![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is what I was afraid of. That due to pressure from one POV (the critics, represented here by Jim and his friends as well as Andries) this article will become one in which the POV of a small group becomes dominant.
Almost 50% of the article is related to the controversy and the critics cl;aims and counterclaims by supporters. The page is over 30K long and need shortenning.
I propose to re-create the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article (now redirected here) in which Jim and Andries can expand, and have a short summary of it on this article.
-- Zappaz 19:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Article is now re-organized. main article portraying Prem Rawat, teachings and histoy of movement.
Ex-premie article portraying all the criticism and counter-criticism polemic. Critics can now expand/edit that article as much as needed. Link to this in the article's intro.
Also archived previous Talk page discussions on Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 5.
-- Senegal 22:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)(a.k.a .121 and .122, now using a sockpuppet account to edit help with this article. I know that it is not nice, but it is my choice to avoid being harassed.
If you assume, as does the majority of people living on this earth, that Rawat is a fraudulent cult leader, then the major weight of the article would be a description of him as such: how he came to be in power, how he's fraudulent, how he fits into the greater categories of false gurus and cult leaders generally.
If, on the other hand, you accept him on his own terms -- something you, Zappaz, and all the premies here do -- then you're right.
Here, by the way, are some comments from the official followers' site, Enjoying Life with Knowledge, that should make it a bit easier seeing what's really going on here:
Aliene Hughes, July 17, 2003
Maharaji's heart
Maharaji's Heart Feels Like Forever Embracing You In So Much Peace You Can Always Become One With It
Aliene Hughes Santa Monica, Ca, USA
Ziga Valetic, April 5, 2003
My Guru (GU - darkness, RU - light)
You offered three blessings.
First ... Your precious precious precious tehniques of Knowledge, Second ... Your intelligent, clear, soothing words, that transcend my ignorance, Third ... sharing the same practical and most noble life effort with you.
I take all three, for within these I've found all of me and all of you.
Ziga Valetic Ljubljana, Slovenia
Anyone who can't see that this is a devotional cult is blind.
-- Jim
If you assume, as does the majority of people living on this earth, that Rawat is a fraudulent cult leader
Fallacies. Since when you are the spokesperson for the majority of poeople on this heart? Come down from the cloud.
And some of thes statements that you have copied above ( that by the way are copyright violations have been removed, with the exception of a sample as it falls within fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality), are the expressions of gratitude of people that have Maharaji has their teacher and appreciate him and his teachings. Nothing is wrong with it, besides your lack of understanding -- jossi 04:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why else do you think he avoids the press? Come on, Jossi, be honest for once.
-- Jim
Jim, the issue is not what characterization you want to apply. Anyone can see that devotion is a negative in your POV. Other POVs may consider that different. You continue making the assumption that Wikipeda is the place for the truth. Me and others have asked you several times to please read and understand the NPOV policy to appreciate what kind of encyclopedia is that we are attempting to create here at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I would encourage you to dedicate your efforts to work on the Ex-premie article, that after Senegal's dissection does not read well and needs work.-- Zappaz 12:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ed, critics claims are already explained on that paragraph. Let them present their grievances in detail on the Ex-premie page. I moved your summary of allegations to that article. -- Zappaz
Zappaz, I do not think that we are coming closer. I continue to disagree with you. Ed Poor also held the opinion that the UVa article should be included.
Andries 23:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, how on earth can you remove those claims of divinity from the main article??? They are proven, very relevant, documented facts. It is crazy to split that to another article.
Andries 23:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries: instead of entering into an edit war yet again... please work on the Ex-Premie article instead. That was Ed's proposal, implemented by Senegal and others.
All the controversy elements moved to the Ex-Premie page were they can be developed without edit wars. -- Zappaz 23:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Claims of divinity and a link to the Ex-premie article are clearly marked on the Opposition section with a link to the Ex-premie article where it can be developed as much as needed. -- Zappaz 23:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So let me see how this works. Just because there's so much critical stuff to be said about Rawat, none of it gets said in the article. Instead, there's a small link people may -- or may not -- use to get to the other, and what I'd consider the "real" part of the story?
