Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 18

Removing KSGV reference
Please do not remove the KSGV reference. Both Derks are Lans and associated with the KSGV, Derks is the current chairman and the author of several books published by the KSGV. Same with Lans. Can I ask what is the problem? with this? Whay do you want to hide this fact? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have failed to provide evidence that they were associated with the KSGV at the time that they wrote the article (1986). The website that you use as evidence dates from 2006. Yes, van der Lans wrote one book for the KSGV in 1981, but if that is all then it is not enough to warrant a mentioning of association. And even if it is true then it is largely irrelevant because the 1986 article did not appear in a publication of th KSGV. What is far more relevant is that Derks and van der Lans presented a paper about the difference between the DLM and Bhagwan movement in a scientific congress of psychologists of religion. Andries 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to present such evidence. Lans was trained as a Catholic priest, Derks is the chairman of the KSGV, both are authors sponsored by the KSGV to write books from the "Cristian tradition" (exact wording from the KSGV website). As per pour discussions about Geaves and others, declaring the affiliations of scholars or authors is important and warranted. FYI, Lans wrote numerous books for the KSGV, not just one. Please get your facts checked before your assert them so convincingy. See Lans books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#LANS Derks books: http://www.ksgv.nl/KSGV_auteurs.html#DERKS ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 10:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit that some of the books of Jan van der Lans were sponsored or published by the KSGV. I admit that van der Lans and Derks became much later chairpersons of the KSGV, but I am still waiting for evidence that they were in 1986 associated with the KSGV and also an explanation why this is relevant, taking into account that this particular article was not published by the KSGV. Please note that the article already states that they were associated with the Catholic University of Nijmegen. If the KSGV is relevant here then following the same reason it is also relevant to state that van der Lans and Derks published an article about the DLM in a book edited by Eileen Barker. Of course, there is a difference when strong bias can be expected, such as in the case of Geaves, but in the case of cult apologists van der Lans and Derks it is not so important. Should we also mention the denomination of J. Gordon Melton? Andries 10:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If something relevant should be mentioned here then it is that Van der Lans interviewed many Dutch followers of the DLM. Derks and Van der Lans were cult apologists (as also more or less described in van der Lans' book "Followers of the guru") and certainly not heavily biased against non-Christian faith. Andries 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

Thanks very much but assuring this article treats PR's critics fairly is something I am prepared to undergo a little stress to help achieve. At the moment that is my focus. Who are you by the way?PatW 13:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Jossi from another computer. He forgot to log on.Momento 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I still believe that "one-article" editors are usually consumed by POV and create an agressive environment that is not conducive to editing. Edit other articles, take a wiki break, etc. It will do wonders to you, to fellow editors and eventually to this article. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never been a a "one article" editor. Andries 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Momento's edit re: Ashram
Momento has removed 'Renunciate monastic order' describing the Ashram. He has linked the word Ashram to the Wikki general description of that word instead. Fine but since that page has no reference to 'renunciation' or any mention of Maharaji's ashrams, wouldn't it be better to link to somewhere where there is? Might it be an idea to have a distinct section on ashrams here? Should we just mention it in passing? PatW 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read one sentence further you will see "Those who chose to live in ashrams were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience".Momento 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate he did that because removing all things Indian from PR's article sort of makes it look as it PR doesn't like his own Indian heritage. But, I suppose the ashram article can be edited (I'm willing to make an attempt) to include a description of the DLM western ashrams and a link to M's ashram code on EPO. That said, there is going to be a rewrite of the Past Teachings of Prem Rawat article, which will include a lot of information about the ashrams, quotes from M, as well as the code written by Maharaji, etc., so eventually, I think that a link can be also provided from here, directing readers to "Past..." for a better explanations of the ashrams.  Wikipedia editing can be fun, eh?  Sylviecyn
 * I doubt that the DLM is important enough for a mentioning in the article ashram and if the DLM is mentioned there then I think it can only be a brief mentioning. Andries 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything Indian. I actually increased its prominence by putting "ashram" in the lead sentence.Momento 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the redirect in this article of "ashram" doesn't apply and shouldn't be used. Simple as that, because the definition on the article doesn't provide an adequate definition/explanation for puposes of DLM ashrams. Sylviecyn 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then make a section about ashrams in the article Divine Light Mission and link it to that section. Andries 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the explanation about the renunciate order as per the Downton cite, and removed a dup explanation about the ashram vows. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with "renunciate order" is that implies that people who lived in ashrams were like monks and nuns. As I understand it, most ashram residents continued to work in the "outside world", didn't wear a distinctive uniform, didn't have a special title etc.Momento 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can add that distinction, if you wish. But it was a renunciate order as per the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * I agree, Pat. Community Coordinator (CC) and Initiator was another one.  Only ashram premies could apply for Maharaji's IDP (Initiator Development Program). Most CC's didn't hold full-time jobs, coordinating the community was their service. The sexes were segregated and there were "sisters' ashrams" and "brothers' ashrams."  No mixing allowed.  Here's a mp3 of Maharaji at the Portland Community Coordinator's Conference where he discusses the ashram at length:
 * http://gurumaharaji.info/audio/portland_1977/mp3/ Maharaji, Portland, Oregon, 1977 Sylviecyn 11:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (fixed)


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


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

OK Jossi but please don't diminish the righteous indignation of myself and others, for having to spend our entire time addressing Momento's repeatedly controversial edits. The evidence of this is that in the last week virtually all of his/her edits have proved (when challenged here) to be controversial and mostly innapropriate. Why don't you tick Momento off for this? Instead you seem to be forgetting to put your neutral Admin hat on before yourself commenting in a rather patronising way on people's reactions. As you know this is not a personal issue and I have NO wish for this exercise to devolve into incivility. Please will you be fair and stop blaming me for being cross and frustrated at Momento when he/she?? persistently deletes my edits. For a start he/she again has just deleted my inclusion of the meaning of Agya and my reference for some mysterious unexplained reason. I ask you: is this reasonable behaviour from him/her? It seems pretty 'uncivil' and 'aggressive' to me. I had a good time most of the time in the ashram too. Later it sucked really badly.PatW 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made over 30 edits in the last week of which 3 have been challenged. Do you really see that as "virtually all"? As for removing "agya" it's no mystery, when I removed the paraphrase and inserted Lovejoy's quote I didn't notice "agya" was linked.Momento 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I forgive you :-) I'm going to be busy working in the real world for a while so have fun while I'm gone! "An honest tale speeds best being plainly told"  (Richard III)PatW 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, please review Ownership of articles as well as Administrators. It's my understanding that the function of a wiki admin is to perform mostly technical stuff, which involves some policing, but not to present themselves as the owner or administrator of an article, because no one owns an article, nor is anyone a manager of an article.  Is there a wiki-rule I've missed?  I have tried to be sensitive to the fact that you've done a lot of work on this article by not making massive edits.  On the other hand, your daily instructions are getting to be a bit overbearing and unneccessary.  In other words, I don't believe that your being a wiki admin. gives you any more authority/power over this article than anyone else, unless again, I've missed a rule about this if so please advise.  FYI, I'm not stressed, angry, or upset.  Sylviecyn 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Some of these edits do not work, so I have made further tweaks as follows.
 * The issue is that the "ex-premies" are a small group of detractors and critics, so I have used "a number of former followers", rather than the whole inclusive "former followers" that misleadlingly includes all former
 * The website can only "purport to represent their viewpoints", unless there is somewhere in that website a statement with a list of people that assert that the website represents her viewpoints.
 * I have also removed "an organizattion that supports Prem Rawat" as Elan Vital has already been introduced to the reader, in the lead and in the "Organizations" section. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Critic's Link and consistency of name - Prem Rawat
Elan Vital's response to the group who maintain the above sites Elan Vital comments and legal judgements against ex-premie group members which includes Mike Finch.

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

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

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


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


 * One might equally ask 'why is there a Prem Rawat article in Wikipedia?' There are critics links because Prem Rawat has critics.  The human race maybe has little use for either Rawat or his ex-devotees, but there will always be critics for as long as Wiki editors like you try to pass off Millenium '73 as just another hindu birthday party. Craigfitzroy 00:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch! That was a little nasty there, Craig.  What do you think ex-devotees should do that might make them as useful to the human race as, well, as you are perhaps?--Jim Heller 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I may have been out of order there. I'm still new on Wiki, so maybe Jossi will advise.  Craigfitzroy 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I, in turn, think I might have read a bit too much into your words. Sorry.--Jim Heller 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is, why have "Critics" links. Even the articles on Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot don't have "Critics" links and they have far more critics than PR will ever have. Can you think of one rational reason why PR has "Critics" links and they don't?Momento 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot are well-known, notorious figures in history.  Rawat, on the other hand, is a slightly-known person who purports to be one thing quite contrary to what his critics say he is.  Who is Prem Rawat?  Is he what he claims to be and, if so, what is that exactly?  Or is he, alternatively, a lying, cowardly cult leader as his critics maintain?  That's the question you must a-a-a-a-as-s-s--k, ask 'til you know the answer.  This article could have been written from either perspective so it needs both for completion.--Jim Heller 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Critics" links are on their way out.Momento 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Momento, some articles include external links sections that include critics' websites. The style guide External links does not have any specifics about the subject, so it is up to editor's consensus. All of the critics sites are listed in the criticism article, so listing one or two here may be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I discussed the deletion here, gave my reasons, asked for comments, warned of impending deletion and waited for 24 hours before deleting, I have fulfilled my obligations as an editor. So I would appreciate it if this deletion was discussed here before reverting. I have deleted them. I ask again, can anyone give me a "rational reason" why this article would contain critics links.Momento 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's time to make a request for arbitration or mediation (whatever the protocol is) in this and the criticism article, because the edits are becoming unilaterally anti-critic POV. I am strongly against removing the Critic's links.  To do this without any explanation or reason is unacceptable, Momento.  Momento, your logic escapes me when you say that Pol Pot and Hitler don't have critic sections.  For goodness sakes, they were genocidal mass murders! Why on earth would you compare Prem Rawat with Pol Pot and Hitler?  No one ever accused Rawat of genocide because that would be absurd!  That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, but I'm willing to listen to your reasons if you have any others. But, I do think We need arbitration here, because the critic links must be reinserted, however, I don't want a revert war. The floor is yours, Momento, please explain in a logical, rational way.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 13:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't compare PR to Hitler or Pol Pot. I compared their Wiki articles and the fact that while Pol Pot and Hitler have far more critics than PR will ever have, they don't have a list of critics links.Momento 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


