Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007

Criticisms

Since Prem Rawat is controversial a criticism section feels relevant. This criticism section has been deleted or removed several times without comments by Momento and/or others. A previous article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat " has also been deleted. It has also been noted that an external link to a site about Prem Rawat and his work has been removed by Jossi without comment. However edit warring is prohibited Wikipedia:Edit war.

Any disputes should be dealt with using the dispute resolution process. 76.102.196.148 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 178.26.39.46

I removed that link on the basis of Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, as well as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. As for the "criticism section", please read the archives were this has been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user. This article is the only one you have ever edited. You have shown a dishonest approach by describing the website you tried to link to as a “website about Prem Rawat and his work.” I suspect you know very well that site is an unmoderated attack site set up with no purpose other than denigrating the subject of this article, who is a living person and protected by the Wikipedia guidelines and rules for Biographies of living persons. You are doing yourself no favours and are heading for a charge of disruptive editing. Please avoid this by reading the extensive archives of this discussion page before contributing again. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user, just like me. This article is one of many that I have edited, but since my ISP changes my IP address from time to time, it just seems I am only editing articles relating to Mr Ji's operations at the moment. I am sometimes incredibly dishonest, but my contributions to wikipedia have to be assessed not on the basis of my appalling crimes, rather, whether they make sense and are informative. I know very well the ex-premie sites are antagonistic towards Mr Ji and that nothing must ever be published that calls into question his good name and the multiple money-collecting organisations run in his name. This is an important piece of international law, with which every article in wikipedia must comply with as at present, under pain of persecution from the latter-day Praetorian Guard. Your contributions will be mercilessly deleted by a handful of premies whose spiritual path has led them to be the guardians of the premie-controlled pages in wikipedia. All I can say is to repeat something once said by a little known British leader some while ago, a man called Winston Churchill. He said: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, your comment in it's current form can easily be seen as a personal attack. You should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's the policy. The site being referred to describes itself as an information resource covering Prem Rawat and his work, and according to Jossi's comment above it's ok to refer to a biased site such as the site that contains Prem Rawat's resume.

Surely, even though this is a living person it is still justified to have a criticisms section, especially considering the fact that this topic is a contentious one.

I mean to the casual observer the fact that two people who were previously part of the organization disagree so vehemently suggest that there is contention and this page doesn't suggest that there is any. This feels somewhat unbalanced in my opinion.

A neutral point of view can be established by (at the very least) referencing that there is criticism, the type of criticism and the relative sources of the criticism (even if you don't link to them) you don't have to state that the criticism is right or wrong, that is for the reader to decide/believe. Nor do you have to go into great detail, just reference the fact it exists and what it relates to.

I also think the terminology "hate site" is a biased one. Truth is a highly subjective matter, surely to obtain a neutral point of view one must have all the points of view to appreciate where neutrality actually lies. This includes potential "hate". --Icky Media (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Since there have been well documented criticisms, preserved in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=101616544 it seems only sensible and reasonable to include them on this page if the idea to merge is a good one. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the history of "criticism".Momento (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid this article being inundated with newspaper opinion, this article relies almost entirely on what scholars say about Rawat. Critcism by tabloids, blogs and personal, unmoderated web sites are not acceptable sources.

