Diskussion:Prem Rawat/Arkiv 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Fra Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
ArkivDette er en side med arkiverede diskussioner fra Diskussion:Prem Rawat.
Ønsker du at genoptage en arkiveret diskussion, skal du flytte den tilbage til diskussionssiden.

Redigering[rediger kildetekst]

Jeg har nu , prøvet at indsætte nogle links og noget tekst ang kritik , håber at dette kan bruges Kbh 10


Jeg må indrømme at det ser rodet ud , man hvis man trykker på " rediger" på artiklen så er linket : Nyt afsnit , IKKE tilstede på siden og derfor ikke en mulighed Kbh 10


Mit formål var og er at oprette et emne under det der kaldes " nyt emne " dette ville jeg så oprette med overskriften :Kritik . Da muligheden " nyt emne " ikke er tilgængelig for mig , Måske kun for mig ? . har jeg derfor skrevet det som en redigering af det foregående emne . kbh10

Hej Kbh10. I værktøjsboksen i toppen af redigeringsfeltet kan du klikke på "Avanceret" og herefter på "overskrift" længst til venstre, hvorefter du vælger "Niveau 2". Herefter udskifter du så "Overskrifttekst med dit eget afsnitsoverskrift. Besvarer dette dit spørgsmål? Mvh Asger1995 (diskussion) 13. sep 2013, 21:44 (CEST)

Ja , tak for hjælpen Asger , umiddelbart vil jeg dog ikke nu ændre noget , da din hjælp i artiklen var hvad jeg prøvede på at opnå , men på længere sigt kunne jeg godt tænke mig at omskrive artiklen ,fra sådan , som den fremstår nu . Best kbh 10

Den kritiske side som jeg tilføjede igår ,er blevet fjernet uden at der er en begrundelse skrevet her for denne fjerning , jeg indsætter den hermed igen Kbh10

The article has now moved from outdated and uninformative, but more or less harmless, to downright wrong, misleading and libellous. The new Kritik paragraph is sourced only with two notorious attack-websites, both run by the same webmaster, who is not accepted as a source for Wikipedia anywhere internationally, for good reasons. Any user is summoned to delete such entries immediately from a BLP. Who has protected the article after that edit? --217.235.192.143 15. sep 2013, 08:08 (CEST)


De kritiske sider er til stor hjælp for masser af mennesker der har været involveret , jeg ved at bla. samtaleforummet er meget besøgt af folk fra hele verden , og min oplevelse er ,ved at læse dette , at folk bliver hjulpet og får gennemarbejdet og vendt en masse af de ting der er sket med dem , fra deres fælles fortid i begævelsen .

Samtaleforummet findes også på spansk ,fransk og tysk

ex-premie siden består bla af bevægelsen og guruens egne taler og udgivelser ,og folk der har haft tæt kontakt med ham ,kommer her med deres mening om ham og om hvorledes de har oplevet ham .

Hvorfor skal dette undertrykkes , hvad er det egentligt der gør at dette ikke må foregå , og hvorfor må offentligheden intet vide om dette ?

Kbh10Kbh10 (diskussion) 15. sep 2013, 10:03 (CEST)

Who knows, dem der er for vedkommende kunne jo begynde at oversætte hans citater på Wikiquote:Prem Rawat. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 15. sep 2013, 09:34 (CEST)

Og til 217.235.192.143's spørgsmål: Det var mig, der semibeskyttede artiklen. Jeg har grund til at tro at du faktisk har en brugerkonto, så derfor burde det ikke være noget problem for dig at benytte den og i øvrigt deltage i diskussionen. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 15. sep 2013, 11:09 (CEST)
It is highly objectable to have a Kritik-paragraph, when there is not even a paragraph on his activities, his teachings and his recognition. It creates a completely tilted impression in any user who does not accidentally know better. The article is protected alright, otherwise I would have already reverted, for above reasons, which have not been adressed in this discussion. I have an account now, but still cannot edit the article. This is not o.k.!--Padavan (diskussion) 15. sep 2013, 23:44 (CEST)
Afsnittene "Divine Light Mission" og "Uden for Indien" handler netop om de ting, du nævner. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 06:24 (CEST)
There is just one very general sentence in Uden for Indien! Nothing about actual teachings, activities, recognition, awards, scientific evaluation, you name it... Instead you present a tiny minority of creepy people who apparently chose to spend decades of their lives wallowing in victimization! And you have only one highly unreliable source, disguised as two different websites! And you managed to protect that edit afterwards! You must really have very phlegmatic admins in Denmark. In the .enWP you would have been banned long ago for disruptive editing.--Padavan (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:24 (CEST)--Padavan (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:24 (CEST)
How about you found that inner peace your movement preaches. In the meanwhile; either translate his quotes or finally find some good sources and figure out how to present him best - it's been years. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:30 (CEST)
You can't be serious. It's all over the internet and Wikipedia internationally, and you insist on keeping this in the meantime as part of that little smear campaign? Read the English, German, Spanish, French articels! They are much more neutral and up to date. The .da-article is less than worthless and should rather be deleted entirely, if there are no people in Denmark who are willing and able to do it in a NPOV way.--Padavan (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:47 (CEST)
Here's a nice quote, albeit not from Rawat:
   When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only:
   What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out.
   Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe,
   or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed;
   but look only and solely at what are the facts.

