User talk:PatW

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome, PatW!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yoru contributions. As a mater of etiquette, it would be nice if you write a summary of your edit in the Edit summary box. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Thank you for the candor expressed in your user page. You may want to read Wikipedia:User page, to learn what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to have in your user page. Another pointer you may want to consult is What Wikipedia is not. I would go as far as suggesting that calling felow editors like me, that spend considerable time in this project (and not only on articles related to Prem Rawat) "over-zealous" that "subtley[sic] promote[d] their simplistic demonisation of critics" is not in harmony with your statement about "truth and reconciliation". For your information, I have several friends that are no longer students of Prem Rawat, and they do not consider themselves part of this small group of vocal critics that call themselves "ex-premies". Polarization starts when the "ex-premie" group calls me and fellow students "brainwashed cult members" or worse, or when they call the venues were we want to peacefully gather to listen to our teacher with the intention to deny us from doing so. For what I have seen from you so far, and from the statements in your user page, I appreciate your distancing from that group and their tactics, and hope you can assist in making these and other related articles, better, more neutral and more encyclopedic. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. My comment about over-zealous premies was not specifically aimed at you. My observation was that the article read, just as I said, as if it had been written generally by over-zealous followers. ie. too 'zealous' to be able to appear neutral. As regards distancing myself from 'the group'. I include myself in the 'hurt group' which I distinguish from the 'hate group' category. I have felt anger over this subject in the past but it has got less over the years. I never 'hated' anyone though. I empathise with the 'hurt group' for trying to draw attention to their feelings but wouldn't personally employ some of their 'tactics'. I know plenty of premies who understand their disenchanted friends and question whether Prem Rawat coud be handling protests a little more wisely and sympathetically. The other point I should make is that my 'tactics' have changed. A few years back I was inclined to care less about disturbing former followers peace than I am now. I now simply have grown to value a more respectful approach in the hopes that it will be reciprocated. PatW 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Regarding this comment:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

You asked Jossi - Is it true though that you are paid to work here on the article?PatW 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Jossi replied - Of course not. That is an attempt by detractors to undermine my work in this project. Well, that is not a happening thing. I love this project and I am proud of the work I am doing here and my contributions to this and other projects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Well, You responded - That's nice of you to clarify it for me. Should I take it that your comment "Well, that is not a happening thing" means that you were employed by them on this but are no longer?

Comment- Jossi's answered your question "Is it true though that you are paid to work here on the article" in his first sentence "Of course not". His second sentence explained why the rumour had started. His third sentence expanded on the second. And his forth sentence expanded on the third. Stylistically and grammatically the third sentence is not related to the first. I hope this goes someway to clear up your confusion over this.Momento 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No of course it doesn't. I asked whether Jossi was in the past employed to work on the article and nobody has yet affirmed or denied this. A yes or no answer would do the trick.PatW 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless disputes on Prem Rawat, regardless whether people are paid

The disputes about Prem Rawat have been intense since the start and they will likely remain so. Other editors give up very soon. See e.g. here where the editor User:Bishonen wrote "I don't know how you do it, Andries, keeping on and on trying to improve such a well-policed, clamped-down, always-bouncing-back piece. --Bishonen" Andries 11:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also post on the ex-premie forum? If so under what name? Andries 11:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Andries. There will be limits to my involvement here for sure. I posted on the ex-premie forums in their various previous incarnations since 1997, but not on the current one yet. Years ago I was anonymous but use my name these days.PatW 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you

I'm always pleased to see another editor becoming active in the Prem Rawat article. I can see that you've been involved in the editing of this piece for much longer than I have, and appear to have returned after a brief hiatus. I can relate, as even though my time working on the Rawat piece has been brief, I felt the need to step away from the keyboard after a particularly heated weekend. In any case, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts to share your insights, and I ask that you please make the time to check in over the next couple of days. I've filed a request for comment so that uninvolved editors can check in on the article and lend their opinions, and I think it would be great if you also lent yours. Mael-Num 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, on a personal note, I am galled that these pro-Rawat people target me as anti-Rawat, just because I think criticism shouldn't be marginalized. I have a fair amount of training in journalism, and I'm just going with my instincts as to what amounts to objectivity. Until I saw this subject on an admin noticeboard, I had no idea what a Prem Rawat was. I got involved because I read the complaints, got a little involved as a third party, and stuck around because I saw the sort of shenanigans that go on when someone opposes the 'consensus' of two editors, who shall remain nameless. I guess the lesson to be learned is, next time, I should point my lance at a windmill that's less heavily guarded! Mael-Num 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I don't look in here too often so forgive my lack of response. Obviously it bodes v. well that someone like yourself, who has no past with Prem Rawat, enjoins the debate surrounding this article. Personally, as you may have gathered, I am more or less disillusioned with trying to deal with the predomination of followers' edits - As someone who was around during Rawat's past I think it is regrettable that these people over-rule others material so frequently. I see it is as unethical that Wilkipedia can provide a platform for this sort of thing. So I'm afraid that I've more or less joined the lengthening list of former editors who've simply retired, having no stomache or time for bashing their heads against the brick wall. I occasinally pop in to raise some objection but that's about it. All I can say is that the weight of edits and revertions etc. have simply discouraged me from working on this article, along with the fact that there seem to be rules in place that prevent one from quoting Rawat from 'mission' publications etc. Also I think that people who are employed directly by the Rawat organisation to edit here should not be allowed to do so, if that is the case.PatW 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me a line on my page. I just got back from a few weeks visiting family (sudden emergency) and coming back I barely remember where I left off. The article looks to be more-or-less unchanged (big surprise there, with M&J on the scene), so that at least is familiar. I hope you continue to stop by and keep tabs on us, and lend us your insight where you are able. Cheers. Mael-Num 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Sentiments... - I second Mael-Num's most kind Welcome to you, and support all of your comments above in this thread/section... Smee 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No personal attacks

Regarding this comment: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there are instances where calling an editor's observations a personal attack are themselves personal attacks. Or, at the very least, a red herring to obfuscate (proper usage) the issue. Sometimes, one must call a spade what it is. Mael-Num 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cult Movements?

Just curious, why is it preferable to say that Rawat has drawn controversy from the anti-cult movement of the 1970's, if there are still a great number of anti-cult activists who criticize Rawat still in the 21st century? Wouldn't it be more accurate to reflect this by not placing his critics solely in the past? Mael-Num 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mael-Num. Isn't it likely, from the lack of current followers editing this article, that Jossi and Momento probably have the 'official job' of maintaining this important public profile of Prem Rawat? So, I would imagine that the current PR advice from Rawat's organisation must be to marginalise criticism by placing it safely in the past. It's probably as simple as that. Currently active critics are a more organised, focussed and more determined threat than ever, as we see from the Elan Vital websites painting them as a small 'hate group' and the references to them in Cagan's new book. Past ones are not. They can be explained away. Furthermore most of the present day anti-cult movements activity consists of publications on the internet whereas in the past it was in papers and on long-forgotten TV shows. Jossi and Momento are able to continuously avoid referring to these websites for the reasons they keep trotting out. Ie. it is not verifiable..it is a minority opinion etc. etc.PatW

Okay. Well, here's the thing. In this edit, it looks like you reversed the wording to read anti-cult groups of the 1970's. You also fixed a typo of "knowledge". So, I was wondering if there was a reason why you didn't like the wording. If you think it's not important to show that his current critics are as active (you seem to think that his current critics are even more active, if I'm reading you right), then I won't try to change that line. Otherwise, I think it's best to try and put forth our best effort in presenting the truth, even if we suspect other editors with alternative agendas may not approve. But then again, I'm clearly an idealistic fool. Mael-Num 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really weird. The only edit I made was the spelling correction of the typo. That other edit was nothing to do with me at all, so I'm wondering why it's attributed to me. Any ideas? Of course I would not make this kind of misleading alteration. I guess I was right... they do want to imply criticism was a thing of the past. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't idealistic and yes, probably a fool too. Thanks again for your help. Your comments have been a breath of fresh air for me.PatW

From one fool to another, you're welcome!

Also, if you have a free moment, would you please take a look at the discussion here? The gist of the argument is that I think there should be a summary of criticism in the lead that includes mention of Rawat's plush lifestyle, the discouraging of critical and objective thinking in the teaching of Knowledge, and accusations of psychological manipulation and financial exploitation. Jossi thinks that due weight would only include Rawat's lifestyle and Knowledge's intellectual content. Momento appears to want no criticism in the lead, and that critical content in the article itself is enough. Your opinion would mean a great deal in this ongoing discussion. Thank you. Mael-Num 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. I'm not sure I've succeeded in making much headway in this little argument. I somehow think Jossi and Momento are never going to be impressed by my reasoning. I tried anyway:-( PatW

Mael-Num, if you want to see another intelligent take on what we're up against here I recommend taking a look at this page http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/md.htm by an academic ex-follower - check the bit about WikipediaPatW

Engaging vs Complaining

Pat, I write this here as I think it is more appropriate. I have invited you countless times to engage in editing the Prem Rawat article, but so far all you have done is complain about what you consider not to be a "balanced neutral-sounding article". Your arguments have been that you do not have the time, or that you are concerned that your edits will be reverted by me or others, or that it would be a "waste of time".

Let me dispel these myths for you: (a) Articles are edited by those people that want to edit them, providing that they abide by Wikipedia content policies. We assume the good faith of these editors, we treat them with respect, and we welcome their contributions; (b) Material that is well sourced and attributed cannot be summarily deleted by anyone, as it is considered vandalism. If you want your edits to pass the test and scrutinity of other editors, just make sure that the sources you provide are bonafide and compliant; (c) the article has been edited by a myriad of editors for almost three years, many of which are neither "proponents" or "detractors", and it represents in its current state, the best effort of all of them combined. If you are in disagreement, then the best choice is to engage. If you do not have the time to do so, that does not give you the right to ask others not to edit, or to question their participation because they do.

Take care, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, except that I feel I have a right to argue on the Talk Page whether I edit or not. I feel there is a need to demonstrate there, through argument- not 'ad hominem' attacks- that the honesty of the editors is sometimes clearly dubious. It's as simple as that. How can that be out of place when this article is peer judged as being dishonestly put? Doesn't the question naturally arise as to where is this dishonesty coming from. If I think I can expose where the dishonesty is coming from, why is it not a good thing to do so? A perfect example of this is Momento's latest comment. He has an opportunity to verify or deny whether he is being dishonest and I think if he doesn't I have proved my point. Besides you are the only person who is suggesting I'm out of place. Please consider this very carefully before you reprimand me (and not Momento) for being cynical. I am not cynical. I mean every word of what I write.PatW

I haven't said that your comments are out of place. I have only stated that complaining achieves nothing, in my view. We have now a review from an independent editor, and a lot of work to do if we want the article to be upgrade from B-class to GA status. That's all. Will you participate in that process? Well, that is up to you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably will try to do some edits in the coming weeks since I've just finished a very intensive movie sountrack and I'm free (ish) again for a bit. I am still very unsure as to what material is permissable. Everybody seems to have a different viewpoint especially as regards the stuff on www.ex-premie.org I would ideally like some comment from others like Mael-Num , Smee, and the other reviewer Vassayana was it? on this specific point. When I am clearer about what everyone agrees is permissable I think then I would be very inspired to set about trying to present it in a balanced way. Obviously that would involve some specific test cases. A part of me thinks that it would be really interesting to see what kind of a job premies could do on their own, putting the critical POV back in. I would be fascinated to see just how successful they could be in doing that . Just how 'honest' premies could be. Otherwise I guess it will naturally be for people who actually want to assert criticisms to put that material in. In all honesty that is my current position. I may have overstepped slightly on the assuming good faith front. I see that. But I'm going to give that whole thing some time to consider before I comment further. Sometimes it's best to be less impulsive I guess. One thing I feel right now is the onus is slightly more on those who have resisted the suggested changes to set about changing that than those who've been advocating such. Maybe I'll feel different about that soon. Also I suppose my impression is that there has been so much mutual suspician about premie v. ex-premie motives that it is a little hard to just suddenly co-operate. I'm thinking this through. Of course at this stage the reviewers have effectively accused the premie editors (in my view) of dishonesty, not the people trying to assert the missing critical POV. That's important. Again that rather puts the onus on the premie editors to demonstarte honesty. That's just my initial impression.PatW

Ashram Manual

Here's the manual, it will be the most authorative source on the ashram. Not sure when it was printed. And here's a comment from Rawat in Downton's "Sacred Journeys" - "This move stimulated another change in the movement by encouraging independent action on the part of premies. For example, the guru had inspired greater autonomy by saying in January 1976: "Don't expect that all these premies who are in the ashram right now are going to stay in the ashram. I hope they don't." This comment had the effect of producing a widespread exodus from the ashrams that year, which gave rise to an individualistic attitude. This was reflected in Alan's outlook at the close of 1976. "Everyone is beginning to see that Divine Light Mission is just a bunch of people trying to meditate and love each other. All the holier-than-thou bullshit is crumbling. I don't have to wait for Guru Maharaj Ji to communicate through all the layers of leadership to me in order to learn what I need to know. Just a few months ago, I was still looking to Denver for guidance, but that is changing."Momento 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the manual but I've seen it before at EPO. so I've deleted it. As you know Downton goes on to explain how in 1977 Rawat brought back the devotion and ashrams in earnest until 1980's. I was a part of this next wave of ashram premies who were BTW, much more severely vetted for suitability. It was a whole new thing and deadly serious too.PatW 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downton is on EPO. Momento 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is interesting. Thanks, I'll read it.PatW 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

private chat

move from user namespace

Hello Pat. I would like to chat privately with you. Do you have an e-mail addess we could use? Rumiton 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I've enabled 'email this user' from this page now.PatW 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) And sent you my email address to you here (I hope it worked this time)PatW 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks - 2nd warning

Regarding this comment There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you , you SCHOOL PREFECT you can take your bad behaviour badges and stick them up the headmasters bottom! Kindly refrain from redecorating my nice little study here with your ugly little threats in future. It's not fair and I'm telling my dad.PatW 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

Regarding your comment above and this one]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatW, I know it can be frustrating when your edits are removed at times, but you won't get very far at all on Wikipedia if you do not follow the WP:NPA policy. It is best if you try to stick to discussing content directly, not the actual contributors themselves, unless they violate a policy or actively personally attack others, etc. I would personally suggest taking a break, maybe finding some area that is neglected, and creating a new article, which is always fun for me. In the future, if you feel things are escalating, it is always best to step back, and seek out advice from an uninvolved party, and I find that WP:THIRD and/or WP:RFC are helpful ways to do this. If you are unfamiliar with these two avenues and how to request them, please ask me for help. Smee 05:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is Wikpedia a place for healing?

Despite numerous attempts to encourage you to engage constructively, you have chosen not to do so. There is very little that is asked from contributors in this regard: be civil, engage constructively, and stay cool. If you cannot do that then, yes Wikipedia may not be for you.

