Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 12

Ladies and Gentlemen, a toast!!
(Before reading this, go here and click on "The 20th-Century Fox Fanfare with Cinemascope Extension" link.)

Seconding Zappaz, "whew!" I have now prominently flagged this version in the edit history for future editors as the "baseline reference consensus version", and will flag it below on this page as well. This is not to say the article won't change, but whereas before I considered it to be an incomplete article on its way to completion, I now see it as a completed article that will be tweaked and updated over time.

As I previously suggested, now is the time for us all to band together and protect this article and its bretheren from attacks. Good faith edits are always welcome, but we can be on the lookout for deletes that take material away without compensating with new material, or bulk adds that duplicate what is already in the article. As was noted, there have already been some attacks, these particular ones from an "anti" perspective, and it would do my heart glad to see "anti" editors help revert "anti" vandalism, and "pro" editors help revert "pro" vandalism, as a statement of, "I may agree with your position, but that's not how we do things around here."

You know, I originally came here essentially as an observer, at the invitation of Jossifresco and Andries, and my initial intention was mostly just to add another voice in hopes of mediating disputes. As I got drawn in to editing and writing myself, however, I came to feel a personal attachment and obligation for getting to a consensus version of a finished article. Now that, in my view, we have arrived, I may stay around and actively edit, but I no longer feel that I need to, and in the face of this completed article version as a baseline, it may be that I will step back and move on, with only the occasional look-in.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to raise a glass and propose a toast: To cooperation and consensus, to Prem Rawat and Bob Mishler, to Wikipedia and to us. I'm pretty happy with these articles, and very happy with how we all pulled together despite conflicting viewpoints to make this process work. Maybe we should nominate them for Wikipedia featured articles, as much to showcase the success of our process of working together as to showcase the articles themselves. I extend my hand to each of you, "pro" and "anti", whether you edited or not; somehow we all fit in together and played a part in bringing the articles to fruition. I hope you will all extend your cyber-hands as well to shake each other's, especially those on the other side of the aisle from you.

Just in case I do hit the road, I would like to close with something borrowed from a different religious tradition. My apologies to that tradition for borrowing it since I am not really one of its members, but it's a nice piece because whether you are religious or atheist, Western or Eastern, you can usually adapt the phrasing of its sentiment to suit your beliefs:


 * The Lord bless you and keep you,
 * The Lord make his face to shine on you and be gracious unto you,
 * The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Thanks, everyone. [A deep bow and a salute.] Channel clear. --Gary D 03:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gary. Realy hope you stick around and help with the upcoming additional articles.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 03:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks. Gary, working on this article was a tough job for me. Thanks for using your writing skills to this subject. I agree that the Prem Rawat article is good enough to be a featured article, though I think it is better too wait a bit and I am a bit concerned about the underdeveloped state of important ancillary articles such as the Divine Light Mission, with its somewhat confusing history, and beliefs and practices.. Andries 04:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Gary. I recognise that, although I believe there is too much supporters' POV in the article, supporters probably believe there is too much critics' POV. If supporters such as Jossi can accept the article as is, then I certainly can. I'll be posting on the ex-premie forum that I think this is the best we can hope for, and to discourage any vandalism. I would also like to thank Andries for his persistence when no ex-premie had the patience or belief to work on the article. Of course, if significant verifiable additional information comes to light, then I will add it to the article, but with appropriate discussion here. --John Brauns 05:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gary. You brought some logic, balance, and sensibility to this article.  It's not perfect -- but nothing is. I have taken the time to ask folks on the ex-premie forum not to vandalize the article as it now stands (there are people who are not happy with it).  There is always room for improvement, but I do appreciate the time and work involved.  Btw, how do you guys manage to do this Wiki stuff and earn a living?  :-)


 * Best wishes...


 * CynthiaG 18:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Proud of you fellas! I know it was not easy, so take a well deserved break. And Amen to that Gary! --Senegal 18:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're all very welcome! My parting flourish above says more about my sense of the dramatic than about any imminent departure, and it's likely I'll hang around with at least some degree of involvement. I really appreciate John's and Cynthia's efforts to ward off vandalism&mdash;I'm sure we all do!&mdash;and John, if new information comes to light, Wikipedia wants it! Oh, and the person who really gets shafted from my time here is my wife: "Are you doing that stuff again?" Once again, everybody, good job! --Gary D 19:52, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

NOTE TO FUTURE EDITORS: BASELINE REFERENCE CONSENSUS VERSION
The present version of the article represents the completed form of a baseline reference consensus version, arrived at after extensive negotiations between Prem Rawat supporters and critics (see archives 2 through the present one), and it is so marked in the edit history for easier locating. We do not expect that this page will not change from here, but you may find it useful as a baseline and as a reference should future edits get out of hand or the article become corrupted. If you should become unsure about what may be acceptable to both sides of the controversy and dispute, we offer this version for your consideration and use. We commend it to your good discretion, and wish you the best! --Gary D 03:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Emile said that the site had been removed because of copyright violation
Well, anyway where can I find the TOS complaint to Geocities then I can check it out? Thanks.Andries 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That is just speculation. I don't think you can know the exact reasons for Geocities removing that website... Geocities has very stringent TOS. For example. some of the possible TOS violations of that website .(Highlights are mine):


 * (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, ibelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;


 * (c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Yahoo official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;


 * (e) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);


 * (f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;


 * (l) "stalk" or otherwise harass another;


 * Full list here: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/geoterms.html &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Guess what Jossi
it is becoming a predictable, I disagree with your edit. :-) The sentence that I inserted after the quote that Zappaz inserted is directly relevant to the paragraph. What I wrote is far more NPOV than using a very selective out-of-context quote as Zappaz did. Andries 22:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * :) The book in question is already in the references. All I did wat to move some of your text to the references section. I did not understand why it was relevant to that paragraph. If you think it is, please add it back and clarify it here. Thanks &asymp; jossi &asymp; 04:11, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Links to gallery
Removed links to gallery in which scanned material is displayed. Once the sources, dates and attibutions are added to these pages (as promised by owenr of website) these can go back. Othwewise these links are in contravention to wikipedia fair use guidelines. --64.81.88.140 16:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not all scans in the gallery have source and dates mentioned, I have to admit. I have restored the links to a webpage of the Gallery that does not break any copyrights and in such a way the article adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 12:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Former Followers' Status
I have reverted this line 'Some of these ex-premies are former senior staff within the organizations and former instructors appointed by Rawat.' Someone had inserted 'claimed to have been'. There is no question about the status of Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner, Mike Finch and Jean Michel Khan with the organisations that support Rawat's work. What is disturbing is that this change was made from the agreed baseline version without any justification in this Discussion section.--John Brauns 00:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * John - Sorry about that (newbie here). I added that 'claimed to have been' without entering anything in the discussion page.  Sorry about that - will not do that again.  By the way, the reason for qualifying their roles is that most anyone can claim high-ranking positions.  The reality of their position might not be the same as they claimed.  Chuck 01:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of sentence...
Andreis - I agree with your deletion of that sentence. Thank you for cleaning up the paragraph on the legal status of the Indian car accident. I am a little new to this and should not have been so forcefull in debunking anyone who would ignore the court's decision. Chuck 18:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John MacGregor arrest warranty, please provide references
I removed the following sentence that can be re-added after providing references.
 * "In October 2004, after being discovered that Macgregor lied under oath and after failing to appear in court, an Australian-wide arrest warrant was issued against him for criminal perjury. "

Andries 18:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following sentences is against the guidelines that disencourage unattributed opionions.
 * "It is assumed that he left the country to avoid the arrest. "

Andries 18:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries, that is a fact. He knows that. The ex-premies know that. So what is the deal? An arrest warrant was issued and he failed to appear in court. I will remove just the last sentence about "it is assumed" --203.200.122.1 05:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wim Haan is biased because he was a Catholic?
Jossi, in another article in Wikipedia I read that Catholics practice Knowledge. Can you please explain or delete the remark that Haan was biased? Thanks Andries 22:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is information you provided, Andries... That Haans belonged at that time to a group of catholic critics. This needs to be disclosed, same way we are diosclosing that Dr. Geaves is a student of Prem Rawat. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 07:56, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * True, I had copied what Haan wrote but how can he have a negative bias only because he is a catholic while other catholics became students of Prem Rawat and remained catholics. I think this is inconsistent.


 * About the two years, Haan just recently wrote in Dutch http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/8818.html that he was involved for two years.


 * "Andries, i reply in dutch, because that is my native language:


 * 1) mijn betrokkenheid bij DLM was er niet één van enkele maanden maar van circa twee jaar, en mijn contacten met 'premmies' van veel langere duur, tot op dit moment zelfs; alleen is in die contacten DLM compleet naar de achtergrond gedrongen, ik heb een aantal goede vrienden eraan overgehouden, waarbij DLM niet meer aan de orde is; "


 * Translation, "1) My involvement with the DLM was not one of several m

onths but of about two years [..]"


 * Andries 08:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, are you sure that you want the statement that Wim Haan was biased to be retained? Here is what he writes about it.
 * Copy from http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/9195.html
 * &#8221;Dear Andries,
 * The comment from premies that i was a member of critical movement within the catholic church and hence the whole article is biased is the most stupid i have ever heard or seen. I ask myself who is biased here. Everyone has his or hers own background. All academics have that background. It is important to have a critical discussion with your own background, and that is what i did.
 * My article has appeared in a dutch academic magazine. Before it was published it I have received several comments and changed the article on many points. Especially on topics where my own opinion was that there was a certain bias in the article.
 * What the premies actually mean is that no one who hasn't experienced the "Knowledge" can have a reasonable opinion about it: and that is ridiculous. When that would be so, no one could write a book about the Middle Ages at this moment, because we don't live in that timeframe.
 * So again, the comment is to stupid to take serious notice off.
 * Greetings,
 * Wim&#8221;


 * Not at all.... Haans statement should be retained, just that we needed to disclose his bias. Nothing wrong with that. And, BTW, a "scholar" that uses the word "stupid" to address a disclosure request as this one, is IMO, very unscholarly. Thanks to your posting here, Haans's words will be saved for posterity... Please note that Haans uses the word "article" and not "study". Also, we have not disclosed what kind of scholar Mr. Haans is. Is he a professor? a student? a researcher? That could be also important information for the reader. Could you ask him about what was is tenure at the time he wrote this article? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:12, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, please take into account that not every supporter will agree that Haan was biased only because he was a Catholic and I do not think that dismissing every critical remark as coming from a biased source or from a hate group, instead of honestly admitting mistakes, will increase the credibility of the supporters' view. Besides this strategy may create unnecessary enemies. I mean, look at Haan's reaction hereabove. Haan has by the way still friends from his DLM time. Andries 10:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that you do not understand. I am not saying in the article that Haans was biased, just that he belonged to a catholic critics group. If Haans was biased or not is for the readers to decide. All we are doing is disclosing Haans allegieances. BTW, we are still imssing info about who Mr. Haans was when he wrote the article. Could you ask him? Thanks &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * He said that writing this article was part of his study theology at the "Hogeschool voor Theologie en Pastoraat at the town of Heerlen". That is what he wrote in the article. Andries 18:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just what I thought... Hann wrote this article while being a student of theology, in a small Pastoral and Theology school. We should add this to the article. Otherwise readers may wrongly assume that Haan was a scholar. Another option would be to delete this reference altogether. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I reverted one of your edits because it was about proven and documented facts, which should not be phrased as an assertion i.e. "Critics assert that Haan critically etc." Andries 03:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I understand. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 03:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

DuPertuis
well, thank god there is ex-premie.org or what do you think zappaz?. Actually if you read the footnote, it says that this(fullfilment) explains the reason for the disintegration of the communities.But we know it better, don't we? Wasn't it Rawats endeavor to strip the trappings that caused this change? You can have it only one way. And if DuPertuis is wrong with his conclusion, he might be wrong with his statement(the fullfilment) in the first place. Nevertheless this happens when you work with a strongly biased attitude, and why the hell, if you want to push this view forward, haven't you received knowledge yet? thomas


 * Thomas, I do not understand what you mean by "thank god there is ex-premie.org". And I do not understand what is the point you are trying to make. And I less understand what this has to do with receiving the knowledge. Is this a conspiracy theory thing again?


