Misplaced Pages

I consider my edit - "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended" is a vast improvement on your edit which it replaced "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have choosen to not address allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". You now claim "They do not address the allegations themselves, they address the general problem of allegations by describing them as unfounded etc" . If you would care to read the section again you will see that the sentence concerned follows on from "They (ex-premies) claim that Prem Rawat's and his entourage's behavior during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain". In fact, those allegations and others are addressed from the page I linked to. I would appreciate it if you would revert to my edit.Momento 13:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, my impression this morning was that whoever re-istated the stuff about Ron Geaves added the words "have choosen to not". That was not my doing..I thought that may have been you actually. Is there any way of seeing who's doing this stuff? I did not intentionally remove the link to the EV page either. I confess I possibly may have done that accidentally in which case I apologise unreservedly..anyway I think it should go back but I can't find the URL you supplied. Would you mind reminding me? And also maybe you could point out exactly where on that link they address any specific allegations themselves rather than allegations in general.

Yes, the sentence now follows that one about personal divinity (not my words either..most of this section is not my original writing..I am just attempting to make better and more unambiguous and fair sense of it). Proir to my moving it, the sentence was floating about a whole paragraph ahead which is why I moved it to be a part of the paragraph about ex premie critics where I thought it better belonged.

What I think needs to be expressed clearly in the end is that allegations have been made by 1) some key personnel (two of the signifcant ones are mentioned by name) 2) a relatively small but vocal group of ex premies (not all ex premies).

Then it should be simply made clear that the organizations have denied some of these issues as unfounded and untrue (if they so have as you say we can refer to that) but they have by no means addressed (=dealt with) ALL the claims one by one. If the organisation really is suggesting that ALL the allegations are lies then that should be made clear. For example we could put "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed these allegations by deeming them all as being fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". Is that the case then? Lets be clear about this it is only EV (or whover they are now) who feel they have 'addressed all the criticism'. Their critics clearly would have a different POV. So I contend that it is an unfair assertion to state that they have 'addressed' criticism without any qualification. Also the word 'addressed has a meaning of 'dealt with' (see http://www.answers.com/address). There is also a problem with tense. If, for example one hears 'the Queen has addressed the problem of squeaky hot water bottles' you would assume that all her hot water bottles were now made silent. If one heard 'the Queen is addressing the...' then you picture that her servants are dealing with the problem. In the case of criticism Prem Rawat has said as much that criticism is always there and it's clearly a present problem so the addressing should be in the present tense. Why suggest otherwise?

How about this?

The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as 'an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students.' They dismiss some of the allegations as simply fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended whilst others allegations are addressed more specifically" " (Then your link is re-instated to support that..I need to learn how to do that. Any clues?) PatW 17:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Or this?

"The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss ex-premie allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended and unfounded hearsay. Some specific allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites."

Momento or anyone else, is there anything incorrect or left out that you would include? Any non-NPOV emphasis you'd care to point out? If you know it's factual that ALL the allegations are deemed unfounded etc. I suggest you replace the word 'generally' with 'all'. Otherwise I really think that 'generally' should remain. Unless of course you think only specific ones are deemed unfounded etc. then just get rid of 'generally' and put 'some' after 'dismiss'. I still haven't figured out how to put back the link to the FAQ. Sorry. Help Jossi!

PatW 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote battle

I think that this quote battle about personal claims of divinity in the section "Early westerners" should stop, because it will make the section too long. I do not know how to stop this quote battle. I think that summaries by others of what Rawat said, not quotes by Rawat, should be the main contents of this section. Andries 13:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, interpretations of quotes should be left to the readers, not to the editors. Andries 13:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Editors should insert a quote into an article only if it is relevant. You assume that the quote you inserted is relevant because you believe it means PR is claiming to be God. He isn't and didn't, you have misunderstood. That is why it is irrelevant abd should be deleted.Momento 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote proves that Rawat at least suggested that Rawat was God. Let us leave interpretations to the readers. Andries 13:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He is not suggesting he is God, anymore than if I say on Monday - "Summer's here" means that all of summer is contained in that one day.Momento 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is only your interpretation of what Guru Majaraj Ji meant when he said "The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here". How you can have the cheek to try and remove the quote - never mind interpret it for everyone - just shows how biased your supposedly "neutral" POV actually is. Let the reader know what was said, and let the reader decide for themselves. Revera 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A war, Andries, has two sides. So when you refer to stopping the battle, you can help by stopping the battle yourself. If you are, as you have done, look for selective quotes to present the critics POV, wouldn't you think that others will want to do the same to counteract your POV? Quotes, need to go to Wikiquote, in which we have a long collection of quotes in chronologcal order. Placing a quote without providing a context in the article is simply POV pushing, and unacceptable.

To Revera: no one is claiming to be "neutral". You are not neutral, Andries is not neutral, Momento is not neutral, I am not neutral. That is not the point. We each have our POVs. The issue is that we can write an article that is in accordance to Neutral Point of View as per Misplaced Pages policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I am a participant in this quote war. Please remember that the agreed upon version by Gary_D did not contain such quotes. Andries 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you admit it, then you have the power to stop it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many Dutch Christian scholars?

I object to the too many cites from two Christian religious scholars from The Netherlands (there are ten cites from these two!). There are many other scholars that wrote about Prem Rawat in different terms and these are not represented in the article. IMO, this is unacceptable and POV pushing by Andries. I will pair down these and add other cites from other scholars for balance.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Kranenborg and van der Lans are relatively well-known internationally respected scholars of NRMs who were more anti-anti-cult than counter-cult or anti-cult. I will not accept a marginalization of scholars on the basis of nationality. Where is the justification for this in the wikipedia policies and guidelines? Andries 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg was in the board of CESNUR. Van der Lans published about the DLM in a book by Eileen Barker. There is nothing wrong with Dutch scholarship. Find other scholars if you like, but I will not accept removal of scholarly sources. Andries 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

Did I ever say that they are not respected? I am only saying that the POV of two Dutch sholars, both of which are Catholic and quite fundamentalists in their approach to other faiths, is over-represented in the article. There are other scholars, secular as well as more moderate whose POV is not present. As I said I will par down or consolidate their POV rather than pepper their POV all over the article. That is most definitively acceptable as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. As I said, neither van der Lans nor Kranenborg are countercult or fundamentalist to other faiths. Add some more good sources, but do not remove van der Lans and Kranenborg. Andries 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to remove, but to consolidate these two scholars's POVs and provide context, that is lacking. Wait until you see my edits, and if you do not like them we can discuss them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will add some more by Kranenborg because he is the only one that I know who has written about the teachings of Prem Rawat with some lenght. You can request mediation if you do not agree. Andries 19:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Andries. This is not the way Misplaced Pages works. You cannot just say "I will do whatever I want, go to mediation of you don't like it". You are welcome to edit the article, and you are welcome to collaborate on edits with me and other interested editors. Please note that if your behavior in this article or any other article becomes disruptive of the collaborative process by means of revert wars, POV pushing and unilateral and uncompromising positions such as the one you stated above, rest assure that an RfC will be brought up to discuss your behavior in the wider community. I am saving this diff for the record. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And just to remind you, that you have demonstrated in the past that you only cite material that supports your POV, but chose not to cite material from the same scholar because it did not support your POV. This is a behaviour that is called selective quoting that is not conducive to foster an environment in which you expect editors to take your edits in good faith.

