Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 1

If you post a quote, you must provide source and demonstrate that either the quote is in the public domain or fall within the copyright guidelines. Attempts to quote from copyrighted material will be mercilessly deleted. --168.143.113.138 04:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This comment is not correct. Most short quotations of modern works and people are used under fair use guidelines nearly everywhere, including here. Extensive quotations or complete poems and lyrics are something that press the limits of fair use, even by non-profit and educational organizations, but use of most short quotations is a commonly permitted practice. ~ Moby 18:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

64.81.88.140, why did you remove the obsolete name "Guru Maharaji Ji"? Thanks in advance. Andries 16:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The honorofic title Maharaji is mentioned. It is not used as the title of the Wikipedia article, nor this one, as most honorific titles are avoided in page names both here and at Wikipedia. ~ Moby 18:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Moby thanks for your answer, I would call Maharaji a monastic name. There is a lot of controversy with this guy who is accused of obscuring his past including even his former names, see Criticism of Prem Rawat. These old names are important because that is how he is known to the public and how he used to call himself. Andries 19:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries. I removed the quote you copied to the section "about himself" for the simple reason he was not talking about himslef, but about his father and teacher, his Guru maharaji. If you want you can add it back under a different heading. -- 05:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I gave a reference for my assertionn. There was even an authorized biography published under the name Who is guru maharaji ji with his picture on the cover.      I will revert. Andries 17:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * .140 and others, His father was called Hans_Ji_Maharaj. If he did talk about his father then he must have used a very idionsyncratic terminology. Andries 17:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You have no understanding of how this was said. --64.81.88.140 16:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An attempt at resolution of conflicts:
There have been disputes and edit conflicts occurring over some sections of this article: I am attempting to initiate a resolution that can accommodate the broadest range of perspectives, and preserve the greatest amount of pertinent information. I am restructuring the article to conform to most other articles in Wikiquote: Sourced quotes in chronological order, + attributed ones in alphabetical, and I am removing most of the sometimes interpretive headings. I have not checked all references that have been cited, but am reformatting them as if they were correct.

I am also restoring a link to the very much esteemed (and perhaps sometimes reviled) site at the University of Virginia on New Religious Movements, as it is entirely appropriate for those seeking a diversity of perspectives, rather than promoting a narrow range of them. ~ Kalki 18:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kalki, I support this compromise. I regret that the link to the Universty of Virginia website has already been removed. Andries 09:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Chronological order of quotes for a person that is still alive, is best presented in descending order, as it is always more relevant what this person is saying now than what he/she said 30 or 40 years ago. For people that have passed away, the traditional ascending order is preferred. --Jossifresco 15:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, It is normal to start with the oldest quotes. That is also prescribed in the template. I changed to chronological order. Besides in that way the reader can see the evolution in his teachings. Andries 10:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits:
Wikiquote, like the Wikipedia, is a Wikimedia project for providing information to people, which permits them to join in the process of providing information to others. It is a place where people can either place or find quotations upon various subjects from various sources, including those by or about particular people, and the organizations they are strongly associated with, and provide links to sites with further information upon them and related subjects, these links including, but not limited to, the Wikipedia.

A link to the University of Virginia was erased, with the comment "what is the point of having a link about Elan Vital on a page of quotes about Maharaji?"

From the Elan Vital website it states: "Elan Vital, incorporated in 1971 in the US, is a charitable organization that promotes the message of Maharaji."

It is entirely appropriate to provide links to such sites, where people can seek further information from those with favorable impressions of his ideas, and also to provide links to sites that attempt to provide objective analysis, or even to those with hostile perspectives. Such balance is entirely appropriate for any Wikimedia project.

The reversal of chronological order that is used on this page is peculiar, and I believe unique, for a Wikiquote article on a person, but I personally have no strong objections to it being retained. The erasure of a link to an academic site that attempts to provide balanced information on the history, doctrines and practices of this group, that is so strongly and innately associated with the man now commonly referred to as Prem Rawat, is something I do strongly object to, and I am restoring that link, as well as providing one to Elan Vital itself. I do not see that there is any legitimate reason for not providing either of these links. ~ Kalki 18:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason forthe deletion are is thatElan Vital is an organization that organizes events and fundrisers. They have nothing to do with Prem Rawat's teachings or quotes. The "promotion" they refer to is constrained to administrative functions only. Hardly a good reference for a Wiki dedicated to quotes. The article from Virgina university is not an objective article. It was written as a dissertation by a student of the university, mainly by quoting from a hate-group site of ex-students. Andries is on a campaign of that he calls a "public service" to "reveal the truth" about Prem Rawat. The motive, is that he has been burnt by a bad experience with a guru. That is why he is adding these nagative references. IMO, the quotes from Prem Rawat speak for themselves. Let the reader judge them.