Note that your user page is not to be used as a place to attack or discuss your views of other editors. See WP:USERPAGE. I would suggest you rephrase your comments in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise these comments will be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing these comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've removed the bits I suppose were contentious. Of course, I have taken responsibility for my accusative remarks. It's no crime to explain why they were made and to attempt to put them into some context. However no, I cannot take all the responsibility for uncivil behaviour or lack of collaboration to the extent to which you accuse me. I feel your accusations were substantially over-dramatised and unfairly aimed soley at me on this occasion. In fact in all good faith, I am of the impression that you simply cannot have read the entire thread of discussion or my edits that lead up to my 'unfortunate remarks'. If you'd looked at my numerous edits to Momento's proposed article there would be no way you could accuse me of lack of collaboration or being frustrated for no good reason. Unfortunately for me it seems no-one else can be bothered to look at my comments in more context.PatW 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the thread and yes, editing alongside people that have a point of view that is opposite to one's own can be very frustrating at times. Just go and take a look at other article's talk pages. But that is no excuse for losing our tempers. Wikipedia is unique in that as it is really the only place in which people with opposing views can collaborate in real-time for the purpose of creating informative, well sourced and neutral articles. And how is that possible? Because there are some policies and guidelines that have been adopted by the community that provide a safe environment for that collaboration to happen. You keep resorting to accusations against other editors, you say that people treat you unfairly, that no one other than you wants to balance the article, etc. but the fact is that when a third party reviewed the article, other editors than you went ahead, congratulated the reviewer and rolled their sleeves to work on the issues raised. You did not. Instead you wasted everybody's time in a discussion about primary sources. When the same reviewer commended editors on the progress made, you repeat the same lame accusations against him ("are you also a follower?) Lastly, when the personal attacks ensued and a truce was proposed by a third party, other editors accepted it immediately, but you did not.

Basically Pat, the behavior here is at fault is your, not mine or anyone else. Your comment about "a healing process" that you purport to advocate is revealing, inasmuch as your sentiment that you are hurt, and the belief that if that is the case you will be the healer, and Wikipedia the platform for such process. For the first, that is your perception which you are entitle to, of course. For the second, no one has asked you to be that; and for the third, Wikipedia is not such a platform to address these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept it was not a waste of time discussing primary sources. We established we might use DLM publications which was very unclear.
Sure I was hurt and I don't pretend to believe I will be a healer but as I say, it would be healing for many, including me if you guys could be more honest about the past here on Wikipedia. As I said I've failed to be a healing influence. You are clearly cynical about the possibility of healing taking place here. Why? PatW 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Healing" presupposes "a wound", PatW. I do not feel hurt, thus I need no healing. In any case, if there are people that feel hurt and that need healing they need to do that somewhere else and not here in Wikipedia, as its purpose (building an encyclopedia through collaborative editing) has nothing to do with catharsis, healing or atonement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes of course but just imagine for a moment that the Prem Rawat article here were a completely revisionist lie fabricated by TPRF. (No I know it isn't, this is just a theoretical scenario) That would be offensive to people who lived through those times wouldn't it? So, in that theoretical scenario, it might be considered healing for those people who were hurt, if TPRF told the truth. Look at it the other way if you prefer, as if it were dominated by ex-students attacking Rawat hurting his students feelings. Same thing... healing occurs when 2 sides compromise. You seem in denial that something analagous to these situations is happening here. Well I beg to differ. There is no definitively perfect article that you will arrive at here. It will be in effect a compromise between what people argue and agree is permissable. Because for size, not all material can be included, it is inevitable that opposing POV's push their selective quotes to promote their POV. So if there is no compromise or mutual good faith then one side wins and then the other...on and on. You seem now disinterested in the obvious notion that co-operation is in itself healing. Which I find odd since that is what you yourself are keen to remind me is what is required here. Where does it say that collaboarative editing can't be cathartic? I think that's just nonsense. And why should editors not have such noble aspirations if they want?PatW 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Pat, is that articles in Wikipedia are not about compromises made between proponents and opponents. For example, the article about Abortion is not about finding a balance and compromise between Pro-choice editors and and Pro-life editors, but rather, about describing the significant viewpoints as published in sources deemed reliable per the standards described in Wikipedia policies. This mistake, framing the dispute as one that needs to find balance between editing factions, is quite common in this project, but most definitively wrong. Another mistake made is framing the dispute as if there are two equally significant sides that deserve the same attention, when in many subjects that is not the case. That is why there is a very specific wording related to undue weight.

Regarding collaboration, I have seen some excellent examples on that happening, when respect and civility is put forth as a priority by involved editors, and there is an understanding that the article you are working one will never be the one you will write if you had your way, but one that maybe you can live with. When that understanding and commitment to civility is not there, there is no collaboration possible and content disputes usually degrades into personal altercations, flaming, frustration, anger and escalation that never ends up well.

Finally, I would invite you to read this essay, called Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, in which you can find some interesting thoughts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't be framed as a dispute between proponents and opponents but unfortunately it is because proponents (Momento in particular) are determined to limit quotes 'describing the significant viewpoints' to those emphasise their POV. So that is exactly what this article has become a dispute between people proponents trying to limit information and we who would like more info provided. In short I think the proponents are wrong and that everybody else (almost) is right.
As regards the essay I don't how this supports your assertion that: people that feel hurt and that need healing they need to do that somewhere else and not here in Wikipedia, as its purpose (building an encyclopedia through collaborative editing) has nothing to do with catharsis, healing or atonement.
On the contrary it seems to be confirming my point. Especially this bit:
'As a collaborative project creating reference works, Wikipedia and its associated projects offer opportunities for users to practice collaborative constructive work. While not intended as therapy, this work may have therapeutic and rehabilitative effects. Anyone who is able to benefit from this is very welcome.' PatW 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible but only if the etiquette and respect is there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about most honest use of quotes to describe views about Rawat's perceived Divinity

PatW, you claim that "this article has become a dispute between people proponents trying to limit information and we who would like more info provided". An interesting comment since the cause of your current anger is the fact that you removed important info and I opposed it.Momento 07:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely knew you'd say that. 1st It did not appear as a quote at all at that time. Try to understand my intentions and stick to the argument about which quotes we should maybe lose. I replaced ONE sentence (which at the time was not a quote if you recall correctly) on a sandbox page and included more from the adjacent one which I considered addressed the matter more fully (ie. why Rawat was perceived as divine). Furthermore I invited discussion on all the edits I did that day which were numerous and generally concerned with mild shortening. Then when you objected to removing the 'denial' sentence (which you made up and which I did not know was later going to be linked to a quote) I said I was perfectly happy about including it. No problem. Actually I am not angry I just strongly object to my intentions being misconstrued all the time. Particluarly by you in fact as we see over this matter. My intention is to simply retain the correct and documented information that Rawat both denied being God AND encouraged devotess to see him in the way they wished ie. divine. (and my use of capitals is not 'shouting' it is emphasis).PatW 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be easily resolved, Pat. Agree to the truce proposed by Vassyana, and we can all proceed and move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stick to the argument about which quotes we should maybe lose"!?!?!?. But PatW, you said "the dispute was between people proponents trying to limit information and we who would like more info provided". And I repeated your words exactly as you wrote them in my reply. You removed important info. And the info you removed was the only info addressing the preceeding quote of Hoffman's. And the "denial sentence" was not made up PatW, it was a paraphrase, like 90% of the article. Look up "divine" in the dictionary and save us all a lot of inconvenience.Momento 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, what do you want me to say? Yes I removed that but I was more than happy for it to go back in and said so. Essentially I was proposing that more info was included and I considered the Collier quote qualifies Rawat's denial very significantly. Have you read the Collier book? It's here: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface

She says this:

"Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' "
I think people should know the wider reported facts about the matter which are well supported by reliable sources. We need to shed light on why premies thought he was Divine/God-like, God or whatever. You're taking a very paranoid stance in my opinion. You appear to think you are somehow protecting Rawat from being 'accused' of some kind of blasphemy. At least that's the way I read it. I don't think that in this day and age people will 'crucify' Rawat for acting as a Krishna or Jesus-type avatar as he once did. Remember they didn't claim to be God either. I think Rawat may be criticised and even respected more if he were more open in public about his (former?) belief in his divine role as Perfect Master but so what? Honesty is better than lying about it. At least Jesus had the guts to say in front of the Pharasees when asked if he was the Messiah. "I am He" and so on. You are just trying to emphasise the 'sheepish' denials Rawat gave to the US press and play down the fact he encouraged people to worship and obey him as The Lord Guru Maharaji. What about the parts which Colllier refers to where he promises 'Salvation'. Why do you pretend this is irrelevant?10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Here are some more Collier quotes that maybe help explain why people thought he was the Lord:

'This story indicated to me that Maharaj Ji did not think he was God; he understood that he was a bumbling prince whose claim to power was a placebo called Knowledge. In order to get Knowledge to work he had to talk it up, act as though it were a cosmic mystery, "the holiest of all secrets."
Beyond my religious doubts, I had some doubts about Maharaj Ji himself. From listening to the stories of his activities, I believed I knew him a little better than to think he was divine. Mostly, to me, Maharaj Ji was a charming teenage prankster, a future friend.' 

'Most of the mahatmas were of the opinion that not only was Maharaj Ji divine himself, but so were the four other members of his family. I think it was Mata, Guru Maharaj Ji's mother, who came up with this idea and then spread it around. In this scheme, Mata embodied the compassionate characteristics of God. She was the Holy Mother, Mother of Creation. Bal Bhagwan Ji, the eldest brother, embodied wisdom and intellect. Bhole Ji, the next brother, embodied art and music. (This was a singularly unappealing idea, because Bhole Ji's appearance and speech were not very graceful. Believers in the "five fingers of God" idea, ever inventing ways to patch up leaks in their cosmology, excused his lack of aesthetic appeal by saying Bhole Ji "hadn't gotten out of his deep meditation yet.") Raja Ji, the third brother, was supposed to embody courage or the qualities of statesmanship. In the future world the mahatmas envisioned, Raja Ji was the King.'

'Because of this frustration most premies started to develop a more flashy variety of witnessing to communicate their message. People would go out of our office with a stack of "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" leaflets and discreetly tell everyone who would pause long enough to hear that this Guru Maharaj Ji, age fifteen, was another Jesus Christ Here In The Flesh To Save The World. While this type of promotion appears to be a frontal attack on fixed beliefs, it did attract many people. Justine, a top model, beauty consultant, and friend of the late Charles Revson, told me of the time when she first saw a DLM poster, circa 1972, which blatantly declared, "The Lord is Here." "That's someone who can help me," Justine thought, and wrote down the number. She is still associated with DLM today.' PatW 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you cannot use Collier's quote to "qualify Rawat's denial very significantly", if you remove the denial completely. As for divine stuff, the article already "sheds light on why (some) premies thought he was Divine/God-like, God or whatever (and don't forget the whatever). It explains that he was an Indian guru, that his organisation was called Divine Light Mission, that he had mahatmas, that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet when they were in his presence as a demonstration of worship, that he set up Indian style Ashrams, that claims of divinity were made on his behalf by members of Divine Light Mission, Indian mahatmas, his mother and his brothers, that Abbie Hoffman commented: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves.", that Sophia Collier wrote, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life..[he] generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with". It ought to be clear to even the most obtuse reader that Rawat was a fully fledged, dyed in the wool Indian guru with all the atributes and customs that role entails and people responded to that in different ways. Collier's quote covers the whole spectrum - some thought of him as the Lord of Creation and some thought of him in a more human way, as a teacher, a guide. The teaqchings section says - Sant teachings are distinguished theologically by a loving devotion to a divine principle, universalism, equality, direct experience, rejection of ritual and dogma, and by attempts to reconcile conflicting doctrines (syncretism). Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, a noted Sant teacher, wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". There's a limit to what can go in an article, if peple want to know more they can read Collier, Downton,Cagan, Melton etcMomento 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly said that I'm fine about including 'denial of being God' quotes but I maintain that we need to balance that with this bit from Collier which is about Rawat's often apparently contradictory statements which go a long way to accounting for why people actually believed he was the Lord:

"Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' "

What I would like you to consider is the overall tone created by the existing and/or proposed selected quotes. What I and many others have objected to, which you have yet to properly discuss, is this: The article seems to be contrived to give the overall impression that Rawat was not himself responsible for encouraging followers to worship him as divine and that others (ie Mahatmas, his family, followers) were more or less entirely responsible for that. Of course clearly they played a large part, but it's not really clear from the quotes you select how much Rawat (Maharaji) himself believed it himself or encouraged it. That is deliberately played down in my opinion and many people think it's unneccessary and dishonest.

1) Do you think Collier or Downton or the other sources you select quotes from think he was just a victim of his upbringing and did not actually himself act the Lord to his followers?

2) Can you find one quote where Rawat implies he is not the Lord?

I think it's clear that some people close to Rawat knew him 'a little better' than 'some others. What is unclear is that the vast majority of students only knew him from afar, or from his speeches where he adopted a tone of divine authority mixed with an appealing capriciousness:

This from Foss and Larkin 1978:

'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master:
"I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.) PatW 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The guru's first visit to Colorado in 1971 created great excitement, similar to that of a Christian revival meeting, as a sizable crowd of young people from the counterculture gathered in the mountains to see the 13-year-old guru whom people were calling the "Lord."(Downton indicating that people were calling Rawat lord before he'd even arrived in America) "From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge, or life force, more fully. This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age". (Downton)

2) Reporter: "Are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?; Maharaji Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world" (Richard M. Levine, The Seventies, 2000, p. 104)

3) Collier didn't say people close' to Rawat knew him 'a little better". She said that people who knew Rawat a little better than others realised he wasn't the Lord of Creation here in the flesh". You didn't need to be close to him, you just needed to listen to what he said. Momento 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Momento please would you add your replies at the bottom of the page and sign them. Otherwise it's confusing.PatW 12:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I think the biggest controversies about Rawat really are the contadictions of his own teachings and his own words. I think it might be appropriate to create a new section in the article titled perhaps, "Contradictions of Divinity and Teachings." For instance, the assertions that Momento makes concerning concerning his denial of divinity to the press are correct, however, but Collier is also correct when she states "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God." The Wood and other interviews back up Colliers claim. Moreover, Rawat made demands of surrender over and over throughout the later years of the 70s. He did that all of the time, but by then, he never spoke to the press. While the Peace Bomb satsang was given by Rawat in India, it was widely presented in the U.S., UK, Europe, and throughout the western world as a part of demonstrating to people the extent of Guru Maharaj Ji's power.

