Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 2

message: The page has been stable for a couple of days. Although not all facts presented in the article are 100% checked & substantiated,  I think it presents a pretty decent NPOV. I am removing the totallydisputed template, toning down to disputed, leaving the controversial template for a while. --141.76.1.122 15:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you read Talk:Prem_Rawat#From_NPOV_page so you may gain an understanding of Wikipedia's aim as an encyclopaedia. Also note the disclaimer about the neutrality of the article. Pls see this as "work in progress". Eventually, and after contributions of many editors and anons like me, most pages reach the goal of NPOV. Patience is needed.168.143.113.138 17:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of Some critics interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity I edited to say Some interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity. That is an example of NPOV editing. -168.143.113.138 17:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Jim, I think you have a point.  Barrett (see references) who sounds very sympathetic when writing about Elan Vital and who has spoken to Glenn Whittaker and Susan Evans writes that Maharaji used to have an "almost-divine status". Jim, I would appreciate it if you created a user id here.  Andries 18:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with you Andries. Within NPOV, you can say that some interpret this as a declaration of divinity, but you cannot say followers accepted his claims of divinity.  You cannot be certain of what a person of group of people accepted or not. Some may and some may have not. Reverted. If you want, you can say Barret argues that Prem Rawat used to have an 'almost divine-status'. That would be OK.--141.76.1.122 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 141.76.1.122 okay, I will drop the verb "believe" which Barrett didn't mention in this respect. I think you are formally correct but your skepticism goes too far. It is as if you say that one cannot write in Wikipedia that Christians believe that the Bible was divinely inspired because there is no proof of this, even if a scholar writes it. This may be formally correct but at the same time lacks common sense. Why would people follow Maharaji if they did not believe what he said? Such behavior would be very plausible. Why would some followers kiss his feet as I just saw on the video downloaded from www.ex-premie.org? It may be true that many (superficial) followers just wanted to learn the meditation techniques and did not care so much about other things, but I am now only speculating. I just found another reference by the well-respected Dutch NRM specialist Dr. Reender Kranenborg who wrote that Maharaji was an example of a guru with almost absolute power in the DLM. Source Een nieuw licht op de kerk? -  Bijdragen van nieuwe religieuze bewegingen voor de kerk van vandaag/A new vision on the church? -Contributions of new religious movements to the current church 1984, the Hague, Netherlands Boekencentrum . Andries 19:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Jim. This project is one of the most successful open source projects ever. The concept of NPOV has worked remarkably well for subjects much more controversial than this one. Spend some time browsing Wikipedia articles and you will see for yourself. If we managed to reach NPOV on pages such as abortion I am certain we will be able to do so here as well.--141.76.1.122 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute status? 

message: Am beginning to go through article for inaccuracies as I see them, in accordance with Wiki rules as best I can.
This edit corrects and gives more neutral information. It is important that the correct translation be given for this title. "Maha" = great; "Raj" = king. The article as written was submitted with a slant toward portraying Maharaji as un-hindu-like and un-God-like as possible, since that is his current way of presenting himself in the West. Mary Moore 19:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maharaja or Maharajah means great king in Sanskrit, In Hindi, the 'a' is dropped so it is pronouced "Maharaj". In India, the title Maharaj is an honorifc title, even used in informal greetings. You could be walking down a village's road in your western garb and villagers will come to you, and call you Maharaj... The suffix "Ji", also commonly used, means "Sir". Tis is common knowledge. Just google Maharaj and you'll see 225,000 pages... --Zappaz 02:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Clearly this man has evolved in the way that he presents himself and his teachings. I think the article is already giving that impression very clearly. I have been reading his speeches from the 1970's (from your website ex-premie.org) as well as the more recent ones (www.maharajiblog.net) and the evolution is consistent year by year, though something at the core of his teachings has remained the same, IMO. I don't think that is up to us in Wikipedia to decide if this is good or bad. If we present this evolution as a fact supported by references, we can let readers decide that for themselves. That is the point of NPOV.--141.76.1.121 00:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to "Maharaji" title 

