Good Wikiwork, Tom Gubler!
  Archive
Posted by:
Jim ®

11/03/2006, 21:12:17
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Over on Wikipedia Tom Gubler has waded into wikiswampandfogland quite incisively.  Of course, Jossi Fresco has already tried to find some reason for blocking the proposed improvements:

Request for Discussion about Improvements to this Article

I am afraid that after a close reading of this article I have to say that it is significantly inaccurate and is not written from an NPOV and that there is much information in it that cannot be verified. I am relying on the Wikipedia guidelines re NPOV, Biographies of Living Persons, Verifiability and Accuracy in judging the quality of this article. Rather than going straight into editing and improving it I am giving other editors an opportunity for discussion. I also understand that there are Wiki guidelines re the conflicts of interest and I am concerned that some editors here are students of Prem Rawat and are unable to maintain an NPOV on the subject of their Master.

The introduction to an article is of particular importance and this one fails significantly.

“He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4. He only addressed people in India before 1971. Up until the 1980's or later he was not talking about finding “peace within”, he was using different terminology completely. In 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' it states he first gave satsang about “realizing God”. Up until the mid 1980's he was claiming to “reveal God”, “bring Peace to the World”, etc, etc.

“He calls this method "Knowledge" and describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[3]“ I believe this should read “and in 19xx described it as “. Prem Rawat's teachings have evolved considerably over the last 40 years and these changes should be highlighted with specific periods mentioned when quoting him.

“At the age of six, he was revealed these techniques of "Knowledge"” This should be altered to read His father revealed these techniques of “”Knowledge” to Prem Rawat and his brothers in 1963 as is explained in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji'

“began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent” - There is no evidence given in the reference that Prem Rawat spent any time traveling throughout the Indian subcontinent. If there is any such evidence it should be referenced. He was, after all, a schoolboy at the time.

“In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention, some of which referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru".[7]“

Who invited him? What sort of media attention did he attract? This should be expanded slightly to explain the invitation came from a handful of Western devotees and that the media attention was derisory and highly critical. The derisory media attention is easily referenced. I am unsure if there is any acceptable references to the status of his invitation. The evidence given in the 'Passages' video clearly shows that he did not respond to any specific invitation.

“talking about inner peace and teaching Knowledge” - He was not talking about “inner peace”, see above. He did not “teach Knowledge” whatever that means. He did not speak at “events”. He spoke at “festivals”, at public meetings, he spoke at meetings in private homes etc, etc. The use of Elan Vital jargon “events” is completely inappropriate when discussing his life in the 1970's.


“His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and academic articles and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... “He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy.” “However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex.”


What evidence is there that there was a “slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission”? - I recall the “dissolution” as being quite sudden and reasonably quick.

“promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge.[12][12][12]” - According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, he has continued to promote a means to achieve a lifelong, individual experience of inner peace,[13] “ - Why this repetition 2 sentences apart? The article is lengthy enough as it is. In the 1970's he spoke of world peace, he spoke of realization of God, etc.

“Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[14]” - It should be added that it is members of his organisation that has actively sought and requested these opportunities to speak at various institutions. Something like “Since 2001, Elan Vital has actively sought public forums where Prem Rawat can address various institutions on the subject of peace,”

“Rawat has attracted controversy for what his critics consider a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, leading a sumptuous lifestyle, and making what critics and religious scholars regarded as personal claims of divinity.” - This should read “regard as personal claims of divinity”. While Prem Rawat no longer makes such claims publicly his critics and religious scholars have not changed their attitudes towards his personal claims of divinity.

“His résumé discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a US Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications.[15] A US citizen since 1977,[16] he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.[17]” - I see no references for any of these claims. Mention of his finances should also include references to the newspaper reports of legal evidence showing Prem Rawat received millions of dollars of DLM money in the early 1970's from donations and inheritances that provided him with the money for his sumptuous lifestyle and investment funds.


Childhood in India


“When he was six years old, his father taught him the techniques of Knowledge, including young Prem among his other students” - When Prem Rawat was six years old, his father gave his four sons Knowledge. Prem Rawat is quoted in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji': “"When I was six my Father gave me Knowledge with my brothers in the same room.“ This is the language used then and it is the appropriate language to use in discussing the event.

“which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture” - Primogeniture has nothing to do with Guru successorship. Hans Rawat was not the eldest son of Shri Swarupanand. Vivekananda and Brahmananda were not the sons of Sri Ramakrishna. This statement has no relevance.


