Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 26

message: Sylvie, I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment. Just got a private message on YouTube from an anonymous ex-premie who claims to know me. Venomous. If you want to see a personal attack, I could quote from that. Anyway, my comments above were not intended to be attacking, they are just an expression of frustration at some very long posts appearing here (1000+ words) that have to be responded to, when all the material in them has already been covered in discussion several times. There is a limit to anyone's patience.
Jossi, I disagree with restoring the deleted Teachings section. I am not being wilfully obtuse. Teachings should not be a place to report on his activities, as it did, it should describe any previously unknown concepts or facts that he (or his father) has transmitted. If his audience already knows what he is saying then he is not teaching them anything. I find nothing like this in Hans Yog Prakesh, just obvious references to values that were already well accepted in Indian culture. Of course, there is always a point to be found, but it is left to the listener to decide what it is. The same with Prem Rawat. I have often heard him say "What I am telling you, you already know." That is what makes this Teachings subject difficult. Regarding sources, Reinhard Hummel picked up on this point strongly, and Hunt mentions it obliquely.  Rumiton 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, I am trying to help you become a more effective communicator. More is not better. Condense...condense...CONDENSE!! Then summarize what you have got left. Your first post had 997 words, about 897 too many for the info conveyed. This last one was 1071 words. It's way too much for anybody to read properly. But scanning through I see a mention to the Sant tradition. Ignoring the presumptuous and goading writing style, I agree with you. The Sant background is interesting, and I would like to find out more about it. I didn't intend to get rid of it from the article, I just don't think it belongs in Teachings, for the above reasons; it appears to be just cultural background to his work. I thought it appeared elsewhere, and it used to, but now it is gone. I will try to find a way to put it back in that will suit all here. Rumiton 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Pat, I read every word of that carefully. Did you read mine? I said I deleted the Sant stuff by mistake.  Rumiton 07:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with PatW that there is a tendency to dismiss relevant statements from reputable sources if contributors do no like what these reputable sources state. Andries 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with the "Antecedents" section. It is a clumsy add on that doesn't solve the underlying issue. And that is - do we have a section or an article on Rawat's teachings? I would rather work on a "Teachings" article separate to this article. Largely because editors have some fundamental differences and I think they should be worked out in the back room before becoming a part of the Rawat story.Momento 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my draft User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. Andries 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Antecedents wasn't intended to be the final solution, just maybe a way to move forward in acknowledging the Sant thing and the Indian cultural significance. I still think you will have a hard time finding things that really meet the definition of teachings which surely must be something like "Things PR has made people aware of that they didn't know before." Andries' version seems very disjointed, hopping from "...there were no set teachings" to "...and this is what scholars said about them." I think we have agreed before that Wikipedia:NPOV is not met by inserting a string of contradictions. Good luck with the draft. I will watch with interest. Rumiton 09:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only write what you think are Rawat's teachings if we find reputable sources stating the same. I do not see a contradcition in my draft, because what scholars wrote about the teachings did not disprove Hummel's opinion that there was no systematic set of teachings. Andries 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument does not work, Andries. If scholar X says ABC, and scholars U,V,W,Y, and Z do not say "not ABC", it does only mean that scholar X has made the statement ABC, not that ABC is a fact. Furthermore, it also means that scholar X may be in a minority position, as being the only one that is asserting ABC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument does work because 1. the burden of proof for Rumiton's statement that there are contradictions in the draft is on him which he did not provide and 2. Kranenborg wrote more or less the same as Hummel about the lack of systematically developed set of teachings. Andries 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Apart from that, it is like writing an article on cats and saying "according to some scholars there is no such thing as a cat" then going on to talk about them. Anyway, Hummel actually wrote Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Sri Hans noch der des Sohnes bessessen. He is talking about the Divine Light Mission, and his word Lehre to me clearly should be rendered as "doctrine." "Neither in the time of the father nor that of the son did the Divine Light Mission possess a [systematically developed] doctrine. Both saw [a doctrine] as presenting more problems than advantages." Rumiton 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure there will be a way to resolve this problem, with good will all round. Though the fact that no scholar seems to have investigated his work in many years poses difficulties also. Rumiton 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgive my impetuousness but I have removed "Antecedents" until we create an acceptable "Teachings" article at  User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat.Momento 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your impetuousness is forgiven. My goodwill is barely dented. Good luck with the Teachings article. Rumiton 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not teachings

