Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 20

External Links section
From WP:EL: Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
 * Links to normally avoid


 * 1) A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
 * 2) Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
 * 3) In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
 * 4) Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
 * 5) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

Links that are been added by anon user repeatedl, are removed as per above guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that you selectively advocate a strict application of this guideline when it supports your POV. For example, why should links to Elan Vital be here? It belongs at Elan Vital, not here. Prem Rawat is not the offical head of this organization. Andries 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is what you think, then propose to remove these, rather than adding others that do not belong. Two wrongs don't make a right. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiki guidelines all the "Critics" sites should be removed. They are unverified original research.Momento 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not my understanding of the "original research" guideline. The guideline basically says I don't insert my own "original research" (or personal experience) into the text of the article.  The guideline does not prohibit external links to original research. In fact, these links fall under the category of "what should be linked to" -- "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each" Bertport 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the above guidelines to suggest the "original research" policy is limited to author's inserting their own "original research". It applies to all "original research" in general. You should also note that " Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. The practice of linking "critical, negative or harmful" sites is clearly an attempt by members of the "ex-premie" group to push their insiginificant POV throught the side door. Please respect Wiki guidelines. I propose that the "ex-premie" links be removed. Momento 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the point of view of a small group of ex-students has been explored in depth in this talk page. Most definitively, theirs is not a prominent POV, just a marginal one. Also note that we are not discussing here WP:NOR, but the guideline WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, the POV of ex-premies is shared by most who know about Rawat and is by far the predominant POV towards Rawat, your POV of idolizing Rawat is held by hardly anyone. 69.251.176.184 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is just your opinion, and justifiable being (obviously) one of his detractors. You can read the opinions of some notable people here . I have not seen any comments made in these pages about "idolizing", but again, you are entitled to your opinion of others, but note that your opinion unless described by a reputable source, is worthless for this article. Adding more links to discussion forums and poor quality websites from a small group of critics will not change this, and it is in contradiction with guidelines. So unless you have something useful to contribute, I would suggest that you desist in re-inserting these links again and again. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any argument to the contrary I am going to remove the links to the "ex-premie" websites. They were originally added by "ex-premie" editors before the discussion that proved that the "ex-premie" group are an insignificant minority and were therefore not entitled for inclusion in this article according to Wiki policy. The recent quidelines on Biographies of Living Persons also mandate their removal. The only reason any editor would include them is to try to subvert Wiki policy and guidelines in order to insert their personal POV.Momento 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I object strongly to this decision by Momento to remove the aforementioned links, since we had this argument at length until we agreed that we should have some more neutral third party comment. This person took the form of someone by the name of P.Jacobi who made the following argument to keep the links: ''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 wonder what the point is of having had these prior discussions if someone (in this case Momento) is going to wait until the arguing has died down only to ride roughshod over the opinions of others who have taken the trouble to discuss and contribute here. It makes a mockery of the whole goodwill ethic that was beeing built upon here in my opinion. Momento's statement that there was no argument to the contrary is simply wrong (as you can see by reading Jacobi's statement at the very least). What Momento presumably means is that the argument opposing his was wrong and that his was right. There plainly WAS an argument during which even a third party opined that it was appropriate for these links to exist. Momento, as a current supporter of Prem Rawat, is again exercising his/her determination to ignore the opinions of others as it suits and to exert his/her bias. PatW80.4.207.234 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Pat. I think that Momento made a proposal, based on on WP:EL, waited a week or so, and proceeded as there was no objection stated. Rather than discuss the bias of an editor, (that we all have, including you), we will be better off discussing the merit of his argument. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. How many times does one has to reiterate the 'merit of' the argument to keep Momento at bay? Really, I thought I was dealing with grown-ups who were capable of retaining information for more than a few weeks. I don't propose to discuss our biases but merely point out that Momento has, in this case, over-ridden the nearest thing to neutral advice that we supposedly jointly sought..namely P'Jacobi's advice. His choice to do that is pretty terminally disruptive to any progress we had made to work together, in my opinion. In fact it proves that he is cynical about that possibility. PatW 80.4.207.234
