Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old miscellaneous grousing

Jossi, How can you say that ex-premie is not relevant? To me that sounds ridiculuous.Andries 18:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you base your characterization of DLM as a sect. Please explain.jossi 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

from sect "A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion." Seems to me the case for the DLM in India. Andries 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"seem to you" is not good enough :) - Removed --jossi 23:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


come on Jossi, be reasonable, do not ask me to prove that the grass is green. Everything points to a Sikh or Hindu background. Andries 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


You need to revise your knowledge of copyviol. Please re-read and you will see that links to copyright violations are not allowed. I will look for the article and post here a linl FYI --jossi 23:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here it is Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. jossi
okay, I gues you are right about the copyvio, which I will study but what is wrong Hinduism Today? Whose copyright does it break? Andries 00:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I did not removed that reference... :)

Jossi, do you deny that DLM is a branch off from either Sikhism or Hinduism? Andries 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Read their proclamation. No mention of religion there.--jossi 00:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, sorry but the assertion that the DLM was not a religious movement is for me so absurd. I sincerely hope that you agree that you believe it to be a religious movement otherwise I really have to doubt your common sense.
What I meant that there is no mention of a specific religion such as Hinduism of Sikhism. Hence you cannot call it a sect. In any case, I do not mid if youy want to leave it as such... not a big deal IMO. Just not accurate... up to you. -- jossi 00:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi Jossi, why did you remove about the story about the Houtston Astrodome? I thought it was a major event.

"In 1973, followers organized what they believed would be a huge festival in the Houston Astrodome, USA but this turned out to be a finance debacle and much fewer people attended than had been hoped for. Most of the press that was invited did not report positively about Maharaji."

Thanks. Andries 09:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haans

Hello Andries. As you keep quoting haans in the articles, I need to see some text traslated from the portion you are quoting. You also need to NPOV that edit and explain that Haans was a skeptic and is involved in anti-cult activities as stated by his own words.-- ≈ jossi ≈ 17:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

It is a note (nr. 2) to the article. Here is the main text by Haan on page 37
"Arti is in the Hindu tradition a well known devotional ritual. A small plate with some fresh flowers and a candle are moved in front of the deity that is worshipped. One can find the central items of "the faith" in the hymn that is sung during this ceremony on which the ascetic life of the premie is based. Whoever sings this song confirms hereby the inner relation with guru Maharaj Ji and the central position that the guru has in the life of the premie. (note 2)"
Here is the note
page 55 "note 2 The DLM hardly has a philosophical background. The central "items of the faith" are all listed in this song. Unfortunately no Dutch translation is available. Hereunder the English text of the hymn follows that consists of thirteen stanzas.
Meditation begins in the form of our Master.
Adoration begins at the feet of our Lord.
Concentration begins in the words of our Master.
Liberation begins in the Grace of our Lord.
Jai, Gurudev, Maharaj Ji
Your glory fills the world."
etc. etc
Andries 18:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I do not agree that one can and should NPOV Haan's statement by writing that he was a "skeptic". He was not a skeptic, he was part of a critical movement within the catholic church. He was skeptical about Maharaji and the DLM, yes that is true. It sounds to me as if there is quite a lot of truth in what Haan writes but if both current students and ex-folowers agree that it is untrue then I would like to remove Haan's statement. Andries 18:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have NPOVed the entry with your statement that he was part of a critical movement within the catholic church. Hope that does it. I also added a wiki link to the Elan Vital article, and removed the link to the Virgina university article, already linked from the Elan Vital page. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

Andries, I don't think this page needs to be categorized directly into New religious movements, since it is categorized into Maharaji, and that is a subcategory of New religious movements. It doesn't merit a separate direct entry since the organization was pretty compeletely Maharji's baby. I would feel differently about Divine United Organization, though, for instance, since Maharaji didn't found that organization. --Gary D 22:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, sorry, yes, you are right. I had forgotten about that. Andries 02:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No sweatolo. --Gary D 03:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Let us keep unattributed, dubious interpretations out of this article

What do you mean arti is flowery? I have sung arti hundreds of times and I always took it literally. Please provide references for this. And what about the ridiculous sentence "While critics have said Prem Rawat did not make it clear that the arti song was not to be taken literally, his supporters have pointed out that Prem Rawat has never asked anyone to misinterpret to misinterpret the words". Let us stick to facts in the first place and avoid opnions. Andries 02:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Coming from you Andries, I take this as raising the bar on your own edits. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:23, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
the sentence is rather cynical, but it reflects what it reflects. jossi wants to see it this way. let him have it in the article. it is his responsibility. i am sure he is happy to express it that way. thomas

Rawat had a unique and elevated position, that should be stated as fact

I mean, how can any reasonable person deny this? I mean, his followers literally kissed his toes. http://gallery.forum8.org/MONTROSE.jpg Whose toes were kissed too? Andries 18:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries edits?

