Talk:Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • 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)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)

I gather from 'The Register' that Jossi Fresco a supporter of Mr Gee and his cult is no longer with Wikipedia:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/fresco_retires_from_wikipedia/

Does this mean that there can now be some honest material about the cult and it's leader, warts and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions 2

This is a mature article and every paragraph is the result of discussion and consensus. It's unhelpful for editors to just delete stable, sourced material without any prior discussion. I reverted one recent set of deletions,[1] and I expect that the material won't be changed again without consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does any object to removing the text in bold, which I believe is irrelevant and therefore redundant to the incident which is a suitcase was seized, DLM/Rawat investigated, no charges laid and govt apologizes.

"On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash, jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared.Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts. The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas were investigated by the Indian government. In June, 1973 while the investigation was still under way, Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond before he could leave the country. Charges were never filed, and the Indian government issued an apology.

Thanks.Momento (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object to part of that deletion. Although no charges were laid, the matter is nonetheless notable and significant. Notable because it was widely noted. Both scholars and journalists have reported on this incident. Rawat's travel schedule was interrupted when he couldn't leave the country for six months, the matter was discussed in Parliament and PM Gandhi took an interest in the case. Rawat's own PR team identified it as one of the things for which he was best known. So the overall matter was significant. As for the details highlighted above, the estimates of values give the matter necessary context. Momento is the editor who added, five weeks ago, the quotation "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.”. [2] I don't think it's necessary and if he now wants to delete it don't object. In fact, I think it's a good idea. But please keep the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find PR's quote the most (and possibly the only) interesting thing about this incident, as presumably also did the newspaper that published it. What it adds to the otherwise rather uninteresting report is a great illustration of the optimism, confidence and enthusiasm of the young, relatively naive Maharaj Ji and a glimpse of his actual views about what happened, namely that his mission had survived an attack from jealous opponents. What a great image...and how true... all premies shared his assurance that the Truth was now 'blasting like an atomic bomb all over the world'. The potent 'atomic bomb' image graphically tells readers just how powerful he felt when faced with such 'attempts'. I don't see the value in removing all the first-hand colour from PR's history all the time like this. The only argument Momento presents for the excision of the quote is that it is 'irrelevant and redundant to the incident' but I beg to disagree. I fear that without such quotes this article will further devolve into a drab sea of long fought over, highly selective facts. Therefore I vote for the quote to stay!80.4.202.68 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a mystery what newspaper published this. The citation says "THE TIMES SATURDAY NOVEMBER 19 1972". However there's nothing in the archive of the Times of London for that day about Maharaj Ji. Could Momento please provide a more detailed citation? Which Times is this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

80.4.202.68 you are welcome here. You might like to log in with a username so we can communicate better. Will, I think the only person who considers this article mature and consensed right now might be you. To me it has a long, long way to go and needs considerable further shortening, before it reaches that hallowed point. Rumiton (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost every paragraph in this article is the result of long discussion. The article is not undergoing major shifts. So yes, I do think it's mature and consensed. Rumiton doesn't explain why he wants the article shorter; it's a reasonable length now. We could spin off the leadership or reception sections, if desired, but we'd still need to leave summaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is shorter and better now. After Collect's fine blue pencil-work it has gone from morbid obesity to mere flabbiness. I shall continue to remove repetitions and trivialities as I see them and to hope that no-one else adds any more fluff. The Leadership section still reads like an argument between drunken undergraduate sociologists. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss any significnat changes before making them. As for the Leadership section, you wrote it along with Jossi, Momento, and Frances. All four of you agreed to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop saying that? I wrote none of it, I tried to edit it to make it clearer but failed, as the meanings of the original writers were never clear in the first place. This section is an unnecessary hodge-podge that adds nothing of value to the article. I never agreed to it before and don't now. And removing an accidentally duplicated sentence is like taking out a comma. Demanding it be discussed beforehand seems like pedantry. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, you weren't one of the drafters. You did agree to the material, but with the objection that you don't like any sociologists. In any case, it achieved a consensus of editors including you, Jossi, Momento, and Frances. We should respect that consensus until a new one is formed. I'm not "demanding" discussion before fixing obvious errors, I'm asking for discussion prior to any significant changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all I have (the noting of the currency in pounds suggests it's the The Times of the UK) but there's also "Nov 15, 1972 - ... just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world. The mission claims a ing of 5 million in this country and nearly in the United States in...From European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - November... - European Stars And Stripes ($$)

8 THE TIMES SATURDAY NOVEMBER 19 1972

India investigates guru's finances Delhi, Nov 13.-The Indian Government is investigating a religious movement headed by a 14-year-old guru who is India's latest spiritual export to the West, authoritative sources said today. The sources said Mrs Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, has taken a personal interest, in her capacity as head of all intelligence agencies, in the controversy over Guru Maharaj Ji, known to his devotees as “Lord of the Universe”, "Prince of Peace" and "The Perfect Master." One senior member of the Government said that Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Mission operates, including the United States and Britain, have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. The Government, he said, wants to determine whether the mission is violating Indian law, particularly regarding restrictions on Indian nationals having bank accounts and capital assets abroad. The controversy began when the guru returned to India last Tuesday in a jumbo jet filled with 350 American disciples, and a suitcase containing an officially estimated $65,000 (about £27,000) in money, watches and jewels. The customs impounded the suitcase while the investigation was going on. Mr Arthur Brigham, from Denver, Colorado, director of the movement's large public relations division, said the money was to be used for meeting the local travel and food expenses of about 3,000 Western devotees, mostly from the United States, who came to India in seven chartered Boeing 747s to meditate. In an interview, the guru denied any personal connexion with the suitcase. When he went through the customs at Delhi airport he told the inspectors He had nothing to declare. "It was nothing to do with me", he said of the controversy. "It is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” The mission claims a following of five million in India and nearly 40,000 in the United States, 10,000 in Europe, 6,000 in Britain and 600 in Japan. A high Government source said it was unlikely there would be any prosecution of the guru. But he said the Government was concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad. Mr Brigham, however, said all money received by the mission had come from private donations. - AP.Momento (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find this info? That might shed some light on the matter. As I mentioned, it doesn't appear in the archives of the Times of London. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From the source of all good things [[3]]. There is also an article that suggests that the Indian customs were tipped off from the US and that religious leaders met and declared Rawat was 22.Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, www.ex-premie.org. Yes, that is a very useful source for research materials. I'll email the webmaster to ask if he has any additional info on that article. Should we add anything about the age disputes? They seem to have come up repeatedly. Even the judge who granted permission to marry said he thought the subject seemed older. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

hey guys, long time no see. Will, I'm guessing that "The Times" here would likely be the Times of India. Unfortunately, their online search tool extends back only to 2001, but perhaps someone has access to older archives.Msalt (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that when the article relies on scholars' views it is succinct. When it relies on the media it is fat with trivia. In this case, the value is disputed, if what Rawat says is interesting, why limit ourselves to just a few quotes, the DLM spokesman is irrelevant. Why not leave the important facts and jettison the rest?Momento (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You added the "atomic bomb" quote, then you deleted it and said it was irrelevant and redundant, now you say it's interesting. I'm confused - do you want to keep the quotation or delete it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As the article improves (shortens), material that was previously OK becomes unnecessary and should be deleted.Momento (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we need still the NPOV tag in this article? I see discussions here related to improvements but that can be dealt in the normal editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag and "normal" editing aren't exclusive. Anyway, Francis added it so he's the one to ask. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see him participating much, and if there are any remaining POV issues these can be presented and discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Many folks are busy during the holiday season. If there are still POV issues the tag can be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting-looking Italian article

My Italian is too basic to make much headway but maybe someone else can tell us what this is about? [[4]] Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Google translates the title as "Agrigento: pacifist Maharaji guest of honor at Almond Flower Festival".[5] So it appears to be another "keys to the city"-type event. Per discussions here, Rawat is not a pacifist, so that's either an error or a mistranslation. The text appears to use the formula "Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji," which is standard in Rawat's press releases. What about it looks interesting? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have used an on-line translator myself, but people who have worked in the field know that they are useless for anything beyond nursery rhymes. Can any Italian speaker help us with some insight into this article? Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" - into Russian and back became "The wine's ok, but the meat is spoiled." (anecdotal) I am unsure as to the wisdom of using any foreign language sources in any BLPs at all -- minor nuances once lost can not be regained. I think "pacifista" translates better as "peace-loving" than as "pacifist" with its political overtones. Collect (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikifriends, if this may help, in Spanish "pacifista" is a political term, "pacífico" is rather peaceful than pacifist, Spaniards called the Pacific Ocean pacific when they saw it first on a peaceful day on the beach, I am sure when they had to cross it through a storm they thought about the name. In Italian I suppose it is the same. I agree with Rumiton (this time not because we are both premies, but because we are both translators) that it is risky to use foreign languages when it is virtually impossible to know even your mother tongue completely. I have another translator's joke about semantics.

A man booked a "spiritual holiday" with a travel agency of alternative holidays, when he got there he saw everybody drunk, asked where was the spiritual holiday and they said: "Of course this is a spiritual holiday, we are drinking spirits." The reason why I like this joke is probably because I made it up.

A little humor from time to time will give this discussion page a better atmosphere. We may create an International Prem's Discussion Page Humor Award for the editor with the best humor. Ironic jokes admitted only if in mild forms.

If it may also help in the subject, Yogananda says it is an obligation to love your country and that someone who does not love his country cannot love God, but countries should not attack others. It is legitimate and morally compulsory to resist and fight injustice, and to defend one's country from outer attack and to participate in "just wars", but he admits this may be difficult to know in certain cases, and in case of doubt reccommends to consult a wise and respected guru. So this seems to agree more with peaceful than with pacifist.

This seems to be the traditinal yoga doctrine, and everything I have heard Prem say along many years is classical yoga doctrine, but in a simple vocabulary that even a child may understand. Some "scholar" calls it therefore "banal" in Prem's biography, perhaps he finds children banal and/or anything not in expressed in sophisticated intellectual or technical jargon, we do not know his definition of "banal". He should explain in 2008 why a banal message has had an increasing audience of intellectuals ever since he said that. But he was not a prophet, only an intellectual. Prem's joke about intellectuals: "An intellectual is a person who always thinks he is right and the other guy is wrong, even when the other guy says the same". I like it a lot. Of course there are humble intellectuals too, it is only a joke.

I have never heard Prem say anything about politics, except that the problem is not politics itself, but how it is carried out. I am pleased to take the opportunity to wish YOU all Merry Xmas and a prosperous, best ever year 2009.--Pedrero (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't see anything noteworthy about one Italian newspaper -- whose background is not known -- calling Rawat a peacemaker, even if that is a correct translation (which is not certain). Can any one explain how that is not simple promotion of Rawat? Imagine if the Elie Wiesel page listed every time he was called something positive like that. It would be 500 megabytes in length. I'm inclined to remove that line.Msalt (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be notable, just verifiable. If you want to shorten the article I suggest you start with the numerous sentences about money in the "Coming of age" section. It's way over the top.Momento (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal physician

