User talk:PatW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia 2 Your user page 3 No personal attacks 4 Clarification 5 Endless disputes on Prem Rawat, regardless whether people are paid 6 Glad to see you 7 No personal attacks 8 Anti-Cult Movements? 9 Engaging vs Complaining 10 Ashram Manual 11 private chat

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome, PatW!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

• First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
• When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
• If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
• Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Policy trifecta
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you for yoru contributions. As a mater of etiquette, it would be nice if you write a summary of your edit in the Edit summary box. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Thank you for the candor expressed in your user page. You may want to read Wikipedia:User page, to learn what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to have in your user page. Another pointer you may want to consult is What Wikipedia is not. I would go as far as suggesting that calling felow editors like me, that spend considerable time in this project (and not only on articles related to Prem Rawat) "over-zealous" that "subtley[sic] promote[d] their simplistic demonisation of critics" is not in harmony with your statement about "truth and reconciliation". For your information, I have several friends that are no longer students of Prem Rawat, and they do not consider themselves part of this small group of vocal critics that call themselves "ex-premies". Polarization starts when the "ex-premie" group calls me and fellow students "brainwashed cult members" or worse, or when they call the venues were we want to peacefully gather to listen to our teacher with the intention to deny us from doing so. For what I have seen from you so far, and from the statements in your user page, I appreciate your distancing from that group and their tactics, and hope you can assist in making these and other related articles, better, more neutral and more encyclopedic. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My comment about over-zealous premies was not specifically aimed at you. My observation was that the article read, just as I said, as if it had been written generally by over-zealous followers. ie. too 'zealous' to be able to appear neutral. As regards distancing myself from 'the group'. I include myself in the 'hurt group' which I distinguish from the 'hate group' category. I have felt anger over this subject in the past but it has got less over the years. I never 'hated' anyone though. I empathise with the 'hurt group' for trying to draw attention to their feelings but wouldn't personally employ some of their 'tactics'. I know plenty of premies who understand their disenchanted friends and question whether Prem Rawat coud be handling protests a little more wisely and sympathetically. The other point I should make is that my 'tactics' have changed. A few years back I was inclined to care less about disturbing former followers peace than I am now. I now simply have grown to value a more respectful approach in the hopes that it will be reciprocated. PatW 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Regarding this comment:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

You asked Jossi - Is it true though that you are paid to work here on the article?PatW 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Jossi replied - Of course not. That is an attempt by detractors to undermine my work in this project. Well, that is not a happening thing. I love this project and I am proud of the work I am doing here and my contributions to this and other projects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Well, You responded - That's nice of you to clarify it for me. Should I take it that your comment "Well, that is not a happening thing" means that you were employed by them on this but are no longer?

Comment- Jossi's answered your question "Is it true though that you are paid to work here on the article" in his first sentence "Of course not". His second sentence explained why the rumour had started. His third sentence expanded on the second. And his forth sentence expanded on the third. Stylistically and grammatically the third sentence is not related to the first. I hope this goes someway to clear up your confusion over this.Momento 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No of course it doesn't. I asked whether Jossi was in the past employed to work on the article and nobody has yet affirmed or denied this. A yes or no answer would do the trick.PatW 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless disputes on Prem Rawat, regardless whether people are paid

The disputes about Prem Rawat have been intense since the start and they will likely remain so. Other editors give up very soon. See e.g. here where the editor User:Bishonen wrote "I don't know how you do it, Andries, keeping on and on trying to improve such a well-policed, clamped-down, always-bouncing-back piece. --Bishonen" Andries 11:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you also post on the ex-premie forum? If so under what name? Andries 11:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Andries. There will be limits to my involvement here for sure. I posted on the ex-premie forums in their various previous incarnations since 1997, but not on the current one yet. Years ago I was anonymous but use my name these days.PatW 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see you