 * I've now had a chance to review some of the pleadings and find that that Staker defends his outrageous website claim that I admitted embezzling $18,000 from EV by asserting, amongst other things, that I really did make that admission. In fact, as I clearly stated at the time and as was abundantly obvious by the context alone (not to mention the fact that no money was ever missing as Jack Tuff, the head of the local office of EV at the time and still an ardent follower, confirmed) my comment was undeniably a joke.  Nonetheless, Staker anonymously put up and still maintains to this day a website accusing me of embezzlement.  Even more alarming, Rawat's own organization repeated this defamation in one of their Frequently Asked Questions on one of their websites where they stated (without even mentioning my saying it was a joke) that "One [critic], a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work."
 * This is clear harrassment and defamation by both Rawat's organization and Staker who appear to have been acting in concert. Perhaps someone other than me (or Fresco who's also involved in the litigation) might suggest how the article could be appropriately edited.  --Jim Heller 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving off-topic comments to User_Talk:Jim Heller ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, are you allowed to move a discussion away just because you get caught lying? Where's the authority for that?--Jim Heller 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not caught lying. I made it very clear what my opinion was, and you made clear what your opinon was as well. As for the refactoring and moving of off-topic comments to User_talk namesapce, please see WP:REFACTOR and WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Any objective reader would laugh at this, Jossi. You boasted that Marianne had "obviously failed" in her effort to interrogate you when in fact you had earlier agreed to be deposed.  How do you get one of those RfC's? --Jim Heller 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RFC's are related to content disputes only. Not to off-topic discussion on talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But this IS a content dispute as I intend to edit the article to reflect the fact that both Elan Vital and anonymous premies like Staker are making defamatory claims. Anyway, let's have some arm's-length admin review your latest distortion.  And until we do I'm moving this discussion back here where it started and where it belongs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. In regard of the letter from which you cite, I do not find it on the sftc.org website where all court documents are filed [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Some things aren't merely a matter of opinion. Staker's lawyer agreed you would testify within a limited scope. Marianne's lawyer wanted you to testify about even more. You brought a motion which was then struck off the list pending the outcome of Staker's appeal of the dismissal of his SLAPP suit. Saying that Marianne's attempt to interrogate you "obviously failed" is clearly false. She didn't fail at all. You had already agreed to testify, the fight was over about how much. As for the document, it's there at the courthouse along with all the others. Hire a transcription service to make you a copy.--Jim Heller 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * So that you not complain later that you were not aware of policies, please read:
 * Blocking_policy
 * And note that this applies to articles and talk pages as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.Momento 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Momento! And, to be fair, the majority of people who ever heard Rawat's pitch, both those who received Knowledge and those who didn't, rejected and reject him as an untrustworthy cult leader.  The world's press laughed at him, then forgot he even existed.  His following in North America is a small fraction of what it once was.  He has tried, not once but several times, to reinvent himself (always a sign of desperation).  His organization is so paranoid about criticism against him they resort to defamation such as falsely accusing ex-followers of embezzlement.
 * Momento, let's work together at last to make this article fair.--Jim Heller 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, just note that Jim Heller and Co. will continue to attempt to assert that the POV of 20 people in a chatroom and in a dime-a-dozed websites owned by one of them, is a significant POV, a laughable proposition. If this article is ever to be fair, is when the detractors that call themeselves "ex-premies" realize the reality of the situation and stop believing in the sound of their own voices and accept the fact that they are a tiny minority. This issue has been discussed to death already and these discussions are available in the Archives. Some of these discussions: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13 and Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13. Rather than re-hashing these discussions, please refer to them and if you have something new to add, please do. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First, Jossi, I object to your continuing, unnecessarily rude mention of the people "who call themselves 'ex-premies'". We were premies, we're ex-premies now and your phraseology suggests that there's something strange in the appellation.  Do you maintain that we were never premies?  Of course not.  Do you claim that we're still premies?  Of course not.  So we're ex-premies.  Give up the ridiculous innuendo, please.  It's no different than if we called ourselves "former-premies."  "Former" and "ex" are synonymous.  I can just imagine that if we called ourselves that, "former premies" you'd be making the same absurd argument.
 * Second, what do you call the outlandish proliferation of EV sites if not "dime-a-dozen"? BTW, were you ever involved in Staker's site?  How about the EV site that mirrors up his defamation against me?--Jim Heller 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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

This is what I found:

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

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

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

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

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


 * Again, what's with this "former followers that call themselves 'ex-premies'"? That appellation is ridiculous and unnecessarily disrespectful.  Former followers are ex-premies by definition.  There's no way around it.  The last time this arose you argued that you know other former followers who don't call themselves "ex-premies" or something to that effect.  So what?  Logic dictates that that's what they are regardless.  Be fair about this.--Jim Heller 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have missed my explanation in the previous section. I am repeating it here:
 * The reason I use the term "people that call themselves 'ex-premies'" is to make a very clear distinction between the people that just simply moved on after deciding that Knowledge was not for them, and the small group of detractors that frequent a certain chatroom and run the websites used to criticise and disiparrage Prem Rawat, his teachings, his work, his humanitarian initiatives, his students, etc. Maybe we should use the term "critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies". For example, recently one of you decided to contact Rennie Davis and M.r. Heller got quite upset (to say the least) when Mr. Hoffman expressed his views publicly. Mr. Hoffman is a good example of a "former follower that 'does not call himself an "ex-premie" and that does not share even a sliver of the "people that call themselves ex-premie's" criticism, grievances, and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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

Hi Jossi, yes EPO was certainly the joint creation of a group of people over a period of years. As such it does represent a group's general opinion. I put that reference to the 'objections' since, if you'll remember, I said that I considered it the nearest to a 'group statement' that you will get at this time. Also EV talk about a 'group of ex-premies' and so does this article. Are you going to stop that? I doubt it. I don't see anything wrong with calling it a group. The fact is that the vocal critics group seems to change over time as people come and go. So it's not really an organisation of specific individuals. EPO is a pool of ideas and expressions from people and as I understand it, the commentary has evolved over the years and is not the work of one person by any means. So it's a group. What you seem to be a bit confused about is whether all contributors agree on every notion, tactic, aim and identity that appears there. The answer is most definitely no. I'm sure there are a variety of POV's from one extreme to the other. Whilst it may suit premies to pick out some 'offensive' parts as proof that 'all members of the group' are given to offensive behavior, that would be incorrect. Some are, some are not. So as a group there may not be always an unanimous consensus. Is that clear?PatW 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Note that the dispute about being a group or not, did not start from me, but from users J. Heller and Sylviecyn).As for your comments, these are good points, PatW. Question is, who in that group has the "last word" in deciding what to portray as the "group's" opinion? If there is no such consensus, then we shall not the list of "objections" to be representative of consensus. The question remains as how to address this. I may ask for some comments from other editors of WP about how to deal with this issue. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Jossi, that's not true. I didn't discuss whether ex-premies are a group at all with you.  I only discussed whether ex-premies should continually be called "people who call themselves 'ex-premies'" as if there was any choice in the matter and that one has to want to be called an 'ex-premie' to be one which, as I've tried to explain several times now, is absurd.--Jim Heller 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An illustration of my last point is that a lot of people who vist the forum have expressed that they are uncomfortable about making offensive comments about PR's appearance etc. Others don't give a damn. It's pretty unconscionable for anyone to call all Musims 'Terrorists' so why call all ex-premies (ie. people on the forum or EPO) people who 'criticise and disiparrage Prem Rawat, his teachings, his work, his humanitarian initiatives, his students, etc.' Can't you see that some people use the group to express their personal frustration and have no agenda to disrupt PR or his students in any way? It seems like you want to demonise the group wholesale. With regard to your last question. You may well want to ask WP peers. I think you're on thin ice since many groups do not declare how they arrived at an expressed concensus. Look at EV for example... who gives the last word there? It's surely not just one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)
 * Jossi Fresco, was that you that attributed the above post to me? It wasn't. You owe me an apology.--Jim Heller 01:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It was PatW. Corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * '''If somebody suggests that Wikipedia should become a majority-rule democratic community...
 * '''do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
 * don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you to prove him wrong.


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

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


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

Disputed significance

 * The issue we are discussing is not the definition of the term. Rather, we are discussing the attempt by a few individuals to claim to be representing the POV of people that stopped practicing Knowledge. Ex-premie.org and the forum frequented by these individuals, only represent the view of a tiny minority. That is why we should refer to them as a "small group of critical ex-followers that call themselves "ex-premies", when referring to them in the Criticism section. We also have to evaluate the significance of such minority POV, and edit the article accordingly, as it pertains to making claims that the "14 objections" is representative of ex-followers POV, when it is only representative of the, again,  the "small group of critical ex-followers that call themselves "ex-premies" ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it up, Jossi. This is just another spurious argument on your part.  If a doctor tells a number of people that he alone has the only cure for their deadly disease and almost all of them stop following his advice, it's implicit that those who left his treatment don't take him seriously any longer.  Rawat is a joke to almost all who ever had anything to do with him.--Jim Heller 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Under which premise are you "warning" any one? Please note that threats have no place in a civil dialog. Also note that arbitration does not deal with content disputes. We are having a pertinent discussion and people are making their comments, quite politely in most instances. As for the minority position of the critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies, hope you can agree that these are a small group of maybe 10-20 people, but I will be very generous and say maybe 100 people. OK? That is based on a simple check of the names that post in your chatroom over the years. That is the only "evidence" we have about the number of critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies. As for the number of people that are practicing Knowledge as reported by other sources other that the organizations that support Maharaji's work, I have a cite from a 1997 book that we can use:
 * Palmer, Spencer J. P. and Keller R. R. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, p95. Brigham Young University(1997) ISBN 0842523502 "General membership numbers appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. [In the US] There is a core group of 3000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly [...] The mission is [present in] 53 countries... "
 * In addition, one can easily deduce (without referring to numbers provided by the organization (such as 75,000 people that received Knowledge in 2005) from the number of TV stations that carry Maharaji's message, the number of events that are announced publicly, etc, that the numbers presented in that Palmer's book may be on the conservative side. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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

So what's stopping you removing them right now?PatW 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm being polite and allowing time for any comments.Momento 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * PatW, Wiki guidelines have already provided us with "a clear yardstick". The policy is clear and unambiguous "if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article". It's as simple as that. The only thing that needs to happen now is that editors of this article recognise that any edits or criticism sourced from or created by people associated with the anti-PR website EPO or anti-PR forums be treated in accordance with Wiki guidelines. I suggest that someone who knows how to do it, remove the "Criticism" section to the "Criticsm of Prem Rawat" article. I have removed the "Critics" Links. Momento 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the opinion of the ex-premies form such a small minority then why does Reender Kranenborg extensively quote ex-premie Lammers in his article about the DLM? Why were there so many critical articles about Rawat and the DLM when he was still famous? See here. Why did Melton write that the DLM was constantly involved in controversy? Why is Rawat ranked nowhere high on a guru rating list? Why have recent critical articles been placed in the media even though he is obscure now? Andries 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that there was never controvesy around PR. The article presents all the controversies, such as the succession, the family rift, etc. What we are discussing is the minorrty POV of a small group of critical ex-followers. As for "guru rankings" I don't know what relevance that would have in this case, and what reputability these "rankings" offer. The fact that Kraneborg cites from one exc-follower can be cited. But here we are dicussing something else, the POV group of the small group of critical ex-follower that call refre to themselves as "ex-premies" and how to describe it and in what proportion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


 * You missed to highlight that If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * If you don't want to follow Wiki guidelines PatW, you shouldn't edit here. As you quote, Jimbo Wales said "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in 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". A group representing 0.01% is an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority in anybody's language (except it seems, in members of the insiginificant group). And that group's viewpoint doesn't belong in Wikipedia. End of story.