Was that your idea, Ed?
This is a complete travesty!
Is it "noble" for Rawat to screw his mistress on the side for decades making a laughingstock of his wife Marolyn?
Ex-premies are vandalizing this page, yet again. True colors. -- jossi 17:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, Rawat, who once claimed to be the Lord of the Universe and promised to bring Peace on Earth, is running from his past. Neither he nor his followers can deal with it honestly. Hence, the silly infomercial puff-pieces instead of real interaction with actual journalists. Or the lying FAQ's on EV's website. Or the flailing, dissembling accusations of distortions and the like from people like Jossi.
Rawat would like to simply re-present himself to the world as if none of that ever happened. All the same, of course he'd be nothing without the pulpit he built AS the "Lord". Indeed, as is clear from the prayers to him on ELK which I posted a few of here (and which, for the most part, were erased), many followers STILL think he's God. And that's just the way Rawat wants it.
So the question is, is it right to give Rawat this kind of pass? He lies to the world, helies about his lies, he continues to trick people into thinking he's some expert on anything but tricking people .....
??
Several problems with your edit:
I liked how you re-arranged the background section. Good work. -- Zappaz 23:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
After long saying I might do something on this article, I have finally showed up. I have just now edited the first section, largely in response to the removal of the "Opposition" section, and to spare Andries from having a (I believe, fairly justified) cow when he sees this. I think complete removal of all text critical of Maharaji/Rawat from the article goes too far, and a bare link to a criticism article is insufficient for encyclopedic NPOV presentation. However, I also believe the "temporary separation" process, in which two separate articles reflecting each side are developed separately for a while, can be useful. Eventually there should be greater integration between the two, I believe, but for now I am simply attempting to split the baby by moving the bare link to the critical article up to the introductory paragraph and thus give it some prominence. (This is something I would normally be strongly opposed to, as I believe noirmally the facts describing an article's subject should be given first and then controversy/criticism be given a section; however, when all critical text on a controversial text is moved, the situation becomes special). I propose that Andries consider leaving the separation between articles for now, monitor this article and work on the criticism article, and that the pro-Maharaji guys leave the critical link in the introduction for now, and consider how unusual it would be for Wikipedia to have an article on a controversial topic that has within it no critical text at all. I suggest we all work on both articles for a few weeks, and then bring the "integrated article versus separate articles" issue to Peer Review. -- Gary D 00:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Prem Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun near Haridwar, India) is an inspirational speaker promoting " inner peace". He is known to his students, who consider him a teacher and guide, by the honorary title Maharaji, and in India is known as Guru Maharaj ji or Balyogeshwar. He has many followers, but is also controversial and has drawn criticism on several fronts (see Criticism of Prem Rawat).
==Background==
Prem Rawat is the fourth son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, himself a teacher and guide (called guru in Indian culture). According to organizations that support his work, Prem Rawat began speaking to audiences about inner peace at the age of three. [etc.]...
The article is getting worse all the time. Sorry, but it's absolute balderdash to say that Rawat wanted to eliminate eastern hindu devotional influences but his followers -- oh, sorry, students -- resisted. You guys don't know shit. Here's a little history lesson for you.
After Rawat and his brother married westerners, precipitating the family split (by the way, you ARE going to mention that his brother, Satpal, now claims to be the true guru as well, aren't you?), there was a general trend amongst western premies, Americans particularly, that the "old" ways were gone and we were free to reinvent our spiritual world. Rawat went along with this for a bit, condoning self-reflective "workshops" and the like where premies reconsidered all aspects of devotional life. People like Bob Mishler, then president of DLM and Rawat's right-hand man, fully supported these changes and wanted Rawat to expressly disavow the "god-man" title.
