Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 3 November 2004

• Thanks Albert D for the very comprehensive and detailed article. It reads well and provides a good historical overview IMO.
• I have gone through each section and NPOV'ed them. Thus, I have removed the NPOV check notice.
• Some sections may belong to the current teachings article, for example the role of the teacher and the relationsohip student/teacher. These are still current. --Zappaz 04:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

May I ask, do you contribute to Wiki under any other names? Do you ever accept payment for working on an article? Have you been paid for working on the Rawat articles? Are :there Wiki policies on either issue?. -- Jim

These conspiracy theories are laughable and demonstrate again the pathological aspects observeved in apostacy. --Zappaz 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Zappaz,

Is it really that far-fetched that some nefarious cult like Rawat's would try to pay someone already well-versed and familiar with the Wiki ropes to do their PR work here? I don't think so. And don't forget, your arguments in defence of Rawat are patently stupid. So you have to factor that in, huh? In any event, I was just asking. Fairly reasonable questions too. What, are you saying that one needs to be pathologically paranoid to wonder whether Misplaced Pages has a policy about posting under more than once name? Or, worse, being paid to lobby for a certain version of a controversial article? These are reasonable questions, my good friend. Maybe you don't know the answers, maybe you do. But they're not bad questions. Now, would you please answer them?

--24.68.220.3 21:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jim

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Jim and Zappaz, using a sockpuppet user account is not appreciated but not explictly forbidden. There may be legitimate reasons for it. I do not believe that Zappaz uses sockpuppets or is paid by Elan Vital to present a whitewashed picture of Prem Rawat. I understand quite well, what I believe is, the root reason of Jim's question i.e. his (and my) lack of understanding that an intelligent person who is not a follower, like Zappaz would voluntarily spend a lot of time defending Prem Rawat whom Jim (and I) consider incompetent or a fraud beyond reasonable doubt. Andries 21:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I gave the article a disputed warning after I noticed that a sentence that I had removed was re-inserted i.e.

"This resulted in an environment that now seems anachronistic, but was culturally accepted in the 1970s, where many Indian rituals and cultural traditions were being embraced by the younger generation. "

This is an interpretation that should not be stated as a fact. The vast majority of the younger generation did not embrace Indian rituals. Anachronistic, you mean Hindu. Andries 17:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, Andries. You cannot use {{totallydisputed}} as a weapon. The article is well written and detailed. If you have any specific issues with some text, please try to edit them instead of deleting. I have NPOVed the above paragraph.≈ jossi ≈ 17:14, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence that I did not agree with and that I think is factually incorrect and then somebody re-inserted it. Then I think that the inserting the disputed label is appropriate and the right procedure. Andries 17:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have to admit that editing is better. Andries 17:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is 80.3.64.7 and why are you editing the page anonymously?

I see that someone who is not logged in is trying to make some points about Indian history and proposing advice to people who might want to "invest" time in Prem Rawat and his teachings - why are you doing this behind a computer ref? Who are these "some critics" that feel these absurd socio-babble about distancing from all things Hindu, etc? Facts are that while Rawat's teaching came from India, they were never from Hinduism. Terms and "trappings" were definitely Indian in nature, but why continue with that when it is clear the message is universal and not limited to India or anything Hindu? The evolution away from that is most natural and clearly admited. Chuck 19:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted the following: Some critics feel that the 'distancing from all things Hindu' that Rawat and his current supporters exersize exempifies a sociological trait that Indian guru's and indeed, politians and salesmen universally display - the desire to boost their own autonomy or 'uniqueness' of their product by drawing attention away from it's prosaic roots. Critics say that people who are inspired to invest trust in Rawat as their potential teacher might also benefit from the broader perspective gained by investigating the Indian roots of his message. It is not only inaccurate but too general and opinionated. It hides behind the "some critics say" line but that would not fool anyone... would it? Chuck 20:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This way of editing is leading nowhere

I think that every edit has to be referenced otherwise we will be just changing each other's edits endlessly. Andries 21:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andreis - I totally agree with you.Chuck 22:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andreis - in my last edit, I deleted a phrase that you seem to be using more and more in this article - writing that people were not told to take something literally insiuates that everyone must be told how to think. This was never the case. People could and still can think whatever they want and interpret what they see and hear however they please. I wanted to make sure we at least agree on that point. Chuck 22:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, I will think about it but at the moment I think that the burden of proof for the assertion in hindsight that things were not to be taken literally is on the person making this assertion. Andries 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

????? Can you please explain what you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ 09:23, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Staying on purpose

This article was supposed to be an historical discourse on PR's teachings. The original article submitted by Albert needed just some adjustments and NPOV'ng that I performed, and was pretty good, and succinct already, The counterpoints being made by the 'anti' faction have already been covered in detail in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, so I do not see the reason to repeat these points again here.

Please note that the article is already way beyond the 32Kb limit, so I would encourage succinctness and avoiding repetition of points already covered in one of the ancillary articles. What we need now is synthesis, not expansion. --Zappaz 04:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, I agree that most if not all of the recent back-and-forth should be incorporated in that article and not in this one - they have little or nothing to do with Past Teachings. Chuck 15:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religion and Prem Rawat

I have removed an unfounded and opinionated claim that "Religion of the personality of Prem Rawat is begining in some circles". From an academic point of view, there is absolutely no evidence that could in any way enable someone to characterize the pursuit and practice of Knowledge as a religion. Both Prem Rawat and his followers have repeatedly stated that they do not want or need to either offer or create a new religion and the facts have amply demonstrated that "Knowledge" is both compatible with and independent of any religion. As it pertains to the religion of personality, is a preposterous and fallacious allegation without roots. While Prem Rawat's message may be seen as being the ojbect of excessive consideration, saying that his personality is the object of a new religion is gratuitous, baseless and without merit. Chuck 00:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries' edits on 3 November 2004 21:37 EST

I tried to minimize deletions though the article has now become very messy partially as a result of that. Here is one deletion

• "many elements against Hinduism"

• • like what, please give example, please keep in mind that there are many different sects in the group of interrelated religions that comprise Hinduism and that Hinduism is very diverse so this will be very difficult to prove.

Andries 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)