Talk:Prem Rawat

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from Talk:Maharaji (Prem Rawat))
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Prem Rawat/archive_1 Talk:Prem Rawat/archive_2


The categorization of Prem Rawat as Category:Religious leaders has been removed by anons two anons. As PR is classified in wikipedia as a leader of a "New Religious Movement", it is obvious that he is a religious leader. If you have a different opinion on this, please comment here, do not revert. If another removal will happen, I'll add back the category, put an npov dispute tag, protect the page and see where the consensus is. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it has been a long time since my warning here, an anon removed the category again without any discussion beyond an edit summary saying "not a religion, not a leader". If anyone wants to dispute categorization, do it via talk, not via misleading edit summaries. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shalom, Moshe. Can you explain why did you add a {{cleanup}} tag to this article? Each quote is properly refereced, the chronology is good, etc. Thanks.~ jossi fresco ~ 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is really no need to use foreign words when talking to me -- I am quite fluent with English, thanks.
I've added the cleanup tag because the sources and quotations are not in standard format (quotation as bullet, sans quotation marks, source as subbullets), there is no "sourced" section, the introduction is not composed of proper sentences, the "Other quotes" section is misnamed and miscapitalized, and because the "wikipedia articles" section, other than being miscapitalized should be titled "external links" and contain the wikipedia box like other articles do. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moshe, Jossi is Prem Rawat's web master and has been very active promoting him on the web and censoring embarrassing factual information about Rawat on Wikipedia. For example, he does not want there to be verbatim quotes of Rawat that clearly show that Rawat has repeatedly claimed to be the Lord incarnate. Some former followers (sometimes referred to as 'ex-premies') have struggled to get the truth out about Rawat and have been thwarted by this censorship. Jossi even claims that a favorable view of Rawat is the majority view! 02:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, there is a policy for adding a comment as above when placing a cleanup tag. See en:Wikipedia:Cleanup as linked from the cleanup template. As for the standard format, I will need to research what that means as you did not provide a link so I can learn these. I am an admin and an experienced editor at en:wikipedia and I am not familiar with Wikiquite formatting rules. ~ jossi fresco ~ 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy above is a wikipedia policy. There is no similar wikiquote policy. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you need to fix the cleanup template as it links to en:WP policy page. 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup tage removed. I have made all the necessary changes according to the manual of style. ~ jossi fresco ~ 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the evidence that Rawat was "addressing diplomats" in the picture of him at the UN? I understand that, to the contrary, his organization merely rented the room. -- 03:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See The photo is from the one of the events celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations, held in San Francisco [1]. --Terryp 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo does not show that he was "addressing diplomats". Just because there was a UN emblem does not imply there were diplomats in the audience. 02:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who decides whether a source is disreputable or not?[edit]

Jossi - precisely what, pray tell, is disreputable about that site which quoted a Doordarshan television interview with Prem Rawat? Perhaps you could have the decency to state whatever reasons you might have for doubting its authenticity before you go deleting at will - and for no apparent purpose, other than you're embarrassed by what Rawat is reported (by one of his own "students", I hasten to add) to have said?

For reference, here it is again: Taped interview with Prem Rawat, by Rajiv Mehrotra on Doordarshan television in India, 3 March 2006:

Q (Mehrotra): "What would you say to Bin Laden and George Bush?"?
A: (Rawat): "I have to look at them as human beings.
If it was morning I would say "good morning."
I would say, "have a good life.""
source -

Revera 12:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what's posted at the site Jossi doubts the authenticy of:
About the Innerlink Blog
It is incredible for me to see so much excitement in response to this blog. Thank you Maharaji, for giving us
something worth writing about.
I am only part of the small team that is making this happen. Sushi Davies is doing some of the writing and editing plus the
web and email work (which is a lot). Mehau Kulyk is taking many of the photos and other members of the production crew
are providing support on the road. Dunrite is providing the server infrastructure, with some initial help from Visions. With
all that said, the blogs are the effort of a small group of volunteers, written from our individual perspectives and
They do not represent any company or organization.

