Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 12

Critical information and copyrights
Elan Vital has a history of complaining to the DCMA about copyright violations  by the critical wesbites. The last complaint caused one critical website to be offline last week but was found unjustified by the DCMA and is now online again. Critical followers of course see these complaints as attempts at censorship, not as genuine, justified concern by Elan Vital about copyright violations. Andries 20:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. Can you provide more details about this purported DMCA case? I searched and could not find any reference to a recent DMCA ruling on a critic's website. My take is this is just expremie propaganda. --Zappaz 05:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt whether DMCA even made the effort of a ruling because the complaint by Larry Leblang was flimsy. He had used a template and had not even specified what and where in the website was a copyright violation. I did notice that the website was offline last week. Andries 05:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a look in the archive and did not see a clear consensus. It is not for us to decide the copyright status of third-party websites. They claim fair use- who are we to say differently? I am amenable to moving this to Criticism of Prem Rawat until that article's pending merger back with this article is completed. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I didn't see the link in the list on Criticism of Prem Rawat, so I've added it there. -Willmcw 00:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I found some links on Criticism of Prem Rawat from "pro-Prem" sites that were already on this page, so I deleted the duplicates. -Willmcw 08:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I also done the same here, deleted links already listed in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Also deleted from there a 'pro' site that was a dead link. --Zappaz 15:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

 * Please note that many links to that site are already in Criticism of Prem Rawat. Also note that there is no such a "pending" merge. Read the summaries of both articles, the consensus edit, and the notes on last VfD on attempt on Criticism of Prem Rawat. --Zappaz 20:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The last one I saw recommended a merger. It is clearly called for. We can talk about that later.  Cheers, -Willmcw 00:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. Read the archived VfD for Criticism of Prem Rawat a couple of months ago... --Zappaz 15:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Willmcw that from an encyclopedia view there should be a merger but there are several practical problems that make the merger very difficult i.e. size issues, mutual distrust of the opposing factions editing this article, and the fact that the people who have edited the Prem Rawat related articles (incl. me) do not want to re-start an exhausting, arduous edit process. In practice, the merger can only be done by somebody who is perceived as neutral by the opposing factions, such as happened before by user Gary_D who has left Wikipedia. Andries 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * None of those are insurmountable impediments. It's not on my list of "things to do" but it is a worthwhile goal. -Willmcw 20:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will, could you explain why do you consider a merger of the articles a "worthwhile goal"? I would be interested to understand why do you think so. --Zappaz 12:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While hypertext allows for the easy interconnection of articles, I believe that individual articles should attempt to treat their topics comprehensively. We don't have "Prem Rawat, part one" and "Prem Rawat, part two." A biography of a person should depict both the good and the bad about a person. To put the good in one article and the bad in another is an artificial split that leads to two incomplete articles. That's my basic opinion on it. -Willmcw 23:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. Please note that the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, is 'not a biographical account: It is a collection of allegations made by a small group of ex-members and rebuttals by supporters. On the other hand, this article is a biography, and includes the salient points of the controversy (e.g. succession, family rift, criticism, etc.) There are other articles covering other topics, such as teachings, organizations, etc. I do not believe that this article is about "the good" and the other about "the bad", not at all. --Zappaz 13:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. I agree with Willmcw who commented elsewhere that it is difficult to seperate an NRM from its leader, especially in this case because Rawat says that contact with him is necessary for meditation i.e. his personal traits and behavior are important to assess the NRM. Andries 15:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. The article Criticism of Prem Rawat contains biographical aspects not covered in the Prem Rawat article i.e.
 * a. his alcoholism (testified independently by three insiders i.e. Mishler, Dettmers, and Donner)
 * b. the source of his personal wealth and his extravagant lifestyle
 * c. his extra-marital affairs
 * 3. The allegations, criticisms, ridicule, and even hostiliy do not only come from a small group of ex-followers but was widespread in the media when he was still well known. Besides some of the allegations that ex-followers make is corroborated by participant observations i.e Wim Haan and the opinions of ex-followers were shared by others e.g. Jan van der Lans, and Paul Schnabel.

Andries 15:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All these allegations, Andries, have been discussed and rebutted to death. As much as the opponents would want to ridicule this man, he is obviously well received in public forums, touring and speaking in front of audiences all over the world. (Hey... even Mother Teresa was criticized... No one is exempt of criticism in this day and age in which anyone can publish an opinion on a web page). According to press releases of the Rawat foundation, last week he received the Keys to the city of Miami after speaking in a Miami college, spoke in a top Thai univeristy a few weeks ago and before that he spoke to 1.5 million people in India during a tour there.  The fact that a full article exists in WP to represent a minority POV, is maybe something that needs to be looked into, rather than the other way around, IMO. --Zappaz 05:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The allegations of alcoholism are promoted by Rawat's opponents as a way to assassinate his character. (It is kown that Rawat is a pilot that flies himself all around the world on an ongoing basis, and certainly you cannot be an alcoholic and maintain a jet pilot license).
 * 2) The official websites do not hide that he is wealthy, (stating that he invested his money wisely), but to call his lifestyle "extravagant" is another way to throw mud with the hope that it sticks.
 * 3) The extra marital affair issue, is clearly hearsay and yet another way the enemies of Rawat use to try and harm his reputation. All these issues are fully discussed in the criticism article.
 * 4) Shanbel cites van der lans, and Van der lans does not cite anyone else but Haam, and probably based his writings on the some of the magazine articles from the 70's, an obvious circular reference with minimal scholarly value.
 * 5) The size of the activist ex-followers is minute in comparison with current following.
 * 6) The media articles from the 70's are mentioned throughout this article already.
 * Interesting that you mention Mother Teresa as an example. That article has a siginificant section devoted to the criticism of her. -Willmcw 06:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, I continue to disagree on all the points you make (with some minor agreements on alcoholism) but the orginal question is whether the articles should be merged. You said that they shouldn't because the criticism article contains no biographical information which is clearly untrue. I will support a any serious attempt by an editor who is perceived as neutral to merge the articles and I hope you will do the same. I will however not actively search for volunteering editors because I am not looking forward to the merge. Andries 08:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised with your disagreement. After all, you have demonstrated your support of Rawat's opponents quite evidently thus far. The problem with a merge would be the small group of Rawat's opponents will not be satisfied with any article unless it paints Rawat and his movement as the incarnation the evil itself. As you may be aware, they they have such an extreme aversion to anything to with this man and his movement, if one is to judge their obsessive and pathological rhetoric as exposed in their own discussion forums (I just visited their forum last week and was quite shocked to read the venom in some of their postings, I mean some of it is quite sickening). IMO, the current status quo, achieved after months of ferocious editing, is the best we can do for the time being. I do not look forward to another round of that.  Regarding Mother Teresa example, a similar treatment to this article will not work, simply because the opponents will never be satisfied with just a section on criticism, for the reasons stated above. Try to fit the 43K of the criticism article in 5 K, and then we can talk. Also note that there are no rebuttals in the Mother Teresa article, probably because no one cared to develop these. A criticism section, in particular as is based on hearsay or on Apostate testimonies, will be obviously challeged  and thoroughly rebutted as in the criticism article. --Zappaz 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see a relentless effort to increase the size of the criticism article. Perhaps the editors who were formerly involved have dropped out. I'm sure we can reduce the size of the two articles tso that a merge would be possible (the 32k limit has ben lifted). But we can worry about all this when we sit down to do it. No point in arguing just for the sake of it. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about increasing the size of the criticism. What I am talking about is keepingt the criticism forwarded by a minuscule group of opponents and critics, in proportion. Otherwise we are breaking NPOV (my highlights):
 * "To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."
 * That has been my position since we started working on these articles. Regarding the "dropped out" editors, I can assure that they will all resurface once anybody attempts to re-open the can of worms.--Zappaz 07:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no inclination to remove any point of criticism out of Wikipedia. Andries 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We know that Andries. As I can see from reading their forum, that you are an active participant in their anti-Rawat/anti-Elan Vital activism, so your position is pretty obvious. --Zappaz 07:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, testimonies of alcohol abuse by first hand witnesses are in itself no criticism. They should be part of Rawat's biography and should not be marginalized or treated with excessive scepticism only because Elan Vital does not like them. It seems that anybody who testifies about behavior by Rawat that does not fit Elan Vital party's line is classified as belonging to a hate group. Andries 22:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A biographical article needs not to contain hearsay and outrageous allegations by a small group of oponents. All we can do is to say that the man is controversial, has hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic followers that respect and love him for his teachings, and that there is a small group of ex-followers critics that level at him a usual barrage of allegations against a person of his standing that is consistent with apostate's atrocity stories. We have done all of that already, and plentifully. Read the Prem_Rawat section. --Zappaz 07:38, 25 Jun 2005

