Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 19

Project status as of October 6 11, 2004 May 26, 2005 (updated by &asymp; jossi &asymp;)
Here are the main points of project status at this time:
 * The overall project structure now appears stable as a main biographical article, a criticism article (linked from main page), and a teachings article (linked from main page), with other ancillary articles as well.
 * The major revision to the main article is online, accepted and stable; its "dispute tags" have been removed
 * The criticism article has been fully negotiated, its "dispute tags" have been removed, and it has been marked in the edit history as a "baseline reference consensus version" for future editors' use
 * Characteristic of the classic successful compromise, everyone is a little unhappy with the results but everyone can also live with them
 * We have commitments from our editors' group to protect these articles from vandalism attacks and to ask their respective constituencies to respect the articles (and our hard work!) as well
 * Existing ancillary topic articles such as Elan Vital, Hans Ji Maharaj, Techniques of Knowledge and Divine Light Mission may see some work in the coming days; no additional ancillary articles appear to be on the horizon, but who knows?
 * New articles Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat are being currently developed. A lively discussion about these articles is being held at Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat
 * A preparatory stub has been created for the teachings article, and I am informed Richard G is close to presenting a first draft version

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

The above claims are untrue, this article has not been fully negotiated, it is not accepted, nor is it stable. I cannot live with the distortions in this article, and I am someone.


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

The above claims are untrue, this article has not been fully negotiated, it is not accepted, nor is it stable. I cannot live with the distortions in this article, and I am someone." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

External links added by anon user
Note that discussion forums are not acceptable for inclusion on external links sections. Ditto for sites that does not do not provide a unique resource. See WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the website http://www.gurumaharaji.info/ contains information not treated in the other websites e.g. excerpts from the documentary "Lord of the Universe". Why did you remove it? Andries 20:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That website does contains many copypios, broken links and it is a link farm to expremie group sites. Not a qualiy site to link from this or any other article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly contains unique information. Where do the guidelines state that a linked to website cannot in turn link to discussion groups? Andries 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And FYI, these "excerpts" from that documentary (obvious copyvios) are already on John Brauns website, and that is already linked. Please note that I am compiling a list of copyvios from Brauns' website as well, and place a comment for removal of that link as it contains numerous copyright violations. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no copyright violations on www.ex-premie.org. All textual, photographic, audio and video extracts are published under the fair use provisions of the DMCA for research and educational purposes.  If any person or organisation believes their copyright has been violated I am happy and willing for that person or organisation to test their claim in the appropriate court.  Elan Vital Inc. (USA) have already claimed copyright violation against the site's hosts, Verio, one of the largest internet service providers in the world, but failed to pursue their claim when I explained why I believed they were mistaken.  Verio were happy for me to reinstate the disputed material, so there is no reason for the link to my site to be removed. --John Brauns 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am referring to these copyright violations that are not fair use as these do not pass the four-factor balancing test under United States law:
 * Ten complete chapters of Collier, Sophia, Soul rush: The odyssey of a young woman of the '70s, Morrow (1978), ISBN 0688032761.
 * Full text of Pur, Anand, Paramhansa Advait Mat: A life sketch of the Illustrious Master of the Mat (1975), Shri Anandpur Trust
 * Full text of Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Albion Press
 * These are obvious copyvios as per the definition of Wikipedia, and I am sure if I look deeper I will find more. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The authors of the first two have given their permission for publication, and we have been unsuccessful in contacting the copyright owner of the third. If you have current contact details that would be helpful.  If there are any other questions could you please write to me direct rather than publicly infer that I and the previous webmasters were/are cavalier on issues of copyright.  You can read the site policy for copyright issues linked on the home page of the site.  --John Brauns 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider the combination of complaints of copyright violation together with complaints that the ex-premies do not back up their accusations with documents hypocritical. Andries 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "backing up accusations" as there are none related to that site in this article. Copyright violations on a personal website, or links to such, reflect poorly on Wikipedia and that is why these are banned from inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I admit that there are none linked to currently because it has been your persistent policy to remove any such link from the article with all kinds of specious excuses. Andries
 * And where is this listed on ex-premie.org ? Andries 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That page all pointing to the same material is a demonstration of spamming and of poor quality website. We do not need to link to poor quaility websites, in particular one that contain copyright violations ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The webpage that I linked to contained no copyright violation, because it showed only thumb nails. Andries 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not serious, are you? Are you saying that of if I create a page with links to pages in my own website that are blatant copyvios, I can bypass the policy by simply creating a page with links to the copyvio material? Maybe you want to propose that subterfuge at Copyright so that copyright violators can get away with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The website states the following "All images, videos, magazines, audio files, and other documents are published here under applicable "fair use" provisions where alleged copyright may exist. In all other cases the images are already in the public domain. This site and its contents are solely for non-commercial educational purposes.". I think you are wrong that there are many copyright violations on the website. Andries 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The site may say watever it wants to say using boilerplate text from other sites, but facts are facts. Just check the content. In any case, you must agree with me that the site is (a) of very poor quality, (b) it has duplicated content from other sites already linked, (c) It is spamming by use of same links again and again, and (d) it is an obvious "mee too" site with no unique resources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote to keep the link to Maharaji.info. It's not the editors' job to make judgments about the quality of a site, only if the material is relevant, and the material is definitely relevant. Besides, the "quality" argument isn't valid.  I suspect there's material there that premies here don't want seen by the general public, which is even more reason to keep it because this is an encyclopedia, not a advertorial. Based on the number of pro-Rawat links, which I believe are extravagant and hagiographic, this one should stay.  The disclaimer clears any possible liability for Wikipedia.  Sylviecyn 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We can and should make value judgements of external links sites, as these do not fall under the content policies. You may want to read WP:EL. The number of sites linked has been reduced considerably by me already, after comments were made by several editors, including you. If you believe that there are too many "pro" sites linked in the external links section, you may say so and we can take a look. After all, two wrongs do not make a right. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was wrong of you to remove links to sites critical of Rawat. You should not be engaging in censorship. The criticism of Rawat is factual; just because it is embarrassing to Rawat is no reason to censor it. For example, the picture on www.gurumaharaji.info/pages/mala_dancing.shtml shows him sitting half naked, smiling, wearing flowers while his devotees, including you, worshipped him. Are you going to deny this fact? It is a very notable fact, most people don't do that sort of thing. 69.251.176.184 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed these based on the fact that the site is not a site that has new content that is relevant to this article, as photos such as these are already available on John Brauns personal website, that is already present in the "external links" section. This in addition to other problems already stated above. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, you censored it because it embarrasses your "Master", it does have new content that is extremely relevant. I will add it back later. 69.251.176.184 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but please note that not any site can be added as an external link. Any anon can creat a website thiese days, add a scan of a magazine and purport to be a site that deserves inclusion. I have stated my reasons for removal, and unless you can come up with counter-arguments that are sustainable, that website will continue to be removed for the reasons stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will re-insert the website for stated reasons. Please file a request for comments. Andries 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you do not deny that you were there and saw with your own eyes Rawat sitting on a throne-like chair half-naked wearing flowers and smiling while his devotees, including you, worshipped him and sang the devotional song Arti to him. How many times have you sung Arti to him? How many times have you bowed down to him? How many times have you kissed his feet? Have you lost count? 69.251.176.184 15:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The personal beliefs that you, I, or any other editor profess, or the personal beliefs, experiences and actions that you may ascribe to others, have no bearing on this article. Please note that these pages are provided for discussing the article, not the subject. These pages are neither USENET, nor a Discussion forum. I would appreciate it if some basic talk-page discipline can maintained. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to stop
As predicted, this article is blowing out again because editors are indulging in POV by proxy i.e. insert whatever "scholarly opinion" agrees with your opinion. This article had reduced to 57 kb until Andries made it 59 kb by inserting his chosen scholar. And now further additions by Andries, Jossi and others see us arrive at 62 kb. I am taking out all the "scholarly" opinion and getting back to 57 kb. Feel free to revert if you need other's opinion or preferably suggest removals to get this article down to 54 kb.Momento 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is now 55 kb. Please feel free to removed the last kilobyte.Momento 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't thik that it s necessary to remove that material. Let's wait and see what will be the future if the teachings article(s). Then we can decide if these are a better home for that material. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is that a) the scholars quotes in the 70s section are actually from the 80s, and b) they are so unrepresentative of PRs teachings that I feel the need to add another 10 kb to provide some accuracy. This article would be much better if it stayed a facts only biography of PR and not a place for editors to insert whatever third party quote they can find that agrees with their POV. At the very least the 70s section quotes should be moved to the 80s.Momento 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Need more context for the uninformed
Hi all. I added the context tag because for someone who knows nothing of the subject like me, the intro is very vague. I have no idea what this "knowledge" thing is (and I shouldn't have to to get an idea of who Prem is). Is Prem some sort of evangelist, or prophet, or kook?

I haven't read the rest of the article; I'm referring to the beginning of it. There needs to be some sort of sentence describing why he is notable. When I started to read the article, I immediately went for the "Random article" link to get away. This article provides way too much trivial detail right at the beginning (the lead I think should be shorter). There's no general overview that would entice the user to read on. So... I hope someone who is familiar with this guy can improve the article. Thanks! ~MDD4696 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Please note that as per Style Guide the lead is a summary of the article. There is a wikilink to Knowledge in the lead but we ought to give a short explanation of what it is. I will attempt to work on the lead to make it less vague for the uninformed. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mdd4696, I have made several edits to the lead. Can you please comment if these now provide a better context? Thanks. (And thanks for organizing the archives!) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
I think this section should be re-named "Independent Research" or "Scholarly studies' or something. THe people quoted aren't criticising PR they're making observations.Momento 09:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Academic research"?Momento 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so sure, Momento. I would prefer to leave it as is for now. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary of teaching
As I said above, if PR's teachings need to be summarised in this article, they should be summarised very briefly, and neutrally and linked to "Current Teachings" which should be renamed "Teachings of Prem Rawat". I do not believe the quotes in the 70's section are representative and I do not believe the "70s" is the place for it. I suggest that we link "began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent" from the first paragraph of the article to "Current teachings" (renamed "The Teachings of Prem Rawat"). That way we can keep this article brief and factual and have a separate article to expand on teachings. Even the "Access to the techniques" section could be incorpoarted into "The Teachings of PR".Momento 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is possible, Momento. We have used all the available sources in this article and there is no other reputable sources beyond these that refer specifically to "teachings". We can either leave the past and current teaching articles as stubs (after we summarize the lenghty "current teachings" article), or to simply redirect these to here and marge any material that is not duplicated, into this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not merge "Past" and "Current" teachings together as "Teachings of Prem Rawat". It's not as if they're different teachings, just the same message expressed Indian style and then non-Indian style. My main issue is that the four or five extreme quotes dropped in the "70s" section by Andries and added to by you are:  a) completely unrerpresentative of PRs teachings, b) PR's teachings would require a lot more additional material to balance and c) the quotes are very clumsy and don't belong there in the first place. I am opposed to adding more material to this article (the article is 59 kb and would benefit by being reduced to 54) and therefore, rather than continue an edit war to balance Andries' quotes, I would leave scholars opinion to the "Teachings" articles where they belong.Momento 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The same message, Indian style and non-Indian style??? You have got to be joking!  LOL!  Sylviecyn 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The message has always been that - " that God/peace/joy naturally resides within every human being and that students can reliably access this natural experience only with the techniques and ongoing advice of a true master". Like his father before him, he claims he can teach four techniques that allow the practicioner to focus their attention within, claims a student needs a master and that the student master relationship is necessary to maintain the experience. He used to do it with Indian analogies, concepts and traditions, which he dropped in the '80s.Momento 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes in the 70s section are not representative of Rawat's teachings and must be addressed. Andries, can you provide translations of all that these people said about Rawat?Momento 08:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that all the quotes that Andries inserted into the 70s section actually come from the 80s!!! And all are from active Christians!!! What's going on Andries?Momento 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At 59 Kb this article is too long and we do not have room for the tit for tat editing that Andries' has started. Unless someoone can provide a rational argument why these unrepresentative 80's quotes about Rawat's teachings have been dumped in PR biography in the 70's, I am going to remove the quotes from "Christian critics" from the 70's section. Momento 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotes by van der Lans and Derks were based on interviews with premies in the late 1970s, though the article was published in the 1980s. Andries 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries's edits are fine and I object removal of them. Please explain why you object to having quotes from "Christian" critics. What a scholar's religious affiliation may be is immaterial to their observations and assessments of a new religious movement and it's leader. It's inappropriate to mention the religious affiliation of a scholar, because it appears that the writer/editor (here) is stating a POV about the scholar, based on their religion!  Also, you continue to misunderstand that when scholars or other writers publish, and then come out with a second or third edition of their book, it's absolutely not true that all the information in said book/publication is updated to the date of the latest edition.  That's a fact. Sylviecyn 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All the quotes are from the 80's and therefore don't belong in the 70's section. Why don't you remove them Sylviecyn?Momento 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to use discussion page for article improvement
and not as a message board or forum, let alone a good place to exchange incivil statements. All editors here must have by now seen the rules governing Talk pages, so the ongoing general discussion is very out of place.

Let's interrupt this for a moment, to give full disclosure: Those following the relevant Wikipedia pages may be remember that I'm not without pre-history here, having managed to enrage participants from both sides (while being able to work fairly well with others from both sides -- or even the same ones, once the dust have settled). I have this article (amongst others from NRM) on my watchlist, but it's not my center of activity here, you may check for yourself:

I've asked Jossi whether and how to get some moderation (in both senses) for this talk page. As Jossi has a more than one rôle here (admin, Wikipedia content editor, notable member of the pro-faction), his moderation attempts didn't work well. He already clarified, that he is bound by policy not to use his admin priviligues (and you can easily verify his compliance), and he tried IMHO a fair job to moderate the discussion, but this still works like a muleta to some.

Now back to content -- and the discussion page. The discussion page is not about who gets the last word. As a first measure I propose archiving the current page in the very near future. The signal to noise ratio is that abysmal, that not much is lost and the seeds of important discussion threads can be taken to the fresh page.

Regarding the content, I must bluntly state, that IMHO most articles in the NRM field would be better off, if members and ex-members both refrain from editing, or do a better job in abstracting from their very emotional POV, as too often seen. This is not meant in the sense, that they are prohibited to edit, as was hinted by citing the Jimbo interview. Out of curiosity I brought this question to the wikiEN-l mailing list, and by judgement of senior editors "interested" should be restricted to a very narrow interpretation (and of course an interview doesn't set policy).

Pjacobi 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's most important to deal with the issues we have control over, not what may or may not be our judgments of non-existence policy, concerning the inclusion and editing of NRM articles. I would think that all NRMs are too controversial to have in an encyclopedia of any kind and is probably why other non-wiki enclyclopedias have little or no information about them or destructive cults.  The fact remains that both adherents and critics are editing the article now, and we need fairness.


 * No one has been able or willing to answer this question of mine, will you? How is it that this article about Prem Rawat is able to stand the way it is when the key source material about Rawat's own life  comes from his own organizations -- Elan Vital, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and other organizations specifically set up to support his work?  Those are not third-party sources and without them, I don't see the foundation for the article itself, because they are primary sources, and the material on them is inherently biased.   Also, by virtue of keeping all the primary sources, especially Elan Vital, there is a large, bold, criticism of former followers, and that is the allegation of "hate group."  So long as that stands, I will fight for inclusion of a weighty critics section in the main article.