 * Pat, it is not really necessary to discuss our opinions of other editors. Discuss the edit, please. Momento is arguing that as per WP:EL it is not necessary to list these sites. Your argument is, based on Peter's comment that because opposition to Prem Rawat is described in the Elan Vital page, it deserves inclusion. Is that a fair description, Pat? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right Jossi. That's exactly the point I was referring to. I apologise if my voicing frustration over this is out of place. I wrongly assumed we were generally agreed that Peter's advice was something we'd jointly asked for and were prepared to take as some sort of compromise, notwithstanding our own clear disagreement. I actually thought that what he proposed made good sense on all counts. PatW80.4.207.234 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "ex-premie" sites should not be linked because Wiki policy on links maintains that you should not link a site-  that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.). In addition, Wiki has developed a new policy regarding biographies of Living Persons which states "Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel)". This very necessary policy has been made because of the increasing use of Wiki by hate groups, vandals and opponents to defame people out of spite.Momento 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries revert, without engaging in the ongoing discussion above, seems innapropriate. Please address the arguments presented. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The inclusion or exclusion of external links of critics has already been discussed many times. Please check and read the talk page incl. the archives. I do not see a good reason to re-hash the discussions. Andries 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of the ex-premie group was discussed and the conclusion that they are an "insignificant minority" accepted by all. In additiion new guidelines regarding Biographies of Living People mandate the removal of these links.I have reverted Andries edit.Momento 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true to say that the issue was discussed but untrue that the conclusion you describe was '"accepted by all". For a start, as one who was involved in those discussions, I did not accept that the 'ex-premie' opinion was insignificant. Neither apparently did P.Jabobi who was invited to comment as some sort of impartial influence. He quite clearly indicated that he thought the fact that Elan Vital mention this group in their publications 'guaranteed ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article'. So how can you possibly justify your statement, Momento? PatW 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only people who don't accept that the "ex-premie" opinion is an insignificant minority opinion are those who don't accept that .01% is an "insiginificant minority". I don't know of any mention of the "ex-premie group" in any EV publications, only reference to the activities of a hate group on the EV Australia website. Even if you can prove that the "ex-premie" group and the hate group are one and the same and therefore the "ex-premie" group might warrant a mention as a hate group in this article, that is an entirely different matter from suggesting that being mentioned in an EV website entitles the hate group to voice an opinion in this article or add links to their websites. In any case the Wiki guidelines that "Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. Momento 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly let me remind you and others where you can find mention of the ex-premie group in an EV publication and it's irrelevant if the site was authored in Australia..it is a dot 'org'. NB. The following is from the offical Elan Vital organisation website http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm One of the hate groups’ favorite dirty tricks is creating multiple web pages with the same hate speech, unsupported allegations and hearsay under different domain names to create the impression that more people support their views than in reality. The purpose of this trick is to try and flood Internet search engines with a skewed amount of negative websites. In fact, the hate group has created at least three different web pages using different domain names, but it turns out that all three web sites are owned and operated by John Brauns, a resident of rural Latvia. Elan Vital has filed several regulatory complaints with Internet authorities regarding Brauns’ misuse of copyrighted text and images, and Brauns responded by signing legal documents admitting that he is the owner and operator of the three hate speech websites. [Download PDF]. Brauns has made no effort to provide journalists or interested parties with any independently verifiable documents or factual support for the allegations appearing on his several web pages. Brauns also operates a chat room whereby the hate group posts using multiple aliases to create an impression that they are numerous. However, on any given month, no more than twenty people worldwide post on their site. That, Momento is undeniably a reference to www.ex-premie.org (amongst other sites). We don't have to prove anything here Momento. It is quite clear from the ref to John Brauns etc. PJacobi was plainly referring to this page when he said it'guaranteed ex-premie.org its mentioning in the article'. What kind of mentioning do think is appropriate then? By the way, I take all your points about the relative insignificance of ex-premie's etc. and, quite frankly, I don't personally care about this issue further than I think that your kind of bias does no-one, least of all (ironically) Prem Rawat any favours in the long run. It seems that you are committed to painting a favourable article about Prem Rawat whilst doing ANYTHING to wriggle out of allowing anything approaching criticism to creep in - that is even despite this case where we have exhaustively identified a perfectly reasonable rationale for mentioning EPO because Rawat's organisation attack that very 'hate group'. I certainly think you are twisting Wikki guidelines to suit your biased agenda. What do you think Jossi if you're still here?PatW 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am here, Pat. I have already explained my position before. If we include a link to the group's website, it will have to be accompnaied by a description of Elan Vital's hate-group allegations of that group, a thing that you strongly objected. The current wording says:
 * 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 opposing Prem Rawat, his students and their organization. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations.
