Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 19

message: Here are the main points of project status at this time:
*The overall project structure now appears stable as a main biographical article, a criticism article (linked from main page), and a teachings article (linked from main page), with other ancillary articles as well.
*The major revision to the main article is online, accepted and stable; its "dispute tags" have been removed
*The criticism article has been fully negotiated, its "dispute tags" have been removed, and it has been marked in the edit history as a "baseline reference consensus version" for future editors' use
*Characteristic of the classic successful compromise, everyone is a little unhappy with the results but everyone can also live with them
*We have commitments from our editors' group to protect these articles from vandalism attacks and to ask their respective constituencies to respect the articles (and our hard work!) as well
*Existing ancillary topic articles such as Elan Vital, Hans Ji Maharaj, Techniques of Knowledge and Divine Light Mission may see some work in the coming days; no additional ancillary articles appear to be on the horizon, but who knows?
*New articles Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat are being currently developed. A lively discussion about  these articles is being held at Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat 
*A preparatory stub has been created for the teachings article, and I am informed Richard G is close to presenting a first draft version
Having come to the end of the intensive edit period, I am content to have this status section now scroll off into the archives. Anyone who feels it should continue to be maintained, however, is of course free to do so. And now I give you all the secret Wikipedia salute! --Gary D 20:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
The above claims are untrue, this article has not been fully negotiated, it is not accepted, nor is it stable. I cannot live with the distortions in this article, and I am someone.
----
*Updated by Senegal, based on previous edit by Gary D. --Senegal 03:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Project status as of 
October 6 11, 2004
 May 26, 2005 (updated by [[User:Jossi|&asymp; jossi &asymp;]])

message: As predicted, this article is blowing out again because editors are indulging in POV by proxy i.e. insert whatever "scholarly opinion" agrees with your opinion. This article had reduced to 57 kb until Andries made it 59 kb by inserting his chosen scholar. And now further additions by Andries, Jossi and others see us arrive at 62 kb. I am taking out all the "scholarly" opinion and getting back to 57 kb. Feel free to revert if you need other's opinion or preferably suggest removals to get this article down to 54 kb.Momento 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is now 55 kb. Please feel free to removed the last kilobyte.Momento 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't thik that it s necessary to remove that material. Let's wait and see what will be the future if the teachings article(s). Then we can decide if these are a better home for that material. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem for me is that a) the scholars quotes in the 70s section are actually from the 80s, and b) they are so unrepresentative of PRs teachings that I feel the need to add another 10 kb to provide some accuracy. This article would be much better if it stayed a facts only biography of PR and not a place for editors to insert whatever third party quote they can find that agrees with their POV. At the very least the 70s section quotes should be moved to the 80s.Momento 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to stop

message: Hi all. I added the  tag because for someone who knows nothing of the subject like me, the intro is very vague. I have no idea what this "knowledge" thing is (and I shouldn't have to to get an idea of who Prem is). Is Prem some sort of evangelist, or prophet, or kook?
I haven't read the rest of the article; I'm referring to the beginning of it. There needs to be some sort of sentence describing why he is notable. When I started to read the article, I immediately went for the "Random article" link to get away. This article provides way too much trivial detail right at the beginning (the lead I think should be shorter). There's no general overview that would entice the user to read on. So... I hope someone who is familiar with this guy can improve the article. Thanks! ~MDD4696 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. Please note that as per Style Guide the lead is a summary of the article. There is a wikilink to Knowledge in the lead but we ought to give a short explanation of what it is. I will attempt to work on the lead to make it less vague for the uninformed.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mdd4696, I have made several edits to the lead. Can you please comment if these now provide a better context? Thanks. (And thanks for organizing the archives!) ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more context for the uninformed 