Here is the example of a cite that you decided was not worth adding to the article, until I received fron an anonymous email, saying that you posted this reference a forum:

In 2002, Kranenborg wrote that after the family rift, Maharaji continued independently, abandoned the divine trappings and claims about himself and began to present himself instead an humanitarian leader<ref>], ''Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland: een encyclopedisch overzicht'', Kampen Kok cop. (2002), p.178 ISBN 9043504939. "Zij onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader'" (translation: "She disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued on independently, with less claims pretensions than in the past, not no longer speaking with divine terms about himself, but calling himself instead an 'humanitarian leader'."</ref>

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The transition was already with refernces in the article, sot this quote would have had little aded value. 2. the quote falsely suggests that the transition happened directly after the rift 3. If I really did not want to have this in the article then I could easily have ignored your question to me about this quote. Andries 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Andries... So if the quote falsely suggests a known fact, how we shall assess the accuracy of other quotes by the same scholar? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to find a religious scholar or any other reputable source for that matter that does not make mistakes. Andries 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies

Andries, you cite Kraneborg about twice in two different articles but wrot to different version of it. Which one is the correct one? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Version in this article:
  • Kranenborg writes that the techniques of Knowledge, also known as kriyas, originated from the Surat Shabda Yoga or Sant Mat, the Path of the Sound Current.
• Version in Techniques of Knowledge
  • The Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg writes that the techniques of Knowledge of the Divine Light Mission, are not unique but a simplification of techniques that originated from yoga], mantra yoga, Radha Soami, and Shabd (the Path of the "Sound Current").

I was a bit surprized about a sentence in this article (esp. the upper one) which I did not remember ever to have added. I think that somebody must have distorted what I wrote. I will check. Andries 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You should. Please do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that each quote is referencing a different book. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgraceful edit

I am absolutely stunned to see Andries has interpreted "in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God" as "According to a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks, the relationship of the DLM devotees to the guru was identical to their relation to God". This is a grotesque distortion. The correct version correctly credits the view to those "in both these new religious movements", Andries credits this view to "a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks". The implication being that van der Lans and Derks came to that conclusion. They did not. They are remarking that the opinion is held "in both these new religious movements". These edits are vandalism.Momento 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the difference. Why not simply make it clear by putting the word 'considered' back in whilst doing a little precis for good measure? Maybe like this? According to a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks, DLM devotees considered their relationship to the guru "identical to their relation to God". My guess is Andries has just been a bit sloppy.PatW 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I have copyedited the sentence to refet the true content of the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have treated you with courtesy and respect, PatW, so the use uf "shameful editor" in the edit summary is not very welcome, to say the least. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The reason I changed "14 objections" to "several objections" is that the numbner of such "objections" is irrelevant. They could have listed 10, 2o or 300. It is hardly an important distinction in my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy? May be, but I still hardly see the difference, especially taking into account in that the next sentence in their article is "The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God". Andries 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem Andries is that you have made "sloppy" edits so regularly that is clearly deliberate. On April 3rd you summarised a reference from Kranenberg and Gordon as saying "PR said he was God or Godlike", when they did not and on April 7th you summarised a reference from Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks as saying "PRs followers claimed PR was God" when they did not. This isn't sloppy Andries, this is you deliberately falsifying material three times in one week to support your point of view. You should stop editing immediately.Momento 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you that I falsified the material. What van der Lans and Kranenborg wrote was very, very close to what I wrote, especially if you read more of their material. I mean, for me "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are for me quite similar. Of course, I am aware that there is a variety of slightly different meanings if you use the many Sanskrit words for God, but in Western terminololgy, this seems to be blurred. Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen your latest edit in which you claim "He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the boy guru. . PR has used the titles Guru Maharaji and Maharaji, he has never used the title "Boy Guru". Show me the quote.Momento 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote that he used the title "boy guru". Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your frequent "very, very close" editing when it is done deliberately to avoid "exact" editing. Likewise I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your uninformed view that the "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are quite similar. Nothing is similar to God by the very definition of God.Momento 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Divine Light Misison/Elan Vital Discrepancies/Inconsistencies

In the second paragraph the following:

In the 1980s he began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission, stepped away from the trappings associated with an Indian guru or Perfect Master and continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher and public speaker, promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge for finding peace within. At that time, minimal organizations were established in several countries called Elan Vital, whose main purpose is organizing events to which Prem Rawat is invited to speak.

This is from the DLM Divine Light Mission stub:

The DLM in the West was disbanded in 1983 and was superseded by Elan Vital.

This is from the Elan Vital Elan Vital stub:

According to Elan Vital, Inc. website, the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital in 1987. The Divine Light Mission, a new religious movement, was criticized by the anti-cult movement in the 1970s. The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements refers to the dissolution of Divine Light Mission.

Divine Light Mission filed an "Entity Name Change" with the Colorado Secretary of State's Corporations Dept. on February 22, 1983. This is the scan online from that website. It is listed as item 58 in "History and Documents" page 3:

History and Documents page:

History and Documents

Scan of Entity Name Change DLM to EV (pdf)

Entity Name Change DLM to EV

Also, in the last sentence above the words "minimal corporations" is non-descriptive because corporations are generally small, medium, large, or multi-national. I propose changing to "At that time, non-profit, charitible organizations were..."

