Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

DuPertuis

Is there any information about Lucy DuPertuis being "a follower of the DLM" that is verifiable? This is the first time I hear of this. The article itself, which I have full copy of, does not say anything about this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Downtown's book. Andries 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which book, which page? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

in the book by Downtown Jr. J.V. "Sacred journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to the Divine Light Mision" – New York, Columbia Un. Press (1979). I dunno the page nr. Andries 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed strange. I recall seeing her name in that book, as Downton (not "Downtown") cites her paper but I do not recall he mentioning anything about her affiliation. Is this something that you know for certain? I can go to the library and check if you are not sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Downton writes in Acknowledgements "I am also very grateful to Lucy DuPertuis, a follower, for reading and criticizing earlier drafts of the book." Andries 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that I have convince you or other people that it is important to reveal such affiliations. I mean, I guess we all agree that it nearly impossible to write unbiased about religious subjects. Andries 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that info. I have no problems in reporting scholars' affiliations, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Kranenborg and Melton:God or Godlike

I have removed these comments and references since neither Kranenberg nor Gordon say "PR said he was God or Godlike".

Momento, You must have completely misread the words by Melton and Kranenborg. They say it very clearly. Andries 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please point them out. There is nothing in the quotes you provide.Momento 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, you can use these cites and write a sumary of what these scholars say, rather than deleting the cites ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

Section Childhood in India

overall grammar ccorections
removed duplicated content
improved readability
added one reference
no references were deleted
no major changes to meaning or emphasis

I will continue working down the article over the next week or so. I will leave te article's lead to last. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected a few typos, added a clarification, closed a ref with >, made all headings the same. Momento 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about the section "early western followers"? Why is it here? If "followers" are important why isn't there a section "" followers in the '80s' and another "followers in the 90's"? All it demonstrates is that there was a wide range of interpretations of his message which is common to any philosophy and unremarkable. Wouldn't it be better to focus on PR. A section on the 70's focusing on PR's teachings in the 70s and how they were expressed (Indian flavor), his activities, highlights and organisations. Followed by the 80's, PR's teachings in the 80s and how they were expressed (non cultural), his activities, highlights and organisations. Followed by the 90's, PR's teachings in the 90s and how they were expressed, his activities, highlights and organisations.Momento 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That may work,. I will be done with the copyedit of the current articke by early next week, time permitting. Would it be acceptable that I complete first the copyedit and then next week we can attempt to develop the article futher? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Rawat was notable, mainly because he attracted loyal followers, so that should stay in the article. There are few reputable sources that talk about PR's teachings, in contrast to sources about the DLM, so your proposed expansion will likely fail. Andries 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, your claim is illogical. PR gained followers as a result of his teachings, just as a singer gains fans as a result of his singing. PR was notable as a teacher before he gained followers.As for reputable sources about PRs teachings, he made his teachings perfectly clear in his first talks in the West.Momento 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maharaji is notable today, not only because of "followers". Proof of this is the weekly television programs in Canal Infinito in South America, Channel ARTV in Brazil, Channel 31 in Australia, Sky TV in Europe and Dish Network in the USA. He was interviewed a few weeks ago on Doodarshan News Channelr of India by a very known TV host in India named Rajiv Mehrotra, in a program called "in Conversation" that has 9 million viewers. So, to say that he was notable because he attracted loyal followers may have been accurate in the 1970's. Nowadays, he is notable because of his message and its reach, both of which are verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just ask for some patience until I complete the copyedit pass I have started. Then we can evaluate if there is a need to expand. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reworking of sections is good, as well as cleaning up the bad grammar and awkward sentences. There is content that is lacking. For instance, there's a huge gap in the "Trappings of 70s" section. It jumps from 1976, mentioning the change in PR wearing no Indian clothing and changing names of Mahatmas to Initiators, and doesn't mention much at all about the following years. We still sang arti to him at programs in the U.S. at least until 1981. Also, DECA/IMMCO/Quantum corporations were started at least in 1979 for the B707, not 1980. DECA was all about Maharaji. It was his pet project, his B707, and he was there everyday managing it personally. There are also plenty of documentation/photos that PR wore Krisha costumes at festivals (events) long after 1976, when he danced bare-chested to devotional music, had devotional songs and arti sung directly to him. And there's testimony that PR was in complete control of programming of those events. It's true he wore business suits at Intro programs, but not at premie events.

The article also doesn't address that PR did start the heavy devotional period, during which there was an ashram resurgence in the U.S., Europe, and Australia. That began approximately from his Christmas 1976 satsang in Atlantic City, NJ, on through 1981 during the DECA project. That was an extremely devotional period that Prem Rawat himself promoted. In 1978 and 1979 (both in November), Hans Jayanti (international) Festivals were held in Kissimmee, FL, where PR gave satsang twice per day, and held daily darshan lines. He wore Krishna outfits at those programs, too, and ten to fifteen thousand premies attended those week-long programs. Why leave it out? They majorlive Maharaji events.

Also in the later part of the 1970s, hundreds of premies were transferred by DLM or the DECA project and those premies lived in ashrams in Miami Beach, starting from at least 1979. That's where the Initiators and the Indian Mahatmas lived, too (The Broadripple Hotal Ashram on Collins Ave.) and those Initiators met with PR on DECA premises for the IDP (Initiator Development Program) in Hialeah, FL, where there was a satsang hall on premises (that's what it was called: THe Satsang Hall). Prem Rawat's fleet of luxury autos was also garaged at DECA (shipped from Malibu). That's when hundreds of mostly ashram premies worked for free doing full-time service at DECA, and at the hangar at Miami International Airport, where the B707 was kept during its reconfiguration. Heck, premie divorces were processed right inside Divine Light Mission International Headquarters offices, on Alton Road, Miami Beach, so that one or both parties of a couple could become single and move into the ashram in order to be able to do free service at DECA. In the case of couples with kids who were divorcing to do service, one parent obviously didn't join an ashram.

Meanwhile, very demanding fund-raising was going on within premie communities throught the U.S., UK, and Australia conducted by DLM/EV officials. The fundraising was to fund the B707 project.

That's a huge lack of information for an article that is about Prem Rawat. It skips the most important part of those years. DECA was an enormous part of his life. One cannot separate a leader from followres. Otherwise, as I stated above, he wouldn't even be notable to warrant an article. This definitely needs to be discussed. Thanks. Another Ex-Premie 17:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already information in the article about the DECA project and the ashrams. If there is information that is missing or incorrect, please let us know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, Momento, where's your NPOV?

This is new, isn't it:

In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention as the Guru Maharaj Ji, due to his young age and a broad popular interest in his claim that he could offer the Knowledge as a means for anyone to find peace within.

It's ridiculous, frankly. Rawat attracted substantial media attention because of his claim to be the Lord of the Universe. That is what caught the media's eye. That and the incongruity of his image as a fat, little teenager who liked ice cream and fancy cars and who had an apparently growing slavish following. If you have any doubt, I can show you endless articles from that time that prove the point.

See, if this is the best you can do, you should retire from this article before you make it even less NPOV than it already is.--24.64.223.203 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not "retire" from this or any other article that I find an interest in. If you have any suggestios on how to improve the article, you are welcome to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporters were waiting for PR when he arrived at Heathrow Airport. Therefore he was attracting media attention before they had even heard him speak. Looked at other 1971 articles. Couldn't find PR, or his followers, calling him "Lord of the Universe, his followers made some extravagent claims. Did find this - "When he is specifically asked whether or not he considers himself a human, however, he pauses, as though figuring out the answer: "Yes, I am a human," he says, finally.

"Hands, bone, lungs. But guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God." Your misinformatiion campaign fails the most basic test. It is untrue.Momento 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, it's rather irritating and transparently specious the way you find one example that seems to support some point you're making and avoid all the rest of the evidence. Go look at the archives of old press on Rawat on the ex-premie sites. They're replete with references to his claim to be the Lord, etc. It's also rather funny how Jossi, who claims to have all this respect and high-minded interest in Wikipedia, stays silent through your shennaigans.

--209.17.134.142 20:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't get irritated because I produce facts that contradict you, just stop saying things that are provably untrue and we'll all be better off.Momento 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the early press quoted his followers calling him "Lord of the Universe" etc. Just a brief look at the collected press on EPO yields an undeniable collection of such claims:

One follower, a white-robed Indian, said that the Guru came from Heaven although the youngster's body, he admitted, came in fact from the Himalayas.

THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD Guru Maharaj Ji, claimed by his followers to be the Lord of Love, Bringer of Peace, and Emperor of the Spiritual World, has taken up temporary residence at Golden Manor, Hanwell.

THE STREETS of Delhi have seen some strange religious processions lately. Some 3,000 Europeans and Americans have been testifying to their faith in God on earth. He is a fourteen-year-old Indian boy, known to his followers as Guru Maharaj Ji, head of the Divine Light Mission, which has had a startling success in only six years. It now has follower, in America, Australia, Britain France, Japan and five other European countries.

Unfortunately the Indian festival this month got off to an embarrassing start. When the jet containing the adolescent living God and 350 disciples touched down in India, the Customs discovered a suitcase containing about £27,000 in watches, jewellery and cash.''

The Guru promises nothing less than a "Peace Bomb" - peace in our time within one generation. And unlike other religious leaders, his peace promise is peace on earth, not simply peace within. Much of his reported speech has a familiar ring. He is quoted as saying: "Come to me. I will relieve you of your suffering. I am the source of peace in this world."

To the Guru's followers this kind of echo is perfectly acceptable; for they believe that their fourteen-year-old master is God in man, just ao Jesus Christ was nearly 2,000 years ago.''

TONIGHT 350 British disciples of a fourteen-year-old Indian "god," Guru Maharaj Ji, leave London on an astonishing jet age pilgrimage to Delhi.

On Friday a similar load left by BOAC jumbo jet to join the shindig for this fat-faced youth whose followers believe he is an incarnation of God on earth.

I have seen British teenagers prostrate themselves in the wake of the guru and kiss the silk cushion where his feet have rested'.

It goes on and on and on. You can't change the facts, Momento.--Jim Heller 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about facts, you state at the top that Rawat attracted substantial media attention because of his claim to be the Lord of the Universe. , but what the journalist you quoted explicitly says is that this was claimed by his followers. Another example of the word games played by the critical former devotees? This is consistent with my research. Before you ask, you can read about my research paper in my response to Andres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmi#Welcome --Daniella 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're rather tiresome with this fake "research paper" nonsense. If it's real, where are you studying? What are you studying? What are the terms of the research? What are your protocols and methodology? What's your relationship or interest in the subject matter? Either explain this stuff or don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

As for Rawat's claims to be divine as reported in the press, how about this:

As sure as there's a sucker born every minute, so every age has its sage, and the present presence on earth of the All and the One Almighty Lord is the divine, perfect, supreme, fifteen-year-old Shri Guru Maharaj Ji ("The Kid")-at least to hear him tell it.--Jim Heller 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Or this just posted hours ago on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum, an article from "Argosy"

--The late Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, a wealthy middle-class Indian who spent 40 years working the Guru circuit in India "left his body" when Maharaj was eight years old. Five years later the young Guru made his public debut in India and promptly announced that he was the "Lord of the Universe." --Jim Heller 12:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed that sentence to better reflect the truth:

In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention due to his young age and the extraordinary claims he and his followers made about his purported divinity and ability to show someone God "face to face". --Jim Heller 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing sentences around 'to better reflect the truth' is a laughable contradiction and wastes everyone's time Mr Heller. From your posts it is abundently clear that the only aim is to snipe. If Prem Rawat was said to be wearing a blue shirt, you would automatically say 'How silly you are, he was wearing a red shirt'. I'm not sure of your purpose in this childish endeavour, except to say that your audience is considerably smaller than you appear to imagine.Raphael Goodsend 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. The fact is that my version is a far better and more accurate description of what happened and it's supported by lots of documentary evidence. It was indeed the claims of Rawat's purported divinity, made by him and his followers, as well as his claim to be able to show a person God "face to face", as he liked to say, that attracted the attention. Indeed, in terms of his divinity claims, the best explanation is probably the way I've phrased it, attributing the claims to the combination of him and his followers who, together, engaged in a sort of burlesque where they'd play off each other somewhat. At the end of the day, though, as the media articles make clear, the message was communicated to the outside world that Rawat was divine.--Jim Heller 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)--Jim Heller 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why he received a substantial media attention, apart from the fact that he was very young, new, and attracted loyal folllowers. I requested a citation for the generalization made by user:Dsmi who wrote, with a reference only a single quote by Rawat that he attracted media attention because of his claim to show God thru his techniques of knowledge. To me this generalization sounds like original research and incorrect. Andries 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I will do some more reading too, because I do not want to burden people with finding references for obvious facts. Andries 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are probably hundred's of quotes in which Maharaji spoke of an inner experience of God in these days. Some follow:

June 29, 1971, Exeter, UK "The only real thing in the world is energy and it is this energy that we call God. This energy is a light within us which we have to realize, and we cannot see anything within us until there is a mirror before us."
New York, June 6, 1972 "When I was young, I used to hear these words about a Word, you know, about something like God, from my father. I used to just sit down like that and just hear and hear and hear. And I didn’t have this Knowledge, this practical realization of God."
Frankfurt, Germany April 11, 1972 "When this Knowledge is revealed to us, then we form a perfect line of communication between us and God. "
London, UK, September 9 1972 "You know, we can believe that there is no proof that God exists, for until we feel inside of our heart, until we feel inside ourselves the eternal grace, the eternal bliss, the real eternal power that is inside us, we cannot believe that God exists."

I don't think that there is a need to add these as references, but I could add them to Wikiquote.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're off-issue, Jossi. The question is why was he attracting press attention. The answer's in the articles themselves, obviously. --Jim Heller 23:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As there is no agreement about stating the reasons of media attention, and as these are editor's assessments and speculation, I have removed all "explanations" about the media attention, keeping the only information that is factual; that the 13-year old Maharaji attracted media attention. Readers can make up their minds about these reasons by readig the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion Past teachings of Prem Rawat

You can vote here Andries 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Notice of my Wiki username change

I've changed my username from "Another Ex-Premie" to "Sylviecyn," because I prefer it. I'll be using "Sylviecyn" henceforth, and it's not a sockpuppet. I've made a redirect from the old to the new name, and hope I did it correctly. If not, please help. Sylviecyn 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Criticism section

I think the article is generally on the right track (all very slick, naturally very upbeat pro-PR ) except when one gets to the Criticism section which is quite disjointed and has the feel of being a reluctant concession rather than an equally relevant section. The tone is much sloppier than the former sections which is why I am commenting.

The article says about ex-premies: "It should be noted that this vocal group numbers between 20 to 40 people." Why should this be noted more than anything else? This sentence would maybe appear less of a biased attempt to minimise their significance if the rather condescending "It should be noted" was omitted and it was qualified by adding "At any one time on their forum there are about..etc". There have been more than 40 individual contributors to the ex-premie site and forums over the years. Whoever is prepared to publish this could maybe go and count first by looking through the archives etc. It should be stated how this number was arrived at. If one quotes numbers then they should be as accurate as possible. At http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journeys.htm there are about 100 people's personal essays expressing a variety of viewpoints.

The whole 'Criticism of PR' section seems to suffer from an 'anti-critic' overall tone. There is a subtext that criticism of PR is insignificant which feels over laboured and defensive. I think more courage should be shown to just list and refer to the Criticisms without giving in to the temptation to have to debunk them off the bat. The impression is also that people are either 'with PR or against him'. It seems that only evidence that supports a black or white situation is presented. In reality there are many degrees of conviction and disillusionment and everything in between. Maybe the in-betweens deserve more of a mention since they must be a significant number. I suppose I am a perfect example of someone who can be quite critical (constructively I've hoped) and yet I have no plans to harass him or his students... and I still meditate daily. So where do I sit? In the 'hate group' or the 'student' category?