message: Original paragraph incorrect as stated in that Satpal asserted himself as the teacher over Maharaji everywhere, not just in India. Satpal has toured outside India. Also added notations that Maharaji continues to present himself Hindu-style while in India. For example, he sits on a huge throne, wears Indian garb, a devotional song "Arti" is sung to him, which proclaims him as "father, mother, brother, friend, you are my all, my lord to me", and darshan line is performed (followers line up to kiss his feet.) All of this happens in current day. My most recent personal eyewitness of this was 1997.
::Mary, don't agree with your edit and reverted, Maharaja means great king. Maha (great) Raj (king). The suffix Ji means respectfully, "Sir". Revetred edit.168.143.113.138 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to Satpal / hindu trappings paragraph 

message: Mary, you have removed some text and edited several paragraphs in a manner that denote bias. For example, you took out Ed's edit about Maharaji being  an honoray title and the statement about Indian culture?. I disagree with that edit and reverted.
In regard to the figure 5.5 million, instead of 6.5 million, how do you substantiate that? Just in the last year alone, according to press releases, Prem Rawat talked to one million people. The official number is 6.5 million 
Concerning the Indian trappings, why did you remove infrmation about Satpal Rawat. As far as his website go, he has definitively remained within Indian culture trappings and has travelled very little outside of the Indian sub-continent. The fact that he has had mixed success in his political career, is also known.
I appreciate your participation, but please try to add value to the article rather than reduce value. I will be reverting most of your edits. Thanks. --141.76.1.121 23:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Moore edits 

message: Regarding Maharaji's Indian trappings in India, I checked the weblogs and in the photos from India I did not see any big thrones as you claim, just a simple stage and a gray office chair. Check for yourself [4] (http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v1_i10/story_2.htm) and [5] (http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v1_i7/story_1.htm). Again, we need to keep our bias in check: it blinds us."
Yes, that is because in public programs Maharaji tries to present himself less dramatically. That has always been his way everywhere. In introductory programs he is more the "man on the street" so as not to arouse your defense mechanisms. As you become more involved, and, in typical cult indoctrination fashion, you become less critical, he takes on a grander presentation. Up to the programs where he sits on a throne and you file by and kiss his feet. 
See:  http://gallery.forum8.org/krishna.htm and http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/TheThreeFacesofPremPalSinghRawat.htm 
Mary Moore 12:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary:Your reference from the ex-followers forum is by the look of it from the 1970's. The other reference from Indimedia (presented in the website as a professional media outlet, when actually it is an open source Internet publishing project, and clearly a well written spin piece by an ex-follower) does not substantiate your claim that the Indian trappings continue to this day. I have also cheked other speeches at official venues in India, where Prem wears western attire instead of a kurta as in the photos seen on the weblog. It seems to me that the evolution of this man's message has taken him from his early days as a the follower of the tradition of his father's lineage (the Radhasoami tradition) to the adoption of a more universal approach without compromising his core teachings. This shows up not only in the way he presents himself, but in the way the organizations have evolved alongside him. (From DLM in the 70's to the Prem Rawat Foundation in 2000). If this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is not for us as editors to decide. An anti-cult scholar will define this in similar terms as yours. I may see this as a remarkable evolution in the midst of a fascinating controversy.--Zappaz 15:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indian trappings" 

message: Hi Zappaz, 
What's the difference between a "well-written spin piece by an ex-follower" and a well-written spin piece by the organization itself? Is one a more credible source than the other for this encyclopedia? I used to be in marketing; part of public relations is to make it look like others are talking about your client in a positive fashion. Press releases are written as advertorials. Rawat's organization pays PRNewswire to distribute its advertorials. An ex-follower could pay them to say the opposite.
Regarding recent pictures of Rawat on a throne in India in Western garb, I've put out a request and will see what comes (since my eyewitness account isn't credible enough :).) Does it matter who took the picture? :) These pictures are definitely available, but most are in the custody of the organization. Some ex-followers may have them too.
Regarding the Indian trappings, let me elaborate to get my point across. To the public, Rawat portrays himself in a particular manner, e.g., Western attire, non-confrontational peace-speak. At meetings which are NOT intended for the public, he portrays himself in a different manner. For example, he tells Indian stories which imply that he is greater than God. While in India, and Australia, at non-public meetings, he has "Arti" sung to him, which is a devotional song and engages in the darshan line (foot-kissing). I will see if I can rustle up the full text for you of arti.
Since this behavior is not presented to the public by his organization, and reporters are not allowed to non-public events, the only witnesses to this behavior are ex-followers. Current followers have been instructed to NOT speak about this behavior to the press.
Sincerely, how does Wikipedia deal with this situation? Is there a NPOV way this type of information can be presented? Thank you for your time.  Mary Moore 17:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary, this is certainly important information that has to be included in a NPOV way. Andries 18:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I am tempted to write that piece, but will let Mary give it a go. Just see if you can write it in an NPOV way. You know that otherwise it will be re-edited unti it does. Thanks.--Zappaz 19:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian trappings, press releases 