message: How come that the [Divine Light Mission]] disaappeared from the summary? The only reason why Rawat is notable is because he was the leader of the Divine Light mission. Andries 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added link to DLM in childhood. This is not a "chicken or egg" thing. Rawat is imporant because he became a Guru, not because he became leader of DLM.Momento 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prem Rawat has been on Brisbane (where I live) television daily for several years now. His program Words of Peace, last I saw, was rated 6th of all Bris programs in popularity, and is watched by thousands daily. If he hadn't done anything else, anywhere in the world, he would be notable for this. Compared to his recent work, the Divine Light Mission is an ancient irrelevance. Rumiton 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  "the Divine Light Mission is an ancient irrelevance" What a bizarre approach to history. Besides DLM is Elan Vital so there is nothing 'ancient' about the connection with Rawat. Further as there is no evidence that Rawat could ever have become 'notable' without the DLM vehicle, his notablity is inextricably linked with DLM. Though if notability for a WP entry is based on a league table of what is popular on Brisbane cable TV, I guess any reasoned notion of why something has an encyclpaedia entry can be dispensed with.--Nik Wright2 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DLM is not ElanVital, besides a legality. Unless you want to dismiss the profound differences between these as explained by numerous scholars.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  from Elan Vital The organization was incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation and in 1974 was recognized as a church by the United States Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(3). The organization changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change, [1] Elan Vitals sates in its website that the name was changed to remove Indian labels and to present Maharaji's message in manner more congruent with Western culture. 
Perhaps you would explain what is wrong with this entry ?
--Nik Wright2 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hardly any organisation that exists today will be the same as its predecessor of 30 years ago, even the Catholic Church. Evolution happens, even to those who don't believe in it. DLM and EV are chalk and cheese. Rumiton 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can all come up with our own views, observations and comparisons, the point here is to present evidence. Legally Elan Vital(US)- which owns Eurcom, and Visions Int. - and Elan Vital(Aus)which owns the Amaroo operation (if not the Amaroo land)are both renamed Divine Light Missions, and between them are responsible for a major part of the global promotion of Rawat. If you believe there should be material on WP that defines how DLM/EV has changed, then assemble the evidence; BUT DLM is EV no matter how you cut up the history.--Nik Wright2 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I thought removing "and teacher" improved the article. Re DLM, all things are relative, and if the only thing Prem Rawat had achieved in his life was perpetuating that organisation for a few years he would be a lot less notable. He has said and done a lot more interesting things since those days. His "vehicle" now is much more TPRF than EV. Rumiton 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the removal of the word "teacher", and keeping "he is a speaker", because that is misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding your comments on TV popularity being linked to Wiki notability...yes, it is. This is a peoples' encyclopedia, we are people, and the people who watch Words of Peace (it's not cable, it's free-to-air) are people too. Rumiton 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Divine Light Mission]]

message: Thanks to editors who have gone to so much trouble in attempting to produce a reasonably balanced article within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not intend to edit the article, only to offer 3 suggestions that I hope editors will take seriously and consider.
1. Nine of the 15 lines in the introduction are taken up with information about the 1970s up to around 1980. Isn't this unbalanced given Mr Rawat's 36 year history in the west? Only 2 lines contain information about his current activities. The introduction provides almost no information about the 10 year period leading up to the present during which he has been very active. 
2. The intro states, "and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated." Did the techniques originate in Indian trappings? The statement appears to be factually incorrect. Unless a number of reliable sources make the same claim I suggest that it be regarded as an extraordinary claim (I think that is the correct term) and deleted. It greatly detracts from the article.
3. Editors may favor chronological order, however, given the level of Mr Rawat's current activity and the enormous increase in interest in his message worldwide, perhaps the article would have more appeal if more focus was given to the last 10 years or so. I found the Recent years section most interesting. How about moving it to just below the introduction?--Maximango 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Maximango. I have placed some pointers in your talk page that may hep you understand better how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: In the 'Coming of Age' section, it is claimed that Rawat "encouraged students to leave the ashrams".  What is the source for this?  Apart from the sudden and brutal closing of the ashrams in the early 80s, I recall at no time did Rawat encourage his followers to leave the ashrams. --John Brauns 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is sourced to this: Prem_Rawat#_note-34 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed on many occasions this use of the term 'students' is anachronistic -it certainly isn't used by the claimed source. Rawat did not have 'students' until the 1990s and the use of the term should be limited to references that are coeval or post date a verifiable use of the term student by Rawat.--Nik Wright2 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Rawat  was known as a "Perfect Master" from the beginning. Calling people who have a "master", students is logical and appropriate. "Premies" was the most used term but that would requuire an explanation.Momento 09:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see it as an important point. If my one-man campaign is successful I will introduce the word "enthusiast." This will supercede all previous versions. Rumiton 10:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word student for early followers of Rawat is not supported by reputable sources and is hence a form of original research. Andries 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Pat. Yes, we are already using the term "premie" in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Pat, you are probably right about "enthusiast", it brings to mind train spotters and people who collect butterflies, but I feel that without these connotations it sums up pretty well how most people I know feel about PR. In the early years many words were applied, mostly by the press, including the egregious "followers." I still don't see it as a very important point in a necessarily short article like this one. Rumiton 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming of Age - Encouragement to leave the ashrams? 

