Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 14

Removed libelous statements
As per Wikipedia policies I have removed libelous statements. See WP:RS and WP:LIBEL ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted pending the outcome of the RFC on the main article. Jossi, they are listed as allegations and complaints by the critics and are not libel.  Please don't edit the article in such a major way until neutral parties have had time to help us resolve disputes.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the nature of these statements, I would argue that it is safter to delete these and only re-add them later once it is established that these are not defamatory. See WP:LIBEL. I kept the some of the material that is criticsm and not defamatory. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that these libelous statements have not been published by any reputable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pending the result of the rfc, I'll agree to let your last edit stand but only for now. I don't see any reason to get into a revert war. Sylviecyn 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am ready to edit this article to reflect the Wiki policy on the opinions of "insignificant minorities".Momento 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First, facts are facts, not "opinions", the truth is not a matter of opinion. Second, statements made by the "ex-premie" group clearly represent the majority view of Rawat. Comparing an underestimate of the number of known names of critics who have posted on the internet with a claimed number of active followers does not show anything. What about all those who no longer follow him? They "left" him for a reason. What about those who have had some exposure to him and dismissed him as shallow or a fraud and never followed him? They vastly outnumber his active followers.Inserted by 69.251.176.184


 * For your interest Jimbo Wales stated the Wiki policy as "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". The viewpoint of the "ex-premie" group represents .001% of people who practice the techniques of Knowledge and .0001% of people who have heard PR speak. As for the argument about those who no longer practice, you may as well say that since the number of people who have tried to give up smoking and failed is larger than the number who have tried and succeeded, indicates that most people prefer to smoke.Momento 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Object to blanket statements by Momento that ex-premies are insignificant minority. Your statistical study as described isn't scientific, nor valid. Besides, what Wales says doesn't necessarily make it official Wiki policy, or does it? Is Wikipedia a top to bottom hierarchy, and where is the consensus conversations that make the above policy? I will revert any mass deletions on this article and unjustified revisions based on the flawed statistical outcome by Momento and Jossi that calls ex-premies insignificant minority. Sylviecyn 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The figures on active followers comes from a reputable (Brigham Young University) third party source and is therefore valid as far is Wiki is concerned and the "ex-premie" sites provide there own evidence (and for Wiki purposed may not exist).

From the Official Wiki policy on original research - "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up". From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". If you don't want to abide by Wiki policy, you should not edit. The opinions expressed by the "ex-premie" group are nothing but orginal research. Please accept Wiki policy and do not try to edit any PR article's to insert the"ex-premie" POV.Momento 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please dial down your hostility towards me and please don't accuse me of not abiding by the Wikipedia policies. Please also don't place yourself in the position of deciding or judging whether or not I should or shouldn't be a Wiki editor, and please focus on the subject of this article, not me.


 * EPO is not original research, because the media has reported on ex-premies on many occasions, and ex-premies have an extremely high Google rankng. Your argument about the unsuitability of the media coverage was discussed by Pjacobi and he dismissed your complaints about it as invalid. I believe that's on the PR talk page. This article was created by Jossi that's titled "Criticism of Prem Rawat." This is an ancillary article.  Also, could you please provide exact quotes and numbers from the Brigham Young study.  There's no need to paraphrase, if the research can be directly quoted, and in this case, it's warranted.  Also, it's not libel if it's true.  Thank you.  Sylviecyn 10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since replying to your criticsm of me is seen as hostility, I will refrain from replying.Momento 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Material for articles need to be sourced from reliable sources. Large sections of the material is not. In addition, I do not see the need for describing legal battles, in particular as these have not been described by secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will trim that section considerably next week, unless reliable secondary sources are produced. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Article trimmed down to exclude all sources not considered reliable sources and all material that is based solely on primamry sources and not reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of defamatory statements and two proposed edits
1. I have removed statements attributed to Mishler regarding purported anxiety and use of alcohol. As previously discussed in the PR talk pages, Mishler had no medical qualifications and was not qualified to make any assessment or diagnosis regarding anxiety. The statements are defamatory and violate Wikipedia policy.

2. Comments from an article by psychologist, Jan van der Lans, about Prem Rawat's private live in the 1970s are based on no factual evidence, and are likely to be defamatory, thus violating Wikipedia policy. He claims that details of Mr Rawat's private life were "known only to a small circle of insiders." Van der Lans was not one of those insiders, and provides no citations to support his opinions. The Van der Lans paragraph should be removed.

3. The title of the article is Criticism of Prem Rawat. Quotes from Saul V. Levine's article, Life in Cults, refer to public perception of Divine Light Mission, not to Prem Rawat. Moreover, his article was inaccurate and hopelessly out of date at the time of publication. DLM ceased to exist 6 years before his article was published, and with the possible exception of DLM in Canada there was no "membership" as he claims. With the exception of those living in ashrams prior to 1983, people associated with DLM were not "expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco meat, and sex" as he claims. References to Levine and his article should therefore be removed. --Gstaker 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be no objections to the proposed edits. I have removed the Van der Lans and Levine paragraphs. --Gstaker 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored them, since it is your removal of cited information and not its presence which violates Wikipedia policy. You as a reader may decide that you don't believe X, or Y, or Z, to be qualified to make statements about your guru.  That's fine.  You as a reader may decide that you aren't going to believe anything said by X, or Y, or Z.  That's fine.  But that does not give you right nor reason to decide as an editor that that material will be wholly removed from the article, thus depriving other readers of the opportunity you had, to read both sides and make up their own mind.  You throw around the word "defamatory" quite casually but do not meet the burden of proof for that claim. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Antaeus. However, you are wrong on three points, moreover, you have made no attempt to address my reasons for removal of contentious material.

1. With regard to the issue of defamation, this web site is not a court room: I am not required to meet any "burden of proof" as you claim. However, I have provided ample justification for the removal of contentious claims that may be defamatory. "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The claim by Mishler is poorly sourced. Other reasons for removal are stated above. It is wise, I think, to keep in mind the following statement by the founder of this site. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

2. You claim that I am "depriving other readers of the opportunity you had, to read both sides and make up their own mind." The problem with this is that both sides are not presented in the article. Readers are not given the necessary background information and are, therefore, unable to make an informed decision. See my reasons for removal.

Regarding Van der Lans, your point about removal of cited material is moot because the article itself provides no citation or supporting evidence of any kind. Van der Lans' claims are malicious and are likely to be defamatory. For those reason the paragraph should be removed. Also, please refer to additional points above.

And as I have already stated above, the title of the article is Criticism of Prem Rawat. Quotes from Saul V. Levine's article, Life in Cults, refer to public perception of Divine Light Mission, not to Prem Rawat. Therefore, this material has no place in the article.

3. You do not know me. Do not make assumptions about me. You claim that I have a guru and imply that I am editing merely for the purpose of removing derogatory material about P R. You are wrong on both counts. I do not have a guru, and I have edited within Wikipedia's guidelines to remove contentious material that is probably defamatory and detracts from the quality of the article. --Gstaker 03:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for re-iterating your previously stated reasonings, Gstaker. However, I am afraid that you are still making the same basic errors -- if you are going to allege that cited information from a reliable source should be removed on the grounds that it is "defamatory", then yes, the burden of proof is on you to show that it meets that standard.  So far you have only presented reasonings why you choose to believe this information is not well-grounded, and frankly they aren't convincing.  For example, you try to assert that Van der Lans' assessment of Prem Rawat is unreliable because "the article itself provides no citation" -- and then you turn around and state as a fact that Van der Lans' claims are "malicious", an issue that you have not addressed previously and for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever.  Your other points, such as your idea that apparently this article would have to be titled "Criticism of Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission" in order to include any information about the organization which Prem Rawat has led since 1966, are similarly unconvincing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Divine Light Mission was disbanded 23 years ago as corroborated by sources (see Divine Light Mission). While I agree that these are possibly valid citations, the issue raised by Gstaker has some validity as it pertains to context. Van der Lans wrote that article by request of a religious organization, the KSGV, that according to their website "publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health, undertaking its activities from a Christian inspiration", and thus most probably biased against any type of non-Christian beliefs. Given that Van der Lans does not provide any sources for his own assertions, one may argue that his motives may have been dubious. Context is needed to provide the reader with the necessary information to put Van der Lans assertions in context to his possible bias. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I would definitely put that information in. That way, people have the opportunity to read both sides and say, "Gee, I think Van der Lans might have been biased by the fact that he was writing for a Christian religious organization, so I don't think I believe what he says" just as you and Gstaker have done.  Of course, they might also say "Van der Lans wrote what he wrote about Prem Rawat as one part of a larger book about followers of gurus, and out of all the gurus Van der Lans wrote about, Prem Rawat was apparently the only one he judged to be a charlatan," and that's as it should be -- we provide the evidence that explains for the reader why various parties believe as they do, and we let them decide which they believe.  As for the Divine Light Mission disbanding in 1983, well, I believe that is also an issue under some dispute, isn't it?  Whether the change from "Divine Light Mission" to "Elan Vital" was an actual change in substance or simply an attempt to change image?  Even if you believe it was the former, it's still the organization that Prem Rawat led for 17 years, and to artificially exclude any criticism of Prem Rawat based on how he led that organization for 17 years based on the fact that its name is not in the title is quite misguided. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody who writes about religion is devoid of bias, but Jan van der Lans was generally quite lenients about cults. In the cited book he wrote that he had to defend himself against attacks from people who thought that he defended the cults. It is untrue that the cited book makes unfair or ignorant criticism of non-Christian religion. If this were the case then I would never have used the book as a source, because I personally dislike the sometimes willingly ignorant criticism by Christians of non-Abrahamic religions. Van der Lans does not provide sources for his assertion, but when reading the news articles then from the 1970s and 1980s that are available on the internet then I think he has very good reason to come to this conclusion. Another article about the DLM by van der Lans and Derks can be found here  Andries 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are substantial scholarly sources that describe the disbanding of DLM and the removal of the Indian culture trappings. It was a substantial change as described by all these sources (I do not thinbk that there is a source that describe the disbanding in any other manner). The name change was a formality, but the ashrams, the bureaucracy in Denver and most, if not all organizational trappings were disbanded. So, yes, it may be appropriate to describe criticism of the DLM in the correct context, and avoid making extrapolations to today. AS for your assertions about van der Lans book, I did not know that you read Dutch and that you have read the whole book. Have you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I do not read Dutch and I have not read the book. However, I don't have any reason to doubt the word of those who do speak Dutch and have read the book and describe its contents as such.  Do you have such reason -- something more substantial than a "tone of voice," which leads you to speculate in the absence of any evidence that an article you have seen at best only small pieces of originally appeared in a gossip column? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may not have any reason to doubt, but one can have suspicions based on previous incidents in the past in which such editor selectively omitted portion of a source on the basis that he considered it not accurate, while citing other portions that were more aligned with his POV. So, yes, I have my doubts. As for my gut feeling about Chip's article, it does not take a rocket scientist to gather from the tone of the article that it may be have appeared in the gossip column. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How many gossip columns does the Washington Post actually run, Jossi? How many of those gossip columns appear on page A1?  I highly suspect that you are not talking about the same article as the rest of us -- if you are, I suggest you not make any high-money decisions based on what you can glean from "tone of voice". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was not on the gossip column, it very much reads as one. I will get a print copy of that day's newspaper and check it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same two questions again: how many gossip columns does the Washington Post have in the first place?  and how many of those gossip columns do the editors place on the front page of the paper?  A third question:  once you have done your redundant check, will you spend anywhere near as many words acknowledging that you were in error as you did promoting your erroneous speculation? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problems acknowledging my mistake, Antaeus. The article's tone was indeed of a tabloid, but that may be related to the context of the time in which the article was published. The Washington Post is quite biased as it related to the coverage of the so called "New Religious Movements", if one is to judge from the variety of articles they have published on the subject over the years. Of course, that is only my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear, Jossi: what, exactly, was supposed to matter about the tone of the article?  I thought we were talking about some rather simple matters of objective fact:  did a particular radio interview occur and did a particular figure make particular statements in that interview?  I don't see any plausible way in which a subjective measure such as "tone of voice" could materially affect the objective fact that yes, we do have a major metropolitan newspaper's front-page reportage stating that that interview occurred and the statements in question were made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, you have correctly shown that I cannot prove that Van der Lans' accusation is malicious. That is merely my opinion. I object to the inclusion of VdL's material because it is seriously flawed, and therefore, not reliable, and also because it includes an unsupported accusation (about a living person) which is probably defamatory. You have stated that my reasoning is unconvincing. I will now attempt to explain my reasons in a more clear and succinct way.

