Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

---

Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

---

Removed libelous statements

As per Wikipedia policies I have removed libelous statements. See WP:RS#In_biographies_of_living_persons and WP:LIBEL ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted pending the outcome of the RFC on the main article. Jossi, they are listed as allegations and complaints by the critics and are not libel. Please don't edit the article in such a major way until neutral parties have had time to help us resolve disputes. Thanks. Sylviecyn 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of these statements, I would argue that it is safter to delete these and only re-add them later once it is established that these are not defamatory. See WP:LIBEL. I kept the some of the material that is criticsm and not defamatory. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that these libelous statements have not been published by any reputable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pending the result of the rfc, I'll agree to let your last edit stand but only for now. I don't see any reason to get into a revert war. Sylviecyn 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to edit this article to reflect the Wiki policy on the opinions of "insignificant minorities".Momento 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, facts are facts, not "opinions", the truth is not a matter of opinion. Second, statements made by the "ex-premie" group clearly represent the majority view of Rawat. Comparing an underestimate of the number of known names of critics who have posted on the internet with a claimed number of active followers does not show anything. What about all those who no longer follow him? They "left" him for a reason. What about those who have had some exposure to him and dismissed him as shallow or a fraud and never followed him? They vastly outnumber his active followers.Inserted by 69.251.176.184

For your interest 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". The viewpoint of the "ex-premie" group represents .001% of people who practice the techniques of Knowledge and .0001% of people who have heard PR speak. As for the argument about those who no longer practice, you may as well say that since the number of people who have tried to give up smoking and failed is larger than the number who have tried and succeeded, indicates that most people prefer to smoke.Momento 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Object to blanket statements by Momento that ex-premies are insignificant minority. Your statistical study as described isn't scientific, nor valid. Besides, what Wales says doesn't necessarily make it official Wiki policy, or does it? Is Wikipedia a top to bottom hierarchy, and where is the consensus conversations that make the above policy? I will revert any mass deletions on this article and unjustified revisions based on the flawed statistical outcome by Momento and Jossi that calls ex-premies insignificant minority. Sylviecyn 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The figures on active followers comes from a reputable (Brigham Young University) third party source and is therefore valid as far is Wiki is concerned and the "ex-premie" sites provide there own evidence (and for Wiki purposed may not exist).

From the Official Wiki policy on original research - "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up". From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". If you don't want to abide by Wiki policy, you should not edit. The opinions expressed by the "ex-premie" group are nothing but orginal research. Please accept Wiki policy and do not try to edit any PR article's to insert the"ex-premie" POV.Momento 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dial down your hostility towards me and please don't accuse me of not abiding by the Wikipedia policies. Please also don't place yourself in the position of deciding or judging whether or not I should or shouldn't be a Wiki editor, and please focus on the subject of this article, not me.

EPO is not original research, because the media has reported on ex-premies on many occasions, and ex-premies have an extremely high Google rankng. Your argument about the unsuitability of the media coverage was discussed by Pjacobi and he dismissed your complaints about it as invalid. I believe that's on the PR talk page. This article was created by Jossi that's titled "Criticism of Prem Rawat." This is an ancillary article. Also, could you please provide exact quotes and numbers from the Brigham Young study. There's no need to paraphrase, if the research can be directly quoted, and in this case, it's warranted. Also, it's not libel if it's true. Thank you. Sylviecyn 10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since replying to your criticsm of me is seen as hostility, I will refrain from replying.Momento 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Material for articles need to be sourced from reliable sources. Large sections of the material is not. In addition, I do not see the need for describing legal battles, in particular as these have not been described by secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I will trim that section considerably next week, unless reliable secondary sources are produced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article trimmed down to exclude all sources not considered reliable sources and all material that is based solely on primamry sources and not reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi, I removed the "critical of the critics" links as the original article already has them, and has no "critics" links. Utilising the 'good for the goose, good for the gander' rule of editing StopItTidyUp 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. In any case that section will be trimmed as well as stated above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of defamatory statements and two proposed edits

1. I have removed statements attributed to Mishler regarding purported anxiety and use of alcohol. As previously discussed in the PR talk pages, Mishler had no medical qualifications and was not qualified to make any assessment or diagnosis regarding anxiety. The statements are defamatory and violate Wikipedia policy.