message: In Indian culture, the kissing of the feet is a show of respect. Children do kiss the feet of their father or elders. Students kiss or touch the feet of their teacher.  Darshan or Drshn means 'Seeing', derived from 'drush', to see. To see with reverence and devotion. The term is used specifically for beholding highly revered people with the intention of inwardly contacting and receiving their grace and blessings. "By doing darshan properly a devotee develops affection for God, and God develops affection for that devotee" (Sãrangpur-2). See also Darshan.168.143.113.138 21:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Darshan

message: I removed some of the information about this, as it's all available through the first link.
There's no need to libel us further here. All it does in this page is discredit the ex-followers, who are an important resource of information. If someone wants to see what Elan Vital has to say about its ex-followers, let them go there, okay?
Also, revised a paragraph to more clearly state the purpose of the ex-followers' activism as I understand it.
Mary Moore 04:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hate group" information 

message: I like what Andries has said about two articles, with a separate one for critics. Could whoever is interested or involved please reply as to your opinions about that at this point, now that this article has matured a little bit.
Jossi states that this article is not "his", but, he wrote it, or at least provided it. It was, in the fashion he originally provided it, a POV piece advertising Prem Rawat. It has been edited by many others, yes, but there are still things about it that are too one-sided. That is why I have spent time trying to bring balance. For example, the large number of website links to followers and official websites. If I just take them out, I will be accused of being "destructive". The fact that the original article was written by a sympathizer originally puts more work onto the non-sympathizers to balance it out. 
The "impartial" Wiki editors are doing their best to be as impartial as they can, but they are human, too.
I assume that both articles would have links to each other? If so, I vote yes.   Mary Moore 16:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate article 

message: Here is the original paragraph under "Organizations": "Maharaji's work is helped by many of organizations around the world most of them run by volunteers, others are set up as non-for-profit organizations. The first one "Divine Light Mission" (DLM) was set up in the early 70's, being superseded by Elan Vital in 1983. Ashrams setup by DLM in the West were closed at that time. Several of the most vocal critics (http://ex-premie.org) came from the ranks of these that lived in the DLM ashrams at that time, who felt disenchanted with the change and abandonment of Indian traditions by Maharaji."
I removed the last sentence as it doesn't seem to serve any express purpose in this section of the article, other than to discredit critics, generalize, and belittle why they are critical.
Mary Moore 17:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  vocal critics / ashram 

message: I have removed all non-English speaking websites because there were complainsts from several people among others John Brauns and David Gerard that there were too many pro Maharaji websites and because they didn't serve any purpose anyway here in the English Wikipedia. Andries 20:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of non-English websites

message: I am back editing this article. It just took less than 12 hrs in which none of the senior editors contributed to this article, for Mary and Andries to attempt to skew the article in their "ex-follower" POV.
I have no problems with Mary contributing, and agree that some of the ex-follower's views are needed as long as are within NPOV. I am not editing these. I am just editing out her POV, nuance and bias.
Mary, now that the controversy page is back [Maharaji - Controversy]], you can go there and edit there to your heart content as long as it is NPOV. Rest assure that I will be monitoring that as well.--jossi 01:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "A palabras necias, oidos sordos"
--jossi 04:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am back 

message: Jossi stated as his reason for reverting half of this particular contribution is that Maharaji has not claimed that his techniques are unique. Critics claim that he has said this. End of story. Jossi, feel free to say that you claim he has never said this. Don't just delete a contribution because you believe it is not true. Also, look above in the paragraph. Why would he ask followers to not divulge them to others if he didn't think they were unique? Mary Moore 03:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good NPOV Mary. Thanks. Regarding your question, the answer is very simple, and you know it.--jossi 04:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing reference to what critics claim 