 * I vote to not archive this talk page and see no reason for it. We are all adults and know we've been arguing and emotional, but also there are many important points being made by critics (and issues discussed) on this page as it stands must not be lost to the archive pages.  Besides, I can guarantee you that people will not be keeping their emotions "out of this" for long. I've been online for years and this is by definition an emotion-evoking subject as long as followers and ex-followers are editing here together. It's really a dilemma of sorts, and I'm not being flippant or glib, it's the nature of the beast and I'd give us two weeks with a fresh page before arguments break out again. Also ask that no one edit the article as Jossi suggests below until we resolve these conflicts.Sylviecyn 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, thanks for your comments. I agree. I would happily refrain from editing here but for the fact that the article would soon revert to being the partisan commentary (in particular the section about Critics) it was before I arrived. I balanced it out exersizing considerable NPOV. (see edit history) My motives for being here are declared on my User Page. I am not, despite the accusations of followers, trying to push a POV further than is neccessary to achieve fairness and balance. You should try it. It is an uphill struggle constantly challenging those who have an agenda to make this article a) reflect favourably on Rawat and b) subtely demonise anyone who raises criticism. Before you sweep aside the dialogue we've already had might I suggest you study the history of this article and see just how Jossi and followers have dominated this article. Do you seriously think that Jossi for example, could possibly refrain from editing here? What do you think Jossi? I appreciate your taking the time to look in here (nobody else has, despite my attempts to attract some mediation[]) but could you do something really useful and read the article and make some comment about the main contention? That is the significance of the ex-premie group, which followers say is too insignificant to deserve much if any inclusion. They want to remove the links to critics sites etc. and yet (before I and some ex-premies edited it) they at great length attacked and demonised this group without giving them fair representation. Surely they can't have it both ways.PatW 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm preparing an answer, but Wikipedia is incredibly slow for me in the moment. --Pjacobi 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Better a short response than none. Hope I'll get more done the next days:
 * Cave: I assume I'm more on the strict side of defining what Wikipedia should be, partially caused by participation on de: (see also User:Elian/comparison). So what I say here may not totally be backed by police, let alone by practice, here.
 * An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, building its content by summarizing secondary sources. First tier secondary sources are scholarly publications, adhering to the scientific method in the wider sense (covering also social sciences etc). This lets room enough for healthy arguments and non-consensus, from global warming to string theory. Especially regarding NRMs, a colorful note is introduced by the fact, that scholars of sociology, psychology and theology usually don't agree. For subjects, which aren't relevant enough to draw serious attention by academia, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use "serious" (for some values of serious) journalism as substitute. But this already is slippery slope and needs difficult judgement. Even juridical rulings, which in itself are rather verifiable, are better introcuded through secondary sources, not by trying to do your own search or rely on "pro" and "con" websites. Individual testimonies should only be a source of last resort and a sober advice would be, to just don't write an article, if these are the only sources available. An exception for primary sources, are the publications of the article subject itself. They can always (to a reasonable amount) be included in the article as documents. Of course there is a limit, we don't want to reproduce the website of an organisation, or even completely expose a belief system.
 * So, yes, after wasting endless hours at rather strange articles (de:Zeugen Jehovas is my nemesis), I've come to the conclusion, that no ex-member (or other opposing) group's (let alone individual's) statement should directly be incorporated into a Wikipedia article on a NRM. If the statements of the ex-members are consistent and/or important enough -- and assuming that the NRM itself is relevant enough -- it will draw scholarly attention some day and be incorporated in a work, which we can use as valid secondary source.
 * What the ex-members have to say, may be very important etc, but an encyclopedia is neither the right platform nor the judge. Encyclopedia writing is boring, non-creative, non-original work, based on the research of others.
 * BTW this cuts in both directions: If the Criticism of Prem Rawat aims to be an article on a particular group of critics, Elan Vital would be an invalid primary source for that article (if it aims to be a generic criticism article, the "merge" AfD result should be implemented).
 * Pjacobi 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comment about Jossi's attempts at moderation: but this still works like a muleta to some. I too appreciate Jossi's attempts at NPOV but I think it maybe helpful to explain that Jossi (by virtue of his mostly helpful authoritative comments)  appears (to any newcomer such as myself) as someone relatively quite advanced in the ways of Wikipedia. So the 'red rag to the bull' syndrome comes into affect when one sees on the one hand an article full of as yet un-moderated NPOV comments (such as the one directly above I have just brought attention to) and yet, on the other hand, one finds Jossi on this talk page, apparently for ages having turned a blind eye to such inconsistencies,  effusively advising others the ways of Wikipedia. The 'Muleta' comes from the perception that this is hypocritical. Jossi also evidently has far more time to devote to this article than others which increases that impression.PatW 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As per Pjacobi's suggestion, I support the archival of the talk page, start afresh keeping the emotions out of it and focusing on constructive edits only. The motto should be discuss the article, not the subject. IMO, the article has improved a lot since non-involved editors made some useful comments (such as User:Bishonen and User:Dsmi) and as it stands today the article contains more than 130 references, many of which from reputable sources such as books, encyclopedias and scholarly articles. A drive supported by all editors to continue improving the article and removing bias will be most welcome. As for my committment to WP, please note that I am spending only a fraction of my time in this dispute (and would love to spend less of it if possible). Most of my wikitime I am investing on other articles, in admin tasks, in the Wikipedia namespace, and on other Wikimedia foundation projects. I do not think that an editor should be penalized for having a committment to this project. Lastly, and in response to PatW's comments, please note:
 * It is unfair to say that I have "dominated" this article. There is no such a thing in WP. I have done a lot of research, yes, and added a large number of the citations and references. Other editors that have contributed to this article as significantly as I have include User:Andries, User:Zappaz and User:Gary D (these last last two editors no longer editing WP) as well many hundreds of edits by many editors anon and users;
 * In regard to addressing sentences that are not NPOV in the article, let's get busy, find these and fix them, hopefully while respecting policy and each other. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The last two big topics I've been involved discussing here both fall under the general heading of harrassment and defamation of ex-followers by EV and others. Marianne's settlement wherein Staker was forced to admit he'd wronged her and my own example of bad-faith denigration are important examples of the lengths Rawat's defenders will go and should go into the article to balance the other litigation stuff wherein defenders complain about ex-premies.  It seemed easier to introduce those topics here because the last time I tried to add anything to the article (about Geaves' claim that Rawat didn't know about, let alone contribute to, the Millenium hype -- which should also be added at some point), my edits were deleted by Andries, Momento and you and I got blocked for trying to keep them.  So it seemed naturally best to start on the talk page.
 * However it's done, whoever does it, the article needs balance in all these areas and more.--Jim Heller 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also want to note that the accusation of ex-premies as a "hate-group" has been placed into the Hate Group article on Wikipedia, and is the only NRM that calls it's former followers a hate-group. It's a blatant singling out of ex-premies with that smear, and serves no purpose other than to defame ex-premies.  For those readers here who are not Americans, you might not appreciate the gravity and impact of having such an accusation leveled at you.  Nevertheless, it is a grave accusation and demands a fair response. Not to do so is unfair and unbalanced, also morally irresponsible because people's names are listed as such in the MacGregor affidavit.  Sylviecyn 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I invite you to discuss the mentioning of the "ex-premies" in the Hate group article at Talk:Hate group ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to moving forward
This dispute may be an issue of what came first, the chicken or the egg, and a good example of escalation of commitment and a Zero-sum game. The moment that the criticism and the allegations forwarded by the ex-follower critics that call themselves "ex-premies" was added to this and other related articles, it is only natural that these will be followed by rebuttal material that refers to these allegations, including the legal wrangling between the two sides. Continuing with the escalation, with counter-rebuttals by critics and counter counter rebuttals by supporters then there is not feasible resolution. If, as Pjacobi suggests, we remove ex-members statements from the article (keeping all other criticism reported by scholarly sources, of course), and then keeping a small mention that there is such group, etc. then there will be no need to have in the article any of the rebuttals, characterizations and alleged demonization of critics that PatW and Sylviecyn assert as unfair.

So, one way to resolve this dispute would be: ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Having one sentence about the existence of critical ex-followers in the criticism section;
 * 2) Removing the rebuttals and characterizations of the "ex-premie group" attributed to Elan Vital;
 * 3) The criticism section then remains with all material supported by reliable sources such as books and scholarly articles;
 * 4) We can then apply a similar treatment to the Criticism of Prem Rawat article as an expansion to the Criticism section in this article.


 * In a word: No.  What you've outlined, Jossi is the basis of your argument for removing ex-premies as Rawat's major critics in this article, as you and other adherents argued above.  That's why we asked for an rfc.  I don't accept your solution for the many reasons discussed above in this talk page.  I'm willing wait for the neutral users to comment on this further before making drastic changes that meet the criteria of your pov.   Sylviecyn 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sylviecyn: Please note that Pjacobi is one of the neutral editors we were waiting for, and a very experienced editor in the English and the German Wikipedias. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, it is all about Verifiability, see WP:V. Provide secondary sources, which build upon the statements of ex-premie.org or the like, and it is fair game. Otherwise, the only proof of the the significance of that website, is -- ironically -- Elan Vital itself (by feeling obligued to response on their website). This will guarantee ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article, but I'd prefer a short one (somewhat longer if we decide to do the merge).
 * Compare with http://www.chick.com/ which claims to base its revelations on catholicism from a former Jesuit (other cleric? don't quite remember). They are obviously on the nutty side and the Roman Catholic Church (AFAIK) never bothered to respond. So chick.com shouldn't get a mentioning in Roman Catholic Church (and don't have it, fine).
 * @Jossi: NPOV is not about a deal between batteling parties, so please don't understand this request as such. But: Can you try to re-read the set of articles in the most neutral mind you can achieve (or ask someone completely uninvolved to do so). I'm of the opinion that we can pinpoint some "pro-Prem Rawat" phrases in the article that aren't substantial enough for am encyclopedia. This is more a style than a content issue, but it will demonstrate that we don't work only in one direction when trying to improve. As an example, what I have in mind, see Although a source of inspiration for his students -- this is at best a primary account and also not that unsuspected. I assume we can just do without such phrases.
 * Pjacobi 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanlks Pjacobi. That s[pecific phrase, was introduced actually by a neutral party User:Gary D. But I understand that concern and will sincerely attempt to NPOV any sentences that may be construed to be overly self-serving or "pro". ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PJacobi came here at your request, Jossi. Also, I'm capable of making my own personal observations, Jossi, without your constant lectures, which I've repeatedly asked you not to do.


 * PJacobi, I appreciate your time and efforts but I must object to your characterization of anyone as "nutty." Surely, there's a more neutral word you can find to characterize someone.  I'm particularly sensitive to people using such terms because they stigmzatize people who have mental health problems. Specifically, Elan Vital and Prem Rawat have used and continue to use such terms as "mental misfits" to characterize ex-premies' mental health status in order to stigmatize them and further support their (EV's) claims that ex-premies are are not credible and a hate-group.  In fact, there was an article published by the Australian Courier Mail, written Hadly Thomas "Peace at a Price." This is the response to the article by "Sane-Australia" a mental health advocacy group:


 * 12.05.04 'The Courier Mail' journalist Hedley Thomas on 24.04.04 refers in his article ' Peace at a Price' to critics of Guru Maharaji Ji and Elan Vital. He paraphrases a member of the movement - Cath Carroll - who called critics 'a crooked lawyer, a drug trafficer, a paranoid maniac, an unethical journalist and a schizophrenic'. Thomas went onto call them 'mental misfits'.


 * SANE wrote Mr Thomas on 12.05.04 acknowledging that he was paraphrasing another person but that he chose to summarize Carrolls words by calling people with a mental illness 'mental misfits'. Sane


 * I'm sure you meant no offense, and I try not to be too "PC" myself about these things, but in this case, your example was much too close to home. In addition, your example isn't apt, because the Roman Catholic Church isn't an NRM, the founder and early Christians of the RCC obviously aren't editing articles on Wikipedia, nor are early defectors editing along side them.  Apples and oranges, imo.  Sylviecyn 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, please note that Pjacobi offered his assistance unsolicited. See User_talk:Jossi. I asked him to assist as I believe Pjacobi is neutral, and highly commended by one of the editors that support a critical view of Prem Rawat, such as Andries (see User:Andries) with the understanding that his involvement could be cordially accepted by you and others with same viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good Jossi. You must deserve a pat on the head from somebody.  As I've stated many times, I'm in favor of complete transparency in writing these articles.  Sylviecyn 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have missied the point. What I said above is that Pjacobi offered his help unsolicited, and that it would be appreciated if his comments and suggestions are taken as coming from someone that is neutral and no specifi bias pro or con. So, your statements about his advice not being neutral and as if it was tainted is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * wut? Jossi, if you want to be a sycophant to Maharaji and Pjacobi that's fine with me but it's just not my style.  You have your rights and preferences and I have mine, after all.  You can kiss PJacobi's ass, but I don't have to.  It's an individual choice.  Now, I have nothing against PJacobi, except I disagree with his/her assessments thus far and have said so.  But, when you say my comments are not "acceptable," the least you can do is to own the statements as your own, because the last time I looked your name isn't Jimbo Wales, and you don't own Wikipedia or this article, nor do you represent all of the individual opinons of every Wikipedian, or do you?  And if so, please explain. Otherwise, piss off. Btw, you DO know how obvious it is that you're kissing Pjacobi's ass, right? Sylviecyn 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sylviecyn you don't help your issue with your language. Perhaps you can find a more cool-blooded member of your faction for contributing to Wikipedia? I'm ready to escalate the issues using along the usual steps of Resolving disputes if you continue this way.
 * And "nutty" is a rather friendly and NPOV characterisation of chick.com -- did you have look at the stuff there?
 * Pjacobi 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just hopped around: The "teachings" article seem to offer ample opportunity for style cleanup: See Talk:Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat --Pjacobi 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm don't know why you're moving around to other articles, Pjacobi. I thought you were going to help resolve the main conflict of inclusion of ex-premies as major or minor critics in the main article so we could proceed from there.  Could you please clarify that?  Also, I think we have a language barrier happening here because I wasn't referring to your calling chick.com "nutty" specifically, and no I didn't read that website because that's not my point at all.  I was referring to your calling anyone "nutty."  It's neither friendly nor NPOV in the real world, of which Wikipedia is a part, because there are better terms to use that don't stigmatize people with mental health issues.  See Social stigma.  Using terms like that, particularly when discussing matters in this article are hot-button issues, regardless of whom you're labelling, because of the stigmatization by Prem Rawat of his former followers as "mental misfits," and other pejoratives and stigmatizing words. Use of words like that are deepy offensive to me personally.  I hope that explains.   Sylviecyn 10:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get your point. By all standards chick.com is nutty. And I won't ever call a person whith mental health problems "nutty".
 * "major" or "minor"? This is a value judgements, we are not make. The amount of mentioning ex-premie.org gets in this article, depends on whether we merge and delete Criticism of Prem Rawat as per the old AfD result.
 * I'm jumping all the times between different articles, see the stats. This is pretty normal for Wikipedia contributors. It's the editors only ever editing one article which miss the more detached perspective necessary to write an encyclopedia.
 * --Pjacobi 13:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I would support a merge, it will be quite challenging to do so as it will require a lot of condensing. This article is already over the limit at 97 Kb, and for that reason we are considering a split article about the 1970's that coud possibly be merged with a cleaned up version of Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Given the signal to noise ratio and the lack of civility demonstrated, these two endeavors will be very hard work, but I am game. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you PJacobi, I wasn't aware of the rfd request on the "Criticism of..." article, so I'm placing a link here so others who also haven't read it may also review it:  Articles for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat. This was the result of the rfd, but I haven't yet taken the time to form an opinion about it. There are so many ancillary articles about Prem Rawat to consider that will take some time.


 * "This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
 * "The result of the debate was keep with a very strong recommendation to remerge back into the main article (or otherwise refactor the article(s) in order to better achieve the mandatory neutral point of view. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)"  Sylviecyn 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You did participate in that AfD with six lengthy comments including an almost verbatim exchange with Pjacobi about the characterization of "insanity" (you were using your previous username), so I do not understand why you say you were not aware of it. If I am not mistaken, there was an additional attempt to delete that article, but both failed (I am not 100% sure about this as I have been unable to find the other AfD). In any case, unless there is a clear and unambiguous consensus to delete and merge, it will be not possible to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did comment, but I didn't read the whole rfd page today, and I had completely forgotten about it, as it's been well over a year. Yes, PJacobi still doesn't understand the issue about how such slang words hurt as stigmatiziation, but I'm not surprised, many people don't. If s/he wants to learn more there's ample info available on the internet. I couldn't find this Afd using Wiki search and it was much faster finding it using Google. 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to progress.Momento 10:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this set of articles is always rather depressing to me, I'll better find another volunteer for keeping an eye on Wikiquette and talk page disclipines. The articles are just way too big for good encyclopedic articles, but unfortunately it's easier to add stuff to Wikipedia articles than to get them trimmed down. Especially depressing is the comparison with biographies Simon Kimbangu (deleted after it was found to be a copyvio) and Lê Văn Trung, founders of religious movements with millions of adherents. Sorry, for this off topic remark, at least it is short. --Pjacobi 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At 97 kilobytes this is way too long. But getting rid of opinion is v difficult. Do you have a sharp axe?Momento 11:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attempt, Pjacobi. Note that this issue is a long standing one amongst Wikipedians: there are those that consider themselves inclusionists and those that consider themselves deletionists. My personal view is somewhat in the middle, based on the understanding that Wikipedia is not paper. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also thanks to Pjacobi for your efforts and I hope you recover from your depression.