These discrepancies seem minor, but convey inconsistent information. This should be pulled together to convey the correct (1983 date), remove "dissolution" because DLM wasn't dissolved, for purposes of clarification. Btw, the link to EV concerning the 1987 date is dead. Comments? Sylviecyn 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to move this discussion to the respective article's talk pages. Or better, simply fix these discrepancies. Thanks .≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sentences you referred to in this article. You are welcome to fix the other articles is you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

James Randi

From "Criticism...": James Randi, a stage magician and skeptic writes that Maharaj ji taught that rational thought is the supreme enemy and urged the membership of the mission to immediately commence meditation whenever the thinking process threatened to return. He refers to the meditation as sensory illusions that are natural and easily to understand physiological phenomena, such as tasting nasal secretions dripping into the throat. - Yeech! Does anybody know or can find out which sources Randi uses for this? If it's only his unbased opinion, it should be deleted, or at least commented accordingly.--Rainer P. 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a stage magician, for Pete's sake. He wrote a book called "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.". I checked the book from the library, a piece of garbage badly written and badly researched; In fact, he does not provide even ONE citation in all his book. IMO, not a reputable source by any stretch of te imagination. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And who better than a "stage magician" to debunk frauds and charlatans, huh Jossi? The guy's also a recipient of a McArthur Foundation Genius award which, I take it, is a little more meaningful than the countless absurd "Keys to the City" etc. Linda Pascatto's desparately arranged for Rawat in an attempt to make him look good.--Jim Heller 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Linda Pascatto is not desparately doing anything to make him look good. She is too busy working on wonderful humanitarian initiatives such as the Food for People program. Read more. As for this "encyclopedia", have you read it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Deleted.--Rainer P. 17:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Randi's encyclopedia was published by St. Martin's press which seems like a reasonably reputable source to me. Andries 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have to admit that the encyclopedia contains many mistakes. Andries 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but ‘just a stage magician’ doesn’t cut it here. Aside from James Randi being the founder of CSICOP and winner of international Humanist awards, his Encyclopaedia of Claims, Frauds, Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural received the following endorsements from the following *authoritative* sources:

Nature Magazine: ‘An excellent compendinum…enlivened by many pungent asides’

Arthur C. Clarke (who also wrote the Foreword): ‘I regard James Randi as a national treasure, and one of the few remaining antidotes that may prevent the rotting of the American mind.’

Martin Gardiner (editor of Scientific American ): ‘A much needed contribution to the nation’s sanity … Randi has written a hard-hitting, no holds barred encyclopedia of the major cranks, charlatans, and follies of our time.’

Randi's tone may be dry and a little mocking, and Rawat’s followers might not quite agree with all of his observations, but that is not the issue here. The source is legit, in Wiki terms. How can it not be? My three sources are better known, or ‘notable’ (as I believe is the term around here) than Rawat himself. As is James Randi, of course. Craigfitzroy 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Which "observations"? I don't doubt his skills concerning the "paranormal", but the knowledge Prem Rawat adresses has got nothing to do with anything paranormal. I understand Randi has had no own experience, so what are his sources? If his assessment is based on assumption, it's even less valid than the ex's. He is certainly not in his element. If he chooses to reduce hundreds of thousand earnest students to irrational snot-sucking morons just by his "notability", than IMO this should be reserved for his own "encyclopedia".--Rainer P. 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that the offical line now, Rainer: 'Nothing to do with anything paranormal'? After my four-day "Knowledge" session (1978) to get "Knowledge", whilst sprawled on the carpet before his grinning altar, I had to pray to Maharaji 'to please take me from darkness to light, death to immortality'. From death to immortality! What does that mean, if not some paranormal agency on his part? Craigfitzroy 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found some mistakes in his encyclopedia, but we cannot exclude sources on the basis of mistakes found, because then we would have no sources left. Andries 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are minor mistakes about Rawat, for sure, but shouldn't you be more specific here, Andries? Craigfitzroy 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just some, Andries? I read the book and it is so bad, that I have no words. I think that his reference adds nothing to the article and will gladly omit.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I own this book and perhaps know it better than you Jossi - could defend it on most fronts, except a couple of very minor details. I've met James Randi and long admired him, and he impressed me more as speaker than you or Rawat could in a thousand lifetimes, but that's just my NPOV - and I sure don't run things round here. But with your Wiki experience and knowledge of editing rules, to say you 'have no words' hardly justifies your knee-jerk, dicatorial reaction to any legitimate 'notable' POV about Rawat.

I notice too I didn't get much of a welcome here. Maybe because I don't serve your guru any more? Unlike the guy who libelled John Brauns, a couple of weeks ago. How Wiki is that? Craigfitzroy 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

From Criticism. re EPO

Jossi just 3 quick questions please. Can you tell me if it is acceptable for someone to remove a factually accurate description and replace it with a false one as has happened here? And without any explanation? Is anyone breaking Wikki protocol here if so who?

Text formerly read

'Most current criticism is focused though a relatively small group of former followers calling themselves "ex-premies" who have an active presence on the Internet. This group summarise their criticisms as "14 Objections" the first of which revisits their devotion etc.'

Somebody deleted the '14 objections' and generally rephrased like this:

'A website that purportedly represents this group's viewpoint mention several objections the first of which revisits their devotion during the 1970s'

So can whoever did this edit please reasonably justify removing that fact? I'm all ears. I can accept that the 'website purportedly represents this group's viewpoint'..is fair and accurate but not the suggestion that only 2 objections are raised at the website when they categorically list 14! Anyway I've changed it back and will continue to do so until somebody explains to my satisfaction why it should be otherwise.PatW 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would add that it is my current understanding that editors should not assert a POV but can report from a neutral POV the assertion of someone relevant to the topic. In a section called Criticism (about Prem Rawat) who could be more topical a critic than ex premie group? The very same group identified at great length as the main source of criticism by the organisations of Prem Rawat. At the very least it's perfectly fair and more accurate to say that the website purportedly representing this group's viewpoint mention list more than several objections. What is so wrong about quoting the number 14? And what, may I ask is BETTER about lying and saying that there are only 2?PatW 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, PatW, but several does not mean two.several: of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many;/ What about "a series of objections"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, thank's for your courtesy and respect. When I wrote "by some shameless editor!" in the edit summary it was done with a smile believe it or not, it was not intended as rudeness. I apologise for writing that though. Yes, I admit that 'several' means exactly as you say. It is commonly mistaken to mean 2 which is maybe a reason to avoid it here. So although it is reasonably accurate in this case I still maintain it is not as accurate or informative a choice of word. "Series of objections" is fine by me but it seems to me uneccessarily more verbose especially when the ex premies state quite clearly that they summarize their obections as 14. I don't pretend that I know why they say 14 and not 21 or 200 but 14 it is, and it is presented more or less in the spirit of a challenge. Is it bad to report this within this context? I don't see why not. Now to most readers 'The 14 Objections' would imply that the ex premies (as they have done) have put their heads together and come up with some definite challenge. That to me is even from a NPOV more relevant and of interest than your more vague reference to a series of objections. Now if you seek to draw attention away from reporting the ex-premie criticisms as such a specific challenge then I understand. By the way I think that the challenge aspect of the criticism IS interesting and relevant. But I don't assert that their POV is more or less interesting than premies POV or that they should be disproportionately represented. It is hard to know when a balance of representation has been achieved though because that is necessarily dependant on POV. That is why I wondered why have a Criticism Summary at all (that nobody can agree on how complete it should be) rather than a link to a separate page. I think that may be where this is all leading... all POV's will end up being represented in their own spaces but in a NPOV way. Nobody should resist that process unless they want to become extremely frazzled. So I see the exercize as being ultimately more about putting things where they belong than what is left in or out. Xcuse blathering on.PatW 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it again to reflect the actual title of the 14 objections and that should settle any dispute about the words "several, few, one or two." It's only fair, given the ex-premie group are called a hate-group, to show that there are more than two objections (that are described in the text). Also changed "character" to behavior. Anxiety and alcoholism are not character traits. Also cleaned up some English usage in the paragraphs. Please note everybody: When you use quotes, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, such as I said, "What's fair is fair." Sylviecyn 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that edit. I have edited the sentence a bit for NPOV. PatW: NP about that "shameless" thing. Just be aware that some type comments can ignite passions we don't really need. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism. Proposal for small addition to paragraph about legal proceedings with Supreme Court of Queensland.