1. VdL claims that details of Mr Rawat's private life were "known only to a small circle of insiders." He was not one of those insiders, therefore, he has no first hand knowledge of the subject. 2. VdL does not cite his source. 3. VdL does not provide any evidence to support his allegation. 4. VdL's unsupported allegation may be defamatory.

Also as Jossi has stated, VdL published his unsupported accusation in a publication likely to be biased against PR. For all of these reasons, VdL is an unreliable source.

Of course, we could include VdL, and the above objections because readers should be able to draw their own conclusions. On the same grounds, you could also sprinkle an article on Jewish culture with anti-semitic material written between 1933 and 1945 by apparently reliable German sources. Would you really want to do that? My point is, VdL is NOT a reliable source, moreover, his accusation may be defamatory.

Only a court of law has the power to determine whether or not accusations by VdL and Mishler are defamatory. Both accusations refer to PR's private life, and both are highly critical. They are exactly the type of accusations that could result in a law suit for defamation. Does Wikipedia want to run that risk?

No Antaeus, re-titling the article was not my idea. You suggested it, I didn't. As it is, the title of the article is Criticism of PR. Levine's article does not include any criticism of PR, therefore, it has no place in the article. I do not understand why you are seemingly unable to accept the validity of the points I have raised. --Gstaker 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, reason to be afraid of a lawsuit, because it is based on reliable sources. Andries 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago there was a long discussion about the validity of quoting information that came from the alleged Mishler interview. It became clear that no recording of the interview existed. The so-called transcript of the interview was probably a fake. I have made this clear in section 4. --Errol V 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, because the interview was described in the Washington Post. Andries 13:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The apparently fictitious interview was described in the Washington Post which, like any other tabloid, is a potentially unreliable source. Check out the verifiability page. You will see that I am correct. Andries, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. We seem to be making progress. --Gstaker 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gstaker, describing the Washington Post as a tabloid will not enhance your credibility here. In contrast, I have some understanding for your erroneous criticism of Jan van der Lans' book, because you do not have enough background information to assess this source. Andries 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of answer is that, Andries? If you believe that Gstalker does not have enough information to assess the source, you could at least provide that information. As for your other comment about "enhancing credibility", why saying that? Please don't bite the newbies, and stop making flippant comments about other editors comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think that my wording was polite and and I did give more information about van der Lans' book. Andries 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think that you are making flippant comments, not me. Andries 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Well, that say something. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Washington Post, its realizability depends on what portion of the newspaper this was published. That applies to many newspapers, for example on-eds and gossip columns on reputable newspapers are not reliable sources. We wwill need to check who this Chip Brown is and in what part of the WP this was published. Form the tone of voice of that article I will not be surprised if it printed in the gossip column. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will get a copy of Van der Lans and get portions of it translated to check the accuracy of the statements added to this article. I really hope that the provided quote is not a selective one, and the other statements maded about the book to be accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant portion is on page 117 in the book by van der Lans. This comment by Van der Lans is quoted (with a minor misquotation) in the book by Kranenborg. Andries 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kranenborg (1982) misquoted van der Lans by writing that "GMJ is the example of a guru who has become a charlatan", while Van der Lans wrote "GMJ is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan."
 * Andries 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as discussed last year, this is a typical case of circular referencing: Van der Lans makes a spurious statement, citing no sources, and then another Dutch scholar cites him. And then it goes further, a third Dutch scholar, Schnabel, cites them in turn. Oh well... poor scholarship, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, let me return to the interview. There has been no confirmation of the what was said in the interview, and we had this argument in about February this year. It was long and interesting, but what came out of it was that there was no evidence that certain statements were made in the interview. So it is not a legitimate source. So I have reverted, and will continue to do so until such time as the interview can be produced. --Errol V 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for returning to the interview. As previously discussed, the source we are using here is a front-page article in the Washington Post which asserted that the interview occurred and asserted that Mishler made particular statements in that interview.  Your personal speculations that perhaps no such interview ever happened are original research and irrelevant.  Please do not announce your intent to violate Wikipedia policy by continuing to insert that original research into the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Errol, the difference is that during that discussion then I did not know that the interview was also described in the Washington Post. Andries 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

HOW RELIABLE IS THE WASHINGTON POST?

The question of whether or not to include Mishler's allegations hinges, in part, on whether or not Washington Post can be regarded as a reliable source. It took me very little research to uncover substantial evidence that it is not.

Glenn Greenwald describes himself as a "litigator specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters." He is the author of the book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, May 2006

Following the release of his book, he published on the internet a related article, The completely unreliable Washington Post (June 11, 2006) in which he writes:

"I first read the Post article about this proposed legislation, but then found the legislation itself and read it. It was very clear that the Post was simply wrong in what it told its readers on its front page about this significant legislation -- wrong about the legislation's fundamentals.

At least with regard to FISA and NSA matters, I would never rely again exclusively on a Washington Post article." The Post later published a correction to its front page article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601861.html

A journal article by Pierre Verdaguer A Turn-of-the-Century Honeymoon? the Washington Post's Coverage of France (French Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 21, 2003) refers to "A surprising number of anti-French articles, some of them very disparaging and truly offensive ...." published in the Post and other US tabloids.

The Washington Post has published articles that are both wrong and offensive. It is, therefore, not a reliable source. Moreover, the authenticity of that particular Mishler interview is in doubt (see above). I also note that there appears to be, currently, a majority view that the material should be deleted. In keeping with Wikipedia policy I have again removed the potentially defamatory material attributed to Mishler. --Gstaker 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gstalker, I have restored what you deleted. I appreciate your concern for that material but it needs to be discussed as it may be properly sourced. A newspaper article is considered in most cases, to be a reliable source for claims, depending on several factors. I am checking the source because I have the suspicion that it was not on the front page of the newspaper as stated on the Washington Post website, due to the fact that Chip Brown, the author of the article mostly wrote for the "Style" and "Metro" sections of the newspaper. Although these are not "gossip" columns, they surely more op-eds that anything else. Most probably was on the front page of the "Style" section, but I would be able to verify this once I get a copy of that issue, which I have ordered. In the meantime, I ask other editors to err on the side of caution and remove the material until the source can be verified. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would call removing material because of unverified speculation that it might have been in a location in the newspaper which might signify that it might be less reliable, in the face of the paper's archives clearly stating otherwise and with not one single piece of evidence produced to support any of this speculation, something other than "erring on the side of caution". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm aside, I see your point. This material has been there for a while, so it could stay for now. Nevertheless, the reader is not being provided with the necessary context, such as that Mishler was fired as the result of a massive dispute, and that he made the statements a few years after being fired. The reader need to be given context to appreciate that this person may have had a massive ax to grind. So, we need to find sources that position this person's comments, don't you think?. Also note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies, btw).  I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists. So, context is needed, and we need to endeavor ourselves in finding solid sources that provide that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no sarcasm in my post, Jossi. On one side is all the evidence; on the other side is speculation that defies the evidence, such as your speculation that the paper's archives are mistaken when they identify it twice as a story that ran on the front page of the paper.  Asking other editors to remove material based purely on speculations which are contrary to all existing evidence is not "erring on the side of caution". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. No problem, Jossi. "A newspaper article is considered in most cases, to be a reliable source for claims, depending on several factors." I've looked at Wiki's guidelines on this, but will go back and do a very thorough check.

Verifiable facts are generally (but not always) reported accurately by most tabloids. Anything else, editorial opinion for example, is open to doubt. IMO, Disparaging, unverifiable claims, especially those from a hostile source have no place in a reputable work that calls itself an encyclopedia. News sources almost always couch allegations in terms that are non-defamatory. Its a way of passing the buck to avoid litigation. Is the same standard acceptable here? If it is, the standard should be reassessed.

Some time soon I would like to have a closer look at the Levine stuff about DLM. --Gstaker 08:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gstaker, I really don't know where you got your idea that the Washington Post is a tabloid. The term "tabloid" has a literal meaning and a figurative meaning; it does not fit the literal meaning and the figurative meaning means nothing, since it is a term that anyone can apply to any newspaper that they wish was not a reliable source.  Now, if you want, you can go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and suggest that the Washington Post be declared as an example of an unreliable source.  However, I would not advise you to get your hopes up; I think the response you're more likely to get is that Wikipedia would be making great strides forward if it could bring the average quality of its sources up to the reliability of the Post. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As we have recently seen with the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times, even great newspapers must be treated with caution, particulalry when they, or their reporter, are the only source of the material in question. In the case of Chip Brown's article in the Washington Post, his unique reports of the opinions of Bob Mishler, are "exceptional" and "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources". The claims made by Mishler, that PR engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", and that PR ""had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" are exceptional claims that are not supported by multiple, reliable and verifiable sources as required in all articles, and more specifically in biographies of living people.Momento 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're trying to switch premises in the middle. The claims of the front-page Washington Post article are not exceptional in the least; Jossi has inadvertantly supported them by describing Mishler as a person who would say such  things as he has been credited with saying, which was the point that had been, supposedly, in some sort of doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In comparison to every thing else written about PR, Chip Brown's claims of PR "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools" are exceptional. And to my knowledge, these claims are unique to Brown. As such they are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" and according to Wiki policy, "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues". Chip Brown's "unique" effort needs far more corroboration before it can be used in this article.Momento 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read more carefully, because those are not Brown's claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is Brown claiming Mishler claimed. But either way, Mishler's claims or Brown's claim that Mishler claimed, are both exceptional claims that should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable source. They are not.Momento 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is partially irrelevant because the claims by Mishler and Hand documented by Brown in the Washington Post, such as Prem Rawat "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies [...]" etc. that Momento labels exceptional are not in current version of the article. I cannot see why the statement that Prem Rawat had tremendous problems of anxiety that he combatted with alcohol is an exceptional claim. Yes, of course, if you really think that Prem Rawat is a Perfect Master bringing peace then this may sound as an exceptional claim. But I do not think that this or any other Wikipedia articles are based on the assumption that a statement contradicting a religious tenet is an exceptional claim merely because of this contradiction. Andries 12:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the book by Sophia Collier Soul Rush described that Prem Rawat were drinking during Millenium '73. I will try to edit in to deal with your request for multiple reliable references for a claim that you mistakenly label as exceptional. Andries 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't said Mishler's statement "that Prem Rawat had tremendous problems of anxiety that he combatted with alcohol" is an exceptional claim. I, and others, have said that Mishler isn't a doctor and therefore his comments, made after he was replaced, need to be treated accord to Wiki policy on biographies of living people. As for PR drinking, any research into Prem Rawat's view on Perfect Masters will soon determine that a Perfect Master can do what he likes. Momento 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit in Prem Rawat's view on the behavior of a Perfect Masters which strikes me as contradictory with Prem Rawat's source of authority that is partially based on a traditional guru lineage. Andries 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree the PR is not a "traditional guru". And incorrectly judging him as one will produce hundreds of "contradictions".Momento 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Prem Rawat
This article has been trimmed down by Jossi (thanks for doing this) and I think that it is now so small in size that it should be merged with the Prem Rawat article. This was also an advice given during the latest peer review. This article is also listed on List of POV forks. Andries 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Even with the trim, the main article is already too large. This is not a POV fork as we have an accurate summary of this article in the main article, as per Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, List of POV forks is not any type of "official" list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I knew all this, but still I think that "criticism of ..." articles should be merged whenever reasonably possible. I do understand that this is not practically possible for large articles or potentially large articles, such as criticism of Islam, criticism of religion, criticism of Christianity but in this case I do think that it is very well possible and hence should be done. Andries 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andries. I will take some time to think about it and wait to see what others think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the Prem Rawat article is already longer than recommended, I would resist any temptation to add to it.Momento 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Merging the two articles would produce a bloated, structually poor article. --Gstaker 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES and RELIABILITY Antaeus Feldspar claims above "that Wikipedia would be making great strides forward if it could bring the average quality of its sources up to the reliability of the (Washington) Post." That amounts to a damning condemnation of Wikipedia's reliability. The Post was labeled an unreliable source by author, Glenn Greenwald, and was subsequently forced to publish a correction to a front page article in June this year. It has also published "A surprising number of anti-French articles, some of them very disparaging and truly offensive..." I am not "wishing" that the Post was an unreliable source, as Antaeus suggests above. IT IS UNRELIABLE. Antaeus Feldspar is seemingly unable to accept the fact that even the best newspapers can be unreliable (i.e., wrong, disparaging and offensive).