 * Do photographs count towards the page size of an article? There are eight photos of Rawat here, and while I don't care which photos are used, nor about the number of them, if they do count towards page size, then obviously they should be pared down considerably. Most bios have one photograph. The sheer number of  photos also make this article a hagiography rather than a biography. That's just an outsider's observation.  Sylviecyn 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be just nice if you could avoid making comments about other editors. These comments are not needed and you have been warnd already once for these type of comments . Regarding images, these do not count towards article size. Photos are a welcome additions to articles. I do not understand why these would be hagiographic... these are biographical. As for article size, the artice stands at 97Kb, 47K bigger than recommended, that is why there is a request to summarize and spin-off sections to their own articles. As for your comment about being a outsider, I would argue that this is not the case, as you are by the content of your comments here and elsewhere a recurrent critic of Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with being a critic of Prem Rawat and being one also doesn't preclude or prevent me from having the ability to objectively view this article's quality. It appears hagiographic, imo, to have eight photos of a biography subject on the page, as there is generally only one photo on biography pages, even about famous people. It's especially hagiographic due to the fact that Prem Rawat is the leader of a NRM. But, as I said, it doesn't matter to me either way if that's what adherents wish to have in the article.  My concern was page size. Btw, I was wishing Pjacobi well, and thanking him, just as you did.   Sylviecyn 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to get an overview of the situation. I now see there are at least 10 related articles (Prem Rawat, Criticism of PR, Past Teachings, Current Teachings, Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital, Hans Ji Maharaj, Techniques of Knowledge, Prem Rawat Quotes, Raj Vidya Kender). I still don't quite understand what the proposals are for merging, deleting or leaving as is, with regard to all these. As PJacobi pointed out it may be appropriate to remove a lot of work. I am bothered about this as it represents, largely, a lot of effort and appropriate information. Even when the inappropriate is weeded out it will surely still be too much info. It seems a shame that such a large resource should be lessened. I guess it will be a massive task..I'm not sure I will have so much time but I'll help when I can. Right now I'm scratching my head.PatW 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The current requests are:
 * summarizing and spining-off the 1970's section into and merging it into Past teachings of Prem Rawat, that survived AfD but needs serious cleanup, NPOV and sources
 * PJacobi suggested we look at the possibility of re-merging back the criticism article into this one and deleting that one(also recommended in the failed AfD). This includes my proposal to limit the exposure to the POV of the ex-premie group to what is approrpriate as per policy (this will included the removal of rebuttals and characterizations made by Elan Vital, the legal battles, affidavits, etc.), keeping only the criticism reported by reputables sources such as scholarly articles, books, encyclopedias, etc. The challenge is to do this without increasing the size of the article.
 * Also note:
 * The quotes are on another project (http://en.wikiquote.org), not this one.
 * The Raj Vidya Kender article does not exist
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the paragraph that discusses the closing of the ashrams and name change in 1983. I put an external link to the CO Secy of state scan because I've never done footnotes before, and didn't want to mess up the whole page trying one out today.  I also refreshed the footnote in that paragraph that links to EV's faq page explaining the name change (hope that's okay, the existing one was a dead link).


 * This is how I would rework the articles if I had time:


 * Merge the Past and Current Teachings articles;
 * Merge the DLM and EV articles -- they are the same corporation and it will eliminate repetitions;
 * Keep Criticism of Prem Rawat article. It wasn't deleted for a reason;
 * I was going to say merge DUO and Raj Vidya Kender articles but it's moot if RVK article doesn't exist.
 * Keep Techniques of Knowledge article
 * Reduce main article. Every teacher of writing/journalism says that less is more.  As it stands the article has become uninteresting due to its sheer size, however, no concensus has yet been reached among editors about minimizing the mention of critics.  That has not yet been resolved so far as I can tell.


 * Comments? Sylviecyn 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we move forward, the issue about the lack of reputable sources that describe the POV of the group pf people that call themselves ex-premies, need to be resolved. As there are no such reputables sources, the inclusion of their POV, based on a personal website is in contradiction with policy. Once we re4solve that, we may move forward with mergers, condensing, and what not. Otherwise we will hit a wall again and again. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also unanswered is that all of the material that bloats these articles is self-published material about and by Prem Rawat vanity-published by the organizations that support him and in fact, one that carries his name (TPRF). I think these fall under those materials which are considered by Wikipedia to be "non-reputable sources" and also fall under "no original research" (this includes the hate-group allegation, which is unsubstantiated outside of EV's website). Please read WP:NOR section "What counts as reputable publication?"  EV, Visions Int'l, and TPRF are not reputable publishers by the standards outlined. I think this also refers to all of the Rawat material included in the articles, including but not limited to:  press releases, audio-tapes, video-links, printed material, quotes derived from Prem Rawat's self-published books as well as the vanity press magazine articles about him sourced from TPRF. Also see the section "Sources" WP:V.  In fact, were all this non-reputable material removed, what would remain would be the criticism leveled by the mainstream press  and scholarly research. This could become a very, very short article, with no forks or stubs, based on all of the above.   Sylviecyn 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (That is is misunderstanding of policy ... If that was the case, thousands of articles in WP would have to be reduced to nothing!). Sources (such as material from TPRF, EV and related organizations, press releases. videos and publications by these in print or video) are of course allowed as primary sources and may be used only as sources of information on themselves (but not as sources for other subjects), and providing that these are not the only sources used. See WP:RS. You can also check Verifiability where it discusses this same issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can check also Pjacobi's comment above in which he discusses primary, seconday and thertiary sources for further clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing
I am ready to start to reduce the opinion, pro and con, from this article. Greatly reduce the '70's and 80's section. And most of the criticsm. Let's make this article clear and factual. I agree with PatW that the other articles need attention.Momento 10:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started with "Establishment in the West" and reduced it by half. All references are retained. This section can be intergrated with " The 1970s" section (when it is reduced and cleaned up) as it is too small on its own.Momento 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up Lead and removed sentence refering to PR attracting controvery, since there are no references for it.Momento 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say. Best possibilities to source it are perhaps publications like "Nova Religio" or "EZW-Texte", which are not completey indexed by Google.
 * I've tried a Google search, incrementally excluding blogs, bulletin boards, private webpages and webpages of anti-cult-activits:
 * 
 * Some observations
 * http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=11416 may come nearest to a valid reference
 * Most hits refer to the concept of Elan Vital, not Elan Vital (organization), putting the relevance of the latter into perspective. Note the significant mismatch of our coverage.
 * Scrolling down, one finds some abstracts of "Nova Religio" articles, which may or may not be a good source. Any subscriber here?
 * Pjacobi 09:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything contraversial that wasn't instigated by ex-premies. I have amalgamated "Childhood in India" with "Succession".Momento 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If controversies arose due to the involment of ex-premies, this doesn't exclude them from being controversies. The only question was finding a source (outside of ex-premie.org). But, with the http://www.dailycal.org/ article, we now have a source.
 * There are also other sources some of which I will add, e.g. numerous critical articles in major magazines and newspapers. If they are removed will I add them again. The critical viewpoint is held by the majority. 69.251.176.184 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pjacobi 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that in a lead section of less than 20 sentences, one sentence (or one letter) should be devoted to one article in a student newspaper headlined "Campus Speaker Criticized by Ex-Devotees".Momento 12:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, without offense intended: If we want to enhance the encyclopedical style of the article, and also want some consistenty in NRM articles, wouldn't it better that the article be edited by those, who have wider experience with diverse set of articles? See . This doesn't apply to simple copy-editing, of course. --Pjacobi 10:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted to welcome any experienced non-biased editors to this article. You have already improved the tone of the talk page.Momento 12:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. I'm now going to merge "Establishment in the west" and "Marriage Rift" with "The 1970's". I will keep all references but reduce to one fifth.Momento 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for P.Jacobi and should we refrain from editing?
There's a couple of things that P.Jacobi said about this.

"As a first measure I propose archiving the current page in the very near future."
 * '(PatW: Pjacobi was referring to this talk page, and not the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

P.Jacobi have you done this yet? I consider this an important precursor to any major editing on all the related articles. I would like to see the articles themselves archived before the information is lost. Is this possible?

"I must bluntly state, that IMHO most articles in the NRM field would be better off, if members and ex-members both refrain from editing, or do a better job in abstracting from their very emotional POV, as too often seen."

It strikes me that no-one has offered to refrain from editing as per P.Jacobi's advice. Is it impossible for us to all agree to let some absolutely neutral party do the work at this stage? Personally I would agree to that and see it as a very useful exercise indeed.

''" NPOV is not about a deal between batteling parties, so please don't understand this request as such. But: Can you try to re-read the set of articles in the most neutral mind you can achieve (or ask someone completely uninvolved to do so)." ''

So just how appropriate is it for the 'battling parties" (that's us by the way) to be editing at this stage?

''Provide secondary sources, which build upon the statements of ex-premie.org or the like, and it is fair game. Otherwise, the only proof of the the significance of that website, is -- ironically -- Elan Vital itself (by feeling obliged to response on their website). This will guarantee ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article, but I'd prefer a short one (somewhat longer if we decide to do the merge)."''

So does that mean that ex-premie POV is represented or not? It seems that, although the significance of the group is determined primarily by the presence of scholarly articles, P.Jacobi agrees with my earlier conjecture that ex-premie POV should be mentioned by virtue of the response by Elan Vital. Elan Vital is a primary source after all. PJacobi could you elaborate a little on this since Jossi (above) and I obviously feel that this issue is unresolved and will continue to cause major problems until a consensus is reached?

"An exception for primary sources, are the publications of the article subject itself. They can always (to a reasonable amount) be included in the article as documents. Of course there is a limit, we don't want to reproduce the website of an organisation, or even completely expose a belief system."

Am I correct that publications of Divine Light Mission, Elan Vital websites etc can be included as primary sources? One example of a potential problem is that Prem Rawat apparently at one time requested followers to destroy all previous publications (containing his speeches and commentaries). Supporters will undoubtedly be very select in including references from these. Furthermore there is some grey area about how much organisations that purport to represent Prem Rawat actually represent(ed) him and his views. For example these earlier DLM publications arguably represented his views at the time but now he seems to shun some of what he said and the way he was presented. So in the case where a NRM leader revises his image how much, relatively, should an encyclopedia report about his past? PatW 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ex-premies or "former followers" have been mentioned in the press prior to the creation of EPO and since. One example is the 1983 article in Hinduism Today, October 1983 which is criticial of Prem Rawat. There are several articles and mentions of ex-premies on the nrm/cult awareness websites. Ex-premies are searchable on the Religous News Blog. Ex-premies are mentioned in many press articles, including the Courier Mail, The Bristol Post, and The Daily Californian, among many others. Those are reputable sources. Ex-premies are mentioned in Jeffrey K. Hadden's University of Virginia's New Religios Homepage (which is a source in this article) in its section DLM aka Elan Vital.


 * Former followers or "ex-Divine Light Mission members" were studied by Flo Conway and James H. Siegelman for their book, Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, and here is a website that reviews the authors' theories and their study of former DLM members: Information disease: Effects of Covert Induction and Programming. There are many reputable outside sources which justify keeping the "Criticism of..." article as well as retaining ample mention of former followers and ex-premies as well as EPOin this one. There's also the One-reality "response to ex-premies" website and EV's faq. There is no justification for wholesale removal of the critics' section. I offered to stop editing a few times, and I'm willing to stop editing now if everyone else is; I didn't edit for about a week, but the rfc seems to have crumbled. Sylviecyn 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion, again, is not about references about former followers. These are described in several books, some of which are already referred to in the article. What we are discussing is the POV of the group of people that call themselves "ex-premies" as presented on websites owned by John Brauns, such as the mentioning of "17 objections", and copies of USENET and forum postings neither of which are reputable. For the record, no one is discussing a wholesale deletion of anything, just that we need to abide by policies. You may be interested to know what Jimbo Wales recently said in the mailing list, about biographies of living people and critics. Food for thought:


 * In this case, we have what I think can only be described as a stalker/hate site being elevated by Wikipedia into a status of "criticism" when the criticism in question does not appear to be about substantive matters for the most part, but rather primarily about getting attention through lurid and false innuendo.


 * And I think we have a culture of trying to include all information, from whatever source. What this means is that if you find someone in Wikipedia about whom we have no "criticism" section, you can probably launch a hatefilled, incoherent blog of rants ... including personal criticism of physical appearance, sexuality, family history, etc., and it could end up the center of a wikipedia "criticism" section... despite having no objective merit. Jimbo Wales, May 7, 2006
 * I will respond to PatW's comments later in the day, time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're obfuscating the discussion again, Jossi. Ex-premies is a website that was around much longer than this article and TPRF, for that matter.  Jossi, are you saying that EPO is a "stalker/hate site" and "hate-filled incoherent blog of rants."  Where's the mailing list so I can read the entire context of what Wales said? Was Wales referring specifically to ex-premies as being hateful?  Is this what you're saying Jossi?  The point of view of ex-premies stays in this article.  Period.  Sylviecyn 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not obfucating anything. Jimbo was not referring specifically to the ex-premie group. His reference was related as you can read, to how Wikipedia articles sometimes are used to legitimize a blog or personal website that levels crtiticism against a living person, despite having no merit and getting attention through lurid and false innuendo.


 * As for your assertion about the length of time a website is online, that has no bearing on the reputability of a source.


 * And lastly, the inclusion of the ex-premie group's POV has to be related to Elan Vital's mentioning of them in their FAQs only, as we have failed to identify any other source in which the particular POV of this group (i.e the 17 objections, defaming allegations, etc) is described. Please note that there is no mention of that POV in any of the more than 50 reputable sources about this subject that have been researched, found and used in this article.


 * I have done extensive research on this subject and I have yet to find a single mention of the POV of the "ex-premie" group or even the existence of such group anywhere, with the notable exception of Ron Geaves's From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond Page 58, Nova Religio, March 2004, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pages 45-62, in which Prof. Geaves writes: [...] a small but vociferous minority of ex-followers, unable to accommodate change and showing signs of considerable cognitive dissonance, has cornered the market as Maharaji’s opposition,  determined to destroy his reputation through public denunciation on their website.