 * For a discourse on Prem Rawat, his history, and the criticisms such as the one Andries profess, there is Wikipedia. Substantial articles exist there on the subject, so place links to these pages intead of re-inventing the wheel here at Wikiquote. That is common sense and aligned with Wikiquote policy
 * Prem Rawat
 * Criticism of Prem Rawat
 * Elan Vital
 * Hans_Ji_Maharaj
 * --64.81.88.140 03:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * .140, You call these references negative. I would could these references informative and revealing. The reason why this student quoted so much from the ex-premie website is because he found it an informative website (he also calls it opionated). Far more than the websites of Elan Vital and Maharaji. And to say that Elan Vital has little to do with Prem Rawat is ridiculous. It is an organization that supports his work. What you call "hate group" are people who used to be involved in the Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital and try inform the public about what they know.


 * Last Thursday, I visited an introduction meeting of Elan Vital because I wanted to see for myself whether I had been under the influence of "propaganda of a hate group" as some students of Prem Rawat would classify the information on www.ex-premie.org During the meeting students showed a video with only Prem Rawat speaking. He made vague, manipulative statements and made great promises. I received hardly information, nor were my questions answered. No books were available that gave more information. They said that if I wanted to know more I should come more often and experience myself. So, if I can draw conclusion from that meeting, then I can say that Elan Vital and Prem Rawat are very closely related and both hardly give information. Excellent reasons to re-add the UVa website to Wikiquote.


 * Anyone who really tries to be objective and gets the right information can easily see that something is wrong with Prem Rawat. I do not like it when people get exploited and cheated and that is why I care about all the articles related to this person.


 * Andries 16:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point. In any case, I hope that you would you agree with me that it will be better to cross link to the main article in Wikipedia rather than repeating the arduous editing process here. let;s remove all the links from here and just give w: links to to main articles at WP. And FYI, I have known Prem Rawat for more than 20 years and I can assure you that there is nothing wrong, on the contrary. :) --64.81.88.140 01:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries POV
Andries. I will not allow you to take advantage of WQ policy and use the freedom to throw mud on Prem Rawat. Your behaiviour is utterly unacceptable.

