Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 4 May 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archive 17 • Archive 16 • Archive 15 • Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 • Archive 11 • Archive 10 • Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

Project status as of October 6 11, 2004 May 26, 2005 (updated by ≈ jossi ≈)

Here are the main points of project status at this time:

• The overall project structure now appears stable as a main biographical article, a criticism article (linked from main page), and a teachings article (linked from main page), with other ancillary articles as well.
• The major revision to the main article is online, accepted and stable; its "dispute tags" have been removed
• The criticism article has been fully negotiated, its "dispute tags" have been removed, and it has been marked in the edit history as a "baseline reference consensus version" for future editors' use
• Characteristic of the classic successful compromise, everyone is a little unhappy with the results but everyone can also live with them
• We have commitments from our editors' group to protect these articles from vandalism attacks and to ask their respective constituencies to respect the articles (and our hard work!) as well
• Existing ancillary topic articles such as Elan Vital, Hans Ji Maharaj, Techniques of Knowledge and Divine Light Mission may see some work in the coming days; no additional ancillary articles appear to be on the horizon, but who knows?
• New articles Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat are being currently developed. A lively discussion about these articles is being held at Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat
• A preparatory stub has been created for the teachings article, and I am informed Richard G is close to presenting a first draft version

Having come to the end of the intensive edit period, I am content to have this status section now scroll off into the archives. Anyone who feels it should continue to be maintained, however, is of course free to do so. And now I give you all the secret Misplaced Pages salute! --Gary D 20:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Updated by Senegal, based on previous edit by Gary D. --Senegal 03:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Updated by ≈ jossi ≈, based on previous edit by Senegal ≈ jossi ≈ 01:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Removing KSGV reference

Please do not remove the KSGV reference. Both Derks are Lans and associated with the KSGV, Derks is the current chairman and the author of several books published by the KSGV. Same with Lans. Can I ask what is the problem? with this? Whay do you want to hide this fact? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to provide evidence that they were associated with the KSGV at the time that they wrote the article (1986). The website that you use as evidence dates from 2006. Yes, van der Lans wrote one book for the KSGV in 1981, but if that is all then it is not enough to warrant a mentioning of association. And even if it is true then it is largely irrelevant because the 1986 article did not appear in a publication of th KSGV. What is far more relevant is that Derks and van der Lans presented a paper about the difference between the DLM and Bhagwan movement in a scientific congress of psychologists of religion. Andries 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to present such evidence. Lans was trained as a Catholic priest, Derks is the chairman of the KSGV, both are authors sponsored by the KSGV to write books from the "Cristian tradition" (exact wording from the KSGV website). As per pour discussions about Geaves and others, declaring the affiliations of scholars or authors is important and warranted. FYI, Lans wrote numerous books for the KSGV, not just one. Please get your facts checked before your assert them so convincingy. See Lans books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#LANS Derks books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#DERKS ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that some of the books of Jan van der Lans were sponsored or published by the KSGV. I admit that van der Lans and Derks became much later chairpersons of the KSGV, but I am still waiting for evidence that they were in 1986 associated with the KSGV and also an explanation why this is relevant, taking into account that this particular article was not published by the KSGV. Please note that the article already states that they were associated with the Catholic University of Nijmegen. If the KSGV is relevant here then following the same reason it is also relevant to state that van der Lans and Derks published an article about the DLM in a book edited by Eileen Barker. Of course, there is a difference when strong bias can be expected, such as in the case of Geaves, but in the case of cult apologists van der Lans and Derks it is not so important. Should we also mention the denomination of J. Gordon Melton? Andries 10:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If something relevant should be mentioned here then it is that Van der Lans interviewed many Dutch followers of the DLM. Derks and Van der Lans were cult apologists (as also more or less described in van der Lans' book "Followers of the guru") and certainly not heavily biased against non-Christian faith. Andries 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's put in the article that Melton and Introvigne like to dress up like Dracula at the International Dracula Society or some such! Seriously, I'm not sure what the problem is with this. But, it does appear that by saying someone is affiliated with Catholics is smearing them. If the KSGV reference ends up in the article, I think that it would be better to say "Catholic Study Center on Mental Health known as KSGV," with a link to his bio on wiki. Geaves is a different matter because he wrote on PR/DLM/EV as a scholar, but didn't disclose his personal affiliation as a premie. That's a whole different thing. Lans is dead, so he's not affiliated with anyone anymore. :-) Jan van der Lans Sylviecyn 12:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting that you believe that stating affiliation is "smearing" them. On the contrary. Just that it is good practice to assert the affiliations of scholars, to provide context. If you read the cite by Lans and Derks, without knowing that they are writing from a Catholic tradition perspective, you do not understand what they mean. But if you know their affiliation, then you get a better understanding of what they say. Please note that it is not a value judgement on the authors, but verifiable facts for readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood or I misstated, sorry. I don't believe that at all, quite the contrary. Most of my extended family are Roman Catholics. My point was that I do think by putting in the reference it may be construed to be a value judgment, and that could be appealing to the reader's bias, imo. Lans writes as a scholar of the psychology of religion, but one doesn't know if he's a liberal or conservative Catholic and the article's not about him. Also agree with Andries that if the affiliation is mentioned for Lans and Derks, then religious affiliation should be noted for all scholars, which I think is not appropriate or necessary, but particularly in this case, because there is a page on wiki to which Lans can be linked using his name. Sylviecyn 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation of scholars, that is verifiable, can remain in articles as it provides context. As far as I can see, any scholar whose affiliation is relevant to the article that affiliation is described. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite all editors of this article to rather than just edit this article again, and again, and again, that you spend some time adding value to this project by editing other articles, creating new ones, etc. You will find this endeavor to be very rewarding and may help to reduce the level of stress associated with endless disputes and edit wars. I am sure that you all have other interests than the subject of this article, and you can contribute your expertise and interests for the benefit of this encyclopedia. User:Jossi 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much but assuring this article treats PR's critics fairly is something I am prepared to undergo a little stress to help achieve. At the moment that is my focus. Who are you by the way?PatW 13:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's Jossi from another computer. He forgot to log on.Momento 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks, Jossi, but presently the Rawat articles are my only area of interest and my time is very limited. Sylviecyn 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the level of stress I experience editing this article is minimal. In other words, this stuff doesn't stress me out at all, it's really no problem for me whatsoever. Sylviecyn 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I never intended to do so much edits on guru or cult articles when I entered Misplaced Pages. It turned out to be that I was however hyper sensitive to what I perceived as propaganda about or from gurus due to my background. Andries 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that "one-article" editors are usually consumed by POV and create an agressive environment that is not conducive to editing. Edit other articles, take a wiki break, etc. It will do wonders to you, to fellow editors and eventually to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never been a a "one article" editor. Andries 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think realistically an aggressive environment is conducive to more conscientious editing. Taking a break makes no difference whatsoever to my feelings when I come back here. I am not aggressive away from here at all. In fact I'm having a nice holiday with my kids right now! I think the article is much the better for the aggressive arguments we've had. You, me Momento and others might well be 'consumed' with POV but that doesn't mean we have to be uncivil or aggressive. I have not aggressively attacked any edits that were clearly neutral only the bad ones. Aggression has it's uses as does fairness. Again if I didn't know and respect you as a well-intentioned kind of guy I might construe your suggestion that I should take a break to cool off as being an invitation for me to give premies the un-challenged chance to turn this article back into a partisan commentary. :-) PatW 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento's edit re: Ashram

Momento has removed 'Renunciate monastic order' describing the Ashram. He has linked the word Ashram to the Wikki general description of that word instead. Fine but since that page has no reference to 'renunciation' or any mention of Maharaji's ashrams, wouldn't it be better to link to somewhere where there is? Might it be an idea to have a distinct section on ashrams here? Should we just mention it in passing? PatW 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read one sentence further you will see "Those who chose to live in ashrams were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience".Momento 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate he did that because removing all things Indian from PR's article sort of makes it look as it PR doesn't like his own Indian heritage. But, I suppose the ashram article can be edited (I'm willing to make an attempt) to include a description of the DLM western ashrams and a link to M's ashram code on EPO. That said, there is going to be a rewrite of the Past Teachings of Prem Rawat article, which will include a lot of information about the ashrams, quotes from M, as well as the code written by Maharaji, etc., so eventually, I think that a link can be also provided from here, directing readers to "Past..." for a better explanations of the ashrams. Misplaced Pages editing can be fun, eh? Sylviecyn

I doubt that the DLM is important enough for a mentioning in the article ashram and if the DLM is mentioned there then I think it can only be a brief mentioning. Andries 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything Indian. I actually increased its prominence by putting "ashram" in the lead sentence.Momento 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the redirect in this article of "ashram" doesn't apply and shouldn't be used. Simple as that, because the definition on the article doesn't provide an adequate definition/explanation for puposes of DLM ashrams. Sylviecyn 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then make a section about ashrams in the article Divine Light Mission and link it to that section. Andries 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the explanation about the renunciate order as per the Downton cite, and removed a dup explanation about the ashram vows. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with "renunciate order" is that implies that people who lived in ashrams were like monks and nuns. As I understand it, most ashram residents continued to work in the "outside world", didn't wear a distinctive uniform, didn't have a special title etc.Momento 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You can add that distinction, if you wish. But it was a renunciate order as per the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not an apt distinction. People who lived in ashrams were called "ashram premies" by Maharaji and other premies. It wasn't a title, but a designation. Maharaji called them the backbone of his mission. He frequently had private meetings at programs with "ashram premies only" in attendance. They did live like monks and nuns because they had to renounce their income (poverty), relationships (chastity/celebacy), and they had to follow (obedience) the ashram rules as set forth by Maharaji (see ashram code linked above). However, don't confuse one's ideas of a Catholic nun or a monk with DLM ashram premies, because there are distinctions. I'm pretty sure that even by the 70s, there were Catholic nuns who didn't wear habits and worked outside the convents, as many now do. Today, most nuns don't wear habits in the U.S. Not every premie who wanted to live in the ashram was accepted to live in a DLM ashram. It wasn't like "I'm moving in, make room." At least that's how it was in the U.S. There was a screening process, and a premie could not move before clearing their personal financial debts. By the mid to late 70s to apply to live in an ashram, premies had to have lived in a pre-ashram for six months, following ashram rules, etc., and one had to demonstrate one's willingness to renouce the outside world in order to dedicate and surrender one's life to Maharaji for life. It wasn't a temporary thing, hence the screening process, but it's true premies did move out at times, or were told to move out when they didn't follow M's agya. Hope this helps.  :-) Sylviecyn 10:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We did have special titles.."Ashram Secretary", "Housemother" and so on. "Ashrams" were also segregated into male and female houses and my title was 'Brother Patrick'! Hey Momento seeing as you repeatedly show that you know very little about premie past history why don't you leave edits like this to people who do? In other words hands off please. You are just making work playing about with something that means little to you but a hell of a lot to others. Show some respect please.PatW 10:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Pat. Community Coordinator (CC) and Initiator was another one. Only ashram premies could apply for Maharaji's IDP (Initiator Development Program). Most CC's didn't hold full-time jobs, coordinating the community was their service. The sexes were segregated and there were "sisters' ashrams" and "brothers' ashrams." No mixing allowed. Here's a mp3 of Maharaji at the Portland Community Coordinator's Conference where he discusses the ashram at length:

