Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 16

message: Dear EV,
You have just deleted a certain section without providing any proper documentation for your deletion.  You have also just inserted a section without providing any proper documentation for this either.  Regarding the Mishler transcript deletion, please document before deleting.  Regarding your deletion of the section referring to Rawat's earlier claims to divinity, please provide ample documentation that all proof of this was fabricated before deleting this.  Thanks,
-Scott P. 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EV, please show proper counter-documentation before deleting documented sections, also documentation for inserting other improperly documented sections. 

message: I think my edits about surrender in the lead section was good because
:1. two contributors (Jim and Erol) on the talk pages requested it.
:2. It is verifiable from a notable source
:3. It represents a majority POV among scholars (Kranenborg and Melton)
:4. The source is far more reputable than the description of Rawat's activities from The Prem Rawat Foundation. 
Andries 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Melton writes something similar, though he does not use the word surrender, I have to admit. And if it is okay to cite the TPRF about Prem Rawat in the lead section then it must surely be okay to cite Kranenborg. I mean, the TPRF is certainly not a majority voice. Andries 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any religious scholar who denies that he made claims of divinity? We have two who say so. Andries 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a biographical article on Prem Rawat. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article as a whole, no a place to assert the opinion of this or that scholar. Otherwise the lead wil become the article (???). Three or four paragraphs was all was needed, but know it is expanding beyond what is recommended in the style guide.  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed some TPRF statements from the lead as these do not contibute much to it and are better explored in the article itself. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record. I find Andries' inclusion of Kraneborg and Melton selective statements in the lead to be a disingenuous edit. In particular when these views and minority views. Minority views are explored in the article for NPOV, where these can be properly attributed, expanded and presented alongside opposing views, but have no place in the lead. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minority views? Can you please explain that? Is there any religious scholar who disagrees with Kranenborg and Melton? The only ones who voice minority views are the ones who deny that Maharaji made claims of divinity. Andries 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You got the whole thing about minority views all wrong. The opinon of ONE person, scholar or not is a minority view whichever way you look at it. There are 20 or more scholars that do not have the opinion of your beloved Dutch reverend. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 11:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most scholars have written about the DLM, not so much about Rawat and there is not even one who comes close to contradicting or denying what Melton and Kranenborg have written. In fact, some wrote things that are somewhat similar e.g. "near-divine status" (Barrett) "formally deified" Levine. And even if it is not a majority view, I also included the oppposing view, so I followed 100% a NPOV summary of the article. Andries 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop from copying text, sources and citations from the article and re-pasting it into the lead. Responding to your comment I have trimmed the lead and remove a whole paragraphs representing the POV of the Prem Rawat Foundation, and you keep adding selective aspects into it. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not, just selective Jossi. I really tried  to make a summary of the section early westerners' devotion with all aspects that is now completely missing after your deletion. Please do not delete it. That is not acceptable. Try to re-write it instead. Andries 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue I have with your edit is that it attempts to summarize what is probably one of the more contentious aspect of this article, without the benefit of the context, counter arguments and POVs of the different protagonists in these early days. I have attempted to write a summary that hopefully will invite readers to read the details in the article itself, without preempting the content itself. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You should at least desribe that some scholars think that he made claims about himself too. And you should describe what claims he made. Andries 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained the reasons why we should not. Let the readers read the context in which these claims where made, the protagonits who made them, and the counter arguments to these claims. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jossi, could you please justify your revert about surrender?

message: To Memento and Andries: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several times adapted my edits signficantly in meaning to make it more acceptable to Momento's POV, but s/he keeps reverting. Andries 20:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I can not edit this talk page because of spam warnings. At least not the previous section. This section is okay. Andries 09:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add some more context in the summary. I think that your summmary was very vague and hence unacceptable: in an encyclopedia we try to be as specific as possible. Andries 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR warning 