Addoing Abbie Hoffman is just disgutingly POV. SHAME! --64.81.88.140 22:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==.140 and Jossi== You have no right to censor relevant quotes here. And also the table of contents is prescribed according to the template Wikiquote%3ATemplate. I will re-add the Hoffman quote and the table of contents. Andries 17:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andries, What is the point of that last quote you posted? I do not see why that quote is relevant. Please explain. You also said available in video, what video? what date? Thanks --Jossifresco 16:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * well the quote is relevant because of the accusations of financial exploitation. I will move the quote to the atttributed section and move it back to the sourced section when I have more information about the video. Andries 09:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recenlty added quotes
Thaks for these new quotes. I have restored the original chronology, as discussed previously. The excellent quote about Bhakti Marg I moved to the undated section. The 2002 was the date of the video or DVD release. Also removed the "restricted" release label. If it was broadcast it could not have beenm "restricted".--64.81.88.140 14:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * .140, Let us follow the Wikiquote template. i.e. chronological order. That is done for all other people here. I will revert reverse chronological order. Andries 15:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * .140, The video may have been broadcast for a selected group. "Restriced usage" is the information that I received about the video. I support your move to the undated section. Andries 15:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ,.140, I suppose that your move of the Peace bomb quote to the attributed section is a mistake. It is a famous satsang with a transcript available. If not please explain. Andries 15:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * .140, I also noticed that you removed some external links (ex-premie). Why did you do that? I suggest either leaving all external links intact or remove them all. Let us not remove external links with "negative" information and at the same time leaving the links with the positive information intact. Andries 15:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chronology
As I did not wish to become too involved in a dispute about a particular person and their ideas, and do support experiments in formatting, I initially made no objection to the reverse chronology that was used here, but as I stated in a recent comment elsewhere: I must weigh in with Andries on the question of chronology: forward chronology has been the standard used on all other Person-pages where chronologies are used at all, and I do not think that the blog-style reverse chronology is an appropriate format for such a page devoted to a single person, living or dead. Advocates of a particular person's views might prefer the latest expressions of that individual be presented first, but the chronological progression of thoughts, expressions and ideas provides far clearer and easier to understand presentation of how a person's opinions and expressions have progressed, or failed to, on various subjects. The only pages where I feel a reverse chronology is appropriate are on a registered editor's User-page, if they wish to use it, or in the Quote of the day archives, so that the latest quote of the day is the first thing encountered when opening a page, and people don't need to scroll to the bottom to see what the latest quotations were. I do not intend to perform any edits on this page myself, but I do not accept that the page on Prem Rawat should be the one exception to having a forward chronology, nor do I accept that a blog-style presentation of a person's quotations should be used on the Wikiquote pages for other living people. ~ Kalki 15:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Wikiquote needs to allow freedom of experimentation on the presentation of quotes. When a person is newsworthy, a blog-style of chronology is not only acceptable, but preferable. Wikiquote is a young enough project to allow and certainly encourage innvation and experimentation in the presentation of quotations for people thata re alive. --Jossifresco 18:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I disagree, on controversial entries we should not experiment but strictly follow the guidelines. Andries 20:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I must diaagree again with you, Andries. The fact that you call this a controversial subject does not make it so. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, if this subject is not controversial then what subject is? I mean, look at the edits at Wikipedia. Look at their talk pages. Let us face it. It is an old, deep-rooted, bitter dispute that is now being fought here. Andries 20:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been away from the computer a few hours, and just recently returned. As I have stated, and have done: I encourage experimentation. In this case I have stated my reasons for believing the experimentations that have been made are not satisfactory, and should be rejected. From the very earliest days of the project it was stated that "Wikiquote is not a blog", and this particular page should not be made into primarily a "Prem Rawat Fan Blog". As disputes about its structure have definitely arisen, I believe that it should conform to the general form that that has been developed on most other extensive pages about people: Name, brief personal description, chronological presentation of quotes by that person (where possible), and then of sets of quotes from works by that person, and an alphabetical ordering of attributed quotes; these can be followed by misattributions, quotes by others about that person, and external links for further information and study. I personally strongly disagree with the idea that this page should be an exception to having external links, merely because there are disputes about what external links are considered most "relevant". I accepted the situation for a time, because there seemed to be a compromise on the part of the major disputants, and if they could accept it, I could. The University of Virginia project for information on "New Religious Movements" does have an article on some of the religious activities developed by, or around Prem Rawat. This article  does include statements of those critical of him and projects associated with him on it, but the project aims at providing a fair and honest account about a broad diversity of religious movements. It is not the University of Virginia's mission or policy to be primarily favorable or unfavorable to any religious creed, but to present prominent facts and opinions about them, and not exclude them. I do not think that policies at Wikiquote should be anything other than ones similar to these. ~ Kalki 20:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

.140 Please do not revert without explanation on the talk page
Please try to be reasonable. Let's face it we are both POV pushers on this subject so the only thing we can do it to follow the rules and remain civil. Thanks. Andries 16:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My points:
 * When quoting sources, what we need to quote is the original source of the quote, i.e. the original publication in which it was quoted.
 * Using a blog type of chronology is perfectly acceptable as recent quotes are newsworthy. Newsworthiness can only be provide on a blog type of chronology. Of course, this applies to people that are alive only, of course. Prem Rawat is alive. Blog-style of chronologies is as valid as any other type of chronology used in WQ.
 * Quotations from dubious sources, such as hearsay and that have not been published and not worthy of inclusion.
 * therefore my edits as follows:
 * I have re-formatted the article to blog-style chronology;
 * removed links to websites unless that is the original source; and
 * removed quotes that do not have a published source.
 * Jossifresco 18:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, thanks for your explanations
 * 1. I agree that the original source is the best. Andries 19:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. A blog type is totally unacceptable in Wikisource. Please follow the template. I will revert to normal chronological orderm, following the example of all other entries here. Andries 19:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3. Videos are good sources too. There are lots of quotes from movies here in Wikiquote. Please tell me what quotes you have deleted as it is difficult to compare reverse with forward order versions. Andries 19:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4. I do not see why the links to articles that are not the original sources should be removed. We should link to the best available source, which is always the original source if available but if not available then linking to other website is fine. Andries 19:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable edit by Andries. He has an agenda here and that is to paint a negative image of Prem Rawat as well to promote the site of the hate group ex-premie.org. Andries, given a previous very negative experience with a guru, has decided to utilize WP and WQ as a forum in which he can promote his nd anti-guru bias. This is totally unacceptable and contrary to WP and WQ policies.


 * Andries is in collusion with this ex-premie hate group. He converses and strategizes daily with them on how to push their negative POVs in the http://forum8.org, the discussion form of this hate group.


 * He hides beneath a facade of neutrality when in fact the only motivation has nothing to do with the sucess of WP or WQ, rather than a poor's man form of therapy to get over his bad past experience.