--Padavan (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:54 (CEST)

Jeg er ganske seriøs, de kilder jeg har set angivet på de andre sider på Wikipedia er enten ikke-eksisterende eller stammer fra tidsskrifter, der ikke er beskrevet særlig godt, og det er både for og imod. Hvis der er så meget der taler for manden, skulle det ikke være svært at finde nogle gode kilder, så man selv kan bedømme. Sæt i gang, istedet for at starte en redigeringskrig. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 12:59 (CEST)

Maybe the Google translator fails to show your logic, or I can't see it. As soon as the article goes unprotected, I will apply WP:BLP standards again, which have been so sorely neglected.--Padavan (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 13:14 (CEST)

Strange though, I checked - and only a minor part didn't translate correctly, but the main "logic" were shown. Suit yourself, but I am certain you know what happens. Anyway, enough. No more feeding anyone whichever species it might be. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 13:23 (CEST)


Der er forhistorier tilgængelige , sekten satser benhårdt på at intet der ikke er rosenrødt må komme ud . :-) http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/Kbh10 (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 15:27 (CEST)

Shh, se Trades sidste kommentar under Beskyttet. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 15:37 (CEST)

Ex-premie linket v.kritik siden virkede ikke , jeg har prøvet at rette dette , men det fungerede ikke helt ..................

Ramloser laver en udmærket ændring i teksten , men derefter virker linket til ex-premie siden ikke ,,,,,,,,,,,,,Kbh10 (diskussion) 16. sep 2013, 20:59 (CEST)

So now you have added insult to injury by adding a link to that unsavory Rawat-hate-forum! This is quite certainly a violation of Wikipedia rules concerning sources. I conclude I must have been blocked, as obviously you are happily trolling all over the article. How did you manage to do that? I never got notified.--Padavan (diskussion) 17. sep 2013, 11:41 (CEST)
Just found out I'm not blocked, but there is a moratorium for new accounts, that will end soon. I'll be back then, and maybe you can improve the article by reverting those "Noter" to begin with.--Padavan (diskussion) 17. sep 2013, 11:54 (CEST)



dagens redigering linker til det eneste pjattede sted på ex-premie siden , lavet i et øjebliks galgenhumør , endvidere til nogle tåbelige citater af guruen , taget ud af sammenhæng , og giver derfor ingen mening , endvidere et link til en bibelside .

Alt dette gør , at man nu samlet set IKKE kan tage afsnittet kritk alvorligt overhovedet mere , et afsnit med vægt og fylde er nu blevet sovset ind i en masse intetsigende nonsens , så det oprindelige budskab som kritik afsnittet videregav , nu fremstår som totalt useriøst og lalledumt . jeg tror faktisk at dette var det virkelige formål til denne redigering ..Kbh10 (diskussion) 18. sep 2013, 19:53 (CEST)

OMG, the article is now in free fall, and I think I'll refrain from editing for now and simply watch it self-destruct. Just make sure the POV-tag stays on.--Padavan (diskussion) 19. sep 2013, 07:53 (CEST)
Det forekommer helt unødvendigt at citere fra "Divine Times", 1978, side 33, men i stedet for at slette en anden brugers bidrag vælger jeg at understrege den ironiske undertone i "tiny...airplanes and flowers". Og egentlig underligt, at jeg gider indgå i debatten om denne artikel, som jeg ikke har nogen interesse i, det må være et særligt karaktertræk hos mig at søge en løsning på tumpede redigeringskrige.--Ramloser ((diskussion) 19. sep 2013, 16:40 (CEST)
Der er intet ironi i dette citat , Rawat mener rent faktisk at han er en sådan gave til menneskeheden ,så uanset hvad han får tilbage ,så kan hans elever aldrig nogensinde give ham noget overhovedet som vil være en gave der bare kommer i nærheden af det han har gjordt for dem .