Rawat considered doing this but got cold feet and in an international coordinators conference in the late fall of 1976 in Essen, Germany, he castigated the international coordinators for forgetting the importance of devotion to him. In fact, at that very moment, he caused a complete reversal, a sea-change, if you will, amongst all his followers, initiating the most heavy devotional period the cult had ever seen. We were now all proven sinners, if you will, as we'd all succumbed, to varying degrees, to the temptations of the world. For instance, many people had left the ashrams, thinking they didn't have to be celibate and renunciate after all. Well Rawat sure cleared up that confusion. He called for a reopening of the ashrams here, there and everywhere, and any premie who was the least bit committed to him and who didn't have children, was pressured to join. He scolded and yelled at us incessantly, reminding us that we'd just had a very close call with the mind, which, he warned us, would try to get us again. All we could do was pray to him. Not that we deserved to be saved. But, hell, if we were lucky and Guru Maharaj Ji chose to give us the grace ....
You want proof? We've got TONS of it. It's all in his words, in his official publications. In other archival material. In our testimonial recollections as well.
But you people don't want the truth. Tell me, does EV contribute any cash to Wikipedia? It might as well do so.
-- Jim
-- Sounds like a big investment with an unacceptable risk of return, Gary. The fact is, a fellow who was very close to Rawat for years wrote a thorough, fair and entirely supportable article at the outset of all this Wiki stuff and it was ransacked by the premies.
What guarantee is there that that won't happen again?
And "peer review"? What peers? Who are we talking about exactly? -- Jim
Some clarifications for Gary's benefit:
I am back now and will be contributing again, and hopefully doing it within NPOV. If I am not, I will be glad to be corrected by my peers at WP. -- jossi 02:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For someone who thinks that the public would think favorable about Prem Rawat, if they studied the case, I suggest reading this entry from gururatings website http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsD.htm#maharj The webmaster gives Maharaji/Prem Rawat half a star="bogus, may have some value, who knows" Andries
I am working on an alternate version Prem_Rawat/temp1 and during my attempt to check citacions and sources I find that there are many hrefs quoted from the ex-premie sites (ex-premie.org and gallery.forum8.org) that contain material that look to me as copyvios. For example, they have there complete books and publications that have been scanned and/or transcribed and posted on these sites, most certainly an effort that goes beyond fair use. The Wikipedia:Copyrights policy warns us not to link to pages that infringe copyrights. What to do? Gary D., Ed? -- Zappaz 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
After reading the last (and very verbose) post by Cynthia, I would encourage her as well as Jim, Andries, Jossi, etc., yet again, to keep these endless polemics out of this page. There is Usenet for that. Let us focus editing and writing the best article we can. Now we have a time window in which we can develop several versions of the article before we decide on next steps. Let us use that time constructively. Thank you. -- Zappaz 20:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My name is Richard. I am a graduate student in New York City, going for my PhD. in Comparative Political Sciences at CUNY. My girlfriend is a student of Maharaji's (I am not) but as a researcher I am very interested in the issue of information technology and its potential for providing factual data in as value-neutral a manner as possible. With your kind permission, I would like to throw my 2 cents in as I review the proposed article(s).
From the offset, let me say that I am fairly dedicated to the proposition that academic language should whenever possible, be bereft of loaded terms (i.e., "John claimed" is value laden with the speaker's disbeleief of whatever it is that John said, while "John said" is dryer). Similarly, there is a distinction between ad hominem attacks (always unwarranted) and comments that fairly disclose to the reader the two foundations of secondary sourcing: credibility and plausibility. Finally, I would expect here no less of what we demand from our undergradate students-- that is, that circular support from self-conclusory statements is no support at all. If a factual statement on an internet webpage cannot be independently verified by reference to a document created and controlled by a non-interested party, then that "support" is highly questionable.
