Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 25

message: Why do so many Wiki articles internally link dates, eg 20 Jan 2001? Is there any good reason? Rumiton 13:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Date format, will automatically be converted to the time format you have set up in your preferences. SO,  20 Jan (20 Jan shows as "Jan 20" in my browser as that is the US format that I have set. Years should be wikilinked only on their first instance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Format

message: I would like to add that Prem Rawat occasionally refers to non-Indian masters and philosophers such as Socrates, Rumi and Kabir in his discourses. Rumiton 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachings

message: I would also like to develop this, as it seems to be the key to much. I don't see Jossi's draft with "...known not to eschew" (wealth) as doing the job, as I have personally read Prem Rawat's advice to his students about becoming as wealthy as they (honestly) can. The irrelevance of personal wealth also seems a part of the philosophy of the Sants, though I have no sources for this. Any implication that he has acted inconsistantly or hypocritically in this would be quite false. Rumiton 10:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumiton, I understand your concern, but note that reverting each other seldom produces any results. I attempted to offer an alternative manner in which that specifics material can be incorporated. Maybe it is not perfect, but I would suggest to endeavor ourselves in finding a suitable and appropriate manner in which to incorporate some of the sources that present that aspect in a neutral manner. I am referring to Hunt, Barret and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have to explain why you think that Melton is a good source and at the same time that Mishler cannot be mentioned. This sounds contradictory because Melton mentions some of Mishler's criticisms. Andries 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that the source you used is not needed, and proposed an alternative version for consideration. After all, there are good, neutral sources that described this aspect, so I would expect that a suitable wording can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with the current wording and the sources? Please remember that sources do not have to be neutral, but only reputable. Andries 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Inserting selective exceptional, irrelevant and biased opinion is unacceptable in this article (an any other Wiki article).Momento 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And including extremes of POV, in this case putting in angry denunciations by ex-accolytes as well as gushing testimonials by current devotees does not produce a balanced article, more a schizophrenic one. That was what we had before when we failed GA review. I think the current article shows a pretty good balance. Rumiton 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Older briothers and a mother kissing the feet of a younger brother and her son is highly unusual in India. Andries 05:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Rumiton. Rawat was not a younger son/brother, he was their Guru.Momento 08:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very important point. Kissing your guru's feet is not just common in India, it is almost obligatory. Time magazine's inference is that "kissing" Rawat's feet is the important, relevant or note worthy bit. It is not. What is unusual is that his elder brothers and mother considered Rawat their guru. They wouldn't be kissing his feet if he wasn't. Time magazine has trivialised an important issue and isn't worthy of inclusion in this article. It is not unreasonable to say it has racist undertones.Momento 10:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not complicated, but your POV's are complicated about the reporting on foot-kissng or darshan.  While it may be common for Indian people to kiss each other's feet, indeed, it's not part of the American culture, which it exactly what the Time magazine article discusses, because it's reporting on the Holy Family here, not India.  Rawat's students have been using the "it's common in India for foot kisssing between family members" argument for a long time, to explain the practice of darshan. Time hasn't trivialized anything.  It's reporting facts, and facts are good things, not bad things, especially, as premies state, that foot kissing is not a big deal. It's important to trust the readers to be  make their own judgments of the presented facts.  Sylviecyn 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in Wikipedia Darsana could be linked in the text to explain the touching or kissing of feet in India.  However, it doesn't explain the practice by Rawat's students in western countries, whether in formal Darshan lines organized at certain events, or when around Maharaji personally, and I doubt there are any sources that do explain the practice in the west. The Darsana article might soften the blow of this practice to readers of the fact that it's been done here in the west.  It at least does provide some context.  Sylviecyn 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  The correct article is Darśana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Jossi. Yes, your link is the correct one. Much appreciated.   Sylviecyn 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Darśana article is a good resource. But the problem is that Time is a populist magazine and this is an encyclopedia. It would be absurd to insert "He dines on vegetables—liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream" into this article and the "kissing his feet" sentence is no different. It is not a scholarly appraisal, it is written in a frivolous way, it offers no new relevant information (it is already establsihed that his family accepted him as their guru) and therefore it is undue weight.Momento 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it if fine material from a reputable source. In general I think that Momento and others engage in flawed reasoning to disqualify reputable sources that make even remotely critical remarks about Rawat. This does not lead to a NPOV article but to an uncritical one. Why not follow reputable sources and let the readers decide? Andries 07:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Andries, do you think we should include ""He dines on vegetables—liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream" in the article?
If not, why not?Momento 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May be it should. Eating huge amounts of ice creams seems quite remarkable for a guru claiming to bring peace to the world. Andries 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was *really* funny.... I could not help comment on it: what does ice cream have to do with world peace. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone claiming to a teacher of (inner) peace needs large amounts of luxury food? If he were a good teacher then, he would be filled with peace already and not need much external things to make him fulfilled. Andries 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Very revealing statement about  opinions of what inner peace is and what being a "good teacher" means. PR never responded to people's expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The high net worth thing

