Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 3

message: Anybody who removes material from this article should explain here why s/he does that.  Those are rules from the Wikipedia. Otherwise I will revert it. Andries 12:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: ===Original formulation of NPOV===
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologies in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.
[...]
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
===From NPOV page=== 
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
(highlight is mine)--jossi 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Remainder

message: We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
(highlight is mine)--jossi 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From NPOV page

message: I read the NPOV in its entirety and I have to say I am impressed. You guys could probably help the Middle East sort out their problems!
Coming from 30 years in a cult where critical thinking was discouraged, and only being out 2 years, then a few months realizing what happened, I have to say I am new to critical thinking.
Sure, I used critical thinking all the time in my business career. But not when it came to areas where there was passionate feeling involved, anything to do with Maharaji.
I think this is the essence of why it is hard to get concensus from followers and ex-followers of a guru. The relationship that is formed between a guru and devotee is one of the most authoritarian that there is. And someone criticizing your guru is like someone insulting your spouse, only worse, because a devotee identifies with his guru even more than with his spouse. So, you insult the guru, you insult the devotee himself.
Once emotions get into the mix, it's very difficult to be rational. One just digs one's heels in deeper. 
And ex-followers can be just as emotional about it as the followers. This because they did care deeply at one point and now feel betrayed. We are hurt most deeply by those that we care about, not perfect strangers.
That being said, I am happy that Jossi has decided to take a step back. It's frustrating to engage in these debates.
I would really like to see a neutral, scholarly article about this subject. I encourage Jim, Mike, and John to come up with something that has an even, factual tone to it that all can live with, followers and ex-followers. 
Mary Moore 20:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Together 

message: I can see that the controversy aspects have their own section. I like that. Good to differenciate between the two. The critics section is becoming hefty and I am sure that there is more to come given the claims and counter-claims. I also see that the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat article has been neglected: there are a lot of dups between what is in the Critics section in this article and that article. I would suggest a good summary of the criticisms and move the rest to the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat article. I will be calling the Prem rawat foundation today to see if they can provide some numbers and stats. That is an important omission from this article. --Zappaz 15:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed Controversial Aspects to Controversial Beginnings as all the material there relates to the early days of Prem (then known as Sant Ji Maharaj according to recent contribution by anon). Agree with zappaz that we need to summarize critics section and consolidate criticism article. I will try to work on this later on, but if someone else wants to undertake this, pls go ahead--141.76.1.122 16:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics / Controversy 

message: User 24.64.223.203: Use of so many quotes does not help this article. There is a page for quotes in wikiquote. If you want to add a point, make it and give external references. Also note that you have to respect copyrights. Otherwise it will be deleted. See -Wikipedia:Copyrights for details.--64.81.88.140 00:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Quotes 

message: Earlier today I added an important document to the article, the letter that every new follower in the early and mid-70's received from Maharaji.  His words over his signature, distributed by his mahatmas under the auspices of his organization.  As I said earlier, the article's important for two reasons: it reflects Rawat's anti-mind orientation and proves that he was indeed the leader of DLM despite Jossi's earlier denial of this fact.  
Now someone has deleted this addition and offered no explanation.  Who did it and why?
:I removed it,. Explanation is above.--64.81.88.140 00:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the rhetoric down, and remain civil. As I said, the article is already becoming too big. You can make your point and link to an external page where the quote can be found. Otherwise supporters will add their own quotes and so on and on. Regarding copyright, I kindly ask you to read Wikipedia:Copyrights We all understand fair use but there are some specifics in Wikipedia. --64.81.88.140 01:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can stay within the boundaries of a civilized discussion we can easily resolve this. By going through the references and biblio, the picture being painted is one of evolution. Undoubtedly Prem has evolved since he was 13 both in the ways in which he presents his teachings and the way the organizations are setup and run. We could have a new section called "Evolution of Teachings", in which we could write about these aspect, including the ones suggested above. There is excellent material about this evolution in the references provided. I agree with .140 that quotes should be relegated to external references. And Jim, please keep the tone down, it will really help. --Zappaz 02:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  All what you say above is your POV. What we are trying to do here is to write an article in a neutral voice. FYI, my interest in this subject is academic. I have read a substantial portion of the materials posted on the ex-follower's website, as well as materials provided in the follower's websites, grassroots and official. I have researched both web indexed materials as well as off-line materials. I have also contacted the prem rawat foundation via email and received information from them that I am still trying to corroborate with other sources before posting. Note that the fact that you are an ex-follower does not give you a monopoly of knowledge in this subject, quite the contrary. So, feel free to collaborate in this article, but expect your contributions to be discussed, edited and NPOV'ed, and do not get upset when that happens.--Zappaz 04:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who removed Rawat's letter and why? 