message: Jossi,
Your deletions of material with no explanation are getting tiresome. Please explain if you are going to delete, especially supporting reference. Mary Moore 03:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unsubstantiated  additions are becoming tiresome as well. There is a limit on how much spin and inuendo you are going to be allowed to do here. Read the references you provide, please, and only then quote from them. Any one will be appaled for this jagdeo's digusting behaviour. But to say that that a complaint was sent and it was not followed up and investigated is just too much. Sorry. Reverted. Left the link to the reference, thoughjossi 03:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I read with interest the pages about the alleged sexual molestation on the critics website . It was a bit tedious due to the information being all mixed-up, facts with anecdotes, copies of letters, information removed by the request of one of the alleged victims, etc. After reading all the material,  to write as Mary did "the sexual misconduct was reported to Prem Rawat beginning in 1977" is just an ungrounded POV, and substancially incorrect. The letter to Prem Rawat was written in July 2000, and according Elan Vital FAQ, they did an investigation.  If you want to be taken seriously, please read the references you offer before quoting from them and try doing that in an NPOV manner. In fact, the reference speaks for istelf. The current wording works already as it is IMO. --Zappaz 04:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  restored supporting reference deleted by Jossi 

message: I would kindly request from both Mary and Jossi to cool-off. The article is slowing shaping up as a well written NPOV article and there is no need to engage in edit wars. I would suggest to user:Mary Moore to focus on the [Maharaji-Critics] page were hopefully you will be able to expand on your critique of Prem (needless to say, you must stay within NPOV editing). To jossi I would say to be careful in the way you delete text entered by other editors. I can see that you are trying to remain neutral, but please be aware that it is not easy for you given your allegiance to Prem. To Mary I would say the same: be careful when you add text, move things around, and delete text. Just accept the fact that you are biased as well, and be extra cautious: I will be monitoring the page from time to time and will attempt top NPOV any additions that aren't or revert edits with blatant POV. Happy editing.  --141.76.1.121 06:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please cool-off

message: To Andries: Using Usenet posts or ex-followers forum posts as references to substantiate a claim is not good practice. Otherwise I can post anything I want in Usenet and claim a reference. I have removed your reference in the critcs section. --66.214.90.71 22:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about references to Usenet or to the Forum8 discussion forum. These are not valid references. References to the ex-premie.org are all kept and throughout the article.--66.214.90.71 00:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Jim. What contributor .71 is saying, and I agree, is that having a Usenet post or a discussion forum post as a reference is not really useful and does no add value to critic's claims.--168.143.113.138 16:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet/Forum posts as references 

message: I have removed the reference to David Lane's on line scholarly study about guru succesorship because neither Maharaji nor his father were mentioned in the reference. Andries 17:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maharaji is not a monastci title. reverted.--64.81.88.140 18:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of reference to David C. Lane's book

message: As the user above said, "A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedic article, not one to promote one aspect of a controversial issue at the expense of the other."
I completely agree with this. I encourage you to keep going to achieve this. To say that I don't believe in collaborative editing is incorrect. 
I think, though, that for me, at this time, I am too fresh out of the cult to handle the criticism that was directed at me. It made me frustrated and angry. I have been damaged by Rawat, as have many others, and it still hurts.
Perhaps when I've had more time to process what happened, I can go head-to-head with a cult member without getting so angry. It felt like I was fighting for every sentence. 
When I was a VP of Marketing for a 500-person public company, I used to write brochures and press releases, and was accustomed to others editing my work. But the process here is brutal. I suspect it would be less brutal with a less controversial topic.
You might want to ask yourselves from an objective point of view, why are so many people angry with Maharaji? Are they just nutso people, as Elan Vital tries to portray? There are a LOT of people that are angry at Maharaji, not just 20 as say. And most of them are not actively vocal because they just want to forget about it, put it behind, like a bad marriage. And why does EV work so hard to discredit these people? Why is there so much anger on each side?
On the cult side, the followers are angry because you are attacking someone they love, that they have dedicated themselves to.
The people that get the most angry seem to be the ones that were used up and thrown out. There were large numbers in this category when the ashrams were closed in the mid-70's, then early 80's, when the airplane refurbishment project DECA took place, and when the Malibu residence was rebuilt in the 90's. And personal staff that got to know the real Prem Rawat (like me). If you're interested in my story, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journs/moore.htm.
There are people that know a lot about what went on with this "teacher". How he affected lives. When an ex-follower tells their story, please be aware that it's not spin, it just sounds strong because this person was hurt. They trusted and they were betrayed. They gave of themselves and they were disappointed.
It would make a good documentary. So, hopefully this is not too off topic and I won't be told I should go to Usenet to say this stuff. I just wanted to clarify why I am no longer contributing to the article. No hard feelings. Good luck with it. Mary Moore 22:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  p.s. another word of explanation