Antaeus, you happily imply that Wiki's standards are significantly lower than the above and that we should be happy to accept such low standards. That might suit you, but it does not suit me.

Where to we go from here? Four editors have given Antaeus Feldspar sound reasons for the deletion of Mishler's unqualified, unsupported claim that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol." In Anteaus' apparent determination to perpetuate Wikipedia's low standard of credibility, he or she has persistently interpreted (twisted would be more accurate) rules to support their position. This is unacceptable.

When can we expect to see Mishler's unqualified, unsupported claim removed from this article? --Gstaker 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mishler's unqualified diagnosis is suspect for two reasons. One, many teenagers, particularly male, adverturous and unsupervised ones, drink alchohol as a part of their growing up process. It is a phase they go through. And two, MIshler only made this claim after PR had replaced him.Momento 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having given a lot of thought to Mishler's claims, I believe they should be removed. Firstly he made the comments after being replaced, the comments are 30 years old, his allegations that PR could be a Jim Jones have been demonstrated to be unfounded and Melton concludes that Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission. In short, Mishler's clearly biased allegations do not deserve a place in an encyclopedia.Momento 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will revert. You do not have to be a doctor to see that somebody is suffering from anxiety and drinking too much and in addtion this is not even discussed at WP:BLP. It is suffices that this is reported in reputable sources. So what if it is part of growing up? The Washington Post thought it was notable because they considered it ironic and contradictory that a Perfect Master who claime to be a teacher of peace needed alcohol to alleviate his own anxiety. Andries 23:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar


 * I left a message here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Andries 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that "The Washington Post thought it was notable because they considered it ironic and contradictory that a Perfect Master who claime to be a teacher of peace needed alcohol to alleviate his own anxiety", is speculation. They make it clear that they are simply repeating what Mishler had said in a radio interview. History has proven that Mishler was making unfounded allegations and therefore his credibility is compromised and his allegations must be treated with great caution. Since they can be seen a defamatory they should be removed.Momento 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, what I wrote about the Washington Post is not speculation, but is indicated by the wording in the article. Yes, Mishler was a bit too worried about Jonestown and too much generalizing from this tragedy, like millions of other Americans at that time. His allegations about heavy drinking to alleviate anxiety are however not speculation, but personal observeration. Andries 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Washington Post writes that "John Brown says the world is flat", you cannot claim that a reputable newspaper says that "the world is flat". Bob Mishler, and only Mishler, is the source of the allegation and he is not a reliable source and should not be used- a) because of his obvious bias, b) because his other comments were proven to be unfounded, c) because the allegations are 30 years old and d) what he says is defamatory. All these factors combined contravene the requirement that Wiki Biographies of living people should be written responsibly and conservatively,Momento 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ad a) His bias is not obvious for me. He may have had good reason for his criticsm
 * ad b) Again, the similarities with Jonestown were widely shared then and part of the mentality then (Zeitgeist) . Melton did not write that Mishler was wrong with regards to siphoning funds for personal gains. Van der Lans wrote that part of the practices of the DLM was that premies gave envelopes with money to Rawat.
 * ad c) so what?
 * ad d) Not defamatory because we are only reporting what a reputable source says.
 * Andries 02:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a request for comments here  Andries 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to your example, "The world is flat", I would like to comment that the reliability of sources depends on the context. If the statement that the "the world is flat" would appear in a recent peer reviewed mainstream scientific article then it could probably be included in the article earth. Clearly a mentioning by a single journalist that the "world is flat" even if it is in a reputable mainstream newspaper would not be sufficient to mention it the article earth. Andries 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly Andries! Only Mishler has made the claim and only one journalist has repeated it. And since it is a negative comment from someone who also claimed PR might instruct his followers to commit mass suicide, it must be considered unacceptably biased for use in this article.Momento 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is why an extraordinary claim such as the one portrayed in that newspaper article, may not be sufficient to mention in this article, as it was mentioned by a single journalist and as never appeared on peer reviewed scholarly article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, why is it an exceptional claim that someone alleviated anxiety with alcohol? I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that biographies of living persons can only be sourced with peer reviewed articles. In contrast to what you state there is corroboration of the heavy drinking, both in a reputable source (Sophia Collier's Soul Rush book) and non-reputable soures. Andries 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not repeat my arguments here. I have responded to you in detail at BLP noticeboard. Let's wait to see in any editor monitoring the BLP noticeboard makes any comments that may help us with this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post may generally be a reputable source but Mishler's claim is exceptional ie unusual and needs verification.RevertedMomento 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, alleviating anxiety with alcohol is not an exceptional claim as you yourself wrote. Andries 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exceptional means "unusual; not typical". Mishler's claims are exceptional because he is the only person to make them about PR. His claims are unusual and not typical of all the information available about PR. And therefore they should be treated with caution. The fact the Mishler was clearly anti PR and the claim negative or defamatory means that they have no place in Wikipedia.Momento 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if Mishler were the only one to make these claims (which I deny because Dettmers made them too) then we could still report them because they are reported in a reputable source. Andries 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Elan Vital not a reputable source
I have removed the reference to the response on Elan Vital's website to the allegations on the ex-premie websites for the following reasons:-


 * 1. Elan Vital is not a reputable source for this article (or any other article except that for Elan Vital itself).
 * 2. The article linked is provably false and libellous. John Brauns 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can move that text to Elan Vital (organization), rather than deleting, and note that there is no mention of any "ex-premie websites" in that link. The fact that it lists your name may be uncomfortable to you, and that is understandable that you may want to have it deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, clearly I have no interest in adding the text to any other article, and I would argue it is not sufficiently relevant to the purpose of Elan Vital to make it worthy of inclusion in that article. And of course my motivation is that the article is filled with lies about myself and ex-premies generally, but that doesn't alter the justification for removal of the reference from this article.  By the way, if you have any influence over the content of Elan Vital's website, any chance that we could work together to correct the lies?  Oh, and Merry Christmas!  :-) --John Brauns 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverting each other repeatedly never works, as you can see... Happy Hannukkah to you as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, do you think Elan Vital is a reputable source, and if so could you explain why? If not, then I know you would agree that the reference should be removed.  I know you would not want to tarnish your status as a Wiki Admin by not being objective in this discussion.--John Brauns 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely John Macgegor's affadavit is a reputable source.Momento 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not need any help regarding my "status as a Wiki Admin", thank you for the offer, though. As expressed above, the source can be used in the Elan Vital article. You can show some good faith, by moving the text there rather than just deleting it. Otherwise it seems as an attempt by a person named in that site to delete material that relates to that person, and that may be construed as inappropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I am confused here. The issue is whether the Elan Vital reference is appropriate for this article.  The answer is simple - yes or no.  Saying that the reference should be somewhere in Wiki and if not here then elsewhere seems to be strange behaviour for an admin.  So, please, tell me, should the reference be included in this article, and if so, why?  To Momento, we are not talking about Macgregor's affidavit, which I believe is not referenced in this article.--John Brauns 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You should not be confused, unless you chose to, John. All I said is that rather than just deleting that text from the article, that you consider moving it to a more appropriate location, and that given that your name is mentioned in that web page, not doing so (moving it to another location), may be seen as an inappropriate action. As it seems from your comment that you are very proficient with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and etiquette, I am sure you would agree with me that it would be best that you move that material rather than deleting it, or alternatively, avoid deleting it all together (you may ask another editor to do that instead.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, please stop avoiding the issue and answer the question - is Elan Vital a reputable source for this article - yes or no. Thank you.  --John Brauns 08:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that members of the ex-premie group [refactored] broke the law is an important part of anti-PR criticism article. Many people have extreme views but to condone and support breaking the law is noteworthy.Momento 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, please withdraw this false and libellous statement and apologise, or I will take action to get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have broken no laws in my criticism of Prem Rawat.  --John Brauns 08:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not say you have broken laws. Please don't blame your negative uderstanding on me.Momento 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You clearly wrote that I am a member of a group that has broken laws. Please withdraw and apologise. --John Brauns 15:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read it again John.Momento 22:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your friend Jossi has "refactored" my words, so let me repeat what I said John. And that was "members" of a group to which you belong "broke the law". I did not say you or the group to which you belong broke the law as you incorrectly claim. Perhaps you made a Fruedian slip?Momento 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody that I can be legitimately associated with has broken any laws to the best of my knowledge in their criticism of Prem Rawat. I have no idea what 'refactored' means in this context, but the meaning is still there even after your 'friend' Jossi's change, and I am surprised that he has put his own name behind the accusation in this way.  I DO NOT support or condone breaking the law so could you please withdraw your accusation and apologise.  (Jossi, you might consider doing the same after your bizarre edit.)  --John Brauns 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see that many people consider me to be friends of others... My refactoring (deletion) was done to avoid escalation (that seldom accomplishes anything). As I said before, you may have brought this to yourself, John. I advised you to avoid deleting content that relates to you directly, and instead, ask another editor to consider doing that for you. This conversation could be avoided very quickly, if the content deleted is moved to the appropriate article. We can then resume enjoying the holiday season. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Jossi, I acknowldge your attempt to avoid escalation, but wouldn't a simple rebuke for Momento be better than trying to whitewash his libellous statement? Regarding the disputed reference, the issue could be resolved very quickly if you could be so kind as to answer my question - Is Elan Vital a reputable source for this article?  It would be silly to have to drag you through RFC and further Wiki resolution procedures just because you refused to answer a simple question.--John Brauns 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did not members of the ex-premie group condone and support John Macgregor's illegal use of stolen documents? And didn't you allow them to be published on a site that you control?Momento 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, firstly, no documents were stolen, and no law enforcement body has claimed that documents were stolen. A civil court in Australia decided that John Macgregor did not have the right to keep copies of some documents.  John Macgregor was then determined to have broken the law by being in contempt of court.  Possession and publication of the documents by any other persons has not, to my knowledge, been declared to be illegal by any court in any country.  I have exchanged some emails with Macgregor, as I have with many people, but I am not, and never have been, a member of any group called 'the ex-premie group'.  My support of various internet sites is entirely as an individual who believes that people will benefit by the existence of these sites.  So, Momento, could you please withdraw your allegation, and not rely on Jossi to edit your more extreme comments here.--John Brauns 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The supreme rebuttal of John Brauns revisionism is that of Justice Muir of the Supreme Court of Queensland, who found that "John Macgregor has unlawfully used property of the applicants.....(being confidential computer files copied and distributed without permission and) I order the destruction of the subject materials on (Macgregors) hard drive". And John Brauns is listed as webmaster of Ex-premie.org. The allegations don't just stand John, they are proven.Momento 02:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, if I described Jossi as a member of a group that hit a reporter on the head with a hammer almost killing him, would that be fair to Jossi? I am not a member of any group, and I have not broken any laws in my criticism of Prem Rawat. --John Brauns 10:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