Andries: I object to your replication of subjects already covered in other articles as follows.

If you have new material to add to these article, please do. If your intention is to write an alternative version of Past teachings of Prem Rawat you can do it here Past teachings of Prem Rawat/temp1

≈ jossi ≈ 20:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • I do not understand why there can not be a good article on the DLM. That is an important subject too. Andries 20:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • the astrodome event is an important event in the DLM and deserves a more extensive coverage here. Andries 20:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The teachings of the DLM may not be identical to that of Prem Rawat. Andries 20:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Your last statements above shows your ignorance on this matter.
I propose to rename this article 'Andries interpretations on the practices of Divine Light Mission branch in the Netherlands based on an article by Win Haan
Shall I bring this to RfC?

≈ jossi ≈ 21:11, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, with regards to my last statement, I think it was you who wrote that premies may have misinterpreted Rawat's teachings about "Lord of the universe", "Guru is greater than God", "Arti" etc.. Andries 21:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfocussed and pointless

Andries seems to have created this section as a "dumping ground" for unfocussed, unstructured and out-of-context smippets that have been covered elsewhere. Aside from being instructed to so so by hate group members hell-bent of loading Wiki with as much "negative" stuff as possible, it has no thesis or theme, other than to shove "bad" things into Wiki with no thought, no scholarship and no purpose. I strongly suggest until those matters are resolved, that the following edits be status quo:

Astrodome fiasco: deleted. What's the point? What's the context? Where's the reference point?

Rift: This has been addressed elsewhere, and with more authority. here is is unsupported hearsay and lacks any scholarship.

Beliefs: This was written in present tense--that makes no sense. And there is no reference to any first-hand material. Only one reference to some non-authority named Haan, and one reference to the Anti-people's webpage. This is crazy. In addition, weren't the beliefs and practices guided by Maharaji, not the DLM? This should be answered beofre proceeding.

Converts: The citiations are circular. Again, what is the context here? That a psychologist once made some vague obersavtions? But where is the link to source material even showing that the psychologist was actually talking about DLM?

This is unadulterated gibberish, and is a transparent attempt to shove more unsubstantiated -- and overtly negative junk -- into Wiki, without doing any of the hard work that was done (by both sides) in the main article.

I suggest that Andries propose a thesis before doing this again, and submit that thesis to group review. Richard G. 21:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The background is of Haan's article is here so the reader can make up his own mind. That rift was a major event in the history of the DLM so it belongs here. Andries 21:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and Richard, please do not use the term "hate group" on the talk page unnecessarily. Andries 21:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After your latest intervention, Andries. This article is now in a disastrous shape. I propose to revert to a more solid version and one that is not solely bassed on Haan's article. THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUTH HAAN. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:28, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Please add other references and source to the article than Haan. At least I attributed opinions. I agree that the article needs to be worked on. Andries 21:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Replaced your edits with see also wikilinks. There is no need to rewrite things already written elsewere. Have a short summary if you must, and then provide see also links. That is the preferred method in WP. --Zappaz 21:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I disagree. Some events are more important for the DLM than for other subjects and hence should be treated more extensively here. And as I already said before, the beliefs and practices of the DLM may not be identical to Rawat's teachings. Andries 22:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had enough of WP for htis weekend... Key lime season... andI am going to bake my favorite Key lime pie topped with whipped cream (yes, I bake...). Wish I could share some with you fellow editors...! --Zappaz 22:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries, this is becoming a childish game and quite tedious I must say. Please note that all of the points that you are trying to make have already been made, discussed at length and text agreed in consensus, i.e. succession, astrodome festival in 1973, Indian trappings (Arti, darshan) in both the main article Prem Rawat and the Criticism of Prem Rawat as well as other ancillary articles. A responsible editor would link to these texts in Wikipedia rather than wasting time and WP resources to repeat these points and engage in a discussion again about same topics.

I have no problem whatsoever for you adding new material. That will be great. Otherwise, please stop wasting time, energy and resources.