] Sylviecyn 11:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (fixed)

The rethoric is unnecessary, Pat. Please avoid making comments that will only escalate into uncivility. I lived in the ashram as well (and had a great time there, BTW), but I do not see the need to expand in this article about the details of the life in the Ashrams. If you whish, you can expand about this subject in the Divine Light Mission article. This article has already exceeded the maximum size. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why, Jossi, did you give Momento the go-ahead to make misleading comments about the ashram in this article? Sylviecyn 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Jossi but please don't diminish the righteous indignation of myself and others, for having to spend our entire time addressing Momento's repeatedly controversial edits. The evidence of this is that in the last week virtually all of his/her edits have proved (when challenged here) to be controversial and mostly innapropriate. Why don't you tick Momento off for this? Instead you seem to be forgetting to put your neutral Admin hat on before yourself commenting in a rather patronising way on people's reactions. As you know this is not a personal issue and I have NO wish for this exercise to devolve into incivility. Please will you be fair and stop blaming me for being cross and frustrated at Momento when he/she?? persistently deletes my edits. For a start he/she again has just deleted my inclusion of the meaning of Agya and my reference for some mysterious unexplained reason. I ask you: is this reasonable behaviour from him/her? It seems pretty 'uncivil' and 'aggressive' to me. I had a good time most of the time in the ashram too. Later it sucked really badly.PatW 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made over 30 edits in the last week of which 3 have been challenged. Do you really see that as "virtually all"? As for removing "agya" it's no mystery, when I removed the paraphrase and inserted Lovejoy's quote I didn't notice "agya" was linked.Momento 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I forgive you :-) I'm going to be busy working in the real world for a while so have fun while I'm gone! "An honest tale speeds best being plainly told" (Richard III)PatW 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please review Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles as well as Misplaced Pages:Administrators. It's my understanding that the function of a wiki admin is to perform mostly technical stuff, which involves some policing, but not to present themselves as the owner or administrator of an article, because no one owns an article, nor is anyone a manager of an article. Is there a wiki-rule I've missed? I have tried to be sensitive to the fact that you've done a lot of work on this article by not making massive edits. On the other hand, your daily instructions are getting to be a bit overbearing and unneccessary. In other words, I don't believe that your being a wiki admin. gives you any more authority/power over this article than anyone else, unless again, I've missed a rule about this if so please advise. FYI, I'm not stressed, angry, or upset. Sylviecyn 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I object to the link you made to Ashram and that also goes for Agya because Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Let's reach a concensus about this please. Sylviecyn 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand what the brouhaha is all about ... sorry. If there is an article that refers to Agya or Ashram, what better than to link to it? This is Misplaced Pages, after all. And yes, WP is not a dictionary, but there are thousands of articles about Hindu terms such as Raga, Sudras, Gurukul, etc. As said before, you are most welcome to expand on the concepts of Agya and Ashram as they pertain to their use in the context of the DLM and Prem Rawat, but doing it in this article would not be possible as the article is already way too big. As you can note there is a request to spin-off the section about the 1970's because it has become way too big for the article already. As for your misinterpretation of the role of Admin, please note that my adminship does not give me any advantage over any editor, including newbies. I am here as a fellow editor, no more, no less. If my "instructions" seem overbearing to some, I am sorry about that. My intention is to keep this discussion page civil and edits constructive. Hope you join me in doing that. Note that will continue to stress the point of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA any time that I see any escalation in the tone of these discussions, as well as to point to Misplaced Pages policies when applicable to bring up understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes re: group

Only Elan Vital that characterizes "ex-premies" as a group so I made changes reflecting that fact, as well as some minor grammatical, punctuation changes in the paragraph. There's only one owner of EPO, after all, and a whole group can't exist within a website. Sylviecyn 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of these edits do not work, so I have made further tweaks as follows.

1. The issue is that the "ex-premies" are a small group of detractors and critics, so I have used "a number of former followers", rather than the whole inclusive "former followers" that misleadlingly includes all former
2. The website can only "purport to represent their viewpoints", unless there is somewhere in that website a statement with a list of people that assert that the website represents her viewpoints.
3. I have also removed "an organizattion that supports Prem Rawat" as Elan Vital has already been introduced to the reader, in the lead and in the "Organizations" section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Critic's Link and consistency of name - Prem Rawat

Elan Vital's response to the group who maintain the above sites Elan Vital comments and legal judgements against ex-premie group members which includes Mike Finch.

This is being changed and moved to "Official Websites of Prem Rawat" anyway because it is a link to EV's site. There's no mention of Mike Finch on Prem Rawat/Elan Vital's faq, either. Plus, the sentence is grammatically incorrect with misplaced modifers that imply there are legal judgments (btw, judgEments, using the "e" is a superfluous, out-dated spelling, btw) against Finch. Besides, the EV faq came well before Finch's article so the link description is also misleading. I've also changed the header to "Prem Rawat" under links. That's his name and the title of article, and already agreed upon usage in this article.

Also, here's a great resource website out of Perdue University that teaches correct English grammar and punctuation. Please use it to learn about correct English usage and punctuation, "when in Rome" as they say :-):

Perdue-Owl Handouts: Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling Thanks! Sylviecyn 12:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why the "Critics" links are there in the first place.Momento 23:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One might equally ask 'why is there a Prem Rawat article in Misplaced Pages?' There are critics links because Prem Rawat has critics. The human race maybe has little use for either Rawat or his ex-devotees, but there will always be critics for as long as Wiki editors like you try to pass off Millenium '73 as just another hindu birthday party. Craigfitzroy 00:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! That was a little nasty there, Craig. What do you think ex-devotees should do that might make them as useful to the human race as, well, as you are perhaps?--Jim Heller 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I may have been out of order there. I'm still new on Wiki, so maybe Jossi will advise. Craigfitzroy 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And I, in turn, think I might have read a bit too much into your words. Sorry.--Jim Heller 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is, why have "Critics" links. Even the articles on Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot don't have "Critics" links and they have far more critics than PR will ever have. Can you think of one rational reason why PR has "Critics" links and they don't?Momento 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot are well-known, notorious figures in history. Rawat, on the other hand, is a slightly-known person who purports to be one thing quite contrary to what his critics say he is. Who is Prem Rawat? Is he what he claims to be and, if so, what is that exactly? Or is he, alternatively, a lying, cowardly cult leader as his critics maintain? That's the question you must a-a-a-a-as-s-s--k, ask 'til you know the answer. This article could have been written from either perspective so it needs both for completion.--Jim Heller 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Critics" links are on their way out.Momento 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, some articles include external links sections that include critics' websites. The style guide Misplaced Pages:External links does not have any specifics about the subject, so it is up to editor's consensus. All of the critics sites are listed in the criticism article, so listing one or two here may be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I discussed the deletion here, gave my reasons, asked for comments, warned of impending deletion and waited for 24 hours before deleting, I have fulfilled my obligations as an editor. So I would appreciate it if this deletion was discussed here before reverting. I have deleted them. I ask again, can anyone give me a "rational reason" why this article would contain critics links.Momento 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's time to make a request for arbitration or mediation (whatever the protocol is) in this and the criticism article, because the edits are becoming unilaterally anti-critic POV. I am strongly against removing the Critic's links. To do this without any explanation or reason is unacceptable, Momento. Momento, your logic escapes me when you say that Pol Pot and Hitler don't have critic sections. For goodness sakes, they were genocidal mass murders! Why on earth would you compare Prem Rawat with Pol Pot and Hitler? No one ever accused Rawat of genocide because that would be absurd! That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, but I'm willing to listen to your reasons if you have any others. But, I do think We need arbitration here, because the critic links must be reinserted, however, I don't want a revert war. The floor is yours, Momento, please explain in a logical, rational way. Thanks. Sylviecyn 13:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't compare PR to Hitler or Pol Pot. I compared their Wiki articles and the fact that while Pol Pot and Hitler have far more critics than PR will ever have, they don't have a list of critics links.Momento 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Momento, please read Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles before making anymore major edits here. This is a controversial article and the guidelines apply. Thank you. Sylviecyn 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento explained his reasons and several people including me made comments about that removal. As per these, I have restored all external links but one, and added ownership of sites. It needs to be known that these sites are owned by one single person. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate knowing what those comments are. Where are those comments by several people? Sylviecyn 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On 22 April I questioned critics links and received four comments; on 02:39, 23 April I noted that neither Pol Pot or Hitler have critic links and asked editors for reasons for their inclusion; on 11:51, 23 April, following one reply I signaled that I would delete them and having waited a further 24 hours I removed them 08:18, 24 April.Momento 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read this section, so I have to assume from your non-responses above that you believe that Prem Rawat, Pol Pot, and Hitler all deserve the same treatment in their articles. I disagree. Momento, please show me a Wiki-editing policy that says if someone doesn't object to a "signal about a deletion or edit" within 24 hours, that said "signaller" assumes there is a complete consensus among all editors who have received editor's "signal." In the future please don't assume that I agree with you on anything, unless I expressly state it in plain, written English. Thank you. Sylviecyn 00:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You were editing during the time I began the discussion (22nd) and the time I deleted (24th). Do you think I need to send you a note before editing?Momento 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the critic's links back in. Momento, one can't compare the Rawat article with bios such as Pol Pot and Hitler, becuase they don't apply. One can't even compare it to a public figure as well-known as Bill Clinton. So I looked at other comparable, controversial new religious movement leaders, such as Sun Myung Moon and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who both have articles on Wiki and both are still alive. Both of these are good examples of the type of controversy that arises when editing bios. I noticed on both bio pages that the external links are placed together at the bottom of the page, instead of separated out, pro/con as they are here. My argument for keeping the critics' links is that this article cannot become a pro-Rawat-only article because he is controversial and does have critics. By taking out critics links, one is creating an advertising piece instead of a true, historical record of Rawat's life. I really trust in the readers' ability to form their own opinions by reading everything that's provided within the article that is presented with transparency.