May I remind editors not to transform this page into a discussion forum? As for your question above user:John Brauns, I have already replied to you quite eloquently before at least twice. In case you have missed it,mhere is its again: As a person that is mentioned in a web page that you want removed, it would be best if you ask someone else to remove it than doing that yourself, and as said before, the text can be moved to an appropriate article, if suitable for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, sure you have suggested one course of action regarding that reference, which could be applied if Elan Vital were a reputable source, but it is clear to any independent observer that you have not answered my question 'Is Elan Vital a reputable source for this article?'. My question is valid regardless of whether I am mentioned in the article.  I don't understand why you don't answer it - there have been long discussions about whether the Washington Post is a reputable source, why are you unable to give your opinion regarding Elan Vital?--John Brauns 08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by anticult activists
These websites have disclaimers that states that they list groups in their sites without asserting any specific viewpoints about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I have changed this from "criticism" to "listings".   Hey, I thought you wrote a disclaimer that you try not to edit Prem Rawat articles anymore, due to a conflict of interest??? Did I read that incorrectly somewhere on one of your user pages???  And what was the conflict of interest exactly?  Just curious.  Smeelgova 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * My disclaimer was very clear. I will not edit these articles unless necessary, and if I do, I will do so within the established content policies. If any of my edits do not stand the scrutinity of other editors, these edits should be reverted. My disclaimer is here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see.  You "may" reduce your involvement.  Nothing specifically stated though.  Interesting.  And what about As I have accepted a position in a related organization - what is that specifically, and what does it entail, if I may ask?  Is the nature of your position public knowledge?  What is the related organization?  Smeelgova 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I think that you are crossing a line you should not with these questions, Smeelgova. You should send me an email if you wish to ask these type of questions. And I would say, without intention to offend, that I find it peculiar your sudden involvement in this article, while we are engaged in disputes in other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey, hey, I was just asking. Soreeeeeeeeeey.  And I find it very peculiar your interest in which types of articles I can and cannot edit.  That is not your decision to make.  Smeelgova 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Sure it is not my decision to make, how can I? If you enable your email in your preferences, I could explain privately my point without causing any embarrassment to you or to myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Smeelgova's unilateral editing and repeated insertion of incorrect material in this article is designed to disrupt and intimidate. I have reverted.Momento 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the move to a different article name. This was not discussed at all. Undoing that move requires admin privileges. Unless there are objections to undoing the move, I will proceed to restore the previous article title in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article violates Wiki policy on NPOV. Setting up an article with the expresss purpose of supplying only criticism without balance is an abuse of Wikipedia. How did it get here?Momento 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Among others by your lack of support to merge this article. Andries 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article name change is appropriate. Already within the article itself were highly sourced and reputable citations regarding not just Prem Rawat, but the organizations/groups he has been involved with.  We do not need to just relegate this article to criticism about the man, as his past and present organizations are an integral part of the history of the individual.  Smeelgova 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Maybe. But it would have been better, out of courtesy of editors here, to ask if there is consensus for such a move. Ther are articles about the Divine Light Mission, where specific criticism of these organizations could be placed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It seemed like a relatively simple step, as there was already criticism present from scholarly sources and reputable sources of both the individual and the various organizations and manifestations.  WP:BOLD.  At any rate, the title does seem most appropriate.  We can keep the "related organizations" to a very tight interpretation of only those from Prem_Rawat.  Smeelgova 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I do not think it is a "simple step", as undoing an article move is not a trivial task. An article that has been titled for a few years in a particular manner, should not be moved without discussion. Note that undoing a move is not a task that can be easily done by any editor (only admins can undo them), and it is unfair to other editors to undertake such a move without discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did not realize that it was not a simple step. Nontheless, I was "being bold" with that move, and like I said, I did see that several of the scholarly and well-sourced pieces of criticism were referring to "related organizations" and/or in direct discussion of Prem Rawat as well.  I just though that I would call a spade a spade, to use a term you have used before.  (and I mean that honestly.)  But if this move engenders a lively debate/discussion (among other editors, not just myself)  as to the proper name of this article, then that is a good thing.  Smeelgova 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Please note that has violated the three revert rule
Momento, Please note that you have broken the three revert rule on Criticism of Prem Rawat. I will report you if you revert one more time. You may be blocked from editing all of Wikipedia as a consequence. Andries 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, could you please point out my three reverts?Momento 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An editor that that has reverted this article 10 times already, Andries, needs to re-read WP:3RR, that says:
 * The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence". Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context. Furthermore, making reversions just outside of the twenty four hour "deadline" may still result in a block; Wikipedians take a dim view of people attempting to wikilawyer or game the system.
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I sought dispute resolution. What more can I do? I think that Momento is ganming the system because he chose to disregard the comments of the only non-involved editor who bothered to comment. Andries 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said to you and to Momento, reverting each other leads nowhere (besides earning a block). The comment by that editors was misled, which I clarified. He has not responded since. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I sought dispute resolution. You should follow the advice of non-involved editors in dispute resolution and you should not dismiss them as misled when they do not agree with you. Andries 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not dismiss his comments, Andries. His response was about the reliability of the Washington Post, which is not what is disputed. I responded to his comment explaining this and he did not respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, please show me the three reverts I made.Momento 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, please note that as explaied to Andries above, reverting multiple times is not an option worth pursuing, even if not breaking 3RR. It does not work, it always fails, and does not get us anywhere ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall I then file a request for mediation? Nobody comment on my RFC. Only on the BLP noticeboard. Andries 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not an RfC. You can file an RfC at WP:RFC if you wish, but please frame the dispute properly. Along the lines of "An editor wants to include selective comments from a person that were published in a Washington Post article. Other editors do not accept that addition, as when taken these comments as a whole rather than selectively, these editors claim that these comments violates WP:BLP, on the basis of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, in particular when these comments are defamatory in nature." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I filed an RFC in addition to the BLP noticeboard notice. Andries 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in the past? If so, you may want to file a new one, now that the disputed is better framed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not want to insert selective quotes. I repeatedly offered to quote everything. Andries 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the dispute Andries. Read the framing of the dispute above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, please show me the three reverts I madeMomento 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done Smeelgova. I enjoyed that subtle edit.Momento 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nice to know it was appreciated.  Smeelgova 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism of Prem Rawat and related organizations

 * I think that this article should be moved to "Criticism of Prem Rawat and related organizations". The man is one issue, certainly, however many of the scholars/media/etc. have criticized the individual and/or related organizations, often with a stroke of the same brush.  This information, if highly sourced from reputable citations, should be placed here, and clarification should be given within the article's title itself.  What do others think?  I am particularly interested to know the opinions of others who may not necessarily have been either active in editing these related articles, and/or have not been invested POV within the articles' topics.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Here's an embarassing fact. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Wikipedia. Ones I saw were FDR, George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ted Stevens and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not  a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people set up a "Criticism of" article to create a negative impression and give them a place to vent their criticism that would not be allowed on a BLP. This article is clealry an abuse of Wikipedia in order to attack Prem Rawat. I am delinking it from the Prem Rawat article immediately until this issue is addressed and resolved. I expect this article will be removed and the "Criticsm of" section in the PR BLP to be renamed "Scholarly opinion" and include all scholalry opinion not just negative opinion.Momento 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your perceptions about the creation of the article are incorrect. I believe it was first User:Jossi that suggested the creation of this article and the moving of criticism from the Prem Rawat article to here, if I am not mistaken.  User:Jossi was the user who first created that article itself Diff.  I will ask again, however, I am particularly interested to know the opinions of others who may not necessarily have been either active in editing these related articles, and/or have not been invested POV within the articles' topics.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, the history shows Jossi as the first editor and presumably that was because anti PR editors had inundated PRs BLP with criticism and Jossi started up this article to hold it. Be that as it may, my argument stands - this article is an abuse of Wiki.Momento 09:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you have stated your opinion. Let us hopefully hear from other less active editors on this topic, with less heavily invested POV.  Smeelgova 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The simple statistics prove the point. Editors who support "criticism of" articles are an infinitesemal minority. That is my point of view.Momento 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I will state again: Let us hear from other less active editors on this topic, with less heavily invested POV.  Please leave the rest of the space in this section for less involved, less active editors with less heavily invested POV.  Smeelgova 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Smeelgova. It's superfluous and redundant to call the article "...and related organizations." For instance, from the time DLM (now EV) incorporated in the early 70s in the U.S., Prem Rawat was the named and legal "Chief Minister," as listed in the Divine Light Mission incorporation documents as filed in its home state of colorado.  This was changed in 1976ish when Rawat was separated legally from DLM because monies being contributed to him personally and to the Mission were being co-mingled and hence, created IRS problems. Currrently, the main organizations such as Elan Vital (EV) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) are non-profits which exist solely to support Rawat's work.


 * Btw, you'll be waiting a long, long time for unbiased editors to comment. Most won't touch these Prem Rawat articles with a ten-foot pole.  Also, the One-Reality website you linked on this article is owned by editor GStaker and contains libel against ex-premies, myself included.  It also characterizes and defames named individuals (private citizens) with photos as being members/leaders of a hate-group, mimicking the accusation by Elan Vital Australia in it's FAQs (the only website of Rawat's organizations that does so, in fact the only organizaton in the world that does so!).  Therefore, I'd appreciate if you leave One-Reality off of wikipedia as a link. That said, if One-Reality is going to be linked here, then that linking justifies another link to Ex-premie.org and the Prem-Rawat-Talk.org forum, because One Reality is called "A Response to Ex-premies," who are Prem Rawat's largest group of critics in the present day Thanks, I just wanted to make a few comments, I'm not coming back to edit.  Be well.  Cynthia Gracie  Sylviecyn 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information! Wow.  I was not aware of all of that - history between the aforementioned websites...  I'll have to read up on all this at some point, but just don't know if/when I'll be able to make heads or tails of the controversy.  At any rate, for the time being I'll just stick to only utlizing links/citations from more reputable sources.  Most interesting to hear your take that "Most won't touch these Prem Rawat articles with a ten-foot pole." - Why do you suppose that is???  Smeelgova 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Probably because it's a cult. You probably are finding out that one cannot argue with cult-members of any stripe. On Wikipedia, there are many articles about cults and cult leaders where editors experience similar difficulties.  It's so contentious, argumentative, and downright nasty here between former premies and current premies. That's why I quit bothering.  You just cannot talk to a cult member about their Lord -- that's what these folks consider Prem Rawat to be, btw, but you'll never get them to admit it, although they do still kiss his feet at some programs (called Darshan lines).  I got tired of being treated like a piece of shit by Jossi and Momento.  I have to laugh when I read things such as when Jossi says that "consensus" was reached about a particular issue, when I know damned well that I and others never conceded the particular argument nor did we ever agree.  We just gave up trying to argue with cult members!  It's all about revisionism of Rawat's life, gaming the wikipedia system to whitewash his very controversial life and lifestyle.  And editing these Rawat articles has become a matter of who has the most stamina or endurance to deal with that bullshit; and obviously cult members who worship Prem Rawat have much, much more endurance than someone like me who is no longer dedicated to Maharaji, the Lord of the Universe.  I know that because I've been there and done that.  So, Smeelgova, you've walked into a minefield by trying to edit any articles about cults.  Good Luck though!  Okay, wait about 24 hours and Jossi will have made a comment here about not using this talk page for non-article comments!  LOL!  He thinks he owns the articles. Or Jossi will "refactor" so selectively or move these to our talk pages!  Sooooo predictable. :-) Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the predictable intensity of the expressed above, I will not give in into the provocation. These pages are not to discuss our opinions, or debate the subject.


 * Yes, I started this article back in 2004, when I was a newbie and not fully familiar with Wikipedia content policies.


 * Mrs Gracie's assessment that other editors "won't touch these Prem Rawat articles with a ten-foot pole", may be a bit misleading. The articles have been edited by a myriad of editors over a period of more than two and a half years, and was one of the most edited articles in WP in 2005.


 * While it is a fact that in the no so distant past, uncivil exchanges such as the one above, (that resulted in several contributors being blocked for disruption), created a toxic atmosphere that most long-standing editors will avoid like the plague, we have attempted (including third-party editors) to keep the discussions civil and constructive, by (a) maintaining basic talk-page discipline;  (b) by avoiding escalation by discouraging the use of talk pages to discuss contributor's points of view about the subject; and (c) ensuring that the editing process is not disrupted by attempts to advocate for or against the subject of the article.


 * Note that Mrs. Gracie is a public detractor/activist against Prem Rawat, a fact that she will not deny, and part of what she calls "Prem Rawat's largest group of critics", of approximately 20 people, plus, minus. It is unavoidable, I guess, that tensions will raise from time to time due to strong POVs for and against, but I believe that the framework of NPOV, V, NOT and NOR, coupled with our policies of no personal attacks and civility, provides the necessary safe environment to improve these articles further.