(UTC)


 * I continue to disagree. They are only outrageous considered because they contradict Elan Vital's party line. First hand testimonies are first hand testimonies and belong in the biography. Andries 08:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they are outrageous because they are outrageous claims made by level III apostates, or "professional enemies" pushing the usual atrocity stories against leaders of their former group. Wikipedia is not a place for a few individuals to advocate their antagonism to a public figure. If we include first-hand accounts of apostates with an ax to grind, shall we include then first-hand testimonies of current followers as well?    We have described the controversy, and we have given a full page to a minority POV, against NPOV guidelines.   If there is anything to be discussed or re-assesed is the amount of space given to present a minority POV. I am willing to contemplate a merger only within that context, if at all. --Zappaz 09:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Zappaz,
 * 1. The first hand testinonies by Mishler, Donner, and Dettmers are hardly atrocity stories: they are quite factual and if they are not factual then we can filter out the non-factual as Gary_D has done. I do not think that Dettmers is a level III apostate: he only spoke out after Jim Heller traced him Andries 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. How do you know that those former followers have an ax to grind? If you have any proof for this then we can include this. Andries 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3.The allegations are only outrageous if assume that Maharaji is a saint. Instead of writing that these testimonies fit atrocity stories by apostates it would be better and fairer to say that the allegations fit the pattern of incomptetence, abuse of power, exploitation, and hypocrisy of many gurus who came to Europe and the USA. It would be even better to leave out all the comments and include the factual contents of their testimonies. Andries 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4. I think it is okay to include testimonies of followers who can rebut the testimonies of Donner, Mishler, Dettmers. Of course this means that they should have been there. Andries 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5. I do not think that the POV of ex-premies is a minority POV. Andries 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries why do you buy into that Apostate level 3 bullshit anyway? Zappaz has taken it from this dubious guy Introvigne to push his POV and Agenda. This is nothing that is generally recognized by common sense or knowledge. Do you know how proud it makes him to bring his opponents to a point, that they start using this term as if it would reflect some reality? It is sqare head thinking to put completely different people into one basket to discriminate them for obvious reasons. That is the trickery of an unscrupelous character, don't fall for it,please.Thomas h 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My response, point by point: I am dropping this subject from now, I think that both you and I have made our point quite clearly, and there are other articles that I would want to edit, rather than spend more time in this one. --Zappaz 11:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) These are allegations that, oh surprise, were made after these people found themselves either fired or after leaving the movement.  Are they factual because they say so? Of course not.
 * 2) Ditto
 * 3) This has been discussed to death at Guru.
 * 4) Forget it. Both 'pro' testimonies or 'anti' testimonies are not encyclopedic. What we can do is present the controversy: That he has hundreds of thousands of fervent followers all around the world. That he has a small group of opponents that are ferocious in their attacks against him, and that despite their attempts to assesinate his characters and attempt disrupt his appearances, Rawat continues to be well received in public forums both in the East and in the West.
 * 5) Comm'on, Andries. That is one of the most obvious aspects of this controversy. Problem is that neither you or your expremie friends are willing to accept that. In any case, what you think is of no consequence. Facts are facts.


 * If you think that testimonies of followers and and ex-followers of relgious leaders are irrelevant for their biographies then you could try to change the article about Jesus and remove all the references to the four gospels. Andries 11:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a laughable argument, Andries and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. BTW, I checked the SSB related articles and found that there is a separate article on criticism that you created. Please explain why did you started a separate article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba instead of merging the text into Sathya Sai Baba or Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation? --Zappaz 14:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I created that article because there is so much criticism because it could not all go in the article Sathya Sai Baba. The article SSB is for a great deal based on first hand testimonies both by current and ex-followers. Andries 15:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The article on SSB is not based on first-hand testimonies. I do not know why are you saying that. Have you read the article? In any case, why it is OK to separate the criticism in that case, but in this case you propose to merge the criticism into the main article? I am getting really tired with your lack of rigor I am going to put you on my ignore list for a while. --Zappaz 18:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of the article on SSB is based on first hand testimonies without naming them e.g.
 * "'Several testimonies seem to indicate that he or she can change into a woman instanteneously. These puzzling testimonies has led some to the conclusion that Baba is a hermaphrodite'"
 * "Besides there is a testimony by Jens Senthi who claimed to have been sexually abused by the Baba but who was treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police"~
 * I basically think that it is better to integrate all the testimonies about the life of a person into one article.
 * Andries 18:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big problem with these two articles was that the Criticism of Prem Rawat and this article were almost two different biographies and the relevant first-hand testimonies that could be interpreted as criticism were not integrated into the biography, but were inappropriately marginalized as criticism coming from a "hate group" or from "level 3 apostates" with no credibility. That is somewhat different from the SSB articles. This article should simply summarize the relevant parts of their testimonies and leave it up to reader to decide whether they have credibility. Andries 09:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

'See Also ' discussion
Dear Zappaz, I have just re-deleted my own See Also section after finding the link-box at the very bottom of the page. This is the first Wiki article that I've ever seen such a link-box. Is this format a common Wiki format?

