Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.245.65.89 (talk) at 16:57, 26 July 2011 (→First time visit, this article seems to read extremely positively... and that's not good). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.


Subpages




Comment

I have been examining BLPs of controversial figures to get a better understanding of how they are handled at Wikipedia. This article struck me as a relatively poor example, because there is a lot of what I would consider fluff from both PR's admirers and detractors. I don't think it is encyclopedic to assemble extensive catalogs of newspaper commentary and then use it them in an effort to make the subject look either good or bad. Examples of things I would remove include The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith", as well as Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly. I think this article could benefit by being shortened by about 30%. Delia Peabody (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the way it is because of extensive discussion and mediation. It's fine and stable the way it is. If you have serious objections to those two phrases then I'd encourage you to review the prior discussions before pursuing this further, so we don't repeat ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

This article recently popped up at CAT:CSD as a potential copyvio (which is wasn't). I'd be grateful if someone with knowledge of this subject area could take a look and either fix it up a bit or send it to AfD as necessary. CIreland (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note [1] on the AfD talk page. Since the only cites I could find were to the TPRF which she heads, and it has itself been declared not notable, it would seem clear that she is also not notable. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has now been self-deleted by its creator and sole author. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat Wikipedia involvement

There seems to be sufficient 3rd party RS articles to merit mention of Prem Rawat involvement with Wikipedia editing and policy.

  • Metz, Cade (2008-02-06). "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'". The Register. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
  • Metz, Cade (2009-01-09). "'Lord of the Universe' disciple exits Wikipedia". The Register. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
  • Metz, Cade (2009-06-16). "'Lord of the Universe' loses Wikiland grip". The Register. Retrieved 2011-01-22.

AndroidCat (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for including that kind of assertion is pretty high. There's no evidence that Rawat ordered or even knew about the actions of the WP editor, who is not known to work directly for Rawat. If he had been a Rawat employee, that might be different. It was discussed in Criticism of Wikipedia, but that article was dismantled and I'm not sure of the Jossi/Rawat content moved anywhere or was just deleted. (I've asked at the talk page.)   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly any addition would have to be carefully qualified and matched against the sources, and I would be happier if those articles were sourced wider than a single author of a single publication, but no mention at all seems odd. AndroidCat (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The story was really more about Wikipedia than Rawat. It should be mentioned in one of the Wikipedia articles, but since there's no direct connection to the subject I don't think it should be included here.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Will: highly POV'd rant follows. Cade Metz's "Register" is/was a vehicle for attacks on Wikipedia by a small tribe of backward-looking elitists insensed by the democratisation of knowledge that Wikipedia represents. The irony is that in editing The Register, Metz faced none of the disputative editing processes that Wikipedia has in place, and which he seems unaware of. This is why the allegations he made were all found to be sloppily conceived, baseless and mischievous. The underlying paradigm of elitists like Metz is that the public needs an intellectual aristocracy to censor its information and mould its opinions. In his attacks he told us a lot more about himself than about Wikipedia, and the mud he threw at others does not deserve to stick. /rant Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rumiton: Rumiton's comments above *are* highly POV'd.
And for the record, I disagree with his characterization of Cade Metz's articles (But I do agree with Will and Rumiton that the articles need not be mentioned here).
-- Maelefique (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you changed your post (did Will get you to do that?) I was about to run through the streets crying, "Maelefique agreed with me!" Rumiton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I disagree with Rumiton about the accuracy of the reports. However relevance, not accuracy, is the question here.   Will Beback  talk  17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After scanning the first of the above three articles it appears to be a report of a follower's activities on Wikipedia and therefore not relevant to this article. If there are specific quotes that say Prem Rewat was personally involved, they could be posted here and we could consider the RS issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First time visit, this article seems to read extremely positively... and that's not good

This is my first look into all this Prem Rawat article and the wiki controversy that surrounds it's editing by Prem Rawat devotees. I have to say, the article seems to be balanced towards Prem Rawat's religion, even for a BLP it seems overtly positive. In a read of sources (like the biography of Prem Rawat, there's a lot of articles that contain information that do not read nearly so favorably. There are superficial things like "The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California." here: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=280 and then there are more in depth matters like the content of his original teachings contrasted to the way he has rebranded himself, visible in the Metz articles. The lack of information that is so readily available in media makes it seem like a positive spin is being placed in this article, even if that is not the intention of it's editors, it's just the vibe I get from visiting here. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to other editors, i'm just scratching the surface here but claims from the dude himself of his own divinity seem to be pertinent to this article; for instance, when he refers to himself as "...Hari (Supreme Power) in the form of man", in his discourse at Shri Sant Yogashram, New Delhi, India - November 9, 1990 - Published in : ‘Life Force’ Volume 7, Issue 2, April-June 1991 - by : Divine United Organization, Shri Sant Yogashram, Shahurpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi... I mean these claims of his are not hard to find. I've been looking for a few hours. Why is it that far more seasoned editors have not found and incorporated this material? If someone's teaching that they are God... doesn't that sound important enough to be in their wiki article? 69.245.65.89 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at some better sources. Most of those you mention above (the Metz articles and so-called "biography" etc) are superficial, and intentionally derogatory, and their authors don't qualify as reputable sources. Informed sources don't pick out quotes for their entertainment value; they present a balanced view of the subject and put quoted statements into their proper religious and cultural perspective. By agreement after years of tedious negotiation, the article also hardly touches on an extraordinary 30 years of world travel by the subject, speaking on individual and world peace to many thousands of ordinary people and significant members of local and national government institutions and universities. Look for excerpts on YouTube if you are interested, there are literally thousands to choose from. You are scratching the surface here, as you say, and it is the surface of a major can of worms. Most of us would rather you left it sealed. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See right there, attacking any possibly sources of disagreement as derogatory and attacking anyone who would listen to such critics smacks of POV editing. I am not saying that you are silly for listening to the guy. I'm saying that if the guys claimed to be a god, that's pretty important info for people to know. And if he changes his tune to be more marketable, that also is interesting. And while I can appreciate the years of tedious arguments to produce agreements, your still left with a sub-par article. I'd like to help change that, I request that you consider me to be acting in good faith as I start digging to see what this guy really teaches.. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=441561239"