I am not "doubting the authenticity" of this blog (why should I?). This is a personal blog, of a group of volunteers, and may not be the best source for that quote. I have asked for the transcript from Doordarshan so that the quote, and others from that interview, can be properly sourced and attributed. I would call this "due dilligence". ~ jossi fresco ~ 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To keep you at ease, I will restore the quote, after fixing the format and removing your signature from it. ~ jossi fresco ~ 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very odd position you're taking Jossi. On one hand you say you're "not doubting the authenticity" of the blog, yet on the other you deleted the quote on the following premise: "Blog not a verifiable source. Rv:"
I see you've changed your mind and reinstated the quote. Will this "keep me at my ease?". Let's just agree that your attempts at censoring your "Master" will never let the likes of you, as one of Rawat's spin doctors, be free from the attentions/observations of those of us who want the truth about him - and his past - to be available to all. He IS a public figure, after all ... —This unsigned comment is by Revera (talkcontribs) . 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not censor anything, I removed a cite from a blog that is not an accepted source for material in WP. You may have read too many books on consipracy theories (LOL!). Spare me the rethoric, Thank you. ~ jossi fresco ~ 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must apologise for my naivety. Of course, only conspiracy nuts would ever entertain the possibility that you, Prem Rawat's webmaster, might have anything other than a neutral point of view in your editing. (LOL too!)
Incidentally, I've just looked up the OCD (Oxford Concise) dictionary definition of the word "censor" - wondering if the word in any way differed from the verb to "remove") and it really was quite an education. In fact, since it's not the easiest reference work to access online, I hope you don't mind if I give the definition here:
1. Ancient-Roman magistrate drawing up register or census of citizens and supervising public morals; person expressing opinions on others' morals and conduct.
2. Official licensing, or suppressing as immoral, seditious, or inopportune, books, plays, letters, news, or military intelligence (vb - exercise such control over, make excisions or changes in).
3. Various university officials.
4. (psycho-anal.) ~(ship), a power by which elements of the Unconscious are inhibited from emerging into the consciousness.
Revera 13:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, the content policy of NPOV applies only to Wikipedia, not to Wikiquote, as in here we are only reporting quotes made by notable people and not opinions or POVs about these. ~ jossi fresco ~ 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some thoughts on the content of this page[edit]

For those interested, I undertook an analysis of this page and the lessons that can be drawn from it. This is within the larger framework of improving all the pages relating to Prem Rawat and his work in favor of peace for more than 50 years. Below is the introduction to this study, continued on my Wikipedia's user page:

“Prem Rawat is someone very simple, in the truest sense of it: he lives and expresses himself in the present moment. When he gets up on stage, maybe he has one or two ideas he wants to talk about, but nothing is really prepared; he speaks from his heart to people in front of him. That’s how he takes them on a journey. This is not a usual lecture; words are only one aspect of the experience to which he invites us.
That’s why quoting him is difficult. A quote should be a whole in itself. It should represent a moment, synthesize a concept, represent a thought.
I went through the hundred quotes currently posted on Wikiquote, and I ended up with the same problem that exists for almost all pages about PR: remnants of an edit war which has just stopped for lack of fighters, most of the contributors having been banned, from what I understand. Most of the quotes are not really quotes, just passages from his speeches that opponents have used to put forward a particular point of view. And nothing has changed for 13 or 14 years, this for a living person, I underline, who continues to speak a lot, continues to evolve in his art of expressing the indescribable. He even wrote two books!
So, I will comment on a few quotes and add a few more. This will perhaps give an idea of what it would be possible to do, if the will to rewrite this biography in an honest and intelligent way could interest Wikipedia, in its concern to provide quality and unbiased information…”

Read the full article here.

--Faunus (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]