 * So, when you say that The point of view of ex-premies stays in this article. Period., I can only respond that yes, it can stay providing that it is described in accordance with Wikipedia content policies and as reported by reputable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first documented use of the word "ex-premie" that could find is by Reender Kranenborg referring to the critical former follower Jos Lammers (i.e not to a group or a number of people) in his 1982 book "Oosterse geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern Faith movements in the West". Andries 11:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read a large number of articles and books on the subject, and I never found the wter "ex-premie". Maybe Kranenborg was the only one that used it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The terms 'ex-premies' and 'ex-premie' are used in the 'Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji?' article published in October 1983 in Hinduism Today. 69.251.176.184 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided that I don't want to invest anymore of my time editing these articles. When summer arrives I'll have even less time and it's just not worth it for me to continue with this excercise in futility.  People have adequate access to the real truth about Prem Rawat by doing a simple google search. Best wishes. Sylviecyn 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been mentioned that students were asked by Prem Rawat to destroy previous publications. This is something of that I have only heard from ex-premies on their pages, and recently in the occasional spill from there onto WP. If there is any reality to the matter, it must have passed me by somehow, although I have been trying to listen continously to what P.R. has been issuing for a very long time. So I doubt it being true. Anyway, I have not destroyed anything, and I prefer to think I can tell responsible use of this material from troll feeding. Somehow I feel I hope a time will come when these beautiful things won't have to be protected from what seems to me something like the legendary static wrath of the undead. In the meantime I really enjoy their carefully collected quotes from P.R.’s younger years, when he did not seem to have to care so much about political correctness. At the same time I enjoy and admire his mastery in doing so these days. I have not read these expressions for a while, and I still cannot find any trace of revisionism or contradiction in his evolution. How can a human being make a life of renouncing development? This is the worst thing you can do with your life, spiritual suicide! Especially, when committed in such an ostentative way. Sorry for ranting. Short: Where or when has P.R. requested students to destroy material? Can this be really referenced?--Rainer P. 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This almost certainly cannot be referenced within Wikipedia. From an initial look via Google, it seems that this was something reported by various people on several different forums. It appears Elan Vital did offically request 'Expressions' from events edited from videos which is rather a different matter. (there is an official letter). Through Google I just found a premie defending this action on some forum 'As for the media he recalled, that was his prerogative to do as the person who originated the materials, and as the one who was doing the teaching.' My only personal recollection is of a premie friend in the US telling me in casual conversation that there was a recall of media that was destroyed. I think this was in the late 90's though.PatW 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I'm still watching this page and may do the occasional comment, but I've recused myself from a greater rôle. A request for other volunteers didn't get much response (too much truth in advertising, I assume). Anyway, talk page abuse seems to be down somehow. --Pjacobi 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see Momento has taken it upon himself to greatly reduce the size of the text while keeping the references that we have so hard worked to find. Let's see how the article looks and feel after his edits. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-inserting that sentence, I had forgotten Wki style.Momento 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have merged "Establishment" "Rift" into "The 1970s" and kept all references except Argosy and Viva since the are satirical and innaccurate. At some point some references may need to change to another article. This article has now gone from 94 kb to 79! Momento 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In removing text I am trying to keep the quotes that paint a general picture of the main happenings of the times described but giving weight to the activities, opinion and comments of the subject of this article - Prem Rawat. All previous material is still available and all references, foot notes intact.Everything up to "The 1980's and 1990s" look pretty good to me.Momento 11:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand moving some the many quotes by Rawat about himself out of the article, but why was only the summary by Collier kept and not the summaries by the religious scholars Kranenborg, Melton, and van der Lans? This falsely suggests that Collier's summary is superior to the summaries by these religious scholars. Andries 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I kept Collier because she a unique source. She is the only source who wrote from personal experience as a follower, she is not currently a folllower and can therefore be seen as independent and it clearly enscapsulates the range of beliefs. I am editing to reduce text while keeping references and NPOV.Momento 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Momento, but we ought to keep a summary from the scholarly articles as well. I am sure that we can reduce the size of the text without losing good material. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I don't have the time or inclination to edit this article right now doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about the wholesale deletions made in the past couple of days by Momento. It must be noted in the article that Sophia Collier is an ex-premie, or former follower which are the same thing. She may have written a book when she was 19, but she is most definitely an ex-premie.  She became a premie at age 16, and her book cannot be compared to writings by religious scholars!  Collier stopped following Rawat before she wrote that book, which was published in 1978, and the quotes by her are being used to push the pro-Rawat POV to somehow prove that Rawat never said he was God.  In fact, the major reason she stopped following Rawat was because he was being openly worshipped by premies, a practice that was supported by Divine Light Mission.  She found this out by going to nightly satsang, something she never found time to do when she worked at DLM in Denver.  I don't expect any Rawat students to answer any questions here posed by anyone unless they are a premie, because they've proved so far that they don't believe it is necessary to discuss anything on this talk page with anyone, unless they are also a premie -- a practice here which is very rude.


 * The text about Rawat by religious scholars must be reverted, imo. I support that.  The text deleted so far represents extensive research done by Andries, and just leaving the footnotes is completely unacceptable. It's a show of bad faith on the part of Momento and Jossi. Even Jossi has expressed that it isn't acceptable to be deleting the hard work of other editors.  This article has not been improved by removing the criticism.  As as Pjacobi stated above, the article in the Daily Californian does provide a reputable source to justify including ex-premies' criticism.  Removing the text and leaving only the footnotes grouped together makes the article look as if Prem Rawat has something to hide, looks silly, and also makes this article look even more like a  hagiography, especially since premie editors have chosen to keep the eight photos while cutting the criticism.  This article reminds me of the many ashrams I lived in, where there were photos of Maharaji on every single wall, not to mention the altar in the main gathering room and altar in the meditation room. Yes, that's what they were called:  Altars. These recent deletions have not an improved the article to make it more encyclopedic. That is just wrong.  Whatta gonna do, Jossi, threaten to have me blocked, just like you do to everyone else who doesn't agree with you?  Yeah, I read your stuff.  Sylviecyn 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the deletions could more properly be included in other articles ie "Teachings of Prem Rawat".Momento 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that you said that you did not have time to dedicate to improving the article. Nevertheless, the research was not done by Andries alone. It was done by me and others as well. Actually, the majority of the sources were provided by me. Having said that, the reduction in size by Momento is inline with comments made by several editors (including you). Although far from perfect, I welcome these edits, as the article was already double the size as recommended, and I do not see any of the criticism deleted. At least, Momento is doing something about it. If you do not have time to work on this, I would suggest you come back in a couple of months and see if the work done by others made this article better, more concise and more NPOV. And finally, your attempt to provoke will be ingored, as you already well know (as I have repeated this at leaqt four times) that I cannot assert any of my admin privileges in articles in which I am involved editing. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As for your assertion about Sphia Collier, she is not an "ex-premie" as she does not belong to your group. She is an ex-follower, like many others that left without animosity. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please have patience while this article is renovated but it is necessary to strip it back to the bones. The aim is to greatly reduce it, so let's do that first and then see what should and shouldn't be in it or other associated articles.Momento 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with many of your deletions, as I already wrote. Andries 09:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that you disagree with something does not help. Momento is attempting to reduce the size of the article that is 47Kb above max size as suggested by Pjacobi. Let's help him in this endeavor. I made the suggestion above to summarize the statements about divinity made by the scholars that he removed. I hope he will do that. I he does not, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Momento is doing more harm than good with his clumsy deletions and it takes a lot of time to weed out the bad from the good edits and I am not going to spend this time on it. In other words, I think think that all of Momento's recent edits should be reverted: then he can try to a better job. Andries 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the time, let Momento complete his/her edits and hopefully hear our comments and act on these. If he does not respond, I will take responsibility to summarize the scholar's opinions. There is no need to revert, at least Momento is doing something about the bloat. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will give you and Momento three days for restoring scholarly summaries into the article. Otherwise I will revert all of Momento's recent deletions. Andries 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, the main problem with this article has been the random inclusion of quotes and opinion designed to push a POV, as you have just done. One thing that all editors can agree on is that this article is way too big. I would like to reduce it to 54 kb as a discipline on all editors and at that point we can fine tune it. If you have any particular issues with the article up to the end of "The 1970s" please discuss them. If you feel something should be included, please discuss what should go out to make room?Momento 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say, remove the keys to the city paragraph that sounds quite silly to me and the quotes by Rawat. The problem with quotes by Rawat is that we will never agree which quotes we should take and this will degenerate into a quote war as we have previously seen. The max. length is not a good reason to remove scholarly summaries about Rawat: it is not a scrict guideline. Andries 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only Rawat quote in those sections is two sentences about the family split. Hardly overkill when the article is about him. Reducing this article to 54 kb will ensure that what is left is factual, important and necessary. Please feel free to remove non essential quotes. I am going to reduce the "80s & 90s" sectiion. Momento 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Momento, if you doubt my view that you are putting exaggerated emphasis on reducing article lenght then please take a look at Adolf Hitler (97kb) and jesus (82kb) Andries 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I think that information is more important than consistency and coherence of the article: sometimes the subject is too complex or there are too many different voices for consistency and coherence. I do not think that it is good practice to remove reputable sources to get consistency and coherence in the article. Structure, yes, but that is not what your complaints are about. Andries 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope we can all agree that Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ are more note worthy than Prem Rwat. Even so the information on Rawat is still available for those that want to dig deeper. If an article in an encyclopedia is not coherent and consistant, what's the point of having it?Momento 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The object of an article is to inform and if there is no coherent consistent view on a matter then so be it. It is not an excuse for removing information. Wikipedia or any other article should not make a complicate simpler than sources or the subject allow, just to obtain consistency and coherence.Andries 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an issue, Andries. If Momento does not add a summary of the scholar sources about te 70's in three days, I will do so. My intention is to keep the reduced size of the article as per recommendations made by pJacobi and others, without loosing any important material. So, by Wednesday, if Momento has not done the sumamry of the scholars's POV, I will. Ther is no need to get into a revert war. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy for Jossi to add the summaries where necessary as he is more experienced in Wiki ways. I imagine that once I have done the major reducing we will still need a lot of fine tuning to get the right balance without sacrificing flow.Momento 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I will attempt to write a summary of the scholars' POV for the 70's and 80's sections in the next day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Question of photographs
The question of photographs was raised somewhere above. Photographs should add information to a Wikipedia article, not simply decorate it. I think photographs of Prem Rawat at different ages are informative. But photographs, concentrating on the audience? Both Hitler and Pope John Paul II, who were known to speak often to large audiences, are (nearly) without such photographs. The exception being the Image:Pope-poland.jpg, but we are short on JPII photographs we can use, so that may not even be a first choice picture.

I suggest retaining only one of the currently three audiencences photographs, perhaps Image:Maharaji Royal Albert Hall.jpg. OTOH they are all three that small, that they even can be edited out for image quality reasons, as they are not really necessary.

Pjacobi 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Also suggest "Access to the techniques" be removed to "Current teachings of Prem Rawat". "Number of practitioners of Knowledge" be inserted into "80s & 90s" and "Prem Rawat Today". And "Life work" to be incorporated into "Prem Rawat Today".Momento 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium photograph, as suggested. I left the Salamaca University one, as that appearance by Prem Rawat was historical. I will place a request to the uploader to provide better quality version of that image, if available. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The photos that Pjacobi wuestioned due to low resolution have been replaced by the uploader at high resolution at commons. There is not need to do anything as these are now updated her as well. [[media:Maharaji_Royal_Albert_Hall.jpg]] and [[media:Maharaji_Salamanca.jpg]]. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits
In an attempt to continue the effort in reducing article's size, without losing important material, I have done the following edits: It was not an easy job due to the large number of inline cites. Hope I have not left any important material out. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reduced the number of cites from interviews with Prem Rawat
 * Summarized claims of divinity and rebuttals
 * Summarized scholar's POVs
 * Removed duplicated references
 * Reordered some material from the 70's section into the 80's section
 * Reordered the criticisim section to feature first the scholarly material
 * Remove one unsourced sentence and rebuttal from criticism section
 * Collapsed several sections into the section "Prem Rawat today" as suggested by Momento
 * Well done Jossi, the arrticle is now 66 kb.Momento 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Other proposals
In case any of you missed these, there are several planned actions to further the drive for reduction in size and number of articles as follows: Unless there are any objections, I will implement these by Thursday.
 * 1) Merging any useful material from Past teachings of Prem Rawat onto Divine Light Mission and redirect the former to the latter
 * 2) Summarizing Current teachings of Prem Rawat into one paragraph, adding that summary to this article and redirect that article here

In regard of photos in the article, I have removed the fish-eye audience shot from the stadium in India, and sent an email to the uploader of these photos requesting high-res versions of the Salamanca University and Albert Hall photographs. If no such images are made available by end of week, we can evaluate if to delete them, or keep them. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to your proposal to merge any useful material from Past teachings of Prem Rawat onto Divine Light Mission and redirect. They are not the same subject and Divine Light Mission is a name no longer used (since it was renamed to Elan Vital), 'Past teachings of Prem Rawat' is a more useful title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about merging "Past teachings.." with "Current teachings..: and renaming it "Teachiings of PR".Momento 03:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is needed. We can have a paragraph that describes the current teachings, namely The Keys. Past teachings will be included on the DLM article, once we do the merge. Less is more. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the objection by anon .184, he may have missed that the Past Teachings article has been reduced to a couple of paragraphs. So there is not much there and most of the refs belong to the DLM. The merge is a given at this point, although there is no rush. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But Jossi, though I support the merge, I do not think that you or I can override a failed AFD when there are objections. We can however re-submit the articles to AFD. Andries 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries, a failed AFD does not preclude editors from merging. Merging is not deleting. See Merge ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, thanks but I am not convinced. The guideline merge says that you can merge if there are no objections. In this case there is an objection. The failed AFD said "keep", not "merge", though AFD says "The page is then either kept, sent to Cleanup or Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, Merged and/or redirected". I propose re-submitting these articles for AFD before merging. Andries 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to resubmit to AFD. If there is only one objection, we still can gain consensus if other editors agree with the merge. You may want to ask another experienced editor, if you are not convinced of the possibility of merge in these circumstances. Maybe PJacobi would want to comment. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merging Past teachings and Current teachings sounds good, and both should be expanded. A paragraph about The Keys does not adequately describe his current teachings. No, the merge of Past teachings with DLM is not a given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2006


 * I strongly object to merging "Past" with "DLM." My suggestion was to merge "DLM" with "EV," because it makes the most logical sense, given they are the same entity that was formed by Rawat in 1971 in Colorado, USA (although I question the need for DLM/EV stubs to begin with).  I would be in favor of merging "Past" with "Current teachings..."  But, then, there isn't anything worth being called "past teachings" in that article to merge into one article, because "Past.." doesn't discuss anything about the way Rawat prescribed and taught the practice of Knowledge in the 1970's and 80s. Rather, it's an apologetic article, that attempts to blame unspecified practices, by Rawat and premies in the 1970s and early 1980s, upon "Indian trappings," which isn't factual, but is most definitely the EV POV. I voted for deletion of "Past teachings" so I don't see a need to have another AFD -- Wiki editors seem fed up with the disputes between premies and ex-premies here.  It should be pointed out, however, that biographies are supposed to discuss a person's entire life history, including their past, so removing parts of Rawat's past life history into stubs, which includes that which he's been criticized about (and not just by ex-premies) such as his teenaged years into his twenties, makes this once again, a hagiography, not a biography.  Hey, I'm back for a while -- it's been raining for two weeks straight! :-) Sylviecyn


 * You may have missed the fact that the Past teachings of Prem Rawat article is now three paragraphs, as all the unsourced material was deleted a few days ago by Andries and me. I am getting a bit tired of your complaints about the quality of the articles, when actually others do all the work, and I am also getting tired of responding to all these complains and off topic discussions (a royal waste of editor's time, if you ask me.) Note that from your 260 contributions to Wikipedia, 224 have been comments in talk pages and only 36 have been on articles, most of which minor edits. So, if you think that there are problems with this or other articles, as we say in Wikipedia: "so fix it". ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't miss that the article was reduced -- it's still doesn't state anything substantive about Rawat's Past teachings. That doesn't mean the articles are bad, just inadequate. Unfortunately, the bulk of good, solid information available to fill that article is located on EPO, which you've endeavored to claim as unreputable, however, much of the material there is published material by DLM and EV which was recalled by the NRM around 1983, but preserved by some premies. I don't make complaints, I make legitimate observations and suggestions, which you never address or comment on, but complain about the commentator (isn't that against Wiki rules?). You also consistently push your own pro-Prem Rawat POV, while accusing others of being POV-pushers and trolls.  Also, it's been intimidating for me to do as you said "so fix it," Jossi, when you  change practically every minor edit I make, within a couple of hours of my making the edit. If you can refrain "fixing" my minor edits (which didn't need your fixing), perhaps I won't feel so timid about making major ones, which I hardly want to do if you're going to revert or "mercilessly edit." Sylviecyn 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All edits can be improved and all edits can be mercilessly edited. This is a Wiki, after all. For example, your edit of yesterday was partially correct, as Elan Vital also describes the change of name from DLM to Elan Vital in their website You omitted that fact, so I added it. You also stated that the DLM was not disbanded, also incorrect, as a reputable sources which I provided described that in exactly these terms. These are improvements, and I will continue to do these when I see that these can improve the articles. If you don't like that way Wikipedia works, you do not have to edit. You are welcome to make comments, but these get tiring after a while. As for the lack of reputable sources about past teachings that is also incorrect. I have a series of books about the DLM that I am reading and that hopefully I can cite in the context of past teachings in the near future. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that DLM was renamed to Elan Vital proves that Divine Light Mission was not disbanded, since it is still functioning, just under the name of Elan Vital. The definition of 'disband' from dictionary.com is 'To dissolve the organization of (a corporation, for example)'. That's the fact, the idea that it was disbanded needs to be removed from this article. To say that DLM was disbanded by being renamed is like saying that if a person changes their name they are now dead. It's silly. 69.251.176.184 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedia of American Religions 7th edition. Thomson (2003) p.2328 ISBN 0-786-6384-0 "In the early 1980s, Maharaj ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization to his future role as teacher." [...]Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated and to make his presentation acceptable to all the various cultural settings in which followers live. He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles, and regularly addresses audiences in places as culturally diverse as India, Japan, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Slovenia, Mauritius and Venezuela, as well as North America, Europe and the South Pacific. --Victor O.