Scott P. 20:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. This is known as a navigation template, and is used to assist readers in navigating among articles related to a particular topic. They are fairly common. -Willmcw 20:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Links to critical websites reinstated
I haven't been here for a while, but check in occasionally to ensure that no major changes have been made after all the work previously done to agree a consensus version. I notice that the links to the critical websites have been removed. I have reinstated them. My reasons are that they are much more complete information resources on Prem Rawat than any of of the official sites, that the agreed version of this article included the links, and that it has been agreed that the Criticism article should be merged with this article, and although no one has the will to attempt this at the moment, at least the major critical links should be included. I hope no one objects, but if they do I am prepared to argue strenuously for the inclusion of the links. :-) --John Brauns 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you better get started. I have reverted this because editors have agreed that external links of critical sites should go all in the criticism article and external links of official sites sholw go all in here, and viceversa. Read the discussions about this very issue, agreed in consensus by active Wikipedia editors. As for your suggestion to merge the articles, that was discussed at length on a VfD and consensus was not reached for a merge. And if I remember correctly your friends all   objected to the merge. So, don't come here with a righteous attitude, smiley or not  smiley included. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The links were swapped around to minimize duplication pending a merger. If there's not going to be a merger, then I agree than they should be returned. FYI, here is what the VfD result was:
 * "The result of the debate was keep with a very strong recommendation to remerge back into the main article (or otherwise refactor the article(s) in order to better achieve the mandatory neutral point of view. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving the links back will be easier in the short term. -Willmcw 00:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is a section on Criticism and a wikilink to the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. That takes care of it. The VfD did not reach consensus to delete neither to merge. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Each article should be as comprehensive as possible. It's unfair to only list one side of the argument. I agree with John that we should also include them here if we're not going to do the merge anytime soon. Or, maybe it's time to do the merge. -Willmcw 00:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * In the middle of the VfD for List of purported cults you added a reference to the French report at the Elan Vital article. Why? Was that a vendetta because I voted to delete your beloved blacklist article? How should we interpret that the only edit that you made based on the VfD's discussion was to add that reference and that reference only?  You will have to provide everyone here with a good explanation about it, if you want us to take your edits in good faith as you asked in that VfD when challenged by User:Goethean.
 * Back to the discussion at hand, the "other side of the argument" has its own, full article as well as a detailed summary in this article, so your argument about fairness is moot.. That is a fair as it gets. Do you want to keep the external links, the summary about the criticism in this article and a full article on the POV of a VERY SMALL group of people that have made it their leitmotif to denigrate, verbally abuse, harass, an vituperate their former object of devotion? That is what you want? That is what you call "fair"? What I will call fair, is a footnote that there is an group of people made of former followers that oppose Prem Rawat, his teachings, the activities of the organizations that invite him to speak, and any expression of admiration, gratitude and love made public by people that have accepted Prem Rawat as a teacher in their lives. They are surely entitled to their opinion, but to claim unfairness with what they have got away with in this encylcopedia is preposterous.
 * In any case, if you insist to add the critical sites here again, I then will then proceed to add a full list of official sites at the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. .--&asymp; jossi &asymp; 02:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem with me - all the official sites are linked on the critical websites as well. Funny how the critical websites are not linked on the official websites, even when I am implicitly accused of being a deviant from society on Elan Vital's site! --John Brauns 06:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I added that because user:Zappaz suggested that, if the list were deleted, the individual entries could be moved to the different articles. So as a test I added one.
 * Sure, go ahead and add the links to Criticism as well. It'd be better, overall, to have two complete lists than two incomplete ones. -Willmcw 05:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't here for the previous discussion, and I think the neutral contributors may not be aware of the nature of the official and critical websites. The main reason these links belong here is because the critical websites are the only sites on the internet that attempt a complete history and analysis of Prem Rawat and his work. The official sites are simply adverts for Rawat's business, and are bland and lacking in any real content. Any content they do have (such as Elan Vital's FAQs) is a direct response to the critical websites. One example of the difference in thoroughness between the two groups of sites is that Ex-premie.org has an extensive library of press articles on Rawat, whereas tprf.org only includes paid advertorials in their 'Press Room'. I am reinstating my changes. --John Brauns 06:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Brauns was not here for the previous discussion, because his only reason for being here is to hijack WP for the nefarious purposes of his group of anti-Rawat activists. Official sites present Maharaji's message of peace, to those that feel the thirst to know and re-discover such peace within. Brauns and other anti-rawat activists hide their tacticts of hate and harassement behind an obvious facade. Note that Brauns has not contributed even one word to other articles on WP. He does not care about this project, this is yet another tool for Brauns to promote ill will. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 13:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Restored consensus version &asymp; jossi &asymp; 14:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Restored last agreed "External Links" section. This is the way the section was before the link swap was made. You can see the diff between my last two edits. --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 14:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

NO MORE LINKS
Brauns, you are incredible. You say you weren't here for critical discussion earlier, and that's not true: when you didn't get your way you ran off so you could do what you are doing now, claiming that you hadn't a chance for input.

Worse yet, you want to include links that are duplicated elsewhere. Talk about driving an agenda!

Finally, the links you submit are PHONY. This PRMI website PRETENDS to be unaffiliated with your hate group ex-premie.org, and the result of "yet more" people with an anti-Rawat angle, but it is in fact webmastered by the exact same person who is in charge of the other site.

And which allegedly anonymous person is in charge of the heavily filtered forum 8, where messages are deleted to present discussion that only puts the most hateful spin on Rawat, and most particularly his students.

Care to admit who that webmaster is, John? ''' Come on out, John... You can't create four or five different looking websites with the same crap and expect them all to be linked to every Wiki. No way.''' That has GOT to be a Wiki violation, or at the least, a good reason to not add the links.

Enough, already! No more links to the same stuff that is already available. You're beating a dead horse out there in Latvia. RichardG.


 * Firstly, Richard, you represented yourself as someone who was not a follower of Rawat, but was married to a follower of Rawat. Not only that, but that your wife was not involved in the organisations that support Rawat's work. Given that background, how would you know who the webmaster of any anonymously maintained website is? I suggest it is you who are mis-representing himself here. Regarding your accusation, I hereby declare that I am not the author of any of the content of prem-rawat-maharaji.info, and I am willing to swear to this in any court of law. The authors of PRMi and the owner and moderators of Forum 8 are anonymous because of the repeated harrassment and libel suffered by Rawat's critics from Rawat's devotees. I also repeat that I don't contribute so much to these sites because I simply haven't got the time, and Wikipedia is simply not important enough.--John Brauns 15:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cute way of talking past the truth, Mr. Brauns. You are perpetrating a fraud on Wiki. First things first-- My background is as a researcher and educator. My personal life is not germane and certainly none of your business. I have had time to research your tactics (god bless summer vacation!), and you have dissembled here, in an attempt to hijack a WP that was settled by long and arduous concensus. You have duplicated the same unproven allegation to create a false impression and load up the WP with more sites.
 * First, you say you are not the "author" or moderator of the duplicative hate group pages. That's not the matter at issue.
 * You 'ARE the legal registered owner of the PRMI website, are you not?
 * You ARE the legal registered owner of the Forum8 website, are you not?
 * You ARE the legal registered owner of the EPO website, are you not?
 * As the owner of all these sites you ARE responsible for thier content. Your reasoning and justification is weirdly circular-- "I am not the author but the authors are hiding becasue they are afraid so we should give anonymous sources credibility in slandering someone because they're afraid, therefore what they say must be true and I only contribute a little bit of authorship." Mixed up stuff, Mr. Brauns.
 * The more important point is as follows-- it is not appropriate for you to create several anonymous webpagess, containing the same allegations for the sole purpose of bootstrapping them into WP.
 * The extra links must go.

RichardG.


 * Richard, firstly, it was you yourself you brought up your personal life here to give yourself an air of both interest in the subject, but a degree if independence by not being a follower. If you want to keep your personal life out of Wiki, don't being it in. Regarding your outburst, the owners and anonymous authors of the websites you list have the right to their privacy, as you have the right to yours. Do you, or do you not agree? I will not answer your questions as there are those who have unethical reasons for identifying who is behind these sites, and to give any information here would help those unethical people. I will however, repeat that I did not author any part of PRMi, so my linking to it is independent of authorship. From my own research, the names of the registered owners of the domain names, and the clients of the hosting companies, are confidential, and no simple research could possibly establish who these people are. This is why I think you are misrepresenting yourself, and if you do not present some evidence behind your allegations, I intend reporting you to the Wiki authorities for your attempted breach of privacy, suggesting you take a long Wiki holiday. BTW, if you are so concerned about ownership of websites linked on Wiki, could you please publish the names of the webmasters of all the pro-Rawat sites. I believe all the official sites, and almost all the pro-Rawat unofficial sites, are anonymously maintained. Could it be the same person behind them all? :-) --John Brauns 08:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring and Merging of Prem Rawat articles
The articles produced to date are highly unsatisfactory for reasons of POV, gross factual errors, inconsistent or often absent referencing and lack of a cohesive or even rational historical construction. Further many of the discussions on this page seem designed to inhibit any movement away from the status quo or allow new editors to participate, this contribution is a conscious challenge to that position.