message: Sylvie, I think that's an excellent article (Darśana), well done for finding it. My only concern, which I hope you can share, is that Prem Rawat's life story is so unusual in any context that the process of raising controversial points and then going to lengths to elucidate them, could go on forever. A large book wouldn't do it justice, let alone a brief BLP. But if everyone is happy with the idea, I would like to see a darshan/devotion section inserted, and would be happy to help work on it. Rumiton 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darshan

message: In the first section of the article, last paragraph... 'closed the ashrams and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated'. 
Would not 'trappings from which the techniques originated' be more appropriate? 
I have to say, that as a new reader here, the article appears extremely balanced and concise, an easy read that is in no way biased either for or against its subject matter. At what point does the article reach the 'published, too late for changes' status? It appears close. I think congratulations to editors from both pro and con camps is due.   VivK 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such a thing as "published, too late for change" in Wikipedia. An article reaches a stable status, when ... it is stable. There is a process of peer review, which we have done in the past, as well as Good article status, but that status can change at a later stage: it can lose its GA status, or it can be improved further as a Featured article status. First, we need to achieve stability, then we can submit for GA review again. There is no rush... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello VivK, thanks for your constructive look. I see you have noticed the truly dreadful word "trappings." Unfortunately it was a word favoured by the two most prominent researchers of Prem Rawat's life and work, Downer and Melton. The awkward phraseology is theirs, and we are pretty well stuck with it in describing the big changes that PR made in the early 80s to the culture that surrounded Knowledge, as no one else seems to have looked at it. You will see the word occurs in the main text and the references no less than 9 times. Your change is of course for the better and the more grammatical, but whatever you do with it, it is a lousy word. We are gilding a rotten and inherently defective lily. The techniques did not "originate" in any blasted "trappings" and if I were allowed to say so, I would. There, I feel better now. Thanks for your help. Rumiton 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: VivK, the article already says The Prem Rawat Foundation, established in 2001, promotes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television... The UK is just one of those countries. Also we need to be careful of unverifiable claims such as "...massive UK television audience." If you can find a UK poll that gives a figure for the audience there, that would be very useful. Sorry to be a wet blanket, the rules, and so forth. Ta.  Rumiton 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A petty grammar point. 

message: I just noticed: Rigopoulos, Antonio The life and teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi State University of New York press, Albany, (1993)  
Does that have anything at all to do with Prem Rawat? If not...the chop. Rumiton 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno... Andries added this ref, if I recall correctly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out it goes. Rumiton 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliographical references

message: How can the Wikiquote box be made to lead directly to the Prem Rawat page? The URL is http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji_%28Prem_Rawat%29  Rumiton 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that Jossi. I gaze in wonder at your expertise. Rumiton 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: I see John Brauns has changed "spearheads" to "contributes to". I have no problem with this. I never liked spearheads, it has an annoyingly vague and promotional feeling. Contributes is better, and I feel more accurate. But something else has been removed from the early section about conflict with his family. Now it goes straight from nothing to the big final rift. Who did that? Come on now, stand up the one who did that! Rumiton 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John's edit. Sylviecyn 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spearheads

message: Thanks for noticing that, Jossi. It has made an amazing improvement to the look of the article. I will go off and do it to other articles I am working on. Cheers.  Rumiton 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did. The idea is to leave no spaces between punctuation and the ref tag, to avoid having orphan refs due to text flow.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh well, no harm done. I will go back to the other article and abjectly apologise, and thereby earn points for my openness and humility  :-) I still think it looks way better with the space, and I can't see it as any problem at all that a ref might go onto the next line. They can't get separated, as far as I can see. Maybe there is something I am not getting. Rumiton 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what should be re-inserted is that he was criticized for his sumptuous lifestyle and lack of substance of his teachings. Plenty of sources for that. Andries 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is already there in the Teachings section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean in the summary. Andries 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: VivK, please read WP:NPOV. In Wikipedia articles we report on verifiable facts as well as opinions. Facts are in most cases, quite easy: He was born in such   date, arrived in London in such date, got married in such date, etc, providing we have verifiable published material that attest to these dates. Opinions can be verified as well, if these opinions are published in reputable publications and  written by notable people, such as scholars  who wrote on the subject, with some caveats: see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If an opinion or viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, but the viewpoint is significant, it can be described in the article. If it is just a minority viewpoint (in particular if it raises a redflag) we do not describe that viewpoint at all. And when the article is about a living person we apply these policies and guidelines very stringently. Hope this helps.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, opinions of scholars expressed for a particular audience may be unacceptable due to bias. The usual example is that you would not insert as fact the Pope's opinion of the Dalai Lama in an article about the latter, though you might acknowledge that the opinion was a hostile one. Rumiton 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is wrong. Relevant statements from experts in the field such as religious scholars Kranenborg, Melton, Hummel written down in reputable ssources are perfectly acceptable. Andries 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but within the caveats of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:REDFLAG. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the comparison is precise. Pope Benedict is both a religious scholar and an officer of a Christian church. So were most of the other 1970s European critics of Eastern Religions. Rumiton 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaces between dots and refs