I'm always pleased to see another editor becoming active in the Prem Rawat article. I can see that you've been involved in the editing of this piece for much longer than I have, and appear to have returned after a brief hiatus. I can relate, as even though my time working on the Rawat piece has been brief, I felt the need to step away from the keyboard after a particularly heated weekend. In any case, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts to share your insights, and I ask that you please make the time to check in over the next couple of days. I've filed a request for comment so that uninvolved editors can check in on the article and lend their opinions, and I think it would be great if you also lent yours. Mael-Num 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And, on a personal note, I am galled that these pro-Rawat people target me as anti-Rawat, just because I think criticism shouldn't be marginalized. I have a fair amount of training in journalism, and I'm just going with my instincts as to what amounts to objectivity. Until I saw this subject on an admin noticeboard, I had no idea what a Prem Rawat was. I got involved because I read the complaints, got a little involved as a third party, and stuck around because I saw the sort of shenanigans that go on when someone opposes the 'consensus' of two editors, who shall remain nameless. I guess the lesson to be learned is, next time, I should point my lance at a windmill that's less heavily guarded! Mael-Num 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't look in here too often so forgive my lack of response. Obviously it bodes v. well that someone like yourself, who has no past with Prem Rawat, enjoins the debate surrounding this article. Personally, as you may have gathered, I am more or less disillusioned with trying to deal with the predomination of followers' edits - As someone who was around during Rawat's past I think it is regrettable that these people over-rule others material so frequently. I see it is as unethical that Wilkipedia can provide a platform for this sort of thing. So I'm afraid that I've more or less joined the lengthening list of former editors who've simply retired, having no stomache or time for bashing their heads against the brick wall. I occasinally pop in to raise some objection but that's about it. All I can say is that the weight of edits and revertions etc. have simply discouraged me from working on this article, along with the fact that there seem to be rules in place that prevent one from quoting Rawat from 'mission' publications etc. Also I think that people who are employed directly by the Rawat organisation to edit here should not be allowed to do so, if that is the case.PatW 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a line on my page. I just got back from a few weeks visiting family (sudden emergency) and coming back I barely remember where I left off. The article looks to be more-or-less unchanged (big surprise there, with M&J on the scene), so that at least is familiar. I hope you continue to stop by and keep tabs on us, and lend us your insight where you are able. Cheers. Mael-Num 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome Sentiments... - I second Mael-Num's most kind Welcome to you, and support all of your comments above in this thread/section... Smee 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] No personal attacks

Regarding this comment: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are instances where calling an editor's observations a personal attack are themselves personal attacks. Or, at the very least, a red herring to obfuscate (proper usage) the issue. Sometimes, one must call a spade what it is. Mael-Num 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Cult Movements?

Just curious, why is it preferable to say that Rawat has drawn controversy from the anti-cult movement of the 1970's, if there are still a great number of anti-cult activists who criticize Rawat still in the 21st century? Wouldn't it be more accurate to reflect this by not placing his critics solely in the past? Mael-Num 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mael-Num. Isn't it likely, from the lack of current followers editing this article, that Jossi and Momento probably have the 'official job' of maintaining this important public profile of Prem Rawat? So, I would imagine that the current PR advice from Rawat's organisation must be to marginalise criticism by placing it safely in the past. It's probably as simple as that. Currently active critics are a more organised, focussed and more determined threat than ever, as we see from the Elan Vital websites painting them as a small 'hate group' and the references to them in Cagan's new book. Past ones are not. They can be explained away. Furthermore most of the present day anti-cult movements activity consists of publications on the internet whereas in the past it was in papers and on long-forgotten TV shows. Jossi and Momento are able to continuously avoid referring to these websites for the reasons they keep trotting out. Ie. it is not verifiable..it is a minority opinion etc. etc.PatW

Okay. Well, here's the thing. In this edit, it looks like you reversed the wording to read anti-cult groups of the 1970's. You also fixed a typo of "knowledge". So, I was wondering if there was a reason why you didn't like the wording. If you think it's not important to show that his current critics are as active (you seem to think that his current critics are even more active, if I'm reading you right), then I won't try to change that line. Otherwise, I think it's best to try and put forth our best effort in presenting the truth, even if we suspect other editors with alternative agendas may not approve. But then again, I'm clearly an idealistic fool. Mael-Num 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really weird. The only edit I made was the spelling correction of the typo. That other edit was nothing to do with me at all, so I'm wondering why it's attributed to me. Any ideas? Of course I would not make this kind of misleading alteration. I guess I was right... they do want to imply criticism was a thing of the past. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't idealistic and yes, probably a fool too. Thanks again for your help. Your comments have been a breath of fresh air for me.PatW

From one fool to another, you're welcome!

Also, if you have a free moment, would you please take a look at the discussion here? The gist of the argument is that I think there should be a summary of criticism in the lead that includes mention of Rawat's plush lifestyle, the discouraging of critical and objective thinking in the teaching of Knowledge, and accusations of psychological manipulation and financial exploitation. Jossi thinks that due weight would only include Rawat's lifestyle and Knowledge's intellectual content. Momento appears to want no criticism in the lead, and that critical content in the article itself is enough. Your opinion would mean a great deal in this ongoing discussion. Thank you. Mael-Num 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Er.. I'm not sure I've succeeded in making much headway in this little argument. I somehow think Jossi and Momento are never going to be impressed by my reasoning. I tried anyway:-( PatW

Mael-Num, if you want to see another intelligent take on what we're up against here I recommend taking a look at this page http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/md.htm by an academic ex-follower - check the bit about WikipediaPatW

[edit] Engaging vs Complaining

Pat, I write this here as I think it is more appropriate. I have invited you countless times to engage in editing the Prem Rawat article, but so far all you have done is complain about what you consider not to be a "balanced neutral-sounding article". Your arguments have been that you do not have the time, or that you are concerned that your edits will be reverted by me or others, or that it would be a "waste of time".