message: ::Yes, that is why we have the article in which we fully present the POVs, the context in which these were made, etc. The summary cannot but contain a sentence that does not preempt the NPOV achieved in the article, by Poisoning_the_well. That is indeed not NPOV and unacceptable ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, but to omit in the summary that his early western followers saw him as divine is something I will never accept. Andries 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may perceive what I do as poising the well, but I perceive what you do as willingly and unnecessarily staying vague. Andries 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my fault that his followers had beliefs about him that people now see as odd. One of the main reasons why he became famous is because people thought him to be divine. These beliefs that were once (and probably still) important and hence must be mentioned in a neutral balanced way in the summary and that is what I have tried. In contrast you have been extremely vague and evasive in your description and I think this is unencyclopedic. Andries 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely noting vague in the article in the section in which all these aspects are discussed. But the edit you have made pre-empts NPOV by most definitively "setting up" and preempting the NPOV that we all worked so hard to achieve. Reverted. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I think you are very unreasonable here. You delete the summary that is badly needed, but you offer no serious alternative. Your summary was extremely vague and evasive and hence unencyclopedic. Andries 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, your asertion that "one of the main reasons why he became famous is because people thought him to be divine" is your POV and the POV of the main detractors/former devotees. We need to find a way to present these specific aspects that lasted for a few years of Maharaji's life without "poisoning the well" for readers in the article lead. Fact is that ex-followers and you included are too focused in augumenting these claims for obvious reasons related to pushing that specific POV and then claim "revisionism" when context is provided. Not acceptable, IMO. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that made him famous (apart from his age and his claims of bringing knowledge).  Andries 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your last edit, and my addition are now sufficient to highlight these aspects and encourage readers to explore further by reading the pertinent sections. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And what about the peace bomb satsang in 1970? There he compared himself to Krishna. If they were crazy ideas then why did two religious scholars say the same. Clearly they were fed by PR. Andries 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, you will have a hard time convincing a Hindu that Krishna was not an avatar of Vishnu :) 
I'm not trying to. I know Krishna is commonly seen as an avatar. But an avatar is different from God, a point that seems lost on Andries.Momento 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Momento, please, an avatar is an incarnation of God and Krishna is generally considered a purna avatar that is a full divine incarnation. This is getting silly. Andries 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow Daniella's excellent analysis of the Peace Bomb satsang, it is obvious that there are too many inconsistencies in the translation so I would not be too bothered about that. Nevertheless, the lead needs to reflect the known fact that during these early years, some of the students, the mahatmas, Maharaji's mother and the organizers associated divine attributes to Maharaji, while at the same time Maharaji in any opportunity given to him and when asked direct questions, he clearly put the burden on explaining these claims on these that made them. How to summarize it in the lead without preempting the article itself or "poisoning the well" for the readers is the challenge. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Peace bomb satsang was not exactly the only speech in Prem Rawat compared himself with Krishna. If you mean with not poisoning the well being vague and evasive then I cannot agree. Andries 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Momento, in Hinduism it is not seen as contradictory that God can both exist as energy (called Shakti) and as an embodied incarnation (called avatar). Andries 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So we cannot report something only because you disagree with or do not understand Hinduism? That sounds unacceptable to me. Andries 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: This section is becoming way to big and we are already beyond the alloted limit for a Wikipedia article. I propose to summarize the contents of this section and to spin off to a separate article as per content forking/Article spinouts. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of section

message: In my understanding, „Guru Maharaj Ji“ has never been a „title”, neither “honorary”, in the sense that it can be acquired, or bestowed or revoked by some agency (like "Dr."), nor a person, but it rather denominates a defined, very special and exclusive form of relationship. In a way like “Mama”; you have only one, yet there are many. Still there is no argument. You are not your own “Mama”, but you are to your children, and you know it, and they know it. It’s nobody else’s business. Or “friend”. If you have one, you know. There is no such thing as “honorary friend”. When “friend” dies, you sort of don’t have him any more. Still you can be “friend”, but only to the living counterpart it means something. Neither can there be a regulated succession. You know when you have found one. Prem Rawat has never claimed anything else. So, the seemingly inevitable term “honorary title” may perhaps add to the confusion that surrounds this amazingly mistakable issue by being slightly misleading. Maybe someone can come up with a better designation? A lot of confusion on these pages might be solved or averted. A challenge for all you passionate and powerfully eloquent posters, whose first language is English!? What do you think?--Rainer P. 17:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Honorary title" 

message: Someone has written here that "Rawat expressed his satisfaction with it [the Houston event]. Where does that statement come from? Errol V 08:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent residence in the west