Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15


Zappaz, Quotes should go into Wikiquote

I mean, where will it end? I would like to insert embarrassing and contradicting quotes too. But I do not think that I have the right to do so. I will revert. Andries 09:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would you revert? That is not acceptable. This is a good quote and adds to the controversy of the claims of divinity. --Zappaz 09:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I agree that it is a good quote and that is why it should go into Wikiquote. As I have argued before (with Jim Heller) I generally think that writing an article by providing quotes is a very bad way of writing an article. So I opposed the quotes that Heller provided too. I wrote to Jim Heller that Adolf Hitler could be "proven" to be a Christian by providing quotes from his speeches and his book "Mein Kampf". Andries 09:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The quote is already in Wilkiquote. I think that this quote is highly relevant for this article as it clearly demonstrate the use of "guru maharaj ji" as referring to his father, an isue at the core of the claims of divinity controversy. I just came across this article on the ex-premie website [1] and I think that it is an excellent addition to the article. I will not revert back immediately, but instead I will appreciate comments from Gary D and other neutral editors about the relevance of this quote. --Zappaz 09:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


In the magazine "And It Is Divine", (January 1973, v 1, i3) he was quoted as saying when referring to the day he received the techniques of Knowdlege from his father:
...when I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God.


Zappaz, I sincerely appreciate your explanation it but the link that you provided supports, in my opinion, my view that quotes in the article should be minimized. I mean, the link also says that the guru (formerly Hans Maharaj and now Prem Rawat) is greater than God. In other words, this supports the view of the critics that Prem Rawat claimed divinity. And to allow such quotes in the article would be unfair if no "counter quotes" should be allowed and hence the article would disintegrate by the many quotes. I learned this idea of minimizing quotes from an experienced editor of Wikipedia who conmmented on a near edit war in the Adolf Hitler article (or Nazism, I do not remember). Andries 10:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, when inserting this quote at least the context should be provided i.e. mentioning that Prem Rawat argued that guru was greater than God and used his father as an example, and also providing the link to the scanned publication in the article. Andries 11:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I assume that you agre that this quote is relevant, then. Thank you.
  • Regarding the link, let's wait until the scanned page is placed in a more stable web page than in a volatile discussion forum. Could you ask your ex-premie friends to put the scanned page image on their site?.
  • Concerning the 'guru greater than god" issue this is already discussed at length in the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Alleged_claims_of_personal_divinity section and the elanvital FAQs. They relevance of the specific quote I added is to the previous paragraph in which the confusion about referrals to "guru maharaj ji" are presented
As I said before, I would appreciate comments from other editors, in particular Gary D and other neutral editors about the relevance of this specific quote.--Zappaz 15:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I think it is a bit strange that you consider the scanned publication good enough to take quotes from but not good enough to link to it. I think that you have to cite more of the scanned publication to present the quote into context e.g by adding "Understanding that Guru Maharaji Ji comes in this life time of ours. [..] " But as I said before, this quote battle will not add value to the article. Andries 16:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I admit that the quote proves that Prem Rawat did not always refer to himself when using the words Guru Maharaj Ji but that was already clear from the peace bomb discourse. Andries 19:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What kind of a game are you playing, Zappaz? When I've tried to get you to discuss the quotes and their implications regarding Rawat's divinity, you begged off. But as soon as no one's there to actually challenge you to thoroughly debate the issue, you reassert your view. All I can infer from this little cat-and-mouse game is that even you know how specious and untenable your argument is. Rawat has his own unique idiom that one would have to properly understand to make sense of the apparent discrepancies. But it's not that hard to figure out either. Sometimes he referred to his father specifically, sometimes himself and sometimes just the generic "universal" Guru Maharaj Ji which he obviously thought were all one and the same, hence the same name for Pete's sake!

Now are you willing to debate this properly or not?

-- Jim October 16, 2004


I am not playing any games. We have debated this extensively already. You probably missed it. My points and counter-points are all laid out in the now archive 10. Go there and read them.
This newly found quote, simply makes my thesis much more solid than before. On the other hand, your assertions keep changing from he say he was God, to sometimes he referred to his father, to today's Rawat has his own unique idiom that one would have to properly understand to make sense of the apparent discrepancies (?????).
My thesis stands and stands firmer than ever. As for debating this again, I will only oblige if you have any new information to provide to such debate, otherwise it will be an exercise in futility. (Note that I have read most of the relevant material on your website, plus additional material from libraries and the web). --Zappaz 21:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of having anything new to provide, it's a matter of following through with the discussion. You refused to do that when confronted with the quote of Rawat reminding his followers in 1990 that the guru was really Hari or, as his own organization so helpfully translated, God. This was long after he could scapegoat his youth or family and put the lie to what you were saying as well as Geaves. You refused to discuss it.