I have re-arranged the text and created sections whith short sumamries and wikilinks.

If you disagree with this, you will need to elaborate here about your reasons and motives. Otherwise your actions do not make any sense.

--Zappaz 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I will repeat the reasons. Some events are more important for the DLM than for other subjects and hence should be treated more extensively here. And as I already said before, the beliefs and practices of the DLM may not be identical to Rawat's teachings. For example, the claims of divinity.Andries 06:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you say that DLM claimed divinity? Please make an effort and explain more clearly. Thanks.--Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Zappaz, the picture that Haan gives of the beliefs and practices of the DLM make it clear that they differ significantly from the interpretation by current followers of the past teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I did add value to the Maharaji series of articles with the beliefs and practices section that you deleted. I do not oppose adding wikilinks to related sections of the past teachings of Prem Rawat or the related sections of other articles. With this NRM, there is an ongoing debated and controversy to what degree the beliefs and practices diverged from Rawat's teaching and hence there is reason for a secton on beliefs and practices here. Andries 07:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, this is not a trick to put a bad light on Prem Rawat. Note that I know from experience that beliefs and practices of an NRM diverge from the official teachings. That is why I created an article Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation, before I got involved with the Maharaji articles, and not Teachings of Sathya Sai Baba.Feel free to move parts of the Past teachings of Prem Rawat (that is currently more than just teachings of Prem Rawat) to this article and to integrate it with what I wrote. But please keep in mind the objections that I have made to that article at Talk:Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Some_of_the_problems_with_this_article. Andries 11:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The beliefs of followers at the time of the DLM and the discrepancies with the teachings of Prem Rawat (as per PRs words) has been covered already in the myriad of articles about this subject. I have no idea why you want to do this. --Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, every article on an NRM should have a section on beliefs an practices. That is basic and I do not understand why the DLM should be an exception. I will try to write it in such a way that it refers to the other articles. Andries 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and there is no conscensus on darshan and arti at all the way they are described in the article Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 11:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You keep missing the points I make. The concensus was achieved on the Criticism of Prem Rawat and the Prem Rawat articles, both of which cover these Indian traditions. --Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, okay, then I will replace the wikilink about arti to the past teachings of Prem Rawat that you inserted by a wikilink to the concensus articles i.e criticism of Prem Rawat and prem Rawat. Andries 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To summarize, some points:
  1. If you have new material, that would be great, please do add and I will help you with grammar of needed.
  2. Subjects that have already been covered, and agreed by consensus over weeks of collective work, do not need to be re-opened again (I am sure you will agree with me on this one!). A short summary if you must and a wikilink will do.
  3. Quoting from only one source, (Haan's article) is making this article less interesting, not more. Please refrain from quoting again and again from it.