 * The previous wording, that will warrant the mentioning of the group's websire read:
 * ''Elan Vital, characterizes these critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students," and dismiss the criticism or Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay. In 2004 in Australia, lawyers acting on behalf of George Laver, Karin Conrad and the Ivory's Rock Conference Centre (a conference facility near Brisbane in which hosts events with Prem Rawat) [92] successfully brought legal proceedings against two ex-premies for misappropriating data from Laver's computer. During the legal proceedings with the Supreme Court of Queensland, the ex-premies signed affidavits that the underlying purpose of the ex-premie group is to harass, defame and annoy Rawat and his students, and to purposefully interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery and their right to peacefully assemble. [94]. In one of these two affidavits, an ex-premie apologized for his participation in the ex-premie schemes, and said that many of the people in the ex-premie group were "irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger [...] and that when they purport to report on factual matters they are frequently false and defamatory, unsupported by actual fact basis, and motivated in many instances by hatred, ill will and spite." In one affadavit the former student apologized for his participation in the ex-premie schemes. The other attempted to retract his affidavit claiming he was coerced but the the judge ruled that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear and refused to allow the withdrawal of his earlier affidavit.[95]
 * I would argue that the current wording is less contentious, and given the fact that the critic's viewpoit has not been reported by any reliable sources (beyond the small mention by Melton that I added a few weeks back), more in accordance with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? That we can only include an external link in the external link section if the link described that according to Elan Vital it is the website of a small hate group. If that is what you mean then I strongly disagree with such a ridiculous proposal. We can simply state something like "website of critical former members maintained by John Braun" That should suffice. Andries 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may need to re-read the discussion above and what Pjacobi expressed about this subject. The ex-premie group and their crticism has not been described in a reliable source, so it inclusion in the article is dependent on the fact that Elan Vital refers to them. You may want to read WP:EL, and the now official policy of WP:BLP for more information. 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also request that you avoid making statements such as "ridiculous proposals" and getting all flustered. So far, and in your absence, we have been able to maintain a civil conversation on the subject. Let's keep it that way of you do not mind. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is untrue that ex-premies' opinions such as Mishler's (Washington Post) and Lammers' (Haagse Post quoted by Kranenborg) have not been voiced by reputable sources. Andries 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mishler's opinion is cited in the criticism section (by citing the Wahsingtop Post and G. Melton). But we are not discussing Mishler, rather we are discussing the group of people that call themselves "ex-premies" that have an active internet presence as described by the Elan Vital Australia FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no such group, I believe, but there is a network of critical former members who have diverse opinions. Andries 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and the viewpoints of what you consider a "network of critical former members" has not been described in reliable sources. That is what is being discussed. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is an article on Prem Rawat not Elan Vital. The "ex-premie" group is not mentioned on any of Prem Rawat's websites.Momento 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that this article should be about Elan Vital. What we are discussing is whether Elan Vital is a reputable source for this article and to what extent this article can include what they report about Prem Rawat's critics. I hope you're not proposing that this article is solely comprised of things 'mentioned on Prem Rawat's websites'. That would be ridiculous.  