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Sorry Jossi, that was ambiguous. I meant 'you' as a general term for premie editors- not you personally. When I first came here the Criticism section in particular, was blatantly and at length, attacking critics. I and others sought to make it fairer. Your help in that was appreciated.PatW 10:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you be then more careful with your wording in the future? Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Wasn't there a comment made about you Jossi recently that was completely removed? Why wasn't that refactored too?  It's important to be fair and honest. Sylviecyn 11:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You restored it, although it was off-topic. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please retract your statement. I didn't restore the comments to which I refer. I viewed it on the history of this talk page because it had been deleted, but I never restored. I don't know what you're talking about. Sylviecyn 14:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take it easy. I am getting tired of all these accusations. The text that I refactored out and moved to Jim Heller's talk page becasue it was off-topic was restored by Jim and then formatted by you. It is either in this page or in the last archive. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * 100 or 200, same thing. A tiny minority. Furthermore, the group of "activists" is 10 or 20. Minuscule. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The ex-premies managed to get quite a lot of critical articles published about Prem Rawat the last five years which is quite remarkable, because the subject is now obscure. These articles are
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/isleofwighttoday0405.htm ‘’IS MAHARAJI REALLY THE BEST MEDICINE’’ in Isle of Wight Today 2005. by Charlotte Hofton 1 April 2005
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/theaustralian031104.htm Court lets 'cult' gag journalist By Sally Jackson in The Australian - dated March 11, 2004 - Page 21
 * Several articles appeared in the local press before and after Prem Rawat's events in Bristol (June 14-15, 2003).http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#contro CONTROVERSY OVER COLSTON HALL DATES BY EX-GURU
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#art1 DON'T WASTE YOUR LIVES
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/bristolevepostjune03.html#art5 FORMER FOLLOWERS HAVE NEW MESSAGE
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/goodweekend0208.htm Appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002. (as far as I know these articles are unretracted by these magazines)


 * The above post illustrates my concerns. The only media criticism of Prem Rawat in the last 20 years has been instigated by members of the ex-premie group, who bombard newspapers and venues where Prem Rawat speaks with anti-Prem Rawat misinformation. What Syliecyn doesn't explain is -
 * 1) The Sally Jackson article relates to a member of her group who was convicted of illegally obtaining information and passing it on to the ex-premie group who used it to harrass followers of Prem Rawat.
 * 2) that she wrote to the Bristol Post first, making sensational claims to stir up controversy.
 * 3) that the author of the Good Weekend article was a member of her group who later publicly apologised to Prem Rawat and his followers for the lies in the article and left the ex-premie group in disgust, charaterising them as a hate group.
 * Sylviecyn, Jim Heller and Andries, who edit this article are registered uses of the anti-PR forum and others drop in when required. I do not believe that this group, the ex-premies, should be allowed to quote their views as belonging to a significant minority. They are not. They number less than 100. Over 9 million people have come to hear Prem Rawat talk about inner peace and over 1 million actively practice the meditation he teachers.Momento 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Further, the complaints by current ex-premies are very similar to the complaints made earlier by the press and religious scholars. And as I already wrote I have yet to see a guru rating service that does not give Rawat a bad rating. I never meant to say that the internet based guru rating services are reputable sources, but they do give an indication to what extent they take the criticisms by ex-premies serious. An example of a guru rating service in this case by Sarlo is [who gives Maharaji a rating "bogus, may have some value, who knows". User:Jossi mentions the nr. of people who listened to Rawat, but that proves very little, because a majority in Wikipedia is not formed by the nr. of ignorant adherents, but by informed opinion. It will be clear that, based on the above, I do not consider the current ex-premies a very small minority that has no place in this article. Apart from that I think that the request for comments is too general: a majority is usually counted per opinion (e.g. did Rawat financially exploit followers?), not per group (ex-premies, current students, religious scholars, Dutch religious scholars). [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


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


 * As a counter to these articles see below accolades by academics, business leaders and others:
 * “His message is one of hope and peace, and he has inspired millions throughout the world. As an educator, the opportunity to learn has been central and the focus of my life. I have witnessed brilliant teachers and eager students turn classrooms into magical places. Prem Rawat reminds us that magic begins with people, and it’s within each person. That the possibility of peace and the possibility of living a life to the fullest begins with recognizing the value of life itself. That is, in my opinion, the deepest learning and is certainly a curriculum for everyone.”
 * Dr. Eduardo Padron, President of Miami Dade College (June 16, 2005)
 * “I am impressed by his message. His message is a message of peace. A peace that can be found within every person. Someone has said it’s difficult to find peace inside, but it’s impossible anywhere outside. In a recent address at the United Nations Conference in Bangkok, he said that it is people that need to be at peace. And that when people are at peace, there will be peace in the world. He offers inspiration and guidance to those interested in making inner peace a reality in their lives. Many people speak of peace, and yet there is more to Sri Prem Rawat’s message than just words. I had the good fortune of meeting Prem Rawat in person a couple of weeks ago. He was kind enough to take time from his schedule so that we could have a substantial and enjoyable conversation. I found him to be a warm and delightful person and found his insights to be most helpful.”
 * Mr. Naveel Jindal, Executive Chairman of Jindal Power and Steel, Ltd. Sirifort Auditorium, New Delhi, India. February 8, 2003.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