--Zappaz 16:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree that subjects that are particularly important for the DLM can not be treated more extensively here. Andries 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that quoting from Haan alone is not a good style. Feel free to add quotes from other articles and scholars who have written about the DLM. Haan has some authority here in the Netherlands about the ÑRMs. I have to admit that he was quite young when he wrote the DLM article though. I had read several balanced articles by him about NRMs before the whole Maharaji affair. And by the way Thomas agrees with what Haan wrote. I had asked him not to add criticism only because of the criticism but only if it is fair and accurate. And by the way, I did have new material from Haan that you deleted. I had never posted it here or on any talk pages before. Andries 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was referring about new material, not more material from the Haan article. I still very much think that it is a mistake to quote so extensively from only one article and one written by a young student as if he was an important scholar. -Zappaz 21:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean with new? Some of the quotes, that contained new information from Haan's article had not been written anywhere in the Maharaji related articles or on the talk pages. So that must have been new for you, not more.Andries 04:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not know any scholar who was involved for two years or more apart from Haan and Geaves. Haan may not have been an important scholar but he compensated that with a lot of effort and personal involvement. Personally, I do not like Geaves' article much because I find it unnecessarily abstract. But I guess you have a different opinion about Geaves' article. Well anyway those are just my thoughts. Andries 21:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We have already quantified what his two-year involvement was. Let's not re-open an issue already discussed ad-nauseum. I going back to the library (yes, the brick-and-mortar one), to photocopy from Merton's books to provide a real scholar's viewpoints on the DLM as an organization, that in my view should be the focus of this article. --Zappaz 23:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you use Melton as a scholarly reference then please also mention how long he was involved in the DLM. Andries 02:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that Haan is a better reference than Melton. Melton cannot even spell the names of Mishler and Rawat's wife right. I will not stop using Haan using as a reference in this article or other articles. You can go to request for comments if you do not like that. Andries 13:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You must agree with me that your own personal opinion is of little or no relevance here. Melton is widely cited, while Hann is cited in maybe one or two publications on the Netherlands. I have no problems with you quoting from Haan, but to quote so extensively from just one source, when there are other competing sources of better quaility it is very unusual and against NPOV. If what you profess, that WP needs to abide to a much higher level of scholarship, then personal preferences to quote extensively from unlikely sources such as Haan, just because it supports your POV is i total contradiction to your stated position. --Zappaz 16:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The question is not who as a person is cited more widely but who is the most authorative source on this subject and I think there are very good reasons to believe that Haan is better than Melton. Melton makes has a very short bibliography in contrast to Haan and make spelling mistakes in two of the names of the people involved, in contrast to Haan. Haan's article is 5 times longer than that of Melton and Barker refers to Haan's article for more information about the DLM Andries 22:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will try not to quote too much from Haan. What is a better source than Haan? Melton is not. Haan is not an unlikely source here in the Netherlands, it is the only entry about the DLM in the best magazine about NRMs here. Melton's entry contains proven mistakes. Melton is also widely criticized. E.g. by Anton Hein. First I did not know whether I should believe Anton but last week I read a book by Melton i.e. Ramtha's school of enlightenmet and was appalled by Melton's gullibility, naivity, and negative bias against ex-members. Andries 16:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If judging by the credentials of Haan, that was a student of religion when he wrote that article, it will be quite an insult to Melton to say that Haan is more authorative. As Haan was never translated from Dutch, not many scholars cite him (beyond a few Dutch ones). In academia, the more they cite your work, the more authorative ir becomes, as it means that your research is considered worthy by your peers. --Zappaz 02:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To assess an authorative source (not a person) you have to use common sense which you seem to be missing in this case if you think that the , short article on the DLM by Melton, who is a very controversial scholar, that contains spelling mistakes of two people involved and that has a short bibliography is more authorative than Haan's article. Andries 07:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is understandable that you would not like Melton's assessemnts of apostates, given your situation as a critical ex-follower of Sai baba. Many scholars focusing on NRMs share Melton's view and cite him in their work. Thank you for keeping Haan cites short and to the point. --Zappaz 17:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Calling Wim Haan a "scholar" is just way too funny. I read that he wrote the article when he was a young student in an obsucre theological college in small town in Holland. Comparing him with the likes of Melton, or Baker is laughable. --62.132.1.121 03:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand i have to agree that most of his allegations are true, that is why Prem Rawat has tried so hard to change that62.132.1.121 09:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Barker refers to Haan's article for more information about the DLM. Those famous scholars cannot possibly do all the "field work" and leave this work to others. Andries 03:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Accurate summaries, please!

Andries, please be accurate in your edit summary. You said you did not change content, but you did. You removed the fact that the family accepted Prem as the successor for eight years before changing thier minds. That is an extremely important piece of information that you chose to delete. Not good, Andries, not good...≈ jossi ≈ 14:48, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry about that but I thought and still think it was a minor issue because all the years were mentioned and the reader can calculate as well. Anyway it is there now and I won't remove it anymore. Andries 18:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Those editors of the Haan article are important

As if Haan just could have submitted the article without review by the editors. He wrote that he had to change it several times. Andries 18:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any articles submited to any magazine go through an edit process. According to you, all bibliographic references need to have statements about who edited their book or article? That is very unusual IMO. You may want to ask one of the experienced editors in WP, such as Modemac, about this. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
For edited books, the editors must be mentioned Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Books. It is a magazine published as a book. It has an ISBN nr. not an magazine nr. (ISSN) Andries 18:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries: What the citacion guideline says is to add (Ed.) or (Eds.) after the author and before the date, if the cited work is an edited book. Thats is a standard convention in bibliography sections. For example:
Corbett, G.B. and Southern, H.N. (Eds.) (1992) A Handbook of British Mammals, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
It is very unusal to quote editors, unless these have a substantial involvement in the book to warrant that mention. The question really is if the editors that you mention are editors of that specific article and are clearly noted in the article itself as co-editors with Haan, or if these are the editors of the magazine.
You can check this in any good reference about presenting dissertations and papers as well as in Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Books. There is one here from Cornell [1]
--Zappaz 04:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are right, I didn't read it well. Andries 07:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)