“There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver which refers to Shri Hans' request for Prem to succeed him.” - While I have no problem with this statement it is unsupported first person testimony and is redundant. As far as I know there is no dispute about the events of the succession and incarnation. However as Prem Rawat's personal experience of empowerment/incarnation is so dramatic and unusual it should be included. References to Prem Rawat's reminiscences 30 years later should be replaced with references to the published information available in the early 1970's.

“In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf.“ - In October 1969 he sent Mahatma Gurucharnanand to London to begin revealing Knowledge. The terminology used was “revealing Knowledge”, or “giving Knowledge”, “teaching Knowledge” has not been used.

“According to the Dutch religious scholar and minister Reender Kranenborg, this speech called the Peace Bomb marked the start of the Maharaji's mission to the West.[29]” - As the so-called 'Peace Bomb' speech was so remarkable there should be quotes from it directly in the text or linked to it here and some discussion of it's more bombastic statements.


The 1970s

“and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace” - The only parts of his speech I have seen do not mention peace but only Knowledge. "Because I have got that Knowledge, I have got that Knowledge, I have got that thing and I can say you all that I can help mankind and everybody of you by giving that Knowledge." Is there a transcript or audio/video of this speech?

“and eldest brother, Satpal” - At that time his eldest brother was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji

“That year the organization held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended.[citation needed]” - 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' page 36 states that 6,000 people attended.

“In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday and called "Millennium '73".[31]” - Millenium 73 was an enormous watershed for DLM and requires far more text than this.

“In 1974, DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques of Knowledge in the United Kingdom” - This is an extraordinary number of people. It is inconceivable that so many people could even have been initiated and as there was a tremendous drop-out rate in the early 70's there wouldn't have been that many “practising”. The reference is to a book called 'Soul Friend' by someone called Leech. What evidence is there that this claim has any basis in fact? United States statistics of the time are: On March 6, 1976 Associated Press reported that The Mission says it has initiated 50,000 into its ranks in this country since 1971, of whom 15,040 remain regular contributors. On Sept 22, 1976 Associated Press reported that Donations fell to $70,000 a month, although Joe Anctil the 43-year-old spokesman said 3,000 regular donors remain. And international numbers down from 6 million to 1.2 million. Presumably the other 4.8 million were following Mata Ji and Satpal.

Sophia Collier reported her views on Prem Rawat's divinity. She also reported that “(As I discovered later, we were not the only ones for whom some alcohol was the festival's high point. Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed."; “

“The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother.” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy. However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex. Prem Rawat then claimed his family had never accepted him as the Satguru and had never really understood what a Satguru is (Downton). Glen Whitaker in the 'Passages' video states that “Maharaji himself has taught about it, that and I knew the family, I could see what was happening, that they saw it as the family business.“

“The first posters about Rawat in the early 1970s said, “Meditation is not what you think.”” - They also said 'Guru is Greater Than God' and 'Guru Reveals God' and 'The Second Coming'

“claims which Rawat denied in several interviews given to the press and on television”. - Prem Rawat made claims in front of his devotees that differed from some of his “denials” to the media. An NPOV discussion of this situation should give examples of both of these types of statements. It should also include discussion of the difference between the public exposition of the “Knoledge” and the inner exposition. Are there transcripts of the interview by Johnny Young available? Or "The Tomorrow Show, 1973?

“An FAQ of Elan Vital claims that statements about Guru and God are routinely pronounced by people in India.[49]” - This should read “A FAQ” but does Elan Vital provide any evidence that this is correct? If it doesn't this is just an unverifiable statement and should be removed.

That is a list of my initial concerns. There is also much that could be added that would provide a more accurate, verifiable and NPOV account of Prem Rawat's tumultuous life and evolution in his exposition of “Knowledge” and teachings during the 1970's which are the most significant and eventful of his life.

Tgubler 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest of TGubler

Your edits are welcome in Wikipedia, but please note that you may have a conflict of interest. If your name is T Gubler, you are a person that had a legal wrangling with a related organization in Austraila, were apparently involved in a scheme to misappropriate computer data, and are actively engaged in advocacy against Prem Rawat. For more information see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

As for your comments above, there is no need to copy entire pieces of the article, as it is difficult to follow. I will attempt address your comments in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)







Previous Recommend Current page Next

Replies to this message

yes good job
Re: Good Wikiwork, Tom Gubler! -- Jim Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Susan ®

11/04/2006, 01:24:54
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Very well written.