2. Comments from an article by psychologist, Jan van der Lans, about Prem Rawat's private live in the 1970s are based on no factual evidence, and are likely to be defamatory, thus violating Wikipedia policy. He claims that details of Mr Rawat's private life were "known only to a small circle of insiders." Van der Lans was not one of those insiders, and provides no citations to support his opinions. The Van der Lans paragraph should be removed.

3. The title of the article is Criticism of Prem Rawat. Quotes from Saul V. Levine's article, Life in Cults, refer to public perception of Divine Light Mission, not to Prem Rawat. Moreover, his article was inaccurate and hopelessly out of date at the time of publication. DLM ceased to exist 6 years before his article was published, and with the possible exception of DLM in Canada there was no "membership" as he claims. With the exception of those living in ashrams prior to 1983, people associated with DLM were not "expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco meat, and sex" as he claims. References to Levine and his article should therefore be removed. --Gstaker 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be no objections to the proposed edits. I have removed the Van der Lans and Levine paragraphs. --Gstaker 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored them, since it is your removal of cited information and not its presence which violates Wikipedia policy. You as a reader may decide that you don't believe X, or Y, or Z, to be qualified to make statements about your guru. That's fine. You as a reader may decide that you aren't going to believe anything said by X, or Y, or Z. That's fine. But that does not give you right nor reason to decide as an editor that that material will be wholly removed from the article, thus depriving other readers of the opportunity you had, to read both sides and make up their own mind. You throw around the word "defamatory" quite casually but do not meet the burden of proof for that claim. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Antaeus. However, you are wrong on three points, moreover, you have made no attempt to address my reasons for removal of contentious material.

1. With regard to the issue of defamation, this web site is not a court room: I am not required to meet any "burden of proof" as you claim. However, I have provided ample justification for the removal of contentious claims that may be defamatory. "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The claim by Mishler is poorly sourced. Other reasons for removal are stated above. It is wise, I think, to keep in mind the following statement by the founder of this site. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

2. You claim that I am "depriving other readers of the opportunity you had, to read both sides and make up their own mind." The problem with this is that both sides are not presented in the article. Readers are not given the necessary background information and are, therefore, unable to make an informed decision. See my reasons for removal.

Regarding Van der Lans, your point about removal of cited material is moot because the article itself provides no citation or supporting evidence of any kind. Van der Lans' claims are malicious and are likely to be defamatory. For those reason the paragraph should be removed. Also, please refer to additional points above.

And as I have already stated above, the title of the article is Criticism of Prem Rawat. Quotes from Saul V. Levine's article, Life in Cults, refer to public perception of Divine Light Mission, not to Prem Rawat. Therefore, this material has no place in the article.