A new article effectively merging all seven existing articles is now presented, the new material provides for expansion within the main article, although this author considers that will in all probability merely reintroduce the confusion inherent in previous versions and the focus should be to ensure that the new text comprises factual accuracy. Redrafting of the related articles should take place based only on the accurate referencing provided by the new material, particularly related articles should avoid the anachronisms inherent in the previous texts. The criticisms article is beyond redemption and should not be resurrected in any form while the DUO article is wholly erroneous confusing two separate and unrelated organisations and requires wholesale rewriting if it is to exist as a separate page.

user:Dev Bhikar


 * That's a lot of "shoulds" for an editor who only started editing today, and who apparently has never bothered to read the manual of style. -Willmcw 09:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Willmcw, you are right, but please take into account that the totally new version of this article by Dev Bhikar is amazingly well-written and well-informed. And Dev Bhikar is, I think, fully right in his comments about the Divine United Organization. I already suspected this about DUO but I wasn't sure. Andries 09:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Andries, that is of course a complete travesty, note that wholesale efforts like these by this "Dev Bhika" that "suddenly" appears with a complete re-write and the chutzpah to passing a judgement, that put in disregard all the work put on these articles over a period of almost a year by a group of WP editors, will not remain unchallenged, hopefully by other editors as well.  I have reverted this edit and all the redirects across nine articles . As for this "Dev Bikar" person, or persons he represents: you are welcome to participate if you first try to understabd how Wikipedia works, what is NPOV means and what consensus means, as well as the fact that without consensus there is no NPOV. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 13:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd have more sympathy, &asymp; jossi &asymp;, if you hadn't commented "rv to consensus". What consensus? If the other version is better, which one editor argues, then we should use it. user:Dev Bhikar likes it, Andries likes it, I think it's passable and addresses some longterms concerns. On that basis, I'm goign to revert to the version which appears, at the moment, to be the consensus version. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are a "late comer" to this article. After a protracted edit war and hundreds of edits over a perid of 6 or 7 months a consensus version was adopted and marked as such on both this article and the criticism article. Go through the archives if you need background. This consensus version was adopted by a wide coalition of editors that included current followers, critical ex-followers, as well as neutral editors. Read the summary at the top of this page and refer if you need it, to the extensive archives that document the process by which this article was developed. Note that this and related articles were one of the most edited articles in 2004. So when I am referring to consensus, I am refering to consensus, not the POV of a new editor with zero edits, or another ediror that clearly is using WP for advocating a certain POV and that is assisting the anti-Rawat activists, or another editor that has so far demonstrated an atagonisticc attitude toward this subject for no apparent reason than possibly a negative bias toward this subject.   &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think that Willmcw is right that when he writes that the version by the mysterious newcomer Dev Bhikar solves a fundamental problem with the Criticism of Prem Rawat and this article i.e. the lack of integration of the two articles in the biography of Rawat that as a result present Jekyll and Hyde perspectives to the reader, in other words a clear POV fork (unlike the articles Sathya Sai Baba and Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba that I created: the critical testimonies are integrated into the main article). The main problem is not the existence of criticism article or a criticism section, but the lack of integration of some first-hand relevant testimonies in the biography and other material in the biography. I oppose a revert, to Dev Bhikar's version until at least some of style problems in Bhikar's version are corrected. A constructive effort by you and others would be to use material by Bhikar's version into a new version. And please also re-read the VfD outcome Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat if you think that the current version is still a concensus version. Andries 21:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I read it. May be it is you that needs to read it. Keep: 7 votes; Delete: 2 votes, Merge: 3 votes. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * How can you call this a POV fork? It has criticism from the top to the bottom of the article as well as a summary of the ex-premie grievances. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, you seem to be taking entirely opposite sides in this matter and on List of purported cults (or whatever it's called today). The prior consensus there was tossed out by you, who had little to no involvement in editing it, and you made a number of unilateral changes. But in this matter you seem to be saying that those are unacceptable behaviors. Perhaps I don't understand what you saying. Regarding these articles: the "Criticism" article underwent a VfD that had an outcome that called for merging it with the main article. This new editor is implementing the will of the community that other editors had been resisting. As for the consolidation of so many articles, well, why were there so many articles to begin with? If the subject matter can be handled in one comprehensive article then that is better for readers. Let's restore the new and improved version and improve it further. -Willmcw 22:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? This is not a new and improved version and this is not the will of the community.. This is rather the attempt of three people who's attitudes and  bias I have described pretty clearly to impose their will upon the WP community. This guy's version is a carbon copy of an anti-Rawat website, and has considerable holes, assumptions stated as facts, hearsay, speculation, as well as factual errors, and it by no means an improved version. ' You have failed to address that the current version's consensus was achieved after thousands of edits by a large group of editors during more than 1/2 a year.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that the VfD on Criticism of Prem Rawat ended as follows: That discussion did conclude with a strong recommendation to refactor this and the main article in such a way as to better achieve a neutral point of view. .... and that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination a call for merging as you argue.  Read Refactor.  Tally of votes for that VfD: Keep: 7 votes; Delete: 2 votes, Merge: 3 votes. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are misquoting the VfD closing. It says, "The result of the debate was keep with a very strong recommendation to remerge back into the main article (or otherwise refactor the article(s) in order to better achieve the mandatory neutral point of view." [ emphasis in the original ].
 * I see my mistake. There is a recommendation to merge (even if the tally of votes says otherwise), or refactor the article(s) We could discuss a merge, but what this Dev is proposing is deleting 7 articles and creating one, disregarding all the work done so far. That is not acceptable. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which website is this a copy of? I searched to see if it was a copyvio and couldn't find anything that duplicated it on the web using Google. Are you saying that previous editors have some kind of "hold" on an article and that the previous version was agreed upon by all who ever participated in editing it? Those editors had biases too. What ultimately matters is whether this version is better than the previous version, and whether it's better to have seven articles or one. I don't see you giving any specifics of problems with it. What holes? What assumptions? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh there are plenty. But first you tell me what is wrong with the current articles. If this version has been stable since October 6, 2004, editors that worked on this article for many months need a preety good argument for any modification proposal, let alone a wholesale reduction and merge. The burden is on Dev Bhikar, not on me or anyone else for that matter. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, one problem with the old article was that it was nine articles. One article is better. Prem Rawat is only one man, so it strange to have articles about his name when he was a kid, an article about criticism of him, etc. One comprehensive article on the topic is better. -Willmcw 03:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Bikhar's edits
Wikipedia articles are in a state of eternal work in progress, and any new text that can improve existing articles is welcome. Of course, this condensed version needs to be looked at carefully to ascertain if there is indeed new text and if the new text is any good, or if at all usable. Concerning the discussion to merge, we have not had that yet. We could engage in a discussion about merging, but let me tell you that the ones that will not be happy with a NPOV merge will be the anti-Rawat people and the editors that support their POV. Let me explain why: NPOV asks from us ''[...] that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly.  and then that We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.'' (see: WP:NPOV). My argument is that the critical apostate's allegations have been made by a tiny minority of people (these people that call themselves ex-premies). By their own assertions, they are approximately a dozen individuals with the support of some uncorroborated testimonies of another hundred. Compare that with 1,200,000 to 5,000,000 in 53 countries as per adherents.com stats from 1990 and 1998 respectively. So, taking that into consideration, the section "Specific criticism" on Bikahr's article (as well as the whole Criticism of Prem Rawat) is not NPOV, as these allegations are stated by an evidently vociferous but nevertheless tiny minority. So if there is a discussion of merging the criticism article into the main article, I would argue that they deserve a footnote in which their POV is fairly represented. A full article is not warranted, neither is a full section on a merged article.

That said and before I proceed to show the numerous problems with Bikhar's proposed alternative version, let me say that I am a Wikipedian that side with Inclusionists rather than Deletionists or those that advocate Mergism. More Is More in an online encyclopedia. We do not have the problem of "space" as in a paper encyclopedia (see Wiki is not paper). There is no reason to reduce, as long as text is relevant, factual, and supported by primary, verifiable, and notable sources. So, this proposal of deleting seven articles under the pretense of NPOV (a principle which evidently the author had has no exposure to with just one edit), is not acceptable to me as it implies the loss of considerable text that is well researched and that had the support by many editors and for many months.

In reading Bikhar's version I do not see any "new" text per se, but I find many elements of original research, many elements that are just opinions of the author, quite a bit of speculation on subjects the author evidently does not have direct knowledge of, and some obvious factual mistakes. I will attempt to describe the more obvious ones below:

Speculation

 * Prem Rawat appears to have been his father's favourite and began to emulate Shri Hans' speaking capacity
 * How does he know? Whas Bikhar there? And even if he was, this is just speculation and POV


 * [...] then only eight years old was named as the new 'Guru' and a process of spiritual transmission is suggested to have been alluded to within the Divine Light Mission teaching.
 * Speculation again... what suggestion, what process, what allusions?