 * Editing these articles should not be a conduit to encourage POV battles between supporters and detractors, or used as a platform to air grievances. That is better left for other fora than Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would advise editors to respond to Mrs. Gracie's comments in her talk page if they must, and not to respond "in kind" as to not escalate this discussion any further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As an editor who has had only heard of Prem Rawat through the related wiki articles and who has never participated in the writing of those articles, I would like to offer up my opinion on the subject of this article as you requested. Given that Rawat (and his organizations) is apparently one who has been the object of some criticism, the mention of such criticism is noteworthy based on the assumption that Rawat is himself worthy of mention in Wikipedia.  Therefore, I can only conclude that this article should be maintained.  As to what is "fair game" for inclusion in the article is a more complex issue, and one that will certainly be revisited again and again.  As the article stands now, it seems to me to be even-handed in its assesments.  So again, I can see no good reason to remove this article.  Mael-Num 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true Rawat has been criticised, who hasn't. But what makes this article special is that there are only half a dozen "Criticism of (name)" in Wikipedia. If, by your reckoning, anyone that has been criticised in Wiki should have a "Criticism of" article attached to their name, we have a lot of work to do. Starting with "A", there is Brynjar Aa, a dentist. Let's start a "Criticism of Aa Brynjar".We can start by criticising his making money out of people's pain.Momento 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Remember to cite your sources. Mael-Num 08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may also want to note that Brynjar Aa is a dramatist, and not a dentist, in your criticism. Mael-Num 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He was a dentist until you changed it. PLease cite your sources.Momento 09:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the history. I reverted vandalism.  Mael-Num 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, my opinion remains the same. As amusing as your rant against Aa Brynjar was, it borders on non-sequitur.  Rawat is the subject of scholarly criticism, and many reputable sources view his organisations as cults.  As a repository of information, it is right that Wikipedia include this information about the man.  Mael-Num 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Link from Prem Rawat
Why is "{details | Criticism of Prem Rawat}" being removed repeatedly from Prem Rawat? Edit summaries refer to this page but I don't see a disucssion about delinking the two articles. If this article exists it should be linked from the main article. -Will Beback · † · 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an argument presented by Momento to that effect. The criticism article is a spinoff article, a summary of which is at the main article. As such, and until a discussion to merge is successful, both articles need to remain linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I started editing this article I niaively assumed that many biographic articles had attached "criticism of" articles. A little research showed that Prem Rawat is one of a hnadful of people accorded this treatment. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Wikipedia. Ones I saw were FDR, George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ted Stevens and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people can set up a "Criticism of" article to create a negative impression and give them a place to vent their criticism that would not be allowed on a BLP. This article is clealry an abuse of Wikipedia in order to attack Prem Rawat. I delinked it from the Prem Rawat article immediately until this issue is addressed and resolved. I expect this article will be removed and the "Criticsm of" section in the PR BLP to be renamed "Scholarly opinion" and include all scholalry opinion not just negative opinion.Momento 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Criticism article was created by Jossi Fresco, a self-confessed student of Prem Rawat, to remove the critical aspects of Prem Rawat's life from the main article. Since then all the links to current critical internet content have been removed (including 5 of the ten most popular Google search results for Prem Rawat), and this article has little or no value as a research tool.  I therefore recommend it is deleted, and that those editors with the will to include the remaining significant content in the main article should do so.  Jossi, do you want to do the deletion?  If so, you have my support.  --John Brauns 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, you want there to be no criticism at all? Smeelgova 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * No, he wants the criticism to be presented as "Scholarly References". The correct article on Rawat should not present any aspect of his life or teachings explicitly as criticism, but in a non-judgemental factual way, allowing the reader to make their own judgement as to whether the facts present Rawat in a positive or negative way. --John Brauns 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the creation of this article back in 2004, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. As it stands now, this article is summarized in a section in the main article, thus becoming a spinoff article as per Content forking. If editors want to consider a merge into the main article (a thing that was discussed in the past quite profusely but never agreed to), it could be discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point Jossi re forking. "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject" and this is exactly what's happened.Momento 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Momento, I think you may have failed to read carefully before you posted. I base this on the fact that you said "Good point Jossi re forking" and then declared exactly the opposite of what Jossi had to say on the subject.  A spinoff article is not a content fork; you quote the word "solely" but I think you have failed to consider its implication, that if there is another reason for the same subject to be covered by multiple articles which differ in focus, there is no basis for automatically concluding that a content fork exists. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be a "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article at all. There appear to be less than ten "Criticism" of people articles in Wiki and the only apparent reason is that an editor thinks someone is not criticised enough in their biography and opens up a special article for it. As for the Prem Rawat article, I beliieve all scholarly opinion should be represented not just critical opinion.Momento 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Smeelogva, please note that the prodwarning is for user talk pages. If you want to nominate this article for deletion, use the AFD instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I thought that it's for the article page. It had a separate template that I could have put on the original creator's talk page.  Read the full prod template, it explains it at the bottom.  And the original creator of the article is not supposed to remove the prod.   Smeelgova 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh. You confused prodwarning with prod.  I had utilized the latter template, not the former.  Smeelgova 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I see, thanks for the clarification, but I still do not understand. If you want to propose a deletion of the article, place it in WP:AFD, and use the process established there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Until this article is deleted please retain the link from the main article. It doesn't make sense to remove links to sub-articles on the expectation that they might be deleted in the future. -Will Beback · † · 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be understood that the "proposed deletion" process exists primarily to speed cleanup of a class of deletions which are essentially non-controversial; this is why the prod template specifies that you can remove the message if you object to the deletion for any reason. I think it should probably go without saying that an article which has already survived one AfD, as this one has, is not non-controversial enough to be appropriately handled by the proposed deletion process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Antaeus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A note for clarification: Merging an article into another does not require an AFD. If there is consensus for such merger, that is all what is needed to implement it. WP:AFDs are for article deletions and WP:RFDs for deleting redirects. Use mergeto and merge to propose such merger. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar enough with the behind the scenes workings of Wiki to determine the best course forward (merge, delete etc). I certainly don't want to create a cure that is worse than the disease. My overall aim is to remove the bias in the "Prem Rawat" article of which I see two examples. The first is that there is a "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article (that is linked from "Prem Rawat") and my reasons for it's inappropriateness are outlined above. And the second is that it is unfair to link or include in either article "negative" scholarly opinion (or give it more prominence) and omit "postive or neautral" scholarly opinion. Editors familiar with the "Prem Rawat" article will remember it was once nearly 100 kilobytes in size as a result of various editors inserting quotes and opinions that supported their POV and other editors inserting quotes and opinions that contradicted the new insertions. It became a bloated mess of contradictory opinion. In order to restore order and readability, all non-scholarly opinion was removed until only non-contraversial, NPOV facts remained, with the exception of the "criticism" section. In a hang over from the past, various editors would pick the "scholarly opinion" that reflected their POV for inclusion and seek to omit the rest. The only way I can see to ensure that "scholarly opinion" edit warring does not take place is to include only the scholars name, article (with references and links if available) in alphabetical order. This way will ensure that any material taken from this article does not become a source for POV editing. Let's stick with the bare facts and let the reader have access to all scholarly opinion without interference from us.Momento 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to illustrate the point about bias, take a look at the "Scholarly opinion (and criticism)" section of the Prem Rawat article. Rather than let the section remain "Scholarly Opinion", Andries has inserted "and Criticism" to give an excuse to focus "criticism" As a result, of the 23 scholars mentioned, the only ones that have their comments printed are the five negative ones. And the only non-scholar to be quoted is the Prem Rawat critic Bob Mishler. It is time for editors to decide whether they want the readers of this article to be given an unedited list of the scholarly opinions and let the reader decide. Or that the readers should be manipulated by emphasising and quoting from a handful of critical scholars and allowing only one opinion from a non-scholar, the anti PR critic Bob Mishler. Unbiased and inclusive or biased and manipulated, surely its not a difficult choice.Momento 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The former president of the DLM is clearly an important person in the whole story. Andries 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion Andries. By quoting him you are making him the only person other than PR quoted in this article (scholars excepted). It is clearly unacceptable bias. And by the way, PR was from the age of 8 until quite recently was refered to as the "Perfect Master", not the "Perfect Leader" - "masters" have "students" not "followers". I'll wait to see if any other editors would like to see the bias removed from this article. Momento 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the word students for the adherents of the DLM in the 1970s and 1980s. I think the word students instead of followers is blatant revisionism.
 * Untrue, Sophia Collier is quoted too. Andries 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but she wrote a book and the quote selected is neutral. In the article the word student/followers is almost always applied to Shri Hans/Prem rawat not DLM.Momento 22:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the quote from Mishler, the former president of the Divine Light Mission voiced in the Washington Post that has a lot of editorial control is more reputable than just a book by a just a random former follower, Sophia Collier. The statement by Collier by the way diverges from what scholars wrote, so I think it is not neutral. Andries 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making a mistake. All the editorial control of Washington Post would be ascertaining if Mr. Mishler did make these sensationalist claims; they surely did not check these as "facts". We had had this discussion extensively already at the BLP noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we discussed it extensively and I found your arguments unconvincing. Andries 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can quote more of the Washington Post in the references, so any reader who is interested in it can check the complete citation. Andries 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No we can't as these violate WP:BLP on the basis of poor sources and extraordinary claims. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I diagree. It is al sourced to a reputable source that does not suddenly loses its reputability only because it makes a claim that an editor considers implausible. Andries 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this at length. Please re-read the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is and remains my position on the subject:
 * "Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may be because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility." (my response in the BLP noticeboard).
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Erroneous assumption. The reason that I did not add that statement because it was uncorroborated. Andries 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only way forward
The only way forward with the Prem Rawat article is to remove selective opinion and only allow opinion from recognised scholars. And to avoid abuse of scholastic opinion, they must be treated equally. And that means listing them in alphabetical order with just the author's names and titles. Surely no unbiased editor can object to this solution. It is fair and impartial. Momento 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not the standard for other Wikipedia articles. There's no reaosn to treat this subject differently. Non-scholarly opinions are permitted in the articles about thousands of biography subjects, including famous religious figures like Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II (see also Criticism of Pope John Paul II), D. James Kennedy, the Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, etc. I don't think the editors of those articles are all biased. -Will Beback · † · 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will BeBack that this is not the standard, though I think there are exceptions where Momento's reasoning is valid. For example in the case of Adolf Hitler whose life has been described in multiple reliable scholarly biographies. If the availability of sources is such then I think it would be inappropriate to cite non-scholars. In the case of Prem Rawat I am not aware of a single scholarly article that extensively describes his life and as such I think it is fully okay to use reputable newspapers as sources. Andries 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one said it was the standard. I proposed listing scholars by name alphabetically to avoid the POV editing that has plagued this article. As it stands editors are inserting and highlighting only the scholarly opinion that suits their POV. My suggestion is completely impartial and fair and ensures that the "opinion" section conforms to NPOV. Who can possibly object to a "scholarly opinion" section that lists the scholars alphabetically without editorial bias?Momento 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be a better way to organize different opinions than to muddle them in alphabetical order. How information is organized is just as important as the information itself.  Perhaps it would be best to divide the various opinions into those that support and those that criticise? Mael-Num 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the current subheadings organized by alphabetical order are from critical sources. Smeelgova 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I may have misunderstood. I was under the impression that Momento was suggesting that opinions (scholarly or otherwise) of Prem Rawat and his affiliated organizations be organized solely upon their alphabetical order.  I was proposing that rather than use this sole sorting method opinions could be divided between "pro" and "con".  It would be reasonable within those divisions to additionally sort them based upon alphabetical order.  My reasoning for sorting opinions based upon the content of that opinion, I think, is obvious.  It would allow the reader to more easily find what he is looking for.  If the reader wants to learn more about what nice or negative things people have to say, the information is collected in a way that makes it easier to look at.  Mael-Num 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Smeelgova 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh, and I guess I should also add that this is assuming in the future there will be additional opinions given that support Prem Rewat, which implicitly assumes that this article is merged into the main article. In that light, I don't see why this article should be merged, I like the way it is laid out now.  But, again, I'm assuming that opinion is leaning towards the merge.  So I guess I'm assuming a lot here.  Mael-Num 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They (the editors you mentioned) may not be biased but half a dozen of the most recent editors of Prem Rawat articles regular post on an anti Prem Rawat forum.Momento 09:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, many of the recent editors have never posted on any forum related to Mr. Rawat - and their only experience of him is through the tolerance/intolerance/patience/impatience of other researchers and editors - and readily available public information.  Surely you must perceive that a supposed bias could be observed by others on both sides of the aisle?  Smeelgova 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Here's a list of editors that have posted on the Prem Rawat article and the anti Prem Rawat forum in the last month - Andries, Sylviecyn, John Brauns, Tgubler and Nik Wright2. And those are just the ones who can be identified.  Smeelgova did burst on to the scene and incorrectly linked Prem Rawat to an article about an entirely different person wiith the heading "We're vegetarians, we don't eat human organs, says the Living Perfect Master, The Daily Telegraph, 2003". Spare me the rhetoric, no neutral editor would ever make such an oobvious error.Momento 10:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read the D.James Kennedy article. He may not be a nice man but the article is clearly biased against him.Momento 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the Mother Therese article. I suggest any editor with time on their hands go and clean up that article.Momento 10:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, first off, no, I did not realize that the article was allegedly not about the same individual, and I did not realize that this was a tabloid paper, and I removed it afterwards. I am sure that these other editors resent your lumping of them together and attempting to characterize them in this fashion.  And I most certainly do.  This is most certainly a flagrant violation of No Personal Attacks.  If you wish to have cordial working editing relationships with the editors you have named above, I would suggest that you adapt your attitude to a bit of a more nicer stance.  Try to act towards others as you would wish for them to act towards yourself.  Smeelgova 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


