Diskussion:Prem Rawat/Arkiv 3

Dette er en side med arkiverede diskussioner fra Diskussion:Prem Rawat. Ønsker du at genoptage en arkiveret diskussion, skal du flytte den tilbage til diskussionssiden.

Suggestion

I suggest to reduce the article almost to a stub, deleting "Kritik" and "Noter" (which are controversial), inserting "Litteratur" instead. From the literature it should be possible to proceed developing the article little by little. Each new edit should be discussed for consensus before being added, so there will be maximum source orientation and a minimum of conflict. What do others think?--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 16:47 (CEST)

Well, "Noter" is like the en. "Footnotes" so it kind of have to stay, but otherwise - sounds good in my opinon, there is a stub called Relibiostub. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 17:02 (CEST)

Jeg synes også det er fint at bibeholde Noter , gerne med en tilføjelse af de personlige historier som jeg gave et link til ovenover , teksten i noter der henviser til kritiske sider ,ser jeg gerne ændret fra Frafalde elever til tidligere elever ( frafaldne er negativt ladet ) Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 18:23 (CEST)

Theras Skrev : 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.

Det vil vel sige at artiklen skal fremstå uden kritiske link , på dansk er der intet skrevet ,der går i dybden ang sekten , alt der er relevant er samlet på expremiesiden , hvis kritiske sider ikke skal være med her , hvorfor er de så tilladt på andre sider ang andre sekter ? Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 18:46 (CEST)

Ja, de andre grupperinger, som du selv skriver f.eks. Jehovas Vidner - ikke på personer, du ser ingen dalitter beklage sig over Ghandi på hans side (ikke fordi det skal begynde...) opret hellere en artikel om DLM og put relevant kritik der. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 18:55 (CEST)

Jeg håber ikke du sammenligner Rawat med Ghandi , men jeg forstår , dette giver altså sekten frit spil her , ikke , der er intet negativt og sandt man må skrive her , fordi han er nulevende , linket til de personlige beretninger tæller overhovedet ikke , hvis man her offentligt vil forbinde disse til guruen , come on ............Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:04 (CEST)

Jeg syntes i skulle tage at læse hvad folk skriver og ikke bruge en masse kræfter på at tro det ene eller andet. Jeg ved, at i ikke går særlig godt i spænd sammen, men kunne i ikke arbejde bare lidt sammen uden medium? TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:14 (CEST)

These inadmissible "Footnotes" are the reason, why the 'Kritik'-paragraph is inadmissible. When 'Kritik' is gone, there is no further reason for those footnotes. If John Brauns wants to have his issues reported in Wikipedia, he needs to have them published by quality sources. Then we would have to mention them. Giving three deceptively different links to equally poorly sourced extremely one-eyed John-Brauns-productions, without even elaborating on Rawat's teachings, life work, impact, achievements, awards, recognitions, violates WP rules concerning sources, NPOV, balance, BLP, undue weight, and compromises WP.da. The POV-warning will have to stay indefinitely. Perhaps later, when the article has more substance, there might be a mentioning that Rawat has detractors, too. But even then that needs to be cleanly sourced. What makes you think this article is exempt from rules? We are having this conflict only because some editors falsly believe they have a right to ignore them. Let's make this a better article!--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:23 (CEST)

But the "Footnotes" are already in use for James Downtons book... TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:32 (CEST)

Et link til en hjemmeside med over 100 personlige historier er ikke lovligt , fordi artiklen omhandler en levende person . Hvis ingen kritik er lovlig på dette grundlag er Padavan den helt rigtige til at skrive denne artikel , det vi svare til aT man fik Herman Gøring til at skrive wikipedias artikel om Hitler .Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:47 (CEST)

Godwins lov - læs den, tænk over det og gerne i flere timer, vend så tilbage. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 19:52 (CEST)