Then, in the archive you've linked to, I posted a set of questions and answers which I claimed were irrefutable proof that Rawat claimed to be God in human form. Again, rather than answer my specific question:

Unless you have someone else in mind who Rawat's talking about, who "gives people such a technique...." who is the "form of Guru", you must admit he's talking about himself.

You just threw smoke at the issue:

Secondly, my thesis still stands strong: I do not see anywhere that PR says he is God. PR is talking about what a satguru is and giving a pretty accurate description based on the ancient Indian tradition of satguru: He quotes very appropriately from Shankaracharya, Brahmanand, the Ramayana and from the Bhagavad Gita. Pretty amazing coming from a 13 year-old kid. Don't you think? and very much aligned with the cultural trappings from where he came. Read in detail my thesis above. I understand why my thesis it is not palatable to you, and I have explained that quite clearly already

Go back to the question and answer session, please, and answer the question this time. One simple question, but I dare you to answer it honestly: who is Rawat talking about when he refers to the person who "gives people such a technique..." or who is the "form of the Guru"? Come on, Zappaz, who?

--24.68.220.3 23:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim


Zappaz, I think you make the mistake of classifying Jim's opinion as changing but I think you do not see the complexity of the issue. Andries 22:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, Firmer and firmer, then why was there a book with the title Who is Guru Maharaji with a picture of Prem Rawat on the cover that was presented as the authorized biography? [2] I think this is the only authorized book on Prem Rawat. I am not saying that you are completely wrong but I think it is wrong to insert a quote into the article from a newly published document on the internet that finally supported your thesis after reading the hundreds of articles about Maharaji on ex-premie and elsewhere from which you were unable to find a quote that supports your thesis. Inserting selective and out of context quotes is not a good way to write a Wikipedia article. Andries 22:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that you are mistaken, Andries. We are discussing here the claim that PR referred to himself as God, not what devotees thought if him. Please read the discussion in the archive 10, in which I lay the basis for my proposition.
As for your point about not understanding the complexity of the issue, well, would that apply to you, maybe? I have been studying this subject in particular for 11 months now. How much have you invested?. The fact is that this quote proves the narrowness of interpretation by the ex-premies and IMO is important for this article.


Zappaz, the biography was authorized and the copy right belongs to Shri Hans Productions. The book says that "Shri Hans Productions was Divine Light Mission's first subsidiary in America. Its focus is on the media, to communicate Gum Maharaj Ji's message of peace." An authorized biography means that consent has been given to its contents. I find your thesis hard to take seriously. Andries 23:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concede

I have requested from Gary D to make a dispassionate assessment of the relevance of this quote. --Zappaz 22:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi, everyone. I took a look, and I'm basically going to go with Andries on this one. Keep in mind that as the article stands now, we have as a stated, unattributed fact that duing the "peace bomb" satsang PR was apparently referring to his father rather than himself, which is pretty good for the "pro" side. Now, the quote is relevant in the absolute sense, but it opens the door to a whole new level of specificity, where readers are asked to perform textual exegesis on PR's various speeches to draw their own conclusions whether PR is claiming divinity. The current paragraph generally states both sides of the issue and leaves it as an open dispute. This new, separate quote will upset that balance. It cannot remain by itself; if we include it as evidence that PR's speeches demonstrate he was not referring to himself as divine, it invites counter-quotes as evidence that his speeches demonstrate he was indeed referring to himself as divine. Given that the article is bumping up against the 32KB limit, before you know it we will have all these quotes pushed into a new article called "Controversy whether Prem Rawat's speeches contain divinity claims." IMO this level of minute detail and evidentiary specificity begins to push the limits of enclopedic interest. Thus, I would favor leaving the paragraph as is. --Gary D 02:12, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks Gary. I am not totally happy about this, but I understand your point. At least the quote is in Wikipedia for readers to evaluate together with other quotes. Andries, I concede. --Zappaz 04:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dare you to actually answer the question this time, Zappaz

Rawat said:

God manifested Himself fully into a form. Not a part, but wholly into a form, to cure people from the disease of sufferings. He came into this world; nobody recognized Him. For He never came like a flash or something, so that people could recognize Him. He came as the law of nature was; He came very silently. But what He was doing side by side, it was rather impossible for people of any time to recognize Him.