If this is not acceptable to you, or if you do not want my contribution, please let me know. Richard Gilooley
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is what I was afraid of. That due to pressure from one POV (the critics, represented here by Jim and his friends as well as Andries) this article will become one in which the POV of a small group becomes dominant.
Almost 50% of the article is related to the controversy and the critics cl;aims and counterclaims by supporters. The page is over 30K long and need shortenning.
I propose to re-create the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article (now redirected here) in which Jim and Andries can expand, and have a short summary of it on this article.
-- Zappaz 19:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Article is now re-organized. main article portraying Prem Rawat, teachings and histoy of movement.
Ex-premie article portraying all the criticism and counter-criticism polemic. Critics can now expand/edit that article as much as needed. Link to this in the article's intro.
Also archived previous Talk page discussions on Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 5.
-- Senegal 22:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)(a.k.a .121 and .122, now using a sockpuppet account to edit help with this article. I know that it is not nice, but it is my choice to avoid being harassed.
If you assume, as does the majority of people living on this earth, that Rawat is a fraudulent cult leader, then the major weight of the article would be a description of him as such: how he came to be in power, how he's fraudulent, how he fits into the greater categories of false gurus and cult leaders generally.
If, on the other hand, you accept him on his own terms -- something you, Zappaz, and all the premies here do -- then you're right.
Here, by the way, are some comments from the official followers' site, Enjoying Life with Knowledge, that should make it a bit easier seeing what's really going on here:
Aliene Hughes, July 17, 2003
Maharaji's heart
Maharaji's Heart Feels Like Forever Embracing You In So Much Peace You Can Always Become One With It
Aliene Hughes Santa Monica, Ca, USA
Ziga Valetic, April 5, 2003
My Guru (GU - darkness, RU - light)
You offered three blessings.
First ... Your precious precious precious tehniques of Knowledge, Second ... Your intelligent, clear, soothing words, that transcend my ignorance, Third ... sharing the same practical and most noble life effort with you.
I take all three, for within these I've found all of me and all of you.
Ziga Valetic Ljubljana, Slovenia
Anyone who can't see that this is a devotional cult is blind.
-- Jim
If you assume, as does the majority of people living on this earth, that Rawat is a fraudulent cult leader
Fallacies. Since when you are the spokesperson for the majority of poeople on this heart? Come down from the cloud.
And some of thes statements that you have copied above ( that by the way are copyright violations have been removed, with the exception of a sample as it falls within fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality), are the expressions of gratitude of people that have Maharaji has their teacher and appreciate him and his teachings. Nothing is wrong with it, besides your lack of understanding -- jossi 04:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why else do you think he avoids the press? Come on, Jossi, be honest for once.
-- Jim
Jim, the issue is not what characterization you want to apply. Anyone can see that devotion is a negative in your POV. Other POVs may consider that different. You continue making the assumption that Wikipeda is the place for the truth. Me and others have asked you several times to please read and understand the NPOV policy to appreciate what kind of encyclopedia is that we are attempting to create here at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I would encourage you to dedicate your efforts to work on the Ex-premie article, that after Senegal's dissection does not read well and needs work.-- Zappaz 12:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ed, critics claims are already explained on that paragraph. Let them present their grievances in detail on the Ex-premie page. I moved your summary of allegations to that article. -- Zappaz
Zappaz, I do not think that we are coming closer. I continue to disagree with you. Ed Poor also held the opinion that the UVa article should be included.
Andries 23:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, how on earth can you remove those claims of divinity from the main article??? They are proven, very relevant, documented facts. It is crazy to split that to another article.
Andries 23:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries: instead of entering into an edit war yet again... please work on the Ex-Premie article instead. That was Ed's proposal, implemented by Senegal and others.
All the controversy elements moved to the Ex-Premie page were they can be developed without edit wars. -- Zappaz 23:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Claims of divinity and a link to the Ex-premie article are clearly marked on the Opposition section with a link to the Ex-premie article where it can be developed as much as needed. -- Zappaz 23:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So let me see how this works. Just because there's so much critical stuff to be said about Rawat, none of it gets said in the article. Instead, there's a small link people may -- or may not -- use to get to the other, and what I'd consider the "real" part of the story?