That's a surprisingly low number of accolades, from unknown people, that represents Prem Rawat's career of four decades in the west. Is that the whole list? Sylviecyn 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These are is only from last couple of years. Prem Rawat has also received the keys to the cities of New York City; New Orleans, Louisiana; Oakland, California; Kyoto, Japan; Detroit, Michigan; Miami, Florida and Miami Beach, Florida. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems churlish to call the list a low number. To me it seems comprehensive and impressive. On the other hand, three names have been put forward as possible prominent adherents (of the 'ex-premie' POV.) One of these, Mike Finch, has promoted as his main complaint that after thirty years trying he decided practicing Prem Rawat's Knowledge had not given him the breakthroguh into an enlightened consciousness he claims to have been promised. Another, Mike Dettmers, made it clear that he knew for sure, since he had set up the systems involved, that no claim of financial irregularity could be made of Rawat or the organsizations, and he left Rawat over disagreements on the direction the work should take. I do not recall Mike Donner's contribution to the arguments against Rawat. My point is their cases do not constitute serious criticism of Rawat and their grievances are personal.Peterson. 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't intended to be churlish at all, you read something into what I wrote that wasn't there. Maybe you were projecting. These are my points: If those few statements are all that Prem Rawat has to show on his resume after a 40-year career, then it's got some huge gaps.  He has very few credentials. That's a reality in the real world.  This is from my perspective as a former human resources director of a 50 atty law firm and many other real-life work experiences in the business and educational world.  I have interviewed first, second and third-year law students that had heftier resumes than Rawat, and had more glowing reviews -- from real notable judges, businesspeople, even famous people, etc. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, those above comments were made at live Rawat events, and were not unsolicited accolades written in bona fide publications about Prem Rawat. This isn't meant to be insulting at all.  Truely, this is a practical matter of what Prem Rawat has to show on his resume after a 40 year career in the west as a guru, spiritual leader, or motivational speaker (what is the official descriptive term these days besides Maharaji which means "great king"?).  In fact, I looked at what Jossi calls Prem Rawat's resume (in this article) the other day on the 1999 Way-back machine archive on Maharaj.org.  There are maybe five sentences that Jossie referred to as the Rawat resume and that included what grammar school he went to for crying out loud.  He's 49 years old, and has been and adult much longer than he ever was a so-called "child-prodigy."  Adults never include the name of their grammar school on a resume, which is what Jossie calls it. Sylviecyn 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So you call Dettmer's reporting that PR drank excessively and secretly every day for years, not a serious criticism. I guess that depends on what behaviour you expect from someone in his position of authority over thousands of obedient trusting followers. Have you read what else Dettmer's reported about Prem Rawat's private/secret life? Yes I know..it's all lies (you like to think). I thought this so I invited Dettmers to dinner and listened to him one on one. It was very important for me to know the truth about the person I had sacrificed my life for. (That was a way Prem Rawat described becoming an Ashram Premie). I personally did not believe Dettmers was lying. I would just about stake my life on it. Let's put it another way...EV take these criticisms seriously. That is my argument for including the critics POV. No matter if you exclude critics and their POV here anyway. I am beginning to think that it would be best to leave this article to uncritical premies since they don't appreciate what a favour critical premies are doing PR in the long run. Let's see you guys do a neutral article with no opposition. That will be quite sad to watch. The fact is there is no room for criticism in Prem Rawat's world because he is perceived as perfect. Premies who criticise or don't toe the party line have 'lost the plot' are 'apostates' or 'don't get it'. In fact premies who criticise aren't even allowed to be called 'premies' anymore...just members of an insignificant 'hate group'. The message is 'Be scared to criticise O premies or you will be such lowly worms like those ex-premies! ' Just one question to the premies here. Do you think Prem Rawat has ANY significant critics? PatW 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is asking to have an article that has "no opposition". Per WP:NPOV (my highlight):NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. [...] We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.  What we are discussion is a much more pertinent issue: Who are these 20 people (40 or 100, it does not matter)  that call themselves "ex-premies" and that frequent a certain chatroom to discuss every single move of Prem Rawat, coordinate activities against Prem Rawat, his students and the organizations that support his work as well as how to push their POV into this article? Is this group significant enough to warrant their POV to be included?  If so, why to stop there? Why not to add the POV of 1.2 million adherents (as per the last ref added). Why not to add the very significant POV of government officials, academicians, captains of industry, etc? My point is that this article needs to have a Criticism section, and we do have it. The argument is not about that. It is about the inclusion or not of the POV of the group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies", such as the 17 objections letter and some other libelous and defamatory statements that have no place in WP as per WP:RS and WP:LIBEL, as well as in violation of WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question whether the group is significant enough to have their POV included. I think the answer is yes, because serious mainstream media reported the POV of this group. Mainstream media treated Rawat and his message with scepticism, criticism, occasionally with ridicule when he was still famous. You object to the term "igorant adherents" that I used and I will try to say more politely what I tried to say. The great number of Indians who came to listen to Rawat are probably not people who made an informed opinion on Rawat before they came to listen to him: they did not practice knowledge for 30 years, or read about the history of the DLM. In Wikipedia a majority is formed on the basis of informed opinion, not on the basis of people who know little and came once to an event. Andries 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have practiced Knowledge for 25 years (and so there are other hundreds of thousands of people like me) and I speak from as an informed opinion as anyone. Last year alone 75,000 people were taught the techniques of Knowledge in 53 countries. So to argue that the POV of a small group of people that abandoned the teachings and chose to become active critics (some of them have spent more time being critics that being students!) should be mentioned more widely than a short sentence in this article, is simply not considering the facts (unless you intend to argue that the POV of the millions of people that practice Knowledge need also to be represented in the article, but I doubt that). As for your assertions about "when he was still famous", I would argue that you don't get invited to an TV interview in a mainstream channel (9 to 11 million viewers for that program) if your are not notable enough (Prem Rawat did such interview just a few weeks ago in New Delhi), or that you are invited to speak at the Universal Forum of Cultures or other public forums. I would argue that Maharaji's message is now more widely available than ever in the 70's reaching millions of people every single day. That some of the media in the 70's  was skeptical and critical, that is already covered in the article. And lastly, about your assertion reading "informed opinion" and its applicability in WP, I would argue that when discussing NPOV, you ought to remain within the boundaries of the policy and not interpret them to fit your POV when convenient. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I know that we already have discussed this, but please tell me where and how I misinterpret NPOV policy. There can be little doubt that a majority in Wikipedia is not formed on the basis of ignorant adherents, but on the basis of informed opinion. For example, a recent poll revealed that the majority of the Dutch people believe that the holocaust was one of the causes of WWII. Clearly this erroneous majority belief cannot be included in the article WWII, because this belief is less than a tiny minority among people who have an informed opinion about the subject. Andries 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, for using the term "ignorant adherents" again that Jossi considers bigotted, but I do not know a better antonym for "informed opinion". Andries 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop your diatribes and be respectful of other people's beliefs? This is the fifth time I ask you to stop referring to people that follow a faith or a belief to be "ignorant adherents". You can use "uninformed opinion", but that is a value judgement that you cannot make. Who are you,, or I to establish if an opinion of a person or group of people is uninformed or not? In WP we can only assert that this or that is the opinion of this or that group of persons and that's it. Nevertheless what we are discussing is not the POV of adherents, but the POV of a small group of people that have chosen to become active critics of Prem Rawat. Now, go back and re-read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have to use politically correct wording about beliefs that I do not respect in Wikipedia talk pages when discussing the article. I do think that Wikipedia contributors, like myself, should try to select sources, based on informed opinion and exclude uninformed opinion. If you do not trust me about making this distinction between informed opinion and uninformed opinion then let the mainstream media decide. They did report the opinion ex-premies. They obviously did not think that the ex-premies represented an insignificant minority. To use an analogy, my former guru Sathya Sai Baba has millions of followers, but the opinion of relatively few critical former members, like myself, is represented and should remain so, because it has also been reported by mainstream media. Andries 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of being politically correct or not, it is a matter of respect to fellow editors. Take for example Christianity. There are approximately 2.1 billion people that believe that Jesus was born of a virgin through immaculate conception, that he performed miracles, walked on water, died in the cross, was resurrected and ascended to heaven to join God the Father and that salvation can only happens in accepting Jesus as the saviour. You may argue that these are the "ignorant adherents" POV, that do not take into account the controversy around the Historicity of Jesus as forwarded by Bible scholars, etc and as such, you say, their POV should not be included in WP because of they are "ignorant adherents". But in WP we do not make assessments or value judgments on POVs, we only describe them in proportion on how widely these POV are held. Now, back to our debate, what we are discussing is if the POV of a small group of people (small by all means of measuring it) warrants its inclusion beyond a small mention in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I never meant to say that uninformed, but popular opinion that is important for a group should be excluded from Wikipedia. On the contrary. Again, the opinion of ex-premies has been reported by the media, so at least we can use these media articles to describe their opinions, as per wikipedia guidelines. Andries 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You change the subject every time your arguments do no stand in the debate. Go back and re-read your arguments about "ignorant adherents" and your interpretation of WP policy about "uninformed opinion" as it pertains to Wikipedia guidelines. I am arguing that the small group of people that call themselves "ex-premies" warrant no more than a small mention in this article. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that we come a millimeter closer even if we discuss this subject for years? Wikipedia guidelines say that we can report what the media have said, even if you think that the media reported the opinion of a tiny minority. Should we only report critical opinions of the media about Sathya Sai Baba in one sentence, because he has millions of followers and only a few critical former followers and hence the critical former followers form a tiny minority. It will be clear that I think that the answer is no. Andries 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (We are not discussing your ex-guru here -- you have your hands full already discussing that in that article, so spare us, please. In any case, it is not your POV that is described there, but references to BBC documentaries and other materials) Back to our discussion: Are you referring to the Bristol local newspaper articles? That can be cited as per WP:V. If you want to include a reference to McGregor's article in Australia, you will need to include his apology as well as per same policies. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * MacGregor's apology is already in the article. Andries 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all recent press coverage should be allowed in the article, positive or negative, but NPOV, of course. Also want to point out that MacGregor's affidavit is currently in the article and discusses his POV about ex-premies, but, his original apology was written in the Ex-Premies' F8 (Forum 8) so I think that supports including that written apology with responses by ex-premies to him at that time. I'm all for complete transparency in this article which I think makes it more encylopedic, because I fully trust the readers to draw their own conclusions, if it's well-written. Also, I do hope we are all in agreement here about not making any more major edits to any of the Rawat articles/stubs until the Rfc is completed. Also, Jossi, I didn't feel that Andries was being biased and/or was denigrating adherents by using the term "ignorant adherents," and hope you two will talk further to work that out. Thanks! What a lovely day here in Northern New England! Phew! Spring and green here finally! Sylviecyn 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we also going to include the responses of followers to the responses of ex followers to someone who was once an ex follower and then became a follower again? In terms of numbers, the ex-premie group and its view (just like followers who became Zoroasterians, Bahaii or blind) are a miniscule side product of Prem Rawat activities and therefore should have a miniscule place in an article about Prem Rawat.Momento 21:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no, Sylviecyn, Momento. This is not an article about 1 million adherents or 100 detractors detractors with rebuttals, counter arguments and counter counter arguments. This is a biographical article about Prem Rawat, and should remain as is. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am of the growing opinion that, providing followers of Prem Rawat can successfully restrain themselves from using this article to subtely attack critics, the 'Critics and Criticisms' Summary bit should be very short, precise and neutral sounding. This is more or less what Jossi is proposing I think. It would appropriate for whoever does this editing, to remove the existing fuller information to the separate Critcism of Prem Rawat page, otherwise I would forsee a lot of messy reverting. Also that page should be clearly linked from the short Summary within this article. I think we somehow need to all come to some expresssed agreement on a course of action like this.PatW 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add that in my opinion, whatever commentary remains about criticism (within the biographical article itself) could be linked to the Criticsm of Prem Rawat page where appropriate. And also visa versa, information form the Criticism page could be linked to the Prem Rawat biographical article. Once we can all agree on where things belong we will all hopefully be able to apply ourselves more constructively to improving the separate articles. At present we, as interested parties, are simply trying to establish some ground rules. It would be great if some mutual trust between editors could be established. I think it's a great chance for both 'sides' to examine the facts and step back into a more neutral mode. Of course it would be important for editors of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article to also successfully restrain themselves from using the article to subtely attack Prem Rawat. Could be interesting. I am becoming more aware of how Wikipedia works and it's limitations. I see it as a bit of a 'social experiment' and less as an authorative reference tool. Despite it's pitfalls I am quite enjoying giving it a little of my spare time.PatW 09:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I just noticed that Momento is still deleting a lot of prior editors work with no explanation. You have restored some of it. Well done. I am sorry that this person is making work for you. Personally I applaud you (paid or unpaid!) for showing some principle. I protest that Momento's continuing deletions are unsociable, aggressive and disruptive to the improvement of the article. Just what we don't need right now is someone acting on their own initiative in this way. Momento can you wait until we all decide 'where' information should go before you delete it? Some people around here are working towards a civil, co-operative resolution.PatW 12:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My last edit was two days ago (a minor edit to update numbers) and then the day before that after extensive discussion. In fact you asked me why I wasn't doing the editing immediately and I replied that I was allowing time for any comments.Momento 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you PatW for the proposal to move forward. I would agree that it is better for now to go slow and see if some groundrules can be established. By the look of the tone and content of some of the postings in the last days it may be a challenge. One possibility would be to request a page protection at WP:RFPP, so that airs can cool-off so that we can attempt to address the dispute without fearing of unnilateral edits or edit wars. If there is no objection to a page protection, I will place a request. Otherwise state that your objection below. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @

I have no objection.PatW 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's wait for possible objections from other editors before making the request for page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC Summary

 * 1) Dispute about the significance of a small group of ex-followers that call themselves "ex-premies" to warrant the inclusion of their POV in this article beyond a short mention as per debate below.

Editor's debate on the subject is available here

''Curent editors, please allow other non-involved editors to make their comments, unecumbered. You are welcome to edit the summary above, but not to comment below unless questions are asked by commenting editors.''