I also added the "Testimony from former students" with a link to the journey pages on EPO because there are roughly 110 testimonies there, and it's only fair to add testimonies from both sides of this controversy, since "Testimonies of students" is also listed. That also provides balance to the article. Sylviecyn 12:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Balancing the litigation account

And so it comes to pass that an ex-premie, Marianne Bachers, sued Geoffrey Staker, a follower of Rawat who apparently lives in Osaka, Japan, for defamation relating to his website one-reality.net. The lawsuit was settled with Staker being forced to publicize an apology on his website. Bachers apparently launched her action against persons unknown because Staker hosted his defamatory site anonymously. In the course of the litigation, it appears that Bachers started off deposing one follower, Carlos Harden, whose testimony lead her to various other parties including none other than Jossi Fresco who, I understand, unsuccessfully tried to have his supoena quashed. Well, actually, I'm not sure what happened there. I have to read the pleadings to see.

I am in the process of obtaining and reviewing copies of the documents and plan to add something to the article about this kind of harrassment suffered by Ms. Bachers at the hands of anonymous followers. I also plan to mention some of the defamation Staker's still saying about me and which Rawat's own organization also engages in. In the meantime, though, I wonder if you'd like to tell us, Jossi, why and how you were involved?--Jim Heller 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Responding in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to review some of the pleadings and find that that Staker defends his outrageous website claim that I admitted embezzling $18,000 from EV by asserting, amongst other things, that I really did make that admission. In fact, as I clearly stated at the time and as was abundantly obvious by the context alone (not to mention the fact that no money was ever missing as Jack Tuff, the head of the local office of EV at the time and still an ardent follower, confirmed) my comment was undeniably a joke. Nonetheless, Staker anonymously put up and still maintains to this day a website accusing me of embezzlement. Even more alarming, Rawat's own organization repeated this defamation in one of their Frequently Asked Questions on one of their websites where they stated (without even mentioning my saying it was a joke) that "One , a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work."

This is clear harrassment and defamation by both Rawat's organization and Staker who appear to have been acting in concert. Perhaps someone other than me (or Fresco who's also involved in the litigation) might suggest how the article could be appropriately edited. --Jim Heller 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving off-topic comments to User_Talk:Jim Heller ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, are you allowed to move a discussion away just because you get caught lying? Where's the authority for that?--Jim Heller 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not caught lying. I made it very clear what my opinion was, and you made clear what your opinon was as well. As for the refactoring and moving of off-topic comments to User_talk namesapce, please see WP:REFACTOR and WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objective reader would laugh at this, Jossi. You boasted that Marianne had "obviously failed" in her effort to interrogate you when in fact you had earlier agreed to be deposed. How do you get one of those RfC's? --Jim Heller 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC's are related to content disputes only. Not to off-topic discussion on talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But this IS a content dispute as I intend to edit the article to reflect the fact that both Elan Vital and anonymous premies like Staker are making defamatory claims. Anyway, let's have some arm's-length admin review your latest distortion. And until we do I'm moving this discussion back here where it started and where it belongs.

M. Bacher's failed lawsuit Before you make any comments about Bacher's failed lawsuit, it would be a good idea you talk to her about it. Ask her about it before you put your foot in your mouth. There was no such "involvement" on my part, just her failed attempt to go on a "fishing expedition", maybe because I edit Misplaced Pages and I am visible, that's all I guess. You will have to ask her for her reasons. Note that I will not respond to any more comments about this, so consider this to be my last comment. If you want to add stuff from the public records of her failed lawsuit to the article, just make sure that you stick to the facts, basically that undeniably she gave up her futile quest and that she did not obtain any legal redress for the alleged defamation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Some clarifications: I was not "involved" in the litigation, there was only an attempt by Mrs. Bachers to interrogate me via a subpoena, a thing that never happened; I am not a lawyer, but I understand that statements made in court pleadings, such as the statements made by Mr. Staker about you in his defense, are privileged; This article does not mention your name at all, so I do not know what you are asking. If you have complaints about things said about you in websites other than Misplaced Pages, please contact the owners of these websites. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you said that you weren't going to discuss this with me any further so I'm surprised to see you comment at all. In any event, the fact that you were subpoenaed means you were involved. Don't quibble. Also, you're right, you're not a lawyer and your comment about Staker's comments being privileged are ludicrous. Third, you're right, the article doesn't mention my name at all but it will. If you can't see the obvious parallel between the litigation account already in the article accusing ex-premies of harrassment and defamation and Staker's admission that he entered into a court-enforcable settlement wherein he aplogized for falsely accusing Marianne Bachers of criminal conduct and, in the litigation leading to the settlement, falsely alleged that I myself admitted criminal conduct -- which allegation EV itself made, then I can't help you.--Jim Heller 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not quibbling, I am stating a fact: Her attempt to interrogate me and other students of Maharaji (and I will not comment on what I think of her action, as it is not relevant to this aricle) obviously failed. As for additions to this article, you are welcome to do so, with the usual caveats as described in our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I have a copy of the Declaration of Deborah Drooz in Support of Non-Party Joseph Fresco's Motion for Protective Order which includes her letter of March 24, 2005, wherein Drooz wrote Marianne Bacher's lawyer suggesting the terms of your deposition. It reads in part: Here is the "scope" proposal we discussed during our telephone conversation yesterday. Naturally, we are willing to entertain any counterproposals you may have. will answer questions that seek to elicit information on the following subjects: 1.'s personal involvement and/or responsiblity for the publication of the statements challenged in the complaint. 2.As to each statement challenged in the complaint, 's knowledge of the identities of individuals or entities who were involved in and/or responsible for its publication. On March 31, 2005 Marianne's lawyer wrote back confirming that continuing discussions between the lawyers had failed to reach an agreement about just what you were going to testify about at which point Drooz scheduled this application for a protective order. It wasn't to keep you from having to testify but rather to limit the scope of your deposition. You know that. Anyway, your motion was filed April 18, 2005 but taken "off calendar" May 10, 2005 pending the determination of Staker's SLAPP suit appeal. (He lost but filed a notice of appeal). Bottom line is that it's completely untrue to say that Marianne's effort to interrogate you failed.--Jim Heller 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts are (a) that the judge never got to hear arguments on my protective order, and (b) the deposition never took place, so Mrs Bachers did not get away with it. So, think whatever you want. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My "opinion" is that you were telling something decidedly different than the truth when you said that Marianne's attempt to interrogate you ... "obviously failed." You got caught on this one, Jossi.--Jim Heller 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. In regard of the letter from which you cite, I do not find it on the sftc.org website where all court documents are filed . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some things aren't merely a matter of opinion. Staker's lawyer agreed you would testify within a limited scope. Marianne's lawyer wanted you to testify about even more. You brought a motion which was then struck off the list pending the outcome of Staker's appeal of the dismissal of his SLAPP suit. Saying that Marianne's attempt to interrogate you "obviously failed" is clearly false. She didn't fail at all. You had already agreed to testify, the fight was over about how much. As for the document, it's there at the courthouse along with all the others. Hire a transcription service to make you a copy.--Jim Heller 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that she did not get away with deposing anyone other than a Carlos Harden. That is what counts and that is why I rightfully stated that she failed in deposing other students. Please note that I made a mistake in responding on these pages, as all these comments are off-topic. If you want to discuss personal issues, you are welcome to do so on my talk page, or in yours. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jim_Heller"

Now look what you've done, Jossi. By moving this whole conversation away to MY talk page, in an apparent attempt to hide it, you've ruined all the text commands or whatever you call them. So tell me again how you can twist the fact that you agreed to be deposed with your claim that Marianne "failed absolutely" to interrogate you? You know what they call that, Jossi?--Jim Heller 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You say But this IS a content dispute as I intend to edit the article to reflect the fact that both Elan Vital and anonymous premies like Staker are making defamatory claims. But the discussion that I moved to your talk page and you insist in having here is not related to that, and clearly off-topic. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial article?

This article shouldn't be controversial. PR came to the west to promote a means of "inner peace". Like any philosophy or religion, people can accept, ignore or oppose it. The freedom to follow or ignore a philosophy/religion, like freedom of speech, has its costs, but they are tiny compared to the benefits. The costs of opposing a philosophy/religion are enormous. Misplaced Pages should not be a forum to oppose PRs philosophy/religion. Wiki should use known facts to inform readers of PR, his philosophy/religion and the activities that make him notable for inclusion. Wiki articles on yoga, meditation, Shinto, Islam, Christianity etc are not controversial even though millions of people have differing views.Momento 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, some people think that Rawat is the best thing since Jesus, sliced bread, and Buddha, I don't and many others don't. I think he's a destructive, exploitative cult leader and that's what makes this article controversial. I've put the Controversial tag back at the top of this page. Please do not remove it without futher discussion. I object to your removal of it and I also object to your your tactics while editing this article. Thank you. Sylviecyn 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points: 1) I didn't remove the Controversial tag, 2) Just because you, and few others, think something is controversial doesn't make it so.Momento 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the article shouldn't be controversial. PR is a very transparent cult leader who lead people to believe that he was the Lord of the Universe and the Saviour of Mankind. He made a fortune exploiting peoples' faith and continues to do so. Now what could be simpler than that?--Jim Heller 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So that you not complain later that you were not aware of policies, please read:

• Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Biographies_of_living_persons

And note that this applies to articles and talk pages as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.Momento 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Momento! And, to be fair, the majority of people who ever heard Rawat's pitch, both those who received Knowledge and those who didn't, rejected and reject him as an untrustworthy cult leader. The world's press laughed at him, then forgot he even existed. His following in North America is a small fraction of what it once was. He has tried, not once but several times, to reinvent himself (always a sign of desperation). His organization is so paranoid about criticism against him they resort to defamation such as falsely accusing ex-followers of embezzlement.

