Talk:David C. Lane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


Peer review David C. Lane has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

User 66.74.130.208 is David C. Lane himself who edited the article about him at my invitation [1]. Please check facts and removed boasting. Andries 18:00, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rearranged and edited slightly. Moving this contact info here (useful to those interested, but not encyclopedic):
The unconvential academic is very active on the internet. His yahoo! userid is neuralsurfer.

Catherine | talk 03:09, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This information is relevant because he often reads and joins discussions among (ex-)members of religious movements on yahoo! groups with that userid. Andries 17:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removal of anti-cult activist

the bulk of the article about David C. Lane was written by Lane himself upon my request but I added the sentence that he was an anti-cult activist. But on second thoughts I don't know whether that is accurate because he is not a full time anti-cult activist and doesn't earn money with it unlike e.g. Rick Ross and Steven Hassan. I think it would be more accurate to write that he is critical about several NRMs especially when the guru makes extraordinary claims about himsel, like claiming to be a perfect master or an avatar or in case of plagiarism with MSIA and Eckankar. Andries 18:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuits, harassement

This text needs citations. Due to Lane's investigations of new religious movements, he has been the target of several lawsuits, death threats, and general harassment.. There is nothing in the article that support these claims. --Zappaz 00:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

well here is some about the legal threats to start with. [2] I also read in an interview that he received scary phone calls and that he hence kept his phone nr. secret but cannot find that interview. Personally I do not doubt that he was harassed, as I have witnessed the extremely violent and abusive discussions about SSB on the yahoo group that he founded. Yahoo has deleted the earlier discussions however. Andries 15:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
DO you think that the link you provide is enough to substatiate the text above? I could not find anything on that link.... --ZappaZ 16:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I finally found the reference [3] Andries 00:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Touch Up

Lane's autobiographical sketch seemed so bloated, self-aggrandizing, and un-encyclopedic as to warrent a send up. If someone takes offense they can certainly revert my changes, I will not object. However, Professor Lane is very good at dishing out internet controversy and he has caused a good many people in my acquaintance unnecessary distress. He deserves this. 02:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar

Wikipedia should not be used to settle scores. -Willmcw 05:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Lane has caused me a great deal of distress too, but not unnecessary, because it turned out that he had been telling the truth. The quotes that sevadar had inserted can be moved to wikiquote. Andries 13:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, when I asked dr. Lane to write this article, I was not aware of the rules about writing your own biography. I am sorry for this. Andries 13:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was a definite mistake. As I was able to make plain, most of the bulk of the article is self-aggrandizement. This is not really appropriate. The college that Lane teaches at is not of the same rank as a university; it is a modest community college. But the presumption from the article is of a well-oiled PhD. Similarly, Lane's skills as a researcher are poor, so he replaces what he lacks with bluster and innuendo.

I think that my quotes should stand, as they are by no means exceptions--they really do represent Lane's approach and manner and the type of research (if you want to call it that) which he does. I would like to see the article present Lane with NPOV, and my point is that it is not doing that right now, it is just spewing without any critical analysis on your part. So I am going to put in a section of "controversial" remarks. These also give the "flavor" of Lane and his antics. 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Sevadar.

This article deserves an NPOV tag. I have not encountered in WP, an article as aggrandizing and self-serving as this one. --ZappaZ 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the section title and moved the quotes to Wikiquote. His views on Sathya Sai Baba are not controversial anymore and now widely shared. His view on liberalization of drugs is unrelated to the reason why he is notable and hence does not belong in this article. Andries 19:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that quotes belong in Wikiquote, but I disagree with your logic that a topic which is unrelated to a subject's notability should not be included in a biography. A biography should include a complete picture of an individual's life, including the parts that aren't notable. Anyway, that's just theory. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My edits:

  • Moved books to bibliography section
  • Rearranged text so that there is continuity and context
  • Removed sections and subsection, as the article does not need it due to size
  • Removed only this text, because it is not attributed. Please rewrite if youwant to keep.
Lane is generally regarded as a radical agnostic in philosophical circles. His favorite philosophers are Nicholas of Cusa, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Patricia and Paul Churchland.
  • NPOVes some sentence here and there
  • Removed NPOV tag

