Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

A proposal for how to handle the final edit

As I mentioned above, I believe it is about time to begin the final consensus edit of this article. No Wikipedia page is ever finished, so I am not proposing a static final version that will never be changed. I am instead defining a "final and successfully edited" version as one that gains a consensus on all sides to protect it from future attacks and to return to it as a baseline reference if future edits get out of control. I would take as a proxy for this a consensus to remove the "disputed tag" from this article. (I note that .140 has already removed the "disputed tag" from the main PR article, and since my revamp of that article more often gores the ox of .140 and the supporters' side than that of the critics's side, I expect that removal will stick.)

So, rather than just having everybody start making edit passes that may be provocative or at cross purposes, I suggest we start by finding out the essentials of just what it will take for everyone to agree to remove the "disputed tag" and support the article version (even if unenthusiastically). Once we know what everyone simply must have, we can negotiate these main points and then go in together with non-startling edit passes to move those things into or out of the article. Accordingly, I am asking everyone on both sides to post here below what you cannot live with in the current article. Feel free either to list general items, or to give specific edits if the differences you want are text-specific. I am not talking about including here every nit or smoothing you might like to see, but everything currently in the article that must be removed and everything currently not in the artcle that must be included before you will agree to remove the "disputed tag" and thereafter basically hold your peace with the article.

I would remind everyone that NPOV and factual accuracy do not mean that you agree with everything that someone says within the article; rather, they mean that you are not offended by any unattributed statement made directly by the article, that all attributed statements have a basis (not for what is being asserted, but that the assertion was actually made by the cited person), and that all viewpoints are fully represented.

I will start, and I invite everyone on all sides to participate. --Gary D 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Gary D

  • I have no must-have items, and would agree to removing the "disputed tag" from the article in its current form. I would like to smooth the article, though, and have a few optional style suggestions.
  • I would insist that many (but not all) of the items currently in the article should stay. I will respond here specifically if someone proposes removing something I consider essential.

[64.81.88.140]

Agree to remove disputed tag.

--64.81.88.140 00:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz

I agree to remove the disputed label.

Must go

  • Lineage challenge (Misc. criticism section) - This is much better covered in the main article Prem Rawat
  • Copyvio issues (to fulfill the GNU FDL and Wikipedia policy)
    • Unless copyvio issues are resolved, all links to scanned images and pages sourced from www.forum8.org need to go. If they want to claim "fair use", we need credits: name of publication, source, and date. Otherwise these need to go.
    • Links to documents from www.ex-premie.org that are blatant copyvio (such as full books, magazines tranbscribed or scanned) need to go as well.


Must stay

  • Agree with Gary, everything must stay (including the above if copyvio issues are resolved), including the characterization of critics and the legal actions against them.


Other

  • House in Queensland - we need a source for that data.
  • Financial explotation section needs some NPOVing
  • Credibility - concerns about some of the statements as these were made by one person only, without any other reliable reference beyond hearsay. (e.g. hospitalization, ulcer, extra-marital affairs, etc.). These can stay only if this is clearly explained.

--Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

jossi

  • Claims of divinity have been denied by Maharaji publicly in numerous ocassions in the early days as well as nowadays. This fact is glaringly missing from the article.
  • The article mentions that ""he is a pilot that often files himself". This is incorrect, Maharaji always flies himself. (If anyone thinks that this is not "work" let them think that.)
  • Some of the allegations are outrageous. Just because a person said something it does not mean it happened.
  • On the critics characters questioned, there is missing text (that was there before, now removed) in which further allegations of harassment by ex-premies were presented.
  • The excerpt from Wim Haan, selected by Andries is in Dutch. According to Wikipedia policy, the only reason for publish non-english sources is if information is not avalable elsewere. I ask for its removal.
  • Some of the critics' use of foul language and images is pretty disgusting. The article needs to showcase that aspect of their "work".
  • The article says that A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge. . That is not entirely true. Their primary focus is to harass Maharaji, his students and the organizations involved, to interrupt and disrupt events, impose their negative views on the press and diminish people's freedom of belief.

