Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 7

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.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

I\ve changed my mind

After reading Andries' opinion that there never will be any peer review because people are just too busy to bother, I'm not going to bother trying to contribute to or work up a big article in hopes that it'll someone supercede the premie one. No way, Jose.

I will say this, though -- any article about Rawat that does not mention his claims of divinity -- including the fact that as recently as 1990, when he was in his mid-30's, he was scolding people for forgetting that he was divine -- is a crock. Likewise, any article that does not mention that he only became guru when his mother and three older brothers signed on to his claim but that mom and two of his borthers later changed their mind and installed Satpal on the throne where he continues to this day -- is a crock too. Any article that does not mention the lies that EV tells in its FAQs, such as that Arti (not 'Arathi' etc.) was anything but a devotional sogn to th Rawat AS Lord, or that we exes are so bad we do stuff like embezzle money from them, is also a crock.

No, I'm not going to write your article for you. I think the whole thing's flawed. But YOU'Re the guys who want to have this Wiki thing. It's YOUR responsibility to get it right. I reserve the right to comment all I want and Zappaz, take that word 'polemic' and retire it already. It just makes you sound like a Wiki parrot.

Okay. Andries or anyone else, care to take a whack at the /temp2 article? It's fine by me if not; that page was merely a suggestion if you wanted some quiet editing space to do an integrated version. I figure a zealous effort in the criticism and ex-premie articles will be just as good, though you may have less editing peace in the creation phase. --Gary D 19:36, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
I will continue developing /temp1 and ancillary articles regardless of the backpedaling.--Zappaz 19:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Introducing myself

My name is Richard. I am a graduate student in New York City, going for my PhD. in Comparative Political Sciences at CUNY. My girlfriend is a student of Maharaji's (I am not) but as a researcher I am very interested in the issue of information technology and its potential for providing factual data in as value-neutral a manner as possible. With your kind permission, I would like to throw my 2 cents in as I review the proposed article(s).

From the offset, let me say that I am fairly dedicated to the proposition that academic language should whenever possible, be bereft of loaded terms (i.e., "John claimed" is value laden with the speaker's disbeleief of whatever it is that John said, while "John said" is dryer). Similarly, there is a distinction between ad hominem attacks (always unwarranted) and comments that fairly disclose to the reader the two foundations of secondary sourcing: credibility and plausibility. Finally, I would expect here no less of what we demand from our undergradate students-- that is, that circular support from self-conclusory statements is no support at all. If a factual statement on an internet webpage cannot be independently verified by reference to a document created and controlled by a non-interested party, then that "support" is highly questionable.

If this is not acceptable to you, or if you do not want my contribution, please let me know. Richard G. 19:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, Richard, your contributions are always welcome and appreciated. Neutrality with a minimum of value loading is obviously and always our goal. How that is accomplished in a disinterested atmosphere is trivial; how that is accomplished amidst a standoff within a highly polarized atmosphere sounds like a good dissertation topic, if you're hunting around to do a little original research on us, LOL. Feel free to wade in, but keep in mind it's a little like the showdown scene in a Sergio Leone movie around here right now--extreme closeups of narrowing eyes and twitching trigger fingers. I would recommend moving slowly, and accompanying any substantial changes with reasoning in the edit summary or on the talk page. Again, welcome! --Gary D 00:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

A point to consider

Please note that 99% of the criticism comes from one source and one source alone: the ex-premies. Thinking of the article development as having a pro and a con side is correct but, has to be taken in the context of relevance. The relevance of 25 critics cannot be matched with the relevance of the work of a man that:

  1. has hundred of thousands of students in 80 countries
  2. is invited to speak at high profile venues and forums
  3. continues receiving accolades from goverment, business leaders, deans of universities, etc.
  4. has been translated to more than 60 languages
  5. travels 11 months of a year (flying himself) to reach millions of people (last year 1 million people in India alone)
  6. receives ZERO dollars for all that work

An article that showcases the critics POV (even if followed by detailed rebuttals) as 'the main raison-dêtre for its inclusion WP is not acceptable and incompatibe with the policy of NPOV. -- ≈ jossi ≈ 20:53, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, we have already discussed this hundred times and we continue to disagree. Ex-premies are the majority. Many people have left silently and did not consider the matter important enough to discuss on the internet. This is the same with all NRMs. An analogy, I know many people who have left Sathya Sai Baba (my former guru) silently but only I have written about him on the internet. I really do not know what to do anymore when facing such a persistent, fundamental dispute when writing the article. Another anology, I think there are at the moment only a few ex-scientologist who critize Scientology, so using your way of reasoning Scientology should have a small criticism sectio. I suggest you try to implement that at the Scientology related article but I do not think that many people will agree with you. Andries 21:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ex-premies are not the majority. Ex-premies are 25 people with a $20 a month website that has spammed Google to get noticed. These ex-premies (that think and behave like Jim) are by all accounts a TINY MINORITY. There are some people, that are my very good friends and that have left the teachings of Prem Rawat and do not practice Knowledge any longer. Bundling them with the likes of the Ex-premies is a travesty, and neither you and not any one else have the right to speak on their behalf. You have absolutely NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, Andries. Where do you get your data, www.ex-premie.org? Right... Duh? --≈ jossi ≈ 22:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the Scientology page format. That is exactly the treatment we need in this article.
  1. Two short paragraphs with a summary of the Criticism & Controversy.
  2. A Criticism of Prem Rawat in which that criticism can be expanded and rebuted.
≈ jossi ≈ 22:37, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