Momento, let's work together at last to make this article fair.--Jim Heller 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, just note that Jim Heller and Co. will continue to attempt to assert that the POV of 20 people in a chatroom and in a dime-a-dozed websites owned by one of them, is a significant POV, a laughable proposition. If this article is ever to be fair, is when the detractors that call themeselves "ex-premies" realize the reality of the situation and stop believing in the sound of their own voices and accept the fact that they are a tiny minority. This issue has been discussed to death already and these discussions are available in the Archives. Some of these discussions: Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive13#Recommendation and Talk:Prem_Rawat/archive13#Viewpoints. Rather than re-hashing these discussions, please refer to them and if you have something new to add, please do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First, Jossi, I object to your continuing, unnecessarily rude mention of the people "who call themselves 'ex-premies'". We were premies, we're ex-premies now and your phraseology suggests that there's something strange in the appellation. Do you maintain that we were never premies? Of course not. Do you claim that we're still premies? Of course not. So we're ex-premies. Give up the ridiculous innuendo, please. It's no different than if we called ourselves "former-premies." "Former" and "ex" are synonymous. I can just imagine that if we called ourselves that, "former premies" you'd be making the same absurd argument.

Second, what do you call the outlandish proliferation of EV sites if not "dime-a-dozen"? BTW, were you ever involved in Staker's site? How about the EV site that mirrors up his defamation against me?--Jim Heller 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I use the term "people that call themselves 'ex-premies'" is to make a very clear distinction between the people that just simply moved on after deciding that Knowledge was not for them, and the small group of detractors that frequent a certain chatroom and run the websites used to criticise and disiparrage Prem Rawat, his teachings, his work, his humanitarian initiatives, his students, etc. Maybe we should use the term "critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies". For example, recently one of you decided to contact Abbie Hoffman and M.r. Heller got quite upset (to say the least) when Mr. Hoffman expressed his views publicly. Mr. Hoffman is a good example of a "former follower that 'does not call himself an "ex-premie" and that does not share even a sliver of the "people that call themselves ex-premie's" criticism, grievances, and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't belong to any groups or anyone's Co.'s, anywhere, anymore. I'm quite a solitary person, actually, a lifestyle I love. In fact, the last group I ever belonged to was Maharaji's DLM/EV which I left in 1999. I find it interesting that the only argument that Prem Rawat supporters can muster against anyone's criticism of Prem Rawat, automatically are characterized as "tiny," a "tiny minority, ""hate goup," "apostates," "detractors," "anti-cult movement," and the list goes on, which are all pejorative terms used by Rawat students. Of course, Prem Rawat doesn't hate his critics, he just calls his critics haters on his website. That's a fact. The "teeny-weeny group" descriptor is especially strange, imo, because this morning I took the time to actually count the number of pro-Rawat "Expressions" on Blog Harbor.

This is what I found:

1) The majority of the student Expressions are anonymous; 2) there are more former student journeys on EPO than "Expressions" on blog harbor; 3) the majority of countries listed on blog harbor have only 1 (one) Expression" per country, despite the huge numbers of students around the world reported by Elan Vital; and 4) those Expressions are voluntarily submitted by Prem Rawat's students, as far as I can tell, so students aren't beating the blog door down to praise him.

If exes or former students are in such a tiny minority, I'd like to know this: Where all those premies in the western world who make up such a big majority? Therefore, it's my opinion that anyone can throw out the term "tiny minority," to try to diminish another's POV, but the fact seems to be emerging that it's premies or students of Prem Rawat who are the very small minority, not the opposite. Repeating something over and over again does not make it necessarily true. Sylviecyn 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A group or not a group?

Are the critical former followers that call themselves "ex-premies" a group or not? I would say that they are, see Group_(sociology), but maybe they are not a group after all. If we come to an agreement that the former followers that call themselves "ex-premies" are not an group with a specific identity, aims, tactics, etc., then the "ex-premie" website should be qualified as a personal website and we shall immediately proceed and delete each and every reference to ex-premie.org from this article. As you probably know, personal websites are not reliable sources and cannot be used as references in Misplaced Pages for anything other than an article about the owner of the site (see WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources). (This would not apply to the External links section, though)

Note that Sylviecyn added a reference to a letter to followers in which this group express their "objections". Should we delete that reference because it was made by an individual and not available from a third-party reputable source? These are good questions, IMO.

As for Sylviecyn's use of "western world", note that this is not a "western encyclopedia", although sometimes it suffers from a systemic bias in that direction. Regarding the POV of critics, please read Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors in which it is clearly indicated how to address critics and detractors' POVs in biographical articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, what's with this "former followers that call themselves 'ex-premies'"? That appellation is ridiculous and unnecessarily disrespectful. Former followers are ex-premies by definition. There's no way around it. The last time this arose you argued that you know other former followers who don't call themselves "ex-premies" or something to that effect. So what? Logic dictates that that's what they are regardless. Be fair about this.--Jim Heller 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed my explanation in the previous section. I am repeating it here:

The reason I use the term "people that call themselves 'ex-premies'" is to make a very clear distinction between the people that just simply moved on after deciding that Knowledge was not for them, and the small group of detractors that frequent a certain chatroom and run the websites used to criticise and disiparrage Prem Rawat, his teachings, his work, his humanitarian initiatives, his students, etc. Maybe we should use the term "critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies". For example, recently one of you decided to contact Rennie Davis and M.r. Heller got quite upset (to say the least) when Mr. Hoffman expressed his views publicly. Mr. Hoffman is a good example of a "former follower that 'does not call himself an "ex-premie" and that does not share even a sliver of the "people that call themselves ex-premie's" criticism, grievances, and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we all pause for a chuckle here? (with or without 'a nice cup of tea') Abbie Hoffman!! Jossi, your assumed authority as cult historian and fact-checker is by the minute slipping like an ill-fashioned wig in a stiff March breeze. Craigfitzroy 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally funny, Jossi? Abbie Hoffman was never a premie and in fact is on record for dismissing Rawat rather elegantly with the single phrase to the effect that, "if Rawat really is God, he's the God America deserves" (said with great disdain). You must be thinking of Rennie Davis. Anyway, there you go, a perfect example. Rennie Davis is an ex-premie. By definition, he's an ex-premie. He used to be a premie, isn't any longer -- end of story. Ex-premie. Now he happens to be an ex-premie with a far less critical opinion of Rawat than some others but that doesn't change the fact that he's an ex. It's just plain logic.

All of your lexicological problems would disappear if you simply used the word "some" as in "some ex-premies think Rawat's a snake." It leaves lots of room for alternative opinions amongst ex-premies and doesn't require any weird word games. --Jim Heller 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, yes EPO was certainly the joint creation of a group of people over a period of years. As such it does represent a group's general opinion. I put that reference to the 'objections' since, if you'll remember, I said that I considered it the nearest to a 'group statement' that you will get at this time. Also EV talk about a 'group of ex-premies' and so does this article. Are you going to stop that? I doubt it. I don't see anything wrong with calling it a group. The fact is that the vocal critics group seems to change over time as people come and go. So it's not really an organisation of specific individuals. EPO is a pool of ideas and expressions from people and as I understand it, the commentary has evolved over the years and is not the work of one person by any means. So it's a group. What you seem to be a bit confused about is whether all contributors agree on every notion, tactic, aim and identity that appears there. The answer is most definitely no. I'm sure there are a variety of POV's from one extreme to the other. Whilst it may suit premies to pick out some 'offensive' parts as proof that 'all members of the group' are given to offensive behavior, that would be incorrect. Some are, some are not. So as a group there may not be always an unanimous consensus. Is that clear?PatW 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Note that the dispute about being a group or not, did not start from me, but from users J. Heller and Sylviecyn).As for your comments, these are good points, PatW. Question is, who in that group has the "last word" in deciding what to portray as the "group's" opinion? If there is no such consensus, then we shall not the list of "objections" to be representative of consensus. The question remains as how to address this. I may ask for some comments from other editors of WP about how to deal with this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Jossi, that's not true. I didn't discuss whether ex-premies are a group at all with you. I only discussed whether ex-premies should continually be called "people who call themselves 'ex-premies'" as if there was any choice in the matter and that one has to want to be called an 'ex-premie' to be one which, as I've tried to explain several times now, is absurd.--Jim Heller 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An illustration of my last point is that a lot of people who vist the forum have expressed that they are uncomfortable about making offensive comments about PR's appearance etc. Others don't give a damn. It's pretty unconscionable for anyone to call all Musims 'Terrorists' so why call all ex-premies (ie. people on the forum or EPO) people who 'criticise and disiparrage Prem Rawat, his teachings, his work, his humanitarian initiatives, his students, etc.' Can't you see that some people use the group to express their personal frustration and have no agenda to disrupt PR or his students in any way? It seems like you want to demonise the group wholesale. With regard to your last question. You may well want to ask WP peers. I think you're on thin ice since many groups do not declare how they arrived at an expressed concensus. Look at EV for example... who gives the last word there? It's surely not just one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)

Jossi Fresco, was that you that attributed the above post to me? It wasn't. You owe me an apology.--Jim Heller 01:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It was PatW. Corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EV is an organization with an address, a phone number, a registration, a board of directors, etc, and their official POV can be found on its website. Muslims belong to the Islam faith. Some muslims such as Islamists and Jihadists may be considered extremists by some, etc. So, of course that it is inappropriate to call all muslims to be terrorists, just only those that are. So, when we are presenting the POV of the Sunnis or the Shiah we are presenting the POV of their proponents, based on reputable sources that can be verified by readers. In our case, as this "group" may not have a consensus POV (as per PatW's assertion), we cannot describe an "ex-premie" POV, can we? We can only say that certain "critical former followers that call themselves 'ex-premies'" have this or that POV. We are still left with the smilingly insurmountable problem of verifiability, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting really frustrating. How many times must I tell you, former follower = former premie = ex-follower = ex-premie. You mean to say "certain ex-premies." --Jim Heller 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, EPO is the combined efforts of many people over many years, and the 14 objections respresent the point of view. EPO isn't incorporated, for goodness sake. EV is a corporation, it has to have an address(s) in order to be legally incorporated. No, I don't think the "14 Objections" should go, and besides, you already accepted it's inclusion in the article. EV has set the standard for the term "small hate-group" in this article, based on it's FAQs, as the language used to describe ex-premies with text written here and on it's website. That said, this new issue seems like another attempt to manipulate the language in order to get the critics (exes and EPO) out of the article again. I don't see the problem with using "some ex-premies" when appropriate, which I've done for purposes of clarity and usage. Frankly, I don't know why Prem Rawat doesn't just hire somone to write his autobiography for him. He could self-publish and filter out all the critics that way. Sylviecyn 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We cannot use "some critics" or "certain critics" in Misplaced Pages. See WP:WEASEL. POVs have to be properly attributed to be allowed in articles, see WP:NPOV. And there is no way to verify that the "14 objections" represent the views other than the author's... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What a lively conversation. According to the Wiki guidelines - "Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article". No matter by what criteria you wish to judge, the criticism of PR is a tiny-minority view. Momento 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, Jossi and Momento. I didn't know that about the use of the word "some," being a weasel word. There's so little time and so many Wiki-things to learn! I don't have a problem with the policy at all, just didn't know about it. However, in reviewing the article as it now stands, the majority of the uses of "some" words (excluding quotes by PR, scholars, and others) refers not to ex-premies, but to Rawat family members, references to the media coverage, etc. Sure, I have no problem with even more clarification, which I can address later. Also, Jossi, I've noted your blurb below explaining the subject of this talk-section. We're all adults here that know how to read and comprehend, so unless you're are a self-apointed Hall monitor I ask, once again, for you to please refrain from giving lectures about the subject here. People are people, they will veer off the subject from time to time, it's not necessary for you to constantly monitor and lecture about it, because it comes across as condescending and bossy. Thank you. Sylviecyn 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

