![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jossi, How can you say that ex-premie is not relevant? To me that sounds ridiculuous. Andries 18:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What do you base your characterization of DLM as a sect. Please explain. jossi 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
from sect "A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion." Seems to me the case for the DLM in India. Andries 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"seem to you" is not good enough :) - Removed -- jossi 23:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You need to revise your knowledge of copyviol. Please re-read and you will see that links to copyright violations are not allowed. I will look for the article and post here a linl FYI --
jossi 23:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, do you deny that DLM is a branch off from either Sikhism or Hinduism? Andries 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jossi, why did you remove about the story about the Houtston Astrodome? I thought it was a major event.
Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hello Andries. As you keep quoting haans in the articles, I need to see some text traslated from the portion you are quoting. You also need to NPOV that edit and explain that Haans was a skeptic and is involved in anti-cult activities as stated by his own words.-- ≈ jossi ≈ 17:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I don't think this page needs to be categorized directly into New religious movements, since it is categorized into Maharaji, and that is a subcategory of New religious movements. It doesn't merit a separate direct entry since the organization was pretty compeletely Maharji's baby. I would feel differently about Divine United Organization, though, for instance, since Maharaji didn't found that organization. -- Gary D 22:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean arti is flowery? I have sung arti hundreds of times and I always took it literally. Please provide references for this. And what about the ridiculous sentence "While critics have said Prem Rawat did not make it clear that the arti song was not to be taken literally, his supporters have pointed out that Prem Rawat has never asked anyone to misinterpret to misinterpret the words". Let us stick to facts in the first place and avoid opnions. Andries 02:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I mean, how can any reasonable person deny this? I mean, his followers literally kissed his toes. http://gallery.forum8.org/MONTROSE.jpg Whose toes were kissed too? Andries 18:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries: I object to your replication of subjects already covered in other articles as follows.
If you have new material to add to these article, please do. If your intention is to write an alternative version of Past teachings of Prem Rawat you can do it here Past teachings of Prem Rawat/temp1
≈ jossi ≈ 20:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ 21:11, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Andries seems to have created this section as a "dumping ground" for unfocussed, unstructured and out-of-context smippets that have been covered elsewhere. Aside from being instructed to so so by hate group members hell-bent of loading Wiki with as much "negative" stuff as possible, it has no thesis or theme, other than to shove "bad" things into Wiki with no thought, no scholarship and no purpose. I strongly suggest until those matters are resolved, that the following edits be status quo:
Astrodome fiasco: deleted. What's the point? What's the context? Where's the reference point?
Rift: This has been addressed elsewhere, and with more authority. here is is unsupported hearsay and lacks any scholarship.
Beliefs: This was written in present tense--that makes no sense. And there is no reference to any first-hand material. Only one reference to some non-authority named Haan, and one reference to the Anti-people's webpage. This is crazy. In addition, weren't the beliefs and practices guided by Maharaji, not the DLM? This should be answered beofre proceeding.
Converts: The citiations are circular. Again, what is the context here? That a psychologist once made some vague obersavtions? But where is the link to source material even showing that the psychologist was actually talking about DLM?
This is unadulterated gibberish, and is a transparent attempt to shove more unsubstantiated -- and overtly negative junk -- into Wiki, without doing any of the hard work that was done (by both sides) in the main article.
I suggest that Andries propose a thesis before doing this again, and submit that thesis to group review. Richard G. 21:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, this is becoming a childish game and quite tedious I must say. Please note that all of the points that you are trying to make have already been made, discussed at length and text agreed in consensus, i.e. succession, astrodome festival in 1973, Indian trappings (Arti, darshan) in both the main article Prem Rawat and the Criticism of Prem Rawat as well as other ancillary articles. A responsible editor would link to these texts in Wikipedia rather than wasting time and WP resources to repeat these points and engage in a discussion again about same topics.
I have no problem whatsoever for you adding new material. That will be great. Otherwise, please stop wasting time, energy and resources.
I have re-arranged the text and created sections whith short sumamries and wikilinks.
If you disagree with this, you will need to elaborate here about your reasons and motives. Otherwise your actions do not make any sense.