 * FYI, the reason for including Dupertius assertion about the disintegration of communities is that it counteracts the widely held assumption by the ex-premie group that those that left the teachings of PR, left with a negative feeling about PR and the teachings. --Zappaz 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * sure, i understood you point quite clearly. Most of the people that i know (and i know a lot) that left, didn't leave because they were fulfilled or angry, but because they were bored. Bored of the ongoing demands to surrender, bored to always hear that they aren't good enough. But that is only my practical experience with that matter. The disinformation managament from rawat worked quite well. IMO the most bad feelings came up, when those that have left, discovered what was going on behind the curtain. IMHO you can go on, do your little advertisements (ah, even if you leave, you leave fulfilled, nice club...) and keep on heightening the "quality" of wiki.
 * i just wanted to add why you "should" receive this knowledge:
 * if it is worth to make those people that leave such a group and continue to speak out, to categorize them into introvigne's apostate III level, across the board, not caring what these people have to say, no mercy
 * if for you, rawat is the immaculate teacher who always was misunderstood, who has no guilt and responsibility in the "misunderstandings" and
 * if rawat is something for you that must be worth it, no matter how long you stay( because you will leave fullfilled anyway).


 * than wouldn't it be straightforward to gain that thing? I mean, if not, what are you doing anyway?thomas

Jan van der Lans
I have tried to locate that book but it is only available in Dutch. Andries: could you provide the citacion used by der Lans to support his assertion? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 18:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) If found the quote by van der Lans in another book (Dr. Reender Kranenborg's book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen" published in 1982 so I do not have the exact context. I had read van der Lans' book years ago but had totally forgotten this quote. I can easily borrow van der Lans' book from public library though. Andries 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) It is not true that van der Lans' book is a critical study about gurus. I remember the chapter about the Hare Krishna's that I had read years ago and that was quite positive. Andries 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) It is an exaggeration to say that it was for clergy. I mean, it is a well known book about the subject here. Andries 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I do not think that he was ever ordained as priest. Andries 18:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Guru Maharaj Ji is the example of a guru who has become a charlatan with a double life. On the one hand, he tries to remain loyal to the role that was forced upon him (it appears by his mother) and to the expectations that his followers have of him. In private however, he leads a life of idleness and pleasures. If he visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is hired for him and his family. His visits to premies are only casual and he spends the rest of his time watching TV or rented videos and visiting night clubs. Only a small circle of insiders know this and know his life style. Based on this information, one could easily say that he is a fraud. Using a different approach, one could see him as victim of his surroundings. "
 * from the 1981 book "Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland" (Followers of the guru: current religious movements in the Netherlands) http://www.ksgv.nl/2-18.html page 117 by Jan van der Lans http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/obits/vanderlans.html, professor in psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen Andries 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Lans was an ordained Roman Catholic priest. Check his Bio.
 * You did not include "Catholic" in the University of Nijmegen mention (I added it already)
 * Read the description of the book by the KSGV http://www.ksgv.nl/2-18.htm. It is clearly a studies of gurus, sponsored by the KSGV (Catholic Study for Mental Health),. Would you care to translate the summary?
 * The cites for what I consider very speculative assertions must be based on media stories from the 70's or quoting another scholar that cites these. I mean, his assertion about the role being impossed by his mother is completely erroneous, and how does he knows that Maharaji watched TV in his hotel or visited night clubs?
 * I would appreciate if you get the book and check othe sources for his citacion.
 * &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I checked his bio and the bio says that he received a training as a priest. It does not say that he was a priest. Andries 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not know how he could write it with so much certainty but I think that his opinion worthy of inclusion. I mean, he does not think that the stories are all a conspiracy by apostate former members. That is significant. Andries 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Van der Lans is not alone in his opinion (which he did not write down as a fact) that Prem's mother was the leader. Kranenborg shared this opinion writing, "After the death of her husband the mother of Maharaj Ji, known as Mata ji is the actual leader of the movement." in his 1982 book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen" ISBN 9021049651 page 52 Andries 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I could translate the Dutch information about the book, which says very little, but please believe I generally do not use information from anti-cult crusaders, or from evangelical Christians who write about "cults" for their congregation. There are some but I chose not to use their books. Andries 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I did some research. Clearly der Lans is a Cahtolic theologian and surely critical, by nature. The KSGV undertake its activities from a Christian inspiration as per their website, and their publications are targeted at the '"pastoorat", i.e. pastors, churches, etc. We ought to find out what are his citacions for that assertion. I will be not surprised to see a "circular reference" here. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you may be right about the circular reference. I found van der Lans' book in the public library and I think -it is not very clear from the text - he bases his harsh judgement on the German book by Reinhard Hummel Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen Stuggart 1980. But you are wrong in your assessment that it was written for clergy. After all, it is available in the public library . Besides the Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel cites van der Lans in his 1982 book Tussen Stigma and Charisma: nieuw religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid/Between stigma & charisma: NRMs & public mental health ISBN 9060017463 on page 173 as if it were a neutral source when writing about the mental health of the members of the DLM. Besides I think, van der Lans would not risk his reputation as a respected scientist by writing a biased, prejudiced book. I asked Thomas to get Hummel's book. Andries 14:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The KSGV is a publisher wit a very specific POV and the majoriy of its books targeted at clergyman and pastors (look at their list of publications). As a "sponsored" book it clearly supports that POV and expects a readership that will not question anything negative about "gurus", thus the lack of citacions provided by der Lans. IMO, this reference is indeed helplessly biased. You can leave it, but do not delete the assessment of it.&asymp; jossi &asymp; 18:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I really think that followers make a fool of themselves by dismissing every tiny bit of criticism as biased (van der Lans and probably you will say the same about Hummel and Kranenborg), or coming from a hate group (ex-premies), or from people colluding with a hate group (me), or from a person who has no credentials (like Haan with two years of participant observation). Why can't you admit that some mistakes have been made in the past? Van der Lans wrote about many gurus and groups, like Bhagwan, Hare Krisna/Praphupada, 3HO/Yogi Bhajan, DLM/Maharaji, Yoga, Unfication church/Moon but he wrote only about Maharaji as an example of a charlatan (Kranenborg had accidentally change an into the when quoting van der Lans). Andries 19:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, Andties, you and your ex-premie friends are the fools here. The fact that you keep trying to "dig dirt" by briging up "scholars" like Haans (widely demostrated here that he was not a scholar, but a student of an small religious school), or helplessly biased authors such as Lans, is plenty proof of that. How can Lans accusse Maharaji of being a "charlatan' without himself becoming one? on what basis, if not his own bias and lack of committment to thruth did he write that? Pity that he is now dead, otherwise we could have asked him about his reasons for writing that. The only fools here are the ex-premies, and mostly you for helping them. Maharaji keeps receiveing awards and recognition around the world, for his work and his relentless pursuit of peace, hundreds of thousands of people are interested in his message and thousands upon thousands of people have chosen to become his students (this year more than 50,000). So whatever a small group of ex-followers, you Andries,  and critical authors such as Haans and de Lans say is pretty much irrelevant.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think that van der Lans wrote this based on the book by Hummel and media reports, some of them in Dutch language (Volkskrant newspaper, and Haagse Post magazine) to which I do not have access. Andries 09:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linking to user pages
Thomas: linking to a user page from an article is quite unusual. By doing so you also eliminate the possibility of someone seeing that there is no article about Anton Hein and deciding to write one. --Zappaz 22:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sources of criticism
For the second half of the last sentence in this section (in italics) to stand: "Supporters say that this alleged support from journalists is a figment of Finch's imagination, and that Rawat continues to be welcome to speak at public forums and his message being hailed as unique and noble by academy and business forums throughout the world." I would think we'd need to have some citations from some of these groups who say they find his message to be so. Otherwise, the statement as it is seems just so many weasel words. Fire Star 23:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of quotes to support that statement in Wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji#Quotes_about_Prem_Rawat. You could add a link to there. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Fire Star 00:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ex-pemie.org no longer registered to an association
After contacting the orginal webmaster of ex-premie.org, the registration of the domain name, ex-premie.org, now reflects the reality that the domain name, and the website, are privately owned, and not owned by an organisation. The domain names ex-premie2.org, ex-premie3.org, ex-premie4.org have always been registered privately. The article has been amended accordingly. --John Brauns 22:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I recorded the fact that the ownership was changed in December 2004 after 8 years under ownership by "Ex-Premie Organization"&asymp; jossi &asymp; 01:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi. I've corrected the 8 years to 7 (ex-premie.org was first registered in 1997), and I've made the wording a little more precise, as I'm sure you know registration of a domain name does not imply ownership of the site. The site is owned by whoever has the contract with the hosting company. I personally think this is far too much detail on this minor point, but if we are going to have this level of detail, then it should be accurate. --John Brauns 22:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, I notice you have changed the text under discussion (calling it 'simplification'), and I accept most of your minor changes. You have however, introduced misleading text, when you state that 'Brauns asserts that...'. Yes, it is true that I assert that, but the reason I linked to the site history webpage is that it was written by all the webmasters, so it is evidence that it is not just my assertion. I think given that the ownership of the site is being put into the spotlight here, it is important to link to the site's history. In the spirit of cooperation, I won't correct the text before you've had a chance to comment. --John Brauns 22:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am breaking my silence here ... I hope that is not a mistake. We shall see...
 * The assertion made by you is that ex-premie.org does not belong to an organization. The link to the webmaster page is what lawyers call "self-serving", so I consider the statement to be an assertion made by John Brauns, the current webmaster (previous webmasters are not making that assertion in that page, only that they were webmasters). That is exactly what the text says, together with the fact that for a number of years it was registered to an organization called "Ex-premie organization". Let the reader be the judge. --Zappaz 23:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, no it won't be a mistake - I will not make any further allegations about your motives in editing pages related to Prem Rawat and Ex-premies. So in view of your reply, may I reinsert the link to the site history page so that, as you say, readers can judge for themselves? --John Brauns 23:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schnabel
Yet another case of circular references. Schnabel cites Van der Lans, that in turn does not provide citacions for his critical assessment. The other references provided by Schnabel do not have any of the bulshit written by der Lans. I will add that to the paragraph as a rebuttal.

Regarding your edit, I don't have a problem having that there but you have make a better translation of the text. Now it reads pretty poorly. If you place the Dutch text of Chapter II, page 33 from Schnabel thesis, I'll get it properly translated. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 16:26, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not a circular reference. Schnabel refers in that section to an article "Wereldbeschouwelijke aspecten van de exotische tegenstroom: Een inleiding vanuit de empirisch-kritische benadering/Aspects of the world view of the exotic counterculture: an introduction from the empirical-critical approach" &#8211; In: Derks o.c.,67-89 (1981) by van der Lans that van der Lans wrote in the same year as his 1981 book "Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru". Schnabel refers to that book on page 173 (I think when writing about the mental health of the followers) Andries 17:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) (amended on 17 Dec. 10:23)


 * Here is what Schnabel wrote, which I translated in English. I do not understand why I have to type in the original Dutch text. The ex-premies thought that the English was good enough. Andries 17:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Chapter II, page 33


 * "The message of the DLM focuses completely on the person of Guru Maharaj Ji. Divine love and truth manifest in him. One can have part in this by surrendering totally to the guru whom one will always follow. If one does this then one will become conscious of one's core inner self (Knowledge). One experiences Knowledge during meditation of which there are four types: meditation on light, on sound, on the name, and on nectar.


 * Apart from the meditation, the DLM knows yet two other basic rules i.e. satsang and service. Satsang means here discourses in which the Knowledge is propagated, in which one testifies of the omnipresence of Maharaj Ji, and in which advice is given to solve problems. Service means here to serve and fulfilling service. Every member is expected to do effort for the movement, for the propagation and for its preservation.