Regardless the above comments, and with the hope that these will be addresed, I reluctantly agree to remove the dispute label. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Andries

I do not agree with the removal of Haan's excerpt. I can not find a scholarly resource in English that said the same. Only Singer a bit but she is far more controversial than authors in the CESNUR affiliate book series Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland. I am willing to send a copy of the article to another Dutch contributor so s/he can check whether I have been accurate Andries 06:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, do you agree to removal of the "dispute tags"? If not, what additions/deletions do you need in order to agree? --Gary D 21:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Gary D, many thanks for your work. I still want to insert the cyclist incident and the complaints about closing the ashrams. Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What complain about the Ashrams, Andries? If you know about it, please add to the article? Regarding the cyclist incindent, I don't see what is the reason for inclusion (????). But please add it to the text so that we can have a look. --Senegal 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gary_D, again thanks, for your hard work. The only problem that I have now is the removal of Mike Finch answers to Elan Vital's hate group allegations. Andries 22:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gary_D, I now support removal of the disputed tags. Andries

Jim

The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"

As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.

Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.

-- Jim

Thanks for that comment Jim. Feel free to add a description of that ceremony to the article. --Zappaz 18:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jim, do you agree to removal of the "dispute tags"? If not, what additions/deletions do you need in order to agree? --Gary D 21:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Gary,
I'm sorry but there's no way I could ever sign off on the article as it stands. Between giving the supporters the last word on everything as well as the long, overblown littany of accusations against the critics, whether it be our character, our alleged misdeeds or our psychology, I'm sorry but I find the whole thing bullshit, irrelevant and offensive. I don't know what kind of reaction you'd actually expect but that's mine. I'm actually disgusted with this. I was there, I know what the truth is ... this article serves no purpose in the world but to conceal truth.
-- Jim

The ex-premie game

This is the ex-premie game:

  • Discuss, polemize, argue, accuse, attack;
  • Negate the value of Wikipedia and NPOV principles;
  • Colluded with each other to not to edit this or any other article, so that they can say "we don't support it" (why do you thing Jim and never made an edit, or John suddenly stop in editing?);
  • Waste everybody's time in the process;
  • They do not want anything to do with Wikipedia, they just come here to peddle their obsession;
  • As they have obviosuly stated that they do not agree to the process, asking them for their opinion is a waste of time;
  • Only those that actively contribute to an article have a say on the dispute status of the article;
  • I say: remove the dispute status now.

--64.81.88.140 01:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't see any value in making accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate against any individual ex-premie, nor do you have any evidence to speculate on people colluding with each other. Some people do have careers, families, etc., and have to budget their spare time.
I certainly understand anyone who has spent considerable time writing and editing would have a feeling of ownership of these articles. Is it too late for edits to be made? If edits are made, will they automatically be reverted because people already involved in the writing feel finished with it, or because anyone who says they are an ex-premie is called an apostate? It appears to me that the label apostate has become synonymous with liar. It also appears that critics of Rawat have been blatantly discriminated against here due to the aforementioned label that now has connotations that are negative, i.e., all apostates are liars, criminal, or have nefarious motives in their criticism of Rawat.
Sorry for writing too many words here on this talk page; I can assure you that when I write articles, I'm quite concise. ;)
Another Ex-Premie 15:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Senegal

  • It looks pretty good to me. Don't see a reason to keep the {{disputed}} template.
  • Some of the paragraphs need some NPOV'ing, so I look forward to Gary's final cleanup.

--Senegal 05:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another Ex-Premie

I strongly disagree with removing the disputed tag. Is there some kind of deadline on this article? It needs more work and clarification with references. I'm going to ignore Jossi's comments on her interpretation of ex-premie motives because Jossi doesn't know what my motives are in coming here late in the editing process.

Also can't see why anyone would complain about extending the time to allow former followers to add to the article (with disputed tag).