All of these are interesting points. When we have assembled all the main, criticism, and rebuttal text, these are all sure to be heard and will all factor into how much space we allocate and and where we put everything. Everyone keep composing and editing. --Gary D 00:25, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. Being a good moderator seems to be one of your gifts. It is appreciated. -- ≈ jossi ≈

Let's not be Silly

Andries, I've been researching this for a while before I decided to contribute, and have read the anti- position material very thouroughly. It is just plain silly to assert that the anti- faction is "in the majority" or represents public opinion. Most of the signatories are blind email accounts with no verifiable identities attached. While there is *some* value to anonymous speech (my nation's political history was built on it!) it cannot be granted the same weight as *real* people's views. In fact, the largely anonymous nature of the anti group's material severly erodes its usefulness.

More importantly, though, as I said earlier, the whole thrust of the anti- position is that a "big evil" enterprise is out to crush the small but hardy band of truth-tellers. That's a compelling story, and one worthy of being told. But you certainly can;t have it both ways. Look, you just have to face the facts. There are no more than 15 or 20 solidly indentifiable people participating in the anti- organization. You can't possibly beleive that this outnumbers those who are students of Mr. Rawat. My girlfirend has taken me to events where there were at least 350 present, and that was in New York alone.

At the risk of sounding condesending (and that is not my intention) try clearing your mind of whatever anger or hate or agenda and focus up on the scholarly task before you. It makes your argument more persuasive! Richard G. 01:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing condescending about you at all, Richard. But I wonder, is "silliness" part of your cherished, unloaded, academic language? Excuseme, please, but you won't mind if I laugh at you a bit? LOL! There, much better!  :)
Anyway, your thinking is facile and illogical, I'm afraid. In fact, it's just plain dumb. Imagine a Venn diagram. The largest circle is all the people who ever heard of Rawat, including the millions who were bemused by his outrageous PR campaign in the seventies, the one that gained him exposure in the most popular magazines and on national tv shows worldwide. Within that circle is a tiny circle of people who received K. Within that circle is one almost as large, namely the people who received K, then left. Within that circle is a tinier one still representing the people who choose to expose Rawat for the fraud he is.
The fact is, of all who ever heard of him, all but the extremely small group of people who continue to follow Rawat think he's a joke. Of course they do. After all, if someone jumps onto the world stage announcing that he's the Greatest Incarnation of God to Ever Trod the Planet (from his authorized biography, by the way), promising the bring Peace on Earth, common sense dictates that he will, at minimum, have an extremely large credibility problem if the last the world press ever reports about him is that a judge in India scolded him and his older brother for embarrassing Indian spirituality.
Of course even Rawat acknowledges this common sense. Why else would he avoid the press like a vampire the sun for all these subsequent years? Use YOUR common sense a bit and don't be such a fool. Confusing the number of exes who speak out against Rawat and are harrassed by him for doing so with the number of people who simply wrote him off is a very, VERY stupid mistake on your part.
---- Jim

In the words of the Ghostbusters: "I've been slimed!" The above toxic waste aside, I'd like to thank Andries for talking like a human being instead of a rabid pit bull. We'll get this done, in a calm and rational manner. Is this "Jim" person the same one who said here Wiki was paid by Rawat, that is is a crock and that he was quitting his participation? I saw referrence to a Jim in the ex-premie chat room archives about a Jim who was so venomous that even the other ex-people threw him out. Is this the same person? Richard G. 00:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep. That's our Jim. You can also read his other sweet comments here in the archives under "Jim's gems " Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 5#Jim.27s_Gems Maybe he needs to be forgiven... after all he spends most of his days defending rapists and other slime. I know, somebody needs to do that... --64.81.88.140 02:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


"Slime"? "Rabid pit bull"? More of that dry, unloaded academic language?

I noticed that you failed to respond with the slightest substance to anything I said. Instead, nothing but ad hominem bullshit. Come on, Richard, you can do better than that, can't you? You advanced an argument about how the exes were illogical. I answered with an explanation that shows that argument is itself illogical. Deal with it.

-- Jim

Richard, you are wasting your time with Jim. He will attack, attack, attack. Ask a lot of questions, answer maybe a few, and all in all waste a lot of your time.64.81.88.140

Actually, it's Richard who's not answering here.

)

-- Jim


Richard_G., I continue to disagree with you based on my experience with another NRM. Why should anyone waste a word on something that one has discarded? This is uncommon unusual and the majority of the people do not do that. Andries 02:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)