In the 1973 Wood Boston Globe interview, (already referenced in the draft/bio article) Rawat does state that that he "is just humble servant of God." Yet, he also says he reveals the same Knowledge as Jesus revealed. When pressed, he compares himself to the disciple John. He also explains that his Knowledge is the same Knowledge described in scriptures such as the Bible, Gita, Koran, and Ramayana. In fact, Rawat mentions Jesus around a dozen times in the interview. These statements are quotes, not "misunderstandings" by followers at the time." Not only that, when Wood asks Maharaji about how his Knowledge affects the world, in order to emphasize the power that he has over his six million followers worldwide (in 1973) he states that if he told someone to jump out of a window, they would do it, and because many of his followers have been murderers/criminals, they would do the same thing again if Rawat asked them to do it. Then Rawat qualifies the remark by saying, he wouldn't that, because he has Knowledge. Rawat's teachings are rife with contradictions throughout the years and that should be an important part of the article, imo. Sylviecyn 15:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Syviecyn. I see it as a good thing to balance the viewpoint that he made contradictory statements with the viewpoint that he didn't.PatW 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go too deep into this analysis, please re-read WP:SYN (a sub-section of No original research. In Wikipedia we are not to make our own analysis of subjects, rather we report the analysis made and published by others. So, this discussion may be interesting as a discussion of editors opinions, but has not relevance and/or bearing for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that a substantial collection of quotes is available at Wikiquote to which we are linking from the article. That collection is available to readers for them to make their own conclusions. I will oppose any selective use of quotes to assert a specific viewpoint, regardless of what viewpoint is that, on the basis of violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, as you know, I think you are being negative and assuming our motives are solely to assert our POV. I am not sure that your ideal of 'no viewpoint being asserted' can be achieved unless totally unbiased people edit - but we need to try since we are the only ones actually involved. Tell me please. Don't you think you and Momento are just as likely to select quotes to assert your POV as me or anyone else? The fact is we are restricted to carefully choosing short quotes so as to be concise. So, in my view, it makes sense to analyse in discussion what points we need to illustrate through those quotes, to give a fair picture.This business of Maharaji's denials of divinity and yet contradictory statements, needs to be talked about so as we can decide what's fair. It's patently obvious that their are 2 opposing views here. Can I suggest that you stop (for a moment(o), polarising us and assume some good faith that we are open to sensible argument about the matter. I will try not to cast you as a 'biased follower' and you might want to also wind down your suspicion of us as 'detractors'. PatW 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not addressing you as a detractor, neither addressing Momento as a proponent. I am just addressing the fact that any compilation of quotes to assert any viewpoint, will be a violation of WP:SYN, unless that compilation has been published as such in a reliable source. See other biographical articles and you will notice that quotes of speeches are seldom used, for that reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B..b..but Momento used quotes of Rawat denying he was God and you didn't tick her off. Or was that a quote within a reliable source within a reliable source? I give up. PatW 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was ~~pot~~ not addressed to you specifically, but to all editors. I copied my message in the article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Pot addressed to me' ? This is getting crazier by the minute. Oh and please answer this: Don't you think you and Momento are just as likely to select quotes or information from reliable sources to assert your POV as me or anyone else?PatW 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it over there. Is that a yes or no or a maybe?PatW 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatW. You are so wrong, so often it makes my head spin. Jossi clearly refered to "quotes of speeches". The "I'm not god" quote comes from an interview.Momento 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless. PatW asks me to find "one quote where Rawat implies he is not the Lord"? So I find him a quote that is clear and unambiguous and PatW ignores it because it directly contradicts PatW assertions. Same with the Collier quote which says that in the early 70s there were different views of who Rawat was. So PatW inserts "close to" Maharaji into Collier's quote to try to suggest only a few people "knew better". Let's face it PatW and SylvieCyn, you "sincerely believed that Guru Maharaj Ji was the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world". But those who knew him a little better than that (and took on board the "I'm not the Messiah" quote from 1973 which would have passed by word of mouth to every premie in the world) relate to him in a more human way, more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life". Knowing Rawat better wasn't a matter of being physically close to him but a matter of listening and doing what Rawat said. As Downton writes "From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge, or life force, more fully..... Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies (like PatW and SylvieCyn) from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age". And you're still doing 30 years later. Momento 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, you signed the truce didn't you? If so, you just broke it and personally attacked myself and Pat. Please stick to the subject and not the editors. Please cool off. Thanks. Sylviecyn 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the truce applies to the PR article not this talk page. And saying you believed Rawat to be the Lord of Creation is not an attack but a non critical opinion of your beliefs. If you and PatW were the ones who knew him a little bit better, and saw him in a more human way, more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life, I apologise.Momento 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to drop the personal attacks thing, there's no point in arguing the terms of the truce, when they're spelled out in black and white. But I have to tell you a real darshan story. ~~Most~~ I have to say that all of the DECA premies (many) that I knew, thought and spoke of Maharaji as their Lord, the LOTU, and behaved that way around him every day, and he knew that we revered him as the Lord of the Universe. That included the two people to whom I directly reported, who managed the entire project for the B707. These two premies were also very close to Maharaji both on the project and personally -- their kids played together, there was social contact. etc. both of these men worshipped Maharaji. One day Maharaji asked the project manager my name (I'll withhold his name for his privacy as he's now an ex-premie). When he told Maharaji my name, Maharaji told him that he thought I was a really good example of a devotee of his, because of how I responded to him (Maharaji) and because of my dedication and devotion to him (Maharaji). The project manager later told me personally about Maharaji's comments about me, and he also spoke about it at a DECA staff meeting/satsang. So please don't tell me that I was confused about Maharaji's agya, teachings, or what Maharaji required of community premies, ashram premies, or close premies. Don't be so presumptious to say that I had concepts that Maharaji didn't want me to have, because I absolutely was not confused, based upon what Maharaji himself said. In fact, one of the "hiring" criteria of being transferred to the DECA project in its early stages was that every premie be extremely devoted to Maharaji. I was told that when I was interviewed for DECA in April, 1979. This doesn't break any rules, because I haven't signed-off on the truce, and I'm discussing myself only. Sylviecyn 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being devoted to Rawat didn't require you to think he's the Creator in the Flesh or the Messiah or God. They are independent.Momento 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento: the truce applies to all articles and talk pages. Yours was not a personal attack, in my opinion, but not appropriate nonetheless. Discuss the article rather than the editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In the Truce section at the PR article are the following modifiers 1) in relation to this article". 2) even outside of this article. 3) thereby poisoning the atmosphere here. 4) cool down break from this article.There is no suggestion this truce applies PatWTalk, otherwise I would have had to report both PatW and SylvieCyn for their activities here. However as you have noted Jossi, it was not a personal attack. But SylvieCyn's deliberate distortion of my comments on PR TALK are. I clearly wrote,"I'm going to propose we replace this article with the one that has been written according to Wiki:Lead and GA standards", not "unilaterally replace the entire article without consensus" as SylviaCyn asserts. I'm going out to dinner, back in four hours.Momento 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, neither Pat nor I have signed nor agreed to the truce so we're not bound by anything. You were the first person to sign both Vassyana's and Jossi's truces, so you are bound by both. Who were you planning to report "our activities" to? Yours is the first post in this section! Btw, I didn't intentionally distort what you wrote about preparing the draft for finalization. It was an honest mistake of reading too fast -- sorry about that. :-) Sylviecyn 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be bound by these agreements, but does not give anyone license not to abide by WP:NPA, or WP:CIVIL. I am sure you understand that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jossi. I understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thanks. Sylviecyn 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again SylvieCyn. My post of 07:04, 8 April 2007 was not the first post in this section. After I had written it PatW, for reasons unknown to me, decided to create a new headline above my post on 21:11, 9 April 2007. Perhaps another apology for another honest mistake?Momento 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Momento. Just as you think my arguments are 'so wrong' I happen to think yours are too. I hold out some hope that somebody you need to respect will point out to you the error of your ways, you surely don't get what I'm driving at. Regarding your indignity that I did not reply yet to your answers to my question. I just haven't had time yet.PatW 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not indignant. Just pointing out that you ask a question and then make ten further edits that ignore the reply.Momento 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here's my response Momento. Have patience I'm not ignoring you. I asked you whether you thought Collier or Downton etc. considered Rawat to be just a victim of his upbringing and did not actually himself act the Lord to his followers. So rather than a simple 'yes' or 'no' you select a passage from Downton which suggests he was a victim of his ubringing but simply does not at all deny that he acted the Lord to his followers. I'm sorry but you have not found a quote that says he didn't. Why? Because he did and there are quotes to substantiate that from reliable sources. Like the Collier one:

"Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' "

Next I ask you for a quote where Rawat implies he is not the Lord. You provide this:-

Reporter: "Are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?; Maharaji Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world" (Richard M. Levine, The Seventies, 2000, p. 104)

OK. Maybe you're right about this. He does imply he's not the Lord. But it is patently one of those 'sheepish denials' Collier reports, at very best. He does not say 'No' he just asks not to be 'presumed' as that and describes himself as something else which leaves the possibilty quite open that he may be the Messiah as well. His reply is clearly ambiguous. After all, historically the biblical Messiah was seen to be also a 'humble servant of God'. In fact to be so was a quality of the Messiah. Maybe I should have asked you for a quote where Rawat says outright he is not the Lord. I bet you you can't find one!

Finally you claim I have twisted Colliers quote when I said I thought it was clear that some people close to Rawat knew him 'a little better' than some others, but it's not made clear that the vast majority of students only knew him from afar, or from his speeches.
The only twisting here is your twisting my words to imply I was referring just to the Collier quote. You're quite wrong. I was on this occasion asserting what I and many others consider the historic truth. I would point out that Collier does not suggest relative proportions as to how many people 'knew him a little better' than to think him the Lord. You are the one who appears to believe that the majority did not believe this. You then go on to mock me for being one of the believers. Again you are polarising people which is unfair. Has it not occurred to you that people may have gone through phases of belief in him as the Lord or, when they got to know him a little better they revised (or refined) that opinion, or anything in between? That is actually what I believe Collier describes. (I've read the context). To set the record straight I was never just a believer, I saw Rawat very much how I think most people saw him, as a Master, maybe a Lord but also a human being with human failings. I've met him on quite a few occasions. In the 90's I was talking with him in his garden in a very normal way. As we talked, a guy came up and fell flat on his face on the ground and literally crawled up to his feet prostrate. We just carried on talking. Rawat seemed comfortable about people treating him with that kind of reverence and also with me not following suit. Collier is right that Rawat encourages people to see him whichever way they like..Lord and Master or just a regular guy. That's cool. What's not cool is to insinuate that Rawat did not encourage his followers to see him as the Lord more than just as a regular guy, in his teachings. Nowadays he doesn't do that maybe. But he did. Even his wife used to publicly pray to him (in Arti) and treat him as her Lord, and she presumably knew him better than most! PatW 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First point. It is obvious that Rawat's behaviour was greatly influenced by his father, his family and his culture. By the time he arrived in the West Rawat had been a devotee of an Indian guru for half his life and then had five years of being a fully fledged guru himself. He had tens of thousands of Indian devotees who treated him like an embodiment of God on earth. That was his history when he arrived in the west and that's how he behaved when he arrived. Rawat wasn't "acting as the Lord to his followers", he was behaving as an Indian guru, in the same way as he had for years. But as soon as he was exposed to Western ideas and culture he began to change. Specifically when Rawat turned 16 and applied to become "an emancipated minor" and was legally free from his mother and able to make his own decisions. Downing writes that at "the end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past". Both Downton and Collier and most other scholars make the point that Rawat, DLM and the mahatmas were largely controlled by his mother until the split. But the real issue is this. Rawat sees his father, and himself, as being two of a succession of gurus. When one guru dies, his successor takes over. It is not the Christian or Moslem concept that there has only ever been one Lord and he's coming back soon. He views his father as being the most important human being that has ever been born only because he showed Rawat God. Rawat's followers may see Rawat as a Guru, but Rawat sees himself as a devotee of his father. When Rawat praised Guru Maharaj JI, he was praising his father and the guru role. He was not saying that his father or himself was the Messiah or the Prophet or "the one and only" LOTU because he doesn't believe in those Christian or Moslem concepts. Rawat was an Indian guru until he decided he could better follow his father's instructions to take Knowledge to the world by dropping the guru thing. And being a good devotee to his father, that's what he did.

Second point. You asked for a quote where Rawat implies he is not the Lord and I gave you one. As for "denying" being the Lord, Rawat's idea of being a lord and yours are obviously worlds apart as I explained in the previous paragraph. Rawat thought his father was his lord or the Lord for him and he made that clear on numerous occasions. So according to Rawat, there is only one Lord for him and his father is it but there are many Lords and not as defined by Christians or Moslems.

Finally, you were referring to the Collier quote. And I know "Collier does not suggest relative proportions as to how many people 'knew him a little better'. Nor did Collier suggest physical proximity has anything to do with "knowing him a little better". I agree that people " have gone through phases of belief in him as the Lord or, when they got to know him a little better they revised (or refined) that opinion, or anything in between". Exactly. As people knew Rawat better or, more accurately, understood Rawat (and his teachings) better, the less likely they were to think of him as "the Creator made flesh". Rawat did not encourage his followers to see him as the Lord as you obviously define it. Rawat encouraged people to see him as an Indian guru and there are a million quotes to prove it.Momento 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Momento but my view is that the "Indian guru" who you admit "Rawat encouraged people to see him as" was traditionally seen as the Lord and both Rawat and his father apparently taught that. I agree Rawat has toned that claim down now, and maybe doesn't believe it or has denied it - but since we are debating this, here's an argument that is surely conclusive. By the way I am not trying to devalue Rawat as a teacher, I am simply astonished and concerned that you would feel the need to deny this stuff. It would may be interesting and constructive if Rawat himself shed some light on all this. Do you think that would damage his reputation or enhance it? Personally I think the latter. My belief is that there is a lot of fear that goes along with the perception of an Almighty Lord and that should be faced in this day and age. Anyway here's my counter-argument to yours.

In your first point you argue that Rawat wasn't acting the Lord because he was behaving as an Indian Guru in the tradition of his father. Also you claim that "when Rawat praised Guru Maharaj JI, he was praising his father and the guru role. He was not saying that his father or himself was the Messiah or the Prophet or "the one and only" Lord of the Universe because he doesn't believe in those Christian or Moslem concepts."
I think anyone reading the following will clearly see that Rawat's father believed that the Satguru (which he and Rawat claimed to be) was everything you claim Rawat thought he wasn't. Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' Also note that he makes comparisons with both Christ and Buddha thus disproving your statement :
My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.
 Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.
  If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry.
  One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother.
  The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee.
  One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.
  When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
  Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
  I dispute your second point that "Rawat did not encourage his followers to see him as the Lord as you obviously define it." simply because I have not invented my own definition of the meaning of the word 'Lord' at all. Actually I don't pretend to know exactly what 'The Lord' is. Anyway I'd have thought it was quite clear that Rawat himself considered that the Satguru (ie the physical person) was a similar kind of Lord (The or 'A') as Christ or Krishna. (see quote below) It seems obvious that he embraced the views of his father and continued to do so but maybe in a lesser manner as time went by. As we know he said these things starting when he was very young and obviously believing what his father said. Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge."
(from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood.  (from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful.....
  (from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.)
Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.
(extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972. Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:)
You say "Also note that he makes comparisons with both Christ and Buddha thus disproving your statement". On the contrary, Shri Hans doesn't just compare his guru Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj to Christ and Buddha, he says his guru is "greater" than Christ and Buddha. Shri Hans obviously doesn't believe that either Jesus or Buddha is a one and only, eternal, perfect, never to be repeated, incomparable Lord. Shri Hans and Rawat don't have a Christian definition of there being one Almighty Lord for all time, a perfect being that is beyond comparison. They see Christ or Buddha (and Totapuri ji, Anandpuri ji and Advaitanand ji) as teachers but of less importance than their rerspective gurus because they believe that the greatest guru is the one who saves you. That's the guru they love and adore and that's why Shri hans endlessly praises Swarupanand ji and Rawat endlessly praises his Shri Hans.