Hi Jossi, I don't think I voiced objection to there being 'a description of Elan Vital's hate-group allegations of that group', but no matter, it may indeed be too verbose for the Criticism section. Back to Prem Rawat and Elan Vital...Prem Rawat is informed about the policy of the organisations that support him. Most certainly Elan Vital, throughout the world, is committed to promoting him in line with his personal current wishes and it would seem unlikely that they (as a main supporting organisation) would publish an attack on ex-premies, characterising them as a hate group, without his approval. So Prem Rawat ostensibly appears to endorse the characterisation of EPO as a 'hate group'. My simple rationale is that Elan Vital (in Australia or anywhere else) is already inextricably associated with his work as described in this article.  It is entirely appropriate within the criticism section in a Wikki article about a public figure, such as this, to report if their PR organisations are actively attacking indentifiable critics. If their PR organisations go so far as to characterise those critics as a 'hate group' then equal reference should be given to both sides.  Interestingly Andries resurrects the possibility that there is no such thing as a hate group of ex-premies and merely a "network of critical former members" which you say is 'unreliably reported'. Of course this is true in one sense (EV themselves do not go so far as to publish Brauns' URL) but then, whom is the Elan Vital FAQ  'reliably reporting' about? Is Elan Vital warning about the lies and innuendo of non-existent critics? Are you suggesting that Elan Vital itself an un-reliable source? No, Brauns is named and his forums, and websites referred to as a 'Hate Group'. Brauns is plainly the webmaster of www.ex-premie.org, the very site which criticises Prem Rawat, and to which they must refer. As Jacobi says, ironically the singular justification of linking to Brauns' site is that Elan Vital mention it in their official FAQ's. He couldn't be clearer. So is Jacobi wrong? The simple question is: Is Elan Vital a reputable source for information about Prem Rawat as per this article? PatW 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the article lists a number of 'Offical' sites of Prem Rawat, amongst which is 'Visions International' which it say's is a 'a dba of Elan Vital, Inc. USA'. In other words it is an alternate assumed name for Elan Vital. Correct? At www.elanvital.org it says " Elan Vital, incorporated in 1971 in the US, is a charitable organization that promotes the message of Prem Rawat, widely known as Maharaji." There is nothing to say it is a separate Australian concern whatsoever. Moreover the FAQ's we are talking about are on this same US website. What I think now is that the new wording is fine but that Elan Vital's characterisation of the group as a 'hate group' should be mentioned. It is an extreme accusation not yet reflected in the wording. How about : ''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 opposing Prem Rawat, his students and their organization. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations, characterising them as a 'hate group'.'' For the reasons I stated I would include a link to Brauns' sitePatW 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Links to "ex-premie" websites cannot be included in this article under any circumstances because they violate the Wiki policy on Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. They make unproven and defamatory claims. Nor can "ex-premie" opinions be included because they are an "insignificant minority". Momento 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it to you like this Momento. We agreed to invite a Wikki Expert to intervene in this argument (which you must agree is starting to sound like a worn record) and he said that the ex-premie group were guaranteed mention in this article because of the Elan Vital FAQ. Answer me 2 things please without reiterating further your POV about Wikki Policy on such matters: 1) What do you think P.Jabobi himself meant by saying this? 2) Do you disagree with him on this specific point? (yes or no will do).PatW 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Pjacobi meant that the ex-premie group were guaranteed a mention in this article because of the Elan Vital FAQ but I do not agree with him.