By coincidence, Sylviecyn, your Hall monitor link makes a better illustration of the present discussion than you maybe intended. It talks about "some" schools, in "some" countries, and up to now no Wiki hall monitors seem interested in editing out those weasel words. Craigfitzroy 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, you keep insisting on the use of "majority" versus "minority." I just asserted above that ex-premies are definitely the majority and you didn't respond. Also note:

If somebody suggests that Misplaced Pages should become a majority-rule democratic community...

do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.

don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you to prove him wrong.

How is it that linking to Prem Rawat's official organizations' or websites, seven links in total, such as Elan Vital, The Prem Rawat Foundation isn't considered original research? I really don't understand this because those are his organizations and websites, provided here by students, one of which created them as webmaster. The Prem Rawat Foundation holds his name. Also, the only numbers of students (as you assert to be the majority) available are from Prem Rawat's organizations. I haven't seen any other verifiable information in this article to prove the numbers. Once again, to Jossi and Momento: Repeating the terms "tiny, teeny-weeny, small, minority, little, doesn't necessarily make it so. Sylviecyn 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seemed clear to me from early times that the title 'premie' meant someone who had been taught, or had 'received', the techniques of Knowledge from Maharaji, so it was a permanent. They cannot be untaught. One could stop practicing the techniques or even turn against Maharaji, and give oneself any title, but not ex-premie, which makes no sense. Marvin Khan 11:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Premie is a word derived from Sanskrit that means love. It's also a label, not a lifetime identity or a title. So premie means "lover," or as was often described "Lover of truth," or "Lover of Maharaji." You're correct, someone was called a "premie" once they went through the initiation process in a Knowledge session to learn the meditation techniques of Knowledge as taught by Prem Rawat. Therefore, when someone rejects the teachings and practice of Knowledge and Prem Rawat, it logically follows that they reject the label "premie" and use ex-premie, former follower, former premie, and ex-devotee, or as some people say, former cult member or ex-cult member. It's not that deep a subject to understand. Premie = lover therefore, ex-premie = former lover. Also, it's interesting that when a premie/student leaves Prem Rawat, often current students refer to it as "turning against Maharaji." Btw, there can be an enormous amount of indoctrination to unlearn when one leaves Prem Rawat, especially if one was in the group for decades. Hope this explains. Sylviecyn 11:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed significance

The issue we are discussing is not the definition of the term. Rather, we are discussing the attempt by a few individuals to claim to be representing the POV of people that stopped practicing Knowledge. Ex-premie.org and the forum frequented by these individuals, only represent the view of a tiny minority. That is why we should refer to them as a "small group of critical ex-followers that call themselves "ex-premies", when referring to them in the Criticism section. We also have to evaluate the significance of such minority POV, and edit the article accordingly, as it pertains to making claims that the "14 objections" is representative of ex-followers POV, when it is only representative of the, again, the "small group of critical ex-followers that call themselves "ex-premies" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Give it up, Jossi. This is just another spurious argument on your part. If a doctor tells a number of people that he alone has the only cure for their deadly disease and almost all of them stop following his advice, it's implicit that those who left his treatment don't take him seriously any longer. Rawat is a joke to almost all who ever had anything to do with him.--Jim Heller 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Poor counter argument, Jim. Very poor. When you have nothing to say you just say "spurious" and to "give up". As for the real joke, now I an understand the contention. Sylviecyn really believes that the ex-premie group is the majority POV!!! (without being disrespectful, please allow me to Roll on The Floor and Laugh Outloud). It does not matter that Maharaji is watched in SkyTV and HotBird in Europe and the Middle Eeast, Canal Infinito in all South America and Southern US, Channel 31 in Austraila, and DishNetwork in the US and Canada many other TV outlets. It does not count that 1.7 million people that came to listen to Maharaji speak in a tour of India last month. It does not count that there are hundreds of thousands of people that practice Knowledge and actively participate as volunteers in more than 50 countries. It does not count that legislators, academics and other highly respected individuals that praise his work and hois message . etc, etc. No. All that does not count in Sylviecyn math. The only thing that counts are the perspective of a small group of critical ex-followeres that call themselves ex-premies. Allow me again to ROTFL. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny what we find funny, isn't it, Jossi? Do you admit that not only are a small fraction of Rawat's followers in the West still premies but that also the number of Western followers today is a small fraction of the number in the seventies? I guess you weren't around back then, were you? So it must be a little hard for you to get the visceral feel on this but, trust me, Jossi, Rawat's presence in the West is spectral compared to then. Does Misplaced Pages have an article on has-beens? There ought to be a link.--Jim Heller 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true a large number of early (by which I mean 1970's vintage) students of Prem Rawat no longer practice, it is arguable what percentage of the whole this represents. But they cover a broad spectrum of perspectives. From people I know personally, a large percentage stopped for variations on the 'growing out of it' theme, changing life expectations, etc, and hold in no ill-will, but respect him for the contribution he made to their lives at one time. Another swathe just seem to have lost touch, lost the inspiration which is core to what Rawat offers and have no feeling oen way or the other. Then, ,those who couch their falling away in some kind of negativity. It is only at one extreme of the spectrum that you find a small but vociferous minorty who call themselves the ex-premies who are pretty militant.Peterson. 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Militant is a strong word to use. But that's not the subject.

Before you get dizzy rolling on the floor there Jossi, that's about 15 people who have positive quotes for Prem Rawat who aren't identified as premies on Wikiquote. The governors don't count because anybody can get proclamations like that, all it takes if for a constituent to ask for one. Plus, the governors generally don't even know the subject of those proclamations -- they just sign them, and those are not direct quotes from the actual people. Check out those governor pages and see how many proclamations they issue for people, every month. For that reason, it doesn't distinguish Rawat at all. Now that's a hearty ROTFL. You might want to learn a bit more about how local politicians work before you and Rawat continue bragging on those things.

Btw, are those honor docs scanned onto TPRF? I rarely go there for fear of being blinded by the beige. I really want to see the one from National Geographic, because I got a letter of appreciation from National Geographic too, when I subscribed this year. Also, I already disproved the Vermont Historical Society one, but maybe you forgot. But, I digress.

Where are the independent sources for those big head count numbers besides from Elan Vital or Contact-Info or TPRF? Got western country counts only? How does Elan Vital determine the actual number of watchers of those tv community access programs, and how long anyone actually watches? Got any cold-hard polling data from the stations to back up the claims? Produce those black and white independent numbers and then we can decide who gets to laugh hardest here. Btw, it would be polite if you or Momento actually answered the questions I and others ask here. Otherwise, I'm just gonno go back to editing and ignore this page anymore because it's becoming a total waste of time. Sylviecyn 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these last comments by Heller and Petersen. PR has talked to millions of people and shown the techniques to hundreds of thousands of people. Of those, two dozen regularly post on the ex-premie forum that is critical of PR and three of those registered posters are editing this article to reflect their POV. This is completely against the spirit and guidelines of Wiki which say "if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article". Therefore the "Criticism" section and the "Critics Links" have no place in this article.Momento 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken publicly to thousands of people when I was a premie. It's true, I have. I was often a featured satsang speaker at large regional events in the Northeastern United States, and later, at Florida events as an ashram Assistant Community Coordinator at Gainesville, FL. That doesn't count when I performed as a singer at those same events, in which case I could double the figure to make it tens of thousands of people. Don't worry, I don't have documentation for that claim, because most of those premies have moved on loudly or softly and silently, and I don't have all their names.

Once again Momento and Jossi: Repeating something over and over and over and over doesn't make it true. Numbers are meaningless without documentation independent of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. Can you please try to get this point?

Now please, read this again, because repetition seems to be your forte. Just because you, Jossi, other premies, or Rawat says something repetitiously, doesn't make it necessarily true. It may be true in Maharaji's World, but it is not true in the real world where people live. Please answer some questions, and please provide solid documentation for your "tiny minority" claims, just as real world people would have to do in any argument or debate. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on here because you are offering no evidence or rational arguments to back up your claims concerning "majority versus minority."

Believe me, I can and will keep up with your repetitions. It's clear that you know how to repeat yourself, you've shown that to be true because you've done it many times, repetitiously, just in this not-so itty bitty section. So please endeavor to engage in the real debate here and offer documented proof of your claims. Please show some respect for yourselves in the way you interact with real world people, otherwise "it really shows." Once again for good measure: Repeating something over and over again, doesn't necessarily make it true. What a nice cup of tea I've just had! Thank you. Okay now, back to editing.