Let me dispel these myths for you: (a) Articles are edited by those people that want to edit them, providing that they abide by Wikipedia content policies. We assume the good faith of these editors, we treat them with respect, and we welcome their contributions; (b) Material that is well sourced and attributed cannot be summarily deleted by anyone, as it is considered vandalism. If you want your edits to pass the test and scrutinity of other editors, just make sure that the sources you provide are bonafide and compliant; (c) the article has been edited by a myriad of editors for almost three years, many of which are neither "proponents" or "detractors", and it represents in its current state, the best effort of all of them combined. If you are in disagreement, then the best choice is to engage. If you do not have the time to do so, that does not give you the right to ask others not to edit, or to question their participation because they do.

Take care, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, except that I feel I have a right to argue on the Talk Page whether I edit or not. I feel there is a need to demonstrate there, through argument- not 'ad hominem' attacks- that the honesty of the editors is sometimes clearly dubious. It's as simple as that. How can that be out of place when this article is peer judged as being dishonestly put? Doesn't the question naturally arise as to where is this dishonesty coming from. If I think I can expose where the dishonesty is coming from, why is it not a good thing to do so? A perfect example of this is Momento's latest comment. He has an opportunity to verify or deny whether he is being dishonest and I think if he doesn't I have proved my point. Besides you are the only person who is suggesting I'm out of place. Please consider this very carefully before you reprimand me (and not Momento) for being cynical. I am not cynical. I mean every word of what I write.PatW

I haven't said that your comments are out of place. I have only stated that complaining achieves nothing, in my view. We have now a review from an independent editor, and a lot of work to do if we want the article to be upgrade from B-class to GA status. That's all. Will you participate in that process? Well, that is up to you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I probably will try to do some edits in the coming weeks since I've just finished a very intensive movie sountrack and I'm free (ish) again for a bit. I am still very unsure as to what material is permissable. Everybody seems to have a different viewpoint especially as regards the stuff on www.ex-premie.org I would ideally like some comment from others like Mael-Num , Smee, and the other reviewer Vassayana was it? on this specific point. When I am clearer about what everyone agrees is permissable I think then I would be very inspired to set about trying to present it in a balanced way. Obviously that would involve some specific test cases. A part of me thinks that it would be really interesting to see what kind of a job premies could do on their own, putting the critical POV back in. I would be fascinated to see just how successful they could be in doing that . Just how 'honest' premies could be. Otherwise I guess it will naturally be for people who actually want to assert criticisms to put that material in. In all honesty that is my current position. I may have overstepped slightly on the assuming good faith front. I see that. But I'm going to give that whole thing some time to consider before I comment further. Sometimes it's best to be less impulsive I guess. One thing I feel right now is the onus is slightly more on those who have resisted the suggested changes to set about changing that than those who've been advocating such. Maybe I'll feel different about that soon. Also I suppose my impression is that there has been so much mutual suspician about premie v. ex-premie motives that it is a little hard to just suddenly co-operate. I'm thinking this through. Of course at this stage the reviewers have effectively accused the premie editors (in my view) of dishonesty, not the people trying to assert the missing critical POV. That's important. Again that rather puts the onus on the premie editors to demonstarte honesty. That's just my initial impression.PatW

[edit] Ashram Manual

Here's the manual, it will be the most authorative source on the ashram. Not sure when it was printed. And here's a comment from Rawat in Downton's "Sacred Journeys" - "This move stimulated another change in the movement by encouraging independent action on the part of premies. For example, the guru had inspired greater autonomy by saying in January 1976: "Don't expect that all these premies who are in the ashram right now are going to stay in the ashram. I hope they don't." This comment had the effect of producing a widespread exodus from the ashrams that year, which gave rise to an individualistic attitude. This was reflected in Alan's outlook at the close of 1976. "Everyone is beginning to see that Divine Light Mission is just a bunch of people trying to meditate and love each other. All the holier-than-thou bullshit is crumbling. I don't have to wait for Guru Maharaj Ji to communicate through all the layers of leadership to me in order to learn what I need to know. Just a few months ago, I was still looking to Denver for guidance, but that is changing."Momento 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the manual but I've seen it before at EPO. so I've deleted it. As you know Downton goes on to explain how in 1977 Rawat brought back the devotion and ashrams in earnest until 1980's. I was a part of this next wave of ashram premies who were BTW, much more severely vetted for suitability. It was a whole new thing and deadly serious too.PatW 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Downton is on EPO. Momento 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. Thanks, I'll read it.PatW 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] private chat

move from user namespace

Hello Pat. I would like to chat privately with you. Do you have an e-mail addess we could use? Rumiton 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note I've enabled 'email this user' from this page now.PatW 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) And sent you my email address to you here (I hope it worked this time)PatW 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)