 * Comments

I've removed Peterson's defamation against me
Peterson defamed me above and I have removed that allegation. --Jim Heller 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are inclined to detele comments that you find offensive, please delete only these portions and not the whole comment. See WP:RPA and WP:REFACTOR ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't think Jim did delete all of Peterson's comments. They are still there where they originally appeared. I have removed the duplicate someone inserted down the bottom of the page.PatW 10:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have made a defamatory allegation against Jim Heller. Regardless of its truth or otherwise I accept it was inappropriate.Peterson. 13:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No that's not the spirit! There is no reason at all to have even the slightest doubt in the world that what I said in 1998 was a joke.  It was said in an obvious joking manner.  When people seemed confused that it might possibly be true I immediately explained I was joking as clearly as possible.  There was never any loss to go along with the supposed taking, if it were true and even the community coordinator back then, still a premie in 1998, confirmed as much.  There is no rational reason in the world to even pretend to have any uncertainty about this.  None.  How dare you pretend otherwise!
 * The really sick and pathetic thing, though, is that EV continues to twist that joke into an admission on its website. EV knows better than anyone that there was never a crime. They have the books after all. You guys show your true colours here.  Now why don't you do the decent thing and admit that yes, there's no reason in the world to suspect that my joke was anything but a joke?  Do you have it in you or not?--Jim Heller 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I happened to read the original posting in 1998 and it seemed a very straightforward claim, in the context as I remember of some light-hearted bragging on the 'ex-premie forum' about who had performed what derring-do to inflict damage on Rawat's work. Your case is not helped by the fact that since then you have perpetrated unethical actions to try and hurt Rawat, receiving criticism even from your cohorts (obtaining and publishing private and sensitive correspondence from Mrs Rawat comes to mind). You were also banned even from the ex-premie chat room last year for gross deception and false representation. As for your 1998 posting, I do not recall seeing the retraction you mention. Maybe you could prove your case by publishing the original message and also the denial. All that said, I genuinely do take your word that it WAS meant as a joke and you DID retract it, and I apologize again for raising the matter. Peterson. 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Either you are lying or you're completely confused about this. There was nothing the least bit "straightforward" about the claim which was told in what I thought was an obvious over-the-top way as a very, very obvious joke.   Yet, such are the limitations of this medium or perhaps the varying senses of humour we all have that one or two people did seem to take me seriously, enough so anyway to ask if I really meant it.  At that point, I immediately explained that of course I was kidding.  And that should have been the end of it.  Period.  A joke, you know?  Like people tell all the time.  I'm sure even you've told a few over the years.
 * But in fact it wasn't the end of it. Followers of Rawat, desperate to discredit former followers like myself with anything they could find, seized on the joke and tried to claim it was no joke at all.  Now here's where it gets not just weird but very, very telling.  Around then, it just happened to be that Jack Tuff, the former community coordinator in Calgary (where the joke was about), who was also a very angry defender of Rawat's and thus no longer any friend of mine, had the decency, I must say, to post under his own name and say that, no, there'd never been any money taken and I was hardly a suspect for anything of the sort.  No one was!  There was no theft.  Get it?  It couldn't be clearer.  So now, certainly, if not before, this surely should have been the end of it.  Right?
 * Well, in fact it wasn't. It was just the beginning.  Elan Vital and various anonymous defamatory websites all perpetuated the libel.  Here, for example, is how Elan Vital did it in one of their FAQ's supposedly answering "Are the People in this Hate Group Credible?":
 * ::....One, a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work.
 * Now really, EV more than anyone knows that this was a lie. Like I said, it was a joke, I said it was a joke, it sounded like a joke, Jack Tuff confirmed there was no embezzlement (btw, that was one hell of a lot of money for our little community back then!) and EV Canada and International had their own books to show as much.
 * This was just so telling. It was and is proof positive that this is an unprincipled cult which will do whatever it can to denigrate its critics.--Jim Heller 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Peterson, I just read the original forum posts (that Jim has responded to you by linking to in his comment above) and he states quite clearly that he was joking. That Elan Vital should take his comment out of context and use it to attack him does suggest their reactions are not guided by principles or restrained by conscience. This is the story down the line as far as I can see. Rather than actually draw critics into a direct, honest challenge, to expose their truth or lies, EV choose to make their own flimsy, unsubstantiated attacks. This is hypocritical since that is exactly what they accuse ex-premies of. I would have hoped that an organisation that supports Prem Rawat might have thought it prudent if not essential to take the moral highground. Jim is right that, for an organisation that purports to promote 'Truth', they are being remarkably unprincipled in the way they deal with critics.PatW 10:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We are all trying to be reasonable here. I am not defending any part of EV policy, and I have said I accept what Jim Heller says about his 1998 'joke'. But I have read again that posting, and it does seem an unambiguous statement of fact. It was followed by even other 'ex's' being incredulous about his audacity, and not knowing whether he was telling the truth or not. Finally, after many queries, he says it was a joke, but it leaves doubt about whether this denial was genuine, or just brought about by a growing realization that he had overstepped the mark. Even 'ex's' do not generally condone illegal behavior. I can understand EV, in their effort to defuse the attacks from the 'ex's', pointing out that this was a clear admission by Heller, and therefore his other attacks against Prem Rawat must be treated sceptically, and being unwilling to accept his later contention that he had made his claim as a joke. In short, they are not beign hypocritical but honest. I accept Heller's assertion because in this forum I believe we have to be honest and trusting with each other. But I do not blame EV for being a little less credulous.Peterson. 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Get real, Peterson. Why don't you deal with the other facts that I've mentioned that clearly put the lie to any possible suspicion about me?  There was no money missing and EV's own representative in that community then, a man who is still an active supporter of Rawat's and staunch defender of the faith, Jack Tuff, confirmed this.  Beyond that, my initial story was told in a breezy, light-hearted manner ("It was so bizarre to hear the brothers upstairs sing arti (God, Bill had a bad voice!", then fall to the floor (pranaming)", hardly the normal stuff of real-life confessions.--Jim Heller 22:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well they should be more careful. As a big organization representing a supposedly notable pillar of society it is simply gross stupidity to over-react to some insignificant little forum where a handful of people are sharing their insignificant little woes. The alternative is that it was a calculated risk to slur him and deflect criticism. Anyway if you now believe Jim it just goes to show how far a little communication goes to clear things up nice and quick. Maybe EV should have emailed Jim first and asked him what the truth was.PatW 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * User:PatW, at the very minimum, EV should have checked to see if there was any previously unaccounted for loss in the Calgary books to support my so-called admission. They should have checked with David Smith and Jack Tuff who I "accused" of conspiring to kidnap me and hold me in the ashram basement.  Both are still active stalwarts and both would have immediately scoffed at the idea.  Indeed, as I've said, Jack did in fact do that.  This would have been the least they should have done before running with the "admission" even if I hadn't said just hours later that it was all a joke.  That I did say that, though, puts their obligation to investigate before accusing me of this far, far beyond the pale.  Notice how none of the premies will comment on this aspect of this scandal.--Jim Heller 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How many times one have to ask not to use this talk page to discuss your private matters? This articleis not about Jim Heller and does not discuss the matter you are referring to. I consider these off-topic discussions to be disruptive and not relevant to this article. Please use your chatroom, a wiki or your forum to discuss these matters. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is all preliminary to an edit that describes EV's defamation and harrassment of ex-premies. Perhaps you'd like to do the edit yourself? Why not, Jossi?  Why not show us just how well you can transcend your POV? Or should I do it?  --Jim Heller 23:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim's rebuttal and continued explanation is entirely appropriate since Peterson used Jim's mention in EV articles as proof that their attacks on the ex-premie group were justified and fair. This is relevant to my argument about this article. That is that the ex-premie group constitute "significant critics" by virtue of the fact that EV are attacking them at length and unfairly on the sites linked from this article. I think Jim's argument has virtually proved that the references within this article link to baseless libel about him. Irony or no irony he is here to straighten out the facts.PatW 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There IS no Possible Justification
Patrick -- or perhaps I should call you User:PatW because I don't want to out you or anything -- you said it so well. Why can't I talk like that? This tortured abuse of my little joke by Geoffrey Staker and Elan Vital just reeks of desperation. It's as transparent as old Soviet Union propaganda and I would just love to see Peterson, Jossi, Momento or any other premie defend it. In fact, I must say that of all issues I've raised with my still-premie friends in recent years, this one always left them with nothing to say. What could they say? Elan Vital has stooped to lies and defamation. End of story. Says a lot, though, doesn't it?--Jim Heller 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just enjoy the irony Jim. You've joined Prem Rawat as a person who's words have been recorded and played back years later to discredit their author. You say you've subsequently said other things that contradict the first claim, I'm sure Prem Rawat could say the same. But if no one hears the subsequent comments then the first is all that's left. Just hope that you don't have a Michael Dettmers in your life. Someone you've worked and socialised with, smoked dope and got drunk with, who claims you always treated him "great respect, dignity and love, not just while I worked with him, but also at the time of my departure". Who then stabs you in the back.Momento 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Momento. My situation is one where a cult has wilfully taken an obvious joke out of context and pretended it was a real confession of a crime.  There is no room whatsoever for any misunderstanding.  As I've said, EV and the anonymous snipers (like Staker who's now been flushed out into the open by litigation), knew all along it was a joke but chose to misrepresent it as something else, such is their desperation and lack of integrity.  If there was even the slightest scintilla of doubt on their part that my story was real -- in spite of its breezy tone and my explaining it as humour just a very, very short while later, the moment, in fact, when anyone first seemed uncertain -- EV could have simply asked David Smith or Jack Tuff if I was serious or not.  EV didn't bother checking because there was nothing to check.  This is just plain ridiculous.
 * And your comparison to Rawat is absurd as well. Exes know that Rawat jokes around from time to time.  No ex I know has ever misconstrued a joke of his as a serious statement as you guys have done with me.  Rather, we've shone the light on some very serious statements and watched as you all scramble for some way around it.  So unless you want to argue that Rawat was only joking when he said he would bring peace on Earth, etc., drop this silly comparison.  It threatens to diminish your repuation. :) --Jim Heller 02:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your "breezy tone"? You confessed, nothing can undo that.Momento 11:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are kind of playing the loyalty card. My impression was that Dettmers' was not 'betraying' Rawat just because  he was bitter about his personal treatment. The main motivation for Dettmers' going public was that he was disgusted at himself for being party to the concealment of what he considered to be highly hypocritical behaviour. That was behaviour not only from Prem Rawat but by those around him who were complicit in keeping things secret that would make people question the 'clean' image of Rawat and Knowledge. Have you heard the phrase 'There's loyalty amongst thieves'? Quite a number of PR's followers have questioned their loyalty because they conscientiously objected to certain things they witnessed going on. You are showing your lack of virtue by gloating that one wrong deserves another.PatW 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assessment is way off, but I will not use this page to discuss off topic issues. But if you email me, I may give you details about Mr. Dettmers. I invited him to join the board of my company a year or so after he resigned and he was a personal friend on mine during that time so I know the detais. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing off-topic about this discussion. Plus, Jossi, this is how I interpret what you're saying to PatW above:  "If you knew what I know, you would know I'm right."  That is not a valid argument. Besides, the subject of Dettmers and Donners is pertinent to this discussion because it addresses the weight of ex-premies' criticism of Prem Rawat, i.e.,  Prem Rawat claims ex-premies as his primary critics, and adds the heavy weight of accusation that ex-premies are a hate group, which is his only response to them.  This is an encyclopedia, where information is the real currency.  Here is an archive of Michael Donner's exchange with Dettmers about Prem Rawat in discussions on the ex-premie forum, in May, 2001.  Both Dettmers and Donner were highly visible, long-term premies and instructors in Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital, as well as x-rated people around Maharaji (PAMs).  Donner and Dettmers exhange on forum. Also note Donner's "my letter to m" in middle of the thread.  Also, Momento, I think you might want to retract your statement to Jim Heller: "You confessed, nothing can undo that," because there is a retraction in that discussion, so it might help you to understand this subject better if you reread that forum thread again.  Sylviecyn 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We've already seen a Supreme Court judge reject another ex-premie's retraction.Momento 23:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sylviecyn, would you be willing to edit the article to describe this transparent propaganda ploy of EV's and various anonymous followers like Staker? You obviously could do an excellent job and it seems better if someone other than me does it.  Thanks --Jim Heller 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect to compare Jim Heller, Dettmers, or any student, former or current, with Prem Rawat the way you have, Momento. Dettmers may have been Rawat's friend, but he still was Rawat's subordinate, and anyone who's ever worked closely with Prem Rawat knows just how subordinate they are to Prem Rawat, once they spend time around him. Also, Jim Heller, Dettmers, and ex-premies haven't spent 40 years promising to bring peace on earth, give the Knowledge of all knowledges, accepted large monetary donations as Prem Rawat has in the past and continues to do. Apples and oranges.


 * So long as Rawat continues to issue press releases about himself as a world leader, he's a public figure open to scrutiny. Prem Rawat has always placed himself in a position of greater power than his followers as the Perfect Master, and just because he wants to change his public image now, doesn't mean that a wiki article about him is going to comply without criticism. It's EV's FAQs that give weighty attention to ex-premies. I'd be interested to know what other Perfect Masters or humanitarian/spiritual leaders devote so much space and attention to their critics, on their public websites -- especially by naming individuals, as is also done by Elan Vital's inclusion of the MacGregor affidavit, linked in this article.   You may want think it's an insignificant, small group, but by labelling ex-premies as a "hate-group" is a quite a significant -- a huge response by Rawat and adherents, which imo, warrants equal weight in the article to that substantial accusation.