It's time for arbitration. I'm done on this talk page. Last warning. Sylviecyn 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Under which premise are you "warning" any one? Please note that threats have no place in a civil dialog. Also note that arbitration does not deal with content disputes. We are having a pertinent discussion and people are making their comments, quite politely in most instances. As for the minority position of the critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies, hope you can agree that these are a small group of maybe 10-20 people, but I will be very generous and say maybe 100 people. OK? That is based on a simple check of the names that post in your chatroom over the years. That is the only "evidence" we have about the number of critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies. As for the number of people that are practicing Knowledge as reported by other sources other that the organizations that support Maharaji's work, I have a cite from a 1997 book that we can use:

Palmer, Spencer J. P. and Keller R. R. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, p95. Brigham Young University(1997) ISBN 0842523502
"General membership numbers appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. There is a core group of 3000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly The mission is 53 countries... "

In addition, one can easily deduce (without referring to numbers provided by the organization (such as 75,000 people that received Knowledge in 2005) from the number of TV stations that carry Maharaji's message, the number of events that are announced publicly, etc, that the numbers presented in that Palmer's book may be on the conservative side. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat, and let me be crystal clear before you blow this out of porportion, Momento. My warning comment pertains only to my own personal continuing frustration with this conversation, in which I believe pro-Rawat participants are manipulating the language. It was a poor choice of words on my part, I admit. But, it pertains to my own refusal to participate in this specific conversation until Rawat students start answering specific questions posed them, rather than making declaratory statements which prove nothing. Sylviecyn 14:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to take the Palmer et al estimate as accurate for the time (The LDS are huge compilers of info). Using those figures critical ex-followers of PR are less than 0.01% of followers and an even smaller fraction of people who have received the techniques but aren't considered current members and are not critical. Unless new figures are provided, Wiki editors are obliged to remove the "Criticism" section and the "Critics Links" under the Wiki guidelines which say "if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article".Momento 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify something Jossi? You may remember that when I first popped in here I asked your opinion as to whether the Criticism section may be better removed altogether and that subject dealt with elsewhere. You replied that this was 'A Summary Article' or some such appelation and as such was OK, if not appropriate as long as it was quite 'small' here. That's why I took some time to improve it and indeed reduce the number of words quite considerably. Am I to understand that you intend to remove it? If so, is it permissable in Wiki, for whoever does this to simply delete all the work or are they obliged to move it to a more appropriate location elsewhere? Personally I would not resist it being moved to another page but I think it would be highly uncivil to simply delete what is clearly the considerable work of a number of people. Also if you leave any reference to critics here then that should obviously link to the fuller article on Criticism. Please be clear about what you think would be the fairest and best way to resolve this.PatW 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question. Momento is considering removing an, as yet undefined, amount of info about criticism directed at PR. Personally I think it would be a pretty drastic over-reaction to cut out all mention of criticism. So what exactly do people think it appropriate to leave? Is this going to be 'back to square one'? It strikes me that EV are quite keen to attack their current critics (no matter how few people they are.) When I arrived here the Criticism Section read like an impassioned one-sided dig at 'ex-premies'. So let's forget about the numbers game. It seems irrelevant. Do you or do you not want to mention this tiny current group of a handful of vocal critics or not? If you don't then move the text elsewhere with respect to preserve the authors work. If you do then let's make sure that whatever remains is balanced and fair. Otherwise we're going to be going around in circles. PatW 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "Criticism" section and the "Critics Links" isn't up to Jossi. They have no place in this article and any Wiki editor should feel free to remove them. I don't care where they go, I only know that they have no place in this article.Momento 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's stopping you removing them right now?PatW 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm being polite and allowing time for any comments.Momento 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with Momento. Criticism that has been published by reputable sources, such as scholarly articles, etc. cannot be deleted as per WP:NPOV. We can also mention that there is a small group of former students that are critical of PR, related organizations, etc, as that is verifiable (even if it has not been published by a reputable source). But that is it, more or less. One sentence, two at most. So, for NPOV we ought to describe all significant POVs in proportion to their significance. This small group of people deserves but a metion. Can you imagine if every group of 10-20 people with a POV is given a voice in WP? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. You can look at it in this was as well: Should we add a section "Students views" and describe the POV of current students? Of course not. This is a biographical article in an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you say Jossi. I always thought that this aricle should not be a soapbox for critics. But also it should not be a soapbox for people who want to criticise critics! My feeling is that if it were not for the fact that EV makes quite a considerable effort on it's various websites to denigrate the few persons concerned, then maybe this small group would indeed deserve less prominence here. What disturbs me is that the article has many links to websites run by EV where we hear tons of rhetoric from people like Glen Whittaker, Willow Baker etc. all presenting their versions of events. That would be OK except that, looking at these links, it quickly becomes apparent that they are designed to subtely denigrate people like Bob Mishler, Dettmers and of course 'ex-premies'. With so many links within the article that provide a sub-text of criticism of the critics, there is probably to any neutral observer, the definite sense that this is a partisan article. It's a shame that really neutral people aren't motivated or even obliged to comment here. It could be telling for us all.PatW 15:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi wrote: we ought to describe all significant POVs in proportion to their significance. This small group of people deserves but a mention. I don't agree that significance can be measured by numbers, as you are apparently implying should be, at least a large part of, the rule in this case. Why? Because this 'small group of people' is attributed much more significance than any past critics who are not mentioned at all on EV sites. Maybe in the future this group will join the other past critics in relative insignificance but right now, despite numbers, this small group has more significance to EV than any other group. In fact a quick glimpse at their websites across the world, which attack the small group at length, is enough to see that they are currently deemed more significant than other critics except maybe the dead one they frequently denigrate. (Bob Mishler) So I would strongly argue that to make small numbers a case for insignificance is innappropriate. The significance of any one person is inextricably tied up with their effect. NB. Bob Mishler, or In the case of Rajneesh and his followers, one german woman became very significant to the article by plottting to poison a bunch of critics! Maybe EV do see ex-premies as insignificant but the very fact that they devote a significant number of pages of their sites to saying how 'insignificant' they are, plainly tells a different story. So I would tend to think that ex-premies should be mentioned in proportion to their being attacked by EV and their significance on PR's mission. And, as I keep saying, the only measure of that we have to hand is the material devoted to the group on the EV sites. Momento's, your's, my opinion of their significance should be irrelevant. We need to determine a clear yardstick to measure significance and that (as demonstrated by 'Bob Mishler's inclusion) is NOT going to be 'numbers'. The alternative is to endlessly fight from vague biased POV's. Any better ideas? PatW 15:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PatW, Wiki guidelines have already provided us with "a clear yardstick". The policy is clear and unambiguous "if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article". It's as simple as that. The only thing that needs to happen now is that editors of this article recognise that any edits or criticism sourced from or created by people associated with the anti-PR website EPO or anti-PR forums be treated in accordance with Wiki guidelines. I suggest that someone who knows how to do it, remove the "Criticism" section to the "Criticsm of Prem Rawat" article. I have removed the "Critics" Links. Momento 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If the opinion of the ex-premies form such a small minority then why does Reender Kranenborg extensively quote ex-premie Lammers in his article about the DLM? Why were there so many critical articles about Rawat and the DLM when he was still famous? See here. Why did Melton write that the DLM was constantly involved in controversy? Why is Rawat ranked nowhere high on a guru rating list? Why have recent critical articles been placed in the media even though he is obscure now? Andries 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that there was never controvesy around PR. The article presents all the controversies, such as the succession, the family rift, etc. What we are discussing is the minorrty POV of a small group of critical ex-followers. As for "guru rankings" I don't know what relevance that would have in this case, and what reputability these "rankings" offer. The fact that Kraneborg cites from one exc-follower can be cited. But here we are dicussing something else, the POV group of the small group of critical ex-follower that call refre to themselves as "ex-premies" and how to describe it and in what proportion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, much of the third party material (in this article) in the form of published material is contained on EPO. On the other hand, there is very little third-party (if any) Wiki-defined reliable source material to back up anything stated in the article about Prem Rawat, other than the linked TPRF, EV, Ron Geaves, and other websites listed as "Prem Rawat official websites." For purposes of defining reliable sources, (I admit I may not understand this) I would think that original research would also have to include what students' opinions are of Prem Rawat, since no criticsm is allowed nor considered on PR sites, quite the opposite, Elan Vital lashes out at length at Prem Rawat's critics. I don't know how this article could stand without criticism and controversy, because that's what made PR famous -- not now, but when he was a child and teenager. Prem Rawat isn't famous now, except maybe in Malibu and Miami. So, I don't understand this -- I've asked, with no answers so far. It must be noted at least on this talk page that the vast majority of third-party reliable sources such as mainstream press and scholarly writings do present Prem Rawat in a negative light. Remove all that and what's left? Sylviecyn 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Only few scholary sources (mainly those of a couple of Dutch religious sholars) write negatively of PR. There are many scholars that refer to PR and do not level any criticism whatsoever (see the bottom of the Criticism section for these references). As for the sources in this article that are based on official websites, there is nothing wrong about it, on the contrary. Providing that we are properly attributing statememnts (such as "according to the Prem Rawat Foundation ....), we are doing this right and in accordance to Misplaced Pages content policies. As said very clearly above, I am not arguing that the article does not need to have a critisicm section. It does. But the POV of a minority requires that it is treated as such as per WP:NPOV. In addition, as this is a biography of a living person, the Wikimedia Foundation needs to protect itself legally for defamation and libel, and as such there are specific guidelines that deal with criticism in regard to sources. Read: WP:RS#In_biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons: Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors. as well as WP:LIBEL ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to this YARDSTICK FOR SIGNIFICANT MINORITIESfrom the Wiki guidelines:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

So it's clear what the distinction is between a 'significant minority' (that may be included) and an 'an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority' which has no place. And Momento, that distinction is: it should be easy to name prominent adherents So tell me Momento and Jossi do think it is easy to name prominent adherents of the ex-premie group? (Hint: a number of these people aren't too cowardly to use their real names)PatW 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You missed to highlight that If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No of course I did not miss that Jossi- you've been citing that one sentence out of context to us all week! In context that sentence you quote is ONE 'yardstick for significance' which, I observed, seems to be qualified or added to by another 'Yardstick' which you still apparently ignore. I have invited a mediator to chime in on this before taking action. So let's see what they say. Incidently that quote If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; is directly from the founder of Misplaced Pages 'Jimbo Wales' as far as I can see. It might be worth asking him for some clarification.PatW 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the crux of the matter to me (despite whatever the guidelines are supposed to mean) is this: Surely you should not make an article that is full of links to attacks on specific critics and yet NOT provide links to the critics so as one may learn of their POV. That is what Momento seems to actively propose and do. Just now he removed the critics links. That to me is objectionable. If the critics were not considered significant enough to mention (both within the article and within the referenced websites) then it would be a different matter. But they are.PatW 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A problem with the ex-premie group, which is now accepted it seems as 'a very small minority', is they do not have 'prominent adherents.' Most of their 10-20 number of posters on their chatroom post anonymously, and most of the content of their posts comprises insults, mudslinging and denigration. This is not to say that there are legitimate criticisms of Prem Rawat that as Jossi says have a right to be expressed.Peterson. 22:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to follow Wiki guidelines PatW, you shouldn't edit here. As you quote, Jimbo Wales said "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". A group representing 0.01% is an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority in anybody's language (except it seems, in members of the insiginificant group). And that group's viewpoint doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. End of story.