 * See my comment above and also note the content of the web site "Traveling Peoples Initiative" at http://pwkindia.bravejournal.com/ which shows that Rawat has not renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion (e.g. 'Guru puja' which means 'worship of the Guru' and Holi). Some fact checking needs to be done here. Melton's language seems rather anti-Indian. 69.251.176.184 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the bit where it says - he removed Indian trappings from the west.Momento 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That website is from some "oldies" that like Indian rituals, as performed in India. In India, many premies, specially from the old generation, still like to perform these ritual such as Guru Puja. Holi is still played, as can be seen in some of the blogs http://innerlink.typepad.com/india/2006/03/29/index.html. Perfectly OK in India as it is compatible with their culture. Nothing wrong with being Indian in India. -- Victor O.


 * But books about the DLM usually describe the beliefs and practices of the DLM, not the teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 16:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless we stick to sources that describe the teachings, we will be engaging in WP:NOR. The books I have include some material that describe the teachings. Not a lot, but sufficient for a paragraph or two. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about restoring comments by Melton, Kranenborg, and Jan van der Lans about Prem Rawat's teachings that you promised. Andries 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I did summarize these. I will check again, just in case. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the proper sources for Prem Rawat's past teachings are his own spoken words and writings as published by DLM and the various tradename organizations under DLM and associated orgs. prior to 1983 when DLM changed its name to EV (including Shri Hans Productions, which produced his films/videos/audio casettes). If the past (recalled material) is considered unsourced, original research, then so is the current EV/TPRF/Visions material linked here and in all the other Rawat articles. Further, Rawat was the legally named "Chief Minister" of the Divine Light Mission coporation up until sometime in the late 1970s. Rawat endorsed the DLM publications, such as Divine Times and And it is Divine, which also sold the PMTs or "Perfect Master Tapes" in those publications, to premies. His endorsements were in the forum of signed letters in the front of those publications. They were distributed by DLM and Shri Hans Productions -- legally, the same corporation as Elan Vital is today.

It's beyond logic that this article is now filled with links to EV/TPRF/Maharaji.org media, and it's asserted that that material is reputably sourced, but not the archived DLM material on EPO that's from the exact same corporation. Show me third-party published sources for TPRF or Visions International, Blog Harbor, the Keys website. There is an abundance of material on EPO that isn't opinion or POV, but which contains various media of Prem Rawat's spoken words and writings in the form of scanned and audio material. Any objection to the inclusion of EPO-archived material is an illogical argument, especially because Rawat was DLM's Chief Minister. Therefore, if anyone insists there is third-party sourcing for EV/TPRF/Visions, et al (the material linked in the articles now) then the EPO Gallery and other DLM/EV archived now on EPO must also be afforded the same credit from the same sourcing. Sylviecyn 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with quotes by Prem Rawat in this article is that we will never agree what quote we will insert and we will have endless disagreements about it. We already had a quote war that made the article very big. Let us not do that again. I propose that all quotes by Rawat that have not been written down in scholarly articles about the DLM or Elan Vital stay out of this article and are moved to Wikiquote. Andries 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some comments:
 * What we are discussing here are not Prem Rawat's speeches, but "teachings". Maybe we need to make a clarification on what we mean when we say "teachings" as different from "beliefs", "practices", or addresses;
 * There is a large number of sourced quotes from past and presents addresses of Prem Rawat in Wikiquote;
 * Note that although we can cite from speeches, no commentary or editorializing is allowed, unless these are comments published in reputable sources. As Andries correcty described it, in past exchanges this resulted in endless additions of cites to support one POV or the other that lead to article blot and unnecessary edit wars;
 * Large number of quotes are better located in the sister project Wikiquote than in articles as per guidelines
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ Jossi, because everything Rawat says are his teachings. All he's ever done is speak, that's what he does.


 * And to Andries, I agree, but if you remove quotes from the article, then you must also remove the link-farm of connections to all of Rawat's online quoted material in all media forms because it provides a biased POV about how he presents his message today only and that's not NPOV. That would include (but not be limited to) removal of all the media links to the so-called UN speech, and many of the footnotes (as they stand today): footnote's #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #22, #71, #72, #75, #77, #78 (are mostly press releases which are by definition, all-pro-Rawat-POV). Links to "Contact Info" (there are two links to that one in this article) because they lead to a/v media (advertisements), #82 PR's personal website, the Visions Int'l link, #86, the Broadcast schedules, #87 Inspire online newsletter (which is all quotes), #98, Voice of Maharaji, The Keys website (all DVD stuff), the Barcelona address and more.  At this rate, the entire group of articles ought to be given the heave-hoe, because without Rawat's own words, which is how he made his living and continues to work (by speaking) there's nothing much to write about, except controversy, and I'm not being facetious. Rawat is all about what he says to people. Sylviecyn 18:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree from the point of view of detractors like you, it is all about controversy, but that does not make it so. The references that you describe are there to support the text in the article, are verifiable, attributed, not asserted as facts, and in full compliance with Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. I can be impartial about the subject at hand so let's focus upon the subject of my last comment, instead of controversy. There are no reliable third-party sources that cover any information about Rawat's work over the past 15 years that are cited in this article (I doubt if they exist anywhere because you and Andries have done a lot of research, as have I) to justify keeping the plethora of links to Rawat's recent and current-day speeches, writings, press releases, blogs, media materials, etc. The only mention of EV is about it's "dissolution" in 1983 and "removal of Indian trappings, both of which are incorrect and which also project an apologetic POV. There's no mention anywhere in the footnotes citations about TPRF at all. There's no source for Rawat as a humanitarian leader anywhere. There's no reputable source to back up the hate-group allegation. EV and Prem Rawat don't provide full access to all of his current teachings, because they are closely held in the form of The Keys DVDs; there is strict accessibility, meaning they're are not open to public and academic scrutiny, so there are zero citations to back up the Keys as his current teachings. Introductory speeches are not representative of Rawat's teachings.  Btw, I understand the Wiki policies because English is my first language, and my career has been spent writing business and legal communications, policies, and procedures in this language for 30 years. Unless you can provide valid third-party sources for all the unsourced material here, I'll be removing most of of the links.   Sylviecyn 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you understand English so well, then you would agree that the material is sourced according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See Biographies of living people, WP:CITE and Reliable sources;
 * IMO, the material provided as sources strike a good balance between primary sources and thertiary sources. If there are concerns that the primary source material is not balanced, let's discuss;
 * The only reference to "humanitarian leader" are sourced to a third party source (Kranerborg) (see Prem_Rawat). There is no reference made in the article about Prem Rawat being an "humanitarian leader". References to "humanitarian initiatives" are attributed to The Prem Rawat Foundation as per WP:NPOV;
 * The "hate group" allegation is an assertion made on the Elan Vital website. We are not saying that this is a fact, just reporting that they say so. We discussed removing that assertion when we were discussing the representation of the POV of the small group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies". That is still on the table;
 * As said before, we need to agree on what we describe as "teachings" as opposed to "practices" and "beliefs". The only real "teaching" may be the Techniques of Knowledge. Maybe the naming of these articles "past teachings", "current teachings", was wrong to start with. Most scholarly articles and books, refer to the Divine Light Mission's practices and beliefs. The fact that there are no sources about the current practices and beliefs, could be that there are none as most, if not all of these practices (e.g. vegetarianism, ashrams, etc.) were dropped. As for "The Keys" we can only go about describing what it is described in available print and online material.
 * And finally, note that removing properly sourced material and references from articles unilateraly and without prior discussion and agreement, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, here are some examples of of biographies in which many (or mainly) primary sources are used:
 * Mother Teresa
 * Chögyam Trungpa
 * Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose removing all of Prem Rawat's quotes out of the article for stated reason, unless they have been written down too in scholarly sources. Andries 06:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Mother Teresa and Tensin Gyatso are quoted in their articles, why would you think that an article on Prem Rawat shouldn't have some of Prem Rawat's actual words. There are only two, one which relates to his family split on which he is surely entitled to make a comment and one which encapsulates his message/.Momento 07:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If those quotes are okay then I think that you cannot reasonably make objections to quotes by Rawat from ex-premie with all the associated problems that this may yield for the article. Andries 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding of PRs teachings are 1) There is a beneficial experience (god, peace, self) within every human being, 2) you need techniques to reliably experience it, 3) you need a master/ teacher to teach you the techniques, 4) you need a master/ teacher to provide ungoing encouragement. This basic teaching has been going on since he became the master and continues to this day. Which is why I think there is no such thing as "past" and "present" teachings. I don't think we can include teachings in this article as it will just add more volume.Momento 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prem Rawat's teachings cannot be limited to one editor's "understanding," of them, because that's not encyclopedic. Rawat's teachings must be considered everything he's ever said, whether or not anyone believes he's ever been misunderstood by his listeners (past or present), because his profession is that of a teacher (guru) who uses spoken and written words to convey his teachings.  This is particularly true since he's asserted himself as the perfect teacher.  What backs up my assertion is that Rawat now disallows students to discuss their experience or understanding of Knowledge to others so students have no authority to do so. Only he is allowed to discuss this anymore.  That said, I continue to assert that the bulk of the links to pro-Rawat materials is not adequately cited by third-party sources, is POV-pushing, therefore most must go. There isn't any source for the Keys in this article.  The issue of hate-group allegation isn't on the table like a negotation tool because there's absolutely no third-party source for EV's allegations, so that should go also.    Sylviecyn 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not repeat myself, my answers to all your comments are clearly stated above. My observation is that you may be misunderstanding policy in regard of the use of primary sources and thertiary sources in articles (see sources tally below). Your position, as stated, is in contradiction with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. If you don't like these policies or do not want to be constrained by these, you may want to edit on other Wikis that do not have such policies, such as Wikinfo or others. As for the "teachings" we cannot present in the article editor's interpretations of these, neither by you, Momento, or myself, as that is Original research.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed
One of the major editors - or is that an understatement? perhaps I should say THE major editor - of this article (Jossi) is in fact Prem Rawat's webmaster.

Consequently, the neutrality of this article will ALWAYS be disputed as long as that is the case. The warning which states

"The neutrality of this article is disputed .Please see the discussion on the talk page"

should therefore remain at the head of the article. Revera 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of Wikipedia articles are not judged on the bias of its editors. Article quality is judged on its merits alone. As for your assertion that I am the major editor, you are incorrect. Although I have edited this article substantially, I have done so in collaboration with many other people that invested considerable time and energy as well. The main contributors so far have been, , , , and myself. For your information, I intend to continue researching material and editing this article until such time in which the article is as good as it can be written and in full compliance with Wikipedia content policies.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you say "The neutrality of Wikipedia articles are not judged on the bias of its editors" Would you mind saying what the supposed "neutrality" of Wikipedia articles IS judged on?  Surely your position as one of Rawat's "spin-doctors" has SOME bearing on this?  Or are you prepared to deny that too?  Revera 21:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To refresh your memory, you raised the same concern on March 10, and the subject clarified by other editors. You are welcome to discuss the article, but not welcome to discuss its editors. See Etiquette ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you say: "As for your assertion that I am the major editor, you are incorrect". Please give evidence for disputing my assertion - an assertion, by the way, which can be proven by anyone who takes the time to read the history of the Prem Rawat article.  Or am I wrong? Revera 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you have removed the neutrality warning. May I remind you what the warning means, according to Wikipedia rules:
 * "This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards." Remove the warning again if you wish, but please be advised that doing so would be at odds with Wikipedia's basic ethos. Revera 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sources — by source type
A quick tally of current sources in the article (after today's prunning) 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Total number of references in article: 97


 * Tertiary sources:
 * Books and scholarly articles: 50
 * Newspaper and magazine articles: 8
 * Court papers: 4
 * Other: 3
 * Total: 65 (67%)


 * Other various non-primary sources
 * Total: 10 (10%)


 * Primary sources
 * Websites, online resources and print publications: 22
 * Total: (23%)

I would argue that this is a pretty good balance of primary and tertiary sources for a biographical article, and an excellent example of an article that is well researched and sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @
 * I do have a neutrality problem with the article: that is the removed scholarly summaries and the one-sided quotes. More quotes and scholarly sources used to be there, but were removed by Momento. Andries 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave it a mass revert of Momento's edits, because of the mix of flawed and good edits. I support attempts to downsize this article, but not if this includes removing scholarly summaries or leaving only quotes by Rawat that support a certain POV in this article. Can you please try to downsize it again, but now good? Thanks. Andries 20:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable, Andries. You have not only reverted a huge amount of work, but deleted many edits and additions as well. If you are not happy with Momento's edits that were very considerable and in alignment for requests to donwsize the article, you cannot just delete all that work and then ask others to fix it. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unacceptable that Momento removed a lot of my and other people's work by his clumsy deletions. Andries 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Momemento cannot just delete all that work and then ask others to fix it. Andries 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This mass revert is hard to be accepted in good faith, Andries. As near as 4 days ago you edited the article yourself. Your requests for sumamries of scholars' POV answered and were unchallenged by you. If you had a problem with these summaries, you could have asked again. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have to complain and repeat my objections over and over again. I requested several times to restore the summaries by Melton, van der Lans and Kranenborg to be restored and this did not happen though you promised to do so. Not my fault. Andries 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did respond to your requests, and summaries of Menton Kraneborg and Lans were added by me on May 17 diff. If that was inssuficient you could have said so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, I missed that because it is so different from what was originally there. Besides I do not think that that is an accurate summary: the old statements were more accurate. For example, the summary of what Kranenborg wrote what Maharaji said is completely missing. Andries 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, we all make mistakes from time to time. The issue, Andries, is that reverting 11 days of edits by 10 editors, is not an acceptable behavior. I will summarized Kraneborg's cite and restore the previous version. And to Revera: Please stop adding the POV tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I do not think that I am the only one to blame for this mass revert. The main person who caused this is Momento with his many flawed edits. If the end result of many edits is that the netto result is worse then this is a good reason to revert, no matter how many editors have worked on it. Andries 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You reverted it. You did not even attempted to keep the edits by others. I have added the summary from Kranenborg and restored the edits of the last 11 days. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries gave fair warning that he was going to revert Momento's edits three days or so ago. Jossi and Andries, please stop talking to each other like you're still 12 years old on a schoolyard having a fist-fight. Neither of you are helping to keep civility on this page. Jossi, you do behave as if you own these Rawat articles, and I object to that behavior, and request that you stop bullying other editors by consistently brow-beating us. Also, Jossi, your summary and conclusion of so-called good balance of material above doesn't address the fact that you have no third party sources for most of the links I mentioned in my discussions above. Please stop by-passing unresolved discussions and issues by making larger posts in new sections, that only push your own obvious pro-Rawat POV. I agree with Revera that you are POV-pushing in this article and the warning stating that such should returned to the top of the article page, until we renew our request for comments RFC, because these arguments are going nowhere fast. Sylviecyn


 * I would suggest that you tone down your rethoric and accussations. I am having a civil exchange with Andries in which we are discussing the recent edits and massive revert and I am responding to Andries' requests for improvements. And please stop accusing me of POV pushing, as I could do exactly the same if one is to judge by your comments. We all have our POVs and the issue at hand is how to make this article better. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also say that you attempts at escalation and provocation will not bear fruit, so please desist. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @


 * That's why I ask that you address my comments in the section above about all the link-farming in this article. I ask again that you refrain from ordering fellow editors around on the talk page. I'm not trying to bear anything, including fruit. Students of Prem Rawat are not the only people who are allowed to edit here, although that's the atmosphere you engender on the talk pages all of the time, Jossi. I'm not trying to provoke you or anyone else. Your and Andries exchanges sounded too hostile for a talk page. I'm simply trying to sort out the issues here, before you move the discussion forward, without addressing outstanding comments.  I'm going to wait a couple of days to see if you can make an effort to calm down, and resolve the issues above before continuing on.  If you can't settle down and answer the issues in the section above, I will have not choice but to ask for arbitration on this article. Thanks. Sylviecyn 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not an hostile exchange, it was a civil exchange that we managed to sort out. As for your questions, I have answered all of them above. Please refer to my replies in regard of primary sources and tertiary sources. Note that primary sources do not need "third party sources", that is why these are called "primary sources". In regard of arbitration, as explained before, arbitration does not deal with content disputes. Content disputes are resolved in talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag unwarranted
When someone adds an NPOV dispute tag, it is needed that that person explains its reasons. As Revera and anon have not done so, here are the reasons why this article does not deserve such tag:
 * The article is excellently referenced and sourced using tertiary sources, including 50 books, magazine articles and newspaper articles;
 * Primary sources from partisan websites are allowed as per Reliable sources
 * All statements made throughout the article are attributed and not stated as facts;
 * All conflicting views are presented but not asserted.