 * The guru Maharaj ji takes a central place in the presentation by the DLM. He is the perfect master who can reveal the truth to everybody, who has the answer to all questions. The DLM always tries to refer to the guru in its advertisements. One tries to recruit new members by organizing lectures, introduction evenings, and by sending propaganda material. "


 * Used literature for the above mentioned paragraphs:
 * Van der Lans - (Dutch language) Wereldbeschouwelijke aspecten van de exotische tegenstroom: Een inleiding vanuit de empirisch-kritische benadering &#8211; In:Derks o.c.,67-89 (1981)
 * Pilarzyk, Th. &#8211; The origin, development and decline of a youth culture religion: an application of sectarianization theory &#8211; Review of Religious Research 20 (1978) 1, 23-24
 * Köllen, K. - (Dutch language) Jeugdsekten in Nederland &#8211; Amsterdam, Allert de Lange, (1980)
 * Foss, D.A. & R.W. Larkin - Worshipping the absurd and the Negation of Social Causality among the followers of Guru Maharaj Ji &#8211; Sociological Analysis (1978)
 * Messer J. &#8211; Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission &#8211; in Ch. Y. Clock & R.N. Bellah (Ed.), o.c., (1976) 52-72
 * Mildenberger, M. &#8211; (German language) Die religöse Revolte. Jugend zwischen Flucht und Aufbruch &#8211; Frankfurt a.M., Fischer (1979)
 * Downtown Jr. J.V. &#8211; Sacred journeys:The Conversion of Young Americans to the Divine Light Mision &#8211; New York, Columbia Un. Press (1979)
 * Downtown Jr. J.V. &#8211; An Evolutionary theory of spiritual conversion and commitment: the case of the Divine Light Mission &#8211;J. Scientific Study of Religion 19 (1980) 4, 381-396


 * Note: Schnabel refers in his dissertation to hundreds of sources but he mentioned the above sources when writing about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. Andries 09:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Chapter II, page 33 (Dutch original)
 * "De boodschap van de Divine Light Mission concentreert zich helemaal op de persoon van goeroe Maharaj Ji. In hem manifesteren zich goddelijke liefde en waarheid. Hieraan kan men deel hebben, door zich volledig over te geven aan de goeroe, die men dan ook altijd zal volgen. Als men dit doet, dan zal men zich bewust worden van de innerlijke wezenskern (Knowledge). 'Knowledge' ervaart men tijdens de meditatie; er zijn vier meditatietechnieken, te weten: meditatie op het licht, op geluid, op woord en op nectar.


 * Naast de meditatie kent de Divine Light Mission nog twee andere grondregels, namelijk: satsang en service. Onder 'satsang' verstaat men voordrachten, waarin de kennis gepropageerd wordt, waarin getuigd wordt van de alom-aanwezigheid van Maharaj Ji, waarin raad gegeven wordt ter oplossing van problemen. 'Service' betekent dienen en dienst doen. Van ieder lid van de beweging verlangt men dat zij/hij zich inzet voor de beweging, voor de verspreiding en de instandhouding ervan.


 * In de presentatie staat de figuur van goeroe Maharaj Ji voorop. Hij is volkomen meester, die aan ieder de waarheid kan onthullen, die het antwoord heeft op alle vragen. In de werving wordt dan ook altijd verwijzen naar de goeroe. Nieuwe leden tracht men te werven door het organiseren van lezingen, het houden van introductieavonden, het toezenden van propagandamateriaal."

-

Perfect Master
.140 The paragraph about the implausibility of the claim to be the only Perfect Master is not only about succession of his father but also about other persons claiming to be Perfect Masters. Andries 12:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your wrong again Andries. Maharaji never said he was the only perfect master, or that he his one. He always said that there is one perfect master and that it is up to each human being to look for such one, and if you find him to follow him. --64.81.88.140 16:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It won't be difficult to find an academic source that says that Maharaji did claim to be a Perfect Master, and the source will be right. Maharaji suggested strongly that he is the Perfect Master. Andries 21:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You are clueless, Andries. It is delusional wishful thinking. Face it: You have no understanding beyond the one that comes from your collusion with the ex-premies to pile-up on the criticism. It is disgraceful and shameful. They curse you, accuse you of crazy stuff, and you keep going back to them. Unbelievable that you do keep doing their dirty work for them after all they say about you.
 * I have reverted your edits. Please desist from loading up this page for no reason. It is already 42 K and what you have added is already been said in this and the main article.--64.81.88.140 22:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Jossi, where in the main article? How is this voiced there as criticism? If this article gets too long then please remove some of the rebuttals; This article is called "Criticism of Prem Rawat" not "Rebuttals to Criticism of Prem Rawat. I do not rely only on the information of ex-premies as can be read on the discussion board where I openly voice my skepticism. Apart from their information I also rely on scholarlry NRm information . I would like to hear more from premies but there is hardly information on wwww.maharaji.nl and when I ask them they tell me to watch the Keys- videos. That is not constructive. Also I do not trust their intellectual honesty. Andries 06:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you call me Jossi? I am not Jossi.  If you think that I will let you write whatever garbage you want without a rebuttal just because this article is about criticism, you can forget it.  I just removed the stuff about the succession, because it is covered in the main article, in the Divine Mission article, and in the Hans Ji Maharaji article. Enough said. I neither trust your intellectual honesty, nor your motives for helping the ex-premies. You must have a real problem if you accept their vitriolic attacks against you and continue helping them.  Take a vacation.--64.81.88.140 16:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but German Translation got completly crippled
German editors found our articles "Prem Rawat" and "Kritik an Prem Rawat" so obscure that they categorized it under, which means, they suspect the whole construct to be done as a catalyst for linkspamming. The critics-article will get deleted because they see it's mere existence as POV. And the main article is already completely shortened. None of those editors have read the originals or are even interested in it. So much to Wikipedia - Germany.Thomas h 18:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I put this article on VfD, too. --Pjacobi 18:41, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

What about the main article? Guts for that? I know the editors, you have no chance! Thomas h 18:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry there is no reason as per policy to delete Prem Rawat, but there is of course much reason as per NPOV to change it. In contrast, creating the Criticism of Prem Rawat was against policy from start. --Pjacobi 18:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * What policy? The VfD is incorrect. There is no Deletion_policy for what you call a POV fork. If an article needs attention due to POV, please list it on Pages needing attention -- Senegal 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view strongly discourages two articles on one subject, one pro, one contra. For editors who oppose this policy, the Wikinfo project was created. So in strict reading of the policy, the articles should just be merged and Criticism of Prem Rawat turned into a REDIRECT, possibly speedily deleted after link corrections. But it has become customary, to use VfD for non-trivial cases, to give an opportunity to comment and vote. --Pjacobi 20:05, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * PJacobi, why don't you take the time to read the two articles and then you would come to the conclusion that there is not one pro and one contra article. Both contain critical information and both contain positive information. You seem to be totally ignorant about this subject or the Wikipedia guidelines or both. Andries 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read both articles and I consider them both to be disappointingliy unencyclopedic. The Britannica would have approved neither of them. --Pjacobi 22:06, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * .so it's unencyclopedic? But that was not your reproach. it was POV. where is that now. Delete those articles because they are unencyclopedic or POV? So you put it on VfD because of POV and that's not the case after you read it finally. But it's unencyclopedic. So leave it there. What is now, where are you? 22:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You take the Britannica as a measure, here? Thanks for making me chuckle.You have no idea what is going on, would you proceed with the other articles ,please ? Thomas h 22:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's on VfD because it is a POV fork. And the fact of POV forking had contributed to the sub-average and unencyclopedic state of both articles. So, by carefully applying formal logic, you see, that there is no arrow of causality between unencyclopedic style and VfD, only a correlation, due to a common cause. And note, that the problem of POV forks have been addressed numerous times in a wide range of fields in Wikipedia. This is not a special case. --Pjacobi 23:08, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)


 * so how do you want to proceed, delete the critics article first? and then one day somebody merges something into the main article? Or rewrite the whole thing and delete the flawed articles afterwards? destroying is easy but taking the responsibility to fix the whole thing is something else. i wonder where you will fit in. You started the whole process, i expect from you to take responsibility and fix it as wellThomas h 23:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh Gosh... here we go again... Don't think I have the stomach for another round. Who opened the can of worms? --Zappaz 05:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment
In response to some comment of mine, an editor has stated that "articles do not have to be neutral but they have to follow NPOV guidelines. The critical points in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article all follow the NPOV guidelines." That is not my understanding of what NPOV means.

This article consists primarily of criticism of Prem Rawat. I acknowledge


 * All criticism is placed in the mouths of others ("Students say," "ex-Premies say", "critics assert," etc.)
 * Many of these statements seem to be sourced via external links. (I can't always match a statement with a link, though; for example, in the statements "In their discourse, critics assert that in many of his early addresses he was referring to himself when speaking about Guru Maharaj Ji. Others say that he was referring to his father and teacher, also called by the same title" I'm not clear on who these critics are. I'll assume that the writer could probably source them).
 * Counter-arguments by supporters are mentioned.

Nevertheless: can this article, or any such article, be considered to embody a neutral point of view? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's two separate questions. The first one, I will abstain on; I have no comments on the current state of the article.  On the second question, the one you ask in the RfC, whether such an article could embody a neutral point of view, I'll come right out and say "Yes".  Merely having an article on the subject "Criticism of X" takes no position on whether the criticism is true or false, justified or unjustified -- it merely makes the statement that such criticism exists and does not occupy the very rare category of "absolute lunatic fringe criticism which is such absolute rubbish that not even NPOV requires that it be covered anywhere on Wikipedia".  (And no, supporters, no matter how much dirt and invective you hurl at the critics of Prem Rawat, it will not push them into that category.  Save your breath.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Save your breath, Antaeus. They have the right to criticize me, my fellow students, my beliefs and my teacher. And I reserve the right to criticize their pathological obsession, their intolerance and their behaviours. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 05:03, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

i feel tricked by you and i want to express my distrust to you as a person. Thomas h 22:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * ????? I honestly don't understand what you're saying. I have not created this article. I have not edited this article. I have not edited the Prem Rawat article. I'm sorry you distrust me, but I'm honestly baffled by your comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i apologize see my talkpage Thomas h 08:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thomas mixed something up, see . The article was created by User:Jossifresco. --Pjacobi 22:36, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)


 * Following this from WP:RfC, I'd like to point out some things about NPOV. First of all, any information negatively and/or positively charged in nature, ie, criticism, praise etc can perfectly well be NPOV if it's true. You have to establish sources and references for information that is allegedly disputed, regardless the nature of the information. The NPOV policy states the way information should be written for it to be included, not what the information is about. In this article's case, I notice it is an article dealing entirely with negatively charged information. The question is can this be NPOV. Yes of course the information can be NPOV if the author does not contribute any bias of his/her own. Inter\Echo 13:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from VfD
On 25 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat for a record of the discussion. That discussion did conclude with a strong recommendation to refactor this and the main article in such a way as to better achieve a neutral point of view.