I have always wondered about this. No doubt reputable sources say so, but it seems a strange thing to me for a private doctor to go public in this way with his patient's medical history. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of this subject's life isn't unusual? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The physician may still be active. I see this from 18 months ago: "A Message of Peace: The Wisdom of Prem Rawat - Guest Speaker: Dr. John Horton". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many aspects of Prem Rawat's life that lie far outside the norm, but this example still makes me uncomfortable. I checked, and confidentiality is not just advisable for practitioners, it is mandatory. See [[6]]. If Prem Rawat was the victim of indiscreet public statements by his physician, then Wikipedia should not perpetuate this. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that he talked to the press without the knowledge or approval of his patient. We have no evidence of that. It's more logical to assume that he was acting as a spokesman. Regardless, the diagnosis has been so thoroughly publicized that it's a part of the subject's life story. It's not our job to suppress widely reported information. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It may appear "more logical" that he was a spokesman, but it's still an assumption. On the face of it he released his opinion on his patient's state of health in defiance of medical etiquette. I can't think of any reason why PR (or anyone else) would want information like that released. He did not cancel any speaking engagements because of health problems. Anyway, there are more important areas to look at in this article. Rumiton (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, ther is a properly sourced reference for this point. IMHO, it's up to you to show evidence that it's not proper, or it should stay. Others have provided substantial evidence that Horton remains an authorized spokesman for Rawat.Msalt (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a source for Rawat cancelling two engagements, one in Atlanta and one on the Dick Cavett Show, in the month between the Detroit incident and the hospitalization. It doesn't say why the events were canceled, though.   Will Beback  talk  17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, there are plenty of times when celebrities give permission to their doctors to release information to the press about their health status when they are hospitalized. They do this in order to stop the press's rumor mill from speculating about their health. My guess is that the press knew Rawat was admitted to a hospital, (easy to find that out) so Dr. Horton spoke to the press with permission. Btw, Dr. Horton was also the doctor to the ashram premies when a couple hundred of us (DECA, DLM full-timers, and many instructors/mahatmas) lived in the Broadripple Hotel Ashram (Dr. Horton lived there too) during the B707 project in 1979-81ish. I got to know Dr. Horton at the time because I saw him for some of my own medical issues back them. He was a always an honorable professional, based on my assessments then. I don't think Dr. Horton would have said anything to the press without Maharaji's explicit permission. In fact, it's illegal for any any American doctor to disclose personal medical information without their patient's permission, and I can't imagine John Horton doing that. It's legally confidential information second only to a lawyer/client privilege. I hope this assuages your concerns. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, I don't see it as a big deal. Glad you had a good interaction with the doctor. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 41.223.60.60

Wikipedia article links must meet the same standards as the sources we use. The site you are trying to link to is self-published and anonymous, and appears to exist only to denigrate the subject of this Living Biography. It falls far short of Wikipedia standards for a reputable source. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. This issue was discussed extensively here and resolved some time ago. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, you know very well that ex-premie.org is not anonymously webmastered, and that the authors of ALL the substantive information on Prem Rawat are NOT anonymous. Also, it is a site providing information, NOT an attack site. Do not use these talk pages to further your propaganda. As the webmaster of the site I believe the link should be included, but I will allow others to argue the case if they choose to do so. Also, I have undone one of your 'tweak' edits. 'Universally' is an absolute, so something cannot be 'more universally accepted'. 'Broadly' was fine. --John Brauns (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem with "broadly" but we both know very well that most of the contributors to your website are pseudonymous. They express their views with no editorial control and face no legal redress. They have no working reputation to lose if what they write is challenged. Therefore the site does not meet the standards of a reputable source. This is not my "propaganda"; judgement on the issue was made definitively. I will go through the archives to find the threads if needed. As a matter of interest, did you amend your site to include the "information" I gave you re various situations at Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing my forum, where about half the contributors are anonymous, with ex-premie.org, where no one but myself and Jean-Michel Khan can update, and where I do not allow any substantive allegation against Prem Rawat that is from an anonymous source, and without corroboration. Is it possible you haven't actually read the site? Anyway, your comments about Amaroo were fairly trivial, and as you are anonymous, I couldn't include the information anyway. --John Brauns (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that the opinions or statements of any ex-premies websites or organizations and of people like Bob Mischler should be in Prem's biography. They may be considered hate groups who say nothing about Prem and a lot about themselves. Wikipedia should be above all that or include hate groups statements in ALL biographies and articles of religious or spiritual nature. Same rule for all, please.--Pedrero (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, I am not arguing for the link to my site to be included, so you can relax. But please do not use this site to make false personal attacks against me such as saying I am in a 'hate group'. I am not by any accepted definition of the term. If there is content on my site that you think is inaccurate, please write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. This is not the place for such discussions. --John Brauns (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you do want your site to express the truth, will you post a short article written by me (real-life name used) which contains easily verifiable information on Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk (corrected email address). --John Brauns (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will gather some facts and prepare a short article. Rumiton (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I have no problem in removing discussions that do not relate to article improvements but make sure you do not allow false statements to remain unchallenged. --John Brauns (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ex premie.org restored in moderated form