How can you have a debate about whether Rawat said he was or wasn't a lord when you can't stick to a description of a "Lord"?Momento 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well consider me a simple fellow who generally accepts the meaning of Lord as per the English Language. (same goes for The Lord. )

You say: Shri Hans and Rawat don't have a Christian definition of there being one Almighty Lord for all time, a perfect being that is beyond comparison.
No, of course they don't have the same definition as some Christians or Buddhists. But I'm sorry...yes they do have their own definitions. And that is precicely what those quotes illustrate... their definitions of a SatGuru and indeed Christ and Krishna. Rawat clearly states:"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. So he says they gave the same Knowledge as who? Who do you think?
Next you say:They see Christ or Buddha (and Totapuri ji, Anandpuri ji and Advaitanand ji) as teachers but of less importance than their respective gurus because they believe that the greatest guru is the one who saves you.
So what? Relative greatness is not the issue we're discussing Momento. Don't distract from the main thrust of my argument which is that any such comparisons with named past 'Lords' suggests that that they consider themselves to be also the current Satguru in a succession including all those you've mentioned ..including Christ and Buddha, Swarupand etc.
Don't tell me that Rawat and his father were not aware of the fact that Christians generally consider Jesus 'The Lord'. Same for Krishna and Hindus. Hindus believe Krishna was The Lord of his age. This absolutely disproves your contention that they did not describe themselves as The Lord of their present age, or at the very least, one in the league of Krishna, Buddha, Jesus etc. Just admit it and move on..it's not the big deal you fear. If they thought that fine. 'Let your light shine ' etc.PatW 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your argument? Rawat said that the knowledge he teaches is, in his opinion, the same as taught by Jesus, Krishna, Kabir etc. But that is not to say that Rawat claims to be Jesus or his father was Jesus or that Jesus is Krishna. If Rawat's father was "The Lord" of the present age when Rawat was his sudent, then Rawat's understanding of "The Lord" is someone who lived in the next room, slept on benches, had holes in his shoes and liked to sing bhajans. Rawat did not think his father's mother was a virgin, that his father walked on water and arose three days after he died! There is no comparison between Rawat's Lord and Jesus Christ. Rawat's definition of "The Lord" is anyone who teaches Knowledge. Who cares what Christians think "The Lord" means, it's not their word, anyone can use it. Rawat's obviously talking about something completely diifferent when he described his father as "The Lord".Momento 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, Rawat went to a Catholic primary school. I'm sure he got plenty of Christian instruction there. That's what Catholics do in schools all over the world -- instruct children in Christianity daily. Your arguments make no sense at all. The way you describe him, you make Rawat sound very very dumb. Plus, the comparisons between himself and Christ are the one's he himself made. When he says that he reveals the same Knowledge that Jesus reveals, it logically follows that he considers himself to be at least as powerful a Lord as Jesus was -- at least to anyone reading his interviews that has the least bit of common sense. Besides, in the Wood article he's speaking English to an American interviewer who published it in a Boston paper with Boston readers. He knew full well what he was saying and what he was trying to convey. People all over the world are Christians and despite cultural and language differences they understand "The Lord" to be the same thing as western and English-speaking people think of "The Lord," even if they live in India. Sylviecyn 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sylviecyn, I agree. Momento. In the space of these 2 sentences you've squarely contradicted yourself.
1)There is no comparison between Rawat's Lord and Jesus Christ. and 2) Rawat said that the knowledge he teaches is, in his opinion, the same as taught by Jesus, Krishna, Kabir etc. I think that is my last word on this discussion. I feel I've made my point and I expect you feel the same. Thank you.PatW 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No, I think I'll have the last word. It doesn't "logically" follow SylviaCyn that when "he says that he reveals the same Knowledge that Jesus reveals, that he considers himself to be at least as powerful a Lord as Jesus was". You might reflect that Christians claim a virgin birth for Jesus, that he raised the dead, turned water into wine etc and was dead and then resurrected. Has Rawat or his father or anyone else on the planet made such outlandish claims. And PatW my sentences don't contradict themselves. There is no comparison between Rawat's use of the word lord to describe someone who teaches Knowledge and Christians' meaning of the word.Momento 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Rawat or his father or anyone else on the planet made such outlandish claims. Absolutely yes. There have been many rumours amongst premies of 'miracles'. Anyway you sure know how to miss the point - the comparison is about the power to reveal Knowledge not tto do miracles. And you've completely missed the point that the contradiction isn't within your sentences, it's between the two.

Show me a quote about Rawat performing miracles. And where's this contradiction? Perhaps you didn't read the next sentence. "Rawat's definition of "The Lord" is anyone who teaches Knowledge" it doesn't require virgin births, miracles or resurrection.Momento 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious that you can't see the contradiction between your sentences? 1) Rawat's Lord (Shri Hans) and Jesus cannot be compared. 2) Yet the Knowledge they all gave can be in fact it was the same. I'll find you the miracle claims later if someone else doesn't. Night night.PatW 00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The only similarity Rawat noted between his Lord and JC, is that, according to Rawat, they both taught the same meditation techniques. I can say New York and Looe are both on the coast without implying they have any other similarities. To suggest that because Looe and New York, or Shri Hans and Jesus, have one thing in common, is to say they are "comparable to, bear comparison with, be the equal of, match up to, be on a par with, be in the same league as, come close to, hold a candle to, be not unlike; match, resemble, emulate, rival, approach" in other areas is absurd, they are not comparable. So as I said, Rawat claims they taught the same techniques but they are not comparable.Momento 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Prem Rawat and his father's past teachings, was there any room for more than one Perfect Master at any one time on earth in their belief system?
I see the last topic moving in this direction since Momento wants to argue about Rawat's (and other Satguru's in his lineages') descriptions of Satguru as either 'a' Lord as distinct from 'The' Lord. Let's see if we can shed some light on this please.PatW 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument, Rawat's "Lord" completely fails the Christian test of being "The Lord". In answer to the question, "Do you think that there is only one Perfect Master"? Rawat said: You see –here I want to be very frank –people come to me and ask me about this, and they say, “What is your opinion about a Perfect Master? Is there one, is there two?” I tell them my opinion that there is only one Perfect Master. Because perfectness, is one, not two, not three. So there is only one Perfect Master in this world. And because he is perfect, that’s it..He is perfect. You just can’t divide perfect".Momento 14:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've nailed that point about the one Perfect Master. Thank you. I accept Rawat's frank description. As regards the comparisons with Christianity I feel we've also both sufficiently made our points as I said above. May I boldly suggest that we conclude this discussion for the time-being at least?PatW 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding Comments
I personally think that overall, this discussion fairly shows that past students of Rawat could be forgiven for thinking he was some kind of Divine Lord because of what he and his father believed and taught. I would invite all editors to consider that it would be most appropriate, for balance in the article, to make it quite clear that even without the agency of Mahatmas and premies calling him Lord etc. there was enough reason for students to worship him as such. Let's not assert the POV in the article that others were disproportionately responsible for the perception he was 'the' or 'a' Lord, of the type we've exhaustively talked about above. Thanks. PatW 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article needs not and should not describe what people thought, or not thought, believed, or made believe, unless that is described in a published source deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Jossi. The dfference between "a lord" and "the Christian Lord" is total. But PatW and SylviaCyn think that anyone claiming to be "a lord" is claiming to be Jesus Christ or the equivalent (virgin birth, raising the dead, miracles, death followed by resurrection etc.) and he wants the article to portray his mistaken POV. Christians believe there has and can only be one Lord (Jesus Christ) whereas Rawat believes there are many. Rawat's references to Jesus, Ram, Kabir, Krishna, Rumi and his father as teaching the same Knowledge made it absolutely clear that he is not talking about a Lord in the Christian sense. Anyone who "worshipped" Rawat as the Lord in a Christian sense wasn't a very good student because they missed one of Rawat's most important lessons. As for being there being the "only" Perfect Master, there have been many. Rawat's claim to be the Perfect Master of his father's students relied on their acceptance and came from his belief that his father was one and appointed him. Since what a Perfect Master teaches is an internal experience, the question as to whether Rawat is a Perfect Master can only be answered by the indivdiual. As Is clearly stated in the article "scholars have claimed that Rawat's teaching springs from the Indian Sant tradition, as embodied in the Sant Mat, Advait Mat and Radhasoami schools. Sant teachings are distinguished theologically by a loving devotion to a divine principle, universalism, equality, direct experience, rejection of ritual and dogma, and by attempts to reconcile conflicting doctrines (syncretism). Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me".Momento 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PatW thinks that anyone claiming to be "a lord" is claiming to be Jesus Christ or the equivalent and he wants the article to portray his mistaken POV.

Hey! Don't put words into my mouth. That is kind of offensive and just about amounts to flaming in my opinion. I never suggested that at all.

Christians believe there has and can only be one Lord (Jesus Christ) whereas Rawat believes there are many. So what? Never disputed.
As for being there being the "only" Perfect Master, there have been many. Yes, but only one alive at a time apparently. So what? Anyone who "worshipped" Rawat as the Lord in a Christian sense wasn't a very good student because they missed one of Rawat's most important lessons. What important lesson could this be?
Rawat's claim to be the Perfect Master of his father's students relied on their acceptance
How can a claim rely on an acceptance? I suppose you mean that the impact of his claim depended on their acceptance. Since what a Perfect Master teaches is an internal experience, the question as to whether Rawat is a Perfect Master can only be answered by the indivdiual. No Momento, Rawat was asked the question and he gave the answer in words. (see above). Would it not be more correct to say that people decided he was right later based on their internal experiences? The whole point of the above discussion and quotes was to illustrate how what the Perfect Master teaches was not only an internal experience. (and please don't argue that 'everything' is an internal experience). There was a lot of pre-amble...advertising..philosophising...teaching..conceptual preaching..call it what you will. You might just as well say that adverts picturing and describing some car say nothing about the car itself. The preamble, the Satsang, Keys..whatever are words and concepts that are about the subject. Would you say that the 'Keys DVD's' are not presently an important part of Rawat's teaching? Or is it the experience when you practice the techniques that is the only teaching part? No, what Perfect Masters 'taught' about the Guru etc. accounts largely for the impression that they were Divine etc. You just can't get away from that. Why else would they have said that stuff? Just for fun? No it was teaching plain and simple. When a student goes and listens to Rawat speak they are hearing his teaching are they not? When Rawat answers a question with words like 'Yes I am the Perfect Master' is it an answer or not? Where does the 'individual' come into that equation? Otherwise what's the point of saying the words at all?PatW 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are discussing your opinions and interpretations of past events. As interesting this discussion may be (or not), it has no bearing on the related WP article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you've read this discussion and the quotes. We are not just discussing opinions etc..we are discussing the implications of primary and secondary sources as well. So it does indeed have bearing on the article. By the way you don't have to keep on telling us this. We've got your message now I think thanks. But please excuse us if we carry on anyway. PatW 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You could have saved us all a lot of time if "the whole point of the above discussion and quotes was to illustrate how what the Perfect Master teaches was not only an internal experience". Does anyone deny that Rawat taught his followers via satsang. It's always been an integral part of practicing Knowledge. And no one denies that the early days of Rawat in the west were full of divine connotations - the Mission was "divine", the sales were "divine", the Times were "divine", Knowledge was Knowledge of God, some people thought he was "the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world" and some people didn't. Rawat said "There are three ways to understand things. If somebody tells you something, who you respect, you'll say, Okay, since you are saying it, I'll believe it. Second way is that, this is what my concept is, so I'll believe it. But the third way is a very independent way, which is called, seeing is believing. That you see, that you feel, you realize practically, without anybody's concept, but actually be able to realize it completely, completely independently. And then feel it. And this is what I beg of every premie to do. Instead of to follow a bunch of concepts down the line, see this Knowledge, believe this Knowledge—by yourself, independent of any concepts, any thoughts, any ideas". Rawat "begged" people to understand the "third way". To realize Knowledge "practically, without anybody's concept ....completely, completely independent of any concepts, any thoughts, any ideas". Regretably, some people never listen.Momento 00:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's so telling that your 'Parthian shot' is a cheap, pathetic attempt to blame others for not listening. You couldn't sound more like a cult PR man if you tried.PatW 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Should I place yet-another-WP:NPA warning, Pat? I thought that you agreed to keep the discussions civil. That is not an option, Pat. It is policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean it perfectly civilly. I really think Momento is taking a cheap shot at people she doesn't like and has chosen her words wrong. I'm not saying she is a cult PR Man at all, (I would have said PR woman if I'd meant that wouldn't I?) just that that is exactly what a cult PR man would say. In fact it is just what a really smug, offensive, revisionist, cult, PR man would say, so I'm quite surprised Momento would say that.PatW 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence leads you to believe I'm a woman? And why do you think I don't like people who never listen?Momento 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I'm wrong here but most of the premies I know who most stubbornly refuse to see any fault with their Master in the face of intcontrovertible evidence, and who get really emotionally upset to the point of saying black is white...er...how can I put this...are women. Maybe women's rational minds are generally more over-ruled by emotion. Something to do with being a love-crazed Gopi and all that maybe. Don't get me wrong I love women..women are cool...Rawat would be really clever to give a woman the job of arguing his case. The over-riding 'perfect' quality of a PR Man or lawyer who's defending something indefensible is of course to be somewhat 'histrionic' when needs be. Ideally they should be possessed of that panic-stricken emotion (when confronted with something it serves them not to hear) that effectively renders them deaf but flailing in full vocal spate, until the other side throw their hands up in despair. So Freud would probably say that the reason you don't 'like people who never listen' is because deep down, you hate yourself for doing just that. Does that help? :-)PatW 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. First I'm not a woman, second a don't hate people who don't listen and third Rawat has as many faults as anyone.Momento 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you! It's amazing how a little thing like witholding a simple little truth can lead to so much misunderstanding and speculation! Please forgive me but one doesn't want to keep writing he/she all the time. Goodness me..to think I could have started a rumour there that you were a woman! Just as well you cleared that one up in the nick of time :-)PatW 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Who withheld what?Momento 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "Parthian shot" PatW. It's supporting evidence for your claim that " what the Perfect Master teaches was not only an internal experience". And I'm not blaming "others for not listening", I'm stating a fact that obviously people didn't listen. As Downton says - " Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age". The irony is that it is the people who didn't listen who do all the blaming.Momento 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)PatW 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You're entitled to you're opinion but I think you're absolutely wrong (if your last comment was supposed to be any sort of meaningful generalisation). What I have noticed, is that few of those people who adopted those 'rigid ideas about his divinity' blame him - in fact I think they are often the one's still following him religiously. Sorry that just what I see when I look around. In general the ones who are now prepared to do some blaming most definitely listened very closely to him and actually didn't buy into that stuff and had a very good 'internal' experience. I'm one of them so I can tell you you're way off there. PatW 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you blaming him for exactly? You listened to him very closely, didn't get caught up in the concepts and you had a very good internal experience.Momento 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear mongering PatW 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Could you be a little more specific?Momento 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't really want to discuss that further here yet if that's OK with you. I'm not avoiding the issue, I'd be more than happy to talk about this another time..I just see at as being potentially a rather long debate and I need a little break. PatW 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It's a historical fact that Rawat allowed himself to be promoted as being more than just another 'guru'. The back cover of the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (published by Bantam, Nov. 1973) asks this further question:
"Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet? ..."
Rawat cannot claim ignorance that this was how he was perceived at the time. What's more, he MUST have intended it. He allowed publication of the book to go ahead, after all. And that fact in itself speaks volumes.