 * To quote from No Personal Attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - (bold in original article). Smeelgova 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't believe for a moment that the editors I mentioned above "resent" me noting that they post the anti Prem Rawat forum, they're proud of it. And I didn't "lump them together", they get together of their own free will. And I didn't "characterise them", I made no comment, just presented a non-judgemental fact.Momento 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will state again from above: To quote from No Personal Attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - (bold in original article).  Smeelgova 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism by former members
As Smeelgova has re-added information about the "ex-premies", then we may need restore the previous material that was deleted in 2005. See for example this version ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is a lot of information from that prior version that is either, not cited properly, violates WP:NOR, and/or uses primary sources. We should probably stick to secondary sources on something this contentious from individulas with intense POV on both sides of the aisle...  Smeelgova 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I think that there are bits of good and bad in that version. Without exhaustively going through the article, though, I want to point out one thing that I feel is important.  When presenting someone's opinion on a subject, it is important that the presenter not editorialize the opinion unnecessarily.  It's also important that the presenter not take a role like an attorney during cross-examination and attempt to discredit the source to the reader, as this is also a form of editorializing.  In rereading the current form of this article, I am noticing that, in some cases, it appears that the editors are editorializing in some ways.  For example:


 * "In that article, based on what he wrote was his involvement with the DLM during two years in the Netherlands, he asserts that Rawat's battle against the mind sometimes degenerated in complete irrationality, that sometimes premies branded every criticism and objective approach as "mind", and that they often avoided discussions with outsiders because these discussions could possibly stimulate the mind. Haan does not report if he ever learned the techniques of Knowledge."


 * The italics there are mine, and used to draw attention to my point. Is it important that this person become a student of Rawat in order to have an opinion on what he has observed?  How long should he have studied?  What sort of accreditation must he achieve before his opinion is valid?  These questions are not for the editor to answer for the reader.  If he is a valid source of criticism, then you should only present his opinion.  "This guy said that."  If he's not a valid or reliable source, don't give his opinion at all.  That's what the standard on Wikipedia seems to be.  It is not the editor's place to rebut or disqualify the opinion presented, as that borders on original research.  Or at the very least, it's an ad hominem and has no place here.  "This guy said that, but what does this guy really know anyway?  He's not 'in' on the teachings."  That's not appropriate for us to say.  It's not our place to present information, digest it, and spit out the reader's opinion on the information.
 * Here's another example:


 * "Jan van der Lans, a professor in psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, wrote in a book about followers of gurus commissioned by the KSGV, a Netherlands based Catholic Study Center for Mental Health published in 1981, that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life: on the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his students, on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. Van der Lans treated several gurus but was only critical about Rawat, but does not provided citations for his very critical assessment."


 * Why is it important to note that the organization he's working for is a Catholic Study Center? Perhaps to show that their opinion has the bias of a different religion?  Is it really the editor's place to imply that religious bias rather than scholarly interest led to van der Lans's findings?  Why does the editor find it necessary to note that his criticism of Rawat is unique, or that it is in the editor's opinion uncited?  The presence or absence of van der Lans's research isn't apparent in the citation listed.   How did the editor come to this conclusion?  And again, why is it important for the editor to place a certain weight or skew to van der Lans's opinions?  It appears to be editorializing, and I don't think it's proper to have it in the article.  The | alternate version has a great deal of this editorializing in it, and I think that in this sense it is, on the whole, inferior to the version currently presented.  Ideally, there would be no editorializing presented at all.  Hopefully, we can move towards that.  Mael-Num 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly," Ideally, there would be no editorializing presented at all. Hopefully, we can move towards that". Which is why I propose to list the scholars (and their links and references) without additional editorial comment. I appreciate your support.Momento 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I'm not familiar enough with different editors' contributions to know who has done what as far as the composition of this article. With that having been said, I'm not sure that I'm supporting or opposing any one editor or group of editors per se.  I'm not picking a side, I'm pointing out what should be an editorial goal.
 * I feel that I am not familiar enough with the subject to do more than copy-edit at this time. If you believe you can contribute by removing some of the editorialization that apparently exists, or would like to contribute to a discussion of what should be done to neutralize it, I would encourage you (or any other editor) to do so. Mael-Num 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to remove some of the POV editorializing. Smeelgova 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Object to the removal of context
While I agree that it is OK to remove editorializing comments, I strongly object to the removal of context that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not simply mass revert all of my changes - you yourself have complained when I did this to you in the past, and I stopped in that instance. Let us discuss what you do not like individually on the talk page.  I was implementing specific suggestions by other less-involved editors, from the above section.  Smeelgova 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You cannot expect, Smeelgova, to discuss your edits, when you do not discuss yours. Can you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded to direct specific suggestions from a previously uninvolved editor above. And I am surprised at your actions, given how vehemently opposed you were at my mass reverts to your edits in the past.  This seems slightly hypocritical.  Let us discuss what you have issues with.  You saw certain text as "context"  other editors saw this as "editorializing" and "original research", as mentioned (not by myself) in the section above.  Smeelgova 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Jossi, please stop reverting all of my edits!!! In the process you are also reverting other minor edits that you may have even agreed with!  Please, let us go over which particular points you have issues with, and allow time for other editors to contribute their opinions here on this here on the talk page, including the original editor who complained that he saw editorializing going on.  Smeelgova 00:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Mea culpa. I did suggest those changes.  Please, Jossi, let us know your thoughts on these edits.  It's entirely possible that I didn't consider or understand your point of view when I stated my opinion. Mael-Num 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you keep your assessment of my edits to yourself. You come here and delete existing content that is properly sourced, and then assert a right to have your edits discussed first? I started this discussion and you have not responded. Context is needed and useful for our readers. Please stop removing existing content that was added by fellow editors and that is properly sourced, without discussing it first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how you can get so upset at other editors for reverting your edits, and yet expect your own personal reverts of others' good faith edits to go unnoticed? This seems highly inappropriate and hypocritical, especially in this instance.  Please, tell me what you have issues with, individually, and let us go over what you feel is not editorializing and is "context", point-by-point.  What you felt was "sourced" others felt was "original research", as stated by them in the section above.   Smeelgova 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Indeed. Please, let's take objections to edits individually.  Use a scalpel and not a machette, if you take my meaning. Mael-Num 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) the text you removed were not "my edits". These have been there for months, and many editors contributed to them. (b) I am not "upset"; (c) Read the comment recently made by another editor; (c) I agree to the removal of OR, and (d) I object to the removal of useful context that does not poison the well. The fact that a book by the KSGV describes criticism, needs the context to explain what the KSVG is. Same about the Free University in the Netherlands ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, good, see? Now you are discussing some specific point about something you have an opinion about with regard to "context" versus "original research".  Smeelgova 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * With regard to the KSGV, there is already a wiki article on that subject, which in fact does not characterize the organization in the manner in which it is presently characterized in this article. I suggest we allow readers to go to that article for clarification instead of attempting to define it here.  In any event, it is interesting that you bring up this "context", because this is information that was not removed from the article prior to your mass reverts.  Smeelgova 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I think Jossi has a good point in that it would be a service to the reader to briefly explain what he KSGV is. I'm not so sure that it's relevant to state that they operate from Christian motivations.  It seems like undue weight and a bit of opinion/original research.  Yes, it's in their mission statement, but does that mean that every document that the organization has touched is inspired solely by Christianity?  (What about their tax filings?)  The same goes for Wim Haan's bit.  Why can't we say that the university is Christian (if that is the case) without leading them to an interpretation of some possible ulterior motive to their work, other than scholarly interest?  There's a fine line between informing and leading.  Mael-Num 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we continue this discussion, I would apreciate if you refactor "This seems slightly hypocritical" from your comment above. Just imagine how would you feel if someone would have made that comment about you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, however you spouted out some pretty nasty stuff to me when I reverted you in the past. I am just very highly surprised that you would perform the exact same behaviours to others - that you do not agree with yourself.  Smeelgova 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I thought that we cleared the air already about the past. Now is now. Refactor that comment, and then we may continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please apologize for mass reverting my changes instead of voicing your concerns on the talk page. "Refactor that comment" -  and please never speak to me in the command form of grammar!!!  It is highly unappreciated, patronizing, and inappropriate.  Smeelgova 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Is that an ultimatum? Mael-Num 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths, people. Can we focus on the issue? Mael-Num 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish we could, and also treat other editors with respect and dignity, adhering to how we would want others to treat us. Smeelgova 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I am going to take a break from making content/major edits to this article, and allow other editors to comment. Hopefully some of these comments will come from editors with less heavily invested POV from both sides of the aisle..... Smeelgova 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I did not revert, I restored material that you deleted. And my request above was not a "command", but a request to refactor your personal attack and avoid violating WP:NPA. Respecting dignity starts with each one. Saying what you said above is not dignifying. 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

So, uhm...as a general rule, would it be fair game to state what an organization is, but not allude to the organization's motives when referencing the organization's opinion? Mael-Num 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mael. In WP we let the reader drive their own conclusions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in this case the reader may end up with the mistaken impression that the book by van der Lans is a Catholic anti-cult book which is completely untrue. The author wrote in the book that he was accused of what now in English would be called a cult apologist. For proof you can read the following excerpt
 * article by Singelenberg
 * "Also, in the early 1980s, psychologists from Nijmegen University had published several case studies on new religious movements (See, for example, van der Lans 1981). They did not point to any dangers that could emanate from being associated with these groups."
 * In other words the author (Singelenberg) calls the 1981 book by van der Lans one of "several case studies" that proved that cults were rather innocent.
 * Andries 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Listings by anticult activists
I suggest to remove that section. These two sites have disclaimers on their website that make their inclusion irrelevant for this article. See the disclaimers in these websites for more info. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved this further down in the article, to an "Other criticism" section. Smeelgova 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't see what's unfair about the inclusion of this information in its current form. It is a record that says it exists.  Jossi, what about the legal disclaimers on the sites disqualifies the information, or was your objection to the heading under which it was listed?  Mael-Num 01:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not about fair or unfair. These sites do not "criticize" Prem Rawat. And this article is about that specific subject. The disclaimers say something along the lines of "such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy" (Rick Ross); or "They appear [in the website] because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group." (Steven Hassan); and "These resources reflect a variety of theological and/or sociological perspectives." (Anton Hein). As these sites do nor criticize the subject of this article, my proposal is that the section should be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it's not entirely correct to say that these sites do not offer criticism of Rawat, the DLM, Elan Vital, et al. I haven't perused all the information, but each of them offers an archive of at least some critical information, at the very least that some people assert cult or cult-like activity and behavior.  I think such an archive is probably significant enough to include based just on that criticism.  I see and acknowledge your observation about the disclaimer, but it's a non-issue.  The legal aspect of the site owner/operator/whatever saying "Hey, I'm not specifically calling anything a cult" in order to protect himself from lawsuit is mooted by the fact that each of those sites most definitely does contain information presented by some documented party that does make such a criticism.  Or in other words, the criticism's there, despite what the disclaimer claims.  Mael-Num 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but as per your argument maybe the best place would be the External links section, and not in the article body. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with all the rules of style for Wiki, but from what I have seen in other articles, I think you're right. Mael-Num 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