Currently it says:

Two "ex-premies" have filed affidavits during legal proceedings with the Supreme Court of Queensland, stating etc.

I feel that an impartial author should really say whom the other party in the legal dispute was. I think we should therefore consider adding 'brought against them by lawyers representing whoever it was'. I suppose mentioning this may make people wonder (if they hadn't already) whether these two's confession might have been a little cynical under the circumstances, and that is probably the impression that premies do not want to encourage. But I do think it's more unfair (on people who want to remind people of that possibility) not to inform who brought them to court in the first place, than it is fair (to those who don't want to encourage that interpretation) to omit that. Next question. Who can we truthfully say took these guys to court? Prem Rawat's lawyers or the organisations?PatW 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the circumstances in which both these affidavits were signed. Here is the text from the Criticism article in which this is fully documented. You could attempt to summarize this, if you wish.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tom Gubler and John Macgregor, were found civilly liable in January 2004 for a scheme to misappropriate data from Elan Vital's computers, and were enjoined by an Australian court from using the wrongfully taken documents and ordered to pay Elan Vital's legal costs. Gubler was a computer repair technician with access to Elan Vital's computers who at the behest of Macgregor, a freelance journalist, surreptitiously copied Elan Vital's data and emailed it to Macgregor and others. Their activities were exposed and Elan Vital brought injunction actions against both men. Macgregor ran away from law enforcement officers to keep his computer from a court-ordered examination, but relented after being held in contempt of court . Gubler originally testified in an affidavit that the ex-premies were a hate group existing as part of a conspiracy of ex-premies designed to harass Rawat and his students and to interfere with the ability of persons to follow their spiritual beliefs. Gubler later attempted to recant that testimony, claiming he signed this affidavit under duress, . Finding Macgregor and Gubler "utterly lacking in credibility" the court refused to allow Gubler to withdraw his earlier admissions.,. Macgregor unsuccessfully mounted the defense that his goal was to expose wrongdoing by the organization, but the court held this an insufficient justification, and noted that misappropriated material did not show any wrongdoing by Rawat or the organizations.
• In October 2004, after being discovered that John Macgregor lied under oath, and after failing to appear in court, an Australian-wide arrest warrant was issued against him for criminal perjury. In January 2005, in a post on an ex-premie discussion board titled "Apology to Maharaji and premies", Macgregor ostensibly apologized for causing pain to Rawat's family and to his students, and admitted that he had been "irrational" and "obsessed." His apology generated a variety of responses, including criticism from other ex-premies that doubted his sincerity, and he was accused of "selling them out" by attempting to appease Elan Vital with his apology.
• In April 2005, in an affidavit filed under oath, John Macgregor emphasized his early apology by affirming under oath that " I owe Prem Rawat, the claimants, their legal advisers and all of Rawat's students and apology for my actions, and for allowing myself to be used by the ex-premie group. I believe that persons have the right to chose their own path of spiritual discovery, and the right to leave a chosen path, but that people do not have the right to incite hatred and interfere with other's choices."

Also if Jim is right that "Gubler actually testified that his affidavit was taken under duress" then for sure it would be grossly unfair to omit this information. Anyone disagree? Jim, where is some reputable source for this information? PatW 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim is entitled to his opinion, buy the judge dismissed Gubler's claims and refused to allow the withdrawal of his affidavit:

State Reporting Bureau - Supreme Court of Queensland, Order 9538 01/03/2004 p.5-7 "The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear. Gubler suffers from the credibility handicap of having sworn one thing in one occasion and another on a later occasion after having spoken to a party to the proceedings about his evidence" Judge Muir. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the judge found Gubler suffered from a "credibility handicap" for changing his story is irrelevant. The point is, he swore under oath that the Rawat's organization's lawyer had forced him to sign under duress, that the words weren't his own and that he did not at all agree with the spirit or letter of the affidavit. Anyone trying to foist that affidavit onto the public as you are now, Jossi, without explaining his retraction, most certainly deserves to be called a "shameless editor" and no, I'm not smiling.--Jim Heller 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I remind you of Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy and that you were blocked already once because of violation of that policy. As for your assertion "about the credibility handicap", you maybe missed the Judge's statement that: The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear. So, Mr. Gubler can say whatever he wants, but the judge did not buy any of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Gubler attempt to recant the affidavit, is already mentioned: Gubler later attempted to recant that testimony, claiming he signed this affidavit under duress ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what you can do with your warnings. As for Gubler's affidavit, I repeat, it matters not what a judge made of his apparent about-face. That's just the judge's POV. The fact is, Gubler DID recant -- he didn't "try" to do so -- and it wasn't "testimony" anyway.--Jim Heller 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know what to do with my warnings. You can spell that out, if you wish. As I said, Gubler attempted to widthraw his affidavit, by claiming that he signed that under duress, but the judge dismissed that by saying it wasn't. That is all we can report: the Gubler attempted to recant, but it was denied by the court. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are abusing the English language. Whether or not the judge found him credible is immaterial to the fact that Gubler recanted. That is, he disavowed his earlier sworn statements (not testimony, statements).--24.69.30.212 01:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi has made it clear he thinks it ok to report that Gubler attempted to recant, but it was denied by the court. I am not up on legalise enough to know whether the word 'attempted' is needed for accuracy. If somebody hasn't done it already I will apply myself as best I can to this edit sometime in the next 24 hours. PatW 11:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maharaji was called "Boy guru"

I noticed that user:Momento had deleted that Maharaji was also called boy guru, though I had the statement referenced by a reputable source. There are more sources that state that GMJ was called the boy guru. See e.g. here Andries 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, could you please help to integrate into the article what I have written? Instead of simply deleting well-referenced statements. The latter is disruptive. Andries 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the fact that someone wrote in a sentence "boy guru" does not mean that he was called that. The cite you refer is below:

• ..American religious movements even thought their teachings... are traditionally Hindu. The following are some better-known examples of these missionaries and their movements... Maharaj-ji (Divine Light Mission)... Maharaj-ji (b. 1958), came from a line of spiritual masters who taught at the holy city of Hardvar. After the death of his father, the widely respected Hans-ji Maharaj, his mother ('Mata-ji') sent the boy off on a series of world tours, commencing in 1970... The movement had a large and enthusiastic, albeit short-lived, following in America, which dissipated after the boy guru and his mother disagreed... the mother returned to India, establishing her own movement, while the boy guru and his new wife remained in America. "

I do not know what your intentions are with this edit, but this is the third time this week that you are misquoting and adding your own biased interpretations of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just an example. And I think that the misquotations that I have made are very, very minor, also in hindsight.Andries 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Show us the cite, Andries. You added: He was also called the '''boy guru'''. <ref>Hinnells, John (Editor) ''The Penguin Dictionary of Religions''ISBN 0140512616 1997 entry ] page 451</ref>. I want to see the sentence in which "boy guru" was used. Unfortunately I cannot trust your citations any more due to your behavior over the past week. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will, but if you do not trust me and my references then this is your problem not mine. I only have to provide verifiable refernces as per Misplaced Pages policy. Andries 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

page 451 "Sant Mat concepts and practices include Anukul Thakur, Maharaj-ji -the so-called "boy guru" - who led the Divine Light Mission - and John Roger Hinkins, who led a spiritual movement in Southern California. " Andries 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Andries, exactly. That is the kind ofinterpretations of cites that make it so hard to accept your edits in good faith. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think that what I wrote was very close to the above statement. Andries 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You still "think" that what you wrote was "very close"? Think again Andries. It is clear from this quote that "boy guru" is a description of Maharaji, not a title used by PR. Your insertion within this description of a photo "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States, July 17, 1971. He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s nowadays called Maharaji by his students" is blatantly incorrect.Momento 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What I object to Andries, is your way of taking a cite and then expanding its meaning to say whatever you want to say by eliminating context. He was not called the "boy guru", he may have been called that in a press article but not widely. Yout first edit was "He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the boy guru". ????? What kind of edit is that? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Literally taken what I wrote was correct. He was called in several press articles a boy guru and I did not make that generalization that he was called the boy guru. It was made by my source. Andries 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be Mr. Accuracy, and again I consider the misquotations and out of context cites that I have made recently minor, if not very minor. And if if you insist on accurate wording then you can also ask for the context in a normal way, without deleting what I wrote. Thanks. Andries 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Give up this shameless brow-beating of Andries, Jossi. You might give the impression that you are, in fact, a shameless editor. To hear you say it, Rawat was never anything. He wasn't the Perfect Master, he wasn't Guru Maharaj Ji. He certainly wasn't the Lord. He wasn't ANYTHING! You're familiar with the criticism Misplaced Pages gets for having ridiculously inadequate articles on contentious subjects. You are a living manifestation of the problem writ large. You are doing service for your Master. Period. Just like that Geaves fellow who, as we've just seen, is a completely untruthful historian. Andries is a million times more principled than you in his work here. Leave him alone already.--Jim Heller 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your comment and personal attack as per WP:NPA ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not mind that you write "some of which referred to the 13-year old Prem as the "boy guru" which sounds accurate to me. You used for that the statement the reference by Hinnel that I inserted, but then do not accuse me repeatedly and sharply and loudly of not staying close to the sources. What I wrote was closer to the source than your above edit. Andries 00:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, "boy guru" has been a very common reference that I remember very well from the 70s. The press/media used that expression all of the time. I don't view it as derrogatory, either because he was a boy and a guru. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. Even in every day conversations over decades, people with whom I've discussed Prem Rawat (both as a premie and later) don't remember him or know his name, but they definitely do remember him when the phrase "boy guru" (from the 70s) is used. It's like a lightbult goes off in their heads. Cool heads, folks. Sylviecyn 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Cool heads is a good idea. But sometimes after a pattern of strange edits by Andries (see the above discussions), it becames silly. I have no problems with "boy guru" at all, no lightbulbs go off in my head, just that some recent edits by Andries have been pretty strange and consistently so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is Andries inserted "boy guru" into a paragraph that was discussing PR dropping the title "Guru Maharaji" for "Maharaji". "boy guru" is not a title PR has taken up, used or dropped. You can call him "fat boy" if you like but it is not a title that PR has used or dropped and therefore does not belong in a paragraph about it. If you don't want to be accurate, don't edit.Momento 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough call because the paragraph in question discusses PR's arrival to west and media attention in the first sentence, making it the paragraph's subject, then it goes on to discuss PR's titles. So the main subject of the paragraph *is* media attention, discussing PR's titles later. Of course, I agree that premies rarely, if ever, referred to Maharaji (amongst themselves) as "boy guru," nor was it ever a title he conferred upon himself. There must be a way to compromise. In other words, you're all right: it's the paragraph structure that's wrong. There's a lot of that in this article that could use tightening up. Repetitions, too. Sylviecyn 10:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sylviecyn. My objection relates to Andries edit - 22:26, 10 April 2006 Andries (→Maharaji’s first trip to the West - added "boy guru"), as clearly stated and provable in history. In this edit Andries inserted his phrase - "but was also called the boy guru"- into the caption attached to the photo of PR arriving in LA in the "Maharaji’s first trip to the West" section. The original caption was - "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States July 17, 1971. He was known then as 'Guru Maharaj Ji', a title he dropped in the 1980s". There is no mention of media. Andries changed the caption of the photo to read - "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States July 17, 1971. He was known then as 'Guru Maharaj Ji', a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the 'boy guru'". An absurd addition that I correctly removed. The facts are there for all to see, please do me the courtesy of checking them.Momento 11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Momento, I've been busy this week, so I've been reading these things much too quickly. However, I don't it as "absurd," Momento. The press did refer to him in that way all of the time, and he is speaking to the press in that photo. But, I see your and Jossi's points too. I guess I'm neutral on the photo caption issue. Sylviecyn 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sylviecyn. Editing is not just about being accurate about facts but also about how you use them. You need to be fair about which facts you use, how often and where abouts particular facts are presented. Inserting a description, even if true, (boy guru, Indian guru or young guru) into a sentence that talks about titles PR has used and answered to is absurd. There is not possible reason for it and it defaces the article. Likewise repeating a fact out of proportion to its importance is also unfair and incorrect editing.Thanks.Momento 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has put back sentence about Ron Geaves without explanation.

I have again removed the link to Ron Geaves' page and the whole refering sentence because nowhere there does Geaves suggest that the author's of the "anonymous website" are ex-premies so it is unfair to suggest that it is. As I've already pointed out, he is (increasingly it would seem) a professor who talks about this subject to many people and so the attack could have easily been from non ex-premie critics. It is simply conjecture on the part of the editor. I personally know some non-premie theology students who ardently disagree with some of Geaves' opinions. I will tirelessly continue to remove this until such time as somebody can satisfactorily prove that it is about ex-premies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)

PatW, no need to tireless do anything. I will change the sentence structure to ensure that the anonymous website is not assigned specifically to the "ex-premie" group. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi - there is no such thing as an 'ex-premie group'. Several hundred 'former students, PWK's or former 'devotees' have trouped through the various web forums that have been online since 1997. Many have posted personal 'Journeys' on EPO, dropped in, and dropped out. Most don't even know one another but find common things to talk about. That's all. Craigfitzroy 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find a mirror of that annymous, but it is gone. I wish you could see it. It could made this exchange a much easier one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found a mirror at home.iprimus.com.au/edreyfuss/ (I don't want to link, so just add http:// before that) . IMO, it is quite obvious that it is from an anonymous member of the critical "ex-premie" group. I would suggest you read that page and tell me what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was probably written by an ex-premie but I also acknowledge there is a chance it was not. This is simply my strong hunch, my POV.So I would not assert that here in deference to the Wikki principle. I've read it. There is no concrete evidence of the authorship being an ex-premie or otherwise. I would argue that the only possible reason for mentioning Geaves at all here is to cite him as an example of a current student and published professor of religious studies (no need to wax on further about his credentials) who has been object of criticism from ex-premies and others for his published articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message. I say 'and others' since I personally know someone who is a senior academic of religious studies (and about to be published) who has challenged Ron Geaves accuracy about the lineage issue with regard to Totapuri etc. at Geaves' lectures and who has no involvement whatsoever with the ex-premie group. He was not particularly interested in Geaves' bias as a current student. He told me he just was appalled at Geaves' absurd reasoning and ignorance of important facts etc. Since the paper referred to was published in academic journals it would be reasonable to assume that he also attracted some criticism from academics who are neither premie or ex-premie. It wouldn't be hard for me to find evidence of that I would imagine.

If you want to include Ron Geaves by name in this article then you will presumably accept a link to the Wikki article on him. I observe he is plainly becoming somewhat ridiculed in public for his essentially suggesting that Muslim Terrorists aren't a 'hate group' and yet he is quick to brand people as such who criticise him and his master without any use of bombs!

Since you ask what I think, I think if I were Prem Rawat I would be highly embarassed about having someone publicly defend me who is so..so...which word shall choose that come to mind... how about from a member of the general public (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010905.php) here's a few descriptions of him..."amateurish and self-regarding" " "- professor" is the new circling motion with fingers around the ears." "I would prefer to call him sacked" "He writes very badly and pretentiously: "... assess what these events actually mean in terms of their significance..." "Sad person indeed." "People who murder innocents deserve to be demonised, as do defective cretins who apologise for them." "My love of the idiosyncracies of human behaviour will always lead me to investigate. I find religious behaviour endlessly fascinating in its multi-faceted cultural manifestations—sad person!" "he is completely immersed, drowning even, in relativism. No culture or "religion" is good or bad, even if violent, it is just "different"." This d(h)im(mi) wit is not worthy of our comments...we should just laugh at these fools.", "Pass the sick bucket." "I hope that the British people are not dumb enough to fall for Prof Geaves' nonsense." "Is Professor Geaves merely 'whistling to keep himself from being afraid' (to paraphrase Dryden) or is he merely one neuron short of a synapse." "Geaves joins a long list of mental masturbators (as opposed to critical and original thinkers) who have long held that no individual is ever responsible for the consequence of their actions. An individual only reacts to external influences." "This is a prime example of why you should not deprive your brain of oxygen." "Geaves has no idea. He's both very stupid and, judging by the way in which he discusses those responsible for the bombing in the London Underground, without any moral sense. A potent mix." "It is views like this that encourage young people to join left-wing organizations. When will colleges and universities start hiring faculty who do not use their positions to brainwash young people?" Go ahead. Include him if you wish Jossi. Somehow I think I'm not going to have to tirelessly edit this one though. His credibility is a little on the wane these days it would seem.PatW 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will re-add the cite with a caveat that it is not sure that was dobe by the "ex-premie" detractors, with a wikilink to his article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK police report confirms Dr Geaves assertion that the London bombers were not part of al Qaeda or any terrorist group and received no help or funding from them. It was four individuals who wanted to be martyrs and made their own protest and manufactured bombs according to material on the internet.Momento 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento. Do you not see how you too are twisting the truth by suggesting that the UK Police confirm Geaves' assertion? Geaves' widely ridiculed assertion was that the bombers were not terrorists. The police rightly reported that they were not a part of any wider terrorist group but that they acted as an organised group nevertheless-and with shared political and religious motives. Have you not seen the videos of them together? That is also reported by the police. An organised group who plot and bomb innocent people are commonly called terrorists. Except by people who like to twist the truth.

Back to the article which now reads: Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing and his views, stated that " are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them." There is no evidence that this anonymous website was created by a member of the "ex-premie" group and neither does Ron Geaves suggest this in the statement he made as a response to that website.

So who is suggesting that the website was created by ex-premies if neither Geaves nor the authors suggest that?? Why the Wiki editor of course!PatW 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is evidetly the work of one of the detractors. The anonymous website as gleefully announced site in their chatroom to their considerable delight to this cowardly and shameless attempt to smear Dr. Geaves name. IMO, it is one of them. Of course I have no more evidence than the page itself. Anyone reading it will reach the same conclusion, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As for your disparraging comments about Dr. Geaves, please spare us the rethoric. The newspaper article is a total fiasco, quoting the professsor out of context to make a good story and rais controversy. Shameful. I would suggest you read the full address. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you don't own wikipedia or this article. Please stop behaving as it you do, by constantly lecturing people. Bullying people can also be construed as personal attacks. I didn't read anything disparaging about Ron Geaves written by PatW. Anyway, I agree with Pat. The section should come out. This isn't a biography about Ron Geaves. It's inappropriate, proves nothing, and you're wrong about people "gleefully accepting that website." I most definitely did not like it and I said so loudly. This is a real below-the-belt cheap shot against ex-premies because you believe they are a hate group. Sylviecyn 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody owns any article in Misplaced Pages. Heck, even anons can edit. And I am not bullying anyone, BTW. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, in one breath you say: "It is evidently the work of one of the detractors" and then in the same sentence you admit "Of course I have no more evidence than the page itself. " This is contradictory since the page itself is NOT evidence..the page is simply anonymous. Of course it's probably the work of detractors but is 'probably' good enough to justify including it here? There is no reputable confirmation of this being done by ex-premies..not even Geaves says this. So you surely have to leave it out to be truly NPOV? BTW I see we are not going to agree about this Geaves terrorist fiasco so I'll not mention it again. PatW 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to include your caveat. And, BTW, I am entitled to have an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph with the POV of Ron Geaves

In order to avoid a revert war, because I'm poised to delete this paragraph today, I again object to the inclusion of this paragraph because it about Geaves, not Rawat. It's also redundant, vague, and is awkwardly written to the point where it's almost unintelligible to an uninformed reader. Let's discuss this further, please. If you insist on including this paragraph, I'll have no choice other than to expand it to include an explanation of the dispute between ex-premies and Ron Geaves. If anywhere, it belongs in Geaves own biographical article, not here. Also, if the word "authoritative" is attached to Geaves as a scholar, I propose that same word be applied to references of all scholars within the article. Perhaps we need to get a dispute resolution on this matter.

"Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing and his views, stated that " are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them." This anonymous site refers copiously to the various "ex-premie" websites but there is no evidence that this anonymous website was created by a member of the "ex-premie" group and neither does Ron Geaves suggest that in the statement he made as a response to that website." Sylviecyn 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I was thinking exactly the same myself on all counts. Jossi I hoped you would see that by just my awkward inclusion of one other fact (that even Geaves doesn't say it's by ex-premies) how all this paragraph is never going to be a concise summary. By emphasising one particular interpretation you are indeed just inviting editors to expand the article to balance it out- possibly to a further ridiculous degree. We need to ask ourselves what exactly this paragraph is essentially about. As it stands, it is about criticism of Rawat only in that an academic student has been purportedly criticised by ex-premies. Is that not a fair analysis? The implication of ex-premies is the only justification I can see to report this incident here, since they are cited as a main source of criticism and their activities could be fairly described here if substantiated. Otherwise yes, it is only about criticism directed at an academic student of Prem Rawat and thus is superfluous to the topic as Cynthia also asserts. My question to you (above) Jossi still begs a direct answer. That is simply this : Is your opinion that this attack is 'probably' the work of ex-premies good enough to justify including it here? Reference to ex-premies within the paper, however copius, in no proof at all. You apparently think so. Please make your case in more depth and address my question. Can you justify this as fair in terms of Misplaced Pages rules? Whatever a 'dispute resolution' involves, I think that may be the way to go if we can't agree. I would indeed welcome some impartial judgements on this matter.PatW 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph is off-topic and the adjective "authorative" is very much non-NPOV. Especially when taking into account that the all the scholars who make statements that could possibly be interpreted as critical are described as "Catholic", "reverend" etc. suggesting that they must be highly biased and prejudiced against non-Christian faiths. I have read enough articles by these scholars to know that they were not highly biased and that their scholarship was generally sound, though like all religious scholarship not completely free of bias and mistakes. Andries 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Off topic? How can this be off-topic? We are talking about the criticism section, in which the detractors of Prem Rawat are listed. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is 100% wordy of inclusion. Maybe the wording needs to be tweaked, but that is all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, it is evident that the Geaves' paragraph is off-topic by your own words that you use to describe the paragraph i.e. " A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat". In other words, the paragraph does neither deal with an attack on Prem Rawat or criticism of him nor with rebutal of the criticism i.e. it is off topic Andries 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you visited that page? Have you read its contents? I find it quite intersting that the critics want to remove that cite. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Andries. As used here the word 'authoritative' seems to me to be what Wiki guidelines refer to as 'a weasel word' (http://en.wikipedia.org/Weasel_words)

Jossi, I have been checking these Misplaced Pages protocols and have found a couple of guidelines which I feel are directly relevant to this particular dispute. I would repectfully argue that your editorial approach to this Geaves matter is not entirely in the spirit of these guidelines. I am of the impression that you are the author of the original paragraph. Forgive me if this is incorrect. I will continue as if this were the case. The quotes (in italics) are from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page.

The page you seek to draw attention to here is assumed to be by ex-premies and so doesn't merit being discussed at length here, but belongs on another page.

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

You were (before I edited it) asserting in a 'weasely' way that ex-premies were the source of that website (and that Ron Geaves opined that too) and are still expressing your opinion without putting your face to that opinion.

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

I opine that not only your edits on this paragraph but the entire article, in many instances, disregards this guideline. I would encourage all interested editors to correct that.

When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

You can't have it both ways ie. attack ex-premies and yet omit their counter-arguments, under the 'weasely' excuse that they're an un-important minority who are' over-represented'. If you want to attack ex-premies via a topic which expresses yours and Geaves' opinion you should include facts about competing opinions and not just omit that or weasel out of it, leaving it to someone else to add the other POV. That is what I have watched you do here, assert one POV.

It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.

Exactly, it is far better for the editor to demonstrate within their edit that they have included the other POV and represented those counter-arguments fairly rather than leave it to someone else. If they don't the article ends up looking partisan. As far as I can see, you seem to commit this 'sin' of omission frequently (as do others). It would so much easier and mutually respectful if everyone could pay more heed to this. PatW 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to see the Prem Rawat article greatly shortened and full of facts, not wallowing in a sea of opinion. The lead section and "Childhood in India" are a good examples of the former, "the 1970s" and "Criticism" are examples of the latter. It has been suggested before that this article could be based on the indiputable facts of PR and that issues that are open to interpretation be handled in other articles i.e. "Teachings of PR" and "Criticism". I think Wiki editors have an obligation to Wiki readers to produce an article on PR that clear, concise and accurate.Momento 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

PatW, please do no make these type of baseless accusations. If you see an edit that you disagree with, just say so. Making these type of accusations are unproductive and uncessary. I am glad you are reading the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It will make it very easy if we all apply these consistently. Hope you get to work with the same enthusiasm on other articles, as pointed out by Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Momento and Jossi. It's a controversial article and I don't see that changing. One has to trust the readers to draw their own conclusions by provided all the POVs. It's more helpful to discuss and resolve this issue than suggest that it become part of another whole article. Rawat already has too many spin-offs. I agree with Pat's point. The subject of the paragraph in questions is about Ron Geaves, therefore is not the topic of the article (off-topic). Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The section is about criticism of Prem Rawat, not criticism of Ron Geaves. I still want that pagraph deleted or else expanded. And Jossi, it's up to each person if they want to edit only this article or others. Sylviecyn 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I am so sorry you think I've made baseless acusations since I thought I'd described the basis' of my criticism quite carefully and fairly. Believe it or not I would not have written so conseriderately if the latter were not intended as constructive. If I think your edits are in some way not in the spirit of the guidelines it is surely productive, appropriate and simply respectful to try and discuss one or two specific points with you here. Since you clearly haven't answered my actual questions directly it seems you are not willing to discuss them. I don't understand why not. I for example I asked you: Is your opinion that this attack page on Geaves is 'probably' the work of ex-premies good enough to justify including it here?" I respectfully aked you before just editing out the text myself with explanation, and you haven't answered. You suggest I'm rude but isn't that a little impolite? If you could answer it would avoid all this cutting out and reverting scenario. I prefer where possible to communicate first then edit. You apparently have no need to be occasionally reminded you of the Misplaced Pages Guidelines so you must know surely that approach is encouraged. Thanks.PatW 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification about your intentions. I will explain my edits more clearly, hopefully you'll do the same in the future. As for your question about the inclusion of the description of the attack against Dr. Geaves, note that the criticism section, describes the detractors of Prem Rawat. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is wordy of inclusion. Let the reader make up their minds about who is behind it. I have tweaked the text to remove the term "authorative" from the sentence as it is a value judgement on my part, as per your suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing your version. I accept your reasoning to include the attack on Geaves but will challenge any attempt to imply that it was done by the ex-premie group or indeed an ex-premie. Although I think that is surely the case it is by no means proved so. 'A detractor' will do maybe.PatW 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I have gone through the 70s section and put the quotes and references in chronoloigal order.Momento 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still not completely chronological. Andries 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the resume?

Between tours, Prem Rawat lives with his wife in Malibu, California in the U.S. They have four grown children. He is an experienced airline transport-rated pilot and holds a number of pilot ratings on jet airplanes and helicopters. His resume discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a U.S. Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications. A US citizen since 1977, he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.

First of all, people don't like "between" things. I've removed "between tours." Second, where's the resume? Without a source, the material must come out. Sylviecyn 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy. The reference is there. It was retrieved from www.maharaji.org as stated in the reference. Why to remove between tours? Are you disputing that Prem Rawat tours the world? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are nine instances of the word "tour" in the article, which makes it obvious that M tours the world, and using "between tours" is an awkward and superfluous English usage. No I don't dispute he tours. Of course I don't. I can't find anything on TPRF, which is where your link leads, that states anything about his piloting, etc. credentials. Can you point me to a more specific page titled "resume."? The sentence reads "...his resume discusses..." I'm just looking for the specific "resume" source, not the splash page to the website. Thanks. Sylviecyn 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference reads (my highlight): (1999). Maharaj.org. URL accessed on January 1, 1999.. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough, Jossi for purposes of a Wiki article. There is no reference on the current TPRF page that provides current information to back up the paragraph references to Rawat's resume. All I'm asking is to please provide the resume, or it should come out, imo, because of no verifiable source. Sylviecyn 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Web cites include the retrieve date because of the nature of the web in which pages changes. move or get deleted with time. It is perfectly OK for Wkipedia to refer to web pages that are no longer online. You may want to check the web archive at

Here it is http://web.archive.org/web/20010811064958/maharaji.org/facts/answers.htm - You will need to disable Javascript in your browser to see the page, otherwise you will be redirected to a different page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I've had a go at these 2 paragraphs to try and make them balanced. Perhaps the hardest was to precis the Australian court case. Could do with one general link to a fuller ref on this. (rather than loads of refs). I also have put some info on my User page so people can see where I'm coming from.

Most current criticism derives from former followers, some calling themselves "ex-premies", that have an active presence on the Internet. The latter group summarise their criticisms in a letter titled "14 Objections, An Open Letter to Prem Rawat Followers" The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize these critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss "ex-premies" allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay. Allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites. Individual critical former students have denied being members of a hate group and in turn describe such allegations as 'defamatory'.

In 2004 in Australia, lawyers acting on behalf of one the organizations that support Prem Rawat successfully brought legal proceedings against two ex-premies for an alleged scheme to misappropriate data from the organization's computers. During these proceedings both ex-premies signed affadavits describing the ex-premie group as a hate group who conspire to harass Rawat and his students and who are given to making false and defamatory reports about them. In one affadavit the former student apologized for his participation in the ex-premie schemes. The other attempted to retract his testimony claiming he signed under duress but this was disallowed by the court. PatW 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current version is good as is. Can you please explain why this new version is better? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the changes you have introduced and the method by which you did this. We had a discussion above in which several editors contributed, in response to your requests, to make these paragraphs more accurate. Now you have decided to act unilaterally and make major changes. I do not think that this is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can you give me a moment to explain? Let me say quickly that you suggested i might like to try and summarise the court case paragraph so I have done so as fairly as I could to express all necessary facts etc. I thought we'd agreed that waould be a good idea. The other paragraph I will explain too in amo'PatW 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete references, as these are needed. Also note that the lawyers were not acting on behalf on an organization, but of several individuals. I will make some edits and add some more references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. The affidavits describe Georges Charles William Laver and the Ivory Rock Conference center as second applicant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, as I said, I agree there should be a reference but there's tons of references on the Criticism article itself (many no longer working) and we don't need to get into all that here in my opinion. Better I think to find one reference to the whole thing.

Here's my explanation regarding the first paragraph.

Most current criticism is focused through a small group of former followers calling themselves "ex-premies" changed to "Most current criticism derives from former followers, some calling themselves "ex-premies"

The first is minimising and implies that all critical former followers call themselves "ex-premies" which they don't. My last edit makes the distinction.

A website that purportedly represents this group's viewpoint lists criticism in a letter titled "14 Objections, An Open Letter to Prem Rawat Followers," the first of which revisits their devotion during the 1970s and their unresolved issues of ambiguity surrounding Prem Rawat's divinity. They claim that Prem Rawat's and his entourage's behavior during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain.

I have simply put The latter group list their main 14 objections on a website.

The reference goes straight to the list which includes what the former sentence goes on to describe. To merely describe at length one 'particular' objection (chosen by the editor as being most worthy of reference) again is unfair. The reference should be there to the bigger picture. That's more important. It seems one-sided to harp on about just one issue in a summary article. Surely better to refer.

"Some specific allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites." changed to: Such allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites.

I changed the word 'Some' to 'Such' since that implies that the Elan Vital FAQ is a page where one might reasonably find answers to all the allegations. I think only 'some' is fair (in fact I originally wrote that) but it seemed even fairer revert to the original sense again and not to nitpick.

Finally and most importantly (in my opinion) I thought it important to balance the longest sentence here which I haven't changed:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize these critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss ex-premies allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay.

So I've added comparatively briefly:

Individual critical former students have denied being members of a hate group and in turn describe such allegations as 'defamatory'.

This simply reports the fact that not all critical former students are happy being branded as members of a 'hate group' and refers to a very individual ex-premie's page which directly responds to the 'hate group' allegation.PatW 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)