Revera 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should read Downton's Sacred Journeys.Momento 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hear your answer to that question first. WHY did "more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?". Revera 05:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rawat. A compilation of articles of Rolling Stone Magazine, describes a press conference with Maharaj ji on the second day of the "Millennium" event. A reporter asked Maharaj ji about the extraordinary claims made by his followers, to which he responds: "Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in the world." The reporter then asks why there is such a contradiction between what he says about himself and what his followers say about him, to which Maharaj Ji responded: "Well... why don't you do me a favor ... Why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?Momento 05:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question. Must have been a difficult one for Maharaj too. And how typical of him to take no responsibility whatsoever for his part in the mass-marketing of himself as God incarnate!
You know, Momento, that book was launched at Millennium '73. It was prominently advertised and on sale in the Houston Astrodome at very time he was dodging the reporters' questions on one hand, and then promoting himself as being God on the other. And yes, the book, the press reports and the archive film footage of that event make it plain that that is exactly what he was doing. The advertising campaign for the three-day festival featured posters that quoted a letter he personally addressed to all premies, proclaiming that it was to be "the most holy and significant event in human history." A very funny way of getting them to think he wasn't God-in-a-bod!
The simple fact is that he could hardly have done less to disabuse his followers of their collective misperception.
But I'd still like to hear your opinion for the reasons they had such an … unrealistic? view of him at the time. Go on, give it a go! I'd love to hear your answer to the vexed question of why "more than six million people around the world" had been persuaded to think of him as "the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet". Revera 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say Rawat was "promoting himself as being God". In 1971 Rawat said "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy." You say Rawat was "promoting himself as being God" when Rawat was saying the exact opposite. As Rawat said at Millenium "do me a favor ... Why don't you go to Revera and ask their explanation about it". Momento 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Momento, you've avoided answering the question three times now. If you have no insight into something as important as that, then - someone has to ask this - why on earth do you consider yourself qualified to be editing the article on Rawat?
You know, for every quote you produce where he appears to deny his claims to divinity, there are at least half a dozen others that make it blatantly obvious that the denials were the exception, rather than the norm. Here's another one where he puts it on the line:
"The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan, China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind". Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)
How come the Wiki article conveniently ignores the majority of these quotes, and instead paints a picture that implies he had nothing to do with any claims of divinity whatsoever? Care to answer that one perhaps? Revera 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer all your questions when you answer mine. How do you explain your claim that Rawat was "promoting himself as being God" when he has said the exact opposite?Momento 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Do try and keep up, Momento. The simple truth is that, like many gurus, he can be as two-faced as Janus. I only hope it's not a trait that his followers admire too much.
Certainly on a few occasions (usually when talking to reporters) he's said "I am not God, my knowledge is", or somesuch. But then, when addressing his followers, he'll go and say something like this: "Where does Guru Maharaj Ji fit in? Guru Maharaj Ji doesn't fit in anywhere. Guru Maharaj Ji is Knowledge. It is Guru Maharaj Ji's Knowledge. ... Who are you going to do service to, for? Guru Maharaj Ji. What are you going to meditate on? The Holy Name, which is Guru Maharaj Ji". ( * Holi Festival, Miami, Florida, USA, April 8, 1979. Published in the 'Divine Times', May/June 1979 edition, Volume 8, Number 3, Page 16.) It's one story for the press, another one entirely for the premies.
Anyway, it's transparently evident (though as a student of his, you seem oddly reluctant to see it) that he had pronounced both ways on the subject, the majority of times to affirm his divine status. The strange thing is this - that the Wiki article only seems to mention the times he's contradicted that claim. I wonder how that bias 'crept' into the article, hmmmmm? Revera 07:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting patientlyMomento 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, instead of "God" I had said "incarnation of God", would you still be quibbling? If not, your sophistry knows no bounds. Revera 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said what you said. Don't get involved in revisionism, I know how much you hate it.Momento 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

So that's it, is it? To you, God incarnate isn't the same as God, and God isn't the same as God incarnate, eh? That's a very debatable point, and one which is far from obvious to any but the most captious theologian.
But you're right on one thing, Momento, I do hate revisionism. And what's your take on it? Revera 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. "God" is not the same as "God incarnate". How can it be? "God" by Rawat's definition is infinite, a person is "finite".You should have paid more attention.Momento 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By Rawat's definition then, Christ was not God. May I suggest that his definition (and, apparently, yours) is not as universally accepted as you might presume?

Now - back to those questions you've been dodging. 6 million people apparently considered Rawat to be the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the planet. Any idea why?

Then perhaps you might like to tell us what you think of revisionism. Revera 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it! According to Rawat, and I believe him, God is energy. Now will you explain the comment you've been dodging for two days? Why did you claim Rawat was "promoting himself as being God" when he clearly wasn't.Momento 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dodging? Momento, there's a word for the game you're playing, but it should be played solo, if you get my drift. Look at the timeline of the above couple of posts. I think you've made it unintentionally yet blatantly clear exactly where you stand on revisionism. And to think that the new, 'slimmed-down' article on Rawat has you at the helm!

Heaven help history.

Revera 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still patiently waiting for you to explain why you claim Rawat was "promoting himself as being God" when he clearly wasn't.Momento 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Momento, your interpretation of what God is, and what God cannot be, is precisely that - merely your interpretation. And the arrogance with which you presume that you (and your 'Master' - Prem Rawat, aka Maharaji) have any kind of authority to pronounce definitively on this subject is precisely that - mere arrogance.
Here's what the Wikipedia article on the subject of divinity incarnate has to offer:

"... the doctrine of Christ being fully God and fully Man simultaneously grew to become the dominant doctrine of the Catholic Church, and all competing beliefs were labelled heresies".
"The final definitions of the incarnation and the nature of Jesus were made by the early Church at the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon and the First Council of Nicaea. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God, begotten from the Father; and fully man, taking His flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary. These two natures, human and divine, were hypostatically united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)
Do you really think that, in any encyclopedia worth its salt, your (and, you would have us believe, supposedly Rawat's) interpretation of God deserves to predominate - to the exclusion of all other interpretations?

Revera 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what Christians say? Do I have to believe in virgin birth because they do? God help us. We're talking about what Rawat says. And for the purposes of discussing his teachings and this article Rawat defines God as "pure and perfect energy".Momento 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Who cares what Christians say?" That's not exactly the sort of question people might expect from someone who has the power to edit an encylopedia, Momento. Have you realised that you're challenging what Wikipedia itself says on the topic?

What a strange sort of encyclopedia Wiki is turning into, where its own definitions - in this case, of what constitutes divinity - can change from one article to the next, simply on the whim of one revisionist follower of a one-time guru (and I use the term revisionist advisedly - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29).

Revera 11:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better sit down Revera. Wiki says - "Divinity and divine (sometimes 'the Divinity' or 'the Divine'), are broadly applied but loosely defined terms, used variously within different faiths and belief systems — and even by different individuals within a given faith — to refer to some transcendent or transcendental power, or its attributes or manifestations in the world. The root of the words is literally 'Godlike' (from the Latin 'Deus,' cf. Dyaus, closely related to Greek 'Zeus'), but the use varies significantly depending on the underlying conception of god that is being invoked". Oh my God! the definition of "divinity" is "loosely defined" and "used variously" "within different faiths and belief systems", "even by different individuals within a given faith". More research and less raving for you Revera.Momento 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Well, thanks for the research Momento - as far as it goes. As for the raving, well, at least you're trying to keep a lid on it.
Wikipedia professes that the words 'divinity' and 'divine' are loosely defined, eh? That's as may be. But the contentious word you objected to was not simply 'divinity' (apparently you've come round to accepting that Rawat did indeed claim divinity earlier in his career). The word that seems to get you riled is 'God'.
Well, nowhere in the Wiki definition do I see your interpretation of what God is given any mention whatsoever! So I hope you don't mind if I give slightly more weight to the more commonly held definition as embodied in the broader Christian teachings. That way we can be a little surer that we're a bit more likely to be speaking the same common language. But for your benefit, I will amend my earlier statement to this: "Rawat was promoting himself as being God incarnate". OK? Revera 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I mind you giving more weight to the definition of God as embodied in the Christian teachings. We're not talking about what Calvin said to Luther! Rawat was an Indian guru promoting a Sant view of Hindu teachings. Hindu teachings are diametrically opposed to Christian theology. As Wiki says about Hindu theology - "Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet, it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more". You're trying to compare oranges with apples! In Christianity "God incarnate" is generally taken to be Jesus. In Hinduism "God incarnate" can be anything from a river to a guy with the head of an elephant.Momento 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rawat was educated at a Catholic school, as you know full well, and Christian belief informed much of his teachings in the 1970s - especially at the Millennium event in Houston, '73. Look at this picture http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/God_Himself1.jpg to see what I mean. It makes it very clear. Momento, you might not be aware of it yet, but you're continuing to concoct your own version of what you think Rawat's message was at the time in order to fit it in with your own anodyne interpretation of events - events you weren't even present at! Even if you don't know why 'over 6 million people claimed him to be the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the planet' that remarkable fact should be reported - preferably with an attempt at explaining why he was thought of in this way - in any encylopedia article worth its salt. Revera 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite going to a Catholic school, Rawat, that naughty boy, has never acknowledged the Pope as God's man on the planet. And you may remember that Rawat was called "Guru Maharaji" not "Reverend Rawat". Christianity has nothing to do with Rawat's teachings. And if 6 million Indian's think he's great, so what. Why don't you take this conversation to your talk page.--Momento 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Complaint
I am getting a tired of the innuendo, the sarcasm, and the display of bad faith, PatW (see Diff). It seems that you are unable to engage without resorting to these devices. Warnings, you despise; requests by non-involved editors to agree to basic ground rules, you dismissed with excuses. What else can be done to make you understand? This is becoming tedious and insufferable. If you cannot engage without these devices, you may need to reconsider your participation here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi thank you so much for again saving us from fighting amongst ourselves. What would we do without you to keep us on the straight and narrow? OK, we're all grown-ups but you're still senior to us so we should respect your authority here. Please look down forgivingly upon we who are not blessed with your abundant virtues of tolerance and fairness. There's plenty of good faith amongst us boistrous fellows though. Good old Momento comes here to argue with me (and yes, trade some fantastic insults) of his own free will. That's why we can and mustcarry on using innuendo, sarcasm and wit within Wikipedia civil boundaries as we mostly do. To Momento's credit, I think we've actually had a fun fruitful, honest debate. Yes, it gets hot sometimes. You've said as much. This is a hot topic. But if you don't like the generated heat maybe you should be the one not joining in , not me as you rather hurtfully suggest. You obviously don't share our appreciation for sarcasm or innuendo. Why don't you just look away and let we who do argue to our heart's content?
I've agreed to the ground rules on some conditions of my own which have yet to be met in case you hadn't noticed.PatW 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and what on earth are you talking about this: (see Diff) being a display of bad faith? That's unmitigated rubbish. There is absolutely no hint of ad-hominem attack there I merely said his argument was absurd. You're hallucinating now Jossi. Also I simply ask Momento what his day job is because the guy seems to have endless time here. That's not a rude or loaded question for goodness sake. Sorry I thought you were complaining about the sarcasm, wit and innuendo we enjoy here hence my last comments above. Now I see your getting uptight about some 'bad faith' that really doesn't exist over on the PR Talk page. Whatsmore you're not getting my humour. Don't you think it's amusing that Ron Geaves is as 'fully fledged' in his own way as pastor Hummel, and he is fluttering his little fledgeling wings too? PatW 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with you and Momento engaging in off-topic conversations in your talk page, but please do not bring your personal disputes to the article's talk page. If you do not like my warnings and recurring requests to keep the discussion cool and devoid of such personal comments, then change your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hummel and Geaves' bias and questions about Jossi's interventions
The problem is PatW, you misunderstand what I have written and then get angry about it. Hummel and Geaves both have teachers, they are students of Jesus and Rawat respectively. Both are religious scholars. But as far as potential conflict of interest go the major difference is that Hummel is an ordained minister in his faith and obliged to promote it, whereas Geaves is not. And for many years Hummel was employed by organisations that have a doctrinal antipathy to Rawat, whereas Geaves is employed by an independent university. Fledgling? wings! Ha, ha!Momento 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, it's clear by what you wrote that you don't understand the definition of Wikipedia: Conflict of interest in Wikipedia, or in the real world at all, see Conflict of Interest. For purposes of the Prem Rawat article, as well as in academia, Geaves has a clear conflict of interest because he's a long-term student of Prem Rawat, and the subject of his paper is his teacher/master/lord. He also didn't disclose that fact even to his peers, which calls his bias into question. Therefore it should be mentioned that he's a long-term premie/student. Hummel isn't a student of the subject, which is Prem Rawat, so whether he's a Christian priest or a member of any other religion is immaterial. For instance, Gordon Melton is a Christian reverend and that's not mentioned in the article. He also is a dracula buff, along with Massimo Introvigne, and I don't think that's appropriate to mention. Momento, the reason people get frustrated with your posts is because most of your reasoning isn't logical, and you seem to refuse to listen to others and you seem to refuse to learn. You hold on to a position and refuse to budge, even when you're clearly incorrect or wrong.
To Jossi: Another example of conflict of interest is your policing of fellow editors on the Prem Rawat series of articles. You just don't see when personal attacks, innuendo, incivility, and sarcasm are being dished out by premies (yourself included) to Pat, myself, and Andries, or you simply ignore it. I think it's time for you to recuse yourself from taking any kind of action on these Rawat articles, as you clearly are not meting out justice fairly, and you're not being objective at all. Just an observation... :-) Sylviecyn 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just show me where I acted inappropriately and we can then talk. Otherwise, this is more of the same innuendo I was referring above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can and will find plenty of examples of your rudeness, sarcasm, and your inability to fairly apply the rules. I don't keep logs of your postings Jossi. I don't have time for that kind of hyper-vigilance. But, since you asked, I will find many examples of your own incivility and unfairness. Furthermore, you have a conflict of interest based on your own stated disclosure, but you seem to place yourself above reproach, which you're not. Sylviecyn 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not above reproach. No one is. I have been just trying to keep the conversations on-topic and advise editors to keep their cool and contribute to improve articles rather that just complain. Call it hyper vigilance, fine with me, but when editors behave uncivilly, someone needs to call it and I do. I care about this project enough to do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To put this baby to sleep once and for all, my declared potential COI does not preclude me from engaging editors in discussions, providing sources and research, and requesting that people abide by Wikipedia content and community policies if and when needed, that is exactly what I have been doing. So, do not hang any expectations regarding any lessening to my commitment to this project and ensuring that this set of articles complies with its policies and achieve GA status and beyond, in the same manner I am endeavoring to do the same in other articles I am involved with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will notew SylvieCyn that I used the term "potential conflict of interest" in regard to both Hummel and Geaves. And as I explained on PR Talk "COI is not just positively promoting your views, it is also denigrating your opposition".Momento 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong again. Hummel doesn't have a conflict of interest while Geaves clearly does. Anyone with a minor understanding of COI would comprehend the distinction. But, you still refuse to learn about what does or doesn't constitute conflict of interest and apparently you're not open to learning because here you are once again inventing your own definition of it, just as you rationalize your many edits to the Rawat article that don't make any logical sense. Your comment back to me is a strange sarcastic remark instead of using a logical argument or rational discussion based on simple common terms, i.e., conflict of interest. So I have to conclude that you're not interested in concensus nor civility. I'd say you're more interested in barring anyone but yourself and other premies from editing the article. Your reverting behavior bears that out. That's disruption and clearly not constructive wikipedian work. That much is transparent. Sylviecyn 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, two wrongs must make a right. Both Hummel and Geaves are religious scholars. Hummel and Geaves both adhere to a particular religion. Hummel and Geaves write about religion The only difference is Hummel gets paid by his religion and Geaves does not. A conflict of interest arises because they write about a subject on which they have strongly held personal views. If they lacked integrity they might compromise the truth in order to promote their religious views. In this case, if they lied about Rawat to promote their views.Momento 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Momento, how you got from what I wrote above to "two wrongs must make a right" is beyond me. Please don't put words in my mouth, because I said no such thing. My assertions about the scholars, bias, and COI, as I wrote them above, stand. Please don't embellish them by changing the subject. I think what Jossi, Rumiton, and you are trying to do concerning the scholars who have religious affiliations is bordering on religious bigotry. What you're doing is attempting to qualify their writings by attaching (attacking?) their scholarship by stating their religious affiliation, thereby suggesting they can't make an objective study of Prem Rawat because of the same. Once again, Geaves is the one and only NRM scholar among them who has a clear bias and conflict of interest because, once again, he is a long-term student of his subject material: Prem Rawat. The other scholars are not students of the subject material: Prem Rawat. That's all the editors of the Rawat article need to be concerned with. Also, according to Prem Rawat, practicing Knowledge and being his student doesn't constitute being a part of any religion, spiritual practice, philosophy, etc, etc. so that argument of yours if based upon a false premise. Shall I quote Rawat, EV, and TPRF on this? Sylviecyn 11:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So according to your argument either both Geaves and Hummel are allowed, or both are disallowed. Is that right? Your reason being that both are too biased because of their particular religious convictions. So which is it to be in your view ?PatW 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that material from Hummel and Geaves should be allowed because there is no obvious evidence of bias. But readers are entitled to know if they might have reason to be biased. When providing professional research on a subject, a known proponent or opponent has a natural conflict of interest. One interest is the professional requirement to be impartial and to tell the truth, the other interest is being true to themselves or what they believe to be the truth. So in the current article Geaves is a known and self declared proponent of Rawat and Hummel is a self declared and known opponent, because like all practicing Christian priests, Hummel must consider Rawat to be a heretic and therefore in grave error. In the PR article Geaves research is quoted four times and on the two occassions when Geaves opinion may be at odds with others (advait mat and opinions of other researchers) Geaves is described as a student of Rawat (and may therefore be biased for Rawat). Likewise readers have a right to know that a quoted scholar is a Christian priest or employed by a Christian organisation (and might be biased against Rawat).Momento 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. First, the readers can click on the link on the scholar's name if they are interested in reading more about the scholar. Describing the scholars is unnecessary. Second, you can't get inside of Hummel's head and assume he has any thoughts about Rawat as a heretic. Where did you come up with that idea? It's not a fact, either, just because you thought it up. You cannot even assume he is an opponent of Rawat based on your bias against him just because of your preconceived notions that his being a Christian means he's against Rawat. That's religious bigotry, plain and simple. Third, and once again, the only reason Geaves has a conflict of interest and a bias is because the subject of his paper is about the new religious movement and Prem Rawat of which he is a member, which is the subject of the article in which he is quoted!!! He's the only one that needs to be qualified because of his own affiliation and the fact he didn't disclose his affiliation to his own scholarly peers. Finally, your bio/proposal article is quite lacking in information about Rawat's entire life and the controversies surrounding him. The way it reads now, it's more of a hagiography than ever before and poorly sourced. Funny, how you slid right by the 70s, neglecting to mention the very time/era when he gained his fame and notoriety in the west, which is after all, his only notability. So don't be too attached to what you wrote there, it's definitely going to be changed. Sylviecyn 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if clicking on an author's name is sufficient, should we remove the descriptions of Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman, Stephen Hunt etc? Secondly, I didn't "think up" the Christian doctrine that says that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is going to spend eternity burning in Hell and every Christian priest, including Hummel, believes and repeats it. Third, Hummel isn't just affiliated with Christianity, he's an ordained minister and worked for the church for most of his life. As for the bio/proposal, in order to "mercilesssly edit it" and remove the "bloat" a lot has to be removed. You say I "slid right by the 70s, neglecting to mention the very time/era when he gained his fame and notoriety in the west". In fact the 70s gets far more attention than any other decade, nearly three times as as much as the 80s, 11 times as much as the 90s.