message: The problem with the article, and related articles, is that it is little more than propaganda for what has been a destructive religious cult. The so-called "knowledge" is, by itself, dangerous and harmful, particularly if the "music" "meditation" is practiced on one side, as taught in the 1973 era and if the "word" "meditation" is practiced during all waking hours as taught in the 1973 Knowledge Sessions.
Practitioners, generally, have no sense of humor left anymore. Bal Bhagwan Ji has a trim figure. The other brothers are all so fat and ugly that they make even their mama look good.
Wowest 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that you have a negative opinion on this subject, but please note that these pages are not designed to discuss the subject or to cast aspersions about the subject or related living persons, rather, this page is designed to discuss the article. For information to be added to this article, which is meticulously sourced, you need to abide by the content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP and refrain from adding your own opinions of the subject as you did with your edits, which have been reverted accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wowest, I think you need to have a major look at Wikipedia rules and procedures if you are to become a helpful contributor to Wiki articles. Please don't insert any more of this insulting denigration anywhere on Wikipedia. Rumiton 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Check (lack of neutrality in article as written) 

message: As there was no criticism in this article, despite Criticism of Prem Rawat redirecting here, I have boldy readded criticism from an older version of the article, to restore some balance to the article. Catchpole 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, I have equally boldly deleted it. I suggest that you read the Discussion archives. This article in its present form has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion, with a lot of input from experienced neutral editors and Wiki administrators. To summarize the outcome: articles written by Christian religious scholars largely for their own readership are unacceptable in a Biography of a Living Person whose religious/philosophical background is Eastern. The converse would be true about Christian groups, we wouldn't quote a Buddhist's opinion, nor either of their opinions about Islam. And apostates are recognised as people with a very definite and often jaundiced point of view. Their opinions, websites, blogs etc, are not considered reliable sources for articles about the religious or spiritual groups they have left. Without rules like these the discussions here would be endless and futile. Thanks for your understanding. Rumiton 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Re the old Criticism of Prem Rawat page, because of the points raised above, and following Wikipedia policy, the neutrally sourced criticism has been included in the article. If you look for it, you will see it. Rumiton 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Catchpole may have missed the fact that the criticism that is well sourced is already included in numerous sections on the article. After a failed GA review earlier this year, a variety of editors endeavored in integrating the scholarly criticism into the article while reducing the fluff that was present at that time. Yes, the article may not have a "criticism" section, but the criticism is indeed included alongside other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problems

message: (diff) (hist) . . Prem Rawat‎; 12:57 . . (-10) . . Rumiton (Talk | contribs) (→Leaving India - Removed "in public." Nobody knows how he acted in private.)
Of course "nobody knows how he acted in private," but if he acted like a teenager in public, the fact that it was public is significant. 
I think you should have left "in public" as it was, for the same reason you gave for deleting it -- that nobody knows how he acted in private -- but I'm not going to undo it myself. Wowest 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wowest, I am sure you have got the point by now that rumours and hearsay have no place in an encyclopedia, especially rumours that relate to illegal acts, such as your sentences above. You have done this before, and it isn't at all funny. This talk page is a public place and the laws of libel apply. I suggest you delete the above paragraph immediately. If you don't, I will, and will report you to the administration. Rumiton 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There, Rumiton. I deleted the part that might have been interpreted as suggesting that Goom Rodgie might have broken some law. I have no reason to believe that the act described was not legal in the time and location in which it allegedly took place. I merely point out that, although it is a matter of public record that Goom Rodgie acted like a teenager in public when he was a teenager, there is no public record about how he acted when he was in private. There is, however, such at thing as "personal knowledge," which is a topic in contemporary philosophy.  Neither one of us has any reason to believe that the guru's private behavior and public behavior were different. I did not suggest putting that passage into Wikipedia itself, did I? No. I pointed out that it was an unreliable source.  Different countries have different laws at different times. In Los Angeles County, it is currently illegal to shoot an American bison from a streetcar.  As far as I know, there are no American bison in Los Angeles County at this time, and until a few years ago, there was a long period of time in which there were no street cars, but the law has always remained on the books. I could be mistaken, but as far as I know, there is no law against shooting dangerous animals in London. I don't know about England, but in the United States it is not illegal to have done something which was legal at the time of the act and was subsequently made illegal. Such a prosecution would violate our Constitution. In any event, the guru and I both live in Los Angeles County, so the only libel laws that would apply would be those of the State of California, and under the relevant laws, I said nothing that is libelous, or even close. Still, he has every right  to file a lawsuit against me here, if he wants to, whether or not it has merit. Wowest 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please remain on-topic... . This is not a page to engage in polemics or to make our opinions on the subject public, rather, this page is provided to discuss the article only. This is not the first time you have been politely asked to refrain from doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Deleting "in public." 

message: Got a bit carried away and found a new photo. What do you think?Momento 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, buddy. I agree the old one lacked something, but I think he got caught in mid-blink here. He seems to be squinting. Not a great look. Rumiton 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep looking.Momento 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Photo