 * RE: The Heller joke being used to defame him by Elan Vital.  It was a joke taken out of context by Elan Vital forum monitors (the students who have been reading and recording everything that's written there for years).  When one goes back and reads the conversation, it's clear that Jim was joking, although, some might not have gotten the joke, so Heller told them it was a joke. It's in black and white.  EV has a strange way of filtering facts out.  Also, the real hilarity of that conversation is that anyone who ever lived in a 1970s DLM ashram in the United States, Canada, Europe, etc.,  knows that the no ashram had that kind of cash on hand to steal in the first place!  That's part of the joke. Heck, after sending Prem Rawat his share, DLM it's share, supporting the local comunities, all which were standard operating procedure, there was very little money left for basic ashramers' sustenance. Sylviecyn 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just how little does Jimbo Wales' opinion count?
Several times now I've questioned the propriety of Rawat's paid webmaster, Jossi, editing the Rawat articles. His answer has always been that there's no problem so long as he does so properly. But now, in an AP article about Wikipedia's apparent increasingly bad reputation for partisan revisionism and other distortions, Jimbo Wales, the instigator of this wonderful online encyclopedia is quoted as follows:

Wales said entries have to meet a standard of newsworthiness and, as a general rule, should not be written by an interested party _ either a supporter or an opponent.

Is the real problem here that no one but us followers and exes find Rawat notable enough for these articles?

I mean, really, the more this goes on, the more it's so very apparent that Jossi Fresco and his various fellow anonymous premie editors (another problem Wales concedes in the article -- anonymity), will not and cannot edit this article appropriately. In that respect it is and always will be a farce. If political partisanship is a problem, what can we expect of people who follow a man who many still consider to be the Lord of the Universe?--Jim Heller 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is most disingenuous of you. You have absolutely no interest in this project other than pushing your POV in this article. Should I copy here your early comments about what what you really think of Wikipedia?  Your sudden interest in what Jimbo thinks, or not is very suspect.  In any case, this article has not been written by me. It has been written by tens of editors that collaborated for over more than 2 1/2 years finding sources, NPOVing content, writing copy and more. And I would appreciate you stop with your accusations of being paid (the same accusations you guys make all the time about these that have edited this article and you do not like). I edit Wikipedia because I love this project, and I dedicate a lot of time to many other articles, fighting vandalism of Wikipedia, collaborating in shaping policy, and doing admin work as a volunteer together with many thousands of editors that have a real interest in this project. Now, looking at your contribution tree and your block log, any one can see what your real interest is.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For those that are interested, you can read the full article at . You can also read all the coverage about Wikipedia in the press at out own "Wikipedia_Signpost". And those that want to be paid for contributing to Wikipedia, should check the controversy around the Job Board ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to be an editor on Wikipedia, it is a requirement for one to be completely loyal, without question, to Jimbo Wales? Is is a requirement to never make waves or speak one's mind? Is it a requirement to show undying loyalty to Wikipedia and it's founders and the Foundation? What's the story here? Where's the loyalty oath? Is there one? Is it like the oath that every person had to be willing take before even being considered to receive the meditation techniques of Maharaji's Knowledge? That tens of thousands of people took, while giving up years of their lives, including careers, educations, and personal relationships, the possibility of having children -- all for Prem Rawat, who demanded that we give him our exclusive love and devotion and surrender? These are not rhetorical questions. Is Wikpedia uncensored and does it promote freedom of speech or not? What's the story? And Jossi, please, for once, this time, do not delete, back-page, or archive this oath.


 * "Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your Lotus Feet.
 * I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.
 * Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.
 * Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledges.
 * Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the Kingdom of Heaven within inside of me.
 * Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.
 * I will obey you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.
 * I will keep in contact with you through my devotional love, satsang, meditation and service.
 * Thank you my Lord for everything."

Sylviecyn 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, are you saying that you've never been paid to create or maintain websites for Rawat? Are you saying that he hasn't paid you to do other public relations work?  Answer directly, please. I'm not talking about anyone else, just you.  Have you ever received any money or other material compensation of any kind for doing public relations work for Rawat?
 * Besides, what do you think of Wales' general concern? Do you agree with it or not?--Jim Heller 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Sylviecyn, Wikipedia does not promote freedom of speech. See WP:NOT, that reads:
 * Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. .
 * I would also ask you to refrain from accusing me of removing material. Archiving is needed once in a while when this page exceeds the established limits. I also remind you both that WP:NOT, that reads unambiguously that Wikipedia is not designed as a platform for...
 * ... propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
 * And finally I remind you that WP:NOT so please attempt top change your attitude in these discussions. As for the impertinent questions asked by Mr. Heller, note that I will not discuss my personal life with anyone and will not reply to any questions about my affiliations, political views, personal world-view, beliefs, work, or anything else that is unrelated to the content of this article.  Your attempts to make use of this page as a discussion forum to discuss matters unrelated to this article are in violation of guidelines and I respectfully ask you  to desist in your use of making these page in contradiction with guidelines. Discuss the article, not the editors, no more and no less. For your information, any attempts to disclose any personal information about me or other editors may result in a permanent ban as per Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLOCK. As for your last question regarding Jimbo's comments, I invite you to conduct that discussion in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you are named in the Bachers defamation lawsuit documents that were linked to the criticism of Rawat article by an adherent of Prem Rawat last week. That article discusses the lititagion at length with a very slanted POV pro-adherents. Your full name is also on the credits page of the Way Back Machine, 1999 archive of Maharaji.org, which is also linked to this article. And isn't it a fact that your former username was "jossifresco," making your request for anonymity also "moot" as you told me about my request on talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat? As for attitude, Jossi, I ask you to read your own comments and characterizations about editors here before you start placing more links to Wikipedia rules, including one about blocking. Are you immune from blocking when you break rules here, because you're a Wiki-administrator? I'm reminded of pots calling kettles black right now. Sylviecyn 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be the third time I answer your question about my status as an admin, I will repeat this for the last time:
 * I cannot use any of my admin privileges in articles in which I am involved (e.g. I cannot protect this article)
 * I cannot use my blocking privileged to block any user that I am engaged in a dispute with (e.g. I cannot Jim Heler even he violtaes policy)
 * I am not immune to blocks or other remedies in the event that I violate a policy or disrupt.
 * I will continue to place warnings and point to policy when I see that it is needed, and in particular with newbies.
 * Hope that this settles your concern once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So let me see if I understand this correctly. Jimbo Wales states in a major interview relating to concerns of bias and revisionism by partisan editors that, in principle, articles shouldn't be edited by interested parties and you now say that it's inappropriate for me to ask you to disclose whether or not you're on Rawat's payroll?  And what, you're threatening to block me for asking?  That's absurd, Jossi.  So fine, you won't answer.  Speaks for itself.--Jim Heller 01:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate you stop using my last name when referring to me. I have been harrased by people that I have blocked for vandalism in my duties as sysop of Wikipedia and I did not like it a bit. I had to change my username for that reason. I have refactored out my last name from your comments above.  I would appreciate your understanding.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't like it at all when an anonymous and all-new editor, RenaltoP, started addressing me by my real name on the Criticism of Prem Rawat talk page. Here's my request that s/he stop and your response to me. Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat:


 * '''Note to RenaltoP and other Wikipedia users: I have chosen to use the name "Sylviecyn" as an editor on Wikipedia. No one here has my permission to use my real name and I consider it to be "outing," which is in violation of Wikipedia protocol. Thank you. Sylviecyn 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sylvienc: You have disclosed publiclythat you are Cynthia in your chatroom when you were posting as User:Another Ex-Premie, so your request for anonimity is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)'''

I wasn't requesting anonymity, I was requesting that people respect my request to be addressed by my username. I have personal and private reasons for using a username here that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, you, Prem Rawat or ex-premies. I did not try to hide my change of usernames recently, in fact I posted a notice about about it on this talk page (now in archive #17). I didn't think that someone who is an editor on Wikipedia could be forced to use their real name on Wikipedia, or be addressed by their real name, but apparently that's what you believe, Jossi. Sylviecyn 12:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The name Cythia or Sylviecyn is not enough information that people can misuse to harass you. But my full name is. So please do not use my full name. That is all I ask. If you had seen the threatening and disgusting emails I receieved, some from critics and some from users I blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia, you would understand. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is rich!
I just got this nasty warning from Jossi on my talkpage:

'Warning Please note that your attempts to conduct an interrogation in Wikipedia talk pages about my personal affiliations, work, political views, personal beliefs, will be thoroughly ignored. Also note that any attempts to disclose any personal information about me or other editors in Wikipedia talk pages may result in a permanent ban as per Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)''' Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim_Heller"''

What a bully! Here's Jimbo Wales worrying about "interested parties" editing Wikipedia articles yet when I try to determine just how interested Jossi is, he threatens to block me.