The article has 2400 words in total

158 words in Lede

241 words on childhood

729 words on 71 - 80

256 words on 81 - 90

66 words on 91 -2000

190 words on recent years

700 words on teachings
References - there are 57 for the bio proposal of 2400 words (1 per 42 words) and 136 for the existing article of 6300 (1 per 46 words). So the new article has more sources per material. Perhaps rather than criticising the new article, you demonstrate good faith and make suggestions in the editors section.Momento 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to quality not quantity. You're rather obsessed with word counts instead of quality. Plus, you don't own that article and if I want to edit the article I'll edit the article. I don't need your permission to do so, and besides, you've only consulted fellow editors on your hundreds of edits a fraction of the time. And stop accusing me of having bad faith, Momento. Your breaking your truce. Sylviecyn 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
category:Wikipedians by former religion
I created Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prem Rawat
I just wanted you to know I looked over Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal and provided some comments there. What else do you think needs to be addressed in the draft?
Also, the truce was not meant to be condenscending or dismissive of concerns. It simply is impossible to move forward to a clean slate while holding onto past actions. Is there something I can do or say to accomodate your concerns? Cheers! Vassyana 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassayana, I'm really sorry but I'm absolutely perplexed why you haven't addressed mine, Sylviesyn, Revera and Andries concerns over Momento's revertion of the full Collier quote about Rawat's 'sheepish denials' about his divinity. I've asked you to read the above argument and comment but you haven't done that. It's a hugely important point and Momento's article despite your favourable review uses quotes very selectively according to his bias. PatW 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, here is what happened - The following paragraph was stable for more than 3 months until 30 March when it was copied to the proposal sandbox.
"During these years, claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers. Rawat publicly denied any such claim. In an autobiographical book by an early follower, Sophia Collier writes, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life".
March 30th I added the Abbie Hoffman sentence after the sentence about divinity – 'Abbie Hoffman, another Chicago Seven member, commented: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves." as it makes a great counter point to Rennie Davis.
March 31st PatW added the following after "Rawat denied the claim"- but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation.
I objected in the PR talk page and removed PatW’s uncited OR.
April 2nd PatW removed the well cited - “Rawat denied the claim” and inserted more Collier "Guru Maharaji Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with.
April 2nd I reverted PatW's deletion as Rawat's comment on God is a crucial response to Hoffman's claim about being God.
April 3rd SylvieCyn reverted to PatW last version.
April 3rd – I reinserted “Rawat denied the claim” but kept the extra Collier.
April 7th – I replaced “Rawat denied the claim” with “When asked if he was God, Rawat said "No. My Knowledge is God" as it more clearly addressed Hoffman's quote. And removed “though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with” as the first part of the sentence was now in direct conflict to Rawat's definitive statement and is contradicted by many available quotes.
April 9th – I reinserted “ generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with” And the paragraph remained stable until Vassanya’s review on the 24th and I removed both Rawat’s and Collier’s quotes.
Summary: I removed PatW's additional Collier sentence once as part of a revert to reinstate PatW's deletion of "Rawat denied the claim" which had been stable and crucial for more than three months. And I removed the sentence once more when some of it became contradicted by Rawat's new preceeding quote before reinstating the uncontradicted part. Momento 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassayana, this is the Collier quote we want included for the reasons we've gone into at length above:
"Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' PatW 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I revert this quote? Mind you, I would remove it on length alone. Or because it needs its proper context which is - Rawat talking in India in 1970 - "Subash Chandra Bose used to say, "Give me your blood and I will give you independence." Likewise, I too have a slogan: give me your love and I will give you peace. Surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you such peace as will never die. Come to me, and I will give you liberation. Place the reins of your life in my hands, and I will relieve you of your suffering. First, be capable of giving the reins of your life to me, then give them. And if I do not give you peace, I will give them back to you".Momento 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MIA No Longer
And my apologies for absenting myself. I missed your messages on my talk page for some time. I'm going to get up to speed on the state of the article before I dive back in, but if you'd like, I would certainly appreciate a summary of what I've missed. Mael-Num 01:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the main arguments have been over the use of quotes on Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal. I seem to have been fairly embroiled with Momento arguing about the tone of the proposed article which has been pretty much his brain-child as far as I can see. What I and others have complained about for ages is that given impression that Prem Rawat was not responsible for encouraging people to see him as Divine to the extent that he really did and that many witness can verify. It hardly needs emphasising how strongly many former, and indeed many current students, feel about this sort of perceived revisionism which they think is simply unneccessary, or worse, an insult to their intelligence and integrity. It's a bit like having someone revise your past for reasons of their own. I have personally received emails from several current students encouraging me to argue against this here (one even offering me old publications as reference material). You see, Rawat has always been deliberately ambiguous about his 'Divinity', denying it to the press but encouraging his followers to see him most certainly as a divine authority - eg. asking people to surrender their lives to him to gain Salvation etc. Many people see the article as a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from his responsibility for a good deal of religious 'scare-mongering' by overly imputing blame on others eg- his family, Indian followers etc. At present the only concession to this view from the compilers of this article, is essentially to report those scholars comments from the time, who noted that Rawat 'encouraged people in their existing views of him'. In short I/we think that there is far too much of the 'blaming others' emphasis in the article. You can get the gist of this from looking at the arguments above and on the Prem Rawat discussion page too (and of course on Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal ).
Apart from this, you have missed the usual heated moments where I have inspired Jossi to issue me with 'warnings' etc. My frustrations have also stemmed from trying to get (the apparently well-respected reviewer) Vassayana to mediate on some specific arguments (such as the one above). These efforts have been remakably unfruitful so I have pretty much abandoned that idea. I have to say that it has made me a bit skeptical about his potential role as a mediator. Compounding that, Vassayana, out of the blue, proposed a rather puzzling 'Truce' which I don't see can improve anything at all. It merely seems another opportunity for Jossi to ' get all excited about 'framing the disputes' as uncivil whilst drawing attention away from the very civil substantial parts of the arguments. It is all too easy for an administrator like Vassayana to breeze in here and criticise us for getting heated and to jump and down about only that. It is harder to make a sensible comment on the arguments which is what I'd hoped for.
Of course if you feel to comment on anything you read here that'd be welcome. But I quite understand if you don't. Vassayana on the other hand, made a judgement about incivility and notably did not comment on the arguments themselves. I felt that he should have felt some obligation to comment on the context of those arguments, since I was the one who was singularly accused by Jossi of 'lack of faith' etc. It's almost as if Vassayana has been specifically chosen by Jossi as a 'mediator' because he's prepared to ignore the arguments and turn a blind eye to Jossi's unfairness (Momento's own un-punished 'lack of faith' etc.) That's been a concern.PatW 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarifications, if I may.

(a) I did not chose Vassyana as a "mediator". He was the editor that reviewed the GA proposal, and he did that out of his own volition. His review was very well received by you, if you remember;

(b) Vassyana is not an administrator of Wikipedia, but he is well respected as a reviewer and as an editor;

(c) Vassyana also reviewed changes made to the article in response to his review, and commended editors on the good progress made;

(d) The call for a truce was made by Vassyana not "out of the blue", but as an effort to put behind past incivility and complaints, so that editors could engage constructively from that moment on. Only you and another editor refused to sign on the truce;