message: I think this section should be re-named "Independent Research" or "Scholarly studies' or something. THe people quoted aren't criticising PR they're making observations.Momento 09:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure, Momento. I would prefer to leave it as is for now. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that this is possible, Momento. We have used all the available sources in this article and there is no other reputable sources beyond these that refer specifically to "teachings". We can either leave the past and current teaching articles as stubs (after we summarize the lenghty "current teachings" article), or to simply redirect these to here and marge any material that is not duplicated, into this article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not merge "Past" and "Current" teachings together as "Teachings of Prem Rawat".  It's not as if they're different teachings, just the same message expressed Indian style and then non-Indian style. My main issue is that the four or five extreme quotes dropped in the "70s" section by Andries and added to by you are:  a) completely unrerpresentative of PRs teachings, b) PR's teachings would require a lot more additional material to balance and c) the quotes are very clumsy and don't belong there in the first place. I am opposed to adding more material to this article (the article is 59 kb and would benefit by being reduced to 54) and therefore, rather than continue an edit war to balance Andries' quotes, I would leave scholars opinion to the "Teachings" articles where they belong.Momento 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same message, Indian style and non-Indian style???  You have got to be joking!  LOL!  Sylviecyn 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The message has always been that - " that God/peace/joy naturally resides within every human being and that students can reliably access this natural experience only with the techniques and ongoing advice of a true master". Like his father before him, he claims he can teach four techniques that allow the practicioner to focus their attention within, claims a student needs a master and that the student master relationship is necessary to maintain the experience. He used to do it with Indian analogies, concepts and traditions, which he dropped in the '80s.Momento 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quotes in the 70s section are not representative of Rawat's teachings and must be addressed.  Andries, can you provide translations of all that these people said about Rawat?Momento 08:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have just noticed that all the quotes that Andries inserted into the 70s section actually come from the 80s!!! And all are from active Christians!!! What's going on Andries?Momento 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At 59 Kb this article is too long and we do not have room for the tit for tat editing that Andries' has started. Unless someoone can provide a rational argument why these unrepresentative 80's quotes about Rawat's teachings have been dumped in PR biography in the 70's, I am going to remove the quotes from "Christian critics" from the 70's section. Momento 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes by van der Lans and Derks were based on interviews with premies in the late 1970s, though the article was published in the 1980s. Andries 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries's edits are fine and I object removal of them. Please explain why you object to having quotes from "Christian" critics. What a scholar's religious affiliation may be is immaterial to their observations and assessments of a new religious movement and it's leader.  It's inappropriate to mention the religious affiliation of a scholar, because it appears that the writer/editor (here) is stating a POV about the scholar, based on their religion!  Also, you continue to misunderstand that when scholars or other writers publish, and then come out with a second or third edition of their book, it's absolutely not true that all the information in said book/publication is updated to the date of the latest edition.  That's a fact. Sylviecyn 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All the quotes are from the 80's and therefore don't belong in the 70's section. Why don't you remove them Sylviecyn?Momento 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: As I said above, if PR's teachings need to be summarised in this article, they should be summarised very briefly, and neutrally and linked to "Current Teachings" which should be renamed "Teachings of Prem Rawat". I do not believe the quotes in the 70's section are representative and I do not believe the "70s" is the place for it. I suggest that we link "began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent" from the first paragraph of the article to "Current teachings" (renamed "The Teachings of Prem Rawat"). That way we can keep this article brief and factual and have a separate article to expand on teachings. Even the "Access to the techniques" section could be incorpoarted into "The Teachings of PR".Momento 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this is possible, Momento. We have used all the available sources in this article and there is no other reputable sources beyond these that refer specifically to "teachings". We can either leave the past and current teaching articles as stubs (after we summarize the lenghty "current teachings" article), or to simply redirect these to here and marge any material that is not duplicated, into this article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not merge "Past" and "Current" teachings together as "Teachings of Prem Rawat".  It's not as if they're different teachings, just the same message expressed Indian style and then non-Indian style. My main issue is that the four or five extreme quotes dropped in the "70s" section by Andries and added to by you are:  a) completely unrerpresentative of PRs teachings, b) PR's teachings would require a lot more additional material to balance and c) the quotes are very clumsy and don't belong there in the first place. I am opposed to adding more material to this article (the article is 59 kb and would benefit by being reduced to 54) and therefore, rather than continue an edit war to balance Andries' quotes, I would leave scholars opinion to the "Teachings" articles where they belong.Momento 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same message, Indian style and non-Indian style???  You have got to be joking!  LOL!  Sylviecyn 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The message has always been that - " that God/peace/joy naturally resides within every human being and that students can reliably access this natural experience only with the techniques and ongoing advice of a true master". Like his father before him, he claims he can teach four techniques that allow the practicioner to focus their attention within, claims a student needs a master and that the student master relationship is necessary to maintain the experience. He used to do it with Indian analogies, concepts and traditions, which he dropped in the '80s.Momento 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quotes in the 70s section are not representative of Rawat's teachings and must be addressed.  Andries, can you provide translations of all that these people said about Rawat?Momento 08:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have just noticed that all the quotes that Andries inserted into the 70s section actually come from the 80s!!! And all are from active Christians!!! What's going on Andries?Momento 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At 59 Kb this article is too long and we do not have room for the tit for tat editing that Andries' has started. Unless someoone can provide a rational argument why these unrepresentative 80's quotes about Rawat's teachings have been dumped in PR biography in the 70's, I am going to remove the quotes from "Christian critics" from the 70's section. Momento 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes by van der Lans and Derks were based on interviews with premies in the late 1970s, though the article was published in the 1980s. Andries 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries's edits are fine and I object removal of them. Please explain why you object to having quotes from "Christian" critics. What a scholar's religious affiliation may be is immaterial to their observations and assessments of a new religious movement and it's leader.  It's inappropriate to mention the religious affiliation of a scholar, because it appears that the writer/editor (here) is stating a POV about the scholar, based on their religion!  Also, you continue to misunderstand that when scholars or other writers publish, and then come out with a second or third edition of their book, it's absolutely not true that all the information in said book/publication is updated to the date of the latest edition.  That's a fact. Sylviecyn 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All the quotes are from the 80's and therefore don't belong in the 70's section. Why don't you remove them Sylviecyn?Momento 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of teaching

message: The question of photographs was raised somewhere above. Photographs should add information to a Wikipedia article, not simply decorate it. I think photographs of Prem Rawat at different ages are informative. But photographs, concentrating on the audience? Both Hitler and Pope John Paul II, who were known to speak often to large audiences, are (nearly) without such photographs. The exception being the :Image:Pope-poland.jpg, but we are short on JPII photographs we can use, so that may not even be a first choice picture. 
I suggest retaining only one of the currently three audiencences photographs, perhaps :Image:Maharaji Royal Albert Hall.jpg. OTOH they are all three that small, that they even can be edited out for image quality reasons, as they are not really necessary.
Pjacobi 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. Also suggest "Access to the techniques" be removed to "Current teachings of Prem Rawat". "Number of practitioners of Knowledge" be inserted into "80s & 90s" and "Prem Rawat Today". And "Life work" to be incorporated into "Prem Rawat Today".Momento 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium photograph, as suggested. I left the Salamaca University one, as that appearance by Prem Rawat was historical. I will place a request to the uploader to provide better quality version of that image, if available. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 13:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The photos that Pjacobi wuestioned due to low resolution have been replaced by the uploader at high resolution at commons. There is not need to do anything as these are now updated her as well.  and . ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of photographs