Sorry in advance for verbosity, but looking at the size of main article on Prem Rawat, it sounds like the pot calling the kettle, etc. ;)

Another Ex-Premie 11:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another_Ex-Premie, formally, according to Wikipedia rules, there is no deadline , but I, and I think others too, would appreciate it if you wrote down here your points of objections and what you want to see included. In this way everbody can work with your objections and this will enable us to work faster on the article.
I tend to agree with .140 that people who have not contributed for a long time to the article (like Jim, but not John) have no right to vote on removing the disputed tag. Andries 12:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Where is that policy stated on Wikipedia, i.e., that those who haven't yet contributed don't get a vote?
Another Ex-Premie 13:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on concensus... Concensus of its editors that is. When voting in special circumstances (e.g. deleting a page) you need to have at least 100 edits before you can vote. In any case, you are welcome to contribute. First, read the NPOV guidelines before doing so, and expect your edits being challenged and edited by others. In regard to verbosity, note that it is much better one substantial word added to the article that one hundred words here. That is the name of the game.
Also note that there is no deadline as WP articles are always work in progress... We just want to reach a point in which we can remove the disputed label on this article.--Zappaz 16:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, here's one

Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] (http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] (http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] (http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)

I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e

Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)

Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting is not an option., as these accussations are posted in several FAQs of Elan Vital and as such they warrant their inclusion... but you could add a rebuttal to that statement. It actually needs it for balance. Go ahead, give it a try.--Zappaz 16:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand because the FAQs on EV themselves are unsubstantiated. Is it unprecedented to delete a paragraph on Wiki?
Thanks.
Another Ex-Premie 16:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What you can do is say: "critics argue that these FAQ are unsubstantiated". Deleting is not an oprion in this case, becase these FAQs exist. Again, please take some time to read NPOV. It will help you understand these distinctions.--Zappaz 16:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's another.

4th paragraph, "Sources of Criticism":

"A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge." (My emphasis on convince)

This is inaccurate. Ex-premies who post on forum 8 will engage in conversation with people who register to post messages on the forum. When premies/students (of their own free will) choose to register and post about pro-Rawat POVs they are challenged. No one is forced to register and post, especially any current students. The stated purpose of the forum is in the guidelines and can be read here:

http://www.forum8.org/forum8/public/guidelines.htm

If someone chooses to register and post on the forum, then they might ask for personal support in leaving the practice of knowledge. This is an option and an individual choice.

Additionally, no one (former follower or student) is forced to open the EPO website and read it.

Therefore, this sentence should also be deleted or rewritten.

Another Ex-Premie 16:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It will be great if you can help to re-write that sentence. Then: what is the primary focus of the ex-premies? Answer that question and re-write that sentence. When doing so, please note that we understand that forum8.org is not he only tool that the ex-premies use, so you will have to address that as well if you could. Thanks--Zappaz 16:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Focus is to convince people to leave

I looked at the archives of the chat room, and many many times, whenever a new document is "revealed" or another charge is made, there are several dozen postings from the anti-folks about whether this will "open the premies eyes" or more directly "whether this will convince others to leave Rawat." The archives are full of this, and I don;t understand why the anti-folks are being coy about this goal. The evidence seems to be pretty strong that it is a fundamental "mission" of the expremie organization. Richard G. 19:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard, I have rewritten that line to reflect what I believe is the motivation of ex-premies. Yes, we want people to know the truth about Rawat, and believe when they do, most will leave, but if they want to stay that's fine. The previous statement refered to leaving the practice of knowledge, that is different from leaving Rawat. Many ex-premies still practice the meditation techniques. I have also made several other small changes, and I have at least one more addition to make.
I apologise to everyone here for not having the time to do a more thorough job, but my non-Rawat life does not allow (and I do not wish it to allow!) sufficient time. There are many issues still unresolved that would require a truly unbiased investigative journalist to do justice to, but Rawat is not considered prominent enough, nor are his alleged shortcomings considered evil enough, for his story to interest anyone not directly involved. --John Brauns 19:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Non-Rawat life? - I am lauging so hard my sides ache... --≈ jossi ≈ 00:34, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I know you have dedicated a large part of your life to Rawat, but in the last 15 years or so of my life as a premie my only service was making financial contributions. Since I became an active ex-premie I vowed it would never interfere with my personal life, and it hasn't. Now if I could understand why you find this amusing I would possibly understand you better. --John Brauns 23:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G.