Added link, copyright claim against prem-rawat-maharaji.info
Haven't been here for a while - good to see that article is pretty much as we agreed all those months ago! --John Brauns 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Levine
Andries added a citation from Levine's article. I included more information from the same article. Read it. I also referenced another article in WP. Your deletion is contentious and uncalled for. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I hardly recognize your addition in Levine's article. It is true that Levine's analysis of the life in the cult for the DLM member was based on the ashram time, but there is not indication that his classication of the DLM was too. Andries 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also see 17 references in Levine's article. Two of them are from 1977. Which one do you mean? Andries 21:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Levine's article does not produce a single source from which his disparaging comments can be drawn. So, that is just his opinion, without any justification. A scholar worth its mettle, will produce references, studies, articles, and cite profusely to support his points of view. Eight of his 17 citations are, guess, Levine's own articles! . I have yet to see other scholars citing .... himself! The other seven citations are widely generic references that provide ZERO support about the disparaging comments that you quoted. The only source he discuss is the magazine "And Its Divine" and "love Song" (p. 96). He does not provide issue number, article name, date, nothing. Levine's article is a piece of shit, if you ask me. Badly researched, badly written, The best part stuff is in his conclusion. After an abysmal critique of a few groups, he says: "[...] I have become both sanguine and cynical about global pronouncements and generalizations." yes, right, as if that statement could compensate for his horrendous pronouncements and generalizations, bordering on paranoia, that he made in this sick little article.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I do not believe that you have read all 17 references so that you can assert with certainty that he did not references for what he asserted. Andries 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not have to read all the citations. When a scholar writes a paper he adds refs to his text, just as we do here sometimes in WP. Levine's opening statement from which you quoted, do not have any references or citations listed. The first six references (1 to 6) are generic anti-cult articles (First lines in Levine's article: "Readers of this volume and other literature on the subject1-6 might conclude that all cults are particularly bizarre and oppresive". (LOL for his no, no, to generalizations...). The last seven are just references to his own papers and articles. The only referece i makes directly is to citations 7 and 8 (p 96 bottom). Citation 8 is yet another of Levine's article and citation 7 ios a generic pshycology study on the mechanics of belief as seen from a phsychiatirc perspective. So, really his citations are not so, maybe more a "bibliography". So again, please do some homework before selectively quoting from stupid little articles. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * And by the way, see if you can find any scholars that cite this guy. You will be lucky to find 3 or 4 citations for other articles, not this one. I have yet to find a single paper that cites this article. Notable my foot. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think that all articles by scholars are so meticulously referenced. I think it is coming close to original "research" when you try to assess the 17 references of scholarly articles, withour reading them. I admit that Levine's article isn't very good. Andries 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, thre are not 17 refereces, but only eight. I have only stated the fact that he did not provide references or citations for the assertions that you quoted. That has noting to do with original research. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * So you expect a scholar to give a reference at the end of every sentence and if he doesn't then you do not have to read the references at the end of the article: you just assume that what he writes is unreferenced. To me this sounds worse than original research: it sounds like jumping to conclusions. Andries 00:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No Andries. This Levine starts his article with a blanket condemnation and a conclusion per se. Throughout the article he makes no attempt to provide sources, citations, studies, other peer reviewed articles etc. Nothing, nada, zilch. The 6 citations he offers, are referenced under the "Readers of this volume and other literature on the subject sentence, meaning that this is just a bibliography he offers to readers. He does not make any attempt to disclose sources for his conclusions (or shall I say his bias?). That is what I am saying on my edit: the fact that he does not provide any references to substantiate the wide condemnation he makes and the fact that he refers to practices that were abandoned in the mid-eighties.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * May be I miss something but I still think that you jump to conclusions about his alleged missing references. And by the way, he does not condemn the DLM: he only says that the DLM has a bad public perception. Yes, later he writes about the difference in living style between premies (subsistence) and Rawat (ostentatious opulence).  Andries 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He makes an assessment and states it as a fact. Even in WP we do not allow that. And he does not even bother to say why he makes that assessment and based upon what information collected, when he collected that information and where. If that is scholarship, Andries, you can call me Colombus. I am not alleging that there are no references: Levine does not provide any references. If he had any refereces to substantiate his assessment, believe you me that he would have used them. So I am only pointing out facts about this article: No date, no direct references for a wide condemnation, and scoping his cirticism to what he referes to. That's all. Another "gem" from this guy: [...] these terrible groups have typical life-styles which defy imagination, and which are obviously weird. And you call this a serious scholar? Yes, seriosulsy biased, that is. I tell you what, find me one citation of tihs article in a peer reviewed paper, and then we talk. OK? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 01:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot delete the text I added because you don't like it. What is the point for dicussing anything here if you then go and delete my edits? I exaplained to you that from the 17 references, 8 are his own, another six are generic anti-cult mumbo jumbo, and one is a serious study of te mechanics of belief. None of these are supportive of the disparaging comments he makes in the opening his article. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I continue to think that you have no right to judge in the Wikipedia article the way Levine support his statements with his 17 references in his article unless you have read all of the 17. Andries 15:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted your text because the arguments that you use to defend your text sound like a combination of both original research and jumping to conclusion. Andries 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is neither. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * May be you could explain yourself a bit more, because I continue to disagree which may be based on a lack of understanding of your arguments. Thanks. Andries 15:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jossi, Levine provides 17 references and you say that he doesnot provide sources in the Wikipedia article without having read the 17 references. How can you seriously defend this text?
 * I have provided abundant information about the reasons for my edit. Read them. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * What I read is that you think that he has no sources without having read the sources. May be he as digressed on the subjects in his own books. I do not consider the information that you provide convincing. Andries 17:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Look Andries, I will explain once more: He writes (highlights are mine): we will use as examples hroups about which appears to be considerable external unanimity. [. . .] and the Divine Light Mission have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most other groups combined. Levine makes no attempt to provide evidence of his obvious speculation, by using "probably" and "appears to be". Then he goes on on an "analysis" of behaviors and practices, without providing any references in the body of his article, besides a generic references on page 96, last line.  So my edit it is accurate. Failure to see that, only shows your inability and/or unwillingness to concede that this article is an absoulte piece of shit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 18:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are three issues: one that the article's opning paragraph are sheer speculation, by useing "appears to be" and "have probably". The second issue is that Levine makes an analysis of practices and lifestyles that were abandoned in the mid 80s The third is that he provide no sources for his analysis of these practices. I have made a point to cover these three points. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 18:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing speculation with normal scientific reticence in making bold statements. The sources for his descriptions of his daily life are probably his own books based upon his own experiences. I already admitted that is not a great article. Again, you cannot expect scholars to provide references at the end of every sentence that they write. Andries 18:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (a) Leivine is no "scholar". he is a Physichatrist; (b) He makes a point of his own speculation by using weasel words ("probably", "appears to be"); and (c)In reference to the analysis he makes of DLM, he provide no direct' references for his sources. That's my edit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are putting a spin on his words by your edits and give a possible false impression of his article. Andries 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I am just puting the article in context. "Context is everything" is a golden rule in accurate reporting and research. Google "Context is everything" and learn something about it. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that giving context is important, but I think that you are going beyond that i.e. by spoonfeeding the reader with your contestable conclusions about the article. Why not confine ourselves to the undisputed facts about Levine and his article and let the reader decide about the article? Confining ourselves to the undisputed facts means removing "speculate" and also saying that in spite of the 17 references that he provides, he fails to make it clear which of the references, if any, is used to substantiate his assessment of the DLM's lack of popularity? Andries 15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not spoonfeeding. But to address your concern, I have attributed the critique of the article, moved the paragraph to a more appropriate location (before discussing ex-premies), and removed the details about the article as it is already in the references. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

website ownership
What are our sources for website ownership? I checked "Whois" for one and it did not mention the supposed owner. Another listing says "allegedly". "Allegedly" according to whom? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the exchange between John Brauns and RichardG Talk:Prem_Rawat &asymp; jossi &asymp; 03:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Website onwership, deleted. Cite your sources or lose it. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 07:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That exchange simply shows RichardG claiming that John Brauns owns them. That's not proof of anything. -Willmcw 20:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * If RichardG cite sources, it can be added later. Facts, such as ownership of website by John Brauns, is discussed in the article and should stay in the external likns sectio. Same about anonymity as that is also discussed. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the allegation of Gubler owning a site is mentioned. Regarding Brauns, there's this comment in the text:


 * In December 2004, John Brauns, owner of the ex-premie website, changed the registration of the domain name to his own name after more than seven years during which it had been registered to the "Ex-premie Organization". Brauns asserts that ownership of the website has always been in the hands of individuals. The size and true influence of the ex-premies are in dispute; there are something over one hundred purported testimonials on an ex-premie website,..."
 * However that link does not ahve anything to support Brauns' ownership. Being "anonymous" is typical of websites - shall we add that to all Prem Rawat-related websites that do not list an author for all of their material? Regarding this warning "(Note: contains language and images some may find offensive)", according to whom is it offensive, and why? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymity is atypical of websites. A website has the imprimatur of his/her author, or the organization/company behind it. An anonymous website, lacks the accountability of authorship. These critics make a big deal of their anonymity, so that it is why that fact it is featured. How much it cost to put up a website? 10 bucks? How many lies can they can tell behind a veil of anonymity? As many as they care to make. I don't care much about the obscenity warning, mind you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * These sites are anonymous: http://maharaji.net/, http://elanvital.org/. Shall we mark those as "anonymous" too? Where's the source for the ownership of the other sites? -Willmcw 00:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding, or you don't know how to read? Maharaji.net footer: Design and content © Prem Rawat. Elan Vital: Elan Vital, Inc., PO Box 2220, Agoura Hills, CA 91376, 818-889-1373. Show me the names and/or address and phone numbers of these websites, and you can then remove the anonymous label &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ownership and authorship are separate issues. Those notices you've posted simply say which company or person owns the copyright to the webstie, not who wrote the material. "Elan Vital, Inc" is not an author. According to Whois, there are names for all of the owners of those other websites. If you want to include the listed owners of all Prem Rawat-related sites then we can do that. I still don't see any evidence for the Brauns or Gubler ownership, or why one site has been labelled as "offensive". -Willmcw 00:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you a lawyer? If you were you would understand that if you own a website you are legaly responsible for its content, unless you make a disclaimer for content that someone writes and publishes on your site. Anonymous sites as the ones we are refering to are just that: sites who's authors disclaim any responsibility and accountability for what they write, by hidding behind a veil of anonymity. Maharaji.net clearly describes its author:Prem Rawat. Owner is The Prem Rawat Foundation. An address and phone number are available. Same as Elan Vital. The critics websites are anonymous, author and owner: no name, no address, no accountability. Even WHOIS records are veiled. So these sites are, guess what: ANONYMOUS. That is a fact. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 02:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The owneres are clearly listed in Whois. To claim that they are not is incorrect. To claim that the author of these sites is not known, while the authors of the unsigned material at elanvital.org is not anonymous is also incorrect. Please treat all websites equally. Either remove the denigrating editorial comments from these sites, or add the same comments to all of the other sites. How do you know that they are veiled and veiled is different from anonymous anyway. -Willmcw 05:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are avoiding replying to my arguments. There are no names, addresses or telephone numbers, AND the authors declare their anonymity in their home page. WHOIS is cloacked. Stating that these website are anonymous is not "denigrating" but a statement of fact. Reverted. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 05:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so then 98% of all websites are anonymous by that definition. I've taken the liberty of adding the same designation to some of the Prem Rawat sites with unidentified authors or "veiled" ownership, or identified the owner and author. Next I'll start adding the names of alleged owners of some sites, without any sources, of course. Would that prove the point? If not, shall I start calling other websites "pseudononymously operated", again without any sources for proof? -Willmcw 06:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw. with all due respect, what you are saying shows a total lack of knoweldge on the subject of web registration, ownership, whois and authorship. 98% of site are not anonymous. Only those that want to be anonymous are anonymous. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 06:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please educate me. How is a site run by the "Maharaji Information Group" anonymous while a site run by the "Elan Vital, Inc" is not anonymous? Are the names of the Elan Vital, Inc., owners, officers and staff available? Or are they "veiled"? There's no author listed for this page:http://elanvital.org/about.html. Doesn't that make it anonymous? The only info available for this website, http://www.wordpaint.com/ is the name of the registrataion company, TUCOWS INC. Yet another anonymously run website. And which forums on the internet require the use of real names? -Willmcw 07:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Will, If a website owner wants to hide his/her identity, that is OK. But that it is not what is being argued here. A website without a declared owner/author is indeed anonymous, and as such it has a leser degree of "accountability" than a site that their owners are clearly identified and contactable. The fact that we use anonymity on the Internet (hey, ZappaZ is my nome de plume and not my real name!) is a wonderful thing but has nothing to do with this discussion. Anyone can create a website/blog/forum either for free or for a a few dollars. That is a wonderful thing as it allows hundreds of thousands of people to excercise their right to freedom of speech. That is all fine and wonderful. Yet, when we evaluate sources for an encyclopedia, we ought to excercise caution when we quote/cite/refer to online sources as our primary source, in particular when these are anonymous. So, labelling an external reference as "owner and author anonymous", gives the necessary context for readers, 'in particular when a website portrays itself as a provider of information in a controversial issue. It is all about assessing the reputability of a source. We ought to give readers that info, don't you think?--ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Read Using online sources (highlights are mine):
 * "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers, like the New York Times or The Times of London, are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world."