For more info see WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. There are too many primary sources (link-farm) which support a hagiographic point of view. There are primary sources which remain unsourced (see my comments above, describing them). The many scholarly references about DLM/EV/Prem Rawat that were well-summarized and footnoted, were removed last week by editors with a pro-Rawat POV. I cannot honestly characterize this article as good, much less excellent.  As it stands, it appears to be an advertisement for Prem Rawat, not an NPOV biographical article about a living person.  (oops, forgot to log-in, sorry - Sylviecyn) 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)  (stamp for this edit to comment) Sylviecyn 10:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to anon .164:
 * Primary sources do not need to be sourced (???), these are 'primary sources (See WP:RS, and WP:LIVING) and are allowed. If there are too many, let's check what can be removed without losing material.
 * Not even one scholarly source was removed from the article in the last edits. You may be mistaken.
 * The article cannot possible considered hagiographic, as controversial aspects are explored and described, and there is an entire section dedicated to criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I do thinkt that the quotes are one-sided and I will re-insert some removed quotes. Andries 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there is only one quote in the article's body. You can remove it if you want, although I think it is a nice addition. We have a large chronological repository of quotes at Wikiquote that we are already linking. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was incorrectly referring to tertiary sources, when I should have been saying secondary sources when explaining the above -- my apologies for that. The primary sources in these articles, which is text written about Rawat and linked to only primary sources, of TPRF; EV, The Keys, Marharaji dot org, blogs, cannot be acceptable as the only source. That text has no secondary sources, i.e., academic commentary which would have been peer reviewed. For instance, there's no secondary commentary source about TPRF. Even though one scholar Kranenborg mentions that Maharaji went on to call himself a "humanitarian leader," it's fudging it to say that Kranenborg covers inclusion about the primary source TPRF, because Kranenborg is talking about the time period after the Mata ji/family split, not TPRF.  He's discussing the events which occured from 1975ish through 1976, when Rawat did present himself publicly as a humanitarian leader. However, Rawat drastically reverted that image starting in December of 1976 and early 1977, with his call for total surrender, devotion to him and no "secondary love for premies, only primary love for Maharaji allowed," etc. That heavy devotional period continued on with full Indian trappings at least through 1981, but is not covered in this article which creates a huge gap in correct reporting about Rawat's life. That's part of what makes the article biased pro-Rawat today and justifies the current NPOV warning tag. Also questionable is the student/editor arguments that EPO cannot be used for sources of the archived material because it's public knowledge that Visions International has an extensive archive itself.  Why doesn't EV and Prem Rawat provide those materials as primary sources?  That's not a rhetorical question, btw.


 * Those events in Rawat's life are not mentioned in the article because they have been deleted from the Elan Vital's "memory." The 1983 materials recall is part of the problem here, but there's an enormous repository archive of DLM/EV/Visions material on EPO, that again, isn't bias, it's only Rawat's own work product during those missing years. If you carefully read the section in WP:RS "Evaluating Sources," it's not a black and white policy of all primary sources being reliable sources, therefore automatically fully acceptable. I now know (found out yesterday) that changes have been made in the Living Bio guideline, but the guideline does caution about using primary souces as citations, but suggests using links only at the bottom of the article (not as footnotes). In the case of a living biography, especially a controversial one like this, it's not acceptable to extensively quote from a plethora of primary sources because by doing so here is clearly self-serving (also covered in the Living bio guideline). That's the major objection now going on here that must be addressed. Sylviecyn 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree, this article is heavily slanted towards a pro-Rawat POV, which is not neutral at all. You have censored "negative" but factual information about Rawat. You say "Primary sources from partisan websites are allowed" yet apply that only to pro-Rawat websites; you have a double standard. The 'entire section dedicated to criticism' is only a few links at the very bottom of the page. There should be criticism throughout this article, especially considering that most people that know of him have a dim view of him and since there is plenty of critical material. Wikipedia is not intended to be free advertisement space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs)
 * This article is almost all verifiable facts, if that paints a positive picture of PR that's unavoidable. We have already established that the anti PR "ex-premie" group, who a virtually the only source of negativity about PR, represent about .001% of people who accept PR as their teacher. Critics are an insignificant minority.Momento 04:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a entrire section on criticism that you may have missed, see Prem Rawat. FYI, "partisan" sources are only allowed on the articles about these "parties". i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. See WP:RS. I have not censored anything as censoring is against Wikipedia policy. If you have any specific complaints about such behavior, kindly let me know. I would also encourage you to read Biographies of living people as it contains specific and stringent new guidelines in regard of unproperly sourced negative material about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I missed that section, but based on a quick read I can see that quite a bit of spin doctoring is involved and much of it has nothing to do with actual criticism of Rawat. Criticism of his critics is not criticism of Rawat, it is instead a "shoot the messenger" tactic. That section needs a lot of work. I see that you had a hand in those guidelines, which cannot be "stringent" because as it says, they are not policy. Regardless, the negative material is factual and is proven to be factual and so it will be added. The existence of the Wikipedia policy against censorship does not imply that you have not censored anything. I pointed this before. Policies are not always adhered to.


 * To addres concerns expressed about the number of external links to primary sources in the article, I have removed 14 21 of such links. I have updated the tally above, accordingly. 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi that one cannot insert a NPOV warning on the article with the only argumentation that one of more contributors to the article is biased. A NPOV warning should be accompanied with a detailed explanation on the talk page what is wrong with the article. Andries 08:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a NPOV flag on this article. I just read though it and it sounds like a loving portrayal of someone's teacher. That's all good and well, but this really doesn't seem like an encyclopedic entry to me. A lot of the tone and presentation is off and it seems to attempt to explain or minimize any criticisms. From the bottom, just to make things difficult since that's as far up as I made it, here are my reasons why a NPOV tag should be applied.

Access to Technique section

Completely apologetic, begins by stating that access to the technique has become less onerous, but studiously avoids ever presenting the inaccesability of the technique as a problem or critique earlier. A possible criticism is presented and pleasently explained away in one sentence. "... and access to the techniques is now governed by a much less restrictive self-paced and self-assessed preparation process, perhaps reminiscent of a more open attitude prevalent during Rawat's initial foray into the West." Again, the tone of this section is how amazing and how wonderful these changes are. This is not NPOV acknowledgement that the method of accessing the technique has changed by detailing the early methods and then identifying how they have changed, but there is a specific idea that Prem Rawat is changing this for the better, making his teaching and organization just get better and better.

Life Work section

This section has a strong POV of venerating and praising Prem Rawat. People who attend his lectures are presented as coming to him for "inspiration and guadance" and the whole opening paragraph seems completely out of place in an encylopedic biography.


 * Several scholarly articles from the 1970 and 1980s about the DLM and other new religious movements included various critical observations and comments about Rawat and his students: the DLM having no substantial contents was claimed by the sociologist Ralph Larkin in 1978; irrationality among students was claimed in a 1981 article about the DLM by a student of religion named Wim Haan that appeared in the magazine about religious movements of the Free University of Amsterdam [79]; materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable and Rawat discouraging critical thinking was claimed in a 1982 Ph.D. thesis about new religious movements and mental health by the sociologist Paul Schnabel[80] ;Rawat having become a charlatan, leading privately a life of idleness and pleasures hidden from the average followers by the professor of psychology of religion Jan van der Lans in a 1981 book about followers of gurus written upon request for a Dutch Catholic institute (he did not provide sources for this assertion)[81]; concern about financial exploitation of followers by the psychiatrist Saul V. Levine. [82]Details about their comments, the context in which they were made, the sources (or the lack thereof) they used for their research is discussed in detail in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article.


 * Other scholars and authors that have written about this subject but who do not level criticism against Prem Rawat include: Andrew Kopkind[83], Charles H. Lippy [84], John Bassett McCleary,[85], Ruth Prince and David Riches[86], Bryan R. Wilson[87], Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch[88], Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring[89], George D. Chryssides, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis Gordon J. Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Eugene M. Elliot III[90], Sandra S. Frankiel[91], and James Lewis. Barret, Dupertuis, Melton and Lewis mention criticism by the media, Rawat's mother, Bob Mishler, and anticultists respectively. 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.

This second paragraph is total POV and has no place in this section. It is an attempt to devalue those who have criticised Prem Rawat by spamming a long list of people who don't vocalise any criticsm. Criticisms are labeled as 'lacking substance' and the Criticism Page is mentioned along with an assertion (perhaps true) that some criticisms lack sources. This whole section is filled with subtle attempts to malign critics or re-direct attention away from their actual criticisms.


 * Melton describes that in the mid 70s several ex-members became vocal critics[92]. Another scholar, James Lewis, wrote that a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control[93]. Elan Vital, in an FAQ article about opposition to Prem Rawat and his message, claims that there is a handful of former students that actively engage in a campaing of disparagement against Prem Rawat, his students and their organization. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations.[94]

Highly dismissive by not detailing the criticisms and then immediately following the allusions to criticism by referencing a devotee? who claims it's just a handful of ex-students who are 'campaigning to disparage' Prem Rawat.


 * Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from key personnel who, after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 70's and 80's, began making allegations against him about purported anxiety. These key personnel included Robert Mishler (who died in the late 1970s) and later Michael Dettmers. In turn, current students claim that Mishler was an autocrat with an inappropriate personal agenda who ruled Divine Light Mission and Divine United Organisation with little reference to anyone, especially Prem Rawat, and that he was to blame for much of what happened in those years. To support this allegation they point out that Mishler had appointed David Lovejoy, to be "in charge" of Australia from 1972 to 1975 and then, as CEO of the United Kingdom in 1975 without notifying Prem Rawat of the significant change. Lovejoy wrote "I had not really anticipated that I would be taking agya from Bob Mishler" and accused Mishler of continuing "his policy of exerting total control"[95]. (See Agya.) According the religious scholar J. Gordon Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of Rawat and DLM.[96]

This paragraph presents a one sentence summary of two men's criticisms of Prem Rawat and then launches into a lengthy critique of Mishler and presents a quote from some guy who was unhappy he received initiation from Mishler. The focus of this paragraph should be the actual criticisms of Prem Rawat but instead is heavily weighted towards "This guy says bad things about him, but he's an autocratic diva, so ignore him."

I am mainly objecting to the tone of the article, the defensive attempts to hide or pre-empt any substantial issues with Prem Rawat, and the dismissive or apologetic context in which any criticism is presented. I'm gonna go look at the criticisms page and see what it looks like now, maybe I'll change my mind. Obhaso 07:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. In response to your comments:

I will address your concerns in my next edit, as per above. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Before you make assertions abour what NPOV is and is not, I would suggest that you take sometime to read and understand not only what NPOV is but also how it works with other content policies of Wikipedia.
 * 2) Access to the techniques. The section describes the previous manner in which the techniques were imnparted as well as thye current manner. I do n ot see what is apologetic about explaining it in this manner.
 * 3) Life work section. Maybe the second paragraph needs tweaking or reducing in size. I d ot see any problem with the rest.
 * 4) Scholars. It is important to state that there were only few scholars that wrote critically of Prem Rawat. And that was done by presenting a list of scholars that reseached and wrote about him and did not crticize him.
 * 5) Long section on Lovejoy. This is a left over from a previous edit. It needs fixing.


 * I have addressed your concerns in my last edits.:
 * Removed list of schlars and tweaked the intro to that section accordingly.
 * Removed the rebuttal for Mishler's comment
 * Tone down dismissal of critics by Elan Vital
 * Tweaked the access to the techniques and the life work sections ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed 'Many practitioners regard such history as irrelevant to the peace that the techniques help them to enjoy.' since it is irrelevant and opininated.

Easy, Andries
For each cite that you add to support that POV, we will need to add a cite to support the other POV. SO go easy. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I wrote that we should remove all quotes by and interviews with Prem Rawat unless they have been used by scholarly sources. Otherwise this article will once again degenerate into a quote war. Andries 00:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotes added are from interviews published in magazines. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not mind deleting all the quotes, including the ones you added. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @
 * I removed all quotes from interviews or DLM writings from the 1970s. Andries 06:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that Andries has, despite his protestations to the contrary, started a "quote war". Inserting three quotes from PR into the 70s section where previously there was just one, refering to his family split. I will take Andries and Jossis most recent views as final and remove all PR quotes from the 70's here with and revert to the previous edit.Momento 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