 * Dear Mael-Num, prior to this flair up I proposed that this article shouldn't exist. When I started editing this article I niaively assumed that many biographic articles had attached "criticism of" articles. A little research showed that Prem Rawat is one of a handful of people accorded this treatment. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Wikipedia. Ones I saw were FDR (dead), George Lucas (film criticism), Noam Chomsky (criticism of his politics), Hugo Chavez (politician), Pope John-Paul(dead), Tony Blair (politician), George Bush (politician), Ted Stevens (politician) and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people can create a place where criticism that would not be allowed on the subjects BLP can exist. And exist without any counter arguements.. This article is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia. Momento 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Prior to my contributions here, I gave the talk page and related pages a pretty good read. I've seen you post this information several times.  At this point, it's old news.  Given that this "Criticism of" article isn't unique, I fail to see how it's an abuse of Wikipedia at all.  It seems a very appropriate outgrowth of the original article, and serves to offer more detailed information about the subject without unnecessarily cluttering the article Prem Rawat.  If your research had turned up no articles other than this one, then you may have a valid point.  Or perhaps that would mean Wikipedia needed new guidelines to allow and encourage more criticism.  Either way, this is not the case.  There is an article for criticism of Prem Rawat, just as there are articles for criticism of George W. Bush, George Lucas, and the former Pope.  Again, I fail to see any problem.  Should we have more articles noting well-documented criticism?  By all means, have at it.  But why delete this reasonably large and thoroughly cited collection of information?  An encyclopedia is where significant information is collected, not expunged.  Mael-Num 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I just did a quick search in Wikipedia of "Criticism of". It turned up about 140,000 articles with subjects ranging from Hinduism to the space shuttle program.  It seems your research, which only turned up 5 criticisms "on a single topic or subject" should have been more thorough. Mael-Num 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Momento refers to biographies of living people that have a "Criticism of" article, not just generic articles, Mael. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but that's a red herring. My point still stands.  Mael-Num 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I need a new computer! When I type "criticism of" into search of Wikipedia is only get 31,911 hits. And. of course, that doesn't mean 31,911 articles as Mael-Num claims, it means the phrase "criticism of" turned up 31,911 times. Perhaps you can explain this anomaly M-N?Momento 08:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I can't explain it. Maybe you do need a new computer.  In any case, it doesn't change the points I raised above.  Mael-Num 08:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Jossi gently corrected, I was talking about "biographic articles" not "articles" as is clearly stated in the second sentence of my post. And you made no points because they were all based on your misunderstanding.Momento 08:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they actually had very little to do with that point, because my finding some 140,000+ hits in a search was mentioned as an aside in a latter note, completely separate from my original argument. I recommend you reread it.  Mael-Num 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But you said 140,000 articles not hits!Momento 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I did at first, but as I mentioned above that's non-sequitur. Mael-Num 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's more. This page lists how many human beings have "Criticism of " articles about them according to the Wiki list of Criticism Articles. I think the answer is less than five. So I was right after all.Momento 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I counted more than five, and in any case, that means very little. Even if it were less than zero, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, as I said above. Mael-Num 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter that there's not a list as long as my arm of articles on Wikipedia that specifically criticize an individual. The reasons behind that could be any number of things. One reason for such an absence would certainly be that many peoples' lives aren't very controversial. In contrast to that, perhaps some people are controversial to the point that any biography of them would necessarily include such critical observations directly in the body of their bios. Also, some people may be controversial, but criticism of them isn't from well-cited or easily verifiable sources, or perhaps people just haven't gotten around to writing about them because of lack of popular interest in the subject. Of course, these are just some alternate theories for why such a list (one as long as my arm) doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that in the future this must be or always will be the case. Therefore, and with all due respect, I cannot accept the theory that the absence of a number of similar entries that would satisfy everyone involved in this particular article as evidence that this article should not exist. Or in other words, the "short list" of critical articles isn't in and of itself proof that something odd or unusual or otherwise not right is going on here.

However, critics of this article (such as Momento) may be right in that there is undue criticism in this article. As nearly everyone here has already acknowledged, it's not a good thing to present a skewed or slanted or biased point of view on any subject. Maybe it would be a good idea to "flesh out" some of the section where we mention authors that have written about Prem Rawat and his organizations without being critical to allow equal time. On the other hand, if that point of view has been expressed sufficiently elsewhere, perhaps we can add additional links to those sections and allow for "equal time" that way. I honestly don't know because even though I've tried to read through the different Wikis and their many, many citations in the last day or so, my knowledge of the subject pales in comparison to my fellow authors, so this is a question that you guys need to address. Perhaps one or more of the authors can draft a section to show everyone a proposal for how we can add more positive feedback on Rawat et al in this article, if needs be.

Also, if this article (or a subsequent version of it) broadens in some way it may not be a bad idea to revise the title. As it is, the article is largely a critique of Rawat, the DLM, and Elan Vital. Maybe a title change to "Criticism of Prem Rawat and his Affiliates" or something to that effect would be appropriate? Maybe that's unnecessary as it's implicit to the point that by criticizing Rawat, one must also make reference to the organizations that he has had a hand in forming. Obviously if we broaden the article to include positive scholarly and media feedback, I think a title change might be necessary. I also don't know how difficult such a thing (changing the title of an article) would be. I'm just trying to throw out ideas so that we may move forward constructively and with consensus, rather than continue arguing about minutiae. Mael-Num 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mael, this article is what is called a "spinoff" article (See Content forking). The proposal that Momento is seeking consensus for is to merge back the content in this article to the main article, not the deletion of the article (if merged, this article will redirect back to the main article.) Also note that this is a biographical article and that there are articles about Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital. Specific details and criticism of these organizations can be placed there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the, that's good to know. I have read the talk page, and was aware of this article's spinoff basis, but I wasn't aware that the merger was the desired change (I'm pretty sure the notion for deletion was mentioned once or twice).  Still, I wanted to kick out some alternate ideas for what could be done with this article if some editors feel there's undue weight on the negativity.  It may ultimately be more rewarding than resorting to what is ultimately shuffling papers around between file folders.  Mael-Num 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to these suggestions, and given that this section of the discussion has been moved to a new heading indicating a discussion of merger, I would like to make another observation regarding the apparent standards for articles giving criticism of a person and also the reason for forks. In browsing some of the articles Momento mentioned above, I noticed a trend. Each of these people had very long bios. Similarly, their criticism sections were also lengthy and contained a number of citations (one exception would be Criticism of George Lucas which has a lot of criticism but not a great many references). I also noticed that it wasn't uncommon for biographies with a related and separate criticism page to also have a brief criticism summary included in the main bio, as is the case with Prem Rawat.

Also, I mistakenly thought Mother Theresa was part of the list of people with a separate criticism page. But this also gave me some interesting information. Mother Theresa's article, including the section on criticism, is significantly shorter than Prem Rawat's, or any of the other people mentioned above who have a separate criticism article.

In this light, I think it has become inescapably apparent that the existing structure for the Prem Rawat "family" of articles that currently exists, with its separate article for criticism, is the proper format for the information contained in their respective articles. The article Prem Rawat is already quite large, and the article Criticism of Prem Rawat has also grown to become a significant article, and will inevitably become longer as work continues on it. It would almost certainly be an error to merge the article back in. Mael-Num 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a different opinion earlier about merging, but now I think I might actually be beginning to agree with Mael-Num's rationale. Smeelgova 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Material in languages other than English
This may simplify things - Wiki policy on Verifiability - When the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. Since Haan, Kranenborg, Van der Lans and Schnabel quotations are not provided with independent published translations or even the Dutch original I am removing their "quotes" until these are provided. And since Andries, is a poster on an anti- Prem Rawat website, his translation will not be acceptable.Momento 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Could you point out this policy given that you're using it as a rationale for cutting half the article off? Mael-Num 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Momento 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this edit is appropriate. At least one of the deleted cited materials provides relevant quotes in the original Dutch, and per the verifiability standard you linked to:


 * "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."


 * So at least in that case, the standard has been met. As far as the rest of it, they appear to be quoting resources that aren't electronic.  I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia doesn't require a standard of evidence that excludes hardcopy sources, so I'm inclined to think that this edit shouldn't stand.  It's assuming a standard of evidence that wiki doesn't clearly require, as the argument is ultimately against hardcover sources and not against foreign-language sources.  In such cases, per WP:CITE:


 * "...the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source."


 * And that standard appears to have been met. Given these guidelines, I'm tempted to revert these removals of cited information.  But rather than similarly rush to edit, does anyone see any problem with doing so? Mael-Num 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All material in Wiki needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. But when foreign language material is directly quoted, extra information is required so that (English) readers are able to check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation that appears in the article. Therefore it is encumbent upon editors to provide a published translation if possible (and cite it). But where editors cannot provide an independent, published translation and use their own English translation (of the quote) there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original (quote), so that English readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. It is not enough to cite the source, an editor must provide the original foreign language quote. Momento 09:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It is sufficient to just cite the source, as per WP:CITE.  That was my point, put more succinctly.  If you require more proof beyond this, then you're arguing against hard-copy sources, and not foreign language sources.  Are you suggesting that every non-electronic scholarly work be typed word-for-word into Wikipedia to meet this standard of evidence that you appear to be requiring?  Obviously not as it would be unnecessarily troublesome and possibly illegal with respect to copyright laws.  So why require it of foreign language sources?  There is no guideline that requires it.  Just that enough information is provided so that interested parties could find a copy of the cited work if needs be.  And that requirement has been met.  Mael-Num 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you may be missing Momento's point. Please read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the case. I read and acknowledged that guideline in my response.  The proper thing to do is leave the information in, as the requirements for verifiability have been met.  Mael-Num 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had provided quotes in Dutch at talk:Prem Rawat and here somewhere in the archives long ago, but I admit that I may not have given full quotes for Haan, but Haan himself has been reading the articles and the talk pages and commented on them. As such I have provided my duty and I will hence revert removal of properly sourced contents. Andries 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you will be happy to violate policy by reverting into material that is not complian t with WP:V ? If the translation and original text are in the archives, please find it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it yourself? I have done my duty to make the Dutch language contents verifiable. Andries 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is what Wim Haan wrote of which the original Dutch might be missing.
 * Wim Haan (Dutch language) De missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. ISBN 90-242-2341-5 page 39
 * "Het woordje "mind" wordt binnen de premie-gemeenschap gedefinieerd als de 'gekonditioneerdheid', d.w.z. alle vervreemdende invloeden die de mens van zijn ware aard hebben doen afdwalen.
 * Soms ontaardt de strijd die tegen dit woord wordt gevoerd echter in een volstrekte irrationaliteit. Elke kritiek en objektieve benadering wordt dan als mind bestempeld. Als iemand zich slecht voelt of gedurende lange tijd geen goede ervaringen heeft heeft tijdens zijn meditatie, dan is de betreffende persoon 'in zijn mind'. Gesprekken met buitenstaanders worden vaak uit de weg gegaan, omdat dat wel eens de mind zou kunnen stimuleren."
 * Again, I want state that I have not found a single mistake in Haan's long article (29 pages) which is not the case with other so called reputable sources. Andries 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is missing the point, and placing an unfair burden of evidence on Andries. He isn't required to reproduce the entire Dutch original in the citation in order to meet wikipedia's standards.  To suggest that he would be is both absurd and potentially in violation of legal copyrights.  All that needs be done is provide enough information so that parties interested in verifying the information can find the Dutch original.  That requirement has clearly been met.  Mael-Num 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

<<<The burden of verifiability is always on the editor wanting to add material, not on the one wanting to remove it. As for the foreign language sources, the policy clearly states that:
 * When the original material is in a language other than English: (a) Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. (b) Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. (See WP:V, my highlight)

In any case, Andries says that he provided these foreign-language original, so all what needs to be done is to search for these in the archives or article history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, do you understand what a citation is? I'm convinced that a misunderstanding on your part is the reason for your continued debate here.  Mael-Num 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the way it works, Mael: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." What that means is that if you quote text in Chinese that you have translated, you need to provide the same quote in the original Chinese, so that readers can verify your translation of the Chinese original. As we are quoting text from a source, we need the original quote in the original language. That is the way that we apply this policy. If you doubt this application of policy (that has been applied exactly as I describe it in hundreds of articles) you may want to ask a question at the talk page of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good, and that's where your misunderstanding lies. A citation isn't a quote.  A citation is a reference to where one may find the quote.  See WP:CITE for more information on what a citation is, and what is required.  Mael-Num 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The misunderstanding is in your part, Mael. As I said, given that you do not seem to agree with my statement on how to apply the policy, please ask a question for clarification at the talk page of WP:V, so that other editors can explain this to you maybe better than me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not need any such clarification. If you are still in doubt, please follow |this link to find a random assortment of definitions of "citation" found on the web.  For example, a citation is "the pertinent information needed to find the full text of a publication" or "Information such as author, title, pagination, and dates which identifies an item - book, journal article, or other format."  I just got off the phone with a scholar friend of mine (okay, it was my sibling) who has recently gone through the entire thesis/thesis-defense process.  This person verified that my understanding of how to properly cite information in a scholarly work was very accurate.  I am certain that the misunderstanding is on my part, and the evidence presented here speaks to that.  If you still have questions, I think your own advice as to how to seek answers to those questions is very good, and I encourage you to go to [] for their advice. Mael-Num 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this would help clarify it for you? WP:ATT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, Mael, that I have been editing Wikipedia for more than 2 and a half years, and I understand policy quite well. Your question to a friend scholar does not carry much weight in this discussion, as we are discussing Wikipedia policy and not something else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your experience doesn't change the fact that you're mistaken. Mael-Num 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Would it be useful if I ask a few experienced admins to drop you a note about the application of this policy? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to get as many people whom you can to become interested in our discussion. The more the merrier. =) Mael-Num 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The only exception that may exist is where a full quote of a foreign language source is given, where we may be required to list the foreign language original (also noted by my friend) word-for-word. Otherwise, we would just need to summarize their quote, and then no original language quote would be required, because we aren't offering up a presentation of their own words. Mael-Num 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked a few experienced editors to weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. For the benefit of Jpgordon and any others who arrive on the scene, perhaps it would be best to crystallize the debate for their convenience?

