Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of questionable source

The lock seems to have been removed. I propose that we remove the questionable source (Patrick ) and any statements made under duress by kidnap / physical and mental abuse victims. I have no objection to adding reliably sourced, relevant material from followers and former followers. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we replace it with the Conway ad Siegelman quote that was there before. We can also look into the sources mentioned above.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, that quote from C&S is not about the meditation. It is about the trauma associated with deprogramming - forced detention, sleep and food depravation, physical and mental abuse etc. It confirms the research of psychologists Lewis and Bromley, cited in Melton.

"after my deprogramming, it took several weeks before I was able to maintain a train of thought and make two sentences go together without having the whole thing erased."

The next bit might be about using the meditation as some sort of defense mechanism but the meaning is not clear. Not surprising after such an ordeal. "Meditation had become a conditioned response. My mind just kept doing it automatically." The quote would be relevant to an article on deprogramming. I don't think it is relevant here though. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are misinterpreting the quotation. We have other sources that say discuss the same inability to think clearly as a result of the meditation. It isn't necessarily a factor of the deprogramming. We can add one of those, from an impeccable source.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not misinterpreting the quote. It says, "after my deprogramming..." not "after my meditation..." If you have an impeccable source, please use it, and for balance we can contrast that with statements by practicing followers from some impeccable source. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put it back to the original quotations from the former premies. They are what is important, not the path whereby their statements arrived here. Of course, I would agree with Zanthrop's suggestion that statements should be excluded which were "made under duress by kidnap / physical mental abuse victims." Please provide a link to a R/S stating that Marcia Carroll or the unnamed former premie made statements under duress, were kidnapped or were the victims of physical or mental abuse by anyone other than Prem Rawat's agents. It just so happens that I have personally talked with Marcia Carroll, her parents, Ted Patrick, other premies who lived in some of the premie houses where Marcia resided before she was sent home, the anonymous premie's mother and uncle, other premies who lived in premie houses with (him or her) and I know who (he or she) is. I have also been deprogrammed by Ted Patrick myself. Like the two former followers quoted, I was not kidnapped and I have never made statements under duress. Marcia was sent home to give satsang to her parents because her "flibberty-gibbet" mother was making such a public fuss. The anonymous premie was "thrown out" of his premie house because he had medical expenses following an accident, and went home to his family because he had nowhere else to go and was too seriously injured to work. Neither of these people was physically restrained or abused by their parents or the other people involved in their deprogrammings, and no criminal charges were filed by anyone in either case.

Actually, I think we need to add the word "controversial" to the lede, while we're at it. Wowest (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity. obviously you have very strong views about this subject, and that's fine, but please look at what the sources say. There is a lot of evidence in this article pointing to very positive and beneficial experiences by followers. Larry Shinn in his essay mentions that not all houses or places where members of NRMs lived were the same, and that problems did develop in some of them. With respect, perhaps you were unlucky in your choice of accommodation. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about any of us. There are plenty of sources that mention less-than-blissful experiences with this subject. Let's make sure we've included all significant viewpoints, as required by WP:NPOV. The matter of ashrams is more relevant to the DLM article. Let's keep our focus in this article on the teachings. Wowest makes the valid point that Patrick didn't use torture or kidnapping in all of his deprogrammings. Just because former followers used his services does not make their views invalid.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Techniques article

This edit,[1], apears to copy a large amount of text from Techniques of Knowledge. Per WP:SUMMARY, all we need to have in this article is a short summary and a reference to the main article. Duplicating text is unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I'm going to undo the edit.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a summary, then make one. What was there before was not a summary. Duly Noted (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just leave it out and put in a link. There's no good reasaon for duplicating the material.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put the article back to that as indicated by Will above. Importing a block of text from another article creates content bloat and the editor doing the import should discuss the action before carrying it out. This article is within WP Project Rawat and members of that project should adhere to Editing of article pages related to this project as set out at [2]. It is unreasonable for any editor to import a large amounts of text that requires other editors to sumarize, this is not the colaborative editing that Wikipedia requires. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Having this material here, rather than in Techniques of Knowledge, does seem to have some justification in that the latter article is no longer about Prem Rawat, but about a small group of related Indian teachers. Therefore isn't this material, which is specifically about Prem Rawat, better housed here than in the other article? JN466 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The text at the ToK article does need sharpening to make it more relevant to its group character', however merely copying and deleting at ToK and then copying here will not make the ToK text sharper, nor will it make this a more precise article. The obvious way forward is to work on the ToK article to ensure that it gives a full treatment to the Techniques as they are approriate to Hans, Satyapal and Prempal Rawat, and then to ensure this article deals with what is specific to Prem.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)