics make their points. Do you side with these critics? and if so, why? --Janice Rowe

yes, I side with the critics because I consider Rawat a transparantly unreliable guru/teacher. Reasons why I think he is unreliable and dishonest include

making claims of divinity or at least suggesting it and now denying to any responsibility for it and blaming it all on others
leaving a lavish lifestyle while his followers lived or live, due to living in the ashrams or visiting all festivals/satsangs became impoverished.

I know from experience that they can cause havoc to people who devote their lives to the guru and his teachings. See my story calumny confirmed

I am interested to hear from you why you think that these three stories are a clear case of character assination. I admit that they may be just that, though I do not believe it but I do certainly not considet it a clear case. I really try to be open for evidence of being wrong and not to excessively sceptical of opposing point of views. I think it is quite common (I know some other inside stories not published on the internet) that gurus pretend to be pure to attract and keep followers which of course they are not and create an inner circle and keep things hidden from rank and file followers. Besides the Dutch professor of psychology in religion who wrote in a quite positive book about followers of gurus called Rawat a charlatan, leading a live of pleasures and idleness hidden away from rank and file followers.

Thanks in advance. Andries 20:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an ex-follower of a guru, your misapprehension of gurus may be understandable. Nevertheless, I know several followers of Prem Rawat and they do not seem empoverished or having their lives in havoc for following him. Also, in my readings of some of the speeches of Rawat I did not encounter any claims of being pure. --Janice Rowe

Clean-up tag

Hi Janice, I just saw you put up the correct tag for the "Spiritual approaches" section of Consciousness. Thanks! You should teach me how not to miss the obvious some time.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 23:20:35, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

You are welcome, έγκέφαλος --Janice Rowe 00:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat

Hi Janice,

You left this phrasing in the Criticism section of the Prem Rawat article: " [...] India, where he considered an heretic, stating that any man who says that all scriptures are true, is a heretic everywhere."

The meaning of that is not very clear to me: did he say something about all scriptures being true, from which all Indians conclude he is an heretic everywhere? Or what precisely? Can I ask to rephrase so that it would become clearer? thanks! --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Francis. I took that from Messer's article. Have you read it? Janice Rowe (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that is precisely the point. Could you give a literal quote? Or, if it is already a literal quote, some of the surrounding text, so that the Wikipedia article makes sense to an average reader that hasn't read the book? Tx.

Also I'd rather like to discuss these points on the Prem Rawat talk page. Maybe it's just my dumb not to understand that sentence, if noone else has a problem with it, I'd be happy to learn about it.

Here's another of your edits I have a problem with, and would rather discuss on the Prem Rawat talk page, but anyhow here it is: [4] - I looked around, but couldn't find "yesterday's version" where it would have come from. As a rebuttal of the scholar's assertions it misses the point too, imho. Note that I was in favour of having a "reception" section instead of a "criticism" section (see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D), balancing positive reception and criticism - but even then I'd think this kind of rebuttal too trivial to keep in the article. So if you don't mind I'd remove that again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a cite speaks of "idleness and pleasure", should not a counterpoint be offered?

This is the literal quote from Messer:

"Although Maharaj Ji is himself from India, is a guru, and offers a meditation technique, he is not clearly Eastern and is a subject of great controversy in India, where he is also a major heretic. Any man who says that all scriptures are true, that Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, and a host of others were all Christ, is a heretic everywhere. To many Western devotees he is plainly a Christian, but there is no clear definition there either. As a consequence, it is difficult to place Divine Light Mission among the religious movements in the West, and it operates as a bit of an outcast, refusing to join associations of different groups, and simultaneously refusing to admit that they are not also "premies, though they don't know it." Devotees will listen to Sat Sang from anyone and will give it to anyone, treating none who are not also devotees as if they had the whole truth and none as if they had missed the boat entirely. It is disconcerting to a Jehovah's Witness, for instance, to hear a devotee agree with every word he says and then respond with, "Except that He's already here; I know what you say is true because I've seen it."

Janice Rowe (talk)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Cognitive Studies

A tag has been placed on Center for Cognitive Studies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A7 - no assertion of notability

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Cognitive Studies

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Center for Cognitive Studies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat Page

You have reverted several edits on the Prem Rawat page with a misleading and non-informative edit summary ("That doesn't belong in Teachings"), and without joining the discussions on each of these edits on the talk page. I suggest that you immediately explain your actions on Talk and strongly consider reverting your unilateral edit, which has a strong impression of edit warring. As you know, this page is under close supervision due to edit warring, and technical adherence to the 1RR probation does not prevent sanction for edit warring. Msalt (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your edits. It's that simple. Janice Rowe (talk)

That does not give you the right to edit war. Again, I ask you that you self-revert your mass-reversion. If you have concerns with individual edits, let's discuss each separately on the article's talk page. If you prefer, I would be happy to seek dispute resolution. Msalt (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've posted a note on the article talk page. Please post the explanation of your revert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a busy person and don't have as much time as you do. Are you all unemployed? Well, I am not; I'll participate within my limits. Janice Rowe (talk)

Please don't make edits that you can't explain, and please don't revert the hard work of others if you don't have the time to justify doing so. We're all busy too so please respect the time and effort of others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Janice Rowe (talk)

Prem Rawat articles, should go to RFAR

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Center for Cognitive Studies

The article Center for Cognitive Studies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one primary source, no assertion of notability, tagged since 2008

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Will Beback talk 04:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Contentious topic designation removed

Hello Janice Rowe,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]