Så ironi indeholder ordene ikke , noget helt andet istedet for ,,,,, iøvrigt. igen . synes jeg det er et dårligt indlæg i artiklen Kbh10 (diskussion) 20. sep 2013, 14:51 (CEST)

Do you consider it encyclopedic, throwing in 35-years-old quotes out of context, incomprehensible for a modern reader, and not reporting, what Rawat has actually done in those last 35 years, and what he is doing now? Instead of producing a "Kritik"-paragraph with three make-believe different indications of source, yet in fact all three of them referring to the same Anti-Rawat-website, which is internationally not allowed as a reliable Wiki source for its bias, aggressivity, and intolerance, is for that reason even blocked for some university library computers? Knowing that unreliable sources are not admissible in Wikipedia (including Denmark!), not even in "Noter"? There are many independent modern reliable sources, including quality scientific and scholarly, peer-reviewed papers on the subject, which are simply ignored here. Easy to find on the .en-article's reference list. This has been more or less accomplished in all the other languages-WP, and none of them has to bear a POV-warning. That would be a real service to Danish WP-readers, for a change, instead of spreading outrageous disinformation from one overaged internet attack-site. Don't you agree? Or am I too critical?--Padavan (diskussion) 19. sep 2013, 21:15 (CEST)
As I wrote in Danish above, I tried to modify the critics, but I won't erase other users edits, as long they use sources. If the sources are rotten, it's another question, but I'm not able to judge, in this subject I'm not an expert; but trying to avoid "editing war"--Ramloser (diskussion) 19. sep 2013, 23:17 (CEST)

--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 13:16 (CEST)


Padavan . her er lidt fra en som engang var ligesom du .

http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/jwcult1.htm

Proposition[rediger kildetekst]

I see and share your point. Still, there are those rare constellations, when even the peaceful Hobbits of the Shire are not able to keep up their complacency... Have you ever taken a look at that ex-premie-forum? I'm sure, that somewhere even in Danish WP rules and regulations such sources are ruled out, and one can easily see, why. Dealing with that group feels a little like trying to convince smokers (or other addicts) to voluntarily be sensible, appealing to good-will. At the end of the day you may find a necessity for distinct and precise lines. That is why WP rules were developed, they form a possibility for mutual agreement, without false appeasement. Nobody has to be attacked or insulted, no war has to begin, when these rules are actually applied, and they are really pretty explicit concerning sources. Every user is obliged to stick by these rules, especially in a Biography of a Living Person. It is incumbent on an admin to enforce this, for that only he is endowed with additional power, in case us normal users get in a jam with differing understandings. In my experience, WP rules are widely unknown to many users, and many problems could be solved if they were not. That's the idea of talk pages. At the .en-Prem Rawat-article, things were pretty wild and got a lot better, after reaching a consensus over discussing edits on talk BEFORE they were made in the article. I would like to propose a similar way of proceeding here. Opinions?--Padavan (diskussion) 20. sep 2013, 00:12 (CEST)

I'll give an example. Let me begin with adding http://one-reality.net/ to the 'Noter'-paragraph, which has been protected by user Palnatoke after being filled with foul links. It starts: "Malicious, misleading information about Prem Rawat (also known as Maharaji) and his teachings of inner peace (Knowledge) is being distributed on the internet by a small but vocal hate group known as 'ex-premies.' In this website, the group's propaganda and false claims are debunked, and links are provided to other source material where accurate, up-to-date information can be obtained." That link is meant to balance the ex-premie-link and can be disposed of, as soon as that ex-premie-link goes, too.

Then I'ld like like to add some quality literature, in case somebody is really interested in the subject. Setting the benchmark, the most distinguished publications come from Ron Geaves, professor of religion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Geaves).

  • Geaves, Ron: "Forget Transmitted Memory: The De-traditionalised ‘Religion’ of Prem Rawat" in Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 24/1, 2009.
  • Geaves, Ron (2004-03). "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation". Nova Religio. 7 (3): 45-62. Hentet 2008-10-14. {{cite journal}}: Tjek datoværdier i: |date= (hjælp)
  • Geaves, Ron: "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)". In: Anna King (Hrsg.): Indian Religions: Renaissance and Revival. Equinox, London 2007.
  • Geaves, Ron: "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2. 2006. ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-8, S. 44-62. "Online version bei "Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies Association" website" (PDF; 186 kB). Hentet 2008-06-14.

If no factual objections come up, I'll make that edit in a week.--Padavan (diskussion) 20. sep 2013, 08:24 (CEST)

Note!The links to Geaves, Ron have been either deleted or moved to: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/nr.2004.7.3.45?uid=3737880&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102640896471 This site needs a password.--Ramloser (diskussion) 20. sep 2013, 12:43 (CEST)

Thank you! I will unlink the dead link. Two other links lead to abstracts, and you need to purchase access to the full articles, as is common practice with scientific papers.--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 12:15 (CEST)

BTW, his is what WP.en says in WP:BLP. "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. (...) Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. (...) Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with Skabelon:Db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. (...) Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." (Bold typing partly from me)

Can you find a corresponding content in Danish WP rules, concerning BLP and/or Reputable Sources?

Now read that dubious "Kritik"-paragraph again, remembering that it is actually sourced only to one attack-website (disguised as three different addresses), which has definitely only been "created to disparage the subject". It imputes psychological and physical abuse to the subject. Do you really want to support that? I will also provide more quality sources, and nowhere is there any such criticism even mentioned. I understand one is reluctant to delete another editor's edit, but this one here is really toxic! Are you aware that you are possibly submitting Wikipedia.da to libel charges?--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 13:16 (CEST)


Læs artiklen om scientology , jehovas vidner osv her på Wikipedia , alle disse sekter har links til sider fra tidligere medlemmer og deres samtalefora og selvfølgelig bliver disse også udstillet og omtalt som hadesider af sektens tilbageværende medlemmer . :-) Intet nyt under solen :-) Kbh10 (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 17:11 (CEST)

Der du går igen med din jehova. Du behøver ikke diskutere. Og jeg er ikke en kult medlem.--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 17:46 (CEST)

Se disse links : http://www.scientology-victims-testimonies.com/ og http://www.x-jv.dk/ , skal disse sider også forbydes ? er disse også hadesider ? Kbh10 (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 18:04 (CEST) :-)

Jeg tror, ​​at du har mistet de artikel ud af syne, af ren og skær sekter. Wikipedia er et leksikon, ikke et personligt slag..--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 18:31 (CEST)

Disse links er tilstede på de danske Wikipedia sider ang disse sekter .Kbh10 (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 19:40 (CEST)

Og det er derfor, man ser bort fra alle argumenter? Artiklen handler om en levende person, ikke en kult.--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 20:05 (CEST)
You see, this is a biography, not a mud-slinging contest around some cult or sect. Perhaps you should start a new article with a lemma "Movement around Prem Rawat" or "Divine Light Mission", and put your stuff there. But even then you would need reliable sources, which you don't deliver.--Padavan (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 21:50 (CEST)

Kan du forestille dig at nuværende medlemmer af f.eks scientology , nogensinde ville betragte denne side som værende troværdig ? http://www.scientology-victims-testimonies.com/

Det ville de aldrig gøre , vel ? hvorfor egentligt ikke ? underligt ikke , fordi, for hele resten af verden er en sådan side fuldt ud berettiget og møder intet andet end anderkendelse overalt , men for dem der stadigvæk hylder scientology vil sådan en side aldrig være andet end en hadeside .

Hvorfor tror du det er sådan ? fakta er at hele verden genkender scientology som det det er , nemlig en patetisk sekt , og på samme måde genkender verden Prem Rawat som en sektleder, og derfor er ex-premiesiden simpelthen en nødvendighed endnu . end of story :-) Kbh10 (diskussion) 21. sep 2013, 23:39 (CEST)


http://www.ex-premie.org/singer/#persuasion Kbh10 (diskussion) 22. sep 2013, 00:05 (CEST)

Det er din mening. Må ikke reagere på faktiske argumenter, men kapre artiklen. In that link Rawat is not even mentioned.--Padavan (diskussion) 22. sep 2013, 10:09 (CEST)


Her er over 100 personlige historier fra tidligere elever af Prem Rawat :http://ex-premie.org/pages/journeys.htmKbh10 (diskussion) 22. sep 2013, 10:35 (CEST)

Ja, som sædvanlig taget fra din tvivlsomme standard kilde. Uden at internet had-site er der praktisk talt ingen opposition eller kritik. Der er ikke én pålidelig kilde!--Padavan (diskussion) 22. sep 2013, 14:09 (CEST)

More quality literature[rediger kildetekst]

Here's some more mostly scholarly literature on Prem Rawat, new and old, from uninterested authors. This is only an excerpt. Let me add, it is a perversion and a disgrace for an encyclopedia to spoon-feed readers from one poorly sourced attack-website and give it a whole paragraph, and not even mention the load of reliable sources, where such criticism is never mentioned, and thus capitalize on reader's ignorance of this matter, in order to promote a single editor's POV. If there is no factual objection, I will add this list, including Ron Geaves publications (see above), within a week. You will find then a harsh discrepancy between the intellectual level of the article and the sources, which are not evaluated for the article. Sorry for not being able to do that, not knowing Danish. But it is always an option to delete unsourced material. Kildehenvisninger leading exclusively to a dubious internet site or to John's gospel are not really marks of a good article, when good sources are available.