I agree with removing disputed status This Holy Breath nonsense is foolish gamesmanship. The anti-folks who refuse to do real work will NEVER be satisfied, and there will always be one more "last minute" addition and complaint. It's called building a straw man to challenge to legitimacy of your opponent. Like a third-rate lawyer who repeatedly claims to discover new secret evidence that will rescue his client at the last minute. Someone is watching too much Matlock!

Too late in the game and this is pure obstructionism. They have had plenty of time, and these additional factoids they want to jam in here just don't add to the discourse: it's just another oppportunity to say more "bad" things.

The "I quit, now I'm back, do it my way, I quit again, you're all on the TPRF payroll, I'm back" game is tiresome. People have worked hard on this.

Good work Zapp, Gary, Ed, Andries, Senegal. Richard G. 19:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right Richard, Holy Breath was foolish nonsense but it was a ritual of the NRM that is the subject of this article and was practiced by Prem Rawat with his new premies until at least 1980. It's not foolish nonsense to have brought it up because it was an important ritualistic gesture of sealing the divine connection between a premie or devotee with their Perfect Master, Prem Rawat. I don't know how this practice originated but every new premie couldn't wait to get Holy Breath. This was common practice during darshan lines in the 1970s when Rawat held many programs through-out the U.S., Europe, Australia and beyond. As a premie approached Maharaji in the darshan line a premie would cup their hand to to their ear and Rawat would cup his hand to his mouth in a blowing motion, hence, a premie received Maharaji's Holy Breath. Are you making fun of a NRM practice, even if it may or may not have been discontinued now? Jossi admitted he didn't know when I asked. Has EV been asked if this practice is continued when premies pay respect in current darshan lines?
Another Ex-Premie 23:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John Brauns

Jim, do you agree to removal of the "dispute tags"? If not, what additions/deletions do you need in order to agree? --Gary D 19:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I've not been around. I've made some minor changes some of which are disputed, and added details of the copyright action Elan Vital took against ex-premie.org and Google. If these can be resolved I will agree to removal of disputed. --John Brauns 22:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Object to last minute edits & deletes by Brauns

We have been all very accommodating so far, but this last attempt by Brauns of making changes to the text without substantiation are without merit. I have and still have no problems if Brauns and others want to add new information, but doing edits or deleting text to "bend" the article's POV at this stage is inappropriate. For example, concerning the Scattini affair, he added (now deleted by me) No evidence that ex-premies were involved in this alleged forgery has been produced. That was most definitively the work of an ex-premie (who else would do that?). Add a disclaimer to your website and your forum, stating that you do not support that kind of harassment and then come here and add some text to that effect. --64.81.88.140 20:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

140, I have been very busy with other, more pressing issues, and I only read that there was an attempt to tie up the Criticism article a few hours ago. Consequently, I tried in the short time I had available to correct some of the more obvious errors, and attempts to discredit Rawat's critics. I did not have time to explain each change but I hope, given the volume of anti-ex-premie material still remaining in the article, that contributors here will trust that I have only made what I consider essential changes. For instance, no evidence has been produced of Prem Rawat's own opinions here, so they should not be included. Also, no evidence has been produced that Mishler was fired. If you want to include that, then I would have to ask you who fired him. Rawat tries to claim he has no official connection to Elan Vital so I don't think you want to go down that route.
Anyway, I have done as you asked on EPO (it was already my position, but I'm happy to clarify it). Including the Scattini letter here is, I believe, wrong. There have been many attacks of ex-premies that I am sure were by premies but I have no evidence. Should I include them all here? I have no idea who wrote the Scattini letter, and I think there is a small possibility it was done by a premie to discredit ex-premies. You cannot include the article without at least, as I did, saying there is no evidence it was sent by an ex-premie. So can I reinstate it? --John Brauns 22:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You must be joking. To attempt to put the blame of the Scatinni affair on a premie. That is just too funny. Oh man... unbelievable the state of denial that pervades the ex-premie culture. --64.81.88.140 22:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
.140 I agree that is probably an ex-premie but if there is no evidence then this must be stated. Andries 22:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK. I will add it back. But note that people are not stupid, they will know exactly who did this. --64.81.88.140 22:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John Brauns - Re: Bob Mishler