Is there an admin out there with any guts or integrity who can see how wrong this is? Jossi isn't just an editor, he's a Wikipedia admin of all things. How can Jimbo Wales say things like "The beauty of a forum like this is free speech" as he did in that interview yesterday and then have Jossi say, as he did just above "No, Sylviecyn, Wikipedia does not promote freedom of speech"? Is this madness or just plain hypocrisy?--Jim Heller 01:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not a nasty warning, but a friendly one. It was a copy of my reply above, so that it is recorded in your talk page. You have been blocked twice already for persdonal attacks, once for WP:3RR and yet another time for bypassing a block by the use of sockpuppets (See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jim Heller and complained that you were not aware of these policies. The information about the blocking policy for disclosing personal information is very clear, and the information about Wikipedia and freedom of speech is available in WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh good, you were just being friendly! I see.  So tell me, friend, why is this not the right place to discuss Jimbo Wales' comments about interested parties editing articles when the concern some of us have is that this particular article is being unfairly edited by interested parties?  It seems pretty on-topic to me.--Jim Heller 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has been and is being edited by many contributors including detractors, supporters, critics, and non-involved editors. It is being fairy edited and supported by copious citations from books, scholarly articles, media articles, exceprts rom Prem Rawat addresses, etc. There are more than 130 such citations accompanied by footnotes, and it is an example of a well researched article. Involved editors strive to make this article better by making useful contributions. Your assessmnet of this article being unfairly edited is therefore unfounded. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't share Wales' concerns? Is that what you're saying? --Jim Heller 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What Wales' concerns tell me is that interested parties (particularly if being paid affords them a time advantage editing here) have a responsibility to be fair. If they are not there is a BIG problem. Arguably that may have been what was happening here if Jossi (or anyone else for that matter) was being paid by Elan Vital. The money side is kind of irrelevant, we all know that premies are lining up to provide their services for free so making an article on Prem Rawat that reflects his achievements is going to be an oversubscibed job. I really think that an immediate solution to this problem is to separate the Criticism section from the main article quite drastically and set to work trying to make each article sound neutral. It would be utterly appropriate and important for the articles to interlink. I've read all the Wiki guidelines, aims and protocol now and it's plainly the way to go. The only thing that bothers me is that work done here is susceptible to vandalsim and that makes it a potentially Herculean task maintaining a fair article. Personally I don't have time for Herculean tasks. PatW 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already made it extensively clear that I am not being paid by anyone to edit this or other articles, and refuse to be interrogated by any of you, and in particular Mr. Heller. In regard of your characterization about this being an oversubscribed job, why don't you mention your cohort? User:PatW, User:Andries, User:Jim Heller, User:Sylviecyn and many others in the past? Who is really over-subscribing here? Should we start expecting the arrival of everyone from the small group that call themselves the "ex-premies" to come here to assert their minority POV here and related artciles?   Splitting the articles alongside POVs is not alowed (see WP:FORK). The Criticism of Prem Rawat article was made because of length, and a sumary kept here. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to mention my name, given my limited input to this talk page, Jossi, please do so with regard to my actual contributions here, not your perception of my belonging to some sort of group. Note also: I have yet to make a single edit on the Rawat article itself - though many edits may follow, once I am sufficiently familiar with the ethics and conventions of formating and editing.  But from early impressions, I have to say I am not very impressed with the way business is carried out around here, and the cult-like policing that protects this article.  It is pretty laughable when compared with the standard academic review process that is employed by serious journals, textbooks and encyclopaedias. Any fair-minded, non-partisan outsider can see what is going on here.  Even if the Rawat article never achieves an acceptable compromise between supporters and critics, these talk pages are at least visible to the world.  And they tell their own story. Craigfitzroy 23:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your word that you're not now being paid here Jossi. I think you've left it open to interpretation as to whether you were once. If you don't want to discuss that fine. Maybe it's not an over-subscribed job. No offence intended. I've no idea who put the article together originally but there was a lot of info here when I arrived recently so I assumed it was the work of quite a few people. That's fine by me as long as the tone is not too partisan or attacking critics. In answer to your other Qs. Of course no-body is over-subscribing since any number of people can edit. I have no idea how many ex-premies will want to assert their POV here. I am not proposing the articles are split into separate POV's either. Absolutely not. I never said that and understood and agreed with what you say. Also maybe people do want to assert their POV through Wikipedia but they have to accept that Wikipedia should only report relevant POV's in a neutral way with appropriate support etc. Essentially, the separate Criticism article should surely also be a more in depth extension of what you would otherwise have appear in this article. It certainly can't be a soapbox for critics POV's. Wikipedia actually has a founding principle of including all minority views so it would be appropriate to retain all the information so far added about Criticism. It is simply a matter of agreeing to move the bulk of the information to the Criticism article. That is why it is important to stop people like Momento from deleting it before we have done so. I agree that the Prem Rawat article should be largely devoted to his biog and that this is a matter of space more than anything.PatW 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the last time I say to you: I was never paid by anyone to edit this or other articles, Not in the past and not now. I am editing Wikipedia this and other articles strictly as a hobby and as a volunteer, both as an editor and and a sysop, because I love this project, its principles and its aims, and I intend to continue to do so for the foreseable future.. You can check my contribs and my logs if you wish. Now please drop the subject, will you? As for your proposal to separate the articles, I have already told you that it os not p[ossible as per WP:FORK. You are welcome to edit this article and Criticism of Prem Rawat but you will still need to abide by WP:NPOV and in particular about the principle of undue weight and the principle of reputable sources that may report on the POV of the small group of perople that call themselves "ex-premies". Stay within these principles and no one will be able to challenge your edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chill out Jossi. Thank you for straightening that out. It wasn't too much to ask was it? You appear to be too cross to actually read what I wrote otherwise you wouldn't have written what you just did about 'separating the articles'. Really, please chill out and read what I said before miscontruing my intentions.PatW 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say. On the one hand, we've got Jossi shouting that he's not paid to work on this article.  On the other, my question was much broader, namely has he ever been paid to do PR for Rawat?  I mean I guess I can drop this if that's such an offensive and irrelevant invasion of his privacy (of course I don't see it that way at all) but it is funny the way his denial only goes part way.  Now as for relevance, I agree, Pat, that premies throw themselves into service irrespective of compensation.  It's also true, however, that an editor with a professional interest in a subject might have just that much more committment to a certain POV or, at least, to the time to advance it.  --Jim Heller 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I came across these articles in Wikipedia while reviewing some policies here. The first is called Reward Board and The Wrong Version] which is in the humor cateogy of Wikimedia.  The first is a proposal by Wiki editors who want to be "rewarded" or paid for writing here (so far as I can tell), and the second is apparently a parody.  But, be sure to read the 2004 blurb written by Jimbo Wales in "Wrong Article." It speaks for itself. Sylviecyn 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is seems that you totally missed Jimbo's sarcasm and parody. :) ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true Jim. Jossi, like everyone who takes time to edit here, has a point of view. I wish everyone would stop going on about how bad it is to have a POV. We all do. Forget his POV for a mo. Jossi is a very valuable guy to have editing here because he actually has this Wiki admin hat which flashes 'I have to be a fair guy' and I believe he is sincere in personally trying to exersize good principles which he admires. I wish there were more premies in responsible positions (representing Prem Rawat) like him. I think it must be quite hard for him because his loyalty to Prem Rawat must make him a bit biased against critics. It would almost impossible not to be. But we're talking here. It's cool. Momento and all the other anonymous lone agents don't have that pressure of responsibility and it's harder to talk with them, let alone reach an accord on what is neutral. I have stated on my user page my frank intentions and I hope that helps establish some trust. My intentions are NOT to push my POV. However I happen to think I have a much more neutral POV anyway these days, so that can only help. Anyway, it's quite clear to me. All POV's can be represented on Wikipedia. It's just that they have to be in the appropriate place and neutral sounding. Wikipedia essentially encourages free speech. It's the perfect place to insist on transparency about any notable organization or person. At least it will become that way or become an infamous parody of it's original intentions. Like I said, it's a social experiment. I think your contributions are very valid and important- and I like your style. I would encourage more POV's of all types to join the fray!PatW 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, but please note:
 * When describing POVs these have to be presented without giving undue weight to minority POVs. See WP:NPOV. An individual's POV or tiny minority views may be excluded;
 * If a POV is presented it requires to be supported by reputable sources;
 * Personal home pages, discussion forums, USENET and email exchanges do not qualify as reputable sources;
 * Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. See WP:NOT;
 * Wikipedia is based on principles of civility, it is not a battleground or a place to advocate editor's POVs, and not a place to pass value judgements on the subjects of articles;
 * Wikipedians follow the Writers' rules of engagement;
 * Personal attacks policy states that there is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Discuss the article and not the editor.
 * This article is a biography of a living person, and there are certain guidelines that apply such as WP:LIVING, and official policies such as WP:LIBEL and Blocking_policy.
 * As long as contributing editors abide by the above policies and guidelines, their contributions will be welcome. And lastly, please do not use these pages for anything else than to discuss the article. The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So why did you just mention me above, Jossi? And the supposed 'cohort' I belong to? (I am not in the article under discussion, and until now my own comments have been specificially about the article and its content.)  You seem somewhat 'flexible' about applying the Talk page discussion rules when it comes to your own contributions.Craigfitzroy 00:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have refactored out your name from that comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the comment, and the speedy apology, Jossi. But you didn't actually answer my question about why you mentioned me (or anyone else) in that context.  Plus, if the Wiki talk page is restricted to discussing the content of Wiki article, then that might be reasonable enough rule if everyone abides by it.  You are by far the most vocal contributor here, whether you measure it by word-count or edit-count.  If you do your own statistics on non-article related comments here, you might hesitate before insisting that the rest of us " please do not use these pages for anything else than to discuss the article " Also, your repeated usage of 'ROTFL' as a sign-off seems to undermine the sincerity of your 'good faith' in the principle of collaborative interaction between Wiki eds. Craigfitzroy 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I used ROTFL twice in one comment. Fact is that this talk page is becoming a place in which people are airing grievances and trying to advocate their opinions, myself included. I have decided not to reply to these comments (even if tempted), to invite editors to take these issues off-wiki, and to keep this page strictly for article-related issues. Hope you and others join me in that effort. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia and talk pages
'Twice' is a fair definition of 'repeated', and vice-versa. Why even use 'ROTFL', if not to mock or belittle fellow eds? You are welcome to express your Prem Rawat thoughts on ex-premie forums, or we could keep it all private, via email or whatever. Or is there a NPOV Elan Vital forum we could use? Jossi, I don't think you have any special privilege to blow the whistle on this allegedly freedom-of-speech-oriented discussion page to set boundaries you find personally comfortable, but break as the mood suits. It is only a talk page, and you are but one of many talkers.

'Not replying to these comments (even if tempted)' is your choice, of course. Do you imagine it matters much to other eds who opts to participate ot not? I understood Wikipedia to be a global, democratic yet sadly amateur, enterprise where infinite amateur editors are infinitely unqualified to add infinite amateur commentary. Nobody on Wiki is special or celebrated, and nobody's absence grieved for more than five minutes. But having said that, I assume the 'freedom of speech' ethos of Wiki will allow me my own amateur say on this subject, whether you respond or not. Was that temptation enough? Craigfitzroy 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will only invite you to learn more about what is considered acceptable in discussion pages such as this one: Help:Talk pages, in which it is stated:
 * Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette
 * As for your comments about Wikipedia being "democratic" and about "freedom of speech" as it pertains to this project, I invite you to read What Wikipedia is not and What Wikipedia is that contain useful information about these distinctions, for example that Wikipedia is not a democracy, a blog, or a message board. Hope these pointers are of help to you and others. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't resist the temptation. Jossi mentioned you in reply to PatW's comment that "we all know that premies are lining up to provide their services for free so making an article on Prem Rawat that reflects his achievements is going to be an oversubscibed job". Jossi was simply making the point that you, Andries, Sylviecyn, Jim Heller and PatW are all associated with the ex-premie group.Momento 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not drop the pomposity for five minutes?! Inviting me to look here and consult there about Wiki rules, to cover your own blatent neglect of those same rules. You can't baffle the watching world with transparent obfuscation, Jossi, when someone asks you a straight question. I have been following discussions here for months. Either reply eye-to-eye about comments posted or watch as fellow-travelling spiritual cowboys swarm in and make edits regardless of your non-engagement with other eds. Advanced Knowledge of Wiki rules is not 'Knowledge of the Heart'. Craigfitzroy 22:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I am not following you. I just wast trying to be helpful in dispelling some common myhts about Wikipedia, that I assessed you shared given your comments.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi. I appreciate it that you wast trying to be helpful in dis-spelling some common myhts about Wikipedia. Craigfitzroy 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits
Added several references and citations from: and ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American religions 7th edition. Thomson (2003) p.2328 ISBN 0-786-6384-0
 * Bowker, John (Ed.) The Oxford Dictionary odf World Religions Divine Light Mission. p. 287. Oxford University Press, New York (1997) ISBN 0-19-213965-7

I Object to Momento's Continuing Insults
Momento is using this talk page to disingenuously goad, bait and insult me. Any reasonable person, premie or not, has to concede that my embezzlement joke was not serious. I've repeatedly given several reasons why that's so -- my humour and tone in the initial post, my immediate clarification as soon as anyone questioned whether I might not possibly be serious, the fact that my silly story implicated two current EV stalwarts (actually three if you include Bill Sparks who I allude to in the joke), David Smith and Jack Tuff, both of whom would of course vehemently deny that they'd ever conspired to kidnap, confine, threaten or assault me, the fact that, indeed, Jack Tuff did categorically confirm that the story was a joke. Add to that Sylviacynth's observation that $18,000, the amount I joked about taking, was a hell of a lot of money for any of our communities in 1980. In fact, we were lucky if we had a few hundred on hand in the community coffers at any time in little Calgary, Alberta. For all these reasons and probably a whole lot more that any one of us could think of, there is no reason in the world for anyone to have even the smallest grain of doubt that this was anything but a joke.