POV of detractors

 * Since it has been established that the "ex-premie" group is an insignificant minority, shouldn't we remove references from and about them from the criticism section.And what's happening about the "access to techniques" section. I suggest removing it to the "Teachings" article.Momento 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the "ex-premie" group clearly represents the majority opinion of Rawat. Most people who have heard him dismiss him and most people who have been initiated have rejected him. The "access to techniques" section should of course stay on this page, since the techniques are so relevant.
 * How can the "ex-premie" group be the majority? According to "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" over 1 million people who have heard about PR have asked to be taught the techniques of Knowledge and less the 100 people post on the "ex-premie" site, that's .001%.Momento 08:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Numerous critical articles in the mainstream press about Rawat indicate that the majority opinion of Rawat is negative. You act like the opinions of "non-premies" do not count (by "non-premies" I'm referring to the term Prem Rawat and "premies" used to refer to those who never followed him). Most of those who were taught the techniques do not follow him, which indicates disillusionment. Many of them "left" him due to the family rift and followed his brother Sat Pal, who also claims to be the Satguru. How many of Rawat's active followers post on a pro-Rawat site? How many people in general post on a pro-Rawat site? You are also calling factual information about Rawat "a viewpoint". It is not "a viewpoint" that he has claimed personal divinity, it is a fact. It is not "a viewpoint" that he has taken a large amount of money, inheritances, partial ownership of companies, etc. from his followers, it is a fact. It is not "a viewpoint" that he pressured followers into moving into his ashrams while his lifestyle was the opposite, it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.176.184 (talk • contribs)
 * A more accurate comparison is - how many people care enough about Rawat to express an opinion either way? The answer is over 1 million have learnt about PR and decided to accept him as their teacher and a hundred have decided to criticize him, the vast majority of the planet tdon't have an opinion either way.Momento 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a more accurate comparison. The opinion of all those that have an opinion of Rawat must be taken into consideration, not just the active followers and the those that have criticized him on the internet. This is supposed to be a factual acticle, not an article expressing the opinions of his current followers. As I said, factual information about him is not "opinion" or a "viewpoint", so this talk about "POV" is a red herring. You cannot justify censoring facts because you don't like them. 69.251.176.184 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most NRMs have ex-followers that criticize their former groups. (See: aspostasy in new religious movements), that is a given, but the issue at hand is very simple: Most people that have abandoned the teachings of Prem Rawat, have done so without animosity. I have several friends that fit that description, including members of my family. Notable ex-followers such as such as Rennie Davis recently made it very clear what was his position on the subject, and was verbally abused by some of the ex-premie group members for his stance (See ). So the ex-premie group, given the obvious fact that they are just a small group of people, keep attempting to declare that "ex-premie" refers to all these individuals that once practiced Knowledge and no longer do so. That is akin to saying that all Jews that no longer practice Judaism are anti-semitic, or saying that all Christians that stopped going to church are anti-Christians and are de facto Jesus detractors.  Therefore, when we are describing the POV or the "ex-premie" group, we are describing the POV of a tiny minority of people that have chosen to become vocal critics and that actively pursue an agenda of activism against anything related to Prem Rawat. (Part of that agenda is to try and assert their POV in this article. They even plan "tactics" in their discussion forum, with the helpful assistance of Andries that has publicly declared his allegiance to their cause. For their information, let me say that cabals are shunned in Wikipedia and are considered unacceptable behavior.) So, to ascertain that my assessment is not correct as it pertains to the weight that should be given to this group's POV in this article, I ask the members of that group to provide a reputable source that declares that their POV is anything but the POV of a tiny minority of people. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly involved in intrigue when most what I write is so openly visible. I am also unaware that cabal behavior is unacceptable in Wikipedia. In addition, if there is any cabal in this case then it is outside Wikipedia, so this is not forbidden. Andries 15:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, provide a reputable source that shows that your POV is more than the POV of a tiny minority of people. 69.251.176.184 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose a one-sided selection of quotes in the 1970s section. The problem with leaving any quote either from DLM material or media interviews is that will lead to endless counterquotes. I do not have a problem with a the following quote at the end of the article that seems fairly representative and that Rawat never contradicted . "Peace needs to be in everyone's life. [..]"Andries 06:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales stated the Wiki policy as "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". I cannot see why this article would have links to websites that represent .001% of verified opinion on PRMomento 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The ex-premie website also contains critical articles by the media in the section media that provides ample proof that the critical view of ex-premies is not confined to them. Andries 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is saying Rawat hasn't been criticised but the particular viewpoint of the "ex-premie" group, as expressed on their web site and forums, is unique and insignificant.Momento 17:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento and Jossi: I'd like to know the mathematical equation that was used to come up with .001% as the minority percentage.  What figures did you use to come up with that statistic and are they verifiable?  Please post that here, as I wasn't privy to the statistical study.  Thank you! Sylviecyn 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Momento: External links sections does not carry the same burden of reputability or due weight as article text does. The discussion about the due weight of the POV of group that call themselves "ex-premies" is still unresolved, despite the obvious of the fact that they are a small group of critics numbering something between 20 and 100 people, by their own count. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the links because of an issue with - the burden of reputability or due weight as article text does. My objection is that any article on any subject should contain links to a group of people that is considered insignificant in terms of their opinion on the subject.The article on Christianity doesn't provide links to athiest web sites. The links have no place in this article.Momento 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In 1998, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. The ex-premie estimate is of 100 people currently posting or having written Journeys. Both figures are subject to change but these are the base figures for comparison. Even if there were 1000 ex-premies actively posting, that is still only .01% of of people actively practicing knowledge, an insigificant minority.Momento 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If one does a Google search of Prem Rawat the second hit is Ex-premie.org and the third is www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info. That's not a minority position by a long shot nor insignificant, considering the widespread use of Google. Those are hit rankings without any paid sponsored links as TRPF has. I don't understand why you compare Prem Rawat and Knowledge to a religion, Momento, can you explain that? According to Prem Rawat, what he offers has nothing to do with religion, spirituality, belief-system, philosophy, or membership, as do religions such a Chrisitanity. From TPRF (but the same faq is on Elan Vital):

Does this have something to do with religion? What Maharaji offers is independent of and compatible with any religion. Maharaji only makes it possible for people to connect to an inner source of fulfillment.

Is this a philosophy or a spiritual path? Knowledge is a practical way of experiencing peace within. It is not related to any philosophy, belief system, or spiritual path.

If you look at Atheism there are links to Christianity and other religions, as well as a whole section on criticism of atheism(ists). Can you please explain your positions about comparing Prem Rawat to a religion? I think it's important to this conversation and really don't understand it, since Prem Rawat clearly isn't a religious leader by his own claims. Sylviecyn 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you can see that atheist and anti-Christian links are not included in the article on Christianity. Here's a non religious example for you - many people hate "country music", there are even web sites dedicated to it. In the Wiki "country music" article, it states "Ellison 1995; Peterson and Kern 1995)", "country music is widely enjoyed by people in all walks of North American society and around the world" [1] and it is an often controversial, much loved and much hated, music. Race issues play a large part in country music reception and the music has been praised for diversity and universality as well as criticised for its lack of those qualities and supposed racism".  But there are no links to the "I hate country music" sites and I would imagine millions hate country music. Being on the web doesn't mean a thing. PR communicates with his supporters and the public via speaking engagements, satellite and cable TV, mail outs of DVDs/CDs and podcasts. If he limited his communication to the web and put out a message once a week, the "ex-premie" sites would be  submerged. There is no escaping that the "ex-premie" group and their opinion is an insignificant minority are far as Wikipedia is concerned. The only reason they appear in the PR article is because "ex-premie" editors have inserted their POV contrary to Wiki guidelines.Momento 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sylviecyn, do a search on "Bill Gates" and then tell me if http://billgatesisdead.com  or The "Unofficial" Bill Gates websites (3rd and 4th position) are reputable sources about Bill Gates.  Or do a search for George W. Bush, and tell me if George W. Bush or Chimpanzee? or George W. Bush, Jr. - The Dark Side are reputable sources for Bush. You may have a good grasp of the English language, Sylviecyn, but you may not know search engine ranking algorithms. I do. For your information, the only reason the "ex-premie" group website is ranking as it does, is because they have managed to spam the Google index with thousands upon thousands of forum postings, as years of such postings have been "archived" and linked on their site (more that 10,000 pages of forum postings are currently indexed by Google. Just Google "site:" followed by the site name). Please note that I don't know if they have done that in purpose to spam the Google index, or not. I am not passing judgment. The bad news is that until now, Google has been rewarding bulk, thus their current rankings, but the good news is that with the new  sophisticated text matching heuristics and Bayesian spam filtering Google is developing and implementing, it has started penalizing what they consider  Blackhat SEO index spamming (in particular stuffing websites with pages from guestbooks, chatrooms, bulletin boards, discussion forums and wikis to create bulk, and other blackhat techniques such as mirroring), and these spamming sites are not only being demoted from rankings, but sometimes penalized in such a way that they get removed completely from the Google index, and so will sites that are heavily linked from the spamming sites. So sooner or later, that will happen as well to their website.  Deleting all that spam from their site may result in at least remaining in the index, with an appropriate ranking for their relevance. Keeping the spam will result in an almost certain removal from the index, or being awarded a zero PageRank penalty, sooner or later. It is only a matter of time. You can read  for more info.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 04:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The EPO Google rankings are now extremely high, and speculations for why that is or how that may change in the future (Wiki isn't a crystal ball) is pointless to this conversation. I assert that Momento's statistics are unscientific and can't be trusted for purposes of establishing who's a minority or a majority. Also, one cannot reasonably compare Prem Rawat to Bill Gates, George Bush, the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi or any other world-famous persons. Those are simply not apt comparisons.  Prem Rawat isn't as famous as Moon, Hubbard, or Sathya Sai Babba. In fact, the only thing that makes Prem Rawat's name known in any regard is the critical press coverage from the 1970s.  That's a fact.


 * If you search "Knowledge" in Google there are no hits for Prem Rawat in the first 100 rankings. If you plug in "meditation Knowledge" you get ex-premie hits and none under Rawat's name.  Nothing for Rawat under "meditation," and there are no hits for Rawat under "humanitarian leader," "motivational speaker" or "inspirational speaker."  If you search "UN 60th Anniversary Speakers," a critical site for Prem Rawat is the only hit in the first 100.


 * Rawat simply has no rankings in Google except for the paid links under his name(s). Again, one also cannot project how Rawat's rankings in Google will or will not change in the future based upon Wiki policy.  The fact remains that he has far fewer followers in the western world than he ever did before in his career began in the west and he is virtually unknown to the general public today.


 * Also, neither of you answered my question about claims for need of religious freedom, when Prem Rawat claims he offers no religion, philosophy, spirituality, or membership in anything. That seems like a contradiction to me.  Sylviecyn 10:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you cannot accept the fact that in 1998 an independent and reputable university estimated the number of people practicing Knowledge at 1.2 million and the obvious fact that the number of active ex-premies is less than 120, I can't see any point in answering your questions. You simply ignore answers you don't like?Momento 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is the Latter Day Saints study wasn't done in 1998 and the numbers reflect Divine Light Mission (???) numbers from as early as 1990. According to Adherents the information on membership (membership see my question above????) varies widely from scholar to scholar.  Therefore, not only is your statistical calculation method incorrect, your numbers are at least 16 years old.  That kind of fudging of numbers is simply unacceptable. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia Sylviecyn 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The book is listed in Amazon as the 2nd General edition, published in August 1, 1997. I have corrected the date in the article.Momento 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to know the meaning of this sentence: "According to the organizations, Prem Rawat has over the years engaged over nine million people in 250 cities and fifty countries." Which organizations specifically report this, and what does "engaged" mean specifically?  Does "engaged" mean the number of people who have ever come to a live Rawat program? Does "engaged" mean nos. of people that have seen him live combined with the total number people who have ever come to introductory programs to listen to satsang and/or attended aspirant programs?  Does the nine million figure represent unique individuals or have numbers been combined, such as say, EV saying 4,000 people attended a program, because the same 2,000 attended for two consecutive Rawat programs, or what???  Sylviecyn 21:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You were the one that made the argument that a high ranking on Google has special meaning. I demonstrated that (a) it is not uncommon for critical sites to have high rankings as per the examples provided (not intended to compare Prem Rawat, with Bill Gates or others, of course. These just were examples); (b) none of these high ranking critical sites are available of the biographical articles of these people; and (c) that the only reason for these high rankings of the "ex-premie" group website is the spamming of the Google index by bulking-up their site with 10,000 forum postings consisting mainly of chatter, not information.

As demonstrated before, you do not have a good grasp of search engines. The "paid links" you refer to are what is called AdWords, and FYI, these have no bearing on rankings. These appear of the right hand-side of google's listings as "sponsored links". So before you make assertions of fact that are ungrounded in reality, you may want ask experts of the subject or, at the very least, be informed before making such assertions.

What I find very tedious is that every-time a point is made in these argument that are not only valid, but accurate as well, you find a way to dismiss these on the basis of fallacious counter-arguments. Well, you are welcome to your ungrounded opinions on the matter, but do not expect anyone to accept these arguments as valid. I would be interested to see your position and those of your colleagues once your websites gets penalized by Google. All you will have remaining is the company of your fellow critics. I'll give it six to eight months, give or take. Having sad that, please note that Google rankings are not used in Wikipedia for assessing the relevance of a website.

Given that your assessment of Wikipedia is that " Wikipedia is crap and only lazy people read it" and that editing Wikipedia is "an excercise in futility" and that "Wikipedia works like the spread of a bad virus" (you words), and given your highly negative opinion of its editors that you flaunt so publicly, I fail to understand your involvement in this project and, given your own characterization of it, I find it very difficult to assume you are contributing in good faith. I responded to your concerns about the number of links in the article by removing a substantial portion of these links, but unless you show some respect to this project and its editors, do not expect that I take you seriously and respond to further concerns you may have.

As for your last comment about the number of people Maharaji has engaged, as we are reporting the POV of the Prem Rawat Foundation, it is out of our role as editors to pass a judgement on what that means. The conspiracy theories of your group about double-counting participants, is irrelevant in this context≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for inserting TPRF in the lead sentence, but that still doesn't explain "engaged," which is vague, but if that's all TPRF can offer, I'll accept the sentence. However, the following sentence is concerning the Latter Day Saints book and is misleading as written:


 * "In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S."


 * Because this is DLM information first published in the 1990 edition, it's most likely information taken from Melton's count of 50,000 in the U.S, which was a 1982 DLM count, therefore it's incorrect to say "In 1997..." It's simply misleading and incorrect  researching.   If a new edition comes out of that book this year are adherents going to edit the sentence to also imply that those are 2006 figures?  I don't think so.  See Adherents - Divine Light Mission on which Melton's 1982 numbers is the same as the Mormon's numbers, with explanation notes that reduce membership even more.


 * From the Mormons:


 * "Divine Light Mission USA 50,000 - - - 1990 Palmer, Spencer J. & Roger R. Keller. Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah (1990); pg. 95. "General membership numbers appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. There is a core group of 3000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly... The mission is [in] 53 countries... "


 * From Melton:


 * "Divine Light Mission USA 50,000 - - - 1982 Melton, J. Gordon & Robert L. Moore. The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism. New York: The Pilgrim Press (1984 [3rd printing; 1st printing 1982]); pg. 142. "The Divine Light Mission grew quickly in the early seventies but suffered a severe setback in 1973 [Houston Astrodome event]. In the late seventies the Mission became a low-key organization and stopped its attempts at mass appeal. Recently, Maharaj Ji quietly moved to Miami. The Mission has reportedly initiated over 50,000 people, but only a few thousand remain the chain of ashrams that now dot the nation."


 * For the record here Jossi, I consider your actions to be an intimidation tactic that you are employing against me, because you are following me around the internet, keeping a file of my postings on forums unrelated to Wikipedia, then re-posting them here. I consider that stalking. Sylviecyn 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another attempt to skirt the argument with another ad hominem (if you cannot beat the argument, beat the arguer!). For the record, you continue to personally attack me and other editors here and elsewhere, as well as making disparaging comments about Wikipedia in public discussion forums, and then you come here with an attitude of "I have to be listened to and my opinion respected". You are entitled to your opinion of Wikipedia, you are entitled to your opinion of me and other editors, and you are entitled to voice them in any public forum you wish. But please understand that it is very difficult to accept such double-standards and your comments in these talk pages listened to as if they were made with the disinterested purpose of making this article better and in good faith. As you well know, all contributions are welcome in Wikipedia, but such disruptive behavior makes it very difficult to maintain a civil exchange between contributing editors. I do not think that it is hard to understand this concern of mine. I politely ask you to, again, to refrain from such disruptive behavior, so that we can edit this article civilly and respectful of each other, despite our differences of opinion.  ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A "second edition" is not a re-print of the "first edition". It is an updated version. Palmer et al, believed in 1997 that the membership was 1.2 million. Therefore the sentence - "In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S." - is completely correct.Momento 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The figures cited in the first edition are the exact same figures as cited in the 1997 2nd edition, and reflect the same exact figures as cited by Melton in 1982. Second editions don't necessarily update all of the information in the previous edition. The only way to solve this is to ask the author, so I'm going to email the Spencer Palmer to ask if those numbers are updated or old numbers, then I'll get back with his response. Sylviecyn 11:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if Palmer gives you a response, please note that we could not use any of that information unless it is published. See WP:NOR. As for the additional links that anon keeps adding repeatedly, note that thye POV of the group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies" has been established to be of a tiny minority, and it is not reported by any scholarly source. Furthermore, the aditional site link added is just another link farm with no content. Useless, IMO. Please delete it. Thanks. 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which indicates a lack of concern by PR students about the accuracy of citations and how they are cited/texted in the article. I think we went through this kind of dickering before about your paraphrasing a scholar (thereby changing the meaning of the scholar's writing) when the direct quotation was available from the book. It was like pulling teeth getting you to provide the quoted material.  You have the book, therefore, please provide the exact quote, or I have to assume you're not interested in accurate research, but POV-pushing.