3. You do not know me. Do not make assumptions about me. You claim that I have a guru and imply that I am editing merely for the purpose of removing derogatory material about P R. You are wrong on both counts. I do not have a guru, and I have edited within Wikipedia's guidelines to remove contentious material that is probably defamatory and detracts from the quality of the article. --Gstaker 03:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for re-iterating your previously stated reasonings, Gstaker. However, I am afraid that you are still making the same basic errors -- if you are going to allege that cited information from a reliable source should be removed on the grounds that it is "defamatory", then yes, the burden of proof is on you to show that it meets that standard. So far you have only presented reasonings why you choose to believe this information is not well-grounded, and frankly they aren't convincing. For example, you try to assert that Van der Lans' assessment of Prem Rawat is unreliable because "the article itself provides no citation" -- and then you turn around and state as a fact that Van der Lans' claims are "malicious", an issue that you have not addressed previously and for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your other points, such as your idea that apparently this article would have to be titled "Criticism of Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission" in order to include any information about the organization which Prem Rawat has led since 1966, are similarly unconvincing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission was disbanded 23 years ago as corroborated by sources (see Divine Light Mission). While I agree that these are possibly valid citations, the issue raised by Gstaker has some validity as it pertains to context. Van der Lans wrote that article by request of a religious organization, the KSGV, that according to their website "publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health, undertaking its activities from a Christian inspiration", and thus most probably biased against any type of non-Christian beliefs. Given that Van der Lans does not provide any sources for his own assertions, one may argue that his motives may have been dubious. Context is needed to provide the reader with the necessary information to put Van der Lans assertions in context to his possible bias. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I would definitely put that information in. That way, people have the opportunity to read both sides and say, "Gee, I think Van der Lans might have been biased by the fact that he was writing for a Christian religious organization, so I don't think I believe what he says" just as you and Gstaker have done. Of course, they might also say "Van der Lans wrote what he wrote about Prem Rawat as one part of a larger book about followers of gurus, and out of all the gurus Van der Lans wrote about, Prem Rawat was apparently the only one he judged to be a charlatan," and that's as it should be -- we provide the evidence that explains for the reader why various parties believe as they do, and we let them decide which they believe. As for the Divine Light Mission disbanding in 1983, well, I believe that is also an issue under some dispute, isn't it? Whether the change from "Divine Light Mission" to "Elan Vital" was an actual change in substance or simply an attempt to change image? Even if you believe it was the former, it's still the organization that Prem Rawat led for 17 years, and to artificially exclude any criticism of Prem Rawat based on how he led that organization for 17 years based on the fact that its name is not in the title is quite misguided. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody who writes about religion is devoid of bias, but Jan van der Lans was generally quite lenients about cults. In the cited book he wrote that he had to defend himself against attacks from people who thought that he defended the cults. It is untrue that the cited book makes unfair or ignorant criticism of non-Christian religion. If this were the case then I would never have used the book as a source, because I personally dislike the sometimes willingly ignorant criticism by Christians of non-Abrahamic religions. Van der Lans does not provide sources for his assertion, but when reading the news articles then from the 1970s and 1980s that are available on the internet then I think he has very good reason to come to this conclusion. Another article about the DLM by van der Lans and Derks can be found here [1] Andries 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are substantial scholarly sources that describe the disbanding of DLM and the removal of the Indian culture trappings. It was a substantial change as described by all these sources (I do not thinbk that there is a source that describe the disbanding in any other manner). The name change was a formality, but the ashrams, the bureaucracy in Denver and most, if not all organizational trappings were disbanded. So, yes, it may be appropriate to describe criticism of the DLM in the correct context, and avoid making extrapolations to today. AS for your assertions about van der Lans book, I did not know that you read Dutch and that you have read the whole book. Have you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not read Dutch and I have not read the book. However, I don't have any reason to doubt the word of those who do speak Dutch and have read the book and describe its contents as such. Do you have such reason -- something more substantial than a "tone of voice," which leads you to speculate in the absence of any evidence that an article you have seen at best only small pieces of originally appeared in a gossip column? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You may not have any reason to doubt, but one can have suspicions based on previous incidents in the past in which such editor selectively omitted portion of a source on the basis that he considered it not accurate, while citing other portions that were more aligned with his POV. So, yes, I have my doubts. As for my gut feeling about Chip's article, it does not take a rocket scientist to gather from the tone of the article that it may be have appeared in the gossip column. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How many gossip columns does the Washington Post actually run, Jossi? How many of those gossip columns appear on page A1? I highly suspect that you are not talking about the same article as the rest of us -- if you are, I suggest you not make any high-money decisions based on what you can glean from "tone of voice". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If that was not on the gossip column, it very much reads as one. I will get a print copy of that day's newspaper and check it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask the same two questions again: how many gossip columns does the Washington Post have in the first place? and how many of those gossip columns do the editors place on the front page of the paper? A third question: once you have done your redundant check, will you spend anywhere near as many words acknowledging that you were in error as you did promoting your erroneous speculation? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems acknowledging my mistake, Antaeus. The article's tone was indeed of a tabloid, but that may be related to the context of the time in which the article was published. The Washington Post is quite biased as it related to the coverage of the so called "New Religious Movements", if one is to judge from the variety of articles they have published on the subject over the years. Of course, that is only my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear, Jossi: what, exactly, was supposed to matter about the tone of the article? I thought we were talking about some rather simple matters of objective fact: did a particular radio interview occur and did a particular figure make particular statements in that interview? I don't see any plausible way in which a subjective measure such as "tone of voice" could materially affect the objective fact that yes, we do have a major metropolitan newspaper's front-page reportage stating that that interview occurred and the statements in question were made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, you have correctly shown that I cannot prove that Van der Lans' accusation is malicious. That is merely my opinion. I object to the inclusion of VdL's material because it is seriously flawed, and therefore, not reliable, and also because it includes an unsupported accusation (about a living person) which is probably defamatory. You have stated that my reasoning is unconvincing. I will now attempt to explain my reasons in a more clear and succinct way.