 * I'm new to this so I apologise if I inadvertently break any rules and while I agree that the reverted page should be kept and edited and not the Bikhar one there is documentary evidence of a process of spiritual transmission in Prem Rawat's own words as quoted in both 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?' and 'Sacred journeys' by Downton user:220.245.180.130
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Can you give us a citation? I have read Rawat quite extensively and I yet have to come across him using any of these terms such as "spiritual transmission". Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 22:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By making a claim to lineage, Shri Hans opened the possibility for one or more of his own followers to lay claim to the living Guruship upon Shri Hans’ death.
 * The statement appears to infer that Shri Hans made a conscious choice to open the possibility of someone laying claim to the living Guruship upon his death. First, many people make claims to Guruship that do not have a known lineage or or parampara. Second, many Gurus with a lineage pass away without anyone making a claim. There is no corroboration to this hypothesis,  no sources. It is, again, just speculation.


 * [...] The total volume of unique critical material about Prem Rawat appears to at least equal that which is supportive of him.
 * Speculation. The critical websites (dime a dozen these days), most of which are a rehash of same material republished again and again, by the same group small group of people discussed above: the group of anti-rawat activists called expremies.

Factual errors

 * Prem Rawat is a self described inspirational speaker and successful private investor
 * Prem Rawat has never described himself as an inspirational speaker, nor as a successful private investor. There is no such record.


 * Prem Rawat received formal schooling at St. Joseph's Academy, a Catholic school in Dehradun and away from his family  seems to have had an unremarkable childhood.
 * Unremarkable? a three year old speaking to 100's of thousands of people? A 12 year old declaring that he will bring peace to the World in front of a crowd of 1 million?
 * I think the Bikhar meant that


 * Two westerners are of particular note, Ron Geaves, Mike Finch, both were to become adherents of Prem Rawat and both have written extensively on the history of Prem Rawat's career as a 'teacher'.
 * Mike Finch's website states that he is a computer programmer of some kind, an ex-follower and now a Theravada Buddhist. He has written some articles about his experience as a follower of Prem Rawat and an open letter. Prof. Ron Geaves is a Chair of Religious Studies at the University of Chester and has indeed published peer reviewed articles on the subject. Finch has not written extensively... Geaves has.


 * Shri Hans achieved some success in attaining a following amongst the Hindu communities
 * My research shows that Shri Hans’ followers were equally Muslim and Hindus.


 * [...] The teaching of the four techniques is achieved by the showing of a DVD who an appointed follower of Prem Rawat has judged to be ready for the transmission of the techniques
 * This is inconsistent with the explanations provided in the Techniques of Knowledge article that reads: The Knowledge sessions are facilitated by a technical operator that runs the multimedia presentation and the video equipment needed, and another person that ensures the comfort of the attendees and assist them if needed.  Clearly Bikhar is misinformed or simply does not have correct information. I am aware that 10 years ago there was such a process but that is no longer the case as discussed in Past teachings of Prem Rawat.

Original research
There are many, many elements of original research on Bikhar's article. These are just a few:
 * Shri Hans Ji Maharaj died in 1966, the cause of death has never been made public and a mythology of 'divine ascendancy' is said to have gained currency for a time. A more prosaic report gives the cause as a collapse while Shri Hans was taking his morning shower, his reputed age was 66.
 * There is no record of such mythology having ever taken place. And there are no records of such reports about the cause of death.


 * [...] By making this unsupported statement regarding belief, Prem Rawat may be considered to be usurping religious authority in Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and other established religions and pathways of belief.
 * This is POV, speculation and original research.


 * In the notes section, Note #3: Current followers have expressed disgust and dismay at the disparagement of Prem Rawat by former followers and a triangular conflict has ensued... etc..
 * This "triangulation of conflict" hypothesis was not only hilarious to read (after all there are only a dozen of exfollowers that are protagonists, probably all changing hats frequently to fit these distinctions) but it is a good example of what original research is.

Summary
I can go on and on, but for me, there are too many flaws in this proposed article to even consider it as a viable alternative/merged version. Also, I found no new text that is not covered already in existing articles, that are written in a better and more NPOV manner. Nevertheless, if there are factual errors on the Divine United Organization article, it will be good if Bikhar can provide material to fix it. In regard to a possible merge, we could discuss this if there is a genuine interest to achieve NPOV (a doubtful proposition at current state of affairs). --ZappaZ 05:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please comment below and not inline. Thanks --ZappaZ 10:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are big problems, unattributed POVs with Bhikar's article, but in other respects it is an improvement, because it gives a better overview. Also there is some text in Bhikar's article that was not in any article, e.g. the Boeing 707 episode. And I do think that Mike Finch is a notable western follower, even more than Geaves, who wrote one unnecessarily abstract and hence obfuscating article about Rawat and the DLM. Finch visited Rawat in India when he was still a child and was his follower from the start and unlike Geaves wrote many, more concrete articles. Besides, Finch was a kind of prominent intellectual apologist and recognized as such by other followers. Andries 07:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagre with such assessment. The proposed article by Bikhar, does not provide any better overview. The more I look into it, I come to appreciate that in Wikipedia, work done over a period of many months by many editors will always be better researched, better cited and more NPOV than an article written by an individual with an agenda. There is nothing like the friction of opposing POVs to generate NPOV articles. Nontheless, we could evaluate new text and incorporate it if that betters any of the articles. Your last statement about a Finch being a prominent intellectual apologist and recognized as such by other followers is pretty strange, to say the least. Where did you picked that from? --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 10:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I inferred this statement about Mike Finch from several postings at forum 8. Andries 10:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Forum 8 as in the forum frequented by the small group of people that call themselves expremies? If that is the case, I can see why you would inferred such a thing... --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 10:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are only two places on the internet where there is an open discussion of Prem Rawat and that is here and on forum 8 and here hence your disparagement of my conclusion only because it is based on that forum is baseless. I certainly hope that you will see soon that your baseless marginaliztion of the testimonies and perspectives of critical former followers of Rawat is extremely biased, naive and ignorant . Andries 11:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even Jossi uses forum8 as a source when it suits his POV e.g. in the case of John MacGregor. In other cases, he says that they are not notable. Andries 11:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, the use of expletives and engaging in personal attacks is against WP policy. I leave that to you to clean it up. Please remain civil. Either you keep your hateful remarks in check, or otherwise you will be ignored. Your choice. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 15:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a comment on your view on this article and your editing behavior here, not on you as a person, so it is not a personal attack. Andries 15:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously telling me that your comment is not a personal attack?. As said, I will not respond to any of your comments in this page (or in other dicussions) until such a time in which you remove your obvious personal attack and regain some basic level of civility. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zappaz, you have been behaving uncivil for many months by branding, and systematically disqualifying and stigmatizing a whole, diverse group of people whom you called apostates as unreliable, not notable, sometimes including their factual personal testimonies. I continue to find your view on this matter that you show thru your editing behavior here and elsewhere extremely biased, naive and ignorant. I see little diffence between generalizations like "niggers are lazy" and your assertion that "apostates are not notable and unreliable". I do not know how to tell you this in a more civil way after all my efforts to convince you of that in a polite way failed. And I am not exactly the only person who takes offense of your behavior and POV pushing throughout a whole range of articles on this matter. Andries 16:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are in squelch mode until you retract and delete your personal attack from this page. This will be my standard response to any comments addressed to me from you, until you retract your personal attack. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 17:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will consider re-tracting my tough words about your behavior here if you first retract your statements about the lack of reliability and notability of apostates. If you find my statements about your behavior insulting then please realize that they were a reaction to your insulting statement about apostates. You have to take into account that 1. There are few people who have first-hand experience with Rawat and 2. that there always very few spokespersons both in the case of critical former members and students of Rawat and 3. as I said that there are only two places on the internet where he is discussed. Andries 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My research shows that Shri Hans’ followers were equally Muslim and Hindus. 
 * Your research shows that? Equally muslim and hindus? Can you give us some proof? Where did you get the numbers from? I seriously doubt that you will provide us with anything reasonable but propaganda.Thomas h 09:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My research against Bikhar's, then. I will dig my papers from last year, but if Bikhar asserts that only Hindus were followers, he needs to provide a primary source as well, otherwise it is just a speculative statement.  --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 10:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll see. I don't doubt there were some followers with a muslim background, but the vast majority was definitely Hindus. Historically the Sikh thing which was developed to settle the differences between muslim conquerors and hindu defenders was a failure. We still have a muslim population in India from 12 to even 52 percent, localy depending, but no refelection of that in the following of Rawat or Hans(The only muslims that i know that were recruited were some refugees from Syria, Jordan and one even from Pakistan in Berlin, they all abandoned the cult a long time ago, in fact they used the community for dating and dealing drugs )Thomas h 12:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

Enough Nonsense: No Merger, No Phony Links
The activities of some people here must be ended, and immediately. A long, contentious and difficult effort by many people resulted in the consensus that: 1) the Prem Rawat article should have a "main" page that is biographic and encyclopedic in nature; 2) it would contain references in passim to critical views; and 3) there was so much unproven or debated allegation in that critical material that acheiving balance could ONLY be achieved through the creation of a companion critique page.