Tiltrods for Godvins lov , så fastholder jeg min kritik af wikipedias regler for artikler vedrørende nulevende personer , den vil producere misvisninde artikler og istedet for kun at have en pro mening i artiklen vil det altid være mere balanceret at have en contramening med , allerbedst ville det vel være at have en neutral artikel , med alle vinkler med , dette er nok ikke mulugt da meget få mennesker i denne verden har gidet at involvere sig i Pren Rawat , så dem der viser interesse ,er dem der har haft snuden indenfor eller har det endnu ,,,,,,,, .Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 20:06 (CEST)

Kbh10, where is there a pro-opinion in the article? It should be opinion-free, only source-based. The rules for reliable sources are valid on all of WP, only in BLPs they are supposed to be applied as strict as possible. I cannot see what's wrong with that. Find a reliable source for John Brauns' life work, and it can go into the article.

TherasTanee, we will of course need a footnote section, even if there is only one to begin with, but there may be more coming, as the article evolves.--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 20:21 (CEST)

Hallo ? begge links i Eksterne henvisninger er i den grad så uendeligt meget pro . Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 20:32 (CEST)

These are primary sources related directly to the subject, given as an external link. This is explicitely admissible. They are not interpreted here. The article is not based on them. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 20:45 (CEST)

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.--Padavan (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 20:57 (CEST)

Via google oversæt er dette uforståeligt , er der en dansk henvisning Kbh10 (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 21:14 (CEST)

Skal ikke kunne sige om det står ordret således, men det er allerede nævnt - Wikipedia:Eksterne henvisninger, start der. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 26. sep 2013, 22:21 (CEST)

Umiddelbart synes jeg ikke at denne tekst udelukker de kritiske link , kan nogen forklare hvor i teksten dette er klart ( Theras?) , men hvis de gør , hvor er så almindelig sund sans henne , sektens egne propaganda sider er helt fine og også skrevne ting fra deres egen intelektuelle alibi mr. geaves , men utallige menneskers personlige beretning om deres oplevelser bliver udelukket , regler er gode og nødvændige , men tit må menneskelig moral tilsidesætte regler

Og til Padavan , jeg ved at du aldrig har læst noget på de sider jeg henviser til, du har fået fortalt at de er onde og hadesider ,derfor har jeg sparet dig for at trykke på disse link og her har du lidt tekst fra siden :-) :

Og ja , jeg har Anth ginns tilladelse til at videregive hans historie her Kbh10 (diskussion) 28. sep 2013, 12:17 (CEST)

Jeg foreslår, at du skærer det ned til det du mener er relevant for at lave et kritik-afsnit på en artikel om DLM. Så kan jeg nok sige hvad jeg mener om det og Trade må da komme på et tidspunkt... Start gerne med at flyttet det til f.eks. Bruger:Kbh10/sandkasse eller lignende. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 28. sep 2013, 17:54 (CEST)

Kbh10, you are very much mistaken, thinking I'm not aware of those testimonials. For many years the Ex's forum has been one of my favourite reads, and I find them really entertaining, and I have enjoyed the wealth of old material from EPO. Especially the forum has been to me like a live daily didactic play of group psychopathology. It is really interesting, but it provides only a very distorted and limited access to the person Prem Rawat, and I would not recommend it to anyone who seeks objective information. I know, that without practicing the Knowledge, it can be seen that way, if you bend your mind enough. But I would not call that Critique, it gives the word a bad name. There are always people who get things upside down, but it is good to have neutral information. EPO may have some therapeutic value for people who wish to find more familiar levels of mundane interaction and who feel lost with the high standard of self-responsibility that is required for this path. Many have a history of abuse in their early years and may need something quite different, with a high amount of mutual security and assertion, and stable-warmth. They seem to find that on EPO, but it also seems to limit their further growth, as there are the same names for many, many years, caught in repetition of old trauma. All those stories may be subjectively true, but they cover only a tiny minority of Rawat's students, who had stopped being students a long time ago or to begin with. I do not demonise the group, but it says more about the individuals than about Rawat - and one gets the feeling, that their time with Rawat were the best and most significant years in their life. They obviously find it hard to move on to other issues, and blaming Rawat for educational reasons is a rather thin pretense. Again, interesting subject, but not in Rawat's biography.--Padavan (diskussion) 28. sep 2013, 19:03 (CEST)