To begin with, unless we are using these webistes as sources, then the Using online sources does not apply. As for anonymity, the websites have identified owners, the "Maharaji Information Group". As for authorship, show me webpages, aside from blogs and forums, in which the author of each page is specified. They are very few and far between, and Prem Rawat's websites are no different. -Willmcw 19:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will, that argument does not fly. These websites are anonymous. The "Maharaji Information Group" does not qualify as "owner" or "author". "Owner" is a person or an organization. For these not to be called anonymous, we need a at least a name of a person or the name and details of a bonafide organization. "Author" is the person that penned the piece, or the organization that commissioned the piece. In this case we have neither of these, thus the qualifier. You don't need a statement of authorship for each page, as you argue, as you don't need a statement of authorship for every page in a book. Taking that metaphor further, a book is penned by an author or authors (sometime writing under a pseudonym) and it is owned by the publisher of the book. Fortunately, we do not have such a thing as a book without both an owner and  declared author. We may have a book owned by Publishing House ABC, but written under a nome the plume or pseudonym. But luckily, we will not find a book without both a declared publisher and an author. And yes, these websites have been used as sources in a few instances, if I recall correctly. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are pushing the definition. We have the owner, the Mahraji Information Group. However you are claiming that they are not a "bonafide" organization. What proof do you have for that? As for the authro, show tme the names of the authors of the Prem Rawat sites. They don't seem to be listed. If the "anti" sites have been used for sources, then it is in the attribution that the supposed anonymity should be mentioned ("According to an anoymous source..."). These sites seem no different from millions of internet sites, and adding special disclaimers is apparently being done to discredit their contents. That's pushing a POV. -Willmcw 21:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bonafide? That's easy: If you had to chose between purchasing a product from a website that does not publish a phone number or an address to which you can complain if the product is defective; or one that does, which one would you chose? This is an interesting debate, and I gather that it has many implications, not only for this article, but for any articles in which a controversy is described. What is the perceived value of an "anonymous"/"no-owner declared" website? How valuable/reliable/fact-checked is the information contained in these sites? How they compare with sites in which authorship accountability is evident? I would argue that whoever wrote that piece in Reliable sources was spot on: "Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world." My view is that users have the right to be alerted to the fact that a site linked from an article is anonymous and its owner unknown. That is not done to discredit its contents in front of readers, but just to present the facts in front of the reader. Subtle distinction. These websites are anonymous. It is up to the reader to assess if they have been written by "intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world", or not. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would contribute to this debate, surprisingly on Zappaz's side. Whilst mikefinch.com is owned and authored by Mike Finch, and ex-premie.org is owned by myself and the authorship of most of the articles is clearly stated; prem-rawat-maharaji.info (and other sites) are clearly anonymously owned and authored. Does this matter? I don't think so. My understanding from reading the PRMi site is that it simply presents information about Rawat in a way that is more accessible to journalists and researchers than the sources for the information on the site. Apart from being linked on these articles, I am not aware of the site being used as a source for any of the information on Wiki. I agree with Zappaz that the official pro-Rawat sites all have identifiable legal site owners and content copyright owners, so it would be incorrect to call them anonymous, even though the individual authors are generally anonymous. Other privately maintained pro-Rawat sites are clearly anonymous. (NB, I have corrected the entry for ex-premie.org which claimed it mostly pseudonymously written. )--John Brauns 08:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A good journalist knows how to evaluate his sources. An anonynous website, providing no substantive information about their sources, will be taken with a big pinch of salt. In particular when the website is allegedly written by anti-Rawat activists as explained on the home page of prem-rawat-maharaji.info. The negative spin, nicely concealed I must say, it is way too evident for a serious researcher to be accepted at face value. First thing a journalist would do (if he/she cares for objectivity) would be to contact Prem Rawat Foundation or Elan Vital and ask about their side of the story. Regarding Expremie.org, is that website written mainly by you? --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 19:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would welcome any journalist contacting TPRF or EV! When they have done so in the past they invariably come away with a negative view of the organisations and Rawat. The problem is that no news organisations are interested in the subject. The authorship of most articles on EPO is clearly stated on the website. BTW, EV and TPRF not only provide no 'substantive information about their sources', they also provide no substantive information!!! --John Brauns 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg's cite
Can you provide the Dutch text for that quote? I would like to have it properly translated. Now it reads very strangely. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 05:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Macgregor's Apology Not a 'Public Letter'
I have amended the text regarding Macgregor's apology. This was a post on an obscure discussion board, and although publicly accessible, cannot be described as a 'public letter'. He was asked both in public and privately that if he was really sincere then why had he not published the apology in the Australian newspapers where his critical articles had appeared, or in Indymedia? He declined to reply. If he had truly felt remorse, then surely he would have done everything he could to undo what he had done, rather than post on a discussion board pretty much only read by those who have a direct interest in Rawat.--John Brauns 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you agree with me that the expremie forum is "an obscure discussion board" and that postings (or copies of these postings) are not of enough quality (as sources) to be used as citacions to substantiate a claim, in particular in a controvesy such as this one. Anyone can say almost anything about anything on these forums, accountability is close to zero. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The forum is only obscure because Rawat is obscure, or to put it more precisely because Rawat has become obscure. Andries 19:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Andries. A discussion Forum is obscure for many reasons: a) Lack of accountability; b) Coloquialism; c) Anonymity; d) in a moderated forum (and I believe theirs is) the moderator can censor/delete/edit any post. No one can take a debate in a public forum such as that one, as a serious source for accurate information. Interesting to read in the context of trying to understand the mindset of these people? Of course. But that's more or less it, IMO. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue here is whether Macgregor's apology can be described as a 'public letter' so please stick to the point. Macgregor did NOT make his apology public in the sense he made his critical articles public. Regarding your attack on the content of the ex-premie forum, if a named person posts on the ex-premie forums, and is willing to back up the content of that post in a court of law, then that post has as much accountability as any other source regardless of how obscure the subject matter is. --John Brauns 20:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In a court of law, of course. If we have such documentation that would make a world of difference. But as long as it remains in the domain of a chat room, well, credibility is not something you would normally associate with it, don't you think? As for McGregor's letter, it seemed to be quite a public apology. At least that was the impression I was left with after reading it. I am not sure that the newspapers that published his articles would want to retract, because that will realy put them in a pickle... explaining to their readership the whole story? Mmmm don't thing so. As for Indymedia, that is yet-another website in which anyone can write about anything, on any subject and get "published". Welcome to the World Wide Web! --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, Rawat's critics have not linked a single allegation from Wiki to the ex-premie discussion boards precisely because of the reasons you give. Those serious allegations that were originally posted on the discussion boards and are now on ex-premie.org have been checked with the people making the allegations, and if necessary will be supported in a court of law. This is why I, and the previous webmasters, have not been taken to court. Someone has, though, decided to link to Macgregor's apology, which only exists publicly in one place, which is the very place whose credibility you criticise. I would think that you would be demanding that reference to Macgregor's apology should be removed because of the lack of credibility of its source. Why haven't you? --John Brauns 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let that melt down my tongue. If i understand this right, John McGregor as an apostate who critizises, has no credibility especially not on the ex-premie chat forum. But his apology on another forum, that even Jossi doesn't want to be associated with is something, that is completely acceptable to you? Come on. In my eyes you loose any credibility if you insist on that logical blunder.Thomas h 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is another one concerning reliability of websites . This one has an address, phone and faxnumbers. According to this site, there never was a Prem Pal successing Hans, at least nothing important enough to be mentioned. The job was taken over by his eldest son Sat Pal.
 * His father passed away in 19th July 1966, bequeathing his mission and unfinished work to his eldest son. When the time came, Satpal Ji Maharaj took command with his characteristic zeal and efficiency, dedicating himself to fulfilling his father's dreams. He has never deviated from the ideals and path taught by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, no matter what the cost. His integrity and clarity of vision, his noble character, self-discipline and patient effort have earned him the respect of all sections of society.  Why doesn't Sat Pal has it's own article in Wikipedia, from their viewpoint? There is no reason not to handle it with equal respects.Thomas h 07:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to start an article on Satpal. Note that the reference about their claims to succession and the controversy around it are already fully developed at Divine Light Mission including a link to that page. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 14:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Object to be made part of an extremist group
I received Knowledge in 1975 and was in the ashram for a few years. I lost contact with this in the mid 80s, and moved onto other things in my path. I object to the assumption made here that me (and others like me) are part of these extremist "Ex-Premies. I am an "ex-premie" but I effusively reject their ways and object being grouped with them. Can I ask that whenever you refer to these people you do that by their names or by using a nomenclature that makes it evident that these are a group of people with extreme views and not the norm? --Menyo
 * ups, did anybody accuse you to be an ex-premie? Did i miss something? You created your account on 16th of august and one of your first actions is a forward defense of not wanting to be put in one pot with THE Ex-Premies, seemed to be for you the most urgent thing, before starting anything at Wikipedia. What do you know about THOSE? Is everybody of THEM to be put in one pot? Thomas h 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

--
 * There are factual mistakes and POV problems in the version restored by Menyor


 * 1) "documented activities of the ex-premie group." Where is the documentation? The only documentation that I have seen is that regarding John Macgregor and the attack on Ron Geaves by "Emile"
 * 2) Kranenborg is described as fundamentalist. Where are the references for this? I think this is quite a crazy assertion. Because fundamentalist is not an orginally Dutch term for Christians. There was, as far as I know, no fundamentalist movement among the Dutch denominations in the Netherlans (I have to admit that this is not my specialism). Andries 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the allegation made by Jossi Fresco that Jan van der Lans was helplessly biased because he wrote for clergy. Anyone who has read his book will know this to be ridiculous: in his book he writes that he was accused by the public of being paid by cults or taken in by cults. Andries 00:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can remove it, I will add it again. You will not get away in pushing your POV. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 02:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem keeping it if it is re-worded into something like "Jossi Fresco, an American student of Prem Rawat who cannot read Dutch and has not read the book and lives in the USA considers the book helplessy biased because he asserts that the book is targeted at clergy." Andries 12:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

References to website ownership MUST state sources
I have again removed my name as the owner of two website. Whoever is anonymously adding my name should either state their sources (as required by Wiki rules) or desist. The owners and authors have a right to their privacy and Wiki should not support breaches of that privacy. I will escalate this matter as high as need be. --John Brauns 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources added, as requested. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jossi - just what I was hoping for. Whoever makes the decisions at EV are really stupid! :-) --John Brauns 10:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

John Macgregor affidavit
Added information from John Macgregor's affidavit. Some excerpts for your perusal. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * JOHM MURRAY MACGREGOR, of Ratchadamnern Roda, Chiang Mai, Thailand, states/affirms on oath:
 * 1. I am a competent adult over the age of 18, and make this Affidavit, under no duress or coercion, and if called to testify as to the facts stated herein I could do so thruthfully
 * 4. Contrary to reports and claims published by myself and others I was never privy to "secret" or "inside: inform tion that was to be hidden and not available to other volunteers.
 * 6. In 2001 I began to undergo emotional issues of a serious nature that caused me to suffer a severe lack of judgement. These emotional issues manifested in a combination of depression and unfocused anger. I began to communicate with members of a loose connection of individuals who call themselves "Ex-premies" as former students of Prem Rawat. These people maintain a sewries of internet web pages and chat rooms a goal of which is to create an atmosphere of ill will and malice toward Rawat and his students. I was one of the worst offenders.
 * 7. Members of the Ex-Premie Group validated my self deception that I was not responsible for my emotional issues or life choices, and that if any blame was to be laid, it was appropriately directed at Rawat and his students.
 * 8. I have had many conversations with the members of the Ex-premie Group, and have read hundred of their internet postings and writings. The goals of the Ex-Premie Group are often obsessive, malicious and destructive in nature. The Ex-Premie Groups, through the use of the internet interferes with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery and for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawat's.
 * 9. The Ex-Premie group consists prominently of the following individuals: John Braun, Jim Heller, Marianne Bachers. Nick Wright and Jean-Michel Kahn amonst others.
 * 10. The Ex-Premie Group's actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. Further instances include:
 * - The internet publication of photographs and address of Rawat's private house with maps of children's bedroom;
 * - The internet publication of personal details about Rawat's home life, and the private life of his family and children;
 * - Contacting businesses with which the volunteer entities have contractual obligations and, attempting to intimidate them into avoiding these contracts;
 * - Researching and publishing Prem Rawat's whereabouts;
 * - The publication of entirely false stories of a defamatory nature on the internet and encouraging media to report these fabrications as fact.
 * 12. Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and/or the volunteer entities were cult-like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. These implications are absolutely false and unfounded.
 * 13. I found that the more vitriolic and defamatory my writings about Rawat where, the more support and comfort I received from the Ex-Premie Group. Because I craved this attention and validation, I sought to have published further similar articles.
 * 15. In retrospect, I am of the opinion that many of these persons are irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger.
 * 16. I have reviewed the statements about Rawat, his students, the volunteer entities posted on the Ex-Premie Group's websites and find that when they purport to report on factual matters they are frequently false and defamatory, unsupported by actual fact basis, and motivated in many instances by hatred, ill will and spite.
 * 18. During the course of 2003/2004, I made allegations of impropriety against the claimants and their legal advisers. These allegations were the product of my overwrought state and they were wrong. These stories were designed to paint the Claimants as a dangerous shadowy cult abusing the litigation process to silence criticism. I understand and acknowledge that the litigation was not directed towards silencing criticism, but instead Claimants were appropriately protecting themselves against the activities of an antagonistic group as would any other business people in the circumstances.
 * 20. In the course of my involvement with the Ex-Premie Group, I filed several complaints to various tax and regulatory bodies around the world, hoping to initiate expensive and burdensome investigation of Rawat and related volunteer entities. I acknowledge and admit that I had no factual basis upon which to make such allegations, and that the complains I filed were supported by unauthenticated, incomplete or out-of-context documents designed to paint a sinister picture.
 * 21. Since the litigation I have had the chance to reflect upon the activities of the Ex-Premie Group, my involvement with them, and their motivations. I have come to realize that my involvement was misguided, and that I have to accept personal responsibility for my own life choices and actions.
 * 22. I believe that I woe Prem Rawat, the claimants, their legal advisers and all of Rawat's students and apology for my actions, and for allowing myself to be used by the Ex-Prfemie Group. I believe that persons have the right to chose their own path of spiritual discovery, and the right to leave a chosen path, but that people do not havce the right to incite hatred and interfere with other's choices.
 * Affirmed by John Murray Macgregor on APril 27, 2005 at Bangkok, Thailand