People of this time also can't recognize what He is doing. They can't recognize what His works are. They can't respect Him. But when He will finish up, and the whole result will be added up, people will pray.

Jesus came; they crucified Him. Nobody listened to Him. After that, the holy Bible was written. So many churches were made; so many things happened. When Jesus was there, nobody listened to Him. That's why He says -- what were the last words of Jesus when He left His body? 'Father, forgive this whole world.' Yes, forgive this whole world! He called, 'You forgive this whole world. They can't bear that.'

Now He took a form to refine this whole world. He was trying to do all that in the Middle East. But now He has taken a form to refine this whole world, from one corner to the other corner of the whole world. He has come. And what does He do? He gives people such a technique, such a method, which is perfect, and gets them away from sufferings, the cause of sufferings of this world.

God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the Supremest of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity.

Who is Rawat talking about who "gives people such a technique", who is the "form of the Guru"? Will you admit that he's talking about himself?

--24.68.220.3 23:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Jim, as I already told you these debates are senseless and quotes such as you provided should go into Wikiquote. Note that I, unlike Zappaz, did not insist on adding quotes to the article but if Zappaz insists to insert quotes then I will also insist to insert quotes, otherwise I think it is unfair. Andries 23:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andries, how can you say these debates are useless? The only possible honest answer to the question is that Rawat was talking about himself. Do you agree or not? If so, then these comments are certain proof that he was calling himself God in human form. End of story. Tell me how I'm wrong.

--24.68.220.3 23:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Jim, the debates are senseless because most people including Zappaz and I have already made up our minds. I agree with you but we will not change our opinions. Besides, this is not the place to have debates unless it is related to the content of the article. I think it is important to stay open for evidence of being wrong but most ex-cult members, (incl. me) know from experience that this is difficult. Andries 23:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The only reason why Andries and others don't want that quote in the article is quite obvious: it throws a wrench in their construct... In any case, the article already makes this point and the quote is featured in Wikiquote, so it is not a big deal. I too would like to hear from other editors such as Gary, Ed and Senagal as it pertains to the relevance of this information to the article and specifically to that section. Maybe not the quote, but at least the information needs to go there. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:38, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


Jim: Let's continue this debate somewhere else. --Zappaz 04:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. How about Forum 8? It's just that I know it would be of general interest there. If you're game, just register there and post something and I'll reply.

--24.68.220.3 04:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Jim: I may be old, but I am not stupid... :) To accept to conduct a debate in a place such as forum 8 will make me so. I have lurked around that forum enough to see that it is a highly charged environment, and some of the people's comments bordering into the pathological. Let's find a more neutral place. I am leaving I a few days for a 5-week studies trip visiting several libraries in the olde world to pursue some of my other interests: ancient manuscripts and the apocrypha and my time for Wikipedian-related endeavors somewhat limited, so it will have to be sometime in December that we can do this. Find a neutral place and we shall have this debate. --Zappaz 17:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, Jim, I think this is an appropriate, neutral place for debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GuruRatings/ Andries 17:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that would work for me. But are you saying you won't be free until December, Zappaz? I take it then that you'll support revisiting the various articles if you end up conceding that Rawat did indeed claim to be God? In any event, I'll hash it out with you when you're ready. Just email me at jimheller@shaw.ca

Jim Sunday October 17, 2004

P.S. You can start, Zappaz, by answering my question above. Who is Rawat referring to when he says that "Now He has taken a form to refine this whole world, from one corner to the other corner of the whole world."? Who is that "He"? Who is that "form"?