"Criticisms of Rawat are based largely on allegations against Prem Rawat's lifestyle and choices, made by key personnel including Mishler...etc"

Yes, but I think too much is made of Mishler as a critic and the lengthy attack on his credibility sounds almost childish-even paranoid. It is rather a cheap shot since the guy is dead and the link to his own version of events has been resisted for inclusion on the grounds it was just an ex-premie invention almost. Why for instance is there no mention that anyone can hear the actual tape whichI understand is publicly available to download as audio? Why not let people hear it and decide for themselves? All the contextual blurb seems very long, one-sided and merely a biased argument for the reader to mistrust him before they've even heard what he had to say. Besides, a far more currently relevant disaffected 'Key Personnel' called Michael Dettmers and his testimony, is not discussed. This man is alive and more than willing to defend his words and there are interviews with him on EPO (http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bofdettmersqa.htm) which have been probably as widely contentious as anything Mishler said all those years ago. (if not more so) This is a section about criticism and so Dettmer's more recent criticisms should probably be referred to more substantially, especially since they are possibly the single most dramatic development in that area. Does anyone disagree with this?

"There are other scholars and authors that wrote about this subject that do not level criticism against Prem Rawat, etc.."

Why does this need to be mentioned in a section entitled 'Criticism'. If there was a section called 'Pro Prem Rawat Publications' would you need to say 'There are other publications that are anti Rawat'? No. That would be put in the anti PR articles section. Again this inappropriate inclusion and the way it is put, smacks of editors trying to sneak their POV into places where it's simply out of place.

Several "ex-premies" have filed legal documents admitting under oath 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.

Again too little context to be fair. More than 'several' ex-premies (and indeed I could easily find more than 2 current premies) would gladly testify that the so-called ex-premie group is nowhere near such an organised hate group as is suggested. For example my initial motives for publishing my experiences on the group's web site were to simply express bottled-up feelings and to see if others shared my feelings. How does that equate with this description? Also no mention is made of the circumstances under which these 'several' guys said this (basically that they were facing legal defeat, heavy fines, PR's lawyers, court hearings etc). Nor is the fact that their testimony was a total and dramatic about turn on their prior standpoint. I think that should be mentioned. In fairness it could be added that the ex-premie groups actual website claims that the primary purpose of their website is to provide information to current and prospective followers of Prem Rawat, that is not made available on Prem Rawat's official sites. There may be some other parts of the site that encourage protest etc. if so that could be referenced to as well.

What is perhaps the oft-repeated and most vehement criticism currently levelled at Rawat by the "ex-premies" revisits their devotion during the 1970s and those "ex-premies'" unresolved issues of ambiguity surrounding personal divinity. They claim that Rawat's and his entourage's behaviour during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain.

This paragraph starts unashamedly announcing itself as guesswork. How much evidence is there that this is the main criticism? Where would one sensibly look first for the most oft-repeated criticism? Anyone who reads the journeys section of EPO will immediately see that few are bothered by whether or not PR claimed to be divine. What they do criticise more often, is the way his teachings impacted their lives in, what they see as, some negative ways. So this should maybe be revised by simply saying 'One oft-repeated criticism is...etc.' It is again SO implicit in the subtext that this rather easily contested point about PR claiming divinity is the best petty gripe this cohesive group of apostates can come up with. The truth would seem to be that are other gripes and that should be indicated somehow. In fact the ex-premies summary of their objections on http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/objection.htm (which I would imagine is as near to a representative list of ex-premies shared criticisms as you'll ever get) simply puts the 'divinity' problem as one of 14 definitive objections. Why don't we simply list or refer to those? It couldn't be clearer. That would seem the obvious NPOV thing to do. PatW 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV of 20, 40 or even 100 critical ex-followers is already over-represented in this article. Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for some guidelines. A full article, which the section you refer to is a summary of, is available at Criticism of Prem Rawat. Most, if not all the "ex-premie" criticism is not available from reputable sources but from a collection of websites owned by John Brauns that include email messages, forum postings, and other sources that are not accepted in Wikipedia articles, See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. These websites are listed in this article and the criticism article, as external links only. In any case, you are welcome to edit the criticism article and improve it if you can. After that is done, we can summarize any new information and add it to the criticism section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why is there need for a Criticism Section within this article if there is a full article elsewhere? You say the POV of ex-followers is over-represented in this article. Are you the only qualified judge of that? I thought this was a collective effort to reach NPOV and that there was no one standing in judgement. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not suggesting that any particular POV is represented. I am trying to help editors from different POV's achieve an actual impartial fair article which has a NPOV! Your comment makes me wonder if you are a little cynical about the practicality of this ideal. I'm not cynical and that is actually why I'm here. I hope you'd agree that the best way to achieve the Wikki goal is to list facts and be rigorously fair in representing all POV's in a NPOV manner. I also hope you're not suggesting that the Prem Rawat article is somehow the domain for the student's POV and that the Criticism full article is where all the other POV's go. I thought that the spirit of Wikipedia was that ALL articles should strive rigourously to be impartial and that we could sort of beat out an impartial informative article by sticking to the Wikki guidelines. I intend to learn and stick to the rules on reputable sources. BTW I don't particluarly want my edits added to the Criticism Section. I am primarily only interested on a few small changes to this article. Thanks. PatW 02:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The non-negotiable policy of NPOV is not as you say " to list facts and be rigorously fair in representing all POV's in a NPOV manner". Mainly, the WP:NPOV policy states that The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. and that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. and We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. As for your concern about the separate articles, note that this article is what is called a "summary article" in which those sections that become too big to fit within the size limitations (of about 50 Kb) can be spinned-off to their own articles, if warranted. FYI, there is no such a thing in Wikipedia about "ownership" of articles. Anybody is welcome to edit any article, with the caveat that it is done withing the basic principles of the project. I have placed some pointers for you in your talk page that may help you understand how this project works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you keep dismissing critics of Rawat as a tiny minority but isn't it possible that, in fact, a much, much larger number of people who know of Rawat, either because they once followed him or simply followed him in the news, think he's a charlatan? Obviously, it's hard to quantify numbers of either such group of "critics" but you seem unable to even acknowledge their existence. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your view that the only people who object to Rawat are the ones who bother to speak out against him? It sure seems that way.

On the other hand, isn't it reasonable to infer from the fact that only a "tiny minority" of people who were initiated by Rawat, in the West at least, still follow him that many, if not most, no longer respect him? After all, Rawat's program is a life-long program, is it not? It's not like a four-year plumbing course. To the contrary, with teachings like this:

People say, “You come in this world empty-handed, and you’ll go empty-handed.” I say that you came empty-handed, definitely, but you don’t need to go empty-handed. Take something with you. Take that enjoyment with you. Recognize that supreme joy and then go.

it's clear that Rawat never intends his followers to leave him. So, wouldn't it be fair to assume that, of those that do, at least some sugnificant number are disillusioned?

Likewise, think of all the people who heard Rawat's grand offer of learning the secret of peace inside, or however you or he puts it. For free, even! Wouldn't it be only fair and reasonable to think that many, if not most, of those people find Rawat unattractive for whatever reason. That they have an opinion, in other words, and it's not very flattering?

Also, don't you think one can make some fair inferences about Rawat's general image in the world by the fact that he first came on full throttle clamouring for the world to take him seriously as the "Perfect Master of our time" but that campaigns like "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" failed and Rawat felt compelled to stop doing press conferences, stop making media appearances and to retreat from making the same kind of grand (some would say "grandiose") promises as he was making in things like the "DUO Proclamation"? Isn't it only reasonable to think that that many people, if they remember him at all, remember him as a bit of a joke and nothing more?

Put another way, what if there wasn't a "tiny minority" of ex-premies actively criticizing Rawat online? Would you then be of the view that he's generally respected amongst all the people who either stopped following him or turned down his offer in the first place? Can't you see how weird that would be?--Jim Heller 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times before, this page is not a discussion forum, so I will only address aspects of your questions related to this article, and my assertion about the "ex-premies" being a tiny minority. There is abundant evidence that the people that call themselves "ex-premies" are indeed a infinitesimal group of detractors and critics of Prem Rawat. Anyone can check that. I mean, you know them by name. My assertion that the POV of this small group of critics is already over-represented in this article. The attempts of the "ex-premies" to claim they represent the people that asked for Knowledge, received it, practiced and later stopped without having any problems with it (two notable individuals, Rennie Davis and Sophia Collier, are good examples), can be easily explained as a need to overcome the obvious fact that they are just a small group of people. Fact is that Rennie Davis, for example, in a recent exchange with John Brauns, distanced himself quite dramatically from the "ex-premies" views and when offered some heartfelt advice to them, it was attacked by you and most others members of the "ex-premies". I myself have many friends that do not practice Knowledge anymore, and they are not critical of Maharaji or their time as "premies". They do not call themselves "ex-premies" a term now associated with your group and with your group only. So, summarizing: yes, the POV of this small group needs to be present in the article as per WP:NPOV, but in addition, 'We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.. If the "ex-premies" ever became notable enough to warrant their own article in Wikipedia, then you could expand the presentation of their POV in that article, as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You have avoided my points as usual and your excuse that "this is not a discussion board" fools no one.--Jim Heller 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am avoiding your points, as this page is not a place for off-topic polemics. I will address subjects that are pertinent to the improvement of this article only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by PatW

To PatW (talk · contribs): Thank you for your contributions. Please be careful not to remove references when editing. These references represent the hard work of editors to provide sources for the article. Please keep the material between <ref> and </ref> when you edit. I will fix these now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've carefully done some edits to the Criticism page which are more or less to create a more sensible flow. I don't think I've altered the meaning in any way which could be construed as biased or innappropriate. As for the references put by others I thought I left those all there. I very sorry if I accidently removed any. I'm a newbie here. (I have made no further links) and I hope have straightened out some rather cryptic or ambiguous sentences. I understand the idea that ex-premies are, relatively speaking, a minority group but since they were considered worth mentioning I thought it fair to at least add that their criticisms are not all because of confusion over PR's divinity or being too attached to Hindu trappings.. It is a very least truthful to add that "others claim that following Prem Rawat effected their lives in various negative ways." I obviously didn't expand on this with examples like 'feeling obliged to spend the family holiday money going to festivals , losing jobs' and such like. But clearly these misgivings exist in not completely insignificant variety. Similary with the part where the simplistic suggestion was formerly that ex-premies main objection was over PR's claims of divinity I have simply added that "This group summarise their criticisms as "14 Objections" the first of which revisits their devotion etc..(as before). Again this gives the reader a more accurate impression without giving the 'minority group' more space than it deserves.

I think the part about 'key personnel' now makes much better sense and sounds more impartial and NPOV. The way it was worded before read like a Glen Whittaker history lesson (no offence intended to Glen) I hope others agree. There were lots of POV loaded phrases and words like: "perhaps" , "There is no doubt that" , "It should be noted", "without even notifying Maharaji" . Also, as Jossi has explained this is really supposed to be a "summary article" and as such it should be quite short and to the point. So if anything, cutting out repetition and preciing long-winded parts would seem to be appropriate. I wondered whether it should be mentioned that the other key personnel- Dettmer's- criticism's were made only via the ex-premie groups internet activities but I am getting kind of paranoid about even mentioning them again. Of course even as a minority group they have enough of an impact that premies have made quite a hoo ha about debunkng them and there is much written about them on official EV FAQ's etc. So in a sense they are a significant minority group (even if they were just one person I suppose) in as much as they represent significant cause for concern to EV. For this reason they surely deserve to be represented fairly here.

I am rather wary that the Wikki rule, about minority groups being proportionately represented, doesn't devolve into too much nit-picking at the expense of goodwill and respectful fairness. So if anyone objects to any of my edits I would appreciate a clear explanation as to why they are anything but an improvement on the former wording. Thanks.PatW 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, thank you for your contributions. I have fixed the references (don't worry about it, newbies are most welcome to edit and make mistakes). I have also made some small corrections to your edits. As for your last statement I woud argue, that most companies, notable persond, celebrities, etc. will most certainly have critics and detractors, and that it is normal practice for these people or organizations to address these in their websites. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick. I haven't looked at the Criticism section for a while so I can't say to what extent you've changed it. However, setting aside the whole question of emphasis, there are a few factual errors. For instance, it's wrong to say that Rawat's organization or supporters "categorically" deny anything. In fact, their denials are vague, incomplete, superficial and evasive. They are the polar opposite of "categorical".

It's also terribly wrong and incomplete and thus misleading to say that 'Several "ex-premies" have filed affidavits ...'. For one thing, the number is two, John MacGregor and Tom Gubler. Two is not "several". For another, both were previously threatened with criminal charges and civil action by Rawat's organization and both had, at various times, said other things, again under oath, fully contradicting their criticisms of ex-premies. Indeed, Gubler actually testified that his affidavit was taken under duress and MacGregor wrote either during or immediately after hiding from Rawat's organization in South-East Asia.--Jim Heller 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore -- and this is to Jossi now -- the "White Pages" section of EPO lists over a hundred names and many other former premies, critical of Rawat, who never bothered to include their names on that roster, have posted on the ex-premie forum over the years. So even on the absurdly blinkered view that Rawat's critics are limited to those who've spoken out against him online, your position is all wrong, Jossi. --Jim Heller 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, The things you object to are not my words. However I agree it would be right to change 'several' to 2 as the implication is that it may be more - which it isn't. I did add the words 'when faced with legal action' so that the phrase read "Several ex-premies 'when faced with legal action' have filed legal documents" Jossi has changed that to it's current "Several ex-premies have filed affidavits during legal proceedings with the Supreme Court of Queensland" which I agree still omits the fact that these proceedings were initiated by PR's organisation. I don't think that an edit which elaborates on the duress they were under would last long to be honest. My feeling is that the fact that 2 'champion ex-premies' made a 180 degree about turn on their former views during legal proceedings kind of speaks for itself. Most people will fill in the blanks as to the duress factor. Regarding the categorical denial I understand their use of the word categorical to mean 'absolute' in this context. The fact that they categorically deny the accustaions does not imply that they have answered the allegations one by one or in a complete or satifactory way. They apparently just deny them carte-blanche. If that's what they're doing then that's what Wikki should report. If a reputable source can be found that says that their denial is vague and incomplete etc. then that could be referenced. (See I'm getting quite good at this Wikki stuff! I sound just like Jossi!). But wait..as a matter of fact I can't find an offical page where "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's work as well as current students categorically deny the accusations made by these former key personnel and others". Jossi or anyone, where is there a reputable reference for this statement please? If one cannot be found then I think that should be deleted. The existing link is to the page that characterizes ex-premies as a hate group...no categorical denials there.PatW 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi..I don't disagree that it is a normal practice for these people or organizations to address these in their websites. No argument there. I have one other little question. The only remaining thing that seems to be begging to be included in this short section is the briefest of words from the man himself. Would it be acceptable to find a quote from PR where he directly talks about Criticism? Maybe as an opener. The one that comes to mind is the one about how when the Master comes there will always be barking dogs yapping at the heels of the elephant who just walks on. Can you think of a better one which you would like to include? If I was discovering PR and had any interest in criticism of him I would be interested in what PR directly has to say about these things..not just the organisations response. This article after all is about him. Thanks for your welcome and hope you are well..I remember you from when you were at that place in Hove..can't remember what it was called..It's been quite nice to contribute here but I think I may have to bow out soon as I can't give it the time it seems to deserve...thanksPatW 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat said (in "The Living Master"?) do not worry about my life style. He also said that followers who now criticize him were never good followers, or something similar. Of course, the latter statement is untrue and insulting. Andries 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi. I think Jim has a point. Where it reads "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's work as well as current students categorically deny the accusations made by these former key personnel and others" it remains without any supportive reference. Please would you direct me to where I can find an official statement that says such accusations are categorically denied. If this is simply the fancy of some editor then this statement has no place in the article. If no such official statement can be found then I propose that Wikki should report that "these allegations remain neither denied or confirmed by the organizations that support Prem Rawat's work." perhaps with a qualifying 'although amongst students the allegations are either categorically denied or variously confirmed as true and of little consequence to them'. What do you think about this?PatW 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the same sentence, I've removed "once touted as a champion." It's not NPOV and there's no source. Sylviecyn 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Argosy and Viva as a source

Are we really going to quote "Viva" and "Argosy" in an encyclopedia? They don't even provide a quote of PR.Momento 21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles in those magazines look reasonable to me, but I cannot judge about this question, because I am do not know these magazines as I never lived in the USA. Andries 12:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have belatedly read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is very clear. Argosy and Viva are oout.Momento 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is it "very clear" Momento? Could you elaborate before you categorically say something is out? Thanks. Sylviecyn 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons suggests that editors "should document, in a non-partisan manner, what credible third party sources have published about the subject" followed by "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative". I do not believe Viva (an erotic magazine for women) and Argosy ( a pulp fiction magazine) are "credible third party sources" on the subject of Prem Rawat, particularly when their articles are written in the sensational style common to such magazines.Momento 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1.Argosy and Viva are much more credible third party sources than what e.g. Glen Whittaker have written. They are better sources than quite a lot of sources used for this article

2. The material sourced to Argosy and Viva is (claims of personal divinity) is not not the sole information about personal claims of divinity: quotes by Prem Rawat and Melton and Kranenborg are available too.