1. VdL claims that details of Mr Rawat's private life were "known only to a small circle of insiders." He was not one of those insiders, therefore, he has no first hand knowledge of the subject. 2. VdL does not cite his source. 3. VdL does not provide any evidence to support his allegation. 4. VdL's unsupported allegation may be defamatory.

Also as Jossi has stated, VdL published his unsupported accusation in a publication likely to be biased against PR. For all of these reasons, VdL is an unreliable source.

Of course, we could include VdL, and the above objections because readers should be able to draw their own conclusions. On the same grounds, you could also sprinkle an article on Jewish culture with anti-semitic material written between 1933 and 1945 by apparently reliable German sources. Would you really want to do that? My point is, VdL is NOT a reliable source, moreover, his accusation may be defamatory.

Only a court of law has the power to determine whether or not accusations by VdL and Mishler are defamatory. Both accusations refer to PR's private life, and both are highly critical. They are exactly the type of accusations that could result in a law suit for defamation. Does Wikipedia want to run that risk?

No Antaeus, re-titling the article was not my idea. You suggested it, I didn't. As it is, the title of the article is Criticism of PR. Levine's article does not include any criticism of PR, therefore, it has no place in the article. I do not understand why you are seemingly unable to accept the validity of the points I have raised. --Gstaker 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, reason to be afraid of a lawsuit, because it is based on reliable sources. Andries 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago there was a long discussion about the validity of quoting information that came from the alleged Mishler interview. It became clear that no recording of the interview existed. The so-called transcript of the interview was probably a fake. I have made this clear in section 4. --Errol V 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, because the interview was described in the Washington Post. Andries 13:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The apparently fictitious interview was described in the Washington Post which, like any other tabloid, is a potentially unreliable source. Check out the verifiability page. You will see that I am correct. Andries, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. We seem to be making progress. --Gstaker 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gstaker, describing the Washington Post as a tabloid will not enhance your credibility here. In contrast, I have some understanding for your erroneous criticism of Jan van der Lans' book, because you do not have enough background information to assess this source. Andries 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What kind of answer is that, Andries? If you believe that Gstalker does not have enough information to assess the source, you could at least provide that information. As for your other comment about "enhancing credibility", why saying that? Please don't bite the newbies, and stop making flippant comments about other editors comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I think that my wording was polite and and I did give more information about van der Lans' book. Andries 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I think that you are making flippant comments, not me. Andries 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Well, that say something. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Washington Post, its realizability depends on what portion of the newspaper this was published. That applies to many newspapers, for example on-eds and gossip columns on reputable newspapers are not reliable sources. We wwill need to check who this Chip Brown is and in what part of the WP this was published. Form the tone of voice of that article I will not be surprised if it printed in the gossip column. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will get a copy of Van der Lans and get portions of it translated to check the accuracy of the statements added to this article. I really hope that the provided quote is not a selective one, and the other statements maded about the book to be accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant portion is on page 117 in the book by van der Lans. This comment by Van der Lans is quoted (with a minor misquotation) in the book by Kranenborg. Andries 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg (1982) misquoted van der Lans by writing that "GMJ is the example of a guru who has become a charlatan", while Van der Lans wrote "GMJ is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan."

Andries 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as discussed last year, this is a typical case of circular referencing: Van der Lans makes a spurious statement, citing no sources, and then another Dutch scholar cites him. And then it goes further, a third Dutch scholar, Schnabel, cites them in turn. Oh well... poor scholarship, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, let me return to the interview. There has been no confirmation of the what was said in the interview, and we had this argument in about February this year. It was long and interesting, but what came out of it was that there was no evidence that certain statements were made in the interview. So it is not a legitimate source. So I have reverted, and will continue to do so until such time as the interview can be produced. --Errol V 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the interview. As previously discussed, the source we are using here is a front-page article in the Washington Post which asserted that the interview occurred and asserted that Mishler made particular statements in that interview. Your personal speculations that perhaps no such interview ever happened are original research and irrelevant. Please do not announce your intent to violate Wikipedia policy by continuing to insert that original research into the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Errol, the difference is that during that discussion then I did not know that the interview was also described in the Washington Post. Andries 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

HOW RELIABLE IS THE WASHINGTON POST?

The question of whether or not to include Mishler's allegations hinges, in part, on whether or not Washington Post can be regarded as a reliable source. It took me very little research to uncover substantial evidence that it is not.

Glenn Greenwald describes himself as a "litigator specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters." He is the author of the book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, May 2006

Following the release of his book, he published on the internet a related article, The completely unreliable Washington Post (June 11, 2006) in which he writes:

"I first read the Post article about this proposed legislation, but then found the legislation itself and read it. It was very clear that the Post was simply wrong in what it told its readers on its front page about this significant legislation -- wrong about the legislation's fundamentals.

At least with regard to FISA and NSA matters, I would never rely again exclusively on a Washington Post article."

The Post later published a correction to its front page article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601861.html

A journal article by Pierre Verdaguer A Turn-of-the-Century Honeymoon? the Washington Post's Coverage of France (French Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 21, 2003) refers to "A surprising number of anti-French articles, some of them very disparaging and truly offensive ...." published in the Post and other US tabloids.

The Washington Post has published articles that are both wrong and offensive. It is, therefore, not a reliable source. Moreover, the authenticity of that particular Mishler interview is in doubt (see above). I also note that there appears to be, currently, a majority view that the material should be deleted. In keeping with Wikipedia policy I have again removed the potentially defamatory material attributed to Mishler. --Gstaker 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gstalker, I have restored what you deleted. I appreciate your concern for that material but it needs to be discussed as it may be properly sourced. A newspaper article is considered in most cases, to be a reliable source for claims, depending on several factors. I am checking the source because I have the suspicion that it was not on the front page of the newspaper as stated on the Washington Post website, due to the fact that Chip Brown, the author of the article mostly wrote for the "Style" and "Metro" sections of the newspaper. Although these are not "gossip" columns, they surely more op-eds that anything else. Most probably was on the front page of the "Style" section, but I would be able to verify this once I get a copy of that issue, which I have ordered. In the meantime, I ask other editors to err on the side of caution and remove the material until the source can be verified. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would call removing material because of unverified speculation that it might have been in a location in the newspaper which might signify that it might be less reliable, in the face of the paper's archives clearly stating otherwise and with not one single piece of evidence produced to support any of this speculation, something other than "erring on the side of caution". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I see your point. This material has been there for a while, so it could stay for now. Nevertheless, the reader is not being provided with the necessary context, such as that Mishler was fired as the result of a massive dispute, and that he made the statements a few years after being fired. The reader need to be given context to appreciate that this person may have had a massive ax to grind. So, we need to find sources that position this person's comments, don't you think?. Also note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies, btw). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists. So, context is needed, and we need to endeavor ourselves in finding solid sources that provide that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in my post, Jossi. On one side is all the evidence; on the other side is speculation that defies the evidence, such as your speculation that the paper's archives are mistaken when they identify it twice as a story that ran on the front page of the paper. Asking other editors to remove material based purely on speculations which are contrary to all existing evidence is not "erring on the side of caution". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. No problem, Jossi. "A newspaper article is considered in most cases, to be a reliable source for claims, depending on several factors." I've looked at Wiki's guidelines on this, but will go back and do a very thorough check.

Verifiable facts are generally (but not always) reported accurately by most tabloids. Anything else, editorial opinion for example, is open to doubt. IMO, Disparaging, unverifiable claims, especially those from a hostile source have no place in a reputable work that calls itself an encyclopedia. News sources almost always couch allegations in terms that are non-defamatory. Its a way of passing the buck to avoid litigation. Is the same standard acceptable here? If it is, the standard should be reassessed.

Some time soon I would like to have a closer look at the Levine stuff about DLM. --Gstaker 08:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gstaker, I really don't know where you got your idea that the Washington Post is a tabloid. The term "tabloid" has a literal meaning and a figurative meaning; it does not fit the literal meaning and the figurative meaning means nothing, since it is a term that anyone can apply to any newspaper that they wish was not a reliable source. Now, if you want, you can go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and suggest that the Washington Post be declared as an example of an unreliable source. However, I would not advise you to get your hopes up; I think the response you're more likely to get is that Wikipedia would be making great strides forward if it could bring the average quality of its sources up to the reliability of the Post. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As we have recently seen with the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times, even great newspapers must be treated with caution, particulalry when they, or their reporter, are the only source of the material in question. In the case of Chip Brown's article in the Washington Post, his unique reports of the opinions of Bob Mishler, are "exceptional" and "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources". The claims made by Mishler, that PR engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", and that PR ""had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" are exceptional claims that are not supported by multiple, reliable and verifiable sources as required in all articles, and more specifically in biographies of living people.Momento 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're trying to switch premises in the middle. The claims of the front-page Washington Post article are not exceptional in the least; Jossi has inadvertantly supported them by describing Mishler as a person who would say such things as he has been credited with saying, which was the point that had been, supposedly, in some sort of doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In comparison to every thing else written about PR, Chip Brown's claims of PR "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools" are exceptional. And to my knowledge, these claims are unique to Brown. As such they are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" and according to Wiki policy, "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues". Chip Brown's "unique" effort needs far more corroboration before it can be used in this article.Momento 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read more carefully, because those are not Brown's claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is Brown claiming Mishler claimed. But either way, Mishler's claims or Brown's claim that Mishler claimed, are both exceptional claims that should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable source. They are not.Momento 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is partially irrelevant because the claims by Mishler and Hand documented by Brown in the Washington Post, such as Prem Rawat "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies [...]" etc. that Momento labels exceptional are not in current version of the article. I cannot see why the statement that Prem Rawat had tremendous problems of anxiety that he combatted with alcohol is an exceptional claim. Yes, of course, if you really think that Prem Rawat is a Perfect Master bringing peace then this may sound as an exceptional claim. But I do not think that this or any other Wikipedia articles are based on the assumption that a statement contradicting a religious tenet is an exceptional claim merely because of this contradiction. Andries 12:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the book by Sophia Collier Soul Rush described that Prem Rawat were drinking during Millenium '73. I will try to edit in to deal with your request for multiple reliable references for a claim that you mistakenly label as exceptional. Andries 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said Mishler's statement "that Prem Rawat had tremendous problems of anxiety that he combatted with alcohol" is an exceptional claim. I, and others, have said that Mishler isn't a doctor and therefore his comments, made after he was replaced, need to be treated accord to Wiki policy on biographies of living people. As for PR drinking, any research into Prem Rawat's view on Perfect Masters will soon determine that a Perfect Master can do what he likes. Momento 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Prem Rawat

This article has been trimmed down by Jossi (thanks for doing this) and I think that it is now so small in size that it should be merged with the Prem Rawat article. This was also an advice given during the latest peer review. This article is also listed on Wikipedia:List of POV forks. Andries 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Even with the trim, the main article is already too large. This is not a POV fork as we have an accurate summary of this article in the main article, as per Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:List of POV forks is not any type of "official" list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I knew all this, but still I think that "criticism of ..." articles should be merged whenever reasonably possible. I do understand that this is not practically possible for large articles or potentially large articles, such as criticism of Islam, criticism of religion, criticism of Christianity but in this case I do think that it is very well possible and hence should be done. Andries 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andries. I will take some time to think about it and wait to see what others think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)