If you, or any other editor, want to push the ex-premie group viewpoint or edit this article the express that POV, you are simply proving why guidelines are necessary and why the Misplaced Pages community supports them.Momento 22:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not true Peterson. For a start Jim Heller rigorously denies that accusation and there are plenty of prominent adherents. Herer's one prominent adherent, Mike Dettmers. He was the significant top man in Prem Rawat's organization for many years. Then there's Mike Finch, a former instructor and one of the first western followers. There are over one hundred testimonies on www.ex-premie.org many of whom are not anonymous and which include several more instructors. As regards the forum contents, whilst a superficial look might turn up all kinds of 'denigration and mudslinging' , a closer look at the archives would reveal that there have been an enormous number of people who claim to have been helped by discussing their misgivings- and they're not all rude people.

Momento I don't agree with you. If you denigrate critics here and cut out their POV then you are beyond reasonable argument and I'm wasting my breath talking with you.PatW 22:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to follow Wiki guidelines, not your's.Momento 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I (again) object to the removal of Critics links. Other prominent exes include Mike Donner who was an prominent instructor who also spent extensive amounts of time with Maharaji personally and was an early premie. There have been many former instructors that have posted on the ex-premie forum over many years. Guy Rollins was the project architect at the DECA project 1970-1981, and while he wasn't as visible in DLM, he spent a lot of time during the B707 DECA project, and posted on the forum under his real name as well.

Peterson, the majority of posters on the forum have not been and are not anonymous. That's a big misconception. Many of those that now use handles freely give out their real names in text. Plus, Elan Vital has been monitoring the forum on a daily basis for so many years, so adherents should know that fact. Thanks Sylviecyn 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics links should not be removed. The external links section has more leeway as it pertains to significance. One or two links may be OK. But we are not discussing the external links section. We are discussing the sigificance (or lack thereof) of the small group of former followers that call themselves "ex-premies" and that includes you, Jim Heller and others> This also includes Andries (talk · contribs) that has taken an active role in supporting their POV by engaing in discussions off-wiki (in the ex-premie chatroom) to forward their POV in this and related articles. Note that Andries, although not an "ex-premie" himself, he is a former follower of an Indian guru and maybe for that reason he has chosen to join them in their campaign to actively pursue their anti-Rawat advocacy in Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So what if Andries has a POV? or anyone else for that matter? For a start you are a 'proud student' of Prem Rawat so you have just as biased an opinion as anyone. Let's forget that nonsense. What we need to establish is whether it is acceptable within this strange Wiki world with it's "vague" guidelines, (you even said it on a community page somewhere?) for you to denigrate critics and link to Prem Rawat's organisation's pages that may (in view of Jim's vehement denial) actually libel individual critics..and then for you to bleat that they are a tiny minority undeserving of mention! Tell me your opinion is Mike Dettmers, as the former top man in Elan Vital, an insignificant critic? I actually can see that it would be in some ways appropriate to move the criticism stuff elsewhere but then, if you continue to attack critics here so blatantly and in such a biased manner you should give their POV fair representation. As you will learn when any fair-minded authority makes a comment. Now please answer my question about Dettmers.PatW 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cam you show me where I "have attacked critics blatantly"? Please tone-down your rethoric. It will be much appreciated. As for the issue at hand, once there is agreement about the significance (or lack thereof) of the group that call themselves ex-premies, we wil be able to decide how to address te criticism of the critics. If for example, there is agreement that the POV of these critics should be paired down to a sentence or two, then the rebuttals of the Elan Vital organizations would be also be paired down proportionally. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jossi, that was ambiguous. I meant 'you' as a general term for premie editors- not you personally. When I first came here the Criticism section in particular, was blatantly and at length, attacking critics. I and others sought to make it fairer. Your help in that was appreciated.PatW 10:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you be then more careful with your wording in the future? Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make substantial changes or deletions during the RfC process. Lets hear comments from other editors first. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 09:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a comment made about you Jossi recently that was completely removed? Why wasn't that refactored too? It's important to be fair and honest. Sylviecyn 11:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You restored it, although it was off-topic. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please retract your statement. I didn't restore the comments to which I refer. I viewed it on the history of this talk page because it had been deleted, but I never restored. I don't know what you're talking about. Sylviecyn 14:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take it easy. I am getting tired of all these accusations. The text that I refactored out and moved to Jim Heller's talk page becasue it was off-topic was restored by Jim and then formatted by you. It is either in this page or in the last archive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note: The following which takes you to the "White Pages" listings on EPO. There are roughly 200 real names listed there. Ex-Premie White Pages Sylviecyn 12:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

100 or 200, same thing. A tiny minority. Furthermore, the group of "activists" is 10 or 20. Minuscule. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The ex-premies managed to get quite a lot of critical articles published about Prem Rawat the last five years which is quite remarkable, because the subject is now obscure. These articles are

1. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/isleofwighttoday0405.htm ‘’IS MAHARAJI REALLY THE BEST MEDICINE’’ in Isle of Wight Today 2005. by Charlotte Hofton 1 April 2005
2. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/theaustralian031104.htm Court lets 'cult' gag journalist By Sally Jackson in The Australian - dated March 11, 2004 - Page 21
3. Several articles appeared in the local press before and after Prem Rawat's events in Bristol (June 14-15, 2003).http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html
   1. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#contro CONTROVERSY OVER COLSTON HALL DATES BY EX-GURU
   2. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#art1 DON'T WASTE YOUR LIVES
   3. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#art5 FORMER FOLLOWERS HAVE NEW MESSAGE
4. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/goodweekend0208.htm Appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002. (as far as I know these articles are unretracted by these magazines)

The above post illustrates my concerns. The only media criticism of Prem Rawat in the last 20 years has been instigated by members of the ex-premie group, who bombard newspapers and venues where Prem Rawat speaks with anti-Prem Rawat misinformation. What Syliecyn doesn't explain is -

1) The Sally Jackson article relates to a member of her group who was convicted of illegally obtaining information and passing it on to the ex-premie group who used it to harrass followers of Prem Rawat.

2) that she wrote to the Bristol Post first, making sensational claims to stir up controversy.

3) that the author of the Good Weekend article was a member of her group who later publicly apologised to Prem Rawat and his followers for the lies in the article and left the ex-premie group in disgust, charaterising them as a hate group.

Sylviecyn, Jim Heller and Andries, who edit this article are registered uses of the anti-PR forum and others drop in when required. I do not believe that this group, the ex-premies, should be allowed to quote their views as belonging to a significant minority. They are not. They number less than 100. Over 9 million people have come to hear Prem Rawat talk about inner peace and over 1 million actively practice the meditation he teachers.Momento 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You write as if I'm trying to hide something, Momento. I have nothing to hide and if I did, I certainly wouldn't have written the letter to the editor of the Bristol Post and I also wouldn't write on the forum. My writing to the editor of a newspaper wasn't sinister as you imply. I have no way of knowing which order "first or last," my letter was received by The Bristol Post editor, because that letter was my only communication with the paper. I was surprised they published it. The Post prnted it, which is always an editorial decision, along with letters from members of Elan Vital that were in support of Rawat. That's how the our wonderful free press works and there's nothing unusual about it -- happens every day of the week in the free world. I have a long personal history with many years of letter-writing to editors of newspapers about different topics of interest to me (controversial and not). I'm always delighted when an editor decides to print mine. Democratic countries have a great, long tradition of free press, and freedom of assembly and expression. You speak as if it's unusual and wrong to write letters to a newspaper, but many groups organize letter-writing campaigns to voice their opinions, so there was nothing wrong or unsual about my encouraging people to write letters either.

I had nothing to do with any articles that were written and published in the Bristol Post or in Australia about Rawat by the authors of the articles. My only involvement with John MacGregor's article, "Blinded By the Light," was when he contacted me once or twice by email to confirm that I had seen Maharaji's gold-plated toilet (that was installed on his B707 at DECA in 1980) as mentioned in his article -- and that was it. I didn't care either way if he wrote the article, and it was completely his decision to do it as far as I know.

I've always stated publicly and loudly on the forum that no one should ever break the law to prove any points concerning their opinions about Prem Rawat. I'm strongly against any illegal activity and I was unhappy and disappointed when I heard about what happened with the MacGregor/Gubler affair. Further, I have always adamantly objected to anyone issuing threats of any kind towards Prem Rawat, his family, friends, and associates, on that forum or anywhere. A good example of that is when one ex-premie (this is mentioned on One Reality and (I think) also on EV's FAQs) discussed on the forum sending fake white powder (anthrax scare) to EV or Rawat. What Elan Vital/One Reality doesn't show in it's FAQs is the extreme and very loud objection that was made to her post by other ex-premies on that forum at the time she wrote it. It was just after 9/11, and it was completely unacceptable and inappropriate for her to make those statements. We said so, and her post was immediately deleted off the discussion board. On the other hand, Rawat adherents here fail to mention the many times when myself other ex-premies were defamed, threatened, and even hung in effigy, depicted in disturbing cartoon images, including ugly pornographic smears, all in an effort by online adherents to discredit ex-premies, by name, in their chatroom (now defunct). Some of that material remains in part, on the One-Reality site that is linked on this article in the form of adherent's "rebuttal to ex-premies" as EV's proof of it's hate-group allegation.

Finally, I want to point out that it's appears to have been Prem Rawat's personal choice not to speak to maintream journalists for many years, therefore he and his adherents can hardly be judged as credible when they complain that the only recent press about him has been generated only by ex-premies. Prem Rawat only issues carefully crafted press releases, and advertorials or vanity press items (the material available on TPRF), yet he is free to contact the mainstream press to inquire if it is interested in covering him and/or speaking to him. He's also free to answer their questions personally. It seems to me that you are trying besmirch my integrity and character by implying I am a criminal (guilty by association with MacGregor/Gubler), but I didn't notice your remarks about me yesterday, hence today's rebuttal. Sylviecyn 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please compare the above mentioned articles listed on the ex-premie website with the magazine on the website of Elan Vital, an organization that supports the work of Prem Rawat here.