 * In summary, Andries has not be be respected as a neutral voice. Correct me if I am wrong, Andries. --64.81.88.140 20:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I openly adnitted that I was not neutral. But I try to be reasonable and follow the rules. You don't. That is the difference between you and me. Andries 20:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edits

 * Although I do not agree with not allowing a descending chronology (and I will take this issue for discussion with other editors later this week) I agree for now to leave it as is until such time.
 * Links to the ex-premie website are not needed as they are not the source for the Alta Loma Q&A session. The source is a magazine. The only reason they have been placed ther is to attract traffic to their website. Please read more about these people's motives and character in WP at
 * Deleted quotes about "trainings". These are not quotes and cannot be attributed to Prem Rawat as these notes have not been corroborated or attributed anywhere besides the hate group website with a clear agenda to smear Prem Rawat's name.
 * &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I placed the link is so that people can have a look in what context it has been said. And for verification. I do not understand why only links to original sources should be allowed. If a link to the original source is available then that link is to be preferred of course. Andries 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * really Andries, do you want anyone to believe this? The only reason for including the unecessary link is propaganda. Not acceptable. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why are the links to Elan Vital not propaganda? Andries 20:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think it is better to delete all external links~, both to Elan Vital and ex-Premie because they are not prescribed in template. Andries 17:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * These training quotes are true, I believe. Yes, of course the Pro Rawat websites to do not mention them. What reason do you have to question the authenticity apart from the fact that they are published on ex-premie? If I follow the reasoning that you follow then we could as well delete all the quotes from Elan Vital or DLM magazines because they try to put Prem Rawat in a positive light. Have they been corrobated by independent journalists? And I do not mean those writers from public relations magazines but real journalists. I will add a comment that the transcripts of the training session are unverified as I think is common here. I do not agree with the term hate group nor with the term smear campaign. It is true that ex-followers are looking for evidence for their conviction. that Prem Rawat is unreliable. In this case they have found it. Andries 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * These are not "quotes". Whatever they published on the hate group site are unverified notes taken by an anonymous source the "leaked" these notes to the ex-premies. yes, and pigs fly too.
 * The fact that you don't like the term hate group and smear campain does not make it not be true. Ex-followers are not hateful. The group that call themselves ex-premies are. And there is plenty of proof.&asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, the transcript is not anonymous.
 * "Prem Rawat's comments - Training, 23d July 1999 This is the original transcript of Maharaji's comments on the first day of a training session that took place in Arundel, England, in 1999. The transcript was written by Chuck Natham, and the only edits that have been done are the replacement of attendees names with initials, and a few very obvious spelling corrections. " from
 * Andries 20:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Bogus Andreis, bogus. That is what John Brauns ex-premie webmaster wrote and wants us to believe. As I said, pigs fly too. --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 05:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, have you checked with Chuck Natham? I think you'll find that he will confirm that the transcripts are genuine (in private if not in public). To be honest, I don't particularly care if the training quotes are included here, but thanks again Andries for your dedication to the truth. The source of the transcripts has so much dirt on Rawat he knows he is safe from ever being persecuted for leaking these transcripts. Oh, and one piece of advice Jossi, do not make libellous allegations against me here. --John Brauns 23:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I try to be open for evidence that I am wrong so if you could tell me why you believe the quotes are bogus then I could possibly learn something. I think the quotes can be re-added with the warning that they have been unverified. Andries 16:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--64.81.88.140 03:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved quotes from purported training to the attributed section
 * NPVed entries by Andries,

Abbie Hoffman
--64.81.88.140 16:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Where is that video on the internet in which Abbie hoffman says that? Deleted until then.
 * 2) NPOVed also the entry about Who is Guru Maharaj Ji.


 * 1) Here is the video 3.4MB I reverted. Andries 18:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) And it is an proven and documented fact that the book Who is Guru Maharaji was presented as an authorized biography. That is printed on the cover. You can read it with some difficulty. I reverted. Andries 18:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

guru maharaj ji
I added a quote that clearly shows that Rawat is talking about his father and not himself when speaking about "guru maharaj ji". --Zappaz 22:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enough quotes from the 1970's
Enoughj Andries, enough.

There needs to be a balance between quotes from 30 years ago and more contemporary ones.

For each quote you add from th 1970's you need to add one from 90's or 2000's. OK?

--64.81.88.140 23:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you think that the quotes are unbalanced then add new quotes to balance them but do not remove quotes from the article. Andries 03:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable. Reverted.
 * This is a lame attempt, Andries. All these quotes from 30 years ago simply are padding the top of the page in a blatant attempt to push your anti-guru POV. You know better than me that what you are doing is disgraceful. Stop it.
 * --64.81.88.140 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)