message: user:RickK protected this page, most probably due to ongoing vandalism by anonymous users. -- jossi 06:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't seem like vandalism to me, so I unlocked the page and restored the edits which .104 and .140 had made. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected due to vandalism 

message: Comments like the following add nothing to the discussion, and indeed can sidetrack it into petty squabbling and bickering. I'd prefer for us to remain on track.
*You don't have a clue.
I'm going to use strike-out markup  to indicate some remarks like this which border on -- or go beyond -- our Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy statement. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed. Removed the edit about forums not being public. They are, see upcoming events in North America http://contactinfo.net/events.cfm. --jossi 15:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jossi, I hadn't noticed that. Maybe to accommodate anon's view, we should say that some critics claim that the forums are not public. Anonymous, do you have a source for that claim? --Uncle Ed 00:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are referring to the fact that the organizers (like in any other type of event) reserves the rights to deny access to people that make  public their intentions to disrupt the event,--jossi 04:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please avoid personal remarks

message: This is the last thing I'll ever post here.  As far as I'm concerned, you guys are seriously misguided about how one finds facts, sorts through competing claims and presents the truth about controversial subjects like the Rawat cult.  For one thing, I'm appalled that not only did you not confront Jossi, the main author of the current version of the piece, about his false accusation about my forging source material, you now choose to censor my efforts to do so.  You have, in my opinion, a very superficial view of civility, good for appearances only.
The article as it now stands is simply a revisionistic infomercial for the cult interspersed with a few jarring criticisms. It reads terribly and reflects poorly on your entire online encyclopedia project.  For example, it relies on Ron Geaves' amongst others as an expert but, were this a court of law, let's say, Geaves would be entirely discredited.  Not because he's a current devotee of Rawat but because of various unsustainable things he's written or said about the man and the organization.
Anyway, that's it.  You guys do what you want.  It's just a waste of time for me to say anymore.  I iwsh your entire project good riddance.
:To say that I am the main author of this article is not accurate to say the least. Go back to the history of this page and compare. it is not my article. The article incorporates hundreds of edits and additions by at least a dozen contibutors including you and other ex-followers. And by the look of it, it will continute to evolve thanks to the effort of these and other contributors.--jossi 15:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Jim has decided to go, I would want to clarify that I never said he forged materials. What I said was that he posted "heavily edited transcripts" and that he knew about that fact. I stand by that assessment. These transcripts were published in India 30 years ago and undoubtedly were heavily edited and "interpreted" by whoever transcribed it, given the heavy Hindu context in which Maharaji lived at that time. The reason I did not respond to Jim directly is because of his abrassive  style, and the personal attacks he mounted against me.--jossi 23:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, I'm done too 

message: Andries: Teachings have remained the same. Practice of Knowledge, keeping in touch and participation. In the 70's this was called meditation, satsang and service respectively. What has evolved is the way it is presented without any Hindu religion connotations when presenting it in western countries. It seems that In India, maharaji keeps using the original words 'satsang, seva, bhajan"--Zappaz 19:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, may be you are right with regards to the four meditation techniques and Knowledge but I think that the claims about himself in an earlier period were an important part of his teachings too. Andries 19:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. But the interesting thing is that the core message remains the same: he claims that his teachings can bring about peace to people. So I am not so sure about "current teachings" as the section name, and would prefer just "Teachings", particularly as there is already a section about the evolution of these. Maybe you can write up something to add to the "evolution of teachings" section, if you see the need. The other interesting aspect is that the critics POV is that the evolution is bad and the supporters POV is that the evolution is commendable. I think that the article, in this respect, provides a good NPOV. Let reader's decide is this evolution is a good or a bad thing.--Zappaz 19:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings, evolution/current 

message: As it stands now, the most substancial sections of the article are "Controversial Beginings" and "Critics" taking approximately 50% of the whole article. I am not 100% happy with this, but I can see that at least the text is writtent in a neutral manner. Given that there were so many edits, some of the narrative is now a bit choppy. Hopefully there are editors out there that can work on the continuity of the text.--jossi 22:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article status