Momento (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/misc/mdpanel.htm and acknowledge the reliability of the Washington Post when they report "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." This was the Maryland House of Delegates! I know it happened a long time ago, but this is an opinion published by a Government body. It simply must be mentioned be mentioned, perhaps in the article about the Diving Light Mission itself though? What do you think? 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think for a person to represent an organisation denounced in that way and have no indication of it at all on there biography is just not right. The extent of media and published criticism of his organisation is extensive, but there is no indication of it at all in his biography. May I ask if you are directly or indirectly involved with Prem Rawat before continuing this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article about Prem Rawat, not Divine Light Mission. Secondly, it is not an opinion published by a Government body, it is an opinion expressed by a congressman reported in a paper. Thirdly, it is 28 years old. And fourthly, you would do well to read the extensive discussions about this article, including the numerous RFC and independent comments.Momento (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is so much criticism to be found on the Internet of this man, and so much of it is refuted by other sources. When two different sources disagree over someone it is controversy. When controversy occurs to this extent, but is not indicated in an article about the subject on wikipedia (particularly if it is due to the edits of a someone associated with the subject) it is a problem that needs to be fixed. It really is that simple, something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Momento - why do you continue to revert changes to this article? They are cited and well-documented. Additionally the warning to stop reverting posted on your talk page was removed by you as "vandalism." Wikipedia suggests that those that are involved with an organization not edit articles related to that organization. Your breach of WP:3RR has been reported.24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It also looks like a whitewash. You can't just revert to a no criticism version if there is in fact significant criticism. Undue weight does not mean delete, but reduce. David D. (Talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat suffers from two major faults. He became a famous religious figure at a young age and he is Indian. He was therefore the object of cheap shots from the media and criticism from a few Christian scholars. Momento (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • The supposed intent of the media is immaterial; the purpose of the article is to reflect an integrated view of the subject. Thus the reason for WP:NPOV.24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is really interested in keeping this article factual and based on excellent scholarly references, please remove 24.98.132.123 (Talk) inclusion of The Register as a source. Thanks.Momento (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than wait for somebody else to remove this properly cited information it appears that you have again reverted this article. I will again remind you of WP:3R. It is unclear why you are so opposed to differing POV on this article. Regards. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My interest is in following Wiki policy. Wowest has now inserted The Register comment about Wikipedia into this article despite BLP saying - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". Could someone, even Wowest, please remove this violation.Momento (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well wikipedia policy seems to be if there is significant criticism, in this case the accusations of cult, then they should be mentioned. Guarding an article by deleting all criticism is not policy at wikipedia. Certainly one can discuss how much criticism should be mentioned but it cannot be none. I'd suggest that you mention some source of criticism you find acceptable. Even write a section that you could live with. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Momento, sir. The quotation was inserted by Philippe, not me, then deleted by you as an alleged violation of BLP and your deletion reversed by me, since it clearly was not a violation of BLP. The passage in question merely reflects the credibility of the article itself, which is zero. The article is nothing but an advertisement for Rawatism. Every direct or indirect reference to Rawat, his so-called "Knowledge" or other, superior methods of "meditation" available on the market, which you three deem might take business away from Rawat's enterprise is systematically deleted, isn't it? Even a documented quotation that beneficial results attributed to Transcendental Meditation as a result of experimentation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques was deleted, without discussion, by one of you three. Wowest (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was inserted by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) not by Philippe who protected the page. The article is clearly an attack article and not the best representation of criticism. What serious criticism is out there? David D. (Talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David. There isn't any serious criticism. What criticism there is comes from three sources - An anti Rawat ex-followers group, four or five fundamentalist Christian scholars such as Kranenborg & J. Gordon Melton from the 70s and tabloid beat ups from the 70s. This is one of the most scrupulously researched and sourced articles in Wiki. We have had numerous RFCs and excellent involvement from independent editors. As a result this article is factual and devoid of hype either pro or con.Momento (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How large a proportion of Rawats ex-follows are represented by this group? Are you talking about the people responsible for the ex-premie website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just searching on google for "'Prem Rowat' cult" yields many thousands of results from loads of different sites. If there is that much material expressing these views, shouldn't they be debunked or explained here somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

or not...it's actually only about 850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was right the first time, there are thousands of hits. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=alD&q=%27prem+rawat%27+%2Bcult&btnG=Search&meta= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopedia, it needs high quality sources not internet blogs. And Biographies of Living People require the highest standards of any Wiki articles.Momento (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The evening standard refers to him as a cult leader at least twice last year in separate articles last year, once on the front page. The article doesn't give any indication that a national newspaper has said that about him.

The Evening Standard is a tabloid. See WP:V#Sources, and Wikipedia:BLP#Sources, and all the links on the Google search are from self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely neutral here... I'm not bothered with editing the article... but, where in the 2 policies you reference does it say that tabloids are not viable sources? It seems that you are making a link between it being a tabloid and it being unreliable, but I think that's pushing your opinion not what those policies actually state... Onesti (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids can be viable sources for some articles but in Biographies of Living People "Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.". The Evening Standard articles that Anon and Jossi referred to are by the same author Robert Mendick and typical tabloid beat ups. The first one is headed "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor Appeal". This headline is contradicted in the first paragraph of the article. Firstly Rawat is described as a "former" cult leader and then we are told that Rawat is "involved in raising funds". It is obvious the Rawat is not handing over $25,000 in "cash" but "gives cash" sounds more like a drug deal than "giving a donation". In the second article Mendick's headline is "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". In fact, it was a charity event where the public were invited to buy tickets and to which The Prem Rawat Foundation had donated 10,000 pounds and encouraged people to support.Momento (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, when do you think that criticism can be inserted? It has been my experience that you delete any criticism, regardless how well sourced it is. Andries (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic. It makes sense if you think about it. (For the millionth time...) Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we estimate total number of 'miserable Dutch Protestants', 'Catholics or Lutherans' 'Buddhists', 'members of competing theologies' and 'hysterical tabloids' who criticise Rawat? If it is not a tiny minority view it does belong in a BLP. 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be more specific - we shouldn't be using the people you describe as a source, we should find a source we can agree on as being reputable expressing the views of these people. It is the fact that a non-minority of people are critical or Rawat that must be included; rather than using this article as a platform to reiterate those peoples criticisms - that should be kept to those groups respective articles if appropriate.