Imponerende Padavan

Selv om du har fået et brev der forklarer hvordan den nobel pris nominerede Prem Rawats og hans organisations rolle i at dække over en pædofil , er du i stand til at reducere dette til kun at være en anklage om manglende uddannelse ? Og hadeklubben er nu ikke kun en hadeklub , nej nu er de også psykisk syge og kommer fra brudte familier ? Din mester må være meget stolt af dig Kbh10 (diskussion) 29. sep 2013, 10:07 (CEST)

Du sætte ord ind i min mund. Husk denne snak side er til at diskutere artiklen, for at forbedre det, ikke for at diskutere emnet eller andre redaktører.--Padavan (diskussion) 29. sep 2013, 11:10 (CEST)

Lord of the universe

Denne film med Rennie Davis Abbie Hoffman ( chicago seven) omhandler Prem Rawats begyndelse i vesten , jeg tænker at tilføje den til artiklen , kan det lade sig gøre ?

http://mediaburn.org/video/lord-of-the-universe-2/

Kbh10 (diskussion) 4. okt 2013, 15:13 (CEST)

Hvis du mener, at det har relevans for personen, kan du godt tilføje en notits om filmen. --Johan U (diskussion) 4. okt 2013, 15:23 (CEST)

Det var godt nok en anden tid ;) Husk at nævne hvilke priser den har vundet. Den har i øvrigt allerede en en.artikel, hvis man hellere vil læse om den end se den. TherasTaneel (diskussion) 4. okt 2013, 23:34 (CEST)

Jeg må indrømme, at jeg totalt har mistet overblikket over denne diskussionsside. Den fylder da også ca. 160.000 tegn, mens selve artiklen fylder knap 4000. Proportionerne er da helt ude af trit! Brug dog jeres energi på at forbedre artiklen, eller lad den hvile i fred!!--Ramloser (diskussion) 5. okt 2013, 01:31 (CEST)

Ramloser Indtil vi har afdækket hvad der må komme med i artiklen , synes jeg ikke at det er klogt at redigerer så meget som et x i denne :-) jeg regner med at tilføje også en avisartikel fra kristeligt dagblad snart , og Prem Rawats modtagelse af Nobel prisen venter vi jo også på spændt på . iøvrigt er The lord of the universe også en god tilføjelse , som giver et fint indblik i hvordan Prem Rawats tidlige tid vesten forløb , synes du ikke ? Kbh10 (diskussion) 5. okt 2013, 11:07 (CEST)

En kristen avis er bestemt ikke at foretrække kilde, når der er peer reviewed videnskabelige publikationer. Være nomineret til Nobels fredspris er ikke sådan en særlig ting for en biografi, og kilderne er naturligt fattige. Der er hundredvis af nominerede. Den sidste er Putin, tror jeg. Men der er nogle offentligt tv-interviews med Prem Rawat, som ikke er 40 år. Jeg kunne tilføje dem.--Padavan (diskussion) 5. okt 2013, 13:36 (CEST)

Ramloser, jeg er ked af at bruge så meget plads på denne side for at citere WP-regler. De er nødvendige for at beskytte artiklen fra stærkt ideologisk forudindtaget redigeringer, hvis vi kan blive enige om at holde sig til dem. Jeg ville ønske jeg ville få en vis støtte.--Padavan (diskussion) 5. okt 2013, 13:59 (CEST)

Redigering

Jeg har genindsat linket til Guru Maharaj ji info , argumenteterne for ikke at have i det mindste en kritisk side med , er fuldstændig tåbelige . De ville svare til at have en artikel stående på Wikipedia om F.eks Jehovas vidner , udelukkende skrevet af jehovas vidner egne overbeviste medlemmer . Artiklen er slem nok som den er , lad i det mindste folk ,også få adgang til en side som ikke er skrevet af guruens egne folk ................(Skrev 2.105.177.208 (diskussion • bidrag) 10. jun 2013, 20:34‎. Husk at signere dine indlæg.)