 * I restored the link to "Testimony of ex-followers." I ask that students don't remove that again. Jossi pointed out on May 20th (3 days ago): "External links sections does not carry the same burden of reputability or due weight as article text does. The discussion about the due weight of the POV of group that call themselves "ex-premies" is still unresolved..." This issue hasn't been resolved, your numbers and math are incorrect (you've used old information). Also, I don't answer for nor am I responsible for anyone who makes edits here but myself.  Sylviecyn 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but... Before you accuse me of that kind of behavior, please provide a diff in which I made these edits as you purport in which I paraphrased scholars. I did not. As for the link, that link is to a sub-page of a website that is already linked. There is no need to add sub-pages to the list. As for "ex-premie" group's POV, whichever math we use, the fact is and still remains that the website "ex-premie.org" represents by their own statement, the POV of 20 to 100 people and it is owned by one individual. By the "ex-premie" group own statements, they are not a group or an organization and there is no such a thing as a documented POV of its members, that has been reported anywhere besides that website. I am speaking here about the "17 objections" and other statements that are purportedly representing such POV. So, whichever way we look at this, the POV as presented on "ex-premie.org" is the POV of a small group of individuals, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to Momento. Sylviecyn 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The matter of the "ex-premies" has now been resolved. The 1997 edition of "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" is the most current, reputable, world-wide estimation of followers. The "ex-premie" group is an insignificant minority.Momento 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot just declare the issue resolved, because I disagree that it's resolved, based on my arguments above. You still haven't addressed that the 1997 edition of the book reflects 16 (at least) year old numbers from DLM, not EV/TPRF. Again, please provide the text from that book. Also, according to TPRF's 2005 annual report, the donors consist of:


 * "...In 2005, approximately 2,700 people and organizations contributed to the Foundation from 60 countries. The majority of these contributors (60%) were from North America, while another 30% contributed from Europe."


 * That doesn't look like a significant majority to me. If you break it down, that's roughy 1600 U.S. and 810 European individual donors, some of which were organizations.  Considering those figures in contrast to the 1990 figures in the Mormon book, that's a significant reduction in Rawat students over the past 16 years.  All of the people who don't practice Knowlege anymore are former students or ex-premies, which is a significant majority.  Sylviecyn 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The numbers quoted are their estimate in 1997, that is indisputable and that is what we have to go with. TPRF has nothing to do with the number of people practicing Knowledge. The "ex-premie" issue isn't about the number of people who do or don't practice Knowledge, it is about the number of people who support the opinion of the "ex-premie" group and that is less than 120. You're welcome to your opinion but we have to deal with facts.Momento 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If Sylviecyn wants to go by the numbers published by The Prem Rawat Foundation, that is fine with me. As the article reads: According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, Prem Rawat has over the years engaged over nine million people in 250 cities and fifty countries. They estimate slightly more than half a million have been taught the techniques since he came to the West, about 125,000 of this number between January 2000 and April 2004. That is already in the article alongside the LSD cite, so I do not understand what the issue is. If you want to add the number of donors, that raised $2,000,000 in 2005 I am fine with it. Numer of donors to one organization is not a measure of membership, only a measure of number of donors for that organization. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

POV of detractors – Summary of arguments
The argument made above that ''All of the people who don't practice The policy you contravene is the policy of NPOV. You insert only extreme/negative quotes from scholars and in this case deliberately omit a sentence in the middle which clarifies the quote. This article is about PR and one of the quotes you have inserted into the 70s section refer to DLM's concept of mind, so that's coming out for a start.Momento 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC) anymore are former students or ex-premies, which is a significant majority'' is a too obvious verbal fallacy. People that do not practice knowledge cannot be said to share the views of the group that call themselves the "ex-premies" or to share the views as expressed in a website by the same name. Here we are discussing the POV of the group of critics that call themselves "ex-premies" and that participate in activism against Prem Rawat, his students, and related organizations. That group is a very small group of people, regardles of what math we use. And as such, their POV does not have place in this article.

In summary:


 * 1) The POV of the "ex-premie" group is the POV of a small group of people numbered 20 to 100;
 * 2) The "ex-premie" website cannot be assessed to be representing the POV of more that its previous and current owners and associates, and cannot claim to they represent the POV of other unnamed people;
 * 3) According to that website, they are not an organization, so they do not represent a body of people beyond such owners and associates;
 * 4) We shall use only references to critical ex-followers as made in scholarly sources. (I believe Melton makes a short mention about the some ex-members becoming critics in one of his encyclopedias. I will need to find that quote);
 * 5) All other references made from the "ex-premie" website need to be removed from this article (with the exception of the external links section that does not carry the same burden as the article for reputability of sources);
 * 6) Rebuttals by the Elan Vital organizations about these people, need also to be removed;
 * 7) Libelous statements that are unsourced or poorly sourced (e.g attributed to non-reputable sources) should also be removed as per the new and very stringent guidelines about Biographies of living people. See WP:LIVING and WP:BLOCK;
 * 8) Of course, the above does not apply to criticism reported in reputable sources that may be shared by detractors and critical ex-members. But if reported in the article, it needs to be reported by attributing it to the reputable source and not to a critical ex-member that may share that opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "ex-premie" bitsd and the EV stuff that relates and done a brief summary.Momento 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * why only scholarly sources? What is wrong with newspaper articles? Andries 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P.Jacobi wrote: ''Please, it is all about Verifiability, see WP:V. Provide secondary sources, which build upon the statements of ex-premie.org or the like, and it is fair game. Otherwise, the only proof of the the significance of that website, is -- ironically -- Elan Vital itself (by feeling obliged to response on their website). This will guarantee ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article, but I'd prefer a short one (somewhat longer if we decide to do the merge).'' I am purposely not editing at the moment partly because of time constraints but more to give you guys a chance to do your thing and to see just how fair you can play. I see many changes are happening and I have one question from what I've read. Jacobi seems to be saying that the mere fact that Elan Vital retain that info about 'ex-premies' on their site "guarantees ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article". How does this sit with your removing all mention of 'ex-premies' as such? (apart from the oblique reference that you have put to "a handful of disgruntled former students"). Again this sounds like you're minimising the number of ex-premies which is in fact far greater than 5. This to me is an example of how, despite trying to be able to make a neutral job of this, you're finding it hard in practice. Jacobi was so right when he said it'd be best for non-followers or exes to edit.PatW 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Added two scholarly sources that refers to ex-members. Also toned down the rebuttal from Elan Vital cite. As for PatW's comment above, we could go back and add a reference to John Brauns website (as his name is mentioned in the Elan Vital FAQ) but then we would need to expand this section to include rebuttals, affidavits and other stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think Jacobi was suggesting that the inclusion of a reference to ex-premies should also necessitate the inclusion of lengthy descriptions of the arguments between either of the two antagonistic groups (ad nauseam). This would seem to be the slippery slope we have all been trying to avoid. So I would suggest simply replacing the false and un-scholarly phrase "a handful of disgruntled former students" with the simple reference to ex-premies you suggest - then leave it at that. People can hear Elan Vital's arguments at their site and John Brauns' ex-premies' at the other. This is, after all, an exercise in keeping things encyclopaedic and short. Might I suggest that if you could momentarily shelve your natural visceral disdain for 'ex-premies' you may come to share my view that this is the perfect, elegant and logical solution.PatW 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I have done. I have removed the "disgruntled former students" bit. And for the record, I do not profess a "visceral disdain" for these people. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I know...just a little joke...sorry. It does look better but the paragraph in criticism about the allegations of former staff is looking very weird now someone has removed the word 'alcoholism' (I think it was that before). Now it says they made allegations about 'purported anxiety' ! That looks really silly. Better probably to just say they made allegations. The subsequent bit about Mishler not being 'obeyed' etc looks kind of extraneous to me now. Would you agree?PatW 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again Andries has inserted quotes to push his point of view - "According to Maharaj Ji, all evil should be attributed to the mind" and "DLM’s concept of mind refers primarily to a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust".  And, of course, Andries omits the senetence in between - "apparently, these ... indicate the ... obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds" -  which puts PR comments into context. And, of course there other quotes by other scholars which I could insert to clarify this. I have removed them. Nothing should be added to this article without dicussion.Momento 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, but I do not agree with your removal of summaries of Rawat's teachings from reputable sources. Can you please refer to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your behavior? Until you find a policy or guideline, I will restore the well-referenced edit. Thanks. Andries 21:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Momento, please feel free to add more context to the statements by Derks and Van der Lans, but I did not and do not see an easy way to do so. Andries 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy you contravene is the policy of NPOV. You insert only extreme/negative quotes from scholars (and in this case deliberately omit a sentence in the middle which clarifies the quote). And then invite me to add more to this article to refute Deks and Van der Lans poor scholarship. This article is about PR and one of the quotes you have inserted into the 70s section refer to DLM's concept of mind, so that's coming out for a start. I will deal wirth the rest later. Momento 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly the only quote's you feel worthy to put into this article have no relationship to the section in which you place them. Their are dozens of quotes that more accurately describe what PR was doing in the 70s than the one's you have chossen.Momento 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do the scholarly summaries by Derks and van der Lans about Rawat's teachings contravene NPOV policy? No, I do not intentionally leave out the middle sentence, but I leave it out because I do not know how to summarize it. Feel free to add more positive quotes from scholarly sources when you think that the quotes that I added are too negative. Please do not add selective quotes by Rawat about a certain subject, especially not when Rawat made contradictory statements about a certain subject because this will lead to a quote war in the article. Andries 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries, if you don't know how to summarize, then ask. It is quite difficult in these circumstances to assume good faith. Dont' you think? Let's not get into a revert war, please. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did invite Momento to give more context to Derks and van der Lans so if he can make a summary then that is fine. I got heavily criticized by Momento and you for making summaries here that you considered misinterpretations. flawed paraphrasing, and miquototations. Andries 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Context given, cite summarized and Kraneborg POV attributed. Andries, can you please check in your book in Dutch from Kraneborg if he was quoting another scholar when he wrote about Prem Rawat speaking style? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t
 * Kranenborg more or less followed de:Reinhart Hummel in this respect, but did not quote him. I found out only a few days ago. Andries 05:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has now bounced back up to 59 kb thanks to Andries' insertion and Jossi's counter balance. Please, let's remove the most recent additions since they cancel each other out.Momento 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Momento —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0.228.174.153 (talk • contribs)


 * This article is about Prem Rawat, it is not about what he did or didn't say. We want the indisputable facts of his life and not a war of the opinions of others. As we have already seen any negative comments by  Van der Lans, Derks, Hann, Larkin etc can be countered by positive comments by Kopkind, Lippy, McCleary, Wilson etc. And therefore any editor who inserts an extremely positive or negative quote into this article is knowingly triggering an edit war to the detriment of this article in particular and Wikipedia in general.  The opinion of religious scholars about Rawat's teachings in "the 70's" section shouldn't be there. They should be in "Teachings of Prem Rawat" where there is space and where they belong. I would like to remove those quotes and rebuttals and continue to reduce this article to 54 kb of clear, concise facts.Momento 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. Summaries of Prem Rawat's teaching belong here very naturally. You can also insert a summary of Rawat's teachings by e.g. Wilson. Andries 21:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a summary of what all scholars say, like - "Prem Rawat teachings can be briefly summarised as that he claims that God naturally resides within every human being and that students can reliably access this natural experience only with the techniques and ongoing advice of a true master".Momento 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware only Reinhart Hummel wrote that Rawat followed the advaita vedanta philosophy (God resides within) Andries 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case only Hummel is correct.Momento 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not possible, because that is not what all the scholars say about Prem Rawat, and that's not what his teachings have always been. Once again, this is a biography of a person's whole life. His profession has always been speaking to people as their teacher.  This is what he does that warrants having an article about him.  All of what he has ever said is his life's work, his teachings, and should be respresented in this article. If there are contradictions, then so be it.  This is a biography, not a snapshot of Prem Rawat's life in the present. Sylviecyn 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is one thread that run through Rawat's teachings from 1986 to 2006 it is that that he claims that God naturally resides within every human being and that students can reliably access this natural experience only with the techniques and ongoing advice of a true master".Momento 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Snapshot of the present? As far as I can see the "Prem Rawat today" is only one section and the shortest. As for "all what he has said has to be represented in this article", that is not workable as he has spoken at more than 2,000 events for an average of 1 hour each, that is approximatelky 4,800 words per address, for a total of 10 million words, or approximately 41 MBs. This is a biography, not a database. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote for any solution that requires removing material rather than adding.Momento 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be awfully silly of me to expect to include everything Rawat has ever said. Here's a quote from the Hans Jayanti 1979 weeklong festival at Kissimmee, Florida. I was there doing service in the DECA trailer that was to the left of the stage. This was the general tone of PR's talks during the period of time from 1977 through at least 1981, but this particular quote also clears up the argument about just exactly who Prem Rawat was referring to when he spoke of Guru Maharaj Ji in the third person:


 * Prem Rawat, 8 November 1979, Kissimmee. Florida, USA


 * "And there might be different philosophies, you know? Different rituals, different things, and different prayers, and yet there is only one thing that consolidates it all and that’s the connection, the tie of devotion between a premie and their Guru Maharaj Ji. A premie and their everything. This is the one thing that we have to understand. What does Guru Maharaj Ji signify for us? For so many of us what really does Guru Maharaj Ji signify? Guru Maharaj Ji signifies Guru Maharaj Ji, somebody who comes on the throne and gives satsang. Somebody, you know, 5’2" and whatever comes, walks and sits down on this particular chair, looks a certain way. If somebody else came down on this throne and sat down…Marino would punch them out, but for a moment out there in the audience…it might be…and you know…sometimes even when Marino comes out and walks out on the stage people go aha, because they realize it’s not him, it’s not Guru Maharaj Ji." Sylviecyn 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue was thoroughly discussed countless times already. I do not have neither the time nor the inclination to restart this discussion. Go back and re read the archives, it is all there. Take your time. You may want to read many quotes in which he distinctly refers to: (a) his father (see peace bomb satang (The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, (b) the essence of a teacher or "guru Maharaj ji" (as defined by a relationship between a student and his teacher see Guru-shishya tradition (c) his own persona. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

One excellent quote is this:


 * When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God
 * And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 - Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge

There are tons of quotes in (Prem Rawat) Wikiquote ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prem Rawat was part of a lineage of gurus and he was "Guru Maharaj Ji" for his followers, just like his father was Prem's "Guru Maharaj Ji". Several religious scholars wrote that when Prem Rawat spoke of "Guru Maharaj Ji", he was referring to himself. I have not read any scholar who wrote that Prem did not refer to himself. Only Reinhart Hummel is somewhat explicit about this matter and wrote that Prem Rawat saw himself as an incarnation of the "eternal Guru Maharaj Ji". There are several instances when Prem Rawat spoke of "Guru Maharaj Ji" and could only refer to himself, for example when he said “There is only one person in this world who can tell you that. And that’s Guru Maharaj Ji.” Divine Times, May/June 1979, Volume 8, Number 3, Page 15. Reference: Hummel 1980Andries 09:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regretably many scholars are deficient in scholarship. There are hundreds of quotes of PR talking about Guru Maharaj Ji and obviously meaning his father. The phrase you quote - There is only one person in this world who can tell you that. And that’s Guru Maharaj Ji - is refering to the function of GMJ not Rawat in particular.Momento 09:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One doesn't have to depend upon scholars, deficient or not, when you read his quotes (proves the importance of what he specifically has said) where Maharji is quite specific that Guru Maharaj Ji is himself, the person: Prem Rawat.  This article uses direct quotes from "Conversations with..." to prove points, so your argument is spurious.  It's right there in black and white (read it again) where he discusses the 5'2" person sitting on the throne, and no one else sits upon on the throne but himself, not even his personal assistant Marino or stage-hands.  There was no confusion whatsoever in ashram premies or initiators/instructors during the 70s about which person we were devoting our lives to and it absolutely was not Shri Maharaji. Further, he always said that his mission was fulfilling the agya that his GMJ gave him, i.e., to spread Knowledge to the world.  I don't know what you were doing during the seventies, but I was a close, obedient premie, and for you to revise history this way is insulting and false.  Sylviecyn 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not argue that Prem Rawat was not referred as by others or referred himself as Guru Maharaj Ji on occasions. What I am saying is that the use of the term needs to be taken in the context in which it was said, as as it it obvious the name was used by Prem Rawat to refer to his father, to refer to the role of the teacher, and to refer himself as well. As I have said, this issue was discussed at length several times over the period this article has been edited, with the inclusion of comments by neutral editors such as Gary D. Please go back to the the archives and read the arguments. There is no nee to rehash this thing all over again. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)