Barbour, John D. (1994). Versions of deconversion : autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1546-5 9780813915463

Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements, no. 42. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2 9780810840959 Check |isbn= value (help).

Collier, Sophia (1978). Soul rush : the odyssey of a young woman of the '70s (1st ed.). New York: Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-03276-0.

Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 9780231041980

Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512369-7 9780195123692 0195123700 9780195123708

Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions : a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3409-4 9780754634096 0754634108 9780754634102

Melton, J. Gordon; Robert L. Moore (1982). The cult experience : responding to the new religious pluralism. New York: Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-0619-9 : 9780829806199

Melton, J. Gordon. (1986). The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America. Garland reference library of social science, v. 213. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 9780824090364

Pilarzyk, Thomas (1978). "The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory". Review of Religious Research (Religious Research Association, Inc.) 20 (1): 23–43. doi:10.2307/3509939. ISSN 0034673X. Retrieved 2008-10-14.

Price, Maeve (1979). "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization". Sociological Review 27: 279–296.--Padavan (diskussion) 24. sep 2013, 14:11 (CEST)

I personally don't consider e.g. Ron Geaves to be an "uninterested author", though that doesn't necessarily mean he can't be objective in some parts of the subject. Concerning the "one poorly sourced attack-website", I wouldn't mind the solution in Edit warring by a socalled "John Brauns", by that I mean removing the questionable links, and find some solid sources. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 24. sep 2013, 23:37 (CEST)
Some of the mentioned works seem to be on cults and alternative religions in general, meaning that for them to be relevant here, we'll need pointers to the relevant chapters. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 24. sep 2013, 23:52 (CEST)

Palnatoke, I'll try and provide that. TherasTaneel, I'n not sure if I understand what you mean. It seems like all "Critic"-sites can be traced to John Brauns. There obviously are no solid sources for criticism. What do you suggest? Re: Ron Geaves, his works are not challenged by his academic colleagues as being factual and top notch, so who are you to judge differently?--Padavan (diskussion) 25. sep 2013, 14:04 (CEST)

Exactly, this Brauns person seems to be behind those websites, so as he seem to suggest in the Edit warring-section, those who feel they were potentially harmed should find such statements in quality newspapers, if nothing better is available. And as you write, should start an article about the movement and write critics there and be removed from this article, along with the links. Re: Geaves; to begin somewhere - under References in his en.article, only the book seem to have specifics, about page no. and such, have you tried to search the others? What I personally think about that person, doesn't really have any effect on this article - but I believe e.g. that he contributed for there not to be a more, shall we say, extreme "muslim scare" than there is now. That doesn't mean he can't at times be subjective, again in my opinion. Still looking forward to the pointers. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 25. sep 2013, 19:20 (CEST)

So this is how it might look:


Litteratur[rediger kildetekst]

  • Barbour, John D. (1994). Versions of deconversion : autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1546-5 9780813915463 p. 173
  • Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements, no. 42. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2 9780810840959 pp.210-1
  • Collier, Sophia (1978). Soul rush : the odyssey of a young woman of the '70s (1st ed.). New York: Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-03276-0.
  • Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 9780231041980
  • Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512369-7 9780195123692 0195123700 9780195123708 p.22
  • Geaves, Ron (6 May 2004). "Elan Vital". In Christopher Hugh Partridge. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. Oxford University Press. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-19-522042-1. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
  • Geaves, Ron "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)". In: Anna King (Hrsg.): Indian Religions: Renaissance and Revival. Equinox, London 2007.
  • Geaves, Ron "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2. 2006. ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-8, S. 44-62.
  • Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions : a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3409-4 9780754634096 0754634108 9780754634102 pp.116-7
  • Melton, J. Gordon; Robert L. Moore (1982). The cult experience : responding to the new religious pluralism. New York: Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-0619-9 : 9780829806199 "Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital"
  • Melton, J. Gordon. (1986). The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America. Garland reference library of social science, v. 213. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 9780824090364 pp.141-2
  • Pilarzyk, Thomas (1978). "The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory". Review of Religious Research (Religious Research Association, Inc.) 20 (1): 23–43. doi:10.2307/3509939. ISSN 0034673X. Retrieved 2008-10-14.
  • Price, Maeve (1979). "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization". Sociological Review 27: 279–296.--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 13:08 (CEST)
Hentet fra "https://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Prem_Rawat/Arkiv_2&oldid=11469675"