(d) He also recently reviewed the Bio proposal, and editors have been responding to his comments by making the necessary changes as per his suggestions.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Your point d. We have not refused to sign anything and if we did ..so what? I mean what difference do you think it could possibly make? We have all 'engaged constructively' since this proposal thingee, but this evidently has nothing to do with whether we 'signed' some group truce or not. Speaking for myself I simply think it is bordering on childish for anyone to have to perform such an irregular ritual to demonstrate that they have or will 'put behind past incivility and complaints'. The pointlessness of such a truce is self-evident from the continuing occasional lapses into 'lack of faith' from all parties; it is also self-evident from the continuing largely perfectly civil tone adopted by all parties! It's also clear that no-one actually has the slightest intention of dropping past complaints until they are resolved. I also see it as childish, and not a little subversive, to use this as an opportunity to single out (as you have above) those who declined, presumably to insinuate that we are notably 'uncooperative' or something. And I wonder if this isn't the reason why you and Momento so quickly stuck your hands up to be counted - to marginalise those who maybe don't need to 'prove' their faith in such a shallow display and to show Vassayana who are the baddies and goodies here. If you will recall, I declined because I felt it a flippant proposal by Vassayana on account of his not commenting on the context of the previous arguments etc. Anyway, here's my own little promise just for you!
"I hereby promise that I'll endeavour to be as 'civil' as possible and as I ever was, and if I want to exercise occasional wit, sarcasm or language that expresses frustration I will also do that within my understanding of the meaning of civility as per Wikipedia culture. If I fail in your eyes you may rightly beat the soles of my feet" :-) PatW 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll take that (with the exception of the last thing about the beating of your soles.) If you feel frustrated, I would recommend leaving the discussions for a couple of days. It works for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Rawat's mute acceptance of worship amounts to encouragement
In my family, if I let my older kid worship me as God (when I'd only ever denied being God) it would be pretty damn unfair on my other little ones, to allow the older one to carry on worshipping me as such. The reason being that the others could clearly suffer terrible guilt if they were uncomfortable about exhibiting similar reverence towards me. That I would say is a reasonable analogy of the dynamic between Rawat as a Master and his students. When I first came into the society of premies and Rawat in 1974 I was 17, Rawat was not someone I met or interacted with on a personal level until many years later, and there was not only huge peer pressure to see him as a messianic figure, but the mere fact that he did nothing to discourage these attitudes simply amounted to a confirmation that he was a Saviour deserving of the adulation and obedience that the majority of premies aspired to. So these ideas were implanted and one interpretated even ones meditational experiences according to the general belief system. Rawat instructed us to leave no room for doubt in our minds and we, open and childlike, felt guilty about our 'discomfort' and embraced the dogma denying any reluctance. So maybe this will also explain to some degree why I said to you that I consider Rawat responsible for some fear-mongering. Maybe that was wholly appropriate for a Master/student relationship. Nevertheless that was my impression and I see no reason to deny it. In my opinion an explanation from him would be healing, just as in my own family, I currently embrace any opportunity to unburden any of my children from lingering resentments or guilt they may have suffered as a result of my behaviour.PatW 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very revealing, Pat. For me "leave no room for doubt in your mind" had a very different significance. It was: "never leave room for doubt" that you can be find contentment within; that you can experience Knowledge; that theres is hope; that there is meaning in life. I never saw any such "dogma", and was always encouraged by him to find my own experience, not adopt any concepts from others (even from him). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How old were you when you received Knowledge and what year was it?PatW 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that matter? Early 80's, mid twenties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just as revealing as anything I said. Namely that you were quite a bit older, wiser and completely missed out on the most intense devotional period and therefore probably are not particularly able to empathise with those who, like me, had to go through a whole different experience. You're only in a position to speculate about what your reaction would have been to the pressures I and other young people went through in the seventies. By the early eighties all that surrender stuff was well over. I actually had a whole 6 or 7 years of a completely different scene to contend with. I am in a position to comment from direct experience on not only that period, but also to compare it with the period that you joined in. You don't have that much perspective and for some reason that seems to compel you to look down on younger more innocent people who really opened themeselves to give everything. You maybe flatter yourself that you would have not bought into that stuff. Let me tell you that if you had gone for Knowledge in 1974 at the Palace of Peace, without paying deference to Rawat's concepts you would have almost certainly been rejected at the first Knowledge selection. (unless you were one of those guys who walked in accidently off the street!) You would have been seen as insincere and 'in your mind.' Same in 1978 in Kissimee, Florida. You would have been called a 'bongo' probably!PatW 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After I received K, I had a wonderful experience and I moved to an Ashram and stayed there until these were closed, and I saw many people around me that had a different experience than mine. Nevertheless, my research into the early seventies era, tells me that I have to take these years in their context: the crazy 70's, the millennial aspirations of the mother and older brother; the confusion around the Indian customs, and more. I am glad that PR managed to clean up all that mess, and for what I have read, my opinion is that it was not easy. I see him fighting-off old concepts till this day. I also saw many people that could not make the transition, and many others that could. So, I have no problem sympathizing with you. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, I could and probably would have said the exact same thing as you've said above, were I still a practicing premie. But, now that I've taken the time to examine everything I experienced as a premie, including my relationship with Maharaji, I can't say I would blame the "crazy 70s" on this new concept you and Momemto have cooked up called "millennial aspirations of Mataj and the brothers." It's almost like you make this stuff up as you go along, in order to explain away everything Rawat did (a lot) to encourage (putting it mildly, it was more of a demand) and accept premies' unconditional worship of him. It's not like he was secretive about it either. Sitting on thrones dressed in Krishna costume with a crown on his head while arti is being sung to him, isn't a subtle gesture.
Besides, you're not talking to people here who weren't there and gave their lives to Maharaji as he requested and demanded of us. There was no "concept" for that, other than the words "surrender to Guru Maharaj Ji." His words. Worship of Maharaji had nothing to do with Indian trappings at all. If anything, the Indian trappings were perpetuated by Maharaji himself and his wife Durga Ji, who dressed in saris on those stages, kissing his feet. Even her satsangs were praises for his divinity and calls for surrender to his holy lotus feet. All one has to do is read or listen to her her satsangs to see there was no question of his divinity during the entire 70s through the early 80s and beyond.
There was no confusion in the premies I knew (that was many, including mahatmas and western initiators/instructors) about what Maharaji's intentions were, vis a vis, what premies were to think of him. He was the Lord of the Universe, our Perfect Master, the Lord come again, just like Jesus, and he never rejected any premies' directed worship of him, whether it was in a one-on-one situation or in a festival/program situation and darshan line. He made it abundantly clear throughout the 70s exactly what his position was and he yelled about it all of the time, especially post 1976.
Now you're placing more blame elsewhere for all the so-called misconceptions of earlier premies, instead of where it squarely belongs, on Rawat himself, and worse, you're blaming them on Mataji! She was long out of the picture by 1975. As I've told you before, I never knew Mataji's satsangs, nor was I exposed to any of the family's "millennial aspirations," whatever that is supposed to mean. You have no proof of that, either. In fact, Maharaji strongly told us not to listen to what his family had to say, and he did that shortly after the family split. Those satsangs of Maharaji's "It's time to decide," and "Shape up or Ship out," defined for all the premies in the west, just where Maharaji felt he stood with us. He told us to pick a side, him or his family. Period. We picked him. So yours is a ludicrous interpretation and spin on what really was happening from the earliest days of Rawat in the west (1971 through 1981) which is the first ten years of his time in the west!! Those are the years that make him notable for even warranting an article here. The only time during that ten year time period when worship was not emphasized was the very brief summer and fall of 1976 "big space out," after which, starting with the December 19, 1976 Atlantic City program, he launched a strong demand for devotion to him, followed by many years of many programs during which he strongly emphasized his divinity. It was Maharaji's own view of what he expected of premies, what they ought to be doing with their lives, which was total surrender to him personally, that created that "crazy 70s." Not Mataji! Your concept of what was going on is an amazingly condescending interpretation and distorted view of what Rawat's mission was like during those years. You weren't there, so you don't really know what it was like. And so far as I know, all Rawat has done to disabuse people of his divinity is to say something like "I'm proud to be a human being." As opposed to what, being a monkey? Or the Lord come again on earth? And make no mistake, no one forced Maharaji to accept our worship of him, no one forced him to dress up like Krishna and dance bare-chested beside his throne, nor did anyone force him to tell us the things he told us to do with our lives. Sylviecyn 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your interest here's an essay I wrote in 1997 summarising my feelings. I've put it on my server temporarily in case you or anyone care to get the gist of why I am the way I am. Reading it again it occurs to me that I had a much more emotional, spiritual, childlike approach to Prem Rawat and that, although at the time was encouraged, it was indeed problematic later. http://www.patrickwilson.com/my_viewpoint_1997.html PatW 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That only shows how different human experience can be. I have emailed you some of my poetry and artwork that were published by the e-zine "Vision Quest". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done PatW. Have you been reading the part of the article where it says "the Guru or Perfect Master as "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration"?Momento 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'The crazy 70s' eh, Jossi? Interesting that you describe that decade as being crazy. Care to say what you're referring to? Couldn't be Maharaji's crazy teachings during that decade, could it.? No, evidently you ascribe those teachings to everyone BUT Maharaji. And that's an interesting bias you show there.
Then you refer to " ... the millennial aspirations of his mother and older brother". Well, your 'Master" was the kingpin in those 'milllennial aspirations', undoubtedly. But what any objective observer who witnessed those events would have seen is that his complicity in playing along with those "aspirations" - or, more accurately, blatant claims to divinity - in no way absolved him of his part in making those claims. You can blame his mother and brother for all you're worth (and how NPOV is that?) but the simple fact is that, at every turn, you and Momento try and play down Rawat/Maharaji's involvement and responsibility. Your bias SPEAKS VOLUMES, Jossi!
Oh, and I've noticed that you're getting into a habit of telling people off when they stray into the realms of personal opinion and ... heaven preserve us ... discussion - even to the extent that you've suggested taking such discussion off the Wikipedia server altogether. Hmmm ... you're not exactly setting a good example yet, are you? Crazy 70s indeed!

Revera 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a user page, and there is some leeway in expressing personal opinions, which I, you and others are entitled to. Article's talk pages are different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your opinion, I didn't make up "millennial beliefs", Downton talks about them to explain the messianic tone of early DLM. And they are contained in the section that ends in April '74 (not 75 as you say). You seem to want to have an article that has only three lines - "his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet when they were in his presence as a demonstration of worship" and "the Guru or Perfect Master as "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration" and "there was a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". Repeated endlessly. More objective readers need only read these lines once to get the picture of a Guru who was worshipped.Momento 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings ex-premies. I do believe, as Cythia reports, that "it's not Maharaji's fault that people thought of him as the Lord, God, etc". Why? Starting at the top with the "God" argument, Rawat has denied being God on numerous occassions and has repeatedly said no human being can be God. Anyone who believes Rawat is God is not only an idiot but is contradicting one of Rawat's main teachings - God is pure and perfect energy. (Note: Rawat regularly described Gurus as embodiments, manifestations and incarnations of God, which is completely in keeping with Hindu beliefs, and entirely different fron "God". The Rawat article says in Hindu tradition the "Guru or Perfect Master is seen as "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration"). The "Lord" argument is similar. While Rawat has always denied being THE Lord as Christian's define it, the "one and only Messiah, Jesus Christ reborn; he has described Gurus as being Lords, again in keeping with Indian understanding. What Cythia and others cannot accept is that there is a big difference between a Hindu Guru "Lord" (as used by Rawat) and the Christian "the Lord" (Jesus Christ). Momento 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Momento, but the conversation is going nowhere fast. Btw, what you wrote above is Rawat religious doctrine, practically verbatim. You have particular concepts and rationalizations of what "God" is, based on your personal beliefs. I could try to dispute them until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, they are your beliefs, and opinions, so I'll choose to end he conversatin here. Sylviecyn 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now look towards me. Suppose this book is God. I may keep it in my pocket or in my bag, as I like. There is no trouble. But when I keep the living God in a bag, in my pocket, God will begin crying. Now the living God will need meals two times a day, tea, butter, cheese, milk, ghee. In addition to all these things for His feeding, so many things will be needed for His worship. He will need one room for which there will be a very good cot with a very good bed; and at night there should be someone to serve Him there also. But there is no trouble with a God who is in a book. I may keep that God there easily. That is why people worship God in a book, a God who is formless. But one who is devoted to God in form and person gets the fruits in form and in person. One who puts his devotion to the Lord in body gets the real fruits in form, and one who puts his devotion to the formless Lord, to the formless God, gets fruits in no form."
"One who is devoted to his Lord in body can see all the real virtue in form, and get the real fruits. Devotion towards the formless God is completely useless, because the object which the devotion is done for has neither horns, nor tail, nor legs, nothing. Therefore, my dear brothers, it is said that the whole universe is blind." User:24.69.30.176 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Your views
Your response to some questions regarding the Prem Rawat article would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks!! Vassyana 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Pat, I'd be appreciative if you could proffer your opinion on this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29#Can_another_editor_censor_my_talkpage.3F —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revera (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No personal attacks
Commetns like this [1] are needlessly personal. Article talk pages exist exclusivly to disuss article improvements. If you need to discuss an editor (rather than his edits) there are several forums for that purpose, starting with the editor's talk page and also including RfC, mediation, and ArbCom. When writing on an article talk page, please comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left this messgae for you almost trhree weeks ago but I don't get the feeling that you've read or understood it. WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a recommendation. People are blocked and banned from this site every day for incivility towards other editors. To put it bluntly, you will be too unless you stop making negative personal remarks about Jossi in particular. He certainly isn't perfect, none of us are. He has his particular problems with COI which remain to be resolved. But constantly bringing up those issues on article talk pages without seeking resolution of them is unhelpful. If you want to address them then there are several forums set up for dispute resolution. However article talk pages are reserved for discussing improvements to the articles, not for discussing editors. I won't warn you again. Please be more respectful of your fellow editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've read it. Obviously we have different interpretations of what constitutes civility. Of course I respect Jossi. Just because I question him hard here doesn't mean I'm being uncivil. Tell me now what I've said that you think is uncivil because I for one don't see that. PatW (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* You horrible, HORRIBLE bunch of liars are all going to hopefully be revealed as the shameless dishonest, immoral brain-washed creeps you clearly are.[2] Duh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You like reminding me about that one don't you. I know that was uncivil - not denying it and never did. You obviously didn't read what WillBeback said. Why not? What you might want to look at is the' horrible' insinuations 'amounting to lies' that prompted that particular outburst OR my polite tone 90% of the time in the face of yours and Momentos overwhelming baits. Anyway I think WillBeback was still objecting to my more restrained language since that occasion. Like he said since 'three weeks ago'. Right WillBeback??PatW (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PW may I suggest apologizing for past remarks (maybe you already have - it doesn't hurt to repeat), and moving forward to current issues. We all make inappropriate remarks in heated moment because we're all humans. Let's recognize that quality/deficiency in each other. Maybe Jossi is a jerk, maybe I am too or so are you. That being the case we all have to work together. So chill out and peacefully work towards progress. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have and do repeatedly apologise for these kind of remarks. Maybe you've missed my apologies. Chill out is very nice but this is a debate and even described as a 'heated' one. One that I have been dipping my toes in for many years. As I understand it there is not only no shame in conducting a heated debate but there is also plenty of leeway for that in Wikipedia provided that a general pattern of civility and trust is established. I would say that my pattern of losing it with impatience and subsequent apologies and also that of all the others here spells out that this is a heated - but adequately civil debate. Remember I know Jossi a little, have met him, have respect for him and like him. Momento is a quite different matter as for a start he (he is a 'he' if you read my arguments with him above here) is anonymous. Now I don't agree with Jossi on a lot and that is why there is the appearance of such animosity. If we sat down over a beer I'm sure we'd get along fine. Maybe also with Momento who knows. Oh and Rawat for that matter. So I am asking both him and you to expect some occasional rudery and also some genuine apologies. This is a necessarily heated debate and as you say we are hiuman. I've been tempted occasionally to withdraw entirely here in the last few days. But not so much because of suggestions that I go on too much or am rude. (I am a fast typer and naturally verbose) but because I am getting frowns from the wife and I my work is suffering.PatW (talk)
Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks
I think you are hurting your own cause with Talk page posts like this one [3]. I appreciate that you have recused yourself from editing, as Jossi did, and you go days at a time posting responsibly and contributing an otherwise unheard perspective. Great! But then you fall back into personal attacks on Jossi, lectures on the faults of Prem Rawat, etc. You must know that this only discredits your point of view, not to mention hurting people who don't deserve it (including fellow ex-devotees.) Plus, it discourages editors like me who really don't have a horse in this race and are trying to achieve a solid, balanced page.
I would love to see all of the voices in this debate remain, including Momento and yourself. But you are acting in a way that will leave Momento active, simply because s/he doesn't directly attack people, and likely get you thrown out. Is that really what you want? Msalt (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't want to be thrown out so I will continue the debate here if that's ok.
Great, thanks. I'd actually prefer that you continue it on Talk: Prem Rawat. You just need to stop attacking or provoking Jossi, and avoid making broad statements. I feel the same way about Momento, except the issue for him or her is aggressive unilateral editing. You have to understand, I (and it looks like, most of the uninvovled editors) really know very little about Prem Rawat. We need the knowledge of people like you who do, and Wikipedia as an organization agrees -- that's why the COI section was altered to allow devotees (and ex-devotees) to contribute. Msalt (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to draw attention (as I have done) to what impartial editors should be looking for. However the baiting and aggressive rejection of almost all what I report here frankly makes it an unpleasant job. The atmosphere here is incredibly condescending and off-putting and as you know Jossi appears to know all the rules and wields them fanatically at critics. The combined effect of all these pro Rawat people is actually very intimidating and wearing. The proof of that imho is that I and a couple of other 'critics' are pretty much alone here. I get some applause from them for holding out but also expressions of bafflement as to why I should so persistently bash my head against a brick wall. Now if you really want to know about Prem Rawat you have only to check out all the sites about him - for and against. Frankly it's not so hard to get the true picture. Please don't depend on me to provide info ..I (unlike Jossi and Momento apparently) have to hold down a day job between looking in here. PatW (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations about the sincerity of a woman who asked Prem Rawat a question at Alexander Palace

I wrote this:

Prem Rawat publicly ridiculed a friend of mine who was in 1978 told by his Instructor to give up her place at Oxford University in order to live in Rawats' ashram. When my friend asked Rawat about his part in this policy at a large meeting a few years ago, he crossly asked why she thought he had any responsibility in the matter and preferred to shift the blame back onto the instructor. He was plainly very annoyed that a 'real' question got through the 'expressions' of praise and gratitude that constituted most of the comments from the audience and which he routinely lapps up. My friend later said to me "The scales dropped from my eyes" and she realised in that moment that Rawat was anxious to shirk all responsibility for his actions with regard to ashrams and that his supposed care was more about preserving his 'impeccable' image than comforting those poor wounded souls who had given up their youthful lives, relationships, interests and careers to him, on his recommendation. A lot of current premies who witnessed this lady then have the 'roving' microphone abruptly switched off so she could not embarass Rawat further, had to swallow hard to suppress their consciences.
And Vivk replied:
Unfortunately, the 'story' above is a classic case of ex followers seizing on any opportunity to cast Prem Rawat in a bad light. I was three rows behind this woman at the event in Alexandra Palace, London, and clearly remember her highly accusatory and aggressive tone right from the get go. The moment she started talking the energy level in the place plumetted, it was palpable, there was nothing remotely ernest or sincere about her 'question'. She demanded that Prem R explain why he told the intructor to advise her not to go to University. Prem Rawat, knowing full well he had told the instructor no such thing, told her he was not going to involve himself in a pissing contest. She became more pushy and aggressive until, to the relief of everybody, the mic was removed from her grasp. It is documented that PR has endured this kind of ugly harrassment from his childhood, dissatisfied people with grudges desperate to blame the easiest target at hand.