But look what EV and various anonymous premies have done! In the worst tradition of lying, distorting propaganda, they have flatly accused me of this crime, pretending, at best, to be still undecided as to the truth of the matter.

Now, despite all this discussion -- and yes, it's relevant, Jossi, because it's going into this article as a stark example of how EV does indeed unfairly attack Rawat's critics -- Momento is taking disingenuous pot shots at me, insisting that I "confessed" to a crime which everyone knows did not occur and then comparing my joke to a sworn affidavit which I later recanted. And Jossi? Jossi, who you, PatW were just giving strokes to for his fair approach to editing, is over on Momento's talk page encouraging him to not "feed the trolls". Who's the troll here, Jossi?

It would be so nice if someone edited this article to tell this story. This story is important as it says an awful, awful lot about EV's scruples, such as they are. I've asked Sylviacynth but perhaps PatW or CraigFitzroy might want to take a shot at it too or together. You're all great writers. Momento, you should either discuss things sincerely or quit altogether.--Jim Heller 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, I'm sorry if you feel I am trying to "goad, bait and insult" you, I was just reminding Sylviecyn that a retraction can be rejected by a Supreme Court judge. I wass simply stating the fact that a retraction doesn't eliminate or negate previous testimony.Momento 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, You are continuing to refer to my joke in a forum conversation -- immediately admitted to and completely umistakable as such -- to sworn "testimony" for a court of law which you suggest I later "retracted." You then insult me further by pretending you're sorry even as you perpetuate this foolishness.  Your "apology" is just a further insult, isn't it?  Or, let me guess, is that how people apologize in Australia?  Perpetuate the harm?  Nice.--Jim Heller 14:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, I want to clarify for neurtal readers that don't have background about the MacGregor/Gubler case, that your use of "Supreme court judge" refers to a court in Australia and not the U.S. Supreme court. Sometimes misusing words can confuse people.  Attorney Heller's matter has never been adjudicated in any court of law anywhere, but he is named on documents that incorrectly call him a criminal, and those documents are linked in this article. Sylviecyn


 * It easy enough from behind a cover of anonymity, Momento, to act blase, yawn etc. as if nothing is going on, here. Can you  and everyone else here, mentally register the fact that libel is a crime.  Perpetuating in the spread of false rumours once the facts are no longer in doubt, and you know they are no longer in doubt, makes you complicit in the original libel, even if you didn't start it.  Trust me here.  I am not a lawyer, but neither was the guy on one-reality.net who thought that libelling a practising lawyer was a smart move.  Jim's complaint here is not about the fine detail of the Bachers vs. One-reality case.  It is about the morality and legality of you, among others, continuing to perpetuate the lie that Jim 'confessed' to criminal activities.  May I respectfully suggest you drop this idiocy, retract previous comments etc., ASAP. Craigfitzroy 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wil remind editors, yet again, that discussions unrelated to the article are not welcome in these pages. Mr. Heller's assertion that these off-topic discussions are relevant to the article are not applicable, as neither the article not the Elan Vital pages that are linked from this article refer to Mr. Heller or mentions this story of "embezzlement". If Mr. Heller has a complaint about Elan Vital, he may need to contact that organization to air his grievances, if he has any. Neither this article, nor this talk page, are the place to "set the record straight" about comments that Mr. Heller may or may have not made in the past. Had this article referred to Mr. Heller and the comments he made, we may have a case for describing the dispute here, but fortunately this is not the case. So I would suggest to drop this issue altogether and focus in improving this article, which I remind everyone that is a bioagraphical article about Prem Rawat and nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also object to Momento's insults and innuendo, as well as Jossi's comments on Momento's talk page concerning trolls. I am not an internet troll, and I'm well aware of what one is. This is the second time (first time on March 30th -- see history of Momento's talk page) Jossi has made such troll comments and I chose to ignore it the first time.

Concerning your suggestion that Atty. Heller contact Elan Vital to air his grievances. Elan Vital has a very poor history of responding to anyone who has questions, concerns, and especially criticism or grievances. An excellent example is the way EV handled the complaints made by two victims of Mahatma Jagdeo. Unfortunately, Elan Vital blamed the victims, and also resorted to using tactics that were mentally and emotionally injurious to the victims rather than giving them relief. They blamed the sexual abuse victims, and one of them was eight years old at the time of her brutal rape, so based on that, what you've suggested about contacting EV is poor advice, at best, Jossi.

Therefore, we're not going to "drop the issue," but pursue it vigorously, because once again, this is an encyclopedia, not a public relations writing team, where the bad/critical information is filtered out to make a subject look only good. Please also note the following, Jossi. It might help you feel more relaxed when editing here:

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. If you use common sense when editing, you are unlikely to break any rules." Use common sense. Sylviecyn 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless the appropriateness or lack thereof of my advice to contact Elan Vital to air yours or M. Heller's grievances, the fact remains that this project is not the platform to air these. You are welcome to apply common sense, providing that you abide by the very few non-negotiable content policies of Wikipedia. Edits that are performed within these policies will tend to remain in the article (e. g. my edit of yesterday in which I provided citations from two an encyclopedia an a dictionary), while edits that are not performed within these policies end up being challenged and in 99.9% of the cases, mercilessly deleted. This is the nature of this project. Given the persistance of Mr. Heller and yourself to use these pages for advocacy of you POVs, I am inviting a non-involved administrator to attempt and bring some discipline to this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for my single comments on Momento's about Don't feed the trolls, it was a private message to him and did not name any editor of this or any other article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There aren't any "private messages" on Wikipedia since anyone can view them. Jossi, the only edits Momento has made on Wikipedia since February 2006 are to the Prem Rawat and Rawat-related articles.  One has to conclude by reading your two messages to Momento with the tag "Don't feed the trolls." that you are referring to your fellow editors on this and other Rawat articles.  Please explain further, Jossi, why you think Momento has trolls to deal with here, since you know the names of everyone editing, and further what your intentions were about leaving such a message to Momento on his userpage, when he/she has not been involved in any other articles for four months!  Otherwise, one has to assume you are editing here in bad faith and are not endeavoring to foster a better editing atmosphere here among fellow editors. You owe an explanation and an apology, Jossi. See [Momento User Contributions] Sylviecyn 16:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not posted again after accepting Heller's statement about his embezzlement claim being a joke because this was becoming the tail wagging the dog, and did not deserve the heated prominence being given to the issue, and because the whole point of this discussion is to get Rawat's bio article right, not to argue about side issues. But I have to come back in to express something about Sylviecyn's statement regarding the abuse allegedly perpetrated by Mahatma Jagdeo, on two grounds. One is that from the postings of a few years ago when this was being discussed it was clear that EV did not receive directly any complaint from the alleged victim - it only came from a third party. And the statement about her recollection of the incident did not contain any allegation of rape. Again this is not germane to the biographical article on Prem Rawat but it is a false claim that needs to be corrected.Peterson. 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points, Petersen:


 * (a) you have now 'accepted' Heller's statement about his embezzlement claim being a joke? Very gracious of you.  How about an apology for perpetuating the lie before the penny finally dropped?


 * (b) Compelling evidence for Jagdeo's sexual abuse of children was first brought to public attention in 1998, courtesey of EPO. Even more compelling evidence emerged soon after, when victims started speaking out online. Only then did EV admit there might be an issue to deal with, if only as a face-saving, after-the-horse-has bolted exercise.  So PLEASE NOTE: there are no 'alleged victims', as you put it.  Jagdeo's victims were 'real' victims.  As real as your own children, if you have any.Craigfitzroy 00:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did apologize for raising the issue though at the time I did not know of Heller's later volte face. And as for this issue of the alleged pedophile, I only brought up two indisputable matters of fact, and the response by Craigfitzroy just goes to illustrate something deeply disturbing about the methods of the ex-premie group. Time and again they will hit on some incident, and exaggerate and twist it, so that gradually they build up a picture of Prem Rawat completely at variance to the truth. The pedophile allegations are typical. Obvioudly we would all want to see justice for a victim of this dispicable activity, but the ex's seem to want to use the allegations merely as a way to defame Prem Rawat, insinuating that in some way he condoned the alleged actions of the perpetrator, when any sane person would see that with his own small family at the time, and his great caring for and love of children, such actions would be as grotesque and repugnant to him as to the rest of us, and no way would he have allowed it if he had known about it. Just because he or his organization have not come out with detailed answers to the morbid and accusatory allegations of the exs does not mean that he is therefore in some way guilty. Likewise the libel against him repeated early in this discussion that he has an alcohol problem. For over twenty years it is well documented that most days he flies himself to a destination, most evenings he gives a lucid and eloquent address, between time he holds conferences concerning his teaching, and he has a well reported habit of being in his office every day at 5 am. Yet the ex's, on the strength of one or two dubious reports from disaffected people with axes to grind, try to make this a platform of their 'serious' oppositon. The same pattern is followed time and again to build up not just a distorted picture but one that is the opposite of the truth. This dishonest way of opposing and criticizing Prem Rawat is as much as the smallness of their numbers a reason why their POV should not be given overdue credit.86.130.218.79 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased reference to work of Steven A. Kent
Here's an example of some more typical biased text from the article. I propose it should be re-phrased with NPOV.  Stephen A. Kent makes self-admitted subjective criticism (lacking substance) based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat and treats the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s. I wondered if Mr Kent would really describe his work as "lacking substance" so I wrote and asked him! His reply was very courteous. He commented that it looked like a long-term premie wrote the piece, said that he has a thick skin regarding criticism but "By no means, however, would I object if someone else were to look at what I actually said about the group and then bring those comments into a discussion about the article's accuracy or 'spin.'"PatW 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, I am not mistaken this edit was made by Andries. If so, maybe Andries can comment on his edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, I agree. I also notice that particular text and wondered about it, especially the "lacking substance" part.  I would also like to know what Andries' comments are why he wrote it that way. Sylviecyn 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)