My position is that a lack of an original language quotation is not a valid reason for deletion of cited material. In cases where a translation is quoted in the text of the document, a copy of the original language may be required. It would also be acceptable to remove the direct quote and instead provide an accurate summation of the author's words. Mael-Num 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And my position is that for controversial material in WP:BLPs, it is not enough just to cite a source that is not available in English, but if requested by editors, the original text from which the material was sourced should be provided as to verify the translated text, as specified in WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the crystallization. But I need it in even simpler words, not hypothetical. Who wants to include exactly what, and who wants to exclude it? Can you point me to a single diff that highlights the dispute? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt attention. So far, the edit made was .  The reason given was, as you may be able to figure out, that because these passages didn't link to full original language quotes, and only to citations that provide the reference details of the originals, that they needed to be deleted.  Thanks again, and I hope this is helpful. Mael-Num 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (scratching my head) I kept looking at the policy, and I keep not understanding how the "citation" requirement could be parsed as requiring actual inclusion of the foreign-language source. Then I realized that "citation of the foreign-language original" could be read alternately as "cite what the original is -- i.e., ref it" or "include the original in a citation -- i.e., the original is the ref itself". So we need to look at existing Wikipedia practice to guide us here. And then we need to rewrite that bit of the policy to make it less ambiguous. But one thing at a time. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks jp. In my experience in many articles in which this was an issue, the shared understanding has always been what is formulated at WP:ATT, that uses a less ambiguous wording than what is currently at WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but I'd appreciate a few examples in case I see the same argument again elsewhere. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example from the main article:
 * Kranenborg, Reender, Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland: een encyclopedisch overzicht, Kampen Kok cop. (2002), pp.178 "Zij [Mata Ji, Prem Rawats moeder] onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader'" (translation: "She[Rawat's mother, Mata ji] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued on independently, with less claims pretensions than in the past, not no longer speaking with divine terms about himself, but calling himself instead as an 'humanitarian leader'."
 * Most important, is that several of the sources in question are somewhat obscure, or out of print (such a Schnabel's thesis), so to have the original text + a translation should be a requirement for verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already given the Dutch originals for Schnabel and Van der Lans at least twice. Check this talk, talk:Prem Rawat, and talk:charismatic authority I am not sure about Kranenborg, I have to admit. Andries 05:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, my friend (smartypants sibling) mentioned the fact that in their thesis, some of the sources used were long since out of print in order to give me a frame of reference for my own question (the question of what would be proper to do here). It was noted that in this case, the citation (meaning reference) was all that was required.  "Just in case anyone felt the need to track it down, they could."  I cannot imagine that Wikipedia would require a more limited standard than one used for academic publication.
 * Again, with respect to what you noted in WP:ATT, I could see where you would want to include the original language text in the case where you are translating a direct quote. But in cases where you aren't directly quoting someone, it definitely appears that original language material isn't required.  If I read Jp correctly, I think we're on the same page on this.  So, given that circumstance, we would either A) Need to give the original text, as prescribed, or B) rewrite the passage so that the original quote is "paraphrased" into an accurate summation by the wiki editors.  Does that approach make sense? Mael-Num 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We agreed to ask other editors. So far, Jpgordon did and has not completed presenting his opinion. Let's wait for others. In any case, Andries is saying that he did provide the translations, so these can be looked fat and found. (BTW, WP:ATT does not speak of a "direct quotation", that is your interpretation that differs from me and others). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. As I was responding to your statement that something "should be a requirement for verifiability", I thought we were still suggesting how to approach the problem.  After all, if you are allowed to say what "should be" done, should not I also? Mael-Num 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I wonder about is if there's an OR aspect we have to concern ourselves with also. Whose paraphrases or translations of the Dutch originals are we dealing with? For example, the very first one (and the one with the original Dutch above) uses the expression "...degenerated into...". Is that in the original? And that's the whole verification problem -- I don't read Dutch, so I can't verify that the quotes or paraphrases are correct. I still want to see more examples of Jossi's take on the policy, and preferably from a completely different (non-PR) context -- and hopefully with some discussion on either policy pages or talk pages backing up the assertion that the ATT#Language proposed guideline matches the intent of the WP:V policy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are other examples of material provided by same editor (Andries) at Sathya Sai Baba, in which similar concerns were raised regarding sources in Dutch (note that there is an second, currently open Arbcom case on that article and participating editors). The translation and original Dutch were deleted from the footnotes due to the article becoming too foootnote-heavy. See this version of May 2006, in which translation and original are present in footnotes: . Would you start a discussion at WP:V about this issue?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. WT:V. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I understand the issue correctly, I think the requirement here would be for the original text + a translation, for proper verifiability. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse yourselves
It is pretty obvious that this article has become a personal battle ground between two editors who have a previous issue. Do us, Wiki and readers a favour and stop using this article as a venue.Momento 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good advice, Momento. Thanks for reminding us of talk-page discipline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary removal of stable cited material?

 * Why was all this scholarly, cited material removed wholesale? Smee 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Not sure, but looking at the edit summaries, it may be related to WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the section above. Mael and Momento were discussing this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Word. Mael-Num 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had given full citations in Dutch long ago that can be found in the talk archives here or at talk:Prem Rawat or its archives and also at talk:Charismatic authority. Andries 22:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Full citations already exist. A citation doesn't require that you actually reproduce the work.  That would, in fact, be highly irregular.  Mael-Num 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Mael. Full citations are not irregular, but the norm in sources about which there is controversy. These go in the footnotes section as in done in this and other articles. For example see Intelligent_design ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A "Full Citation" is what is already given. It is a full reference to the information that is needed to locate a publication.  Please stop debating this as you aren't going to get anywhere. Mael-Num 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, Mael, debating things is the way by which editors reach consensus in disputes. See WP:CON. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and FYI, I am aware of the process. However, debating what a citation is when I've provided definitions of the term is a moot point, donchathink?  Mael-Num 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's hear what other experienced editors have to say, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the term citation is, as Mael says, generally understood to be a reference to where the full quotation or source can be found. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should differ from this norm.JoeB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.136.230 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha. I hardly think the definition of a word in the English language is up for discussion. Mael-Num 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But how it applies to Wikipedia, is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all academic follks
This article is a farce and I'm going to merge it with Prem Rawat and remove all the editorial bias.Momento 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a unilateral move that does not have the consensus of many of the editors involved in the discussion on this page. Smee 07:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * What Smee said. Mael-Num 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since consensus seems to mean Smeelgova and Mael-Num, I'm sure readers and editors will agree with the Wiki policy "where rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them".Momento 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop violating No Personal Attacks. Let us hear what other editors have to say about this.  Smee 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * And please don't threaten vandalism on the article, as that's what you seem to be suggesting by manipulating the article despite consensus and common sense. You may feel frustrated for some reason, but take a deep breath and relax.  We're all pulling in the same direction (I hope).  Mael-Num 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kranenborg (1982) Dutch original
In contrast to what I suggested hereabove and in contrast to the books by Van der Lans and Schnabel, I have to admit that I had not provided the Dutch original of the 1982 book by Kranenborg. As I have already stated, Kranenborg miquoted van der Lans. From Reender Kranenborg (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language) ISBN 90-210-4965-1 pages 65-66
 * "Kritiek
 * Over het algemeen hoort men niet veel kritiek op de Divine Light Mission. [ ..] De meeste kritiek is gericht op van levensstijl van de jonge goeroe. Zo schrijft Van der Lans:
 * 'Goeroe Maharaj Ji is het voorbeeld van een goeroe die een charlatan geworden is met een dubbel leven. Enerzijds probeert hij trouw te blijven aan de rol die hem destijds - naar het schijnt door zijn moeder - is opgedrongen en aan de verwachtingen die zijn volgelingen hebben. Privé leidt hij echter een leven van nietsdoen en genieten. Als hij een festival bezoekt, wordt voor hem en zijn familie een hoteletage afgehuurd. Hij brengt slechts terloops een bezoek aan de "premies" en besteed de rest van zijn tijd met kijken naar de t.v. of gehuurde films en het bezoeken van nachtclubs. Slechts een kleine kring van ingewijden is op de hoogte van zijn levenswijze. Men can hem op grond hiervan gemakkelijk voor een bedriegen uitmaken. Een ander benadering is hemt te zien als slachtoffer van zijn omgeving.' 18
 * Iets soortgelijks beluisteren we ook in de klacht van de uitgetreden 'premie' Jos Lammers:
 * Zo gauw hij ergens artiveerde, sloot hij zich met een aantal "security-premies" die hem overal vergezelden op in zijn hotelkamer om zich pas op de avond van het programma weer te vertonen. De enkele keer dat ik hem wel te zien kreeg was wanneer hij in de stad inkopen wilde gaan doen en juist deze ontmoetingen maakten het voor mij moeilijk om mijn vertrouwen te handhaven. Mij en de ander plaatselijke leiders liet hij op zo'n tocht volkomen links liggen, behalve wanneer er betaald moest worden. Dan kon de plaatselijke DLM-afdeling ervoor opdraaien, terwijl hij zelf op de programma's enorme bedragen aan donaties verzamelde.
 * {reply by premies and Maharaji}
 * Een ander punt van kritiek is 'het simplisme' van de beweging. [..] 'Ex-premie' Jos Lammers zegt:
 * Jezelf leren kennen en leren waarderen, je contacten met anderen leren maken, gelukkig leren zijn, het is allemaal geen eenvoudige klus. En er komt heel wat meer voor kijken dan vier meditatietechnieken en het blindelings navolgen van een leider.
 * [..]
 * Ontmoeting
 * [..]
 * In de ontmoeting met 'premies' is de kwestie van de levensstijl van de goeroe, ondanks het feit dat deze het zelf geen punt vindt, toch van groot belang. Een satguru die in dure auto's rijdt, die een groot zeiljacht heeft en veel geld ontvangt van zijn volgelingen mag dan voor de 'premies' geen probleem zijn, voor een volgeling van Jezus is hij dat wel. Vanuit de verbondenheid aan Jezus mag gevraagd worden waarom Maharaji niet eenvoudig, nederig en gewoon leeft. Er mag ook gevraagd worden waarom hij het geld dat hij ontvangt, voor zichzelf gebruikt en niet voor de armen.
 * Het is verder legitiem te vragen waarom de sociale organisaties die destijds zin opgezet totaal zijn verdwenen."

Andries 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive?
There is a notice atop this page saying it is an archive, and shouldn't be edited, but that the current page should be edited instead. The link to the current page just takes you back to this one! I don't know enough about how wikipedia works to fix this, can someone look at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved the page to archive #14. Avb 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)