Now I see an attempt to hijack and undo all this work is afoot. This is not acceptable. The heart of the effort is to ignore our previous consensus and merge the articles, guaranteeing that unsubstantiated material (i.e., academically acceptable data such as hearsay and anecdote) is being touted as "the truth" and threatens to swallow up the core information. In other words, those with an anti-Rawat agenda want to establish the primary entry of Prem Rawat as wholly negative.

This is like defining an apple as " "a bad thing, horrible in taste and probably poisonous"" instead of ''"a fruit, red in color, which some people do not like." '' And the logical thing to do would be to create a seperate file about all the "bad" things about apples where those interested in learning about the "bad" facts can find more.

The "anti" viewpoints cannot and should not swallow the whole, but that's the unfortunate effect of merger. Keep them seperate.

As for the integrity of the data, Mr. Brauns has not sufficiently answered the questions that simple research presented. He is in fact the same registered owner of all of the main web pages cited in the negative views, and has dissembled by claiming that he is not the author. As owner of the webpage, he is responsible for their content, and his simply saying that there are other people who authored these duplicative pages but they are afraid to be held publicly accountable for their statements is not justification for making these pages the basis of credible research. It is clear that these duplicative pages are a sham designed to fool the public into thinking that their views are more widely held than in fact they are.

No merger. Revert as Zappas suggested, and no more phony links. Enough already. RichardG.
 * Please don't vandalize the talkpage richard,lexy or whatever that is, you little rascal ;-) Thomas h 13:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

DECA
I corrected some of the misinformation copied by Andries from Bikhar's essay, as well as the the corrected some facts cited by Andries, that were copied from an ex-follower's anonymous website, about the 1980's project called DECA. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not see much encyclopedic value on that text, and definitively no value whatsoever on the footnote, in which uncorroborated statements are made by one side, and rebuttals are made by the other side. I am removing most of the text, leaving just the basic facts without commentary. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will make the footnote into a reference. After all statement in Wikipedia must be referenced. And the testimony by Michael Donner is not on usenet but on ex-premie and is acceptable as a reference. Andries 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

website ownership
You do not know how to do a WHOIS?
 * 1) whois maharaji.net
 * Registrar Services webmaster@tprf.org
 * The Prem Rawat Foundation
 * P.O. Box 241498
 * Los Angeles, CA 90024
 * US
 * Phone: 01 310 392 5700


 * 1) whois elanvital.net
 * Elan Vital, Inc.
 * PO BOX 6130
 * MALIBU,, CA 90264-6130
 * US
 * Phone: 818 889-1373

&asymp; jossi &asymp; 06:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can get a result for Whois. We also get a result for ex-premie.org. That doesn't tell us who owns Elan Vital, Inc, or who wrote the material on their website. So the authorship and ownership are ultimately unknown. Yet another website, like millions of others. -Willmcw 01:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "authorship and ownership are ultimatley unknown"? Elan Vital is a registered non-profit organization in the US. Elan Vital and The Prem Rawat Foundation, as any other website that belongs to a company or organization, that compnay or organization is responsible for its contents and therefore the author. Ex-premie.org belongs to "John Brauns. Limbazi Pagasts, VL-4011, Latvia" as reported by whois. John Brauns is reponsible for the content of that site, as he is the registered owner. In both cases ownership is well established. Content of the site is authored by the owner or commissioned by the owner or written by someone else if that someone else cares to sign a piece written on that site, or if it is attributed to someone else. It is pretty evident, isn't it? You may need a crash course in intellectual property law, legal liability and the World Wide Web...&asymp; jossi &asymp; 01:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would report here that someone just sent a support request to Lunar Pages, the hosts of Forum8.org, using my name and email address, with a question about updating the technical contact in the Network Solutions database. Such support requests and responses are published on Lunar Pages website (a copy of the response was sent to me which is how I know about it). I assume whoever did this was trying to trick Lunar Pages into revealing confidential information. They didn't, and the support ticket was deleted at my request. --John Brauns 09:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, including these pages are not the place for uncorroborated accusations. Removed. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, please be careful with removing information from talk pages. That is generally frowned upon, unless it is clearly a personal attack. Andries 20:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That was a personal attack. So will you delete your personal attack against me. I am still waiting. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

comments

 * 1) You wrote: "I also know Mike Finch personally, as I gave him a job in my company when he was jobless and mentored him during the first years in the job. So, before you come around here to make wide ranging assertions of fact based on skewed data and misinformation". This means that Mike Finch has supplied skewed data and misinformation and that's an ad-hominem comment. Is it possible to know someone impersonally?
 * 2) I fully understand the point you made about Michael Dettmers but I don't accept it as necessarily being correct. I have no need to be humble in this regard. You have given details of your relationship with Michael Dettmers, I accept those details. You give your interpretation, I do not accept it. It may be correct but it certainly isn't convincing. My interpretation is more convincing to me especially since your interpretation is based upon extreme black and white, either/or thinking. In your version 'snap'! Everything Dettmers believes re Mr Rawat changes overnight. If your version of the details is correct and knowing the little I do about his life I can see that after leaving Mr Rawat's employ and rejecting him as the Satguru and relying upon you for financial support he would be a very unusual person to publicly express negative attitudes re Mr Rawat 'at your table'. After 23 years (in your version) he is independant and mature enough to say what he really believes when questioned by "ex-premies". While that interpretation does not show him to be particularly admirable it makes his final version appear reliable.
 * 3) Your assessment of Adries (sic) is not based upon fact but a long chain of interpretation by you and your total acceptance of your non-N POV.
 * 4) I am getting acquainted with Wikipedia and I had already registered a user name. I will become acquainted with the Wiki conventions but at least you don't seem to have any trouble understanding me.
 * 5) You stated above that Mr Rawat has 1,500,000 to 5,000,000 adherents. Those figures have a very large margin of error. Can you get a correct figure from Elan Vital or TPRF for the number of students in the "West" who are keeping in touch now? I've been told that Elan Vital is using the number of students who attend particularly important video events as their guide for charging the Western communities for their share of costs of "The Keys" project. This seems to be a reasonably accurate method of determining numbers of peopel staying "In Touch". Maybe you could get those figures?
 * 6) I'm not sure whether you are still good friends with Michael Dettmers. If you are, why not ask him to answer some questions now and see how his ideas have evolved?. Which of his statements about Mr Rawat's private life do you consider unreliable?
 * 7) I note that you use the term "loss of faith" and "years of devotion" to describe these "ex-followers". Does this mean you accept the designation of Elan Vital as a religion? User:Buchert