I invite comments from people about this incident.PatW (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should kick the ball off by saying that several premies I know who are highly involved with Prem Rawat felt he missed an opportunity to heal real wounds and that the lady's question was perfectly sincere. As I said, I personally have known this lady since childhood although I had not spoken to her lately until well after this incident at Alexander Palace. I know her to be extremely bright and sincere. PatW (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Letter from Tim Hain in response to VivK
Dear VivK,
I have just been sent this by Pat W. As someone who knows “this woman,” and was also at the event at Alexandra Palace, I feel moved to defend her, and to relate the incident in another light. I’m not saying I’m “right”, just that my point of view, and experience , could not be more different from yours.

VivK: “Unfortunately, the 'story' above is a classic case of ex followers seizing on any opportunity to cast Prem Rawat in a bad light.”

TH.” As a matter of fact, she was NOT an ex follower. Not when she enterred the building. But she felt like one when she left. As did others, who were appalled at the way she was treated.

VivK. “I was three rows behind this woman at the event in Alexandra Palace, London, and clearly remember her highly accusatory and aggressive tone right from the get go. The moment she started talking the energy level in the place plumetted, it was palpable, there was nothing remotely ernest or sincere about her 'question'. “

TH.” I was six rows from her, and I must ask you, did you not HEAR what she said? To me her “accusatory and aggressive tone” was more one of nervousness and frustration at having been denied the opportunity to receive closure on something that had bothered her for years. She said she had written several times, but had got no response. I can only surmise that some righteous premie had picked up her letters, and in order to “protect” Prem Rawat, and/or his her own position in the premie hierarchy(such as it was in those days, with people falling over themselves to be “close” to Rawat and gain his approval), had not passed them on. To say she was neither “ernest” or “sincere” is not my take at all. I clearly remember her telling PR “It broke my heart” when told to leave the ashram because she was not “devoted enough.”

VivK “She demanded that Prem R explain why he told the intructor to advise her not to go to University.”

TH “Actually she asked him “IF he told the instructor…”

To give up a place at Oxford, a hard-earned privilege, believe me (I know, because I tried and failed to get in) is a big deal. When she was cast from the ashram for which she had literally given up everything, to work solely for DLM etc night and day for seven years, she had no education to fall back on, a bunch of burnt bridges, and for a long time was physically ill through sheer exhaustion.”

VivK “Prem Rawat, knowing full well he had told the instructor no such thing, told her he was not going to involve himself in a pissing contest.”

TH. “At that point, I was in shock. I was around in those days, and the peer pressure, and pressure form “above” to give up everything far “The Lord” was powerful, and so I did empathise strongly with her. I remember thinking “Maharaji, this isn’t about YOU it’s about HER.” I remember my girlfriend, who had only just received knowledge, saying to me later “he could at least have said to her “I’m sorry you had to go through that.”

VivK .” She became more pushy and aggressive until, to the relief of everybody, the mic was removed from her grasp.”

TH. “ That did it for me. I felt like leaving there and then - the first, and thankfully, the ONLY time I have felt like leaving an event in 35 years. What I had just witnessed shook me to the core. The fact that so many premies thereafter criticised her, even down to her dress sense, made me feel increasingly like walking away from an organisation that resembled, that day especially, a “cult of personality”, lacking in empathy, and blinded by what my girlfriend perceived as the “idealising” of Prem Rawat. To his credit, he did actually ask her “what do you want me to say?” but any chance for her to respond was quickly “removed from her grasp.”

VivK. “ It is documented that PR has endured this kind of ugly harrassment from his childhood, dissatisfied people with grudges desperate to blame the easiest target at hand.”

TH “You know, for my own sanity, I revisited an “old tape” from 1980 soon after the event. Sure enough, PR’s tone WAS very much one of “NOTHING is important except prostrating at the lotus feet.” I also once heard him say, in 1978, at a meeting: “You can forget your career. You can always get another of those.” Then again, he WAS very young, and in later years has gained huge human experience, as a husband, father, as well as figurehead, and would certainly NOT adopt such a dismissive attitude today. He may always have had his message and mission, but there’s no substitute for experience, and hopefully we have all evolved. Sadly, we were very impressionable in those early, idealistic days, and this coupled with Prem Rawat’s own upbringing, and the messages HE was given and took on board(e.g “Guru is greater than God”) made for a structure that caused many to eventually feel betrayed by him. Though I personally do not feel this way, I can understand how some people do. In the final analysis however, we are each responsible for ourselves, and have to learn from our mistakes.”

VivK. “ Regarding this page, which largely resembles a poor facsimile of a prizefight, at least Pat W has the courage to post his comments here in his name, but why on earth is the toxic bile of an anonymous ex-premie attack dog 147.144 allowed to stain these pages?”

TH. “Sorry Vivk, but with these words you display everything I came to hate and reject about “the premie thing.” These words display to me the very narrow-mindedness and lack of understanding that I could not stomach any longer, which is why it took me 18 months to process what happened that afternoon. I know people who walked into Ally Pally premies, and walked out of there vowing never to return…

Now this may surprise you. I still practise, and have since enjoyed Prem R’s company, both in person, and at events at least once a year. Charanand once gave me this advice.”No matter what the conflict, always try and see all points of view.” It is clear that a lot HAS been done and said in Rawat’s name that he has had nothing to do with, and that must frustrate him. I think he has done well to free himself from much of the extreme tradition he inherited, and for a while, espoused. I am greatly relieved to hear him, in recent “expressions” events, refuse to allow people to go down that old road of “I’m so useless and you’re so marvellous.”, but has instead sought to empower such people , as he did in Lisbon, when he said: “Forget about being a premie. Just be a human being.” I must say it can’t be easy for him when we still cling to our “old “ views and attitudes, and insist on keeping him on a pedestal. It saddens me to hear that, despite all he implored of us in amaroo in 2006, he still enters a room at a party held in his honour in San diego last year only to be mobbed. Some years ago my reggae band was hired to play at his daughter’s birthday party. When he entered the party , he was mobbed. Afterwards, my bassist, who knows very little about him, was shocked at this. “Why can’t they let the man move freely in his own house?” he asked. Quite right too. I feel what Cathy did was brave, even though it was uncomfortable for me, for her, for you, and for Prem Rawat. I believe it has had a positive outcome however, firstly in that she finally freed herself from her dependence on him|(which is NOT a healthy basis for ANY relationship): second, it freed me from mine, and third it struck an uncomfortable chord in the premie subconscious that this is NOT all “pie in the sky” and that it is not necessary to look at Rawat through rose coloured spectacles. For me, it helped me realise that he is, after all, not “The Lord Of the “Universe”, but human. Only now, with this paradigm, can I TRULY appreciate his work . I said to Cathy that she should not take his response that day too personally. She unwittingly touched, in my view, a very raw nerve. To me he had already appeared tired that day, and I did not know then that he had just done about 19 events on the trot. Had she spoken at the first of these, who knows, his response might have been different. But to vilify her is to miss the point. She HAS since been to his events by the way. I apologise if my response offends you Vivk, but I felt it necessary to defend Cathy, and to put another point of view. As my friend, Prem Rawat’s facilitator Peter Dawson said to me. “Challenge everything, because what is real shall stand.” He’s right. “

Vivk.”No wonder this putrid writer cowers behind a mask, no-one would want to be associated with such a negative take - on anything. The comments from this person represent a state of mind one can only shudder to comprehend what it must be like to experience. But why aired here? Wake up editors.”

TH. “Ouch! Aren’t you being unnecessarily unkind? I suggest you take Charan anand’s advice. It has certainly served me well, many times.”
VivK : Pat, you are playing animal balloons with other people's words again. I cast no such thing you attributed to me, merely presented what actually happened at Alexandra Palace to allow any sane observer to note how laughingly corrupt your version of that woman's offensive interruption of that (otherwise extremely inspiring) event was. Try and get it, what part of the word 'offensive' don't you understand?

“TH” Here’s backatcha VivK! You say you “merely presented what actually happened. “ Wrong! You merely presented your point of view of what happened. There’s a major difference.”

All the Best, Tim Hain.

Posted on behalf of Tim Hain byPatW (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prem Rawat 1RR probation
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As requested
As [per your request, see Wikipedia:AN/I#User:PatW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not a very fair trial methinks. Hadn't really bargained for the fact that your jury there apparently actually don't see any need to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the arguments before casting judgement. Anyway no matter. Believe me I would like to conduct a totally civil discussion on these matters and as a matter of fact I am inspired to even extend some apology to you for calling you a lying creep and one that will shortly be exposed etc.. That was a bit over-the -top but not far off what is actually happening in a nice civil toned down way? (none of the creep bit- I was just cross) A lot of what you and Momento have done has been seen by these new folks as unfair and actually one-sided with the truth on several matters (like his claims and denials of divinity). I feel it is my right to continue to draw attention to criticisms here,(even epo ones) especially as someone who has been trying sincerely to come to terms with and establish truth about Prem Rawat and my involvement with him. Even you must now be seeing that more neutral editors share many of the objections that I and other less-neutral editors have expressed. How can I not see that as some kind of vindication? Particularly with regard to your apparent sanction of persistent un-cooperative editing by Momento and other premies which I have long accused you of. I will try to be more polite but I'd appreciate that you also refrain from casting my arguments as soapboxing when they are germane to a discussion. Thanks. PatW (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, can you tell me something please which I am unsure about? That instance where I called you and Momento 'horrible liars' etc. (for which I have apologised). Did I not delete that straightaway? If I did, wasn't a bit mean to drag it out of the bin to use against me? If I didn't delete it then I owe you another apology. But could you just confirm this as I find it hard to see from the history page.PatW (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, to which you did not apologize, btw. In any case, an apology on its own will not do, Pat, as you have continued with your personal attacks such as in here]. A publicly made commitment never to do that again is what is needed, accompanied by an acceptance that if you do that again, you will accept the consequences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have apologised see above.PatW (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is where is it shown who deleted that comment and when it was deleted? PatW (talk)
You posted the comment on 9th Feb in the "Photo" section and didn't apologize or delete it despite making numerous subsequent comments. The entire section was archived by Msalt on 22nd Feb when the photo was deleted.Momento (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry about that I thought I had.PatW (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of friendly advice
Hello, PatW,
This message is a piece of unsolicited but friendly advice from some-one who until yesterday never heard of Prem Rawat (I came at the article more or less by chance) and who has no interest in the subject of Prem Rawat.
I can see from your user page, from your talk page and from looking up the list of your contributions that you have a real passion about the subject. I believe that you are a well-meaning person acting out of honest desire to make critical information about Prem Rawat heard and reflected in the Wikipedia article about him.
However, I think that you are going about achieving your goals the wrong way. It is OK to have a strong point of view. But when editing on Wikipedia, you have to do so while respecting its rules and policies. This means, in particular, that your arguments and edits have to be dry and dispassionate and painfully polite. It does not matter if your opponents do the same, it does not matter what you think about them, it does not matter if they themselves follow the rules, it does not matter if they are honest, it does not matter if they have a hidden agenda, and it does not matter how much they get on your nerves. In your edits, including those at talk pages, you must be a heartless but polite bureaucrat.
In fact, not even the truth about about the underlying subject of a WP article matters (good, evil, criminal or saint), at least as far as arguments to be presented when discussing the article at its talk page. As the first sentence of WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". This is a very hard thing to accept intellectually and morally, but that is what you have to do if you want to edit Wikipedia.
I have looked up the history of your talk page and of the talk page for Prem Rawat. One thing is clear to me even from a cursory examination: your opponents certainly know Wikipedia's rules and policies much better that you do and they are much better at following and invoking those rules and policies than you are. It does you absolutely no good to call people names and to publicly question their motives and good faith, no matter how much you think they deserve it. (I had to learn this lesson the hard way myself, and in fact I am still learning.) This can only get you banned. In fact, I am fairly sure that if the case regarding the Prem Rawat article went to the Arbitration Committee now, you would get banned for a year. You can look up their recent decisions at WP:RFAR/C and judge for yourself. You should realize that the history of all your edits is looked at whenever other administratiors (or the ArbCom) look at the dispute, and it is now very easy for your opponents to make a verifiable case that your edits violated a number of WP policies, including personal attacks. That alone is enough to get you banned for a year if the matter ever gets to ArbCom.
Another thing that plays against you is that you are essentially a single purpose editor (again, you can look up the ArbCom cases to see that they frequently use this as a consideration against a party involved).
I would suggest that you take a complete moratorium from any edits, including the talk pages, related to Prem Rawat, for several month (say 4-6). In the meantime, I would also suggest that you start editing WP entries on other topics. Surely, there are other subjects, apart from Prem Rawat, that you are interested in. You can build up a history of neutral editing on other subjects in Wikipedia. And, if in say 6 months, you come back to editing Prem Rawat related matters, you will be in a much better position to achieve your goals and you will also have gotten some valuable experience.
Finally, a few words about your user page, User:PatW. You should realize that its current version does not conform to WP:UP#NOT, see also WP:SOAP. Again, having a user page like that will and does play against you when other wikipedians look at the disputes related to you. I would suggest that you remove the polemic material from your user page and put it on your off-wikipedia personal page. I would suggest making your user page mostly blank, and just listing the subjects you are interested in, e.g. "I am interested in Prem Rawat, cricket and British naval history", or something like that. You can include a link to your personal page on your user page.
As I said in the beginning, this message is a piece of unsolicited friendly advice, so feel free to delete it immediately if you want to.
Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I won't delete it. I welcome your advice completely. In fact I may well do as you suggest. It might seem a little like 'having something to hide' to take down this page straightaway but on the other hand it may well be a demonstration of some willingness to learn the rules. To be honest I had no idea until last week about this notion of 'soapboxing'. I'll think about your recommendations seriously. I think you are quite right as it happens.PatW (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]