Removed external link to unreliable attack-page, unacceptable for BLP by Wikipedia rules. Besides, it creates "false balance". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

(From: Wikipedia, Neutral point of view)

You also removed the categories for birth and death years, so please don't do that again. Besides, your quote deals with content, not with external links. Feel free to come up with a better critical external link. --80.71.135.45 4. jul 2013, 11:16 (CEST)

Sorry, I was not aware of removing those categories. As far as external links are concerned, the rule is: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.

I have deleted again for obvious violation of that rule. The article really does not need more criticism, and you will hardly find a reliable source for it. Please get yourself informed before you start an edit-war. --Padavan (diskussion) 8. okt 2013, 12:00 (CEST)

You see, those rules are for the English Wikipedia. They do not apply here. As to what the article needs: It needs to be rewritten. Please get yourself informed before you start an edit-war. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 5. jul 2013, 00:18 (CEST)

Sorry for my lack of Danish language. I really was not aware, that quality standards in the WP.da are so much lower than in the .en-version, and I find it hard to believe it. As I am not able to check myself, I would greatly appreciate if an uninvolved admin could verify this. Until then I will act as if the English guidelines are valid.--217.235.197.129 5. jul 2013, 00:52 (CEST)

That is a silly way of getting blocked, but suit yourself. In the meantime, perhaps you could give some much needed love to the English article. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 5. jul 2013, 08:52 (CEST)

I have now added http://www.ex-premie.org/, which is also referenced in the German article. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 5. jul 2013, 09:05 (CEST)

Thanks for the reference to the German article, I have fixed that. Actually, there is no public or verifiable controversy over Rawat outside the objective of the tiny Ex-Premie internet group, and that is so partisan and depreciating that it certainly does not belong into a BLP. I hope some uninvolved admins directs their attention to this subject. --217.235.202.37 5. jul 2013, 12:49 (CEST)

POV-Tag

There is a chance now to have a neutral, source-based article. When the ill-sourced ex-premie stuff goes, the POV-Tag can finally go, too. Opinions?--Padavan (diskussion) 28. sep 2013, 22:06 (CEST) In the meantime I would like to add this to the 'Kritik'-paragraph (please correct my Google-Danish if necessary!):

http://one-reality.net/

Men der er også tegn på, at en lille vokal gruppe af tidligere tilhængere på internettet spreder urigtige eller vildledende oplysninger.

I will make this balancing edit within a week, if there are no factual objections. It can be deleted, as soon as the ex-premie stuff goes. --Padavan (diskussion) 5. okt 2013, 02:46 (CEST)

You have made it abundantly clear that your only contributions are POV-pushing. Please do that somewhere else. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 1. okt 2013, 09:39 (CEST)

Palnatoke, that is not a factual objection, but a personal attack. In order to improve the article, I have contributed a half-way decent literature list, which may enable you and everybody who cares to discriminate who is actually POV-pushing here. I am amazed at the amount of obstinacy and hostility here, and I think an admin should have a higher standard of neutrality than that. Please try and find a way to get some other editors' or admins' opinion on this matter.--Padavan (diskussion) 1. okt 2013, 12:13 (CEST)

"Men der er også tegn på, at en lille vokal gruppe af tidligere tilhængere på internettet spreder urigtige eller vildledende oplysninger. [6]" En "vokalgruppe" er et sangkor. En "vokal gruppe" er en ukendt størrelse. Noget er gået galt ved formuleringen af denne sætning. Ramloser (diskussion) 13. okt 2013, 18:55 (CEST)

Tak

Var lige logget ind for at ændre frafaldne til tidligere elever :-) Tak til Theras og Palnatoke Kbh10 Kbh10 (diskussion) 13. feb 2014, 21:53 (CET)