Just shameless of Jossi to accuse YOU of bias. Huh? Who is he to say ANYONE has a conflict of interest on the subject.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Excellent points, analysis...
Re: Good Wikiwork, Tom Gubler! -- Jim Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Cynthia ®

11/04/2006, 05:41:39
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Hi Jim,

Yes, a great analysis.  It's refreshing to me after months of trying to wrap my head around Wikipedia and Jossi Fresco.

Most, if not all of it won't be used and will be thrown out.  Wikipedia isn't logical or practical.  And Jossi Fresco's first response has been to discredit the analysis by attacking the messenger.  Jossi's busy doing research now, collecting any and all posts made by Tom here that mention Jossi and the article.  Those will be used to block Tom and further discredit him.  

I think this analysis is a really good start for an off-wiki response to the Prem Rawat article though.  All good points.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Excellent points, analysis...
Re: Excellent points, analysis... -- Cynthia Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Andries ®

11/04/2006, 06:13:57
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Tgubler's comments that seem very accurate and show an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies cannot be easily dismissed. They will have to be dealt with one by one.

Andries







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Burn the midnight oil Jossi! nt.
Re: Re: Excellent points, analysis... -- Andries Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
turey ®

11/04/2006, 06:18:19
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin










Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Wiki Rules
Re: Excellent points, analysis... -- Cynthia Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
ocker ®

11/04/2006, 15:36:03
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Hi Cynthia,

No doubt Jossi will try ad hominem attacks on me however Wiki rules on biographies are quite straightforward and I am going to adhere to them far more faithfully than jossi has done so far.

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiable information only
No original research
Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Assume good faith
Civility and etiquette
No personal attacks
Resolving disputes







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Wiki Rules
Re: Re: Wiki Rules -- ocker Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Cynthia ®

11/04/2006, 16:58:29
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




I meant he'll to try to ban you based on anything you write about him here.  The No Personal Attacks guideline was worked on in an attempt to remove me from editing because I've said things about Jossi here.  Also, watch out for that pesky "Assume Good Faith" guideline.  Jossi games the system of Wiki rules to fit his needs and when he can't do it, he goes and changes a guideline. 

Make sure you put all the articles on your watch list (you can do that when you're logged in and include Jossi's user page  because I can guarantee you he'll be following you around Wikipedia.

I noticed that Momento has already made remarks about you and "detractors" on the talk page, so it's obvious that the "talk about the content of the article and not the editors" rule only applies to the adherents who exercise our free speech here.

But, I think it's great you want to give it a try, so go in peace and God bless you for trying. 







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Q?
Re: Re: Wiki Rules -- Cynthia Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Nigel ®

11/04/2006, 17:39:10
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




If Tom gets banned from Wiki for discussing Jossi here, what's to stop someone else implementing Tom's amendments, word for word?  Shooting the messenger will never stop the truth from eventually coming out, given that the truth already is 'out'.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Q?
Re: Q? -- Nigel Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Andries ®

11/05/2006, 04:08:47
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin










Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Q?
Re: Q? -- Nigel Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Cynthia ®

11/05/2006, 08:00:15
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Hi Nige,

If Tom gets banned from Wiki for discussing Jossi here, what's to stop someone else implementing Tom's amendments, word for word?  Shooting the messenger will never stop the truth from eventually coming out, given that the truth already is 'out'.

Nothing.  Anyone can work on the articles.

But anyone who does will have to make a lifetime commitment to watching the articles and working on them with Jossi Fresco/friends.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
do all ex premies have a conflict of interest? Why don't all premies have a conflict of interest?
Re: Good Wikiwork, Tom Gubler! -- Jim Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Susan ®

11/04/2006, 12:28:27
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Has it ever been discussed to throw the whole article out? If ex's or premies didn't edit it no one would take the time.

I guess Wiki wouldn't be Wiki if they decided to get an objective researcher to write the articles on the most controversial topics.

It really crazy making.







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: do all ex premies have a conflict of interest? Why don't all premies have a conflict of interest?
Re: do all ex premies have a conflict of interest? Why don't all premies have a conflict of interest? -- Susan Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Andries ®

11/04/2006, 13:05:15
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




One day I think that the Wikipedia policies will state that you can only edit articles that you are not interested in and have no personal knowledge of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Andries







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Sublime irony, Andries...
Re: Re: do all ex premies have a conflict of interest? Why don't all premies have a conflict of interest? -- Andries Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Nigel ®

11/04/2006, 13:32:57
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




>One day I think that the Wikipedia policies will state that you can only edit articles that you are not interested in and have no personal knowledge of.