 * Gosh, what a damning document, if I may say so. Read together with the apology he wrote in the chatroom, it provides a quite significant insight into the work of these critics and their psychological makeup. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 17:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sinister, sinister, goshgoshgosh. If i'd hold your balls in an iron grip baby, you'd sign anythingThomas h 18:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I told you that these are extremists. --Menyo

Neutrality warning
I gave the article a neutrality warning among others for the following reasons. Andries 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Rebuttals start with "Supporters say" which should in many cases should say Jossi Fresco says. Jossi gives flimsy and ad hoc rebuttals e.g. in the case of Jan van der Lans. This habit is in itself quite against Wikipedia policies but it is very wrong that Jossi pretends to speak on behalf of supporters when he is in fact speaking on behalf of no one but himself. I tried to correct this but Jossi keeps reverts me.
 * 2) The criticisms of ex-premies should move downwards.

- Also I want to re-organize the article per allegation again. Now it reads "Other criticisms" which incorrect because the criticism are in many cases are just the same criticisms as made by ex-premies. Andries 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No problems. I will work on these and remove the NPOV warning. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 18:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, can you please try to integrate your additions and modifications in the old (and also current) organization of the article? Thanks Andries 19:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * So this means that it should be clear to everybody that Jossi is breaking the concensus version. In this case you are clearly the culprit. Andries 19:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you bring the consensus issue only when it is convenient to you. You killed that idea when everybody was asking you to abide by the consensus version. Sorry, that does not work. Reverted. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * What you do is changing the whole structure of the article which is far worse than adding or removing sentences, as I did. Andries 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not change the structutre of the article. Others did. I just added new material to it. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you change it back to the old structure then? Why not do it now? Andries 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You opened the can of worms, not me. Now you need to live with the consecuences. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot make good edits to the article when using the new structure, so I had to revert it. Andries 13:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is your problem. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed warning
I gave teh article a "disputed" warning because of your untrue remarks about the sources for Schnabel. I know that you are handicapped with regards to Dutch language but somewhere in the archives I wrote down a dozen of the hundreds sources that Schnabel used. Andries 20:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me. My understanding is that Schabel sources about his comments about Prem Rawat were solely from Van der Lans. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please check the archives first. Thanks Andries 20:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did. I found nothing. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is from the archives "The message of the DLM focuses completely on the person of Guru Maharaj Ji. Divine love and truth manifest in him. One can have part in this by surrendering totally to the guru whom one will always follow. If one does this then one will become conscious of one's core inner self (Knowledge). One experiences Knowledge during meditation of which there are four types: meditation on light, on sound, on the name, and on nectar.

Apart from the meditation, the DLM knows yet two other basic rules i.e. satsang and service. Satsang means here discourses in which the Knowledge is propagated, in which one testifies of the omnipresence of Maharaj Ji, and in which advice is given to solve problems. Service means here to serve and fulfilling service. Every member is expected to do effort for the movement, for the propagation and for its preservation.

The guru Maharaj ji takes a central place in the presentation by the DLM. He is the perfect master who can reveal the truth to everybody, who has the answer to all questions. The DLM always tries to refer to the guru in its advertisements. One tries to recruit new members by organizing lectures, introduction evenings, and by sending propaganda material. "

Used literature for the above mentioned paragraphs:


 * Van der Lans - (Dutch language) Wereldbeschouwelijke aspecten van de exotische tegenstroom: Een inleiding vanuit de empirisch-kritische benadering – In:Derks o.c.,67-89 (1981)
 * Pilarzyk, Th. – The origin, development and decline of a youth culture religion: an application of sectarianization theory – Review of Religious Research 20 (1978) 1, 23-24
 * Köllen, K. - (Dutch language) Jeugdsekten in Nederland – Amsterdam, Allert de Lange, (1980)
 * Foss, D.A. & R.W. Larkin - Worshipping the absurd and the Negation of Social Causality among the followers of Guru Maharaj Ji – Sociological Analysis (1978)
 * Messer J. – Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission – in Ch. Y. Clock & R.N. Bellah (Ed.), o.c., (1976) 52-72
 * Mildenberger, M. – (German language) Die religöse Revolte. Jugend zwischen Flucht und Aufbruch – Frankfurt a.M., Fischer (1979)
 * Downtown Jr. J.V. – Sacred journeys:The Conversion of Young Americans to the Divine Light Mision – New York, Columbia Un. Press (1979)
 * Downtown Jr. J.V. – An Evolutionary theory of spiritual conversion and commitment: the case of the Divine Light Mission –J. Scientific Study of Religion 19 (1980) 4, 381-396

Note: Schnabel refers in his dissertation to hundreds of sources but he mentioned the above sources when writing about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. Andries 09:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schnabel did cite an article by Derks and van der Lans but it is not the book "Volgelingen van de goeroe/followers of the guru" Andries 20:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We had the cites but not the references. Where is Schabel work published? It is available in print? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the very lengthy dissertation in book form. I bought it from a 2nd hand book shop. Andries 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the problem with dissertations that are not widely published (another way to say "obscure"). I have contacted Schnabel and asked him if he can send me a copy that I can get translated. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * This dissertation was widely publised, but is out of print now. It contains quite a lot of critical remarks about Rawat. The problem is that it has no index so you will have to read/scan a lot to find what you are interested in. Andries 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

From Schnabel: &asymp; jossi &asymp; 17:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my dissertation has been written in Dutch and I have no English translation available. The text was published by Van Loghum Slaterus in Deventer, but this publisher has in the meantime merged with even bigger companies and is now BSL in Houten. As far as I know they don't have the book in stock anymore. The best thing to do is to order the book from the university library in Amsterdam or from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The Hague. The correct reference is: Schnabel, Paul - Tussen Stigma en Charisma. Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid - Deventer, Van Loghum Slaterus, 1982 (Dissertatie Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 10 februari 1982). Sincerely yours, Paul Schnabel

Suggestion to Rename this Article
I propose this article is renamed 'Criticism of Ex-Premies'. Since I last read the article, the volume of attacks against ex-premies has reached deafening proportions. The criticisms of Rawat are that he allowed and continues to allow his followers to believe he is God, he has grown extremely wealthy as a result, and his lifestyle does not reflect his teachings in that someone who is a master of peace would be unlikely to need to drink alcohol heavily or systematically deceive his wife.

Seriously, these allegations are supported by incontrovertable evidence, so why is most of this article taken up with attacks on former premies? Allowing this makes a mockery of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Oh, and the idea that the testimonies on ex-premie.org were written by less than 20 people is laughable. --John Brauns 19:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As laugable as your denial of ownership of three websites? As laughable about the damning testimony under oath by John Macgregor in which irrefutably he singles you out? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, my only comments about ownership on the prem-rawat-maharaji.info site were that the identity of the owner and authors were private and that Wiki should respect that privacy. Show me where I said otherwise. The fact that Elan Vital have chosen to misuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is something that they may regret. Regarding Macgregor, show me where he has withdrawn a single statement he made in his newspaper articles, and tell me why he didn't publish his 'apology' in the same publications he published his articles. By the way, he may choose to mention me, but we have never met. We have exchanged emails regarding his articles on EPO, and he has sought my advice on a number of issues. That is the full extent of our relationship. You will find, if you have access to my emails to him, that instead of urging him on, I did, on a number of occasions, advise him to do what is best for his own life and health rather than get further involved in fighting the cult. But we both know, don't we, that John did not author that affidavit, and he only signed it as a condition of Elan Vital/IRCC stopping their legal actions against him. He no more believes it is true than you or I do. --John Brauns 07:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is so that this affidavit was signed under this pressure, and was not John's own authorship, using it as a waepon is, while knowing how it was build, gives us a deep insight who Jossi Fresco really has become. Thomas h 08:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not become anything, I am me. Personal attacks are not welcome. Neither baseless acussations. Your attempt to dismiss his sworn statement, by excuses that he did that under duress, are wishfull thinking on your part: He also published a very similar account in your chatroom. The reason why he did not published (yet) an apology on these newspapers is a no-brainer. These newspapers confronted with the evidence of these affidavits do not want to embarrass themselves with their readership by admitting poor editorial judgement and lack of due diligence. They may, though, if there is enough public pressure for accountability.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 14:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, could you explain why Macgregor did not publish his apology in Indymedia where he had also published articles critical of Rawat? No such excuse of embarrassment applies there. Also, if he had attempted to publish his apology in the newspapers, he would likely have mentioned it, instead of staying silent on the subject. Face it, Jossi, if EV have dropped the charges and their demand for costs on the basis of his apology on F8, his affidavit, and possible cooperation in hounding other ex-premies, then Macgregor has the best of the deal. EV gained nothing, and anyone involved in this sorry affair on EV's side lost their self-respect. --John Brauns 18:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you published/linked documents with full name and address of 2 persons that, like you, have a right of privay. To me this behaviour is completely unacceptable, especially because you have been, or you have alleged that, that you and your familiy had to suffer from harassement. You have no ...removed personal attack... that prevent you from revealing the addresses of those people on the internet. I am sure that you haven't been like this from the beginning. I have read Gubler's affidavit as well and his retraction. 62.214.152.98 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken. Jossi did not published these documents. The documents are publicly available at the elanvital website. Note that personal attacks are not allowed in talk pages. Personal attacks removed. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 23:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, got carried away. But at least by linking these, he willingly accepts and supports that behaviour which doesn't make it much better. Who at Elan Vital is responsible for that mess, is of course hidden, because no responsible person is listed on that site. In this case the duty of publishing an Impressum as it is mandatory in germany, would help. But Elan Vital ducks away even on the german pages by forwarding it to a server abroad. Thomas h 05:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is an address: Elan Vital, Inc., PO Box 2220, Agoura Hills, CA 91376 http://elanvital.org/contact.html --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 06:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * thanks, i know that there is an address, but no name of who is responsible for the contents, or who leads the editorial office. That and even more is what an Impressum is all about in germany. Thomas h 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no separation between Jossi Fresco and Elan Vital. Jossi is clearly representing Elan Vital on Wiki, so Jossi linking to a page on Elan Vital's website is the same as if he had written that text here. There is a strong possibility that he posted that pdf on Elan Vital's website, and even if he didn't, he is part of the same team that did. Just look at the events - I demand a source for the claim that I am the owner of a website, the information appears on Elan Vital's website, and immediately, Jossi posts it here. Elan Vital's website is being used in exactly the same way that critics of former premies erroneously claim the ex-premie websites are being used. The difference is that the information on the ex-premie websites is sourced to named individuals willing to testify in court if necessary. The information on Elan Vital's and TPRF's website is authored by some shadowy anonymous figures, and is not sourced at all. In fact there is not a single independent source quoted by followers of Rawat for any of the details of Prem Rawat's life that I am aware of. It could all be a work of fiction by current followers. That's how reliable any statement from Elan Vital or TPRF is. Anyone care to prove me wrong? The proof would have to be sources other than Divine Light Mission, DUO, Elan Vital or The Prem Rawat Foundation. --John Brauns 20:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * John, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that polemics are better handled on USENET or on your chatroom and not on these pages. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, this isn't 'polemics'! Read the Prem Rawat article and ask yourself what is the source for the 'information' provided on his history. Any source that is totally under the control of Rawat's loyal followers should be treated with the greatest caution. The sad fact as far as the encyclopedic integrity of the article is concerned is that almost all the article has no independent (and hence reliable) source. Don't you agree that this is something that should concern us? --John Brauns 23:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you are saying that. The Prem Rawat article cites extensively from Bob Mishler's radio interview, newspaper articles, books, radio interviews, quotations from speeches, etc. Whenever text is cited from existing organizations, it is attributed to these. That is consistent with NPOV. As for your assessment of "treating Rawat's loyal sources with caution", I could make a stronger case, for treating sources from your group, given the affidavits that have been added recently. As for the polemics,  talking about "shadowy figures" and conspiracy theories, are  just that: polemics and do not belong here. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 01:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

John, Stop Making (Non) Sense!
Look, first you claim that these web pages are independent. Then you claim here (look at the history) that you are not responsible for the content. Then, when you are busted, you whine about your "privacy" even though you (or your erstwhile lawyers) need to go back and re-read the Terms and Conditions of your domian registration. This, coming from a man responsible for a website that has posted the work and home addresses of Rawat, Cainer, Glassner, Pascotto, and many many others. You've got to be kidding!