Apart from that the ex-premie POV is also prominently featured in the article about the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital on the website of the University of Virginia here

Further, the complaints by current ex-premies are very similar to the complaints made earlier by the press and religious scholars. And as I already wrote I have yet to see a guru rating service that does not give Rawat a bad rating. I never meant to say that the internet based guru rating services are reputable sources, but they do give an indication to what extent they take the criticisms by ex-premies serious. An example of a guru rating service in this case by Sarlo is

I would suggest that you use care with your words. You are asserting that adherents are ignorant. That is blatantly disrespetful, and not the first time you have referred to people that follow a faith to be ignorant'. Please refrain from making bigoted comments. As for the article in the Virgina edu, that was done by a student and not a scholar. The examples you provide, shows the tactics of this small group of critics and their intentions to disrupt meetings by telling lies to the press.

As a counter to these articles see below accolades by academics, business leaders and others:

• “His message is one of hope and peace, and he has inspired millions throughout the world. As an educator, the opportunity to learn has been central and the focus of my life. I have witnessed brilliant teachers and eager students turn classrooms into magical places. Prem Rawat reminds us that magic begins with people, and it’s within each person. That the possibility of peace and the possibility of living a life to the fullest begins with recognizing the value of life itself. That is, in my opinion, the deepest learning and is certainly a curriculum for everyone.”

• Dr. Eduardo Padron, President of Miami Dade College (June 16, 2005)

• “I am impressed by his message. His message is a message of peace. A peace that can be found within every person. Someone has said it’s difficult to find peace inside, but it’s impossible anywhere outside. In a recent address at the United Nations Conference in Bangkok, he said that it is people that need to be at peace. And that when people are at peace, there will be peace in the world. He offers inspiration and guidance to those interested in making inner peace a reality in their lives. Many people speak of peace, and yet there is more to Sri Prem Rawat’s message than just words. I had the good fortune of meeting Prem Rawat in person a couple of weeks ago. He was kind enough to take time from his schedule so that we could have a substantial and enjoyable conversation. I found him to be a warm and delightful person and found his insights to be most helpful.”
  • Mr. Naveel Jindal, Executive Chairman of Jindal Power and Steel, Ltd. Sirifort Auditorium, New Delhi, India. February 8, 2003.

• “I am impressed by what I read, by the depth of his ideas, of his message. He speaks about peace from a very original and unique perspective. We are used to hearing speeches about peace. We usually tend to leave peace in the hands of governments or political organizations. Prem Rawat speaks about peace from a different perspective—more precise, more human—and he stresses the significance of each human being in the pursuit of world peace. I find great merit in his message.”
  • Dr. Díaz, Vice-Rector. Salamanca University. Salamanca, Spain. June 2003

• “Peace within is vital for leading a life fulfilled. Prem Rawat brings a message of hope and peace. Such a message is very much needed in this world today. Each of us as individuals can benefit from it. His message can help us lead more fulfilled lives, whatever our circumstances might be.”
  • Mahendra Swarup; CEO, Times Foundation and Times Internet. (2003)

• “I have found his message to be so simple and from the heart. We seek to find the best thing in life, to find peace, joy, fulfillness, regardless of the circumstances. Maharaji tells us that what we are looking, for all the life, for already that is within us, and that is, it can be easily found. Please join me to thank him for offering the message of hope and for taking the time to be with us. “
  • Dr. J. Hegde, Sheriff of Mumbai, Mumbai, India, January 2004

• I read some articles about him, his message and his work. I was deeply impressed by the extent of the recognition that he has received as he travels around the world. Millions of people have come to him throughout the years looking for inspiration and guidance. He has received honors from many cities around the world and has been invited to speak in some of the most prestigious forums. He is a true globalizer. More than that, what has struck me is—how much he has touched the lives of countless individuals, rich and poor alike, regardless of their beliefs or condition—in all positions in society. The need to find peace is a most pressing one. And it is a privilege and honor to welcome someone who claims that peace is possible and who offers to show a practical way to find peace within. He brings a message of hope and peace that is simple and from the heart. A message that is relevant for each and every individual.
  • Mr. S. Haribhakti, President of the Indian Merchants Chamber of Commerce, Mumbai, India. February 28, 2004.

• Prem Rawat has received widespread recognition for providing inspiration and guidance to audiences around the world on tonight's topic for peace. Proclamations and resolutions that honor his work: keys to the City, letters of appreciation, invitations from government officials, and these are among the many ways that he's been welcomed throughout the years. We're used to hearing about peace as the absence of war. We normally put the responsibility of peace on governments and on political organizations. We seldom talk about peace from a human—from our own—perspective. We seldom highlight the important role of each human being, each one of us, in bringing peace to the world. Tonight, we hear Prem Rawat's fresh and innovative views on peace.
  • Professor Mary Farqhuar, Director of the Griffith Asia Pacific Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia, April 17, 2004

• Prem Rawat's message is extremely simple. Extremely easy to learn and one wonders why we don't learn it when we're extremely small and keep it going that way. The secret of civil society seems to be no secret. We've heard sof rom Prem Rawat.
  • Cliff Hildebrand, President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Brisbane, April 2004

• Many people in this world speak of peace from different angles. Some speak of peace as a result of good socio-economic policies, or as a result of a sound distribution of wealth. Prem speaks of peace from a perspective that is both original and intriguing. Rather than to look only to institutions or to policies for creating peace, he speaks of a peace that, he says, each person is personally responsible for finding. Despite ever-growing audiences, his message remains directed at each individual who comes to hear him and the people who enjoy his message come from all walks of life.”
  • Dr. Pages, Chief Executive Officer Universal Forum of Cultures, Barcelona, Spain. June 14, 2004

• As public servants, we all seek, each in our own way, to make this place a better place to live. We seek to bring peace, harmony. We use to the best of our abilities the means at our disposal through our position in society: we set better policies, try to make society more equal, we seek to alleviate injustices, and to give everyone a chance to enjoy conditions in their life that are conducive to leading a life fulfilled. There is one thing however we cannot do, and that is to enable people to feel happy, to feel at peace, content, for themselves. What intrigued me in Prem Rawat’s message is that he speaks of the possibility for every person of finding within themselves a peace, a happiness, that is not dependent on circumstances. Peace, he says, is within, and can be felt; we just have forgotten how to get in touch with it. What I also find interesting is that he sees peace not just as the absence of war, but rather as a feeling within to get connected with, to cultivate for oneself. I see his message pointing to us that everyone must find peace for themselves first to help bring peace in the world—as sorely needed and I am glad he is with us today”
  • Emilio Colombo, former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament, European Parliament. Parliament Conference Hall of the Italian Parliament, Rome Italy. July 7, 2004

• “Prem Rawat brings a message of peace. Peace, more than ever, is on everyone’s mind. And peace, more than ever, is sorely missing. For centuries, governmental and private organizations have tried to envision how to make peace a reality. Extensive studies have been conducted to identify the conditions for bringing about lasting peace. Many initiatives have been launched to help create conditions where people could live in peace.

The charter of the UNESCO says ‘Since wars begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defense of peace must be constructed.’ While everyone agrees on the philosophical truth behind this statement, little progress has been achieved towards making this vision a reality. No one really knows where to start or how to go about it.

Prem Rawat speaks of a peace that is more than the absence of war. A peace that institutions cannot bring. A peace that needs to be established by each individual. To establish peace on the outside, he says, peace needs to be established first on the inside. He brings a remarkable message of hope, and I look forward to hearing him tonight. Please join me in welcoming to the stage a truly wonderful, international, inspirational man, Prem Rawat.”

• • Richard Patten, a Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario, Canada. Roy Thompson Hall, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. July 24, 2004.

• I observe that brings a message that it is every individual’s birthright to experience peace in this lifetime. He asserts that, in addition to fulfilling our obligations to society, we need to fulfill our ultimate obligation, which is to ourselves and to finding fulfillment in this lifetime. This message is remarkable in that it does not put the responsibility for peace on institutions or on others, but on each individual. He has been providing inspiration and guidance on this topic for decades and has received much acclaim.”
  • Professor D.P Kothari, Deputy Director, Indian Institue of Technology (IIT), New Delhi, November 6, 2004.

• While many programs are special, some are essential. Words of Peace, which presents Prem Rawat's message, is one of these unique programs. This program is receiving this distinction because of its important contribution toward building a culture of peace in Brazil. The feeling of peace that Prem Rawat introduces people to is very important for everyone. It is essential to spread this feeling within to everyone in Brazil. This program is a great contribution toward the triumph of inner peace. Prem Rawat's message has the potential to unite all Brazilians in inner contentment. I know that peace is really possible in Brazil.
  • Mr. Fernando Mauro Trezza, President of the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels, Sao Paolo, Brazil, November 29, 2004.

• Prem Rawat is an international speaker acknowledged for his profound message of peace, particularly inner peace and self-fulfillment. We at the United Nations Association of Malaysia and the United Nations Development Programme see his message as a true reflection of the hopes, aspirations, and ideals of the United Nations, whose aim is international peace and security. All encouragement and support should be given to The Prem Rawat Foundation for its noble efforts to spread the message of Prem Rawat, as well as to bring peace and happiness to the needy. Let us support the message of Prem Rawat, empowering us to generate the hope of peace in this world of despair. The foremost concern of the international community is peace. Prem Rawat says, ‘Peace is possible.’ Let us listen to his message.
  • Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, President of the United Nations Association of Malaysia, former Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Defense and Informationn, and currently Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the United Malays National Organization. April 25, 2005

• Throughout time, leading thinkers, academicians, and government leaders have attempted to develop an understanding of how to build peace. Many approaches have been explored, all attempting to create favorable conditions for peace. These solutions have drawn from economics, history, international law, comparative peace studies, conflict resolution, political science, sociology, anthropology, and more. Prem Rawat’s message of peace is rooted in the need for each person to find peace within themselves. He emphasizes that whether our search is for world peace or for personal peace, we very much need to look at the search for peace as a personal quest, rooted in an understanding of who we are.
  • Professor Dr. Surapon Nitikraipot, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Rector of Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand, May 17 2005

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics