Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-Premies

Ex-Premies was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 delete

Ex-Premies
Does the article's subject (former followers of Prem Rawat who now oppose him) merit an article? I would argue "Yes". Does the talk page contain claims that the article's subject will be "discuss[ed] in NPOV style" ? Yes. However, what is there now is hopelessly biased (I would in fact say "bigoted") to the point where anyone who wanted to create an NPOV article on the subject would find the task harder starting from what's there now. Here, the table of contents (by the same person making claims that the 'Ex-Premies' will receive an NPOV discussion) will give you an idea: A great many Wikipedians think that if a subject deserves an article, then any article on that subject, no matter how poor, should be kept, as it is better than no article at all. I would present this article as counter-evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The genesis of the hate group
 * 2) The means and methods of the hate group
 * 3) The motives of the hate group
 * 4) The effect of the hate group Legal ramifications

Delete. The Prem Rawat complex of articles is the result of long and arduous negotiation brokered by neutrals, including me, and represents a delicate balance. This article offends that balance, and I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to see it appear. There is already an Ex-premie article entry, long ago collapsed into a redirect to the merited article Antaeus suggests, Criticism of Prem Rawat. --Gary D 04:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant, POV article. As user Gary D points out, there has been a long debate to establish consensus on the issues surrounding these people and edit wars over this article could conceivably spill over to better articles. Fire Star 06:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I also seriously question the POV of the article, as I haven't seen anything yet that can be taken as proof or evidence that the group in question is an organized group at all, let alone a hate group.  So far the persons contributing most to the article have pointed to court affidavits (which are hardly NPOV themselves) and articles by CESNUR, which itself is also a controversial organization of questionable POV.  As it stands, the article seems an attempt by Prem Rawat's followers to smear his critics.  In addition, the existence of the article Criticism of Prem Rawat is a better attempt to maintain NPOV.  It covers the same subject, making the Ex-Premies article redundant.  --Modemac 10:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I fully concur with Gary_D. (I am Prem Rawat's most persistent and outspoken critic here in Wikipedia.) Disputes are still going on with other articles. Oh, and by the way, I write under my real name. Andries 18:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*Retain and re-write. This need not be redundant. I agree that I could have done a better job making the article more NPOV, and apologize for a clumsy start. But the issues of hate groups is important enough for Wiki to have a section, and there are many people who believe that the Ex-Premie group should be -- to borrow a phrase from them -- exposed to sunlight: always the best disinfectant. The Criticism section of the Rawat article does not detail the methodology of the Ex-Premie group, which, if properly documented, sheds much light on hate groups operating in cyberspace. I implore you, be editors, not censors. (Lexy) Richard G. 21:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Lexy, you might want to talk to Richard about this; he can detail for you the long process that led to the material on the ex-premie group that currently resides in the criticism article. If we were to move forward with this new article (which would probably be under Ex-premie rather than Ex-premies, due to Wikipedia's article naming conventions), you would not get the "exposé of a hate group" that you want. You would not be writing and editing in a vacuum; you would be joined by a number of ex-premies and Rawat critics who will battle you. They will likely bring over large portions of their testimonials and other Internet materials you would find abhorrent for inclusion in the article&mdash;and who could blame them, since it's an article about them? My guess is that after much wrangling and reverting, we would end up with this new article containing just that very same material that is now in the criticism article. Or, perhaps, you would end up seeing an article that is more, not less, sympathetic to the ex-premies than the current material. All this has been done before, all the material you want to include has been offered, debated, and worked through. The results can be seen in the current articles. This proposed new article would only "unleash the dogs of war" for no new benefit. Talk to Richard. I understand what you are after, but it won't work the way you want. It's best to let it go. --Gary D 22:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gary, I agree with you that this can "unleash the dogs of war", but I would argue that if there is any  new and substantial information, It will be a shame not to have it.  Let's give Richard a couple of weeks to see what he can come up with. BTW, I have attempted to NPOV whatever was on the article (not much). --Zappaz 18:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Zappaz, Richard_G/Lexy, can write his possibly new information at talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat, Criticism of Prem Rawat, or Criticism of Prem Rawat/temp1. The article Ex-Premies is about them and should contain facts and reflect their point of view in the first place, so if the article is not deleted soon then I will replace nearly all the information there with a NPOV accurate description of ex-premies. An article with libellous information based on anonymous testimonies is against NPOV guidelines. Andries 19:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not Richard but Lexy, Richard's girlfriend, who's writing, using Richard's account. If we've come across new and substantial information, I am its greatest champion. The problem is that Lexy structured the article as a same ol', same ol' rehash of why the ex-premies should be characterized as a hate group. Looking at its proposed topic headings and initial material, and Lexy's arguments here, the article as created anticipates no new material. I'm frankly skeptical that significant amounts of new material are about to appear: Remember, we have been through weeks if not months of documentation debate, and pretty much all the Internet material in sight (and the ex-premie websites have a bunch) was fine-tooth-combed by both sides at that time. So let's do this: Let's dump/redirect this current article entry (it's improperly pluralized, anyway), and if Lexy actually has new factual material (and of course it would need full citation), let's have her do a raw data dump of that new material on the bottom of the Criticism page or on the Criticism talk page. Both sides can fall on it and prove it out, then we can clean it up and integrate it into the Criticism article. And if she's indeed got substantial new material devoted specifically to the ex-premie group, we can always break it back out into its own article. (Just got the "edit conflict" screen, and it looks like Andries beat me to the compromise punch, LOL) --Gary D 19:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. To put it another way:  if and when we get the new and substantial information first, we can then consider a new article as a place to put it.  To create the new article, structured entirely around a POV interpretation of new and substantial information that has yet to materialize, is getting things in the wrong order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree to Antaeus and Gary's proposal, that is to move the Ex-Premies page to Criticism of Prem Rawat/temp1 and let Lexy work on that. If anything new and substantial shows up, we can create a new article (I think we are already against the 32K limit on Criticism of Prem Rawat article). Lexy: what do you say? --Zappaz 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are you calling that "Antaeus and Gary's proposal"? it's certainly not mine and reading Gary's comments, it doesn't look like his either.  In fact, I clearly stated that to create a new article structured around a POV interpretation and then wait for new and substantial information to show up to justify it was the wrong order.  That is my opinion whether the article is located at Ex-Premies or Criticism of Prem Rawat/temp1.


 * What was proposed was that if Lexy has new and substantial information on the subject, Criticism of Prem Rawat/temp1 would be one possible place to present it so that it can be evaluated, and then if it really does turn out to be new, substantial, factual information, at that time we can make a decision on whether to split Criticism of Prem Rawat, and how. To retain the hugely biased Ex-Premies as a base for future development, on the presumption that something will show up to justify its insistent POV (that didn't show up in any previous discussions at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat) is not just counting your chickens before they've hatched, it's planning how to spend the prize money for the Best Egg-Layer award before you've even purchased a hen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Woah! Antaeus, what is the problem...? We are talking about the same thing: If there is new and substantial material, we can all, in consensus, decide if and were to place it. I would encourage all editors here to take it a bit easier. This is polarized enough already... --Zappaz 15:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your proposal counts on Lexy providing new, substantial information that will justify the existence of an "Ex-Premies" article, and that furthermore we know enough about what that new information will be that we can write the article in advance, starting with the conclusion that the Ex-Premies are an organized hate group and waiting for the facts to come in to be slotted into that interpretation. Only if that premise holds true does what you described as my proposal (keep the article and wait for new information) actually come close to matching, at least in the long run, what my proposal actually was (delete the article, and if new information arises, regard creation of a new article as one possible place to put it.)  I am irked that you are describing a course of action I recommended against as my proposed course of action.


 * Perhaps you would understand better if the article under discussion was Criminal acts of Prem Rawat and the argument was advanced that, instead of waiting until we had substantial and verified information about Prem Rawat committing criminal acts, we kept the article around alleging that Prem Rawat had committed numerous criminal acts and simply waited for the day when those allegations would be substantiated. I would oppose that article for the same reason I oppose this one.  Are you going to oppose both, or only the one whose POV you disagree with? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Antaeus, the article in question is not called The ex-premie hate group, just Ex-premies and after my attempt to NPOV it, what was left there is already available on other articles. In any case, we are talking about more or less the same thing: If I have not made it clear before, please note that I agree to the deletion of the current article (or to move it to a temp page somewhere) and when Lexy is ready to propose the contents we can all have a look and decide.  Lexy can, if she wants, create a temp article in Richard's user page and develop the article there. I would encourage myself and others to cool off and dissipate some of the evident animosity around here. We can surely do better in that respect. --Zappaz 20:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * well, away with it. i did translate both main articles into german because i trusted in the agreement we have had about it. Now i see this here, seeing zappaz postualting "give him/her some weeks". He/she can have month IMO, but not here. If the promised new material and evidence is there, create the article then. Having another article with the terms "ex-premies hate-group rawat" serves only one purpose and is IMO a massive abuse of wikipedia. Thomas h 20:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thomas:The Ex-Premies article has been already NPOVed and these hate group terms removed. So, please lower the volume and pay attention to your spelling instead :) . --Zappaz 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Off-topic, thanks for those translations, Thomas! --Gary D 20:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, you are welcome. That is what i wanted to do from the start, but i got carried away in the hustle. It was Zappaz who reminded me, and i thought that this is the right thing to do. So thanks to Zappaz also, for this one.Thomas h 21:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect to where ex-premie redirects: Criticism of Prem Rawat. -Sean Curtin 00:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * RETAIN. Please retain the entry "Ex-premies" under the hate group category. There is ample evidence which shows that the activities of people associated with this group conform to guidelines listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

Examples of their internet posts advocating physical violence can be viewed at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm and http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm

Examples of open expressions of hate towards Prem Rawat (maharaji) and people who practice the 'Knowledge' he teaches can be found in the pages listed above and also at http://www.jimheller.info

Examples of historically inaccurate and misleading information disseminated by the Ex-premie group via their various web sites, and replies to their allegations can be found at http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/0/ and also at http://www.one-reality.net/letter2.htm

There are many examples of ex-premie forum posts and internet propaganda articles which are intended to demonize or dehumanize Prem Rawat and his students. Racial slurs such as "the brown rat and white mole" (references to Prem Rawat and his wife) are examples.

I have met two people who have been subjected to actual harassment by listed members of the ex-premie group, and I have viewed evidence of those acts of harassment. In both cases, the victims have asked to remain anonymous to reduce the risk of further harassment.

Ex-premies claim to be a minority that speaks for a silent majority. The claim is incorrect. In more than 7 years of activity, the ex-premie group has managed to elicit about 160 written expressions of support (as listed in the alphabetical index of ex-premies in the EPO web site). Less than 20 of those people are believed to be active participants. By comparison, hundreds of thousands of people around the world practice Knowledge as taught by Prem Rawat and/or enjoy watching his events via video or free-to-air TV and satellite broadcasts. These days, with increasing popularity, exact numbers are difficult to determine. Thanks, James R -- Note: This vote represents User:James R's only edits.


 * RETAIN for sure. The ex-premie hate group against Prem Rawat have been found to be patently dishonest and they are prepared to break the law to further their bogus claims against the EV group which supports Mr Rawat's work. These are people who did not practice what they spent years preaching about, perhaps now they languish in a limbo land of emptiness and bitter regrets so their sermons have taken on dark overtones. They think they are on a mission every bit as world shattering as when they proclaimed the merits of their teacher and his teachings. There are volumes of evidence (if internet forum messages are considered evidence) to substantiate the claim that these people are every bit as insidious as other online hate groups like the pretend neo fascists and proud but ineffective racist groups. Sadly, these people do not support the growth of the human spirit and the freedom to pursue whatever spiritual journey is comfortable and inspiring for the individual. They actively criticise people who enjoy the form of inner peace and fulfilment which their former teacher offers and they have tried to harrass and intimidate people attending Mr Rawat's speaking events. They do not want anyone to enjoy what they could not, simplicity and joy. They have contacted centres booked for engagements and have attempted to persuade the building managers from allowing meetings to take place. This is despicable behaviour in anyone's language. There should be a definitive public record of this group and their antics, not the least for lawyers to peruse in their brief to bring these people to justice when they break the law. Hate groups are particularly distateful at this time in our history when it is paramount that understanding, acceptance and a respect for the choices of others be honoured. The ex-premie hate group exhibit none of these characteristics. No person of sound mind and calm manner would have a NPOV about them. The idea of a balanced debate (related below) is perfectly ludicrous. How can a balance ever be reached with people who defend those who are provably unbalanced? -- Note: This vote represents all of User:Truegrit's edits so far.


 * RETAIN. I've lurked here for a while. I've read material on the Rawat page, the Ex-Premie web page and elsewhere. GaryD and Modemac aren't quite right, IMHO. The Ex-Premies claim to be a viable, substantial group. If you look at the discusion pages on the Criticism of Rawat page, one of their leaders, John Brauns, keeps downplaying their size and scope when it looks like they are accused of being a group, but when it comes to emphasizing the strength of their allegations, they insist on speaking for many people. Can't have it both ways.

Moreover, Zappis and others have it right. Show the facts. Modemac is right in demanding facts to support the thesis that the Ex-Premies are a hate group, but there is a lot of evidence that can be shown. And someone here rasied the "question" about the affidavit being "evidence." That's EASY. In this case, the affidavit was accepted by the court, and the ex-premie attempt to have it withdrawn and substituted with a recanted version was EXPLICITY rejected in a JUDGE"S RULING. That stuff can (and should) be shown here.

Look: more information is always better. There is tons of stuff people ought to know about the Ex-Premies that they have taken GREAT PAINS to hide. None of it appears on their web site. The public has a RIGHT to see ALL SIDES in a public issue. Look at all the facts then decide. Writing this in NPOV is a challenge but do-able. LET THE SUN SHINE IN! Lexy is right: be editors, NOT CENSORS DynamoHumm 18:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- Note: This vote represents User:DynamoHumm's only edits.

Delete I agree that in a disputed area like this, pages should only be created by spliting off information from existing pages, were the parties involved in the dispute can see the information and work on it first. The page currently(01:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)) does not seem to contain any new information that is not on other pages(I may be wrong about this, I am not involved with this area of Wikipedia), so no information would be lost be deleting it. JesseW 01:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.