-- Jim Sunday October 17, 2004

removed link copyvio

Removed link to web page w/ copyvio in which scanned material is displayed. Once the source, date and attributions are added to that page (as promised by owenr of website) it can go back. Otherwise this link is in contravention to wikipedia fair use/copyright guidelines. --64.81.88.140 19:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that not all the scans have the dates, sources and attributions. I will restore the links to webpages of the website that does not break any copyrights, as per Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works 11:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is a lame attempt to bypass the published guidelines. In addition, we had an agreement that these pages will be properly labelled and source and date provided. Readers are expected to accept these documents and no proof is presented that these pages were ever published, by who and when. Totally unacceptable. Remove these pages without source attribution and dat and only then restore the link. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it is an attempt to bypass copyright problems. And some scans have sources. Some have not. I follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding external link. Andries 15:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, do you seriously think that these scans are fake? The reason that scans have been used, and not just quotes, is because of the excessive scepticism from people like you. Andries 15:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Andries, this has nothing to do with skepticism, mine or otherwise. It has to do with the fact that without having source and date as well as credit for these, these pages are a violation of copyright and outside of fair-use guidelines. Other editors have made the same comment. The agreement made was that these pages will be properly tagged with necessary info. When they do, you are most welcome to put them back in the article.≈ jossi ≈ 15:27, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Darshan

since darshan line is still alive in india, now called grating-line it would be worth mentioning this in the main article IMO.thomas
Darshan is already covered in Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Darshan . ≈ jossi ≈ 03:33, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
yes but the name change into grating line is something new, especially for india; do you know any exlpanation why here is an evolution/change in the common cultural context like this, for an in india accepted practice? Has something revolutionary and should be mentioned in the article, either here or in Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Darshan. thomas
Grating line? Revolution? Is this a joke or something? In India Darshan is called Darshan. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
No? Thanks for clarifying that. I just happened to read pwkindia.bravejournal.com but if you say that this is all crap, mhmm then ok. i mean this is on the internet probably done by totally confused premies. thanks for the disclaimer.thomas
This looks like more of the hate group's "what about this?" game. Instead of providing any positive contribution, just nasty comments and assumptions and nitpicking. Much spark: little heat. (Lexy) Richard G. 20:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yes. what about this? you did not answer that. Is it easier to get polemic than to answer a simple question, mr teacher? here is an expression about something that was explained otherwise in the articles. Now there seems to be a change. i think i know that jossi is well informed of what is the official line, and that is why i ask him.as i was a premie myself, i know there may be good reason to doubt that everything that is published on the internet, seemingly pro-rawat, is presenting the official view, e.g. the catbox, maybe i should add your comments into the same category.thomas
Lexy, Richard, please do not use the word "hate group" unnecessarily on the talk page. It is unnecessarily polarizing. Andries 21:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits cleanup

Thanks Gary for the cleanup. You left the following: "She publicly claimed in India that "Prem was drinking and going to nightclubs and leading a dispicable Western way of life". Although I could agree that the mother may have said that, I do not think that there is evidence of such public statement. Seems to me that this is either hearsay or speculation. I would kindly request to revert to baseline consensus version => [3] ≈ jossi ≈ 17:12, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I left that in because such a public statement would be a great point of insight into the nature of the family rift. I also left in the "two of" the brothers returned to India, because I think the fourth brother stayed in the U.S. and remained loyal to PR. It's all good clarifying material if there's some reference out there to attach it to. Hey, ex-premies and anti-PR editors, can we get a cite on this stuff from somewhere in that documentation jungle of Internet pages you maintain? --Gary D 19:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) (P.S. on a technical point: the entire encyclopedia is hearsay; it's undocumented assertions that we want to avoid.)
Yes, I agree. I do not have a problem in leaving that statement if indeed she said that publicly (and BTW, the spelling is despicable).≈ jossi ≈ 19:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
LOL, that's what I get for my prissy technical point! --Gary D 19:47, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
from Barret page 325
At about this time he fell out with his mother, Mata Ji, [..] Press reports at the time said that she disapproved of Maharaji's lifestyle, which she described as luxurious.
here is a press report Andries 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay (and thanks), that press report citation substantiates the fact and content of the statement; now, does anyone have a citation for that exact quote? Otherwise, we should probably remove the quotation marks. (Also, don't forget the "one brother staying behind" thing.) --Gary D 20:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Andries. We can change the current text and quote Barret.: According to Barret, press reports at the time said that she disapproved of Maharaji's lifestyle, which she described as luxurious. or alternatively:
According to a report in the People weekly magazine (June 16, 1975), she announced that his son was corrupted by Western ways, strayed from the holy Hindu path and claimed he drank alcohol, eat meat and visited night clubs. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Until such exact quote materalizes, I am changing the text as proposed by jossi. --Zappaz 22:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting Talk Page

The talk page and it's archives are an important part of the editing process. They are most important to recall how the article came to live. I consider the deleting of the Talk Page as an act of vandalism. There is no article in Wikipedia to be considered as DONE. If anybody has told you so 61.246.188.34, he was wrong. Thomas h 07:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said, thomas. ≈ jossi ≈ 07:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of one sentence that had been forgotten

I will delete one sentence that had been deleted from the main criticism article but that had been forgotten to delete here.

" Their disaffection appears to stem in some part from their former belief in Rawat's personal divinity and consequent dissonance with his newer image as human teacher."

Please note that the criticism section here should be a summary of the main criticism article. Andries 17:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, where in the Criticism of Prem Rawat is there an equivalent statement for that sentence? If there is none, the sentence should not stay here. Andries 23:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but German Translation got completly crippled

German editors found our articles "Prem Rawat" and "Kritik an Prem Rawat" so obscure that they categorized it under [4], which means, they suspect the whole construct to be done as a catalyst for linkspamming. The critics-article will get deleted because they see it's mere existence as POV. And the main article is already completely shortened. None of those editors have read the originals or are even interested in it. So much to Wikipedia - Germany.Thomas h 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

German editors (e.g. me) try to avoid article splitting. MBq --149.225.114.185 20:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh we will be happy if you fix this here, i mean there is not only the critics article, we have [5] and [6] and [7], if you are as brave here as you are at german wiki with you auxiliary troops , go ahead. Ah naw, that's not what you meant, is it? Welcome in the hornet's nest Thomas h 20:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is with German editors and article splitting? Articles split when there is a need. Space is not an issue. This is not Encarta. Let it be. --Zappaz 06:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to Thomas' remarks, the Rawar articles are splitted because you have not been able to integrate critics into the main article. This means: the main article is POV, and the critics article is POV. WP ist not usenet, articles are not discussion forums. You should work on this problem and not try to insert it into the german WP. I state that both articles should be integrated. I proposed an integrated german version [8] MBq --213.6.132.254 13:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect. This article integrates the criticism of a small (but certainly vociferous) group of ex-followers. That is more than enough. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Jossi. "More than enough". Together with Criticism of Prem Rawat, it integrates critics, anti-critics and anti-anti-critics. - Encyclopedia articles should display facts, not their editors' discussions. It is possible to state the fact Ex-supporters strongly criticise DLM's commercial behavior and Rawat's lack of integrity in ONE sentence. No need to add a sentence that Rawat's supporters object to this critics. No need to add that the ex-premies object to the supporters response. And so on... Please have a look on Britannica's or Encarta's entries concerning "Divine Light Movement" for examples. Greetings from germany, MBq --217.185.22.138 13:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prem Rawat // Maharaji

Hihi Jossi as 140 exchanged almost all "prem rawats" with "maharaji", probably with a "search and replace" when he disovered that he killed the link to the criticism page, which he silnetly restored as jossi

you are talking absoulte nonsense . ≈ jossi ≈ 18:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, the anonymous editor is indeed mistaken when suggesting that you changed Prem Rawat to Maharaji throughout the article. It was 140 who did this on 12th April, and as the article is about Prem Rawat, it was clearly a bizarre act of vandalism. I propose that 140's changes are reverted unless anyone can justify the change. --John Brauns 22:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What vandalism? I agree with these changes. Maharaji is how Prem Rawat is mostly known in 82 countries around the world, I see no harm in leaving the edit as is. On the contrary--I think that it is a excellent edit overall. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
This article is titled 'Prem Rawat', and clearly states that he is known as 'Maharaji' to his students. The audience of this article is the general Wikipedia readership, not Prem Rawat's students, so having established that he is also known as Maharaji, there is no reason for the article not to use his real name. Adolf Hitler was also known as Führer but the Wiki article on him uses his real name throughout. I call the change vandalism as 140 made no attempt to justify the change in this talk page, which is the agreed protocol on these controversial topics. I wil revert the change this evening if no one gives a convincing reason not to do so. --John Brauns 05:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have changed most references of 'Maharaji' to 'Prem Rawat' at the start of each section, and simply 'Rawat' for further references within each section. I have kept 'Maharaji' where it is appropriate. Further evidence that 140's changes were vandalism is that links to other Wiki articles that reference 'Prem Rawat' were changed to non-existent articles referencing 'Maharaji', and all references to the 'Prem Rawat Foundation' were changed to the non-existent 'Maharaji Foundation'. Jossi, as you know, I will criticise ex-premies when they behave badly. I hope you will recognise that in this case 140 has behaved carelessly. --John Brauns 21:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you care? "Maharaji" is known to more people than "Prem Rawat" is. What is the problem of calling him Maharaji? And your disgusting mention of Hitler is just obscene and a poor choice that could only come from one of your kind.