 * The website prem-rawat-maharaji.info was conceived, designed and authored independently of me. Of course, as much of the content was based on testimonies on ex-premie.org those behind the site contacted me regarding the provenance of the information. When the site was due to go live, the issue of who would own the domain name and have the contract with the hosting company came up. The main people behind the site could not risk being exposed to attacks from the cult, so I volunteered to help. So yes, I am the legal owner of prem-rawat-maharaji.info, and will fulfill my responsibilities in this role, but this does not contradict any previous statements I have made. Regarding exposing personal details of premies, if you recall I closed down Forum 5 as a result of arguing to defend Charles Glasser's right to not have his details posted, so don't lay that one on me. I am unaware that personal details of my previous good friend, Jonathan Cainer, have ever been published. Pascotto's work details are matter of public record, but I am not aware of his home details ever being published. Regarding 'many many others', this is simply not true. All the ex-premie forums have had a strict policy of NOT publishing personal details without the person's permission. --John Brauns 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What's more, everytime you're caught in a lie, you change the subject and tell a different one! For example, I've gone back and looked at your claims made here and on the web that Elan Vital used their rights under copyright law to "censor" your criticism. But the Wayback Machine doesn't lie. They only siught the removal of photographs, which they have a copyright in. They never made you remove your "criticism" (if that's your euphemism for innuendo, hearsay and slander). So they didn't remove your precious content or critique: just images they have a right to protect.


 * You haven't caught me in a lie yet, as I try very hard to only tell the truth. In this case it's you yourself that are lying - read http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/copyright_text.htm#Pages for the list of pages Elan Vital claimed breached their copyright. These included many extracts from speeches by Rawat that are now embarrassing to him. It's sad for you that the most damning criticism of Rawat comes from Rawat's own words. --John Brauns 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So now your newest subject-changing lie is this crap about jossi being an "agent" of Elan Vital. Nice, but that ALSO changes the subject. The documents proving that YOU are responsible for the central hate group websites are NOT "Elan Vital" documents. They are LEGAL documents created by third persons and are entirely valid.


 * Jossi has designed pro-Rawat websites. Jossi posts here in support of Rawat and Elan Vital. Jossi posts the link to Elan Vital's pdf regarding website ownership. Jossi replies to my demand for a source for the claim about website ownership on this talk page. Jossi's connection to Elan Vital and Rawat is far closer than my connection to the authors of prem-rawat-maharaji.info. Apart from the public information about my ownership of ex-premie.org, the information on Elan Vital's website that Jossi linked here is a clear breach of confidentiality, and Elan Vital's clear use of the DMCA to get that information is a misuse of the DMCA and I am advised is actionable. Whether I choose to sue Elan Vital is something I haven't yet decided on, but if I do, there is little doubt Elan Vital would lose. The DMCA was not intended to allow religious cults to gain confidential information. --John Brauns 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, Andries may be a pain in the neck, ;-) but at least when he's shown to be incorrect he deals with it and moves on. You need to learn from him a bit.

The way you change stories and tell new lies reminds me of a low-level criminal lawyer representing a boy who murders his parents: "Your Honor, it's not my fault! I'm an orphan!"

This is not a personal attack. It is a reasonable examination of your spin-technique designed to warn other Wikipedians about your lack of honesty and your always hidden agenda. Nosmo Reyes 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've demonstrated here, I do not change stories or tell lies, so your accusation clearly IS a personal attack. What is also absurd here is that I, using my real name, and having published my home address, am arguing with some anonymous shadow called Nosmo Reyes who has provided no personal information about her/his qualifications to discuss these issues. Why not have the courage to put your real name behind your attacks? --John Brauns 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar, meaning of the name?
With regard to the meaning of "Balyogeshware", I thought that Bal=child yogesh= yogi and war means Lord, so this means child-Lord of the yogis. Andries 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Old structure?
What old structure? That structure has been superseded by the current one, by the addition of considerable new text and the contributions of various editors. --ZappaZ 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * no, we should use the old structure to make additions and modifications. New additions of text can be added in the old structure. I will help. Andries 07:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? You were the one that advocated for dismissal of the consensus, and opened the can of worms. Now you need to live by the consequences of your own actions. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 15:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I now reverted to the old structure including most additions made by various editors such as Jossi, me (Andries), you (Zappaz), RichardG, and Nosmo. I did however change or remove a few erroneous and biased comments by RichardG and Nosmo. Please stop reverting to the new structure and if you must revert then please do not hypocritically remove the additions that I made (which is exactly the same request as you made to me.) Andries 09:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please pinpont what are these biased and erroneous comments. If these are so, we need to NPOV them. As for the comment you wrote about the followers not having discussion forums, that is incorrect. I understand they have online something called Firstclass, that is a private forum. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 15:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One example of the erroneous edits by RichardG is that he wrote that the article by Introvigne supported the lack of crediblity of the allegations. You can find out the other biased or erroneous edits by RichardG and cosmo yourself by checking the history. Don't expect me to do all the work for you. I will re-write the "private forum" this to reflect this. But why did you revert to the new structure after I had dealt with your objection? Do you have any new reason to deal with this? Please take into account that the burden of proof that the new structure is better is on you because you had previously agreed with the old structure. Thanks. Andries 18:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Y'see Andries, the "Can of Worms" argument again. This is just a revenge thing. What kind of encyclopedia is this? At least a very funny one, with funny people. Some with a very much narcissistic attitude, but nevertheless completely meaningless. ;-) Thomas h 17:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with "revenge". Andries decided that the consensus was not so, and re-started the disputes. So, now we all have to live with it. In regard of your disparraging comments about Wikipedida, may I ask if that is what you think of Wikipedia, why are you spending time here? Let those that believe in collaborative editing and NPOV get on with it. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 17:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly zappaz, i am free to give my 5 cents either if i'd criticise wikipedia or not. Or is this a religion, already? I remember you, jumping on NPOV-criticism of Jim Heller, like if it was a golden cow. But no, Wikipedia could be a nice thing. The major problem to have this become something worthy are people like you Thomas h 18:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we please remove the term "ex-premie group" stated as fact from the article? They are not a group. They cannot answer any allegation officially because they are not a group. Only individuals can. Ex-premies have diverse viewpoints and they are certainly not an official group. Andries 18:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a problem. Premies and especially Zappaz want this to be a group. They were working hard to make it appear like that. So that anybody who dares to speak out, can get labeled as an ex-premie, put into category apostate, hate group, to create a pending threat for everyone who won't leave the cult silently Thomas h 18:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the internet forum of the current students of Rawat? Please show to me the forum. Andries 21:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you write that they have an "open" forum. Well, that is not true. It is a moderated (read censored) forum, so it is not open. Secondly, I know that the followers have a private forum called Firstclass. As for the term "group", it is the most appropriate term. What would you call these 20 people? A "network" has connotations of a large group, when in fact we are talking about a handful of people only. If they were not a group, they will not call themselves "ex-premies", they will not have a website called ex-premie.org and they will not have a moderated forum. It smells like a group to me. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:13, 4 September 2005

(UTC)
 * Everybody can read the forum and everybody can become a member so it is an open forum. Where is the first class forum? It must be tiny because the information there is confidential which cannot be the case if it were big. No, I do not think that a network has to be big. Please before using the word group, first prove that they are a group. Also, I am still waiting for your justification of the new structure of the article. Andries 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not an open Forum, Andries. A few months ago I personally read comments that were deleted immediately by moderators. It is a censored Forum, allowing only a certain type of conversations to take place, hence it is not "open". I do not know about were the Firstclass forum is, maybe someone can let us know. I only know that it is private and it has a few thousand registered users. The article structure does not need any "justification", beyond that we are using the same structure as on the Summary of the criticism on the main article. I think it is a much better article than before, in particular since the disclosure of the affidavit by John Mcgregor, the article needs to provide context about the people voicing the criticism, before the criticism is made. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Forums have to be moderated otherwise they are overpowered by nuts, porn spammers and other spammers and other people who make off-topic remarks. See e.g. what happened to usenet. This was also the case in unmoderated SSB forums. Andries 22:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really... there are plenty of Forums that are open. In any case, the ex-premie forum cannpt be called "open". Best you can say is "moderated". --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When you want to provide context in case of John Macgregor then we should first tell the whole story of his affidavit i.e. that he signed the affidavit after he 1. wrote a critical article about Rawat 2. was sued into bankruptcy by a student of Rawat for a minor offense an 3. had to flee his country. Andries 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit against Mcgregor, from the documentation available, is not related to any articles he wrote, but to misappropriating and publishing private information in collusion with another ex-premie. he had to flee because he committed perjury while giving testimony in the supreme court of Queensland. We can add the context, if you wish. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with not using a distinction of "group" is that this small group of people are attempting to put all ex-followers on their camp, when actually they are just a small group of vocal critics. So we cannot call them the "ex-premies" because there are probably many "ex-premies" that will not agree with what it seems the extremist activism of this group, as we have witnessed in this page already. --ZappaZ 22:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * let us call them critical former members, that sounds accurate and unbiased. Andries 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)\
 * What is the problem in calling them a group? They are. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * prove it first then we can write it. Andries 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And when you want to provide context then you should also start to tell that one of the persons (Gubler) who signed an affidavit now criticizes and ridicules this affidavit. The context you intend to give in the new organization of the article is highly misleading. Andries 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That happens all the time... People give an affidavit under oath, and then they think that writing a posting in a forum or in a web page that they did not mean it, keeps them off the hook. Well, that is understandable, but nevertheless irrelevant. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you say that that is irrelevant? Gubler stated that he signed the affidavit due to very personal coincidental circumstances and because he thought it to be so ridiculous and exaggerated that nobody would believe it. Andries 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you really believe that Gubler believed the affidavit that he signed then you are either ... removed personal attack ... Andries 22:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What, what what? Here you have two ex-premies that under oath express certain things in very unambigous terms. I do not give a hoot that you thing that these testimonies do not count. Listen Andries, you continue calling me ignorant and using personal attacks. I have had enough of it. Disscuss the article, please. I have a lot to say about what I think of your behavior in WP, but I keep this to myself. Enough already!!!! -ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 02:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write an e-mail to Tom Gubler and request him to comment on the this thread between us? He will likely agree with me. If not, I will take back and apologize for what I wrote. Andries 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And by the way, how dare you to accuse me of personal attacks after you insisted on restoring the vilest defamatory comments on talk:Sathya Sai Baba? I did not complain to you until now, but I consider your behavior extremely hypocritical. Andries 02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The comments against you in the Sai Baba article were not made by me, so don't complain. My opinion on that matter I keep to myself. You call me hypocrite, ignorant and stupid. Enough with your personal attacks! I ask you to stop it once more, and to apologize for these and previous comments. I have kept a log of these and will use them on a User-conduct RfC to complain if you do not desist. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 05:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did not call you a hypocrite and ignorant but I classified your editing behavior on some articles as hypocritical and ignorant. Andries 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I do not agree with consider the "context" that you intend to give in the new structure. It would be like starting the article on the DLM with all the scholarly critisms and allegations by ex-premies. I consider the new structure POV pushing and I will use all my rights to revert to the old structure that you and everybody involved had previously agreed with. Andries. 02:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I did not make the new structure. It was made y several editors during the last past weeks, since your dismissal of the agreed consensus. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 05:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * open means that anybody can participate, if he keeps the rules and that everybody can read it, in contrary to a closed private forum and you know that zappaz; same with the term "group",(smelling is not knowing, you make this encyclopedia smell with this attitude), you twist it because you want it that way. Obviously most of your work and that is easy to follow is based on that strategy. That is what i have saved and chronically sorted. Your tactics and your tricks. I am making it not easy for me with such allegations, so i have followed all your discussions with Antaeus etc.. First you try to butter them up, when that doesn't work,you know it........ You do the opposite of what you have stated on your Userpage, which in return one may consider as some kind of art. We'd better ask somebody like Gary_d who has had trust of both sides to settle this and who's advice was (to you personally as well), to edit in a way so that both sides can accept this.Thomas h 05:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

05:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your friend Andries did not want to preserve the consensus. So, if you have any kind of complaints, please make them to Andries, not to me. OK? And, please, note that I have not given you the authority or permission to make any comments about me. Who do you think you are? Want to discuss the article? Go ahead? But keep it there. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]]


 * Sorry i blundered with revert to the old structure. Nevertheless the present structure seems not to be acceptible Thomas h 05:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable to a number of editors that worked on it since Andries decided to dismiss the consensus that we all worked so hard to maintain. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 05:46, 5 September 2005

(UTC)
 * Make a few additions from scholarly articles is a completely different matter than changing the complete structure or endorsing such a change, such as you do. The latter is ten times worse. Andries 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To a number of editors that represent just one party, yes. So, even if Andries had made such a mistake in your eyes, that doesn't give you the right to punish the whole thing and declare war to the whole of the former concensus with your suddenly alarmed editors. So you are back into supporting and pushing one partie's view because of the crime of "wormopening"? I've read and remember gary_d's comments which i even consider sometimes as wise. This doesn't have any meaning to you now ,does it, though agreeing with it in front of gary when it was useful?Thomas h 05:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not punishing anyone. We had a quiet time for months and were happily editing other articles until Andries challenged the consensus. That break of the agreed consensus brought us to where we are now. I have not declared war on the consensus, Andries did! Where were you when I and other where defending the consensus on the Prem Rawat article? Or is it that consensus to be protected is dependent on which article we are addressing?  So, now we need to live with the consequences of these actions. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 06:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * i am not always around and have had a long pause in any cult and ex-cult interests. When i was more steadily looking at the articles, i protected them against vandalism like anybody else. The actions by Andries which may be questionable but which he was at least willing to discuss, resulted in numerous counter-edits by suddenly appearing editors not discussing this but acting just like, "ah now i change this and this, 'cause i don't like it".This was very strange indeed, though there must have been a voice that allowed them to do it.  It was you who fled to the argument that this is Andries fault and therefore you won't help stopping  this, as if this article belongs to you and andries.If there cannot be concensus then we are again in an edit war. This will be the consequences of taking  andries' actions as a reason to break everthing. This might be tactically interesting if you like to play chess but it is far from being wise.Therefore i again suggest to ask gary_d to do some supervising if he may find time. The way things are going now may be the wikipedia you are looking for, but nothing that i would recommend as a  dependable source  Thomas h 06:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gary_D seems to be gone, what a loss Thomas h 06:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah Andries, next we should do is an analysis of McGregor's affidavit. The way the terms were chosen ,are obviously fitting into the developed anti-anti-cult strategy and lead to a lot of questions. And at least concerning one of the self impeachments we have somebody else who took responsibility on that, which makes McGregor again an unreliable source at least it is in question, again. Not to think of the circumstances that are spread over the page, the red line is missing. Loosing in court, indepted to the end of his life, escape to Thailand, affidavit in Thailand with Rawat's Lawyers.Like Zappaz says, context is everything.Thomas h 12:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is undertandable that given the damning evidence of the mcregor affidavit, it has been challenged by the expremies group. I have read some of the comments and the scathing criticism by expremies agains their former champion. As you say, context is everything. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is polemic with no substance, but what can i expect from you? Deleting my edits. So we have an introduction that gives a couple of statements fron the cult but critics are not allowed?Sure you have a neutrality problem, that is why i have to set the NPOV flag. To the logical mistake that i have pointed out, that McGregor was exposed as an unreliable liar by the cult and should now be a believable wittness that gives an affidavit, you have nothing in return but empty, meaningless words.Thomas h 17:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I deleted your edit because is was editorializing. I added a sentence that address the fact that people like you believe these affidavits were filled under duress. Removed NPOV tag. If you see text that it is not properly attributed or not NPOV, please pinpoint it and fix it. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 19:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that i didn't expect it, like i said, i saw this behaviour with Antaeus and others, saw your way trough wikipedia crawling butts in admin elections and so on. So, you are not a surpise with this.Thomas h 17:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have read the attacks on John Macgregor after his public apology, but the reaction on the appearance of his affidavit was very different and mainly one of understanding for his personal situation. 19:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC) - Zappaz, can you please read the article well before editing it and especially before reverting my edits? Thanks. Andries 20:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) why use the disputed term group when there ia perfectly neutral accurate term available i.e "critical former members"?
 * 2) you do not have to state twice that van der Lans book was commissioned by a Netherlands bases Catholic center for mental health.
 * 3) Levine had 17 references but he did not specify which one he used for his statement. To write that he had no sources is both original research and jumping to conclusions

I am not reverting edits by Andries:
 * I am deleting text that is POV and that attempts to whitewash the impact of the recent affidavits. That is POV and editorializing
 * The discussion about Levine is somewhere in this talk page. I read the article and I agree with the assessment about sources.
 * The affidafits call these a group. They certainly act as a group, and then convene in internet forums. I do not see why not to call them a group.


 * So affidavits is what makes a definiton? You have a scholarly proof for that? Any professor who states. An "affidavit" ist the source of every definition of anything on this planet". Whitewashing? You seem to hang on to that thing as if you have a personal connection to this action. Is it your personal success that you have with all your constructions and helpers, placing "ex-premie" succesful in the hate group article, apostates III, CESNUR, Introvigne. How can anybody come and dare to lower this ridiculess statements that awfully smell of people like your kind. Thomas h 21:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

--ZappaZ 20:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Providing context for the affidavits is not whitewashing.
 * I disagree and you have no right to make very personal comments on the research by scholars.
 * I do not think they are a group and the affidavit called them "members of a loose connection of individuals who call themselves "Ex-premies" as former students of Prem Rawat"
 * Andries 20:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Attempting to dismiss the very daming affidavits is whitewashing with a capital W.
 * The affidavits clearly refer to them as the "ex-premie group".
 * --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The context is, we have a compelely bankrupted McGregor who fled to Thailand, who is at the end of his existence, financially indepted to Rawat because of losing in court. And we have an affidavit, that looks like walking through an agenda. So, if McGregor has written this all by himself because of a sudden insight, i find it doubtfull if he'd chosen these exact terms, and then why not go to some lawyer in Thailand ,but having Rawat's stuff flown into Chiangmai? This is simply to groce. And the preparation for such a coup lacks of quality. Thomas h 06:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * providing the context and background for the affidavits that you always insist is so important is not whitewhasing. When you wonder why I sometimes accuse you ... removed personal attack... then this is a good example.
 * But the problem is that the ex-premies believe that the affidavits are made under duress. What is wrong with the term "critical former members" instead of group?
 * Andries 20:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article already says that the ex-premies believe these were made under duress (even if the affidavit itself says the contrary). The ex-premies have no choice but find a way to dismiss these affidavits, as it challenges their position and supports many, if not all, the allegations, leveled at them by elanvital. That is the context. Any one with just a bit of common sense, will see through this. We just need to provide the facts and let these speak for themselves. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, why not provide the full context that you always insist is so important? Why delete crucial information, like the website made by Gubler about the affidavits? Andries 20:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and lack of civility
From No personal attacks:

'''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.'''

I am excerising my right to delete any personal attacks by Andries from this and other pages. Until Andries finds a way to control to deal with editors in a civil manner, I will ignore any and all his comments and will not respond to questions. --ZappaZ 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not make a personal attack on you. I only wrote that your editing behavior in this article and some other articles is sometimes hypocritical, probably because you are blinded by your POV. Andries 21:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignoring will not solve anything because it will not change my opinion about your behavior. Do you think that you can punish me when you ignore me? What possibly could change my opinion about your behavior is addressing my concerns about your behavior. Andries 21:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

From WP:civ

Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Whereas incivility is defined here as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia Community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles &mdash; the first being neutral point of view. The second is a demand for a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only term that can apply, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.


 * you know what I consider very incivile of you, that is the use of double standards when editing articles. Change that first and I will stop making disparaging comments about the quality of your edits. Andries 21:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries will need to stop making disparraging comments against me because to edit this encyclopedia requires 'civility. I have worked with many editors with which I have opposing POVs, but I have never, I mean never, had to deal with the animosity and lack of civility that Andries has demonstrated. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I started being very polite to you but gradually I noticed that I have never met an editor whose behavior is so full of double standards when editing some articles. And yes, I think and still think that this needs to be told to you. Andries 21:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no active discussion forum for current students of Rawat. Firstclass: is just a piece of software. See http://WWW.firstclass.com that Elan Vital uses for its local leaders. Andries 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries need to stand corrected and do some research beyond just asking the expremies. Firstclass is a groupware and collaboration software, used by thousands of subscribers, all volunteers, according to ElanVital. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * okay, but the software is used to convey information about Rawat's and Elan Vital's activities to local leaders. It is not a discussion forum. Andries 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

- With regards to the extensive attacks on the critics of Rawat they do not belong in this article because this article is called "Criticism of Prem Rawat", not "Criticism of Prem Rawat and his critics". So this article is only for criticisms of Rawat and the rebuttals of these criticisms. And if these attacks must be made on ex-premies then they should appear at the bottom of this article. After all most the criticism of in the article Prem Rawat appeared also on the bottom. It would be wrong if some editors used double standards in this respect. Andries 04:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries needs to re-read the main Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please try to give a serious reply and try to be more specific in your response? When discussion stops, revert wars will start. What part of the NPOV policy are you referring to and what does it have to do with the order and the contents of this article. Articles should not contain unrelated contents. Criticism of the actiivities of critics of Rawat, in contrast to rebuttals, is basically unrelated to the title "Criticism of Prem Rawat". Thanks. Andries 18:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Zappaz, I did not seriously break the consensus on this article. I only added some info scholarly articles. In contrast, you endorse a complete change of structure. It will be clear that I find your accusations in this respect unfair and unreasonable. Andries 04:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries was happy to support the break of consensus on other Prem Rawat articles, but wants to protect the consensus on this article. And then he accuses other editors of double-standards. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version of Prem Rawat is quite similar to that of the concensus version. The main additions are the Boeing episode and the summary of the criticisms of the scholarly criticisms after they had been expanded here. Your endorsement here of a totally different structure in this article is of a totally different magnitude of breaking the concensus. Andries 17:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

-
 * Andries, this development of Zappaz into more and more extreme double standard and double moral attitudes becomes more and more frightening. He is or wants to be unaible to see anything different than that what his very narrow world view allows. Like on forum8 where there were both, compassionate and angry voices concering McGregor, he is only able to see what fits into his agenda.  These behaviours can be traces of processes you can call pathological. I don't think there are any regulations in Wikipedia that deal with such matter. A person instrumentalizing this idea(Wikipedia) to lead his personal crusade against his declared enemies.Thomas h 05:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

'''AND WHY ZAPPAZ don't you answer this simple question? When John MCGREGOR was found guilty in lying in front of the court under oath, ELAN VITAL published this heavily on their Website, to show that this man is a liar, why do you think, should he be a person to be trusted now, when he gives another oath? Because it fits your agenda?Ridiculous.'''Thomas h 08:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop shouting (the highlight above, was copied from a Wikipedia policy article). Once you regain some level of civility I may be inclined to answr this question. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)