3. Besides the material sourced to Argosy and Viva (personal claims of divinity) is not negative, as Jossi wrote when commenting about the same comments by religious scholars

4. The statements are attributed to these magazines so the readers can draw their own conclusions. This means that the information is handled with care

Andries 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Andries. The view that the articles and the magazines are negative is a personal opinion. While catching up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines I also read the guideline section Wikipedia:Notability (People) which lists the criteria which makes a person notable, thus worthy of a wiki biography. Prem Rawat doesn't fit into any of those criteria except for two. The first is: '"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events.'" The other is the Google test, which Prem Rawat does pass. For those reasons, the Argos and Viva articles should be included, handled with care. Sylviecyn 11:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you think Argosy is a credible magazines on the subject of PR. I found three mistakes in the first paragraph.Momento 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the article: section of "Early Western Followers"

The excessive insertion of other people's opinion versus what PR says on the subject has made "Early Western Followers" bloated and confusing. The following section appears twice. Andries, please remove one.Momento 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is more the many quotes by Rawat than the summaries by others of what Rawat said. The problem is that Rawat contradicted himself so many times. I will re-arrange, merge the duplicate statements. Andries 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In contrast these and other declarations, Reender Kranenborg, a Dutch religious scholar and minister wrote in a 1982 article about the then-defunct DLM, that Maharaji's speaking style resembled Christian evangelization campaigns and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself, but that the content of the message was not Christian. [62] J. Gordon Melton another religious scholar, wrote in 1986 that Maharaj Ji, who he considered a Sant Mat leader, claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, and a fitting object of worship and veneration.[63]

I've come to the conclusion that the problem with "Early Western Followers" is that it contains much that should really be seen as PRs teaching. I suggest we start to eliminate anything that doesn't explicately relate to followers and take whatever else to PRs teachings.Momento 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section "Early Western Followers" is not good. I propose dividing the contents between sections "Early Western Followers" and a new section "Claims and teachings". Andries 09:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why have "early followers" at all. I suggested doing it by decades i.e. the 70s= what PR said (quotes), did (tours, family rift), organisation (ashrams, DLM), media (who said what), activities etc. I still think this is the best way to reduce the size of this article. I certainly don't want the 70's to dominate. Comments please.Momento 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, may be the paragraphs about "Early Western followers" should be moved to the article Divine Light Mission and only a summary should be kept here. Statements about Rawat's claims, acts, and teachings are fully on topic and should stay here that are now also in the section "Early Western followers". Andries 12:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest to wait a few days to see in Past teachings of Prem Rawat survives AfD. If it does, we can look at several possibilities in regard to this section and the contents of that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we will wait, but I already want to state that I will not accept moving the very few statements from reputable sources about Rawat's teachings to the article past teachings of Prem Rawat. In contrast, copying them is okay for me. Andries 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Andries, the decision about how to summarize a section in the event of an article spin-off will be made in consensus with participating editors, and it is not your decision or mine. Stating that you will not accept this or that, is a preemptive statement that is not conducive to collaboration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. I do think that my statement helps the collaboration by making it clear what my point of view is. It may help getting rid of false expectations. Andries 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion on how to treat an article spinoff, but I consider it bad manners to assert an immovable position a priori without knowing the intentions of other editors. What you are doing is contrary to WP:AGF, as you are assuming bad faith of fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You correctly described my position in this regards as immovable (unless of course we would discover many reputable sources that describe Rawat's teaching), but I do not assume your bad faith. I am only stating my point of view. Andries 19:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, It is on record that you have an "immovable position". Let it be known that this is the case. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me put it this way, I can at this moment see not a single good reason for moving statements from reputable sources about Rawat's teachings to the article past teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. No one has made a mention of moving statements from reputable sources anywhere. You are jumping the gun, for reasons I can only assign to a lack of respect for WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What else could be in that "spin off" article past teachings of Prem Rawat than statements from reputable sources about Rawat's teaching that are now all here? Andries 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page and Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, to learn how this work. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to PatW's request

The dog bark analogy was from the Colorado satsang in 1971, and has nothing to do with criticism: Dogs bark but the elephant carries on. When an elephant passes in India, all the dogs come round and bark, bark, bark. The elephant never even sees them. The elephant isn't aware of what is happening around him. If you don't realize why you have come into this world, if you don't use every single moment, then you are like an elephant, having nothing to do with Knowledge and having nothing to do with time. Everything is saying, "Know, know, know, know me," but you aren't interested. Realize why you have come into this world, why God placed you in this human frame, why God made you so handsome, why God graced you with that most intelligent brain. Why did he do that? Know. Only know.

As for your request for a quote of Maharaji in which he addresses critics, etc., here you have one for each one of the past four decades.

July 14, 1973 London, United Kingdom: I know people have written different things about me, “Oh, he has done this and he has done that.” This criticism has been going on for a long, long, long time. But never has anyone criticized what I have really been giving to people. No one.

May 18, 1983 Mexico City, Mexico: "You know, I haven’t yet left anybody. But a lot of people have tended to leave me. And come back, sometimes. Sometimes they don’t.

April 6, 1991 Kaohsiung, Taiwan: I do not know of a single person who has come to Knowledge where Knowledge has not had a profound impact on their life. Maybe now they say, “Oh, no. It wasn’t this way.” But at that time, Knowledge was having a profound impact on their lives.

November 19, 2001 Philadelphia, PA, USA

[Question from audience]: I discovered a site on the internet with people who are, quote, ex-premies, who were supposedly close to you, Maharaji.

[Maharaji]: They may garner hatred towards me, I do not garner hatred towards them. I have no reason to. If they extended ...(and it’s not “they,” it would have to be individuals), their hand of friendship, of that feeling, and if it was real, it would be accepted today by me as it was the first day they met me. Why? Why? Not because I’m looking for friendship, but from where I sit, I’m comfortable enough to do that. I’m secure. I don’t have to badmouth anybody. As simple as that.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks for the quotes. I have only heard the barking dog quote in a different context -it may have been by Shri Hans..interesting to hear these quotes. Anyway they're all relevant so I am thinking that it may be an idea to either adjust a existing paragraph or put a new sentence in the Criticism section something like: "During his addresses PR has occasionally made comments about the criticism that is leveled at him in general. Whilst he acknowledges that criticism as inevitable he defends the efficacy of, what he describes as, his 'gift' and indicates that disaffected students are welcome back if their attitude towards him is sincere." Then there'd hopefully be a reference to an existing reputable source where the reader could find these quotes. So I'm hoping that these quotes are in the public domain otherwise I guess we may have to rethink. Thanks again.PatW 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I will check to see where these quotes were published. FYI, there is no need for a source to be "in the public domain" to be cited. Just that it can be verified that it was published. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead tweak

Dear Scott, I disagre with your last "tweak", for the following reasons;

You state as controversial that some scholars hold that he made claims of divinity. For a reigious scholar to make such assertions does not indicate controversy.
Having a sentence about "owning several residences", together with an assertion about guru teaching tradition does not make sense
Speaking about to "show God" without explaining the fact that he refererd to an inner experience, is misleading.

In summary, this tweak does not work. I will attempt to correct this sentence sometime today, but you or others can go ahead and address my objections, if so you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Still does not work for me, Scott. This is not a dispute between former students and current students about the effect or the lack of effect of the techniques of Knowledge, this is a biography. I will copyedit that sentence later today, to hopefully find one that works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "tweak". It is clumsy and inappropriate. "Overly sumptuous?", "Several residences", "Eastern guru teaching tradition"?Momento 21:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Title change to "The 1970's

It is clear that the title "Early Western Followers" is no longer appropriate since this section has been expanded way beyond the followers. I suggest we follow "Maharaji's First trip to the West" by summarizing the "Establishment in the West", "Early Western Followers" & "Family Rift" (currently running to over 2800 words) into one "'70s" section (of say 1500 words) and try to set a style that can work for the '80s and '90s as well. That is, what was PR doing and saying in this decade, what were the major happenings. I'm going to make a start off-line see what I come up with.Momento 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have a section consisting of "claims and teachings." Andries 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about any of the above proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By omiting what can be gathered into a section on "Claims & Teachings", I have reduced the above to a coherent, easy to read 1000 words. It sets a format for the '80s, 90's and beyond.Momento 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see that. Could you be so kind as to post a draft at Talk:Prem Rawat/Teachings (draft). Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a very good idea to me to subsume the parts of article that are historic into 'decade sections'. I would be wary of failing to include all key events. The 70's draft seems woefully incomplete as it appears this morning.PatW 09:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add whatever you like.Momento 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Request to Momento and others: insert {{fact}}

Momento, if you find a statement doubtful can you please first insert {{fact}} behind the statement which will yield ^{citiation needed} before removing a statement. And also please do not ask for references for statements that are already referenced elsewhere which you have done many times. This yields unnecessary work for me and others. Of course, when a statement is inserted by newbies that is clearly very wrong then you do not have to follow such a procedure. Thanks. Andries 09:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Regretably, the quote you provided doesn't say PRs followers claimed PR was God, it says "the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness”.Momento 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will ~~reflect~~ change it a bit to make the references correspond better with the wording, but I think that the differences are small and I consider your objections nitpicking. Andries 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NItpicking? Is it too much to ask that the quotes you provide, do in fact support the claims that you make? You may consider the difference between God and "a manifestation or personification of God" small but it is the difference between infinite and finite, eternal and temporary. There is not a bigger difference in the universe. And even worse, the quote you provide doesn't even suggest that devotees claimed PR was God.Momento 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Further distractive and non NPOV waffle added to Criticism Section

The paragraph I refer to (below) which formerly was about criticism directed at PR is now more about criticism of Ron Geaves which is a separate issue altogether. Furthermore I propose that editors desist from making unsupported statements as to the organizations response to allegations and I propose to delete such statements until whoever is doing this provides some reputable reference. NB. link provided as reference is a 404 Not Found. http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/085/article/ . Is this acceptable Jossi and is there any way of seeing who is responsible for this edit, so I can argue the point?

Former Text:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat's work as well as current students categorically deny the accusations made by these former key personnel and others, labeling the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students [1] and impinge on freedom of belief with their intolerance [2]. (THIS ALREADY LINKS TO GEAVES' STUFF pw)

New Text:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have choosen to not address allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended, and characterize the "ex-premie" group as "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" [118]. Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[119]

I have provided a working link to EV organisation web site.Momento 11:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________

I think that in the absence of any reputable reference that reflects the actual official choice of the organization to choose not to address allegations then it is innappropriate to further suggest what they deem about them and indeed even to extrapolate at all, let alone include this separate issue of Ron Geaves being attacked by the hate group. This article is surely about criticism directed at PR not Geaves. If we are prepared to include Geaves' attack on ex-premies (accusing them of being anonymous etc) are we prepared to allow ex-premies to defend themselves that in this section? This is a separate issue. Besides quite enough was said in the former text about ex premies being accused of 'religious intolerance'...and a reference to Geaves was there to support that. Also the Geaves quote is gramatic nonsense and NPOV eg. "they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them." The new text also omits to say that Geaves is a current student which should've been included shouldn't it? I propose to re-edit tonight. Sensible comments welcome.PatW 09:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. The new text could be read to mean that 'the allegations characterize the "ex-premie" group as..etc' And 'choosen' ...is that a word? PatW 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of deletion of reference to Ron Geaves

The latest edit (by Momento?)reads:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended, and characterize the "ex-premie" group as "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" [120]. Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[121]

Rationale for edit

I intend to remove the link to Ron Geaves' page and the whole refering sentence because nowhere there does Geaves suggest that the author's of the "anonymous website" are ex-premies so it is irrelevant. In fact, as a professor who talks about this subject to many people, the attack could have easily been from non ex-premie critics. It is simply conjecture on the part of the editor. I personally know some non-premie theology students who ardently disagree with some of Geaves' opinions. Furthermore following your link Momento, people will find no evidence that the organization have "addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". That is misleading and/or ambiguous. They do not address the allegations themselves, they address the general problem of allegations by describing them as unfounded etc . Can you see the importance of differentiating?

The text will now read:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" describing their allegations variously as 'hearsay' and 'unfounded' [120].

PatW 13:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider my edit - "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended" is a vast improvement on your edit which it replaced "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have choosen to not address allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". You now claim "They do not address the allegations themselves, they address the general problem of allegations by describing them as unfounded etc" . If you would care to read the section again you will see that the sentence concerned follows on from "They (ex-premies) claim that Prem Rawat's and his entourage's behavior during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain". In fact, those allegations and others are addressed from the page I linked to. I would appreciate it if you would revert to my edit.Momento 13:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, my impression this morning was that whoever re-istated the stuff about Ron Geaves added the words "have choosen to not". That was not my doing..I thought that may have been you actually. Is there any way of seeing who's doing this stuff? I did not intentionally remove the link to the EV page either. I confess I possibly may have done that accidentally in which case I apologise unreservedly..anyway I think it should go back but I can't find the URL you supplied. Would you mind reminding me? And also maybe you could point out exactly where on that link they address any specific allegations themselves rather than allegations in general.

Yes, the sentence now follows that one about personal divinity (not my words either..most of this section is not my original writing..I am just attempting to make better and more unambiguous and fair sense of it). Proir to my moving it, the sentence was floating about a whole paragraph ahead which is why I moved it to be a part of the paragraph about ex premie critics where I thought it better belonged.

What I think needs to be expressed clearly in the end is that allegations have been made by 1) some key personnel (two of the signifcant ones are mentioned by name) 2) a relatively small but vocal group of ex premies (not all ex premies).

Then it should be simply made clear that the organizations have denied some of these issues as unfounded and untrue (if they so have as you say we can refer to that) but they have by no means addressed (=dealt with) ALL the claims one by one. If the organisation really is suggesting that ALL the allegations are lies then that should be made clear. For example we could put "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed these allegations by deeming them all as being fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". Is that the case then? Lets be clear about this it is only EV (or whover they are now) who feel they have 'addressed all the criticism'. Their critics clearly would have a different POV. So I contend that it is an unfair assertion to state that they have 'addressed' criticism without any qualification. Also the word 'addressed has a meaning of 'dealt with' (see http://www.answers.com/address). There is also a problem with tense. If, for example one hears 'the Queen has addressed the problem of squeaky hot water bottles' you would assume that all her hot water bottles were now made silent. If one heard 'the Queen is addressing the...' then you picture that her servants are dealing with the problem. In the case of criticism Prem Rawat has said as much that criticism is always there and it's clearly a present problem so the addressing should be in the present tense. Why suggest otherwise?

How about this?

The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as 'an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students.' They dismiss some of the allegations as simply fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended whilst others allegations are addressed more specifically" " (Then your link is re-instated to support that..I need to learn how to do that. Any clues?) PatW 17:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Or this?

"The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss ex-premie allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended and unfounded hearsay. Some specific allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites."

Momento or anyone else, is there anything incorrect or left out that you would include? Any non-NPOV emphasis you'd care to point out? If you know it's factual that ALL the allegations are deemed unfounded etc. I suggest you replace the word 'generally' with 'all'. Otherwise I really think that 'generally' should remain. Unless of course you think only specific ones are deemed unfounded etc. then just get rid of 'generally' and put 'some' after 'dismiss'. I still haven't figured out how to put back the link to the FAQ. Sorry. Help Jossi!

PatW 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote battle

I think that this quote battle about personal claims of divinity in the section "Early westerners" should stop, because it will make the section too long. I do not know how to stop this quote battle. I think that summaries by others of what Rawat said, not quotes by Rawat, should be the main contents of this section. Andries 13:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, interpretations of quotes should be left to the readers, not to the editors. Andries 13:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Editors should insert a quote into an article only if it is relevant. You assume that the quote you inserted is relevant because you believe it means PR is claiming to be God. He isn't and didn't, you have misunderstood. That is why it is irrelevant abd should be deleted.Momento 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote proves that Rawat at least suggested that Rawat was God. Let us leave interpretations to the readers. Andries 13:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He is not suggesting he is God, anymore than if I say on Monday - "Summer's here" means that all of summer is contained in that one day.Momento 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is only your interpretation of what Guru Majaraj Ji meant when he said "The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here". How you can have the cheek to try and remove the quote - never mind interpret it for everyone - just shows how biased your supposedly "neutral" POV actually is. Let the reader know what was said, and let the reader decide for themselves. Revera 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A war, Andries, has two sides. So when you refer to stopping the battle, you can help by stopping the battle yourself. If you are, as you have done, look for selective quotes to present the critics POV, wouldn't you think that others will want to do the same to counteract your POV? Quotes, need to go to Wikiquote, in which we have a long collection of quotes in chronologcal order. Placing a quote without providing a context in the article is simply POV pushing, and unacceptable.

To Revera: no one is claiming to be "neutral". You are not neutral, Andries is not neutral, Momento is not neutral, I am not neutral. That is not the point. We each have our POVs. The issue is that we can write an article that is in accordance to Neutral Point of View as per Wikipedia policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I am a participant in this quote war. Please remember that the agreed upon version by Gary_D did not contain such quotes. Andries 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you admit it, then you have the power to stop it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many Dutch Christian scholars?

I object to the too many cites from two Christian religious scholars from The Netherlands (there are ten cites from these two!). There are many other scholars that wrote about Prem Rawat in different terms and these are not represented in the article. IMO, this is unacceptable and POV pushing by Andries. I will pair down these and add other cites from other scholars for balance.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Kranenborg and van der Lans are relatively well-known internationally respected scholars of NRMs who were more anti-anti-cult than counter-cult or anti-cult. I will not accept a marginalization of scholars on the basis of nationality. Where is the justification for this in the wikipedia policies and guidelines? Andries 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg was in the board of CESNUR. Van der Lans published about the DLM in a book by Eileen Barker. There is nothing wrong with Dutch scholarship. Find other scholars if you like, but I will not accept removal of scholarly sources. Andries 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

Did I ever say that they are not respected? I am only saying that the POV of two Dutch sholars, both of which are Catholic and quite fundamentalists in their approach to other faiths, is over-represented in the article. There are other scholars, secular as well as more moderate whose POV is not present. As I said I will par down or consolidate their POV rather than pepper their POV all over the article. That is most definitively acceptable as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. As I said, neither van der Lans nor Kranenborg are countercult or fundamentalist to other faiths. Add some more good sources, but do not remove van der Lans and Kranenborg. Andries 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to remove, but to consolidate these two scholars's POVs and provide context, that is lacking. Wait until you see my edits, and if you do not like them we can discuss them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will add some more by Kranenborg because he is the only one that I know who has written about the teachings of Prem Rawat with some lenght. You can request mediation if you do not agree. Andries 19:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Andries. This is not the way Wikipedia works. You cannot just say "I will do whatever I want, go to mediation of you don't like it". You are welcome to edit the article, and you are welcome to collaborate on edits with me and other interested editors. Please note that if your behavior in this article or any other article becomes disruptive of the collaborative process by means of revert wars, POV pushing and unilateral and uncompromising positions such as the one you stated above, rest assure that an RfC will be brought up to discuss your behavior in the wider community. I am saving this diff for the record. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And just to remind you, that you have demonstrated in the past that you only cite material that supports your POV, but chose not to cite material from the same scholar because it did not support your POV. This is a behaviour that is called selective quoting that is not conducive to foster an environment in which you expect editors to take your edits in good faith.

Here is the example of a cite that you decided was not worth adding to the article, until I received fron an anonymous email, saying that you posted this reference a forum:

In 2002, Kranenborg wrote that after the family rift, Maharaji continued independently, abandoned the divine trappings and claims about himself and began to present himself instead an humanitarian leader<ref>[[Reender Kranenborg | Kranenborg, Reender]], ''Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland: een encyclopedisch overzicht'', Kampen Kok cop. (2002), p.178 ISBN 9043504939. "Zij [Mata Ji, Prem Rawats moeder] onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader'" (translation: "She[Rawat's mother, Mata ji] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued on independently, with less claims pretensions than in the past, not no longer speaking with divine terms about himself, but calling himself instead an 'humanitarian leader'."</ref>

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The transition was already with refernces in the article, sot this quote would have had little aded value. 2. the quote falsely suggests that the transition happened directly after the rift 3. If I really did not want to have this in the article then I could easily have ignored your question to me about this quote. Andries 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Andries... So if the quote falsely suggests a known fact, how we shall assess the accuracy of other quotes by the same scholar? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to find a religious scholar or any other reputable source for that matter that does not make mistakes. Andries 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies

Andries, you cite Kraneborg about twice in two different articles but wrot to different version of it. Which one is the correct one? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Version in this article:
- Kranenborg writes that the techniques of Knowledge, also known as kriyas, originated from the Surat Shabda Yoga or Sant Mat, the Path of the Sound Current.^[1]
Version in Techniques of Knowledge
- The Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg writes that the techniques of Knowledge of the Divine Light Mission, are not unique but a simplification of techniques that originated from yoga], mantra yoga, Radha Soami, and Shabd (the Path of the "Sound Current")^[2].

I was a bit surprized about a sentence in this article (esp. the upper one) which I did not remember ever to have added. I think that somebody must have distorted what I wrote. I will check. Andries 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You should. Please do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that each quote is referencing a different book. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgraceful edit

I am absolutely stunned to see Andries has interpreted "in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God" as "According to a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks, the relationship of the DLM devotees to the guru was identical to their relation to God". This is a grotesque distortion. The correct version correctly credits the view to those "in both these new religious movements", Andries credits this view to "a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks". The implication being that van der Lans and Derks came to that conclusion. They did not. They are remarking that the opinion is held "in both these new religious movements". These edits are vandalism.Momento 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the difference. Why not simply make it clear by putting the word 'considered' back in whilst doing a little precis for good measure? Maybe like this? According to a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks, DLM devotees considered their relationship to the guru "identical to their relation to God". My guess is Andries has just been a bit sloppy.PatW 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I have copyedited the sentence to refet the true content of the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have treated you with courtesy and respect, PatW, so the use uf "shameful editor" in the edit summary is not very welcome, to say the least. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The reason I changed "14 objections" to "several objections" is that the numbner of such "objections" is irrelevant. They could have listed 10, 2o or 300. It is hardly an important distinction in my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy? May be, but I still hardly see the difference, especially taking into account in that the next sentence in their article is "The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God". Andries 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem Andries is that you have made "sloppy" edits so regularly that is clearly deliberate. On April 3rd you summarised a reference from Kranenberg and Gordon as saying "PR said he was God or Godlike", when they did not and on April 7th you summarised a reference from Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks as saying "PRs followers claimed PR was God" when they did not. This isn't sloppy Andries, this is you deliberately falsifying material three times in one week to support your point of view. You should stop editing immediately.Momento 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you that I falsified the material. What van der Lans and Kranenborg wrote was very, very close to what I wrote, especially if you read more of their material. I mean, for me "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are for me quite similar. Of course, I am aware that there is a variety of slightly different meanings if you use the many Sanskrit words for God, but in Western terminololgy, this seems to be blurred. Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen your latest edit in which you claim "He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the boy guru. ^[3]. PR has used the titles Guru Maharaji and Maharaji, he has never used the title "Boy Guru". Show me the quote.Momento 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote that he used the title "boy guru". Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your frequent "very, very close" editing when it is done deliberately to avoid "exact" editing. Likewise I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your uninformed view that the "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are quite similar. Nothing is similar to God by the very definition of God.Momento 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Divine Light Misison/Elan Vital Discrepancies/Inconsistencies

In the second paragraph the following:

In the 1980s he began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission,[9] stepped away from the trappings associated with an Indian guru or Perfect Master and continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher and public speaker, promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge for finding peace within.[10] At that time, minimal organizations were established in several countries called Elan Vital, whose main purpose is organizing events to which Prem Rawat is invited to speak.

This is from the DLM Divine Light Mission stub:

The DLM in the West was disbanded in 1983 and was superseded by Elan Vital.

This is from the Elan Vital Elan Vital stub:

According to Elan Vital, Inc. website, the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital in 1987.[7] The Divine Light Mission, a new religious movement, was criticized by the anti-cult movement in the 1970s. The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements refers to the dissolution of Divine Light Mission.

Divine Light Mission filed an "Entity Name Change" with the Colorado Secretary of State's Corporations Dept. on February 22, 1983. This is the scan online from that website. It is listed as item 58 in "History and Documents" page 3:

History and Documents page:

History and Documents

Scan of Entity Name Change DLM to EV (pdf)

Entity Name Change DLM to EV

Also, in the last sentence above the words "minimal corporations" is non-descriptive because corporations are generally small, medium, large, or multi-national. I propose changing to "At that time, non-profit, charitible organizations were..."

These discrepancies seem minor, but convey inconsistent information. This should be pulled together to convey the correct (1983 date), remove "dissolution" because DLM wasn't dissolved, for purposes of clarification. Btw, the link to EV concerning the 1987 date is dead. Comments? Sylviecyn 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to move this discussion to the respective article's talk pages. Or better, simply fix these discrepancies. Thanks .≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sentences you referred to in this article. You are welcome to fix the other articles is you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

James Randi

From "Criticism...": James Randi, a stage magician and skeptic writes that Maharaj ji taught that rational thought is the supreme enemy and urged the membership of the mission to immediately commence meditation whenever the thinking process threatened to return. He refers to the meditation as sensory illusions that are natural and easily to understand physiological phenomena, such as tasting nasal secretions dripping into the throat. [129] - Yeech! Does anybody know or can find out which sources Randi uses for this? If it's only his unbased opinion, it should be deleted, or at least commented accordingly.--Rainer P. 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a stage magician, for Pete's sake. He wrote a book called "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.". I checked the book from the library, a piece of garbage badly written and badly researched; In fact, he does not provide even ONE citation in all his book. IMO, not a reputable source by any stretch of te imagination. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And who better than a "stage magician" to debunk frauds and charlatans, huh Jossi? The guy's also a recipient of a McArthur Foundation Genius award which, I take it, is a little more meaningful than the countless absurd "Keys to the City" etc. Linda Pascatto's desparately arranged for Rawat in an attempt to make him look good.--Jim Heller 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Linda Pascatto[sic] is not desparately[sic] doing anything to make him look good. She is too busy working on wonderful humanitarian initiatives such as the Food for People program. Read more. As for this "encyclopedia", have you read it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Deleted.--Rainer P. 17:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Randi's encyclopedia was published by St. Martin's press which seems like a reasonably reputable source to me. Andries 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have to admit that the encyclopedia contains many mistakes. Andries 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but ‘just a stage magician’ doesn’t cut it here. Aside from James Randi being the founder of CSICOP and winner of international Humanist awards, his Encyclopaedia of Claims, Frauds, Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural received the following endorsements from the following *authoritative* sources:

Nature Magazine: ‘An excellent compendinum…enlivened by many pungent asides’

Arthur C. Clarke (who also wrote the Foreword): ‘I regard James Randi as a national treasure, and one of the few remaining antidotes that may prevent the rotting of the American mind.’

Martin Gardiner (editor of Scientific American ): ‘A much needed contribution to the nation’s sanity … Randi has written a hard-hitting, no holds barred encyclopedia of the major cranks, charlatans, and follies of our time.’

Randi's tone may be dry and a little mocking, and Rawat’s followers might not quite agree with all of his observations, but that is not the issue here. The source is legit, in Wiki terms. How can it not be? My three sources are better known, or ‘notable’ (as I believe is the term around here) than Rawat himself. As is James Randi, of course. Craigfitzroy 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Which "observations"? I don't doubt his skills concerning the "paranormal", but the knowledge Prem Rawat adresses has got nothing to do with anything paranormal. I understand Randi has had no own experience, so what are his sources? If his assessment is based on assumption, it's even less valid than the ex's. He is certainly not in his element. If he chooses to reduce hundreds of thousand earnest students to irrational snot-sucking morons just by his "notability", than IMO this should be reserved for his own "encyclopedia".--Rainer P. 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that the offical line now, Rainer: 'Nothing to do with anything paranormal'? After my four-day "Knowledge" session (1978) to get "Knowledge", whilst sprawled on the carpet before his grinning altar, I had to pray to Maharaji 'to please take me from darkness to light, death to immortality'. From death to immortality! What does that mean, if not some paranormal agency on his part? Craigfitzroy 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found some mistakes in his encyclopedia, but we cannot exclude sources on the basis of mistakes found, because then we would have no sources left. Andries 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are minor mistakes about Rawat, for sure, but shouldn't you be more specific here, Andries? Craigfitzroy 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just some, Andries? I read the book and it is so bad, that I have no words. I think that his reference adds nothing to the article and will gladly omit.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I own this book and perhaps know it better than you Jossi - could defend it on most fronts, except a couple of very minor details. I've met James Randi and long admired him, and he impressed me more as speaker than you or Rawat could in a thousand lifetimes, but that's just my NPOV - and I sure don't run things round here. But with your Wiki experience and knowledge of editing rules, to say you 'have no words' hardly justifies your knee-jerk, dicatorial reaction to any legitimate 'notable' POV about Rawat.

I notice too I didn't get much of a welcome here. Maybe because I don't serve your guru any more? Unlike the guy who libelled John Brauns, a couple of weeks ago. How Wiki is that? Craigfitzroy 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

From Criticism. re EPO

Jossi just 3 quick questions please. Can you tell me if it is acceptable for someone to remove a factually accurate description and replace it with a false one as has happened here? And without any explanation? Is anyone breaking Wikki protocol here if so who?

Text formerly read

'Most current criticism is focused though a relatively small group of former followers calling themselves "ex-premies" who have an active presence on the Internet. This group summarise their criticisms as "14 Objections" the first of which revisits their devotion etc.'

Somebody deleted the '14 objections' and generally rephrased like this:

'A website that purportedly represents this group's viewpoint mention several objections the first of which revisits their devotion during the 1970s'

So can whoever did this edit please reasonably justify removing that fact? I'm all ears. I can accept that the 'website purportedly represents this group's viewpoint'..is fair and accurate but not the suggestion that only 2 objections are raised at the website when they categorically list 14! Anyway I've changed it back and will continue to do so until somebody explains to my satisfaction why it should be otherwise.PatW 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would add that it is my current understanding that editors should not assert a POV but can report from a neutral POV the assertion of someone relevant to the topic. In a section called Criticism (about Prem Rawat) who could be more topical a critic than ex premie group? The very same group identified at great length as the main source of criticism by the organisations of Prem Rawat. At the very least it's perfectly fair and more accurate to say that the website purportedly representing this group's viewpoint mention list more than several objections. What is so wrong about quoting the number 14? And what, may I ask is BETTER about lying and saying that there are only 2?PatW 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, PatW, but several does not mean two.several: of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many;/ What about "a series of objections"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, thank's for your courtesy and respect. When I wrote "by some shameless editor!" in the edit summary it was done with a smile believe it or not, it was not intended as rudeness. I apologise for writing that though. Yes, I admit that 'several' means exactly as you say. It is commonly mistaken to mean 2 which is maybe a reason to avoid it here. So although it is reasonably accurate in this case I still maintain it is not as accurate or informative a choice of word. "Series of objections" is fine by me but it seems to me uneccessarily more verbose especially when the ex premies state quite clearly that they summarize their obections as 14. I don't pretend that I know why they say 14 and not 21 or 200 but 14 it is, and it is presented more or less in the spirit of a challenge. Is it bad to report this within this context? I don't see why not. Now to most readers 'The 14 Objections' would imply that the ex premies (as they have done) have put their heads together and come up with some definite challenge. That to me is even from a NPOV more relevant and of interest than your more vague reference to a series of objections. Now if you seek to draw attention away from reporting the ex-premie criticisms as such a specific challenge then I understand. By the way I think that the challenge aspect of the criticism IS interesting and relevant. But I don't assert that their POV is more or less interesting than premies POV or that they should be disproportionately represented. It is hard to know when a balance of representation has been achieved though because that is necessarily dependant on POV. That is why I wondered why have a Criticism Summary at all (that nobody can agree on how complete it should be) rather than a link to a separate page. I think that may be where this is all leading... all POV's will end up being represented in their own spaces but in a NPOV way. Nobody should resist that process unless they want to become extremely frazzled. So I see the exercize as being ultimately more about putting things where they belong than what is left in or out. Xcuse blathering on.PatW 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it again to reflect the actual title of the 14 objections and that should settle any dispute about the words "several, few, one or two." It's only fair, given the ex-premie group are called a hate-group, to show that there are more than two objections (that are described in the text). Also changed "character" to behavior. Anxiety and alcoholism are not character traits. Also cleaned up some English usage in the paragraphs. Please note everybody: When you use quotes, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, such as I said, "What's fair is fair." Sylviecyn 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that edit. I have edited the sentence a bit for NPOV. PatW: NP about that "shameless" thing. Just be aware that some type comments can ignite passions we don't really need. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism. Proposal for small addition to paragraph about legal proceedings with Supreme Court of Queensland.

Currently it says:

Two "ex-premies" have filed affidavits during legal proceedings with the Supreme Court of Queensland, stating etc.

I feel that an impartial author should really say whom the other party in the legal dispute was. I think we should therefore consider adding 'brought against them by lawyers representing whoever it was'. I suppose mentioning this may make people wonder (if they hadn't already) whether these two's confession might have been a little cynical under the circumstances, and that is probably the impression that premies do not want to encourage. But I do think it's more unfair (on people who want to remind people of that possibility) not to inform who brought them to court in the first place, than it is fair (to those who don't want to encourage that interpretation) to omit that. Next question. Who can we truthfully say took these guys to court? Prem Rawat's lawyers or the organisations?PatW 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the circumstances in which both these affidavits were signed. Here is the text from the Criticism article in which this is fully documented. You could attempt to summarize this, if you wish.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Gubler and John Macgregor, were found civilly liable in January 2004 for a scheme to misappropriate data from Elan Vital's computers, and were enjoined by an Australian court from using the wrongfully taken documents and ordered to pay Elan Vital's legal costs. Gubler was a computer repair technician with access to Elan Vital's computers who at the behest of Macgregor, a freelance journalist, surreptitiously copied Elan Vital's data and emailed it to Macgregor and others. Their activities were exposed and Elan Vital brought injunction actions against both men[3][4]. Macgregor ran away from law enforcement officers to keep his computer from a court-ordered examination, but relented after being held in contempt of court [5]. Gubler originally testified in an affidavit that the ex-premies were a hate group existing as part of a conspiracy of ex-premies designed to harass Rawat and his students and to interfere with the ability of persons to follow their spiritual beliefs[6]. Gubler later attempted to recant that testimony, claiming he signed this affidavit under duress[7], [8]. Finding Macgregor and Gubler "utterly lacking in credibility" the court refused to allow Gubler to withdraw his earlier admissions.[9],[10]. Macgregor unsuccessfully mounted the defense that his goal was to expose wrongdoing by the organization, but the court held this an insufficient justification, and noted that misappropriated material did not show any wrongdoing by Rawat or the organizations[11].
In October 2004, after being discovered that John Macgregor lied under oath, and after failing to appear in court, an Australian-wide arrest warrant was issued against him for criminal perjury. In January 2005, in a post on an ex-premie discussion board titled "Apology to Maharaji and premies", Macgregor ostensibly apologized for causing pain to Rawat's family and to his students, and admitted that he had been "irrational" and "obsessed." His apology generated a variety of responses, including criticism from other ex-premies that doubted his sincerity, and he was accused of "selling them out" by attempting to appease Elan Vital with his apology.
In April 2005, in an affidavit filed under oath, John Macgregor emphasized his early apology by affirming under oath that "[...] I owe Prem Rawat, the claimants, their legal advisers and all of Rawat's students and apology for my actions, and for allowing myself to be used by the ex-premie group. I believe that persons have the right to chose their own path of spiritual discovery, and the right to leave a chosen path, but that people do not have the right to incite hatred and interfere with other's choices."

Also if Jim is right that "Gubler actually testified that his affidavit was taken under duress" then for sure it would be grossly unfair to omit this information. Anyone disagree? Jim, where is some reputable source for this information? PatW 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim is entitled to his opinion, buy the judge dismissed Gubler's claims and refused to allow the withdrawal of his affidavit:

State Reporting Bureau - Supreme Court of Queensland, Order 9538 01/03/2004 p.5-7 "The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present [Gubler and Ms McDonald from Quinn and Scattini] on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear.[...] Gubler suffers from the credibility handicap of having sworn one thing in one occasion and another on a later occasion after having spoken to a party to the proceedings about his evidence" Judge Muir. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the judge found Gubler suffered from a "credibility handicap" for changing his story is irrelevant. The point is, he swore under oath that the Rawat's organization's lawyer had forced him to sign under duress, that the words weren't his own and that he did not at all agree with the spirit or letter of the affidavit. Anyone trying to foist that affidavit onto the public as you are now, Jossi, without explaining his retraction, most certainly deserves to be called a "shameless editor" and no, I'm not smiling.--Jim Heller 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I remind you of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and that you were blocked already once because of violation of that policy. As for your assertion "about the credibility handicap", you maybe missed the Judge's statement that: The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present [Gubler and Ms McDonald from Quinn and Scattini] on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear. So, Mr. Gubler can say whatever he wants, but the judge did not buy any of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Gubler attempt to recant the affidavit, is already mentioned: Gubler later attempted to recant that testimony, claiming he signed this affidavit under duress ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what you can do with your warnings. As for Gubler's affidavit, I repeat, it matters not what a judge made of his apparent about-face. That's just the judge's POV. The fact is, Gubler DID recant -- he didn't "try" to do so -- and it wasn't "testimony" anyway.--Jim Heller 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know what to do with my warnings. You can spell that out, if you wish. As I said, Gubler attempted to widthraw his affidavit, by claiming that he signed that under duress, but the judge dismissed that by saying it wasn't. That is all we can report: the Gubler attempted to recant, but it was denied by the court. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are abusing the English language. Whether or not the judge found him credible is immaterial to the fact that Gubler recanted. That is, he disavowed his earlier sworn statements (not testimony, statements).--24.69.30.212 01:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi has made it clear he thinks it ok to report that Gubler attempted to recant, but it was denied by the court. I am not up on legalise enough to know whether the word 'attempted' is needed for accuracy. If somebody hasn't done it already I will apply myself as best I can to this edit sometime in the next 24 hours. PatW 11:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maharaji was called "Boy guru"

I noticed that user:Momento had deleted that Maharaji was also called boy guru, though I had the statement referenced by a reputable source. There are more sources that state that GMJ was called the boy guru. See e.g. here [12] Andries 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, could you please help to integrate into the article what I have written? Instead of simply deleting well-referenced statements. The latter is disruptive. Andries 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the fact that someone wrote in a sentence "boy guru" does not mean that he was called that. The cite you refer is below:

..American religious movements even thought their teachings... are traditionally Hindu. The following are some better-known examples of these missionaries and their movements... Maharaj-ji (Divine Light Mission)... Maharaj-ji (b. 1958), came from a line of spiritual masters who taught at the holy city of Hardvar. After the death of his father, the widely respected Hans-ji Maharaj, his mother ('Mata-ji') sent the boy off on a series of world tours, commencing in 1970... The movement had a large and enthusiastic, albeit short-lived, following in America, which dissipated after the boy guru and his mother disagreed... the mother returned to India, establishing her own movement, while the boy guru and his new wife remained in America. "

I do not know what your intentions are with this edit, but this is the third time this week that you are misquoting and adding your own biased interpretations of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just an example. And I think that the misquotations that I have made are very, very minor, also in hindsight.Andries 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Show us the cite, Andries. You added: He was also called the '''boy guru'''. <ref>Hinnells, John (Editor) ''The Penguin Dictionary of Religions''ISBN 0140512616 1997 entry [[Sant Mat]] page 451</ref>. I want to see the sentence in which "boy guru" was used. Unfortunately I cannot trust your citations any more due to your behavior over the past week. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will, but if you do not trust me and my references then this is your problem not mine. I only have to provide verifiable refernces as per Wikipedia policy. Andries 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

page 451 "Sant Mat concepts and practices include Anukul Thakur, Maharaj-ji -the so-called "boy guru" - who led the Divine Light Mission - and John Roger Hinkins, who led a spiritual movement in Southern California. " Andries 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Andries, exactly. That is the kind ofinterpretations of cites that make it so hard to accept your edits in good faith. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think that what I wrote was very close to the above statement. Andries 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You still "think" that what you wrote was "very close"? Think again Andries. It is clear from this quote that "boy guru" is a description of Maharaji, not a title used by PR. Your insertion within this description of a photo "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States, July 17, 1971. He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s nowadays called Maharaji by his students" is blatantly incorrect.Momento 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What I object to Andries, is your way of taking a cite and then expanding its meaning to say whatever you want to say by eliminating context. He was not called the "boy guru", he may have been called that in a press article but not widely. Yout first edit was "He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the boy guru". ????? What kind of edit is that? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Literally taken what I wrote was correct. He was called in several press articles a boy guru and I did not make that generalization that he was called the boy guru. It was made by my source. Andries 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be Mr. Accuracy, and again I consider the misquotations and out of context cites that I have made recently minor, if not very minor. And if if you insist on accurate wording then you can also ask for the context in a normal way, without deleting what I wrote. Thanks. Andries 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Give up this shameless brow-beating of Andries, Jossi. You might give the impression that you are, in fact, a shameless editor. To hear you say it, Rawat was never anything. He wasn't the Perfect Master, he wasn't Guru Maharaj Ji. He certainly wasn't the Lord. He wasn't ANYTHING! You're familiar with the criticism Wikipedia gets for having ridiculously inadequate articles on contentious subjects. You are a living manifestation of the problem writ large. You are doing service for your Master. Period. Just like that Geaves fellow who, as we've just seen, is a completely untruthful historian. Andries is a million times more principled than you in his work here. Leave him alone already.--Jim Heller 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your comment and personal attack as per WP:NPA ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not mind that you write "some of which referred to the 13-year old Prem as the "boy guru" which sounds accurate to me. You used for that the statement the reference by Hinnel that I inserted, but then do not accuse me repeatedly and sharply and loudly of not staying close to the sources. What I wrote was closer to the source than your above edit. Andries 00:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, "boy guru" has been a very common reference that I remember very well from the 70s. The press/media used that expression all of the time. I don't view it as derrogatory, either because he was a boy and a guru. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. Even in every day conversations over decades, people with whom I've discussed Prem Rawat (both as a premie and later) don't remember him or know his name, but they definitely do remember him when the phrase "boy guru" (from the 70s) is used. It's like a lightbult goes off in their heads. Cool heads, folks. Sylviecyn 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Cool heads is a good idea. But sometimes after a pattern of strange edits by Andries (see the above discussions), it becames silly. I have no problems with "boy guru" at all, no lightbulbs go off in my head, just that some recent edits by Andries have been pretty strange and consistently so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is Andries inserted "boy guru" into a paragraph that was discussing PR dropping the title "Guru Maharaji" for "Maharaji". "boy guru" is not a title PR has taken up, used or dropped. You can call him "fat boy" if you like but it is not a title that PR has used or dropped and therefore does not belong in a paragraph about it. If you don't want to be accurate, don't edit.Momento 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough call because the paragraph in question discusses PR's arrival to west and media attention in the first sentence, making it the paragraph's subject, then it goes on to discuss PR's titles. So the main subject of the paragraph *is* media attention, discussing PR's titles later. Of course, I agree that premies rarely, if ever, referred to Maharaji (amongst themselves) as "boy guru," nor was it ever a title he conferred upon himself. There must be a way to compromise. In other words, you're all right: it's the paragraph structure that's wrong. There's a lot of that in this article that could use tightening up. Repetitions, too. Sylviecyn 10:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sylviecyn. My objection relates to Andries edit - 22:26, 10 April 2006 Andries (→Maharaji’s first trip to the West - added "boy guru"), as clearly stated and provable in history. In this edit Andries inserted his phrase - "but was also called the boy guru"- into the caption attached to the photo of PR arriving in LA in the "Maharaji’s first trip to the West" section. The original caption was - "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States July 17, 1971. He was known then as 'Guru Maharaj Ji', a title he dropped in the 1980s". There is no mention of media. Andries changed the caption of the photo to read - "Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States July 17, 1971. He was known then as 'Guru Maharaj Ji', a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the 'boy guru'". An absurd addition that I correctly removed. The facts are there for all to see, please do me the courtesy of checking them.Momento 11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Momento, I've been busy this week, so I've been reading these things much too quickly. However, I don't it as "absurd," Momento. The press did refer to him in that way all of the time, and he is speaking to the press in that photo. But, I see your and Jossi's points too. I guess I'm neutral on the photo caption issue. Sylviecyn 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sylviecyn. Editing is not just about being accurate about facts but also about how you use them. You need to be fair about which facts you use, how often and where abouts particular facts are presented. Inserting a description, even if true, (boy guru, Indian guru or young guru) into a sentence that talks about titles PR has used and answered to is absurd. There is not possible reason for it and it defaces the article. Likewise repeating a fact out of proportion to its importance is also unfair and incorrect editing.Thanks.Momento 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has put back sentence about Ron Geaves without explanation.

I have again removed the link to Ron Geaves' page and the whole refering sentence because nowhere there does Geaves suggest that the author's of the "anonymous website" are ex-premies so it is unfair to suggest that it is. As I've already pointed out, he is (increasingly it would seem) a professor who talks about this subject to many people and so the attack could have easily been from non ex-premie critics. It is simply conjecture on the part of the editor. I personally know some non-premie theology students who ardently disagree with some of Geaves' opinions. I will tirelessly continue to remove this until such time as somebody can satisfactorily prove that it is about ex-premies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)

PatW, no need to tireless do anything. I will change the sentence structure to ensure that the anonymous website is not assigned specifically to the "ex-premie" group. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi - there is no such thing as an 'ex-premie group'. Several hundred 'former students, PWK's or former 'devotees' have trouped through the various web forums that have been online since 1997. Many have posted personal 'Journeys' on EPO, dropped in, and dropped out. Most don't even know one another but find common things to talk about. That's all. Craigfitzroy 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find a mirror of that annymous, but it is gone. I wish you could see it. It could made this exchange a much easier one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found a mirror at home.iprimus.com.au/edreyfuss/ (I don't want to link, so just add http:// before that) . IMO, it is quite obvious that it is from an anonymous member of the critical "ex-premie" group. I would suggest you read that page and tell me what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was probably written by an ex-premie but I also acknowledge there is a chance it was not. This is simply my strong hunch, my POV.So I would not assert that here in deference to the Wikki principle. I've read it. There is no concrete evidence of the authorship being an ex-premie or otherwise. I would argue that the only possible reason for mentioning Geaves at all here is to cite him as an example of a current student and published professor of religious studies (no need to wax on further about his credentials) who has been object of criticism from ex-premies and others for his published articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message. I say 'and others' since I personally know someone who is a senior academic of religious studies (and about to be published) who has challenged Ron Geaves accuracy about the lineage issue with regard to Totapuri etc. at Geaves' lectures and who has no involvement whatsoever with the ex-premie group. He was not particularly interested in Geaves' bias as a current student. He told me he just was appalled at Geaves' absurd reasoning and ignorance of important facts etc. Since the paper referred to was published in academic journals it would be reasonable to assume that he also attracted some criticism from academics who are neither premie or ex-premie. It wouldn't be hard for me to find evidence of that I would imagine.

If you want to include Ron Geaves by name in this article then you will presumably accept a link to the Wikki article on him. I observe he is plainly becoming somewhat ridiculed in public for his essentially suggesting that Muslim Terrorists aren't a 'hate group' and yet he is quick to brand people as such who criticise him and his master without any use of bombs!

Since you ask what I think, I think if I were Prem Rawat I would be highly embarassed about having someone publicly defend me who is so..so...which word shall choose that come to mind... how about from a member of the general public (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010905.php) here's a few descriptions of him..."amateurish and self-regarding" " "- professor" is the new circling motion with fingers around the ears." "I would prefer to call him sacked" "He writes very badly and pretentiously: "... assess what these events actually mean in terms of their significance..." "Sad person indeed." "People who murder innocents deserve to be demonised, as do defective cretins who apologise for them." "My love of the idiosyncracies of human behaviour will always lead me to investigate. I find religious behaviour endlessly fascinating in its multi-faceted cultural manifestations—sad person!" "he is completely immersed, drowning even, in relativism. No culture or "religion" is good or bad, even if violent, it is just "different"." This d(h)im(mi) wit is not worthy of our comments...we should just laugh at these fools.", "Pass the sick bucket." "I hope that the British people are not dumb enough to fall for Prof Geaves' nonsense." "Is Professor Geaves merely 'whistling to keep himself from being afraid' (to paraphrase Dryden) or is he merely one neuron short of a synapse." "Geaves joins a long list of mental masturbators (as opposed to critical and original thinkers) who have long held that no individual is ever responsible for the consequence of their actions. An individual only reacts to external influences." "This is a prime example of why you should not deprive your brain of oxygen." "Geaves has no idea. He's both very stupid and, judging by the way in which he discusses those responsible for the bombing in the London Underground, without any moral sense. A potent mix." "It is views like this that encourage young people to join left-wing organizations. When will colleges and universities start hiring faculty who do not use their positions to brainwash young people?" Go ahead. Include him if you wish Jossi. Somehow I think I'm not going to have to tirelessly edit this one though. His credibility is a little on the wane these days it would seem.PatW 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will re-add the cite with a caveat that it is not sure that was dobe by the "ex-premie" detractors, with a wikilink to his article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK police report confirms Dr Geaves assertion that the London bombers were not part of al Qaeda or any terrorist group and received no help or funding from them. It was four individuals who wanted to be martyrs and made their own protest and manufactured bombs according to material on the internet.Momento 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento. Do you not see how you too are twisting the truth by suggesting that the UK Police confirm Geaves' assertion? Geaves' widely ridiculed assertion was that the bombers were not terrorists. The police rightly reported that they were not a part of any wider terrorist group but that they acted as an organised group nevertheless-and with shared political and religious motives. Have you not seen the videos of them together? That is also reported by the police. An organised group who plot and bomb innocent people are commonly called terrorists. Except by people who like to twist the truth.

Back to the article which now reads: Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing and his views, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[119] There is no evidence that this anonymous website was created by a member of the "ex-premie" group and neither does Ron Geaves suggest this in the statement he made as a response to that website.

So who is suggesting that the website was created by ex-premies if neither Geaves nor the authors suggest that?? Why the Wiki editor of course!PatW 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is evidetly the work of one of the detractors. The anonymous website as gleefully announced site in their chatroom to their considerable delight to this cowardly and shameless attempt to smear Dr. Geaves name. IMO, it is one of them. Of course I have no more evidence than the page itself. Anyone reading it will reach the same conclusion, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As for your disparraging comments about Dr. Geaves, please spare us the rethoric. The newspaper article is a total fiasco, quoting the professsor out of context to make a good story and rais controversy. Shameful. I would suggest you read the full address. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you don't own wikipedia or this article. Please stop behaving as it you do, by constantly lecturing people. Bullying people can also be construed as personal attacks. I didn't read anything disparaging about Ron Geaves written by PatW. Anyway, I agree with Pat. The section should come out. This isn't a biography about Ron Geaves. It's inappropriate, proves nothing, and you're wrong about people "gleefully accepting that website." I most definitely did not like it and I said so loudly. This is a real below-the-belt cheap shot against ex-premies because you believe they are a hate group. Sylviecyn 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody owns any article in Wikipedia. Heck, even anons can edit. And I am not bullying anyone, BTW. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, in one breath you say: "It is evidently the work of one of the detractors" and then in the same sentence you admit "Of course I have no more evidence than the page itself. " This is contradictory since the page itself is NOT evidence..the page is simply anonymous. Of course it's probably the work of detractors but is 'probably' good enough to justify including it here? There is no reputable confirmation of this being done by ex-premies..not even Geaves says this. So you surely have to leave it out to be truly NPOV? BTW I see we are not going to agree about this Geaves terrorist fiasco so I'll not mention it again. PatW 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to include your caveat. And, BTW, I am entitled to have an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph with the POV of Ron Geaves

In order to avoid a revert war, because I'm poised to delete this paragraph today, I again object to the inclusion of this paragraph because it about Geaves, not Rawat. It's also redundant, vague, and is awkwardly written to the point where it's almost unintelligible to an uninformed reader. Let's discuss this further, please. If you insist on including this paragraph, I'll have no choice other than to expand it to include an explanation of the dispute between ex-premies and Ron Geaves. If anywhere, it belongs in Geaves own biographical article, not here. Also, if the word "authoritative" is attached to Geaves as a scholar, I propose that same word be applied to references of all scholars within the article. Perhaps we need to get a dispute resolution on this matter.

"Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing and his views, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[119] This anonymous site refers copiously to the various "ex-premie" websites but there is no evidence that this anonymous website was created by a member of the "ex-premie" group and neither does Ron Geaves suggest that in the statement he made as a response to that website." Sylviecyn 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I was thinking exactly the same myself on all counts. Jossi I hoped you would see that by just my awkward inclusion of one other fact (that even Geaves doesn't say it's by ex-premies) how all this paragraph is never going to be a concise summary. By emphasising one particular interpretation you are indeed just inviting editors to expand the article to balance it out- possibly to a further ridiculous degree. We need to ask ourselves what exactly this paragraph is essentially about. As it stands, it is about criticism of Rawat only in that an academic student has been purportedly criticised by ex-premies. Is that not a fair analysis? The implication of ex-premies is the only justification I can see to report this incident here, since they are cited as a main source of criticism and their activities could be fairly described here if substantiated. Otherwise yes, it is only about criticism directed at an academic student of Prem Rawat and thus is superfluous to the topic as Cynthia also asserts. My question to you (above) Jossi still begs a direct answer. That is simply this : Is your opinion that this attack is 'probably' the work of ex-premies good enough to justify including it here? Reference to ex-premies within the paper, however copius, in no proof at all. You apparently think so. Please make your case in more depth and address my question. Can you justify this as fair in terms of Wikipedia rules? Whatever a 'dispute resolution' involves, I think that may be the way to go if we can't agree. I would indeed welcome some impartial judgements on this matter.PatW 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph is off-topic and the adjective "authorative" is very much non-NPOV. Especially when taking into account that the all the scholars who make statements that could possibly be interpreted as critical are described as "Catholic", "reverend" etc. suggesting that they must be highly biased and prejudiced against non-Christian faiths. I have read enough articles by these scholars to know that they were not highly biased and that their scholarship was generally sound, though like all religious scholarship not completely free of bias and mistakes. Andries 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Off topic? How can this be off-topic? We are talking about the criticism section, in which the detractors of Prem Rawat are listed. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is 100% wordy of inclusion. Maybe the wording needs to be tweaked, but that is all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, it is evident that the Geaves' paragraph is off-topic by your own words that you use to describe the paragraph i.e. " A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat". In other words, the paragraph does neither deal with an attack on Prem Rawat or criticism of him nor with rebutal of the criticism i.e. it is off topic Andries 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you visited that page? Have you read its contents? I find it quite intersting that the critics want to remove that cite. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Andries. As used here the word 'authoritative' seems to me to be what Wiki guidelines refer to as 'a weasel word' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words)

Jossi, I have been checking these Wikipedia protocols and have found a couple of guidelines which I feel are directly relevant to this particular dispute. I would repectfully argue that your editorial approach to this Geaves matter is not entirely in the spirit of these guidelines. I am of the impression that you are the author of the original paragraph. Forgive me if this is incorrect. I will continue as if this were the case. The quotes (in italics) are from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page.

The page you seek to draw attention to here is assumed to be by ex-premies and so doesn't merit being discussed at length here, but belongs on another page.

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

You were (before I edited it) asserting in a 'weasely' way that ex-premies were the source of that website (and that Ron Geaves opined that too) and are still expressing your opinion without putting your face to that opinion.

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

I opine that not only your edits on this paragraph but the entire article, in many instances, disregards this guideline. I would encourage all interested editors to correct that.

When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

You can't have it both ways ie. attack ex-premies and yet omit their counter-arguments, under the 'weasely' excuse that they're an un-important minority who are' over-represented'. If you want to attack ex-premies via a topic which expresses yours and Geaves' opinion you should include facts about competing opinions and not just omit that or weasel out of it, leaving it to someone else to add the other POV. That is what I have watched you do here, assert one POV.

It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.

Exactly, it is far better for the editor to demonstrate within their edit that they have included the other POV and represented those counter-arguments fairly rather than leave it to someone else. If they don't the article ends up looking partisan. As far as I can see, you seem to commit this 'sin' of omission frequently (as do others). It would so much easier and mutually respectful if everyone could pay more heed to this. PatW 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to see the Prem Rawat article greatly shortened and full of facts, not wallowing in a sea of opinion. The lead section and "Childhood in India" are a good examples of the former, "the 1970s" and "Criticism" are examples of the latter. It has been suggested before that this article could be based on the indiputable facts of PR and that issues that are open to interpretation be handled in other articles i.e. "Teachings of PR" and "Criticism". I think Wiki editors have an obligation to Wiki readers to produce an article on PR that clear, concise and accurate.Momento 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

PatW, please do no make these type of baseless accusations. If you see an edit that you disagree with, just say so. Making these type of accusations are unproductive and uncessary. I am glad you are reading the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It will make it very easy if we all apply these consistently. Hope you get to work with the same enthusiasm on other articles, as pointed out by Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Momento and Jossi. It's a controversial article and I don't see that changing. One has to trust the readers to draw their own conclusions by provided all the POVs. It's more helpful to discuss and resolve this issue than suggest that it become part of another whole article. Rawat already has too many spin-offs. I agree with Pat's point. The subject of the paragraph in questions is about Ron Geaves, therefore is not the topic of the article (off-topic). Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The section is about criticism of Prem Rawat, not criticism of Ron Geaves. I still want that pagraph deleted or else expanded. And Jossi, it's up to each person if they want to edit only this article or others. Sylviecyn 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I am so sorry you think I've made baseless acusations since I thought I'd described the basis' of my criticism quite carefully and fairly. Believe it or not I would not have written so conseriderately if the latter were not intended as constructive. If I think your edits are in some way not in the spirit of the guidelines it is surely productive, appropriate and simply respectful to try and discuss one or two specific points with you here. Since you clearly haven't answered my actual questions directly it seems you are not willing to discuss them. I don't understand why not. I for example I asked you: Is your opinion that this attack page on Geaves is 'probably' the work of ex-premies good enough to justify including it here?" I respectfully aked you before just editing out the text myself with explanation, and you haven't answered. You suggest I'm rude but isn't that a little impolite? If you could answer it would avoid all this cutting out and reverting scenario. I prefer where possible to communicate first then edit. You apparently have no need to be occasionally reminded you of the Wikipedia Guidelines so you must know surely that approach is encouraged. Thanks.PatW 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification about your intentions. I will explain my edits more clearly, hopefully you'll do the same in the future. As for your question about the inclusion of the description of the attack against Dr. Geaves, note that the criticism section, describes the detractors of Prem Rawat. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is wordy of inclusion. Let the reader make up their minds about who is behind it. I have tweaked the text to remove the term "authorative" from the sentence as it is a value judgement on my part, as per your suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing your version. I accept your reasoning to include the attack on Geaves but will challenge any attempt to imply that it was done by the ex-premie group or indeed an ex-premie. Although I think that is surely the case it is by no means proved so. 'A detractor' will do maybe.PatW 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I have gone through the 70s section and put the quotes and references in chronoloigal order.Momento 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still not completely chronological. Andries 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the resume?

Between tours, Prem Rawat lives with his wife in Malibu, California in the U.S. They have four grown children. He is an experienced airline transport-rated pilot and holds a number of pilot ratings on jet airplanes and helicopters. His resume discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a U.S. Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications.[16] A US citizen since 1977,[17] he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.[18]

First of all, people don't like "between" things. I've removed "between tours." Second, where's the resume? Without a source, the material must come out. Sylviecyn 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy. The reference is there. It was retrieved from www.maharaji.org as stated in the reference. Why to remove between tours? Are you disputing that Prem Rawat tours the world? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are nine instances of the word "tour" in the article, which makes it obvious that M tours the world, and using "between tours" is an awkward and superfluous English usage. No I don't dispute he tours. Of course I don't. I can't find anything on TPRF, which is where your link leads, that states anything about his piloting, etc. credentials. Can you point me to a more specific page titled "resume."? The sentence reads "...his resume discusses..." I'm just looking for the specific "resume" source, not the splash page to the website. Thanks. Sylviecyn 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference reads (my highlight): (1999). Maharaj.org. URL accessed on January 1, 1999.. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough, Jossi for purposes of a Wiki article. There is no reference on the current TPRF page that provides current information to back up the paragraph references to Rawat's resume. All I'm asking is to please provide the resume, or it should come out, imo, because of no verifiable source. Sylviecyn 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Web cites include the retrieve date because of the nature of the web in which pages changes. move or get deleted with time. It is perfectly OK for Wkipedia to refer to web pages that are no longer online. You may want to check the web archive at [archive.org. Note that there are several cites to the 1999 version of maharaji.org, including one recent one added by some of the critics, in reference to the lineage of masters reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here it is http://web.archive.org/web/20010811064958/maharaji.org/facts/answers.htm - You will need to disable Javascript in your browser to see the page, otherwise you will be redirected to a different page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I've had a go at these 2 paragraphs to try and make them balanced. Perhaps the hardest was to precis the Australian court case. Could do with one general link to a fuller ref on this. (rather than loads of refs). I also have put some info on my User page so people can see where I'm coming from.

Most current criticism derives from former followers, some calling themselves "ex-premies", that have an active presence on the Internet. The latter group summarise their criticisms in a letter titled "14 Objections, An Open Letter to Prem Rawat Followers" ^[4] The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize these critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss "ex-premies" allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay. Allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites. ^[5]Individual critical former students have denied being members of a hate group and in turn describe such allegations as 'defamatory'. ^[6]

In 2004 in Australia, lawyers acting on behalf of one the organizations that support Prem Rawat successfully brought legal proceedings against two ex-premies for an alleged scheme to misappropriate data from the organization's computers. During these proceedings both ex-premies signed affadavits describing the ex-premie group as a hate group who conspire to harass Rawat and his students and who are given to making false and defamatory reports about them. In one affadavit the former student apologized for his participation in the ex-premie schemes. The other attempted to retract his testimony claiming he signed under duress but this was disallowed by the court. PatW 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current version is good as is. Can you please explain why this new version is better? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the changes you have introduced and the method by which you did this. We had a discussion above in which several editors contributed, in response to your requests, to make these paragraphs more accurate. Now you have decided to act unilaterally and make major changes. I do not think that this is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can you give me a moment to explain? Let me say quickly that you suggested i might like to try and summarise the court case paragraph so I have done so as fairly as I could to express all necessary facts etc. I thought we'd agreed that waould be a good idea. The other paragraph I will explain too in amo'PatW 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete references, as these are needed. Also note that the lawyers were not acting on behalf on an organization, but of several individuals. I will make some edits and add some more references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. The affidavits describe Georges Charles William Laver and the Ivory Rock Conference center as second applicant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, as I said, I agree there should be a reference but there's tons of references on the Criticism article itself (many no longer working) and we don't need to get into all that here in my opinion. Better I think to find one reference to the whole thing.

Here's my explanation regarding the first paragraph.

Most current criticism is focused through a small group of former followers calling themselves "ex-premies" changed to "Most current criticism derives from former followers, some calling themselves "ex-premies"

The first is minimising and implies that all critical former followers call themselves "ex-premies" which they don't. My last edit makes the distinction.

A website that purportedly represents this group's viewpoint lists criticism in a letter titled "14 Objections, An Open Letter to Prem Rawat Followers," the first of which revisits their devotion during the 1970s and their unresolved issues of ambiguity surrounding Prem Rawat's divinity. They claim that Prem Rawat's and his entourage's behavior during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain.

I have simply put The latter group list their main 14 objections on a website.[120]

The reference goes straight to the list which includes what the former sentence goes on to describe. To merely describe at length one 'particular' objection (chosen by the editor as being most worthy of reference) again is unfair. The reference should be there to the bigger picture. That's more important. It seems one-sided to harp on about just one issue in a summary article. Surely better to refer.

"Some specific allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites." changed to: Such allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites. [121]

I changed the word 'Some' to 'Such' since that implies that the Elan Vital FAQ is a page where one might reasonably find answers to all the allegations. I think only 'some' is fair (in fact I originally wrote that) but it seemed even fairer revert to the original sense again and not to nitpick.

Finally and most importantly (in my opinion) I thought it important to balance the longest sentence here which I haven't changed:

The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize these critics as an "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss ex-premies allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay.

So I've added comparatively briefly:

Individual critical former students have denied being members of a hate group and in turn describe such allegations as 'defamatory'. [122]

This simply reports the fact that not all critical former students are happy being branded as members of a 'hate group' and refers to a very individual ex-premie's page which directly responds to the 'hate group' allegation.PatW 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the prevous version and some of your edits and attempted to merge significant aspects of both. Hope this last edit will work for you. I will not be able to work on this any more until tomorrrow. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you didn't wait for my virtually immediately forthcoming full explanation did you? So, no of course I don't exactly appreciate your trashing most of what I carefully wrote with total disregard to my explanation. Since I have explained myself and you apparently haven't got time to talk I guess I'll just have to wait. PatW 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess what you're ending up with is actually ok on the whole. It seems you've conceded a little more to my edits since I last looked. I'll wait to see how this looks later. I appreciate your patience with a newbie.PatW 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In 2004 in Australia two "ex-premies" filed affidavits

I would like to put 'signed' not 'filed' which is actually what happened. (I suppose you could also put filed) They signed documents the wording of which was not theirs it would seem..it appears to have been a confession authored by the "Officers of Elan Vital" . Also Gubler used the word 'coerced by...' not 'duress'. I've just read the affidavits myself. PatW 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Also you've given much space to the flowery Elan Vital authored denigration of the ex-premies (which was, at least according to Gubler, more or less a prepared confession and not his words) and yet omitted some basic information. a) Who took them court and b) what their crime was. This is just absurd. No reasonable impartial encyclopaedic editor would not include that info. Also I don't think you should use the word 'testimony' it wasn't a true testimony it was a pre-typed signed affidavit. It's 'weasely' to suggest otherwise. Even if you do use the word 'testimony' I think you should say they signed a prepared testimony. I'm not very good at this legal stuff I'm just trying to make it a bit more truthful and not such a partisan statement which omits a whole lot of relevant fact. PatW 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with these suggestions of yours. Please add the reasons for the lawsuit (i. e. "a scheme to misappropriate data from Elan Vital's computers" and replace the word testimony with "admissions" as per Judge Muir's words. As there are no sources for Gubler's statement that he was "coerced" we ought to stick with what the judge said. As for the "prepared testimony", I am not sure we can say that. Both signed their affidavit documents but we do not know how were prepared or by whom. As far as one can see from the Gubler document, he made some corrections and deleted some paragraphs before signing. I will be bsuy most of to day and unable to make these edits, so I leave that in your capable hands. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find there is a source for Gubler's statement that he was 'coerced' . This is directly from Gubler's second 'affidavit in response to the Affidavit Written by Elan Vital managers and their solicitors ' In my opinion it would be unbalanced not to refer to this. "The rest of the Affidavit is not particularly relevant to my argument that officers of Elan Vital and its legal team knowingly and deliberately wrote a false affidavit and co-erced me into signing it despite having the full body of information about the proceedings. Tom Gubler" ( see http://www.evjcmg.bravehost.com/affidavits/index.html) It would be toxic to argue over whether the word 'testimony' should be cahnged to 'admissions' or 'confessions' as they are plainly 'weasel' words in this case. So I have soimply changed the word to affidavit which is wholly accurate. I have included the information that "lawyers acting on behalf of several organizations that support Prem Rawat successfully brought legal proceedings against two ex-premies for an alleged scheme to misappropriate data from the organization's computers" which in addition to your suggestion describes who took them to court. If the description of them is wrong please correct. It would be quite incorrect to report that Gubler 'attempted to retract his affidavit claiming he was under duress but the the judge ruled..etc' What he claimed in the affidavit to which we refer is that he was.. quote "coerced". The judge did not write the affidavit so why choose his words? So I've replaced 'under duress' with 'coerced'. I am happy with this bit now. Hope you see it the same way.PatW 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. Just a small adjustment about who brought the charges. (FYI, the website that you cite is an anonymous website and there is no evidence that was written by Gubler). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I might have missed something but why is it " an alleged" scheme? Surely it is proven.Momento 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of correct English. At the time it was brought to court it was an allegation yet to be proved. It's clear from the context that this allegation was soon judged to be true. 'Proven' could be a controversial description. Courts and judges don't prove they make judgments about allegations based on degrees of proof. Methinks best not to go there.PatW 00:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed alledged since the sentence already says the proceedings were "successfully" brought, it has already been established that the charge was proven and not simply alleged. In any case, people are brought to trial for murder, theft, fraud etc; a trial or proceedings doesn't imply guilt. They are charged with murder, theft, fraud etc, it is than up to the trial to prove guilt or innocence. Momento 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly ok by me. I am no expert in legal terminology and only put it there as it seemed more fair. You're probably right about this.PatW 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

This article has grown by 10 kilobytes in a month. At 96 kilobytes it is 20 kilobytes longer than the article on Jesus and 46 kilobytes longer than the preferable size.. At some point it must be reduced by splitting.Momento 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the Argosy magazine quote and its use as a reference. The magazine claims that in 1970 PR "announced that he was 'The Lord of the Universe'". This is simply not true. He does not even mention the phrase "Lord of the Universe" in the Peace Bomb satsang. Furthermore, there are three errors in the first paragraph alone. Argosy is not a credible resource for Wiki.Momento 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would totally object to that removal! Argosy is quoted in context of what various pulp magazines wrote about PR at the time. It's ridiculous to sugget that reporting what they wrote is suggesting it's true! It's a fair illustration actually of the general misconceptions about Rawat at the time. Are you trying to revise history ? This is an encyclopadia and the reference is to how Maharaji was perceived in the media. That is appropriate documentation of history. There is even a page about Argosy on Wikipedia. It's not being cited as a source of truth or 'asserted as as a credible resource' in any such way as you suggest. Your proposed edit is proposed revisionism pure and simple I'm afraid.PatW 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you agreee it's a misconception, I'll note that in the article.Momento 00:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is a misconception but I do notthink we, as editors trying to be neutral, should use that word. . It is not for a neutral editor to decide (without going into some detailed evidence- which would be verbose) that this is a misconception. It would be better to describe it as an allegation I think. Ift would be best IMO then ref to a section on where this allegation is addressed.PatW 11:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Argosy, being a pulp fiction magazine is not a reputable source IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Argosy not being a reputable source is not an argument to omit what it reports which reflects the general popular (mis)representation of Rawat by many such publications at the time. I agree with Momento now in principle that we should not assert in any way that it is reporting fact (it is after all a pulp 'fiction' magazine!). I can see now that responsible editing generally means not removing existing information but either a) balancing it for neutrality or b) moving it to another more relevant section on Wikipedia. And also doing this with some clearly explained methodolgy..preferably. PatW 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento. Are you commited to remaining anonymous? I would encourage you to announce yourself in a more transparent manner on your User Page as I have done. I think this would help us to have an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust here.PatW 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the abuse handed out to Wiki editors on this page and also in the ex-premie forum and I do not want to be subject to it.Momento 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I felt like that too once. You know I think there's more to be gained than to lose though. Jossi has my respect for putting a digital face to his name!PatW 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I also object to removal of Argosy article. Momento, there are plenty of passages in this article that could be removed because of redundancies in order to reduce its size. The inclusion of Argosy is within Wiki guidelines. Sylviecyn 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for the Argosy reference to remain now that it has been flagged as "incorrect". Likewise with Viva as being "facetious".Momento 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, you cannot insert comments about the contents of sources: we either accept sources or not, but if we accept them then we do not try to evaluate the contents. We leave that to the readers. Andries 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many pronouns

I'm going through to change a lot of "he's" to "Rawat." This will make the article conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) section "Subsequent use of names. Sylviecyn

I also changed all the "Prem Rawats" to "Rawat" for consistency (that's how the bio manual says to do it, too). But, there wasn't any consistency with regard to bolding the name, so I removed the bold "Rawats" because most were in regular text, and that seems like the way it's done in other wiki bios, see Bill Clinton. I didn't change any refs or items where it was appropriate to keep the full name. Sylviecyn 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The manual of style specifies that the last name may be used after the first iteration. Rawat is a very common name and he is not know as such, he is known as Maharaji and as Prem Rawat. I will restore Prem Rawat so that the full name appears once in each paragraph only. After that it is OK to refer to either He or Him or Rawat. The example of Cinton does not apply here because you seay "Clinton" everybody will assume that you are speaking about the ex-president. Same of Bush. I attempted to do that as well as removing the unnecessary bolding. I may have missed one or two. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Prem Rawat," so I don't see how your logic applies because, well, it's the title of the article! Clinton is a much more common name to English-speaking people than Rawat is, so there goes your logic too. The use of too many pronouns makes the article boring to read, the sentence structure very awkward and ambiguous, and is considered poor English usage. But, I'm not going to bother reverting because I'm more interested in the content than the style of this article. In the future, I'd appreciate if you checked with me first, before undoing a lot of work. Thank you. Sylviecyn 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this issue was discussed previously, and the consensus we arrived at was to use Prem Rawat just once in each paragraph, so I would say that before you do a lot of work that affects the article as a whole, you may want to check with other editors as well. That will save a lot of time and aggravation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Objection to Momento's edits in Criticism

"Much of the criticism levelled at Prem Rawat derives from key personnel who, after they parted ways with Prem Rawat and the related organizations, began making allegations against him about purported anxiety and alcoholism in the 70's. These key personnel included Robert Mishler (who died in the late 1970s) and later Michael Dettmers."

I think you'll find those allegations were not restricted to the 70's Momento. Dettmers plainly dates the events in his allegations to the 80's. Over and over again. (http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bofdettmersqa.htm) You are now adding more innacurate revisionist comments. Why?

Next you remove the word 'agya' and leave just the description. What was wrong with the original? Trying to revise history again by deleting Indian words that were commonly used at the time?

Lovejoy had then wondered to what extent he would be taking agya (orders) from Mishler and not Prem Rawat and accused Mishler of continuing "his policy of exerting total control"^[7].

changed to:

Lovejoy had then wondered to what extent he would be taking orders from Mishler and not Prem Rawat and accused Mishler of continuing "his policy of exerting total control"^[8].PatW 01:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The first edit concerns the phrase "key personnel who, after they parted ways with Prem Rawat and the related organizations, began making allegations against him about purported anxiety and alcoholism". So when did these allegations begin? I clarified the issue by explaining that they began in the 70's (with Mishler's and Mata Ji's allegations). So my edit is absolutely correct.

Rather than being "absolutely correct" your edit is just plain wrong as it suggests that the anxiety and alcoholism existed in the 70s not the allegations. Can't you see the problem? How funny.--Jim Heller 06:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My edit is correct which ever way you look at it. The allegations began in the 70's. And they were made about "anxiety and alcoholism" which also purportedly occured in the 70's. I choose to address the "allegations" part because that's what PatW asked about.Momento 09:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento what on earth are you doing making grammatic nonsense of perfectly good work? I don't think it is in the least funny it's a pathetic edit and whilst you continue to make cynical dishonest mess of Wikipedia with such edits I think my time would be better employed elsewhere or in drawing attention to how disruptive and biased your edits consistently are. Your recent edits are insulting my intelligence. For a start Dettmers allegations began in 2004 about allegations in the 70's and 80's! So you clearly could'nt even be bothered to read my explanation or explore the link....and Jim's right about the grammar.PatW 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It's incontravertibly innacurate to suggest that all key personnel started their allegations in the 70's and let's see you argue otherwise. As I said Dettmers started in about 2004. It's also wrong to suggest in any way ( as per your childish, ambiguous edit) that the allegations were about events limited to the 70's. Read Dettmer's allegations. (http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bofdettmersqa.htm) They refer to incidents from the 70's to the 90's. Perhaps you'd like to add that information.PatW 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The second edit concerns removing agya. What is wrong with the original? Agya is generally defined as "direct and specific orders from the Guru" not just "orders" from anyone. Since Lovejoy was paraphrased and not quoted, in the interests of brevity I chose to remove an incorrectly defined word rather than take up more space to define it and it's use in this particular circumstance clearly and correctly, to explain that Lovejoy was being ironic since by definition Mishler can't give Lovejoy agya. I A completely legitimate edit. I suggest you take more care before you falsely accuse me of "adding more innacurate revisionist comments" and "trying to revise history again by deleting Indian words that were commonly used at the time".Momento 05:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this is to look at Lovejoy's quote. If he uses the word "agya" then that's how it should be reflected in the article. Does anybody have the book? How did this quote come in to begin with? Momemto, I've observed that sometimes you tend to underestimate the ability of readers to comprehend things when you make edits. When I removed "facetiously" that describes the Argosy article, I did so because readers don't need to be told how to interpret an article. In the same way, I think it's safe to trust that a casual reader will understand Lovejoy's irony, otherwise you're inserting your POV. But, again, the comment should be based on the words Lovejoy used, not what you think about what Lovejoy said or how he said it. The students of PR that edit this article are too hyper-protective of Prem Rawat, imo, and it shows in of your writing style, which I think is excessively defensive. Sylviecyn 11:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

May you consider that this "hyper protection" by students is a direct result from detractor's "hyper-criticism"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You might consider turning your sentence around too Jossi. It makes just as much sense!PatW 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, please explain to us how "a casual reader will understand Lovejoy's irony" when Lovejoy's quote is not provided and "agya" is incorrectly defined. As for reader's comprehension, when you incorrectly state that "facetiously" was attached to the Argosy article, I have every reason to doubt some people's comprehension. And if you have time perhaps you could give us an opinion on Andries' latest edit (I have deleted it for being incorrect) .Momento 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all summaries and interpretations of Rawat's quote about Millenium '73 and inserted the complete quote. Let the reader decide. The drawback is of course that the quote is long, but I do not see another solution when summaries and interpretations are disputed and hypersensitive. Andries 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your appaling edit. You claim Millenium was organised for PR and his mother and brothers. You say "several thousand followers" when the sentence below says 7,000 to 20,000. You claim PR said that Millenium 73 was "holy etc" when he was talking about "Hans Jayanti". And when all of this is pointed out to you, your response is to add even more words to an over long article. Why don't you give us all a break and edit accurately in the first place.Momento 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article according to my understanding of Rawat's words. I did not expect you to disagree with my short summary, because I thought and still think that my summary was based on the only plausible interpretation possible. However when we have a dispute about the interpretation and context of a quote then I think the best solution is to quote everything relevant and let the reader do the interpretation. Andries 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento, that's why I asked for Lovejoy's quote. The word Agya should go back in. That's a term used at least until 1981 and beyond. Stop revising histor, please. Sylviecyn 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove agya because it's an Indian word, I couldn't care less. I removed it because it was incorrectly defined and an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate.Momento 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento says Agya is "incorrectly defined" as "orders" You might want to consider these quotes. I think "orders" was fine. "Commandments" even better by the looks. I just phoned a Doctor of philosophy specialising in Indian Religions who quotes the definition directly from the Oxford Hiindi/English dictionary as "orders".

The very moment I touched his feet he gave me the commandment (agya) to join M.A. (Originally Published by Divine Light Mission,B-19/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 7, India - 1970)

Agya - the commandment of a spiritual Master to a disciple.http://www.mudrashram.com/glossarypage.html A Glossary of Meditation Terminology

"This was a dream my father saw and I am just carrying forward his wishes and 'agya (orders)'," he said. (http://www.radio-india.net/interviews.htm)

Dear Premies, This is a very important letter. I have in the past few months experienced that a lot of premies have faced a problem of different agyas from different sources. This has even confused a lot of premies. I don't like this at all. I would like that all premies understand that no matter which member of holy family gives agya, no action should be taken unless that has been confirmed with me. I hope that all premies understand this, for there is really One Source of agya, to Whom we have dedicated our lives and by Whose Grace we have been able to realize this most beautiful Knowledge. (Maharaji from 9 May 1974 published Divine Times)

You were told about this word, and explained its meaning thousands and thousands of times. And the word is 'agya'. If you follow agya, there is no big deal, no big problem. Then you don't have to worry. It's like, you're told to do something and you do it! ... It's Like Guru Maharaj Ji is standing a hundred feet above you and saying, 'Listen. You want to get out of this place? Okay. Now make a left.' And you go, 'I don't need your advice.' 'But if a person can be that humble and really understand that, 'YES, I AM A LITTLE CHILD, and I need directions,' then everything will be so beautiful.' -- Guru Maharaj Ji ('Life with Knowledge' (circa 1975), A Premie Guidebook, DLM, Chapter 6, entitled 'AGYA') PatW 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Momento said: "I chose to remove an incorrectly defined word rather than take up more space to define it and it's use in this particular circumstance clearly and correctly"

Examine this carefully for a moment. Actually what Momento did was take a particularly historically apt word with it's brief and accurate description and replace it with a word that diminishes Lovejoy's obvious ironic meaning. You've only to read the quote above of PR specifically talking about the "problem of different agyas from different sources" to see that Momento has just messed up the whole interest and historical context. He's made the text worse. That is why I accused him of revisionist edits. The only possible reason he has for removing the word "Agya' was, not as per his muddled apology (which fools no-one), but to try and draw attention AWAY from the word 'Agya' and it's true meaning. Why? Is he embarrased about the fact that Maharaji used to highly value the notion of Agya in his teachings and control people in his organization through it's authoritative use. I request a better explanation or it's going back with a fuller explanation.PatW 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

PatW is right "agya" is a Hindi word meaning order/command/behest. [13]Andries 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agya must be defined in this article. It was a primary source of how Rawat told premies' how to practice Knowledge. By not including it is tantamount to omitting over a decade of Rawat's life in the west. Premies in ashrams depended upon Rawat's agya, and those included "Satsang, service, meditation," "The Five Commandments," "Singing arti twice per day," "Poverty, chastity, obedience," and more. To exclude this is to omit the basics of what Rawat told us to do countless times. Momento, without the exact quote by Lovejoy, with references, that entire section should come out. You can't just paraphrase someone at your whim or preference. Plus, people aren't stupid. Too much of the writing in this article assumes that people are too dumb to figure the nuances of what's being said.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the edit Andries made. Why would that get you so upset? Millennium was a festival set apart from other Hans Jayanti festivals, was billed that way, and covered by the media that way. Other HJ festivals billed as "Hans Jayanti!" Also, why isn't there any mention in this article of the annual Holi or Guru Puja festivals (meaning worship of the guru) and the 1978 and 1979 Hans Jayanti festivals? They were momentus occasions in Prem Rawat's life. Those are glaring omissions in this bio of Prem Rawat's life. Being that you're so concerned with accuracy and correctness, why not include those festivals, too? Sylviecyn 15:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not have any problems to see the irony in Lovejoy's statement about Mishler, though I have never heard of the word "agya" outside of the context of DLM/Maharaji. I think a more common word for agya is "upadesh". Andries 15:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked the current version about Millenium and it is much better than the interpretation by Andries. I still think that it can be reduced in a factual manner, rather than having the full quote. I would also suggest to coool off a bit, as some of the exchanges are personal attacks and totally unnecessary. Please discuss the edit and not the editor, even when the editor makes an edit that upsets you. Otherwise little is accomplished and only animosity is generated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I've removed my personal attacks. Sorry. Looks like there's a slightly more serious one down below! Jim...it's tea you need...a nice cup of tea will calm you down.PatW 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but please note that it would be much better if we reserve our judgements about editors to ourselves. These type of comments do not help, on the contrary. As for the attack by J Heller, I have refactored it out. He has been blocked, yet again (this is his second time) for violation of the No personal attacks policy of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What an outpouring of hate.Momento 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right but maybe not in the way you mean. You haven't exactly made that clear. So let me be clear about this. I don't hate you, Jossi or Prem Rawat however I and, apparently quite a few others, have come here because we do hate to see our past history represented in a biased way within a public resource. As you know these debates can become very heated sometimes and it is hard to refrain from calling people names. But there are signs we're all trying to be patient.PatW 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I really object strongly to your comment, Momento!!! How does your above comment help? I suggest that you figure out that if someone is being criticial and outspoken about about Prem Rawat that does not constitue hate. You owe me and everyone else an apology for your outburst. You also ought to be blocked for that remark, as Jim Heller was blocked for his. Fair is fair, after all.

This article is far from finished, folks. It will require revisions to make it better and more deserving of Wiki readers. The issue of including a definition of Agya is an essential part of that. The Geaves section also needs quite a lot of work. You may want to call me and other former followers names, but you're not going to shove me off of this article by doing so, and I do insist you stop your overheated rhetoric an name-calling right now, or at least have the courage to name yourself!!! Enough is enough. Sylviecyn 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not called you or any other editors names. The only person criticised in this section is me (not PR). Momento 23:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason why you are "only person criticised in this section" Momento. That is because your edits are as yet unsupported with reasonable argument and that brings in to question why you are making the edits. I don't believe it is innappropriate here to attack editors here as 'sockpuppets' or whatever, as long as you have some supportive evidence. Your being personally criticised is because some of your edits are considered deliberately ambiguous so as to assert your bias. That is the accusation. If you can't justify your edits then don't complain about being singled out for criticism. And it's another absurd thing to suggest that this talk page is the place to criticise PR and not editors. Or is this just another example of you being obscure again?PatW 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem a little confused. Where am I complaining " about being singled out for criticism" and where do I "suggest this talk page is the place to criticise PR and not editors"?Momento 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just by saying "The only person criticised in this section is me (not PR)." Anyway let's drop this now.PatW 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a complaint, it's a fact. And, of course, your second accusation is also a fabrication.Momento 00:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok you don't want to drop it. Yes it is a fact and the fact that you brought attention to it is because you object = complaint. Duh! Since you accuse me of fabricating , and I've explained myself, perhaps you'd like to back up YOUR accusation with some good reasons.PatW

I didn't bring it up. Sylviecyn said "if someone is being criticial and outspoken about about Prem Rawat that does not constitue hate". I was reminding her that PR wasn't the object of criticism in this sectiion, I was. As for the fabrication, where do I "suggest that this talk page is the place to criticise PR and not editors" as you claim? In fact, this page is to dicuss edits, pro and con, not editors or PR.Momento 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the article, any constructive edits that will make the article better are most welcome. No one needs to feel shoved off or anything like that. Let's just stay cool. Regarding Agya, I have no problem explaining what that is: the commandment of a spiritual Master to a disciple. You can look it up in a good dictionary of Hinduism or Sikhism terms. As for the "Geaves section" I am not sure what are you referring to. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi. But since Jim has been actually 'shoved off' I think I should comment that his point about organisations having paid representative(s) working on these articles is not entirely invalid here. I don't know whether that is the case but if that is so with this, or any other article it does rather bring into question whether the articles have a chance to ever be unbiased. I came here, I like to think, to make the article fairer. But I am aware that unless I stay here to 'police' my edits they will probably just revert back to the biased pov that the organisation seek to promote (if they indeed are employing people to edit the article it would give them a distinct advantage I think). I don't think I can afford the time to do much more editing here so I feel I may be better employed discussing somewhere else about the possibility that, where articles are being edited in this way, then it should be somehow clearly stated. It's a real problem though I think. Of course if organisations do have paid representatives editing in such a way then it behoves them to be particularly stringently fair or it could refect badly on the organisation. I have noticed that you are exerting some particular care to be fair these days, which I applaud you for. Is it true though that you are paid to work here on the article?PatW 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. That is an attempt by detractors to undermine my work in this project. Well, that is not a happening thing. I love this project and I am proud of the work I am doing here and my contributions to this and other projects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's nice of you to clarify it for me. Should I take it that your comment "Well, that is not a happening thing" means that you were employed by them on this but are no longer? PatW 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest, OK? Enough is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked was not to get at you personally. It was purely to establish just how futile an occupation it is for me to work here unpaid. It's obviously a touchy subject generally. PatW 10:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Agya word... I put back Lovejoy's original apparent original use of the word 'Agya' with the meaning and a ref. It would be specious (as I've explained above) to remove that word which the original editor put for his own reason-presumably that it was Lovejoy's choice of word. It would be incorrect to limit the meaning as you have suggested to 'Agya' being a commandment from a spiritual master. That is just one of many uses. Agya definitely and primarily translates as 'order' and 'commandment' the 'rule' and 'precept'and can be generally applied to be used by any authority, not just Gurus. Hence I have put the 2 most common words used to translate Agya with a reputable reference The Oxford/Hindi Dictionary.PatW 11:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PatW and Sylvie, I think a good place to write more on "agya" using the premie guidebook as a source is the article Divine Light Mission. Andries 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, if I didn't have to spend so much time cleaning up other people's edits I might have time for other more constructive work like you suggest. PatW 11:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At last we have something to agree on Andries. For premies "agya" meant "an order from GMJ", not just an "order" or "commandment" as PatW has translated.Momento 12:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC

Momento, do you agree that Loveyoy's use of the word Agya (refering to it coming from Mischler) was ironic and actually to stress the point that he was not the main authority. Look, I perfectly agree with you that premies always took Agya as meaning 'from the Guru' but that's not it's only meaning and it's clear he's being ironic about commandment from GMJ without adding "from GMJ" so what is the need to add it? Whichever way people might look at it, the irony is clear and so is the meaning of the word. Can you suggest how to improve the edit further?PatW 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote two days ago explaining my edit --- "Agya" is generally defined as "direct and specific orders from the Guru" not just "orders" from anyone. Since Lovejoy was paraphrased and not quoted, in the interests of brevity, I chose to remove an incorrectly defined word rather than take up more space to define it and it's use in this particular circumstance clearly and correctly, to explain that Lovejoy was being ironic since by definition Mishler can't give Lovejoy agya. --- The irony cannot be understood unless Lovejoy's understanding of "agya" is included with the quote. Jossi has solved the issue without making the article longer by creating a stub for agya.Momento 13:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not listening are you? "Agya" is NOTgenerally defined as "direct and specific orders from the Guru" and it does include "orders" from anyone.. Got it? I have just asked a Docot of Hindu philosophy to read me the Oxford Dictionary definition which plainly make this disticnction. I said this up above if you'd bothered to read. Also who are you to guess that Lovejoy was not being quoted?PatW 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a variety of definitions but what is important is what Lovejoy meant. Lovejoy isn't being quoted because the comment attributed to him doesn't appear in inverted comments. PatW, I am tired of your aggression.Momento 21:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you suggesting that we do not keep the word Agya in this sentence? PatW 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, where's the original Lovejoy quote? That's what should be used. Changing the wording of Lovejoy's original source quote is not a good form, because it may be indeed changing his meaning. People will get the meaning or not, but one can't change a quote because of the worry they might misunderstand. How did this mention of Lovejoy get into the article? Someone must have the book! Let's bring out the quote, or the entire mention of Lovejoy must be removed before he's paraphrased into obsfucation. This is a source, after all. Regarding the definition of agya. It's not necesarily direct words out of Maharaji's mouth to a particular devotee, it can take various forms, such as the ashram manual. For instance, the ashram manual was, according to Maharaji, dictated and written by him:

Q: How closely should the ashrams be run by the book ?

Ans: It's not the question how close they should stick to the book. The question is, 'Who wrote the good book' ?

Q: You did.

Ans: There is your answer. I dictated it and I sanctioned it, and if you are really a premie and a devotee who is dedicated and who is going to obey Agya, then you are going to follow the good book (read the Ashram Code). Otherwise you are not. (Maharaji - 1975 - Orlando Conference).

EPO - ashram

Agya was also "satsang, service and meditation," M's agya to all premies. Then there were The Five Commandments. When face to face with M and he tells you to do something, that's also agya. But, when working within his organizations, agya is M's requests of people through, say, people like Mishler at DLM, or say, at DECA through Jim Hession or Guy Rollins (the project managers) who were the people M met with daily. So, if say, Mishler came up to Lovejoy and said, "Maharaji said he wants you to do this or that," that's also agya and understood to be so, but Lovejoy's obviously questioning that in an ironic way. But, it's bad form to paraphrase him when a direct quote is available and it's not appropriate for editors to paraphrase thusly. Sylviecyn 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone sent me the Lovejoy and I have included it.Momento 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And as I correctly predicted, Agya was a direct quote. So why now delete the perfectly good explanation of the word Agya that I and Jossi and others laboured over? Jossi you are the Admin guy around here...can I put it back? And am I supposed to endlessly police this guy's edits or can you step in and draw the line somewhere? Who's wasting who's time here? Think about it.PatW 11:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Agya is there. I will add a "see Agya" as a wikilink as it is not proper to link from within quoted text. Hope this works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except the description is incomplete/wrong. I'll ask my Indian Philosophy Doctor friend to jump in and edit that. He has the dictionary you refer to about Agya and of course is a scholar of these things. I have put a comment on the 'Agya' discussion page for you in the meantime. I strongly object to you as a Wikki Administrator not having something to say to Momento for again deleting the good reference I put to the Oxfod/Hindi dictionary and leaving it to others to clear up his/her mess. This person is not a newbie and should know better by now.PatW 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

^ Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language) ISBN 9021049651
^ Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht (En: Neo-Hindu movements in the Netherlands, published by Kampen Kok cop. (2002) ISBN 9043504939
^ Hinnells, John (Editor) The Penguin Dictionary of ReligionsISBN 0140512616 1997 entry Sant Mat page 451
^ http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/objection.htm.
^ http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm
^ http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm
^ Lovejoy, David. Between Dark and Dark: A Memoir Mullumbimby, NSW: Echo Publications, (2005). pp 146, 150-1, 156
^ Lovejoy, David. Between Dark and Dark: A Memoir Mullumbimby, NSW: Echo Publications, (2005). pp 146, 150-1, 156

[Kran-1] Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language) ISBN 9021049651

[2] Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht (En: Neo-Hindu movements in the Netherlands, published by Kampen Kok cop. (2002) ISBN 9043504939

[3] Hinnells, John (Editor) The Penguin Dictionary of ReligionsISBN 0140512616 1997 entry Sant Mat page 451

[4] ttp://www.ex-premie.org/pages/objection.htm.

[5] ttp://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm

[6] ttp://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm

[7] Lovejoy, David. Between Dark and Dark: A Memoir Mullumbimby, NSW: Echo Publications, (2005). pp 146, 150-1, 156

[8] Lovejoy, David. Between Dark and Dark: A Memoir Mullumbimby, NSW: Echo Publications, (2005). pp 146, 150-1, 156

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]