140, this article is about the person called Prem Rawat. 'Maharaji' is an honorific title given to him as a mark of respect by his students. Use of the title in this article whose intended audience is not only his students is therefore POV as not everyone agrees that he deserves that honor. Calling him 'Prem Rawat' is clearly NPOV. The example of Hitler being refered to as 'Führer' by his supporters is an accurate example, and is not intended to imply that Prem Rawat is as evil as Hitler. The article has existed for some time now with Rawat being refered to as Rawat so why all of a sudden do you wish to change it? I will continue to revert your changes and if necessary escalate using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.--John Brauns 05:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will do the same
I do not understand why this is so important. As long as it is clear to the reader how and when he was called by whom then I think it is okay. Wikipedia guidelines say that the title of an article should not contain honorifics. This article has the title Prem Rawat and hence follows the guidelines. Andries 18:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Maharaji" is not just an honorific title. It is also the name by which most people know Prem Rawat.
I think this is where the error is based. As i mentioned before, as a former member i can understand it and i don't mean that as polemic. Fact is, most people have never heard of Prem Rawat or Maharaji. This is a view that becomes understandable when you are out for while. Maybe that is why Rawat calls TPRF this way and not e.g. TMF (The Maharaji Foundation). Yet i won't object to that Jossi, if that is what you want to do, an entry in an encyclopedia for those that have already heard of him.Thomas h 05:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Maharaji' is an honorific title. Elan Vital and the Prem Rawat Foundation say so. And even these organisations use 'Prem Rawat' more than 'Maharaji'. After much debate this article, and the criticism article, reached some sort of stability. 140, by making this major change, is threatening that stability. There is much in this article that I consider POV, and I am willing to edit the article and argue this at length if necessary. I would prefer not to, and if 140 doesn't want to get involved in another wiki war, he should let the article stand and not attempt major changes without good reason. The article is about Prem Rawat, so that is the name we should use. Simple. --John Brauns 06:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes Andries 16:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Andries, did you add the speculation about Google rankings? If so, why? --John Brauns 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
John, yes, I added the speculation about the google ranking because I could not see any other reason why this could possibly an important subject. Andries 07:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well could you remove the speculation please, and have the courtesy to ask me my motives rather than guess them in future. I oppose the change because use of the title 'Maharaji' would be supportive of the POV that Rawat deserves the title. --John Brauns 07:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this such a contentious issue? Google rankings? Neither .140 or John Brauns mention that. What has this to do with Google? --Zappaz 16:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this such a major change that requires an RfC? . May I ask what is the big deal?. For the record, please note that the use of threats is not called for. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is a major change, and should have discussed or explained here before being made. Prem Rawat is only known to his followers (a very small percentage of the population) as Maharaji. More people outside the cult remember him as Guru Maharaj Ji which would have been a more appropriate choice of name. He himself has chosen to use the name Prem Rawat; Elan Vital and TPRF use Prem Rawat; it is his real name; the article is entitled Prem Rawat; so clearly that is the name we should use. What's Google got to do with this? Regarding threats, premies and ex-premies have reached an uneasy truce on Wikipedia. Why would 140 wish to threaten that truce by this change? I don't know, maybe she/he can explain. --John Brauns 22:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Much of a do about nothing