-- Zappaz 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-- Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Calling Wim Haan a "scholar" is just way too funny. I read that he wrote the article when he was a young student in an obsucre theological college in small town in Holland. Comparing him with the likes of Melton, or Baker is laughable. -- 62.132.1.121 03:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, please be accurate in your edit summary. You said you did not change content, but you did. You removed the fact that the family accepted Prem as the successor for eight years before changing thier minds. That is an extremely important piece of information that you chose to delete. Not good, Andries, not good... ≈ jossi ≈ 14:48, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
As if Haan just could have submitted the article without review by the editors. He wrote that he had to change it several times. Andries 18:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jossi, How can you say that ex-premie is not relevant? To me that sounds ridiculuous. Andries 18:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What do you base your characterization of DLM as a sect. Please explain. jossi 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
from sect "A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion." Seems to me the case for the DLM in India. Andries 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"seem to you" is not good enough :) - Removed -- jossi 23:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You need to revise your knowledge of copyviol. Please re-read and you will see that links to copyright violations are not allowed. I will look for the article and post here a linl FYI --
jossi 23:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, do you deny that DLM is a branch off from either Sikhism or Hinduism? Andries 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jossi, why did you remove about the story about the Houtston Astrodome? I thought it was a major event.
Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hello Andries. As you keep quoting haans in the articles, I need to see some text traslated from the portion you are quoting. You also need to NPOV that edit and explain that Haans was a skeptic and is involved in anti-cult activities as stated by his own words.-- ≈ jossi ≈ 17:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I don't think this page needs to be categorized directly into New religious movements, since it is categorized into Maharaji, and that is a subcategory of New religious movements. It doesn't merit a separate direct entry since the organization was pretty compeletely Maharji's baby. I would feel differently about Divine United Organization, though, for instance, since Maharaji didn't found that organization. -- Gary D 22:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean arti is flowery? I have sung arti hundreds of times and I always took it literally. Please provide references for this. And what about the ridiculous sentence "While critics have said Prem Rawat did not make it clear that the arti song was not to be taken literally, his supporters have pointed out that Prem Rawat has never asked anyone to misinterpret to misinterpret the words". Let us stick to facts in the first place and avoid opnions. Andries 02:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I mean, how can any reasonable person deny this? I mean, his followers literally kissed his toes. http://gallery.forum8.org/MONTROSE.jpg Whose toes were kissed too? Andries 18:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries: I object to your replication of subjects already covered in other articles as follows.
If you have new material to add to these article, please do. If your intention is to write an alternative version of Past teachings of Prem Rawat you can do it here Past teachings of Prem Rawat/temp1
≈ jossi ≈ 20:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ 21:11, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Andries seems to have created this section as a "dumping ground" for unfocussed, unstructured and out-of-context smippets that have been covered elsewhere. Aside from being instructed to so so by hate group members hell-bent of loading Wiki with as much "negative" stuff as possible, it has no thesis or theme, other than to shove "bad" things into Wiki with no thought, no scholarship and no purpose. I strongly suggest until those matters are resolved, that the following edits be status quo:
Astrodome fiasco: deleted. What's the point? What's the context? Where's the reference point?
Rift: This has been addressed elsewhere, and with more authority. here is is unsupported hearsay and lacks any scholarship.
Beliefs: This was written in present tense--that makes no sense. And there is no reference to any first-hand material. Only one reference to some non-authority named Haan, and one reference to the Anti-people's webpage. This is crazy. In addition, weren't the beliefs and practices guided by Maharaji, not the DLM? This should be answered beofre proceeding.
Converts: The citiations are circular. Again, what is the context here? That a psychologist once made some vague obersavtions? But where is the link to source material even showing that the psychologist was actually talking about DLM?
This is unadulterated gibberish, and is a transparent attempt to shove more unsubstantiated -- and overtly negative junk -- into Wiki, without doing any of the hard work that was done (by both sides) in the main article.
I suggest that Andries propose a thesis before doing this again, and submit that thesis to group review. Richard G. 21:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, this is becoming a childish game and quite tedious I must say. Please note that all of the points that you are trying to make have already been made, discussed at length and text agreed in consensus, i.e. succession, astrodome festival in 1973, Indian trappings (Arti, darshan) in both the main article Prem Rawat and the Criticism of Prem Rawat as well as other ancillary articles. A responsible editor would link to these texts in Wikipedia rather than wasting time and WP resources to repeat these points and engage in a discussion again about same topics.
I have no problem whatsoever for you adding new material. That will be great. Otherwise, please stop wasting time, energy and resources.
I have re-arranged the text and created sections whith short sumamries and wikilinks.
If you disagree with this, you will need to elaborate here about your reasons and motives. Otherwise your actions do not make any sense.
-- Zappaz 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-- Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Calling Wim Haan a "scholar" is just way too funny. I read that he wrote the article when he was a young student in an obsucre theological college in small town in Holland. Comparing him with the likes of Melton, or Baker is laughable. -- 62.132.1.121 03:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, please be accurate in your edit summary. You said you did not change content, but you did. You removed the fact that the family accepted Prem as the successor for eight years before changing thier minds. That is an extremely important piece of information that you chose to delete. Not good, Andries, not good... ≈ jossi ≈ 14:48, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
As if Haan just could have submitted the article without review by the editors. He wrote that he had to change it several times. Andries 18:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)