In fact...this is a no brainer, the BLP page specifically says that criticism should be included, as long as it is not helpd by a tiny minority. Youv'e just mentioned 5 groups of people critical or Rowat. All we need to do is decide how few a number of critics constitutes a tiny minority in this case, and then judge the total number of these groups against that to decide if their criticism should be referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

..

":Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic." Oh. O.K. Sri Rumiton Ji. Then, obviously, no opinions should be expressed which come from current premies since their views are predictable and unencyclopedic, or somehow it just doesn't work that way? How about no opinions from sociologists of religion who have accepted cash or other valuable consideration from the Church of $cientology or the Unification Church because THEIR views are invariably predictable and unencyclopedic? You three always include those guys, in whatever article, for some reason.

Then, from the now-notorious jossi, himself, we get "The Evening Standard is a tabloid," as if the page size of a publication has something to do with the validity of its content. "Divine Times" was a tabloid. So, I believe, are the New York Post and the Chicago Sun Times. So what?

Then, from Rumiton, again, "Rawat suffers from two major faults. He became a famous religious figure at a young age and he is Indian. He was therefore the object of cheap shots from the media and criticism from a few Christian scholars."

Oh. So only Hindu scholars count? Actually, he suffers from several major faults: (1) He is promoting a group of relatively harmful "meditation" techniques which have no real utility except as part of a "cult mind-control" package (2) He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth about whether he is God or not, (3) He has failed to take responsibility for bullying his followers into moving into ashrams, taking all of their money and possessions and they throwing them out into the street a few years later (but keeping all of their money, of course).

Let's see: he could apologize? He could admit that he previously claimed that he was greater than or equal to God, and acknowledge that that isn't true?

But, no, instead we just have this "Wikipedia" policy as if the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Reports magazine should not accept complaints from consumers who don't like a particular product because anyone who complains is obviously biased? Wowest (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind logging in with a user name? It is hard having a conversation with a number. I agree that "we should find a source we can agree on as being reputable expressing the views of these people." That is what we have tried to do. The statement that "Rawat was seen by some as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" comes in this category, as does "...Prem Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people." The fact that he appeared in public dressed as Krishna, and the reference to the mockumentary Lord of the Universe are other examples, as is mention of the purchase of a Boeing 707 for his international travel. These were all examples of criticism by reputable sources. The statement that at one stage "Rawat continued to teach the techniques of Knowledge and affirmed his own status as a master rather than a divine leader" refers to his change of approach in the early 80s which attracted a lot of criticism at the time. This is to me, a neutral and encyclopedic way of acknowledging these things, with regard to the most important injunction for a biography, Do No Harm. Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask for "neutral and encyclopedic" on one hand while demanding "None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies" at the same time? "Encyclopedic" by definition means "comprehensive," i.e. the opposite of refusing to allow criticisms from anyone not affiliated with the man in question. Are there similar limitations on the pages for Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other major religious leader? "Sorry, can't edit this, you're not a member of this faith and we're trying to keep it 'encyclopedic!' " BTW, there's a big link at the top of this discussion page that says "Be welcoming." Criticizing people for not having a username to sign isn't exactly friendly. Some of us have been turned off from joining Wikipedia by just the kind of insider gamesmanship exhibited by you and many of the other Usual Suspects on this article and throughout the site. 155.104.37.17 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Below is the criticism section from Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2 a collaboration towards NPOV from May 2007. It never made it into the article as the whole section was cut before the imporved version was added back to the article in June 2007.

Prem Rawat has at times been the subject of criticism from religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members.