Was that your idea, Ed?
This is a complete travesty!
Is it "noble" for Rawat to screw his mistress on the side for decades making a laughingstock of his wife Marolyn?
Ex-premies are vandalizing this page, yet again. True colors. -- jossi 17:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, Rawat, who once claimed to be the Lord of the Universe and promised to bring Peace on Earth, is running from his past. Neither he nor his followers can deal with it honestly. Hence, the silly infomercial puff-pieces instead of real interaction with actual journalists. Or the lying FAQ's on EV's website. Or the flailing, dissembling accusations of distortions and the like from people like Jossi.
Rawat would like to simply re-present himself to the world as if none of that ever happened. All the same, of course he'd be nothing without the pulpit he built AS the "Lord". Indeed, as is clear from the prayers to him on ELK which I posted a few of here (and which, for the most part, were erased), many followers STILL think he's God. And that's just the way Rawat wants it.
So the question is, is it right to give Rawat this kind of pass? He lies to the world, helies about his lies, he continues to trick people into thinking he's some expert on anything but tricking people .....
??
Several problems with your edit:
I liked how you re-arranged the background section. Good work. -- Zappaz 23:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
After long saying I might do something on this article, I have finally showed up. I have just now edited the first section, largely in response to the removal of the "Opposition" section, and to spare Andries from having a (I believe, fairly justified) cow when he sees this. I think complete removal of all text critical of Maharaji/Rawat from the article goes too far, and a bare link to a criticism article is insufficient for encyclopedic NPOV presentation. However, I also believe the "temporary separation" process, in which two separate articles reflecting each side are developed separately for a while, can be useful. Eventually there should be greater integration between the two, I believe, but for now I am simply attempting to split the baby by moving the bare link to the critical article up to the introductory paragraph and thus give it some prominence. (This is something I would normally be strongly opposed to, as I believe noirmally the facts describing an article's subject should be given first and then controversy/criticism be given a section; however, when all critical text on a controversial text is moved, the situation becomes special). I propose that Andries consider leaving the separation between articles for now, monitor this article and work on the criticism article, and that the pro-Maharaji guys leave the critical link in the introduction for now, and consider how unusual it would be for Wikipedia to have an article on a controversial topic that has within it no critical text at all. I suggest we all work on both articles for a few weeks, and then bring the "integrated article versus separate articles" issue to Peer Review. -- Gary D 00:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Prem Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun near Haridwar, India) is an inspirational speaker promoting " inner peace". He is known to his students, who consider him a teacher and guide, by the honorary title Maharaji, and in India is known as Guru Maharaj ji or Balyogeshwar. He has many followers, but is also controversial and has drawn criticism on several fronts (see Criticism of Prem Rawat).
==Background==
Prem Rawat is the fourth son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, himself a teacher and guide (called guru in Indian culture). According to organizations that support his work, Prem Rawat began speaking to audiences about inner peace at the age of three. [etc.]...
The article is getting worse all the time. Sorry, but it's absolute balderdash to say that Rawat wanted to eliminate eastern hindu devotional influences but his followers -- oh, sorry, students -- resisted. You guys don't know shit. Here's a little history lesson for you.
After Rawat and his brother married westerners, precipitating the family split (by the way, you ARE going to mention that his brother, Satpal, now claims to be the true guru as well, aren't you?), there was a general trend amongst western premies, Americans particularly, that the "old" ways were gone and we were free to reinvent our spiritual world. Rawat went along with this for a bit, condoning self-reflective "workshops" and the like where premies reconsidered all aspects of devotional life. People like Bob Mishler, then president of DLM and Rawat's right-hand man, fully supported these changes and wanted Rawat to expressly disavow the "god-man" title.