The arguments regarding the inclusion of Ex premie.org [7] in the external links section, have failed to address relevant WP policy and guidelines – these are the only basis for reasoned discussion on this talk page – particularly given the ongoing probation status of the article.

The term Attack site WP:BADSITES does not apply and the description attack site in respect of Ex premie.org is confusing at best and its further use on this talk page could be considered deliberate WP:UNCIVIL

The operative guideline is Wikipedia:External links WP:EL and all further discussion on the Ex premie.org external link should be based on that document. As an acknowledgement of the continuing debate I have set the link in plain text as suggested at [[8]] however as Ex premie.org clearly meets the tests under What_should_be_linked [[9]]notably:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

there is a burden upon those that oppose the inclusion of the Ex.premie.org link, to make a reasoned argument why the link should not be a live one, rather than just saying they don’t like it. Failure to to act reasonably will inevitably require action under the article probation arrangements.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

- I think that Nik Wright2 is right. The link to Ex-Premie.org should be a hyperlink. Having a hyperlink to the homepage of someone who is frequently called a 'cult leader', and a plain text link to the detractors threatens the unbiased position of a wikipedia article. The article should include both sides of the issue for those who are interested in learning more. Tom renault (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by all this! The article in 'The Register' that led me to all this seemed to suggest that the person who'd been forcing the Mr Gee article to be all positive and excluding any factual information that he thought wasn't positive enough had removed himself after being found out as a supporter. It seems from all the above that there are other partisan supporters doing the same thing to the page. Would it be better to exclude, altogether, articles about cult leaders if it they are sending cult members to beautify them? What happens when an innocent person, directed from, say, cultwatch, to here finds a hagiography? It is one thing to find gush and flim-flam on cult site, but surely wikipaedia should be for articles about genuinely significant people that are objective? I agree that, reading some of the detail of the discussions last year, much of the nature of this particular cult leader becomes clear - but certainly not from the article itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you know about this subject is what you read in the Register, you'll be more than a bit confused. I will respond to the other issues tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted undiscussed edit by User:Pongostick--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed and decided months/years ago. You're welcome to have another discussion about but until Wiki changes it's policy or you can find consensus to make an exception to this article stop making disruptive edits.Momento (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your vandalisation of the article. How on earth you can see removing vandalism as disruptive, I can't imagine. I'm not confused by the Register. It seems that it, and wikipaedia are showing exactly the same thing, this article is being controlled by cult members. This seems quite wrong. I suggest that the entire article, and connected ones, are put in a delete area until there can be agreement on an honest way forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of intense discussions, numerous RFCs and several arbitrations and the end result is that the only link that has been accepted for over 12 months is Prem Rawat's personal website. You may think that anti-links should be allowed on BLPs but the Wikipedia community disagrees.Momento (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento your response is spurious, none of the things you quote has anything substantive on whether or not the words 'ex premie.org' or a live link to Ex premie. org can appear on the PR article page. If you believe that previous discussions have arrived at a consensus please provide the diffs - otherwise stop reverting without justification, it's the kind of behaviour that has had you banned on previous ocassions. I have restored the plain text version while discussions continue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)