So articles will be written by people with no interest in, or knowledge of a subject?

That's not the sort of encyclopedia I would encourage my children to read, or give my mother for Christmas.  I prefer my experts to be expert - or, at the very least, interested in what they presume to know.

As I've been saying for a while: Wiki is a doomed project, if its aims are educational.  Your latest comments here only reinforce that certainty, Andries. 

Nige







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Sublime irony, Andries...
Re: Sublime irony, Andries... -- Nigel Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
13 ®

11/04/2006, 13:40:18
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Surely Andries was intentionally ironic? The Dutch are at least as full of irony as the Brits.






Previous Recommend Current page Next
Yes, Andries at his best
Re: Re: Sublime irony, Andries... -- 13 Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Jim ®

11/04/2006, 13:46:51
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




That is so Andries-type humour.  Picture a very sincere, earnest young (compared to some of you guys) Dutch guy, intelligent and poker-faced with a very subtle twinkle in his eye.  Andries.






Previous Recommend Current page Next
I bet he drinks Jenever gin too and plays table-soccer in seedy bars...
Re: Yes, Andries at his best -- Jim Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Nigel ®

11/04/2006, 14:47:52
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Gnomic and inscrutible, but also loveable as Dutchmen tend to be, in my experience.

Forgiving too, I hope...

 







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: I bet he drinks Jenever gin too and plays table-soccer in seedy bars...
Re: I bet he drinks Jenever gin too and plays table-soccer in seedy bars... -- Nigel Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Andries ®

11/04/2006, 15:01:11
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Jenever, no. Table-soccer, yes. I was not aware that that is typically Dutch.

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/11408.html







Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: I bet he drinks Jenever gin too and plays table-soccer in seedy bars...
Re: Re: I bet he drinks Jenever gin too and plays table-soccer in seedy bars... -- Andries Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Nigel ®

11/04/2006, 15:49:47
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Ha! - Gotcha!

In my experience, table soccer in bars is absolutely typically Dutch - we don't even have those machines in England in pubs, sadly. 

But I have good memories of travelling through Holland en route to Germany and back, stopping off and sleeping over at various points.  I also worked at Schiphol Airport for a while, and decided the Dutch people were possibly the coolest on the planet...

But you really should try Jenever gin, Andries - I don't think the Wiki authorities have banned it yet...   And I like the way pubs in Amsterdam have their 'house' dope dealers, and the canals you can stumble into going home from the pub, and the chip shops that give you mayonnaise (what?) instead of vinegar and ketchup and... hmm, too much nostalgia now...






Modified by Nigel at Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 15:59:41

Previous Recommend Current page Next
Re: Good Wikiwork, and simple proportionality!
Re: Good Wikiwork, Tom Gubler! -- Jim Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
tommo ®

11/06/2006, 18:37:38
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




Good incisive points certainly..

Is there not also some simple WIKI rule about the length of articles in proportion to their significance?   > 97% of one-time Western 'pemies' have long since voted with their feet and now have nothing more to do with him.  Maybe 5000-7000 adherents outside of India?  Even Luton Town FC gets morr than that every Saturday.  By any objective measure he has achieved little and is certainly not a figure of any special note being neither a 'leading voice for peace' nor a leading humanitarian charity worker..or even a 'spearhead' whatever that is.  Most people will never have heard of him.

I mean seriously, the WIKI article on Nelson Mandela looks somewhat shorter than that proposed for Rawat?!  It reminds me of the 'Hitch Hiker's guide to the Galaxy' in which the Earth merited no more of an entry than 'mostly harmless'.  Same here.  The debate on wording could certainly become more sharply focussed if the WIKI editors ruled that the entire article should not exceed half a dozen words to sum it all up (which is about proportionate to its curiosity value).   I would offer 'minor cult leader'...any other offers?

best

Tim







Previous Recommend Current page Next
How about
Re: Re: Good Wikiwork, and simple proportionality! -- tommo Top of thread Archive
Posted by:
Saph ®

11/18/2006, 07:56:36
Author Profile


Alert Forum Admin




 How about minor cult leader with hugely overblown self image?






Previous Recommend Current page Next