--ZappaZ 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, when you use the UVA as a source here then I can also use the UVa website as a source for the Prem Rawat article to which you have objected so many time and intensely. Please explain why your behavior here and on Prem Rawat is not a case of blatant use of double standards. Thanks. Andries 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Please lower your tone, thanks. Aa for the University of Virginia, I was against its inclusion, but you persisted and it is included in the main article. Nevertheless, the UVA article on DLM is mostly based on ex-premie.org, which is widely quoted on the Criticism section and criticism article. --ZappaZ 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Zappaz, the UVa website is not used for the Prem Rawat main article because of your insistence on and vehement opposition against it. It is only listed as an external link. I had hoped for an admission of your blatant use of double standards, but no. Andries 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, as far as I am aware, the Divine Light Mission article is not based on ex-premie.org, except the text of the arti song, certainly not "mostly": it is not listed as a reference and not even mentioned as an external link at the bottom. Andries 15:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some Small Additions

I have edited the line about a deep relationship with Charan Singh to read that Lane was initiated by Charan Singh. This distinction is important because it demonstrates a motive for Lane's animosity towards other lineages in the Sant Mat tradition; he was initiated by a rival Master. I verified the fact of his initiation via email with Lane. Lane met other Sant Mat Masters such as Thakar Singh but was never initiated by them. (For the unfamiliar, initiation means being accepted by the guru and gifted with inner experience and protection). Initiation is analogous to Baptism (to use the Christian terminology). It also implies acceptance of the requirements put forward by his guru, like loving others more than oneself and truthfulness in word and deed.

Second, I added the correction to point out that Lane's Yahoo! group activity was something created by his own machinations. Lane self-activates his group by making his students post up to it as part of class. This is a good example of his tactics. (His students are made to post up, which in turn makes his group look active, and in turn makes Lane look more interesting and important.)

Third, I added a correction about the Neural Surfer site to at least achnowledge Lane is using the philosophy department's web site from his school to propagate his personal and sometimes highly controversial (i.e., offensive) views. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out and I feel it is important to set straight. Anyone can have a web site and share whatever opinions they like, but sites run by public institutions are slightly different in terms of what is expected at the level of scholarship; it is publicly funded and therefore a public trust. Lane's abuse of this privilege says something about him at the ethical level which is worth communicating as part of his biography. It is a fact: instead of putting his abuse on his own web site, he is using his school's department site for it, which lends it a kind of legitimacy it would not have otherwise. 20:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar

You imply that this is misuse of the college website - that would only be the case, if he violates the website standards of the college, and the college is free to define the standards off use and misuse for staff and students. If it's ok with them (and you can bet, they know about it), it's no misuse on his part, no matter what anyone outside thinks of the material (as long as he doesn't publish hard core porn or the like, but that probably would violate the rules). If you think their website standards should not permit such a use, take it up with the college, they set the rules. Take care with allegations against people you don't agree with. --Irmgard 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard's understanding of the ideals of the community college system in California may not be sufficiently accurate. Lane probably is misusing his philosophy department's web site because he is consciously disrespectful of other people's religion. "Faculty reflect and are knowledgeable about cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity." Source, Common Standards for California Accredited Colleges [The Accreditation Handbook, California Committee on Teacher Credentialing, 2001, p. 119.] Insulting and ridiculing religious leaders and movements (and by extension the students who might value or respect those beliefs) has no place in an accredited California institution. Lane has been asked many times to remove insulting and deprecating information from his site, but he refuses to do so. This is the prerogative of tenured college faculty, of course. They can claim their words are constitutionally protected speech. 17:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar

If that's the correct interpretation of this rule, a liberal Catholic professor who happens to disagree strongly with the treatment of Hans Küng by the former Cardinal Ratzinger would not be allowed to voice his opinion, because a conservative Catholic student might consider this an insult of his religious leader? And how about Protestant Liberals whose writings and opinions sure might offend some conservative Evangelical students? Sounds to me somewhat strange in "the land of the free" - censorship by anyone who does not want an opinion to be voiced. I cannot imagine how academic work could be done under such circumstances. But it's no business of mine - I just added, that Lane had to remove his page from UCSD due to a campaign against him. --Irmgard 19:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Disagreeing strongly" is not really the same as conscious disrespect, is it? Scholarship is (perhaps, just maybe) supposed to have substance backing it. It's not quite the same as ridicule, sarcasm, deception, etc. Those are legitimate kinds of speech in a free society, of course. But they are political speech, or artistic speech, or something, but not scholarship. They tend to exist where substance is lacking. The point is where to draw the line between scholarship and abuse. Respecting diversity, in someone who lectures on religious diversity--too much to ask? You tell me. Either way, definitely good biographical information to ponder, along with the publications and degrees. I hope you are Ok with that. 03:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)~ Sevadar
Well, you evidently haven't read what some scholars did write about Ratzinger (even when he became Benedict) - and why shouldn't a scholar be permitted to use sarcasm etc. on his personal page in an institute? That does not mean substance is lacking - on the contrary, good sarcasm, e.g. needs a lot of substance behind it. Also a scholar of religion must be permitted to deny things which are contrary to something other people believe is the purest truth - even though those people will be hurt in their feelings. And he must be permitted to fight passionately for what he thinks is truth. There are very many scholars who say my faith is wrong, silly or whatever and say worse of the people who lived it in earlier times (and they use sarcasm, vitriol and ridicule regarding people who don't believe them) - I'm not happy that they do and I think they are thoroughly wrong (and some of them are biased and not as wise as they think and ....), but I do think they have the right say what they believe is truth for them and to defend it passionately - else everyone's freedom to think and believe is restricted. --Irmgard 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Initiation

The reference then says:

  • {{note|initiation} Email communication. See discussion page.

Where is the email that is being used as a reference? Is it verifiable? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The email was to me, about a year ago, in response to a request I made for Lane to do an article on our web site. No, it is not on my drive any more. I mentioned that I might have met him back in the 1980's on tour. Lane said this was unlikely and that he had been initiated by Sant Charan Singh and not any other Sant Mat Master. This statement is also made in his online literature somewhere, I will have to dig that up if you need more verification. 02:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)~ Sevadar
In the future, we shouldn't use deleted personal emails as references. See wikipedia:reliable sources and wikipedia:verifiability. Yes, if we want that assertion to remain we need to find a source which meets those criteria. I'll go ahead and remove it until we can support it properly. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There is also a concept on the wikipedia of cutting people some slack. You do not need to revert something prior to references; you just need to ask for a reference to be provided. If it is not forthcoming in a reasonable time frame, then you can feel free to revert other people's changes. Reverting work in progress is not really a desirable approach. You are a little too fast on the draw. I would also say that since 90% of this article is from Lane himself (and thus has no documentation whatsoever) 90% of it should be removed if we were to follow your logic. But you have not done that. 00:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar

[edit] Is this a serious rebuttal to David C. Lane's work?

Doug Marmann's online book does not strike me a serious rebuttal of David C. lane work. By whom is Doug Marmann cited? I am aware that David C. Lane has been cited about Eckankar not only by countercultist and anti-cultist but also by most academic articles about NRMs and cults , but I am not aware of Doug Marmann being cited and I think s/he voices small minority view. Why can't we cite Introvigne instead of Marmannn on this subject? Also I think that the whole paragraph about Lane's alleged controversial views are an example of strong POV pushing. Citing that he devoted his life to proving that Eckankar plagiarized when he was still young is highly questionable. Andries 16:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quoted by

... quoted by ... such as anti-cult movement and Christian fundamentalists

I deleted the qualifier because it gives a wrong impression: The only actual quote in literature I found at Amazon was by religious scholar J. Gordon Melton in "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America" which is a recognized work in religious studies. Melton is definitely neither anti-cult nor Christian fundamentalist. I found some quotes on the internet in cult observer sites and Christian countercult sites (which are usually not Christian fundamentalists), but such quotations do not have the value of a quotation in a scholarly work. --Irmgard 17:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I will delete all redlinking as it has been like this for months with no articles showing up abot these topics. The article needs some cleanup as well as it it too self-serving in my opinion. I will also remove the "Who is Who" references ase these are vanity publications and not reputable sources as per WP:RS. See Marquis Who's Who. I will wait for other editors comments before proceeding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I added some request for sources. Also this passage is based on a non-reliable source:

"He has also been involved in a number of law suits due to his critical stance on several new religious movements. [4]"

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? It is a copy of a newspaper article. Andries 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Then cite the newspaper. The convenience link is hosted in a personal page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will do ,but I do not think this will improve the article much, taking into account that most of the article is unsourced. I think your complaints show strange priorities. Andries 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)