Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.81.88.140 (talk) at 05:16, 21 August 2004 (→Arathi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive4
Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive3
Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive2
Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive1

to Jim, Gracie and Mary Moore, Request for comments

Jim, Mary, Cynthia, if you think that the conflict with Zappaz can not be resolved then please put the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I personally think that you first should try harder to insert well-referenced material in the article before putting it in the "Request for comment" page. Andries 12:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

copy from User_talk:Mary_Moore

"Hi, I suggest if you want to get more people involved in the dispute, you create a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and ask for comments from people there. If you feel the article is not neutral, you could try to follow the NPOV tutorial to make it more neutral, or add an NPOV dispute notice to it. :Angela. 20:43, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)"
To Andries and Angela: I took a look at the webpage "Request for Comment on Wikipedia. I was shocked and disgusted to find the article entitled "ChildLove." When I explored the article I found that it includes a link to the website in the Netherlands "Martijin" which calls itself "Association for the Acceptance of Adult-Child Love Relationships."
Because Wikipedia would allow pedophiles to have a voice on this website to endorse their "POV" about child sexual abuse, and further, for Wikipedia to include links to websites where pedophiles openly endorse and promote the sexual abuse of children, I will have nothing further to do with Wikipedia.
Cynthia Gracie Aug 20, 2004
What is all that rant about? You must be confused... Wikipedia does not support anything. It is an encyclopedia for god's sake. It will be the same as banning Google from "including links to websites...". 64.81.88.140 21:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


For your information, Andries

  1. this is NOT zappaz's article. Many people have contributed to it. Check the history page.
  2. there is no such "conflict" with zappaz. The article is not accepted by these people because it does not represent their POV. Read Cynthia's last posting in this page...
  3. anyone can contribute to this article. The reason they don't is because they are incapable of writing from a NPOV
  4. request for comments will not replace good editing
  5. If you post in request for comments, I will demonstrate that this article is not one person's play, but a collaborative effort as a good wikipedia article64.81.88.140 15:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We shall see what The Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the FBI, and Prevent Child Abuse America's "POV" is on Wikipedia allowing pedophiles to attach links to their websites on Wikipedia that promote sex between adults and children. We'll see how NPOV you "Wikis" are when you start losing grant money because you've lost all sense of morality and common decency because of your attachment to your "Neutal POV." You've been reported to the authorities.
To make a judgment upon me that I am not being NPOV about child sexual abuse and exploitation is moronic and ignorant. You people are so absorbed in your NPOV, you've lost the plot of what happens in real life. I'm not just talking about the "ChildLove" article, which most definitely is promoting the activities of child sex abusers, I'm also talking about this particular article. But, Prem Rawat was never bothered by pedophilia or rape within his cult by his agents, so I'm not surprised by this reaction to me.
Over and out of here. Cynthia Gracie Aug 20, 2004 12:49 pm

Access to luxury goods

Access to luxury goods is a documented fact and should be stated as such. That is why I will revert Jossi's edit. Andries 15:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I object to your revert of my revert of Jossi's revert. I agree that your version reads better but mine is more accurate. Now it is not clear whether only critic say that he has access to luxury goods or that this is a proven fact. Facts should be stated as facts.
Here is your version
"As he came from India to the USA with little or no money, they claim that he acquired access to luxuries that average US citizens do not have, through donations from his followers. [31] (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm)."
And here is my version
"He now has access to many luxury goods that average USA citizens do not have. [1], [2] As he came from India to the USA with little or no money, they claim that he acquired this access to luxuries through donations from his followers."
Andries 16:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I do not see much difference... Please read the whole paragraph, it is convoluted and repetitive. It needs work.... maybe you can re-write it so it reads better. --Zappaz 16:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Claims of divinity "in Indian context"

  • there is not such a thing as Indian culture. India is too big and too diverse for that.
  • Where are your references that he made it in a Indian context? He made the claim to among others to western followers here in West. So he did not make them in an Indian context.

Hence I will reprase that statement.Andries 16:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who's this article?

Andries, I must take exception to your wording. This is not one person's article; it is the result of collaborative editing at its best. I do not understand why would you say that this is my article, unless you are doing this maliciously to instill more volatility into this already difficult article (why would you do that, I wonder?). As annon said above, anyone can contribute. I have done the best I could to take the article to NPOV stage: I spent hours at libraries researching, exchanged emails with many individuals and scholars, read many of the speeches, read tons of pages at the ex-premie website, etc. and I feel I have taken the article to a pretty good stage. My gut feeling is that the critics don't want to contribute because they know that the article will have to be neutral and they are unable (understandably so) to be such. Contributions from supporters have been very few lately as far as I know.

So, the article as Ed said, needs more work, of course. Putting it in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment is premature IMO. In any case, I am placing the NPOV dispute back in the article, even though I think it is well within NPOV. I am doing this quite reluctantly BTW.

Another thing I would like to take exception is the conversion of this page to a Usenet discussion. Critics and supporters: I encourage you to take these discussions to the Usenet, here is not a good place for these polemics. Thanks. --Zappaz


Zappaz, I never said that this is your article. But editing this article is difficult because the edits get reverted quickly among others by you, Jossi and me. I agree that putting it on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment is premature. Andries 16:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If it gets reverted it is because the edits either don't add value to the article, the point made in the new edit is alrady made elsewhere or most probably because it is blatant POV. What about jossi? I have nor seen any contributions from him for a long time.
Regarding the luxury goods paragraph in critics section, I think that the wording of anon 64.81.88.140 is better... it makes the same points (i.e access to luxury goods), only less repetitive and more concise. Maybe you can attempt to re-write that whole paragraph? It needs it. --Zappaz 16:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Congrats for a job well done

Andries, Zappaz, Ed and others, congratulations for a job well done. Las time I visited this many week ago, the article was in shambles... Looks like it is coming together. Prose is good, although the Prem_Rawat#Critics section is a bit too verbose for my taste. Someone with good penmanship and time could easily improve it. Maybe I will give it a try, time permitting.

Zappaz, I am removing the //controversial// template. I know that it is a controversial issue but the article is presenting pro and con POVs quite dispassionately. What are that reactions to the article from followers and ex followers? Have we reached concensus in the article?

--141.76.1.122 18:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?

-- Jim

I've done some further reading on Wiki NPOV and all I can say is that the more I read, the more stupid, unworkable and misguided it is. You guys go for it. I'm embarrassed I ever bothered to waste a moment here.

-- Jim

Arathi

The article says that arathi or arthi is performed for family members. Can somebody please provide reference for this? In the meantime I will remove it. My encyclopedia of Eastern religions does not mention that it is done for family members. It only mentions that this done for a deity. This is also my personal experience in the hundreds of arathis in which I participated. Andries 22:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These are correct facts. Arti is very common in contemporary India and sung on these stated ocassions. Ask any Indian. Reverted. 64.81.88.140

University of Virginina article, why was it removed?

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/elanvital.html why was this link removed? It is a good article. Andries 22:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=5342014"