Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 6

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganized article 

message: 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
:Not particularly "my" summary; I just formatted an anonymous edit, so it wouldn't be reverted. I figured if I stuck my oar in, somebody would pay a bit more attention to it ;-) and now I'm really, really going to take a break!! --Uncle Ed 16:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: 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)
replies: text: I do not agree. All relevant documented facts about Prem Rawat should be mentioned here. This article hardly contains criticis, which I can understand but to remove relevant, important, documented facts (such as the claims of divinity) is just intellectual dishonesty and revisionism. Andries 23:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is EXACTLY the problem. The issue is to see if we can achieve a stable article. Given the contentious nature of the article and the emotional involvement of pro's and con's  the idea was to split the article, keeping this article devoid of the controversy, and moving the controversial aspects to another article.  Pls read the comments by Ed, Senegal and myself above.
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)

text: Zappaz, I have to think about it but you and Senegal are breaking the guidelines for NPOV article. It may be a good idea though in this case otherwise this article become the subject of endless edit wars. Andries 23:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to let the air cool a bit. Allow Jim and other critics to expand the Ex-premie article for a while. Then we can revise and see if a summary can be placed here. The  current article is still NPOV as it clearly explain that there are critics that are making pretty substatial allegations against Prem Rawat and his movement, and all data in the article is attributed to a source. It also positions the ex-premies in the context of size (being a small group). Read the NPOV section about this aspect of respresentation (NPOV#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view.3F). --Zappaz 00:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, I continue to disagree with you on the minority point of view and a lot of other things. When he was more known in the 1970, a lot of negative press articles came out. Now people do not care anymore. And the claims of divinity should go into the article, otherwise to say that the article in NPOV is simply untrue beyond reasonable doubt. Andries 10:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not start again 

message: Ex-premies are vandalizing this page, yet again. True colors. --jossi 17:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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 .....
??
:Please sign your posting so we know to whom to attribute this. Clearly the above is your distorted POV and nothing else.  Hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life appreciate Maharaji and his guidance. http://www.whatpeoplesay.org/ . Yours is the  POV of an irrelevant minority. You may not like that, but that is the case. -- jossi 18:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong, Jossi, the critics are the majoriry. Andries 09:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It boils down to this 

message: Several problems with your edit:
*Gary, your characterization as "guru" is incorrect. Prem Rawat has not called himself a guru for the last 25 years and hardly fits that characterization (no white robes, long beard or other trappings)
*Rawat is a very common name in India, so we need to prefix it with "Prem"
::I'm fine with any changes on both those points. If you remove the word "guru" from the first paragraph, do please remember to re-wikify its first appearance later in the article. --Gary D 00:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Gary D 00:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: From Gary D:

message: ::Zappaz, Jossi, .140, GaryD, fine but in the meantime I will give this article a factual accuracy warning because I think that essential facts i.e. claims of divinity are missing. Do not remove the dispute warning please. It had already been removed two times without my consent. I will complain to admins if it is once again removed.  Andries 09:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the factual accuracy warning should be a part of this temporary accomodation we all are building, and I support its presence. --Gary D 10:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let's do the same on the Crticisim page.--Zappaz 15:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with this. I understand Gary's proposal and accept it in that context, even though I am not happy with the statement about the controvery being so prominent in the intro paragraph. I will live with it for the time being, as per Gary's proposal, and i have done the edit myself to prove it :) -- jossi 16:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From Andries:

message: 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
:You must be either jocking or totaly obsfuscated to consider that website as a representation of the "public'. That site 'is the site of a follower  of Osho http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/About.htm Ouch  ROLF!  -- jossi 19:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have to admit that this is not very mainstream but would a person with mainstream views make a site with guru ratings? Only a person who is interested in at least one guru would do so. ~It is almost impossible to be objective when rating a guru ( see also the cult article that says the same about cults). That is why some people openly state their preference such as this honest webmaster (Sarlo) did. And by the way the British psychiatry professor Anthony Storr who wrote the book A study of gurus: feet of clay that is very critical about gurus writes that Rajneesh/Osho had very good ideas in his his early fase. For a more mainstream view (of a journalist) you and others can read the following. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#art4 Andries 18:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The public is either uninterested or thinks negative about him

message: 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)
replies: text: Heads down, shoulders to the wheel does keep the cart moving forward. :-) --Gary D 21:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) --Zappaz 21:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less polemics, more editing