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University Nijmegen) wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. In 1986 van der Lans reported that compared to the educational level of the general Dutch population, high academic levels are overrepresented in Rawat's students

Kranenborg asserted that Jos Lammers, whom he labelled as an "ex-premie", made similar comments as van der Lans about Maharaji's lifestyle in his interview with the Dutch magazine Haagse Post. He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life.

The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote that "[...] in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex".

Melton reports that "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader."

An author initiated in Knowledge describes Rawat as being the subject of great controversy in India, "where he is also a major heretic."

This might be a good starting point for a NPOV version since all the users like momento (talk · contribs) had a large amount of input on this version. I think the main reason for it not being included is that it was supposedly worked into the text, however, I don't see any criticim in the current article. Is there any at all? David D. (Talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that as a hitherto uninvolved editor (yes, one who was brought here by the Register article but no, not one who accepts the Register's claims about User:Jossi at face value), I'm astonished that the level of whitewashing that seems to have gone on in this article. For a figure as prominent as Rawat and who has received as much criticism as Rawat has to have virtually no criticism in the article is, in my view, a stunning violation of WP:NPOV. I think the paragraph cited by User:David D. is an excellent and well-sourced starting point.

As to the argument that this article is about Prem Rawat, not about the Divine Light Mission is extraordinarily silly; it's like saying that criticism of Hitler in his article should be muted because it's about Hitler, not the Holocaust (and yes, I just became the first person in the argument to bring up Hitler - that means I win, right?).

This article as it stands is doing a great deal of harm to the credibility of Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Evening Standard may be a tabloid, but that doesn't preclude it from being a reliable source. WP:BLP does not include a sweeping statement deriding all tabloids, there is a gulf of difference between tabloid newspapers such as the Evening Standard, Daily Express and worthless redtop rags such as The National Enquirer, The Sun and The Daily Sport.

You won't find alien sightings, Lancaster Bombers on the Moon or hamster eating escapades in the Standard, nor will you find the "titillating claims about people's lives". Momento's arguments against the Standard's headline ""Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor Appeal" is incredibly weak. I'm pretty sure the Cash for Honours scandal didn't involve a drug deal, but we're not going to dismiss BBC's coverage because it uses such a term. To dismiss all sources from tabloid newspapers is an incredibly flawed application of BLP.

We have had suggestions above, from those I guess to be followers of Rawat, that any criticism from members of other faiths cannot be included because it's biased. That's bullshit and unworkable, I've taken a look at Criticism of Prem Rawat's article history, and that included sourcing from religious scholars. The redirect's edit summary showed "Revert according to Wiki policy on verifiability/foreign language sources" as a reason for essentially deletion, but there is no policy against foreign language sources, and the sources can be easily verified.

If Prem Rawat started a religion, and proclaims himself as lord of the universe, then some criticism of the religion will inevitably fall back onto Prem Rawat. I've seen "do no harm" quoted above, but a whitewashing of the subject does even more harm to the project and to the readers. - hahnchen 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been several version of the criticism section over the last year. I have stored some versions at Talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism for a comparison. While it is important to have some criticism we also need to use only the better sources and not write a section that predominates the article. I would hope all editors here could easily come up with a high quality paragraph, possibly two. David D. (Talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You will also notice the absence of praise. WQe will need to include an honors section like here [[1]]. And there's ample material here [[2]] to include.Momento (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, The Dalai Lama, section is "Awards and honors" not praise. Are they really equivalent? I looked at the Wikiquote about Prem_Rawat section but I only noticed one keys to the city award, most seem to be spoken praise. I see no reason to have some praise but awards are more concrete. Praise is often given out disingenuously, awards probably less so. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I found these here [[3]] .Resolutions, proclamations - Governors of Michigan and New Mexico. General Assembly of the State of Connecticut; Court of Common Council, Hartford, Connecticut; Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Rhode Island General Assembly; Wisconsin Legislature. Mayors of Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Buffalo, New York; Boulder, Colorado; Miami, Florida; San Francisco, California. House Majority Leader, Portland, Maine. Keys to cities = New York City, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; Oakland, California; Kyoto, Japan; Detroit, Michigan; Miami Beach, Florida; Miami, Florida. “Illustrious Citizen,” Quito, Ecuador. Letters of appreciation and honors = City of Atlanta, Georgia; United States Library of Congress; National Geographic Society; Vermont Historical Society; “Ambassador for Peace,” International University of Peace, Brazil. Special honors given by government officials = Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; Denver, Colorado. Award for Best Television Program 2004 and 2006: Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace.Momento (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how notable resolutions and proclamations are, but a key to a city is probably worth noting. An award for a TV program? Letters of appreciation? Feel free to add them but i think they will look like a parody of a normal award and honors section from a wikipedia article. What about honorary degree's from presitigious universities? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm not really thinking these honors should be included. I just want to illustrate the point that there are two sides to every story. People seemed to be outraged that followers of Rawat might edit this article. The fact that people who hate Rawat might edit is fine. I believe the best article sticks to facts provided by unbiased and independent experts.Momento (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are two sides to every story, but not at present in this article. You'd solve the problem by drafting a short section yourself. It's like in a debate where sometimes you debate against the position you actually hold. Its a good exercise in objectivity. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this article. I think it will be a lot easier if you give me an example of criticism you've found that you'd like to see included.Momento (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well how about the following two paragraphs that i just copied directly from Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2:

The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote that "[...] in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex".

Can these be improved to something that you would find acceptable along with a preamble? David D. (Talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be unbalanced to include Kent's view of Rawat without including another first hand viewpoint. How about Emilio Colombo, former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament, European Parliament. Parliament Conference Hall of the Italian Parliament, Rome Italy. July 7, 2004. He said "What intrigued me in Prem Rawat’s message is that he speaks of the possibility for every person of finding within themselves a peace, a happiness, that is not dependent on circumstances. Peace, he says, is within, and can be felt; we just have forgotten how to get in touch with it” Levine's comment could be balanced by Marc Galanter's experience of a DLM ashram , Galanter's a Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Center. He says - The atmosphere in the ashram was indeed quite striking. The intense communality of the members was immediately apparent, a quality that's clearly an important aspect of the group's function. One could sense a closeness among those present, and an absence of the minor tensions that would be expected in a setting where two dozen people were living in tight quarters. A college dormitory, a military barracks, or a summer camp soon weal a certain amount of hostile banter or argument. These appeared to be absent in the ashram. Caring and intimacy, reflective of the group's cohesiveness, seemed to mute any expression of animosity. There were kind words, offers of food, expressions of interest, and warm smiles, all from people I'd never met before. Any question was soon answered, sometimes even anticipated. Having been invited by one of their members and defined temporarily as one of their own, I was made to feel as if I were entering a supportive envelope, to be protected from the rough edges of relationships in the outside world". Momento (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

external links

Are all those links official websites of Prem Rawat as stated? Most appear to be independent. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "official" is but they are operated by people or organizations that have permission to use Rawat's speeches.Momento (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But not run by him. Maybe that sub title is not really required? It seems to be a hold over from when there was another section of links. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right.Momento (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of any critical commentary deeply disturbing

I read the Register article and I was deeply concerned. I'm very familiar with Prem Rawat and his organization, and this article is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. Criticisms from such sites as [[4]], while perhaps exaggerated, contain many citations to reference materials and cannot be ignored out of hand. TomRitchford (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also disturbed

Wow. I am stunned. I have been the staunchest of defenders for Wikipedia, and the founding ideas of it, since the beginning. Although I am not a loggedin member and the breadth of my contributions were humble spelling and ggrammer mistakes I have been an avid user, active promoter and, as mentioned above, a staunch defender of Wikipedia since it's earliest days.

I have spent over an hour now reading this talk page, the Prem Rawat article, the Register article, links concerning the 'definition' of cult, and many other related topics. Heck, I even stayed away from the [[5]] site so I wouldn't get such a biased opinion until I read several other articles/sites concerning this man. Despite the claim that it's only rabid Dutch Buddhists that have anything The zealotry exhibited in defending this individual speaks volumes about the cultish aspect of this man and his followers. While I've always viewed Wikipedia as evolving and getting better all the time with it's policies I now have to doubt how useful these policies are if they are only used as tools against outsiders by Wikipedia's main editors. The very fact that this article is now locked is enough to convince me that Wikipedia has sunken to what it so vehemently denied attaining to - a cheap publicity tool and akin to a tabloid. My faith in transparency and openess on the web is deeply shaken and I will think long and hard before I begin any research here in the future. - Sean Henderson - Not a Wiki Member... Just a (former) user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.173.87 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Becoming disturbed

By all the new people popping in to tell us how much they care about Wiki.Momento (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)