 * In response to your questions:
 * You are misreading me and/or misquoting me. I did not make any ad-hominem attacks on Mike Finch. Why is that you consider challenging someone's testimony as adhominem?
 * You don't have to accept my interpretation of Dettmer's. My assessment is that his testimony is unreliable, from direct observation and personal experience in my interactions with him. Of course, that is my POV. Duh.
 * Facts are facts are facts. Andries does not have any direct experience of these people. I do. All he has is the skewed information that he as accepted as the truth due to his self-declared anti-guru bias and his obvious allegiance to the anti-Prem Rawat activists' cause.
 * Good. Just sign you name with four tildes and indent your responses with colons.
 * I did not state anything about number of "adherents". The Keys have been funded by the generous contributions of individuals not communities. There is no such a thing. Whoever told you that is misinformed. So go back to whoever told you and ask them. The FAQ of the Keys website reads: "The cost of producing the Keys is covered by the contributions of people who support Maharaji's efforts to make his message widely available. The preparation process and the session where the techniques are taught are free of charge. Knowledge is a gift from Maharaji. The Keys are distributed around the world by various nonprofit organizations, formal and informal, staffed mainly by volunteers. The Keys are not sold, and neither Maharaji nor the organizations supporting his work receive a financial benefit from their distribution. There is no charge for the Keys or the preparation process. In some areas, a shipping and handling fee and a deposit may apply." The number of people "in touch" with Maharaji's message are not known as the degree of involvement varies greatly from person to person. My 75 year-old mother, listens to Maharaji's addresses on TV. Is that enough to be considered "in touch"?
 * I already had that conversation with Dettmers 8 years ago. I chose to terminate my friendship with him then. And I choose to keep the content of that conversation private. The speculation about his frame of mind at that time, is my speculation as I don't know what happened to him, and I did not get any wiser after I asked him for his reasons. The narrative he created for me at that time was insufficient to say the least. I don't want to say more.
 * We could engage in a discussion about religion if you wish. Ask any person that received and practices the techniques of Knowledge from Maharaji if they feel they belong to the "elan vital religion". I thing that 99.99% will smile benevolently and explain why they do not. There is no such a thing as the "elan vital" religion. On the other hand, the beliefs I hold dear, my view of the world, my experience of self could be labeled as "faith" or "trust", and most definitively is within my right to pursue freely. I would prefer to call it "Knowledge". To know. Religion comes from the latin religare meaning "to re-connect" or "to bind". If that is the definition we take, yes, I am religious as the experience of Knowledge connects me back to my inner self. If by religion you mean a collection of liturgies, belief in a certain scripture, and the belonging to a group or "community" then no, I am not in a religion. We devote ourselves to many things. For example, I devote myself quite a bit to WP :). I am also devoted to my sweet family. I devote myself to my art. I also devote myself passionately to Knowledge and my personal journey of discovery.
 * I answered all your questions. May I know ask what is your interest in this subject? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 00:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1 You did not say that Mike Finch provided incorrect information but "misleading" information. misleading = deceptive. This in conjunction with the tone of your message indicates that you consider him to be not merely wrong but actively engaged in deception and that is ad hominem.
 * 2 Andries does not need any direct experience of these people to judge whether their information is reliable. I do not accept evidence on the basis of whether it fits my POV or not but whether I consider it accurate and I believe from reading Andries comments in these 11 archives of discussion that he does not either.
 * 3 Sorry, I should have written: "The Wikipaedia pages say ... " It seems from your brief autobiographical statements that you are are a committed and respected student of Mr Rawat and as I think we should try to get some accurate statistical information from Elan Vital/Prem Rawat Foundation rather than use estimates I thought you would be the most appropriate person to contact them requesting such information. Until a few years ago I was collating and uploading the statistical information for Elan Vital in the community in which I resided. Therefore I know it exists. Re the fundig for "The Keys" and it's use for determining the number of students I will go back and ask. As for your mother, I would say no but I do not have any official capacity to make that call.
 * 4 The story of Divine Light Mission / Elan Vital / the Prem Rawat Foundation is quite fascinating and as it is the only group/club/cult I have ever been a member of I would like to both understand it as fully as possible and see that it's history is as accurately portrayed as possible. I am now coming to that time of life where I have the experience and time to indulge myself in my interests and Wikipedia was the first area that came to my attention where I thought I could have some meaningful input. It also seems a microcosm of the public disputes between committed students and ex-premies and you seem a particularly daunting even ...removed personal attack... so only facts would appear to be able to pass your acerberusic gateway. Plus the NPOV requirement has me interested.

Buchert 06:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Buchert, welcome to Wikipedia. Some points for you: a) Please refrain from personal attacks. Assume good faith, not the opposite. I will personally see to it that personal attacks are rem'ed from these pages; b) This is not USENET or a discussion forum. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. In you want to engage in polemics, there are plenty of forums to do that, not here please. I agree that this subject is facinating, that is what we are here, but please remain civil and corteous while exploring it with other editors. Lastly, could you explain what is the meaning of "acerberusic gateway". Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that ZappaZ, I didn't realise that using the words "daunting even bullying character" would be considered a personal attack. Can you return the word "character" to it's appropriate place. "acerberusic" is a neology I created that seemed to match jossi's position here. It is a combination of acerbic and cerberus. He ensures nothing but attested NPOV facts can be put into this Prem Rawat Wiki. Buchert 01:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Did Rawat ever use the Boeing 707 for which his folllowers worked? According to the prem Rawat Maharaji info website it was never used by Rawat. Andries 16:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, he did not use the ariplane. It was sold after it was completed. This was already explained in edits that were deleted, that not only asharm residents worked there. The 707 was sold in outstanding condition to a client. It also produced other aircrafts, not only the 707. DECA has many lucrative contracts. Many people working on the DECA project were not ahsram residents. Some were not even students of Maharaji. Some people were invited, because of specific skills they had. Others were recruited through executive recruitment services. DECA was at all times a commercial company and the 707 was only one of the projects it worked on. It had other customers, unrelated to Prem Rawat. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 17:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jossi, thanks for your information. Although it will be clear that I basically agree with the POV of ex-premies, I really try to be open for evidence of being wrong, so if you could provide me inside information then leave a message on my talk page or send me an e-mail. Also, I do not remember that I ever admitted my anti-guru bias, but I do think that it is risky to get deeply involved with a guru because many of the gurus who acquired Western followers were involved in hypocrisy or scandals and it is notoriously difficult to distinguish exploitative, unreliable or incompetent from genuine ones. Thanks. Andries 20:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you for your candor. In that I cannot but to agree with you: Finding a teacher you can trust, is not an easy thing. Gladly, I found one and I am grateful. What inside information do you want? I have tried to be as forthcoming as possible in these pages. I am just reluctant to expose myself to further harassment. Want to have a private conversation?, email me via the email link on my user page. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 20:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi and Zappaz, why did you have remove references from Wikipedia i.e. the links to the Prem -Rawat Maharaji website and the testimonie by Dettmers? I think your behavior is against the Wikipedia policy that says that statements must be referenced. I may overlook something, so thanks in advance for your explanations. I do not consider the assertion that these websites are biased a valid reason for deletion after all the same can be said for the Elan Vital references that are allowed on this article. Andries17:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Statements must be referenced, of course, but not to any reference. Can I put up a website Allyouwanttoknowaboutpremrawat.com, write whatever I want and then use that as a source for WP? Can I? It's only a cuple of dollars a month. I can put up not only one, but several websites, right? I can link one to the other, in a typical circular reference. Then come here and paper the whole article with my "references" Why not? ... that would be ridiculous, don't you think? You may want to read the debate between me and Willmcw about sources at Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat in regard to online sources, their quality and their relevance for WP, as stated in WP policy. You may want to refer to cite your sources, and Using online sources as well. A quote from that page, below (my highlights):
 * "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers, like the New York Times or The Times of London, are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world."