Rawat considered doing this but got cold feet and in an international coordinators conference in the late fall of 1976 in Essen, Germany, he castigated the international coordinators for forgetting the importance of devotion to him. In fact, at that very moment, he caused a complete reversal, a sea-change, if you will, amongst all his followers, initiating the most heavy devotional period the cult had ever seen. We were now all proven sinners, if you will, as we'd all succumbed, to varying degrees, to the temptations of the world. For instance, many people had left the ashrams, thinking they didn't have to be celibate and renunciate after all. Well Rawat sure cleared up that confusion. He called for a reopening of the ashrams here, there and everywhere, and any premie who was the least bit committed to him and who didn't have children, was pressured to join. He scolded and yelled at us incessantly, reminding us that we'd just had a very close call with the mind, which, he warned us, would try to get us again. All we could do was pray to him. Not that we deserved to be saved. But, hell, if we were lucky and Guru Maharaj Ji chose to give us the grace ....
You want proof? We've got TONS of it. It's all in his words, in his official publications. In other archival material. In our testimonial recollections as well.
But you people don't want the truth. Tell me, does EV contribute any cash to Wikipedia? It might as well do so.
-- Jim
-- Sounds like a big investment with an unacceptable risk of return, Gary. The fact is, a fellow who was very close to Rawat for years wrote a thorough, fair and entirely supportable article at the outset of all this Wiki stuff and it was ransacked by the premies.
What guarantee is there that that won't happen again?
And "peer review"? What peers? Who are we talking about exactly? -- Jim
Some clarifications for Gary's benefit:
I am back now and will be contributing again, and hopefully doing it within NPOV. If I am not, I will be glad to be corrected by my peers at WP. -- jossi 02:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For someone who thinks that the public would think favorable about Prem Rawat, if they studied the case, I suggest reading this entry from gururatings website http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsD.htm#maharj The webmaster gives Maharaji/Prem Rawat half a star="bogus, may have some value, who knows" Andries
I am working on an alternate version Prem_Rawat/temp1 and during my attempt to check citacions and sources I find that there are many hrefs quoted from the ex-premie sites (ex-premie.org and gallery.forum8.org) that contain material that look to me as copyvios. For example, they have there complete books and publications that have been scanned and/or transcribed and posted on these sites, most certainly an effort that goes beyond fair use. The Wikipedia:Copyrights policy warns us not to link to pages that infringe copyrights. What to do? Gary D., Ed? -- Zappaz 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
After reading the last (and very verbose) post by Cynthia, I would encourage her as well as Jim, Andries, Jossi, etc., yet again, to keep these endless polemics out of this page. There is Usenet for that. Let us focus editing and writing the best article we can. Now we have a time window in which we can develop several versions of the article before we decide on next steps. Let us use that time constructively. Thank you. -- Zappaz 20:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My name is Richard. I am a graduate student in New York City, going for my PhD. in Comparative Political Sciences at CUNY. My girlfriend is a student of Maharaji's (I am not) but as a researcher I am very interested in the issue of information technology and its potential for providing factual data in as value-neutral a manner as possible. With your kind permission, I would like to throw my 2 cents in as I review the proposed article(s).
From the offset, let me say that I am fairly dedicated to the proposition that academic language should whenever possible, be bereft of loaded terms (i.e., "John claimed" is value laden with the speaker's disbeleief of whatever it is that John said, while "John said" is dryer). Similarly, there is a distinction between ad hominem attacks (always unwarranted) and comments that fairly disclose to the reader the two foundations of secondary sourcing: credibility and plausibility. Finally, I would expect here no less of what we demand from our undergradate students-- that is, that circular support from self-conclusory statements is no support at all. If a factual statement on an internet webpage cannot be independently verified by reference to a document created and controlled by a non-interested party, then that "support" is highly questionable.
If this is not acceptable to you, or if you do not want my contribution, please let me know. Richard Gilooley