This is not a major change. Your position baffles me. Why does an enemy of Maharaji have such an interest? You mut have your reasons that you are not forthcoming with. Why do you care so much about this? You and your small group of critics are a strange bunch at that. Even your friend Thomas says that this is much of a do about nothing. Give it a rest... gosh...!--64.81.88.140 00:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll give it a rest if you do. Deal? --John Brauns 11:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are not answering my questions above. I don't do "deals" with types like you. It gives me the creeps. --64.81.88.140 16:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have explained my reasons for opposing your change several times here. Just read my posts above. My motive for running ex-premie.org is to help any of Rawat's supporters that are not happy by providing information about him that is not available on his official sites. If that makes me an enemy of Rawat, so be it, but my motivation is to try to help people, not oppose them. Why do I care about this article? Well I got involved to ensure that Wikipedia told no blatant lies about Rawat or his former followers, and continue to monitor the various articles. Your change was clearly POV, so I reverted it. It is your responsibility to convince the wider Wiki community if you want to continue with trying to make the change. --John Brauns 17:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about <b<your blatant lies? Providing information you say? yes, pigs fly too... Explain how come my changes where POV. You are not upfront about your reasons. --64.81.88.140 22:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What lies? Supporters of Rawat consistently say that the website ex-premie.org is full of lies, and yet when pressed cannot specify a single specific lie. Maybe you can do better. Here is a quote from the Prem Rawat Foundation's website "Prem Rawat, known also by the honorary title Maharaji". Here is a quote from Elan Vital's website "When he started his work, Prem Rawat was given the title “Maharaji,” which denotes affection and respect". Use of the title 'Maharaji' in the article would be supportive of the POV that Rawat deserves the honorary title, or the 'affection and respect'. As you know, some people disagree, and the vast majority of people are neutral. Refering to Rawat by his name, whilst mentioning that he is also known as Maharaji, is neutral. I cannot see how you could possibly disagree with this. I am being very upfront about my reasons for opposing your change. Are you being honest about why you made the change? At the time you didn't even have the courtesy to explain the change in these discussion pages, but from the tone of your posts here, courtesy isn't your strong point.--John Brauns 07:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. I just asked you why you make such a racket about this and now we all know. Your blatant lies are in your own words: " to help any of Rawat's supporters that are not happy by providing information ". You do this because you hate him. Period. Here is your article "back as it was". thankyouverymuch--64.81.88.140 08:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Once again, a premie is unable to point to one specific lie on ex-premie.org; and I am certain no one outside the cult could possibly see hatred in what I wrote about trying to help unhappy people out of the cult. Your sniping, evasion, and downright nastiness does your cause as much harm as the facts on ex-premie.org. You are welcome to continue! --John Brauns 04:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
listen, some of my friends are alcoholics as well as Rawat, and the basic attitude is compassion, i think John is feeling similar, everything else, the cult, exploiting people, you not being able to look over the fence of your belief system, is a tragedy but nothing to be hated. Yet you have to label any anti-involvement as an act of hate because it has become part of your belief, which is again more a tragedy than anything else Thomas h 13:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i'd be glad to call John my friend, but i can't because i don't know him. FYI, friendship is something that grows over years and personal encounter is a major factor. Maybe i am too sensitive about that. But with years of oversimplification through the cult i had enough on my part. I said, i will leave the decision to you, my arguments are pretty clear, again, MOST PEOPLE, neither know Prem Rawat nor Maharaji. Your changes lower the quality of that article and thus that of Wikipedia but that is your choice. AT least it gives the critic at [9] more substance. Thomas h 07:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most references in the article should be to the subject's name, not to his title. If "Maharaji" is a title, and if the subject's name is "Prem Rawat", then he should be referred to as "Prem Rawat" or simply "Rawat". That is the same as we would do with other biographical subjects. For example, the article on George Washington refers to him as "Washingon", not the "president". -Willmcw 00:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --John Brauns 22:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Please note although it is a title, hundreds of thousands of people around the world known him as Maharaji, but in the last few years more and more people are getting to know him by his name: Prem Rawat. So it is not a big deal. The article, though, could do with some copyedit as I see that "Rawat" is used too extensively when in many paragraphs it is a given that we are speaking about him. Maybe I will attempt to do just that copyedit job when I have some time. On another subject, I would like to archive old stuff from this page. If there are no objections I will do so in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈
Why not use Maharaji when during the period that he was called Maharaji and use Rawat during the time that he was called Rawat? Andries 22:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Andries, I think this issue is now settled as both Jossi and 140 have agreed to use Prem Rawat or Rawat throughout the article, and Willmcw has confirmed this is the standard for biographical articles. But in case your suggestion is taken more seriously, then he should be called Balyogeshwar or Guru Maharaj Ji or Sant Ji Maharaji for the period he was in India, Guru Maharaji Ji from 1971 to 1983, Maharaji from 1983 to 2002, and a mixture of Prem Rawat and Maharaji (as he uses both names now) for the last three years. I doubt you want to pursue this proposal do you! :-) --John Brauns 04:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Dear child has many names (Swedish proverb) 23:00, 26 Apr 05, Rainer P.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_11&oldid=386192801"