 * Without making an assessment if these people are carefully sharing their knowledge with the world, or instead they are misinformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane, fact is that these sites are anonymous, their owners unknown and most significantly they are not providing any sources beyond USENET and discussion forum statements or copies of these, or other sites that can fall under the same category. Now, in regard to this all Boeing 707 business, what is so encyclopedic about it? We are stating that they made a business for executive jets interiors, got an old 707 and refurbish it, then they sold it, and later they sold the company, so what? Seems to me a a good case of "much of a do about nothing". --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 20:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz,thank you for the explanation, but I have tried to evaluate the information on the Prem Rawat Maharaji info website that is made by several people and I could not find a single mistake and I think that it is a reliable website. Besides that is the only available source for the Boeing 707 information. Note that Wikipedia is also made by several individuals who are mostly anonymously but still it is used as a reference work. The Prem Rawat Maharaji Wensite even invites its readers to send them emails with mistakes and they have corrected one mistake. Only a very small fraction of the websites on the internet (and many newspapers) have this facility and will seriously respond to criticism. Also with regards to the testimony on forum messages by Dettmers, I do not seriously doubt that this is the Dettmers. I once tried to post under a fake name (for a joke) on forum8 but I immediately received an email that I should stop posting under multiple aliases. Clearly this shows the huge difference between usenet and the ex-premie forum. Besides Jossi uses the forum messages too for the criticism article. Of course, I have no way of verifying Dettmers testimony, but the fact is that this his really his testimony and that is important. Andries 21:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah Andries! Yes, many WP editors are anonymous (including me!), but this is a wiki, and we are lucky to have a NPOV policy. WP is trusted because of that. A true open source project, bound to a non-negotiable principle of NPOV. Now, that is reliable, given time and patience, of course. An anonymous website, citing no primary sources, but only circular references, is indeed a source, and we should cite when describing the POV of critics ( we have done that in Criticism of Prem Rawat). But I would argue that using an uncorroborated source, from an anonymous website, who's sources are not corroborated, checked and validated, is not a very good idea for an encyclopedic article. The only reason I am happy to leave the 707 little story is because we have an good reference for the sale of the business to B/E, that corroborates the story. Otherwise I would have argued for its deletion. A question for you: How can you make the assertion that "I think this is a reliable website" and "I could not find a single mistake". Do you have access to sources that are not being made public to which you are comparing these sources and enable you to "find no mistakes?" --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit that it is difficult to assess the credibility of the website but there is nothing in the website that contradicts what I have read elsewhere. Andries 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read many of the forum messages e.g. by Cynthia and also the articles by Joe W. who write under their real names and wrote about Deca. Andries 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Andries, but that is the testimony from self-declared anti-Rawat activists. You can quote them on the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, and attribute statements to them is you wish. But to attempt to use a forum or USENET posting (or a copy of that) as a reliable source for the purpose of this encyclopedia and for a biographical article, should not be acceptable, don't you think? --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says nowhere that first hand sources, such as on the forum, are not allowed and if both a follower (jossi) and several ex-followers' testimonies agree about an event that must have been so widely known then I think it can be written down as a fact. Andries 21:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if both sides of a contoversy ever agree on something, then we could assume fact, of course by properly describing that agreement. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 23:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

With regards to using inside testimonie, even the biography of Hitler is based on personal testimonies by insiders e.g. "according to August Kubizek, his close friend and roommate at the time, he was more interested in the operas of Richard Wagner than in politics." The testimonie is stated just like that and attributed and referenced, regardless whether Kubizek later started to love or hate Hitler. It is left to the reader to assess whether Kubizek is reliable or notAndries 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Andries. August Kubizek is cited because his testimony is recalled in Ian Kershaw's "Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris" (an excellent biography), and probably in many other biographies of the Nazi tyrant. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 23:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine the ex-premie website is extensively quoted on the UvA website so it can be quoted extensively here too. Andries 23:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, Andries... Are you now comparing Kershaw's and hundred of other notable historians with the standing of a student of Sociology in the University of Virginia that wrote that article as an assigment? Circular references, yet again. It all boils down to the quality of our sources. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 23:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good standard of the credibility of ex-premie for unbiased outsiders because the uVa article is, as far as I know, the only article that purports to be of academic standards after ex-premie surfaced. Do you know another article? And did you know that the Dutch society of skeptics links to two articles on ex-premie website. The only ex site that they link to as far as I know. If you think that the UVa article is so bad then please write to Douglas Cowan to remove it immediately. Andries 00:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zappaz, can you imagine an unbiased scholar who now wants to write an article about Rawat or the DLM and not use the various ex-premie websites in his research? I can't, because the information on these websites is unparalelled in quantity and detail. Andries 01:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A scholar worth his/her salt, will know that these sites are written by apostates that have declared a no holds barred war against Prem Rawat and his students, and as such they will take that into consideration, and hopefully, will check other sources as well. I have researched this subject extensively and all I can see is circular references everywhere. From a post in USENET, pages of commentary, multiple websites sprouting everywhere, all regurgitating more or less the same information, putting so much negative spin that you get dizzy :), and without much understanding of the cultural differences between East and West, or the context of time. The credibility of these sites, to scholarly eyes, will be quite questionable to say the least, unless you are a scholar that sees any new religious movement through the glass of anticultism and side with their views. Now, concerning Cowan's New Religious Movement's home page project, note that that site is being revamped as we speak and most articles going through a process of review, including the article you refer to. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 02:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The student of the UVa was worth his or here salt:s/he was aware that the ex-premie site was full opinions. S/he wrote " Some of the information is opinionated, but it does gives a great deal of information about the DLM/ EV." but still s/he considered the website good enough to quote extensively. I do not see a good reason to deviate from this methodology here in Wikipedia. The ex-premie website is based of postings on forums (not usenet), and "journeys" by people mostly with verified identity, containing first hand testimonies. On this basis of these testimonies the ex-premie website was compiled. This is the opposite of circular referencing, but sound information gathering. It is not true that only scholars who look at NRMs with an anti-cult view side with apostates, like the Dutch professor of psychology of religion Dr. Jan van der Lans who wrote in the book "Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru" that he was accused of cult apologism but still considered Rawat either a charlatan of a victim of his surrounding. Saul V. Levine tends to side with the cult apologists too but he wrote in the article "Life in cults" published in Marc Galanter's book published by the APA that
 * "p. 100 'Similarly, in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the the religion and to abstain form alcohol, tobacco meat, and sex' p. 102 '''Further more, from the perspective of outsiders, especially parents, the perception that their children are being financially exploited is seen as one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of the group. This is particularlyu of concern hwne hte leaer (Moon, Majaraj ji, Bhagwan Rajneesh, Hubbard, and so on ) live in ostentation and offensive opulence, while the members may be at subsistence level. In the state of ultimate commitment, a true believe feels better for having raised or given money to the cause. It also aids in overcoming cognitive dissonance (the cause 'must be' worthwile to have attracted these funds). All kinds of rationales are given and accepted, but it is fascinating to see the blind acceptance being replaced by questioning and scorn as the hypocrisies and double standard begin to make themselves felt.'"


 * We have already discussed at length Van der Lans, and you also had a spirited exchange already about Levine with Jossi and others, so I do not understand why you are rasing these again. (Calling these two "cult apologists", common Andries! ROFL!) In concern to the VfD of Criticism of Prem Rawat, we have discussed that as well. As for the circular references and the quality of sources, we have been discussing that quite extensively over the last few days. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about the quality of anonymous online sources that use other an anonymous online sources or comments made on a discussion forum or USENET as the primary source for a biographical article in WP. As I said, that is not applicable to the criticism article, as one of the the small group of critics' tactics is to publish multiple sites to present their opinions, so it is OK to cite these there. In this article, however, that is not applicable. Would you write an article on George Bush based on the opinions and critique espoused in the myriad of blogs that criticize him? That would be ridiculous, unless you call that article Grassroots criticism against George W. Bush. As for "mediation", we ought to first attempt to reach consensus, and if not possible, we could do a series of RfCs about this and other items in dispute. I do not think that we are in that state in which mediation is needed, but go ahead if that is what you want to do. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * These are first hand testimonies from people whose identity has been verified and it is a fact that they (Bob Mishler, Mike Donner, Michael Dettmers) were leaders in the DLM.  I think they are good sources for his biographical article, as long as their testimonies are attributed and referenced. Of course, the information about Rawat is not so extensive as about Bush but we should use in both cases the best available. Let us leave it up to the readers to assess the credibility of their testimonies, not to Zappaz, Jossi or me.  Andries 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)