But having re-read his comments he said -"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." I therefore propose taking Bob Mishler's comments out of the criticism section and re-naming the section "academic studies" which will be more accurate.Momento 10:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How amazingly duplicitous of you to take the parts of Jacobi's advice that suit your POV and yet simple ignore that part of his advice with which you disagree. This is rapidly becoming Momento's article. Jossi, can Momento just delete the Criticism section like this? PatW 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me guess - you don't think Bob Mishler's comment should be removed? (yes or no will do). And if you care to look, I haven't deleted the criticism section.Momento 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Athough Jacobi advises 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' he immediately adds that statements that have (been deemed important enough to have) drawn scholarly interest and have been incorporated in a work can be used as a secondary source. Mishlers comments appear to have been taken from some publication which I am not sure qualifies. I certainly accept that this article should not contain ex-members comments that come from 'invalid' sources. Do secondary sources have to be strictly 'academic' publications? Who is to say that a book or article in the Washington Post is not done by an academic who has a 'scholarly interest' in the matter? Regarding the title of the section, as a matter of interest, what is wrong with 'Criticism' and what is better about 'Academic Studies'? Is this a move to change the 'Criticism' section to one where no mention of Elan Vital's FAQ would belong? If it wasn't for Elan Vital's official stance I guess Jacobi might agree with your plan and so, even might I.PatW 19:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Criticism section can remain as as is with its current title, as we are describing in it criticism that was published by reliable sources. As for a link to a personal website which it is not possible to verify (as per WP:V) anything beyond the fact that it is owned by an individual, and that it contain material that should be avoided as per WP:EL and WP:BLP, I would argue that its inclusion may be unwarranted. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * it also contains press clippings. Andries 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. I agree and note the points about the linking to EPO. A little further explanation for Momento may be neccessary though...and an answer to his question: 'No' is my answer to whether Mishler's quote should be removed. This is because the quote appears to come from a reliable secondary source. I can find nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP to suggest that reliable sources should be strictly academic. (which adds weight to the argument against your changing the section title.) Furthermore the guide about Reliable Sources is slightly ambivalent about whether information from newspapers is ok. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. This plainly implies that newspapers that are not obscure need less caution when citing from. In fact they can be used. However the next paragraph is poorly phrased as it may be taken to mean that newspapers are an entirely unnacceptable source which is unlikely since that interpretation would contradict what was just said.  Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject. One can only assume that their use of the adverb 'self-published' applies to 'newspapers' and 'websites/blogs'. The Washington Post, for example, is neither an obscure or self-published paper. So, the Mishler quote seems to have come from a reliable source if you look at the existing reference that is supplied in the article. On the matter of your changing the sub-heading 'Criticism'. Within the same Wiki advice page it says: ''" The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." '' Well, we have carefully made a section that conforms to those guidelines. May I sugest that 'Criticism' is an utterly appropriate heading under the circumstances and that 'Academic Studies' is not in the least descriptive of what the section is actually about. If criticism has drawn enough interest to generate inclusion in reliable publications it is may be reliably reported under this section. NB. Remember the Wiki guide also says that "The views of critics SHOULD be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources". BTW If you don't mind me saying, you keep taking the other sentence  If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. entirely out of context and presenting it as a justification to exclude the views of particular critics whom you (as un unreliable source) seek to quantify. I am now of the opinion that neither you, I or Jossi for that matter are actually in any appropriate position to suggest how much of a minority view any reliably sourced critics represent. This is particularly in the light of both Jabobi's and Wiki's strong suggestion that members or ex-members refrain altogether from editing these kinds of article and also the fact that there is no reliable way of measuring how many people share the various views represented.PatW 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why have a section on criticism? It only came into existence because of the extreme POV editing of "ex-premie" editors. There is no section called "Praise of PR" written by "premies". A section entitled "Academic Studies", that contains only legitimate academic studies would give readers a futher source of information. Momento 22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And BTW, the idea that critics views should be represented if their "views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources" refers to comments about people who are notable because of something negative ie Jack the Ripper, or the Edsel or Milli Vinilli. It is not an excuse to criticize any body who is notable.Momento 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And finally, the comments by Mishler, Dettmers & Co come from "primary sources" and  "in general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all". An unbiased editor would remove them immediately. Only what has been checked by Melton is acceptable.Momento 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post article is not an obscure newspaper, and that is why it is included, even if by reading it one can sense that the journalist that wrote it was anything but neutral... The mention of Dettmers need to be removed as he is not mentioned in any of the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Momento, material that is reported by a reliable source can be included in the article, if it is pertinent, and adds value to the article. In this case, the mention of Mishler by Melton, in the Criticism section is OK. But the mention of Dettmers is not, as there are no reliable sources that describe his viewpoints. The mention by James Lewis about ex-members, is also OK. But that is about it. If we can provide secondary sources that mention praise of PR by students, we can also include that. This is the name of the game in WP, as per WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:POV and WP:V, in the context of WP:BLP. Following these policies and guidelines as close as possible is what we have to work with.


 * In response to Pat's comment about our ability (or lack thereof) to assess minority positions, I would argue that again, we can base our discussions on the scholarly sources we have available to us, rather that our own assessments. Our opinions, to which we are entitled to, are inconsequential as it pertains to an article in Wikipedia. In response to the question about should apostates and followers edit an article, I would argue that it is possible, but it requires discipline and commitment to WP content policies and a good dose of civility. Most articles are edited by people that are passionate about the subject one way or another (See what is going on on the article Israel, for example.) If editors can show restrain and avoid pushing their POVs and editwarring, and can do this without igniting flame wars, then it may be possible. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, what you write about Dettmers is untrue. Dettmers’ testimonies and opinions appeared in reputable sources such as Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002.
 * [Refactor as per WP:BLP]
 * (Restored as per WP:BLP
 * [Refactor as per WP:BLP]
 * (Restored as per WP:BLP
 * "The indefatigable Jim Heller tracked down Michael Dettmers, who'd managed Maharaji's assets, personal affairs and "presentation to the world" from 1975 till 1987. The Perfect Master, Dettmers disclosed, was not just an alcoholic, but often an abusive one. While insisting that people in ashrams abstain from drugs, alcohol and sex, Dettmers claims Maharaji had smoked pot four or five nights a week at Malibu, and had Dettmers arrange for premie women to provide sexual favours. Invariably, the women were quickly dropped, with "upset and confusion" resulting."


 * Andries 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the op-ed pieces written by ex-premie John MacGregor, who later apologized publicly about repeating allegations that were posted on a chatroom. That would not count in this case, for obvious reasons, unless we disclose all the context. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, problem with treating the John Macgregor case. I will restore the sentences that you inappropriately removed because the negative information that I posted is relevant to the notablity of the living person and well-sourced. Andries 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not revert you because I have decided not to revert more than once, and I refuse to editwar with you. As for the John McGregor case, it is fully explored in the Criticism article. Based in that material, and your knowledge on the subject, to advocate for the reference on Dettmers is not only disingenous, but in contradiction with WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<<Basis for my claims of violation of WP:BLP by Andries: I would argue that based on this, the inclusion of the material about that article, should not be used as per WP:BLP, and any mention of it removed from this talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Good Weekend magazine is an independent publication and not associated with the editorial boards of the stated newspapers;
 * As advocacy journalism, the article represents the view of the writer and not the views of the newspaper;
 * As an op-ed, the article was not fact-checked by an editorial board, rendering the article useless as a reliable source;
 * The author, in a signed affidavit with the Supreme Court of Queensland, later on referred to these articles as "articles that furthered the goal of defaming Rawat and its students";
 * I support your claims of violation by Andries. I am disgusted but not suprised that an editor would wish to include in this article material that is described (under oath) by its author as "based on no factual evidence" and contained implications that were "absolutely false and unfounded" and repeats on this talk page defamatory statements from a hate group website. I cannot think of a greater betrayal of the principals of Wikipedia.Momento 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)#
 * I do not think that I have violated Wikipedia policies. The magazines and newspapers never retracted McGregor's article as far as I know. Andries 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims". Since the primary source himself has said under oath that the article was "based on no factual evidence" and contained implications that were "absolutely false and unfounded" the publisher of these lies can hardly be regarded as a reliable publisher.Momento 21:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this removal. I will post a message in WP:ANI. Andries 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a clear-cut case the negative information was reported by reliable sources (i.e. several newspapers and magazines) and was never retracted by them, so the removal of this well-sourced negative information from the talk page is inappropriate. Andries 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As said above, that article did not appear in these newspapers, but on an independed Sunday magazine (an "insert" as it is called). The magazine did not retract anything, because it did not need to. The article is not of the magazine, but of the author. And the author has clearly addressed that it was defamatory, in a sworn affidavit. As the defamatory comments relate to the personl life of the subject of this article, applying WP:BLP is required. From WP:BLP: Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives .Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that it not appeared in the Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002 ? What do you mean the article is not of the magazine? The article was published in the magazine. I intend to restore the removed material. Andries 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<< (Why the threats  I intend to restore? Go ahead if that is the way you want to handle it). The Good Weekend magazine is not related to the newspapers you mention. It is an independent Sunday magazine that these newspapers include with their Sunday editions. Articles in that magazine do not go through fact-cheking and editorial control of these newspapers. In addition, articles are under the responsibility of the authors. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But most important in this case is the author's statements about intent to defame. If the author believes his words in his article were intending to defame, and that these words were based on "no factual evidence" and contained implications that were "absolutely false and unfounded", do we need anything anything else to assert that repeating these words here is in violation of WP:BLP? I would argue for a rotund "No". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Momento's question and comments above: ''the idea that critics views should be represented if their "views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources" refers to comments about people who are notable because of something negative ie Jack the Ripper, or the Edsel or Milli Vinilli. It is not an excuse to criticize any body who is notable.'' This can't be the correct meaning of the Wiki guide here, because that would mean that one would have to categorise subjects as notable for positive or negative things and not both. In truth many famous people are notable for combinations of the two - like Michael Jackson etc. We absolutely should not limit this section to 'Acadamic Studies' since there are plenty of reliable publications that have commented on Prem Rawat that are not academic. I would say that that the responsible role of the Criticism section here is to separately report some of the secondary source 'professional reviews' and prominent newspaper reports that have shaped public perception of Rawat/Maharaji over the years. Of course they need not be negative (criticism does not have to be only negative) but they should be clearly derive from a secondary source. So in this section you would maybe not quote the 'Leaders Magazine' article on Prem Rawat which was arguably a primary source authored piece presented within a secondary source publication. However an article by John McGregor within a notable publication could be referenced but is questionable since his credibility has been drawn into question within law courts and he has retracted what he said. ''Why have a section on criticism? It only came into existence because of the extreme POV editing of "ex-premie" editors. ''Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. The point is that, just as with Michael Jackson, there is valid secondary source criticism to report that has contributed to his public perception and this would be a good place to put the most notable examples of it. As I said, articles that can be shown to have a primary source derivation can go elsewhere in the article. This is supposed to be a precis of the longer article 'Criticism of Prem Rawat' which conforms to the Wiki policy on articles about Living Persons.  Jossi writes: ''The Washington Post article is not an obscure newspaper, and that is why it is included, even if by reading it one can sense that the journalist that wrote it was anything but neutral... The mention of Dettmers need to be removed as he is not mentioned in any of the sources.'' Yes, a referenced article from a reliable, reputable source indeed can be highly opinionated, neutral or anything in between. It seems to me that even if the writer could be shown to be an active opponent of Rawat that would not make that kind of secondary source unreliable in Wiki terms. PatW 11:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an absurd number of links. I've removed a whole section of blogs, they're just not appropriate to Wikipedia, whatever their viewpoint. I've also removed a few'Elan Vital' sites as this organisation has a seperate entry. If anything else is to happen with external links it should be to reduce rather than expand the volume. There's plenty of content here, time is better spent improving it than adding links StopItTidyUp 14:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)