I have removed the sentence, 'Supporters claim that he Mishler was fired and had an ax to grind when he made these statements.' I will be happy for a version to be reinstated if any evidence can be provided that he was fired. As Bob Mishler was President of Divine Light Mission (the most senior position) at the time, such evidence should include who sacked him. Bob Mishler himself says that he resigned, and I remember at the time the story among premies was that he had left voluntarily. I believe the sentence was inserted by someone with no direct knowledge who simply wanted to try to discredit Mishler's testimony. I am happy to be proved wrong on this. If a version of the sentence is reinstated with appropriate evidence, then it should also include that Mishler claims he resigned. I have also made a minor change to the sentence on the number of people who have contributed to the ex-premie internet chat rooms. --John Brauns 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Issue Negotiations

(Most of these are "delete/change" items culled from above. Feel free to cull "add" items down here from above as well if you feel them important, but then it would be best to actually produce the proposed text) --Gary D 19:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Lineage dispute paragraph

Must go Lineage challenge (Misc. criticism section) - This is much better covered in the main article Prem Rawat --Zappaz

I would support dumping this. It is covered in the main PR article, and also in the Hans article, and it's not really criticism, strictly speaking. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Removed during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios on forum8

Must go Copyvio issues (to fulfill the GNU FDL and Wikipedia policy)

Unless copyvio issues are resolved, all links to scanned images and pages sourced from www.forum8.org need to go. If they want to claim "fair use", we need credits: name of publication, source, and date. Otherwise these need to go.

I'm not the owner of forum8.org but I'll write to them and ask them to include these details. Can the links stay until this is done? --John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to documents from www.ex-premie.org that are blatant copyvio (such as full books, magazines tranbscribed or scanned) need to go as well.

Copyright claims against ex-premie.org were not purused by Elan Vital. I'm sure the same would apply to any claim against forum8.org. But if copyright is such a concern, have Elan Vital and TPRF given their permission for the extracts from their property? Also, Elan Vital's website includes Justice Muir's judgement against Macgregor, which Queensland Supreme Court's website clearly states is the property of the court, and cannot be reproduced without permission. If there is one link that should be rmeoved for copyright violation, it is this judgement. BTW, which books on ex-premie.org are you refering to? --John Brauns 22:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some clarifications:
  • The copyvios have nothing to do with copyright claims, pursued or not. For example, if you scan a book and put the majority of that book online, from WP point of view it is a copyvio regardless if the owner of the book pursued you legally or not. Same if you copy and paste from a website that is not yours.
There is no copyright violation on ex-premie.org. All extracts have full source details, and are all used under the fair use provisions on DMCA. After Elan Vital wrote to the hosts claiming copyright violation, the disputed pages were removed temporarily, but the host, Verio, then gave authority for the pages to be reinstated. If the legal department of Verio, one of the largest hosting companies in the world, are satisfied with our right to publish the extracts, then Wiki should be too. --John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Court judgements are in the public domain. What you refer to is the copyright notice on the Supreme Court website. [1]
The copy of the judgement I have clearly states that copies may not be made without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. Do Elan Vital have that written authority to include the judgement on their website? --John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please state where is the TPRF text that you say is in the article so we can deal with it.
My comment was simply made to ensure that links to EV and TPRF are treated the same as links to ex-premie.org. There are such links on both the Prem Rawat article, and the Criticism article. --John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • As the webmaster of Forum8.org and ex-premie.org the burden is on you to provide sources, dates and credits if you want to claim fair use.
I am not the webmaster of Forum8, but I will write to the moderators of the forum requesting that those details are included. As I said, all such details are provided on ex-premie.org.--John Brauns 13:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are no links, to my knowledge, on Wiki, to any complete or large portions of books published on ex-premie.org.--John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We need this article "clean" from copyvios. I am sure that we can do this if we all work together in identifying and removing these violations.--Zappaz 03:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, is there a specific list of copyvio cites you have in mind? I wouldn't think a potential copyvio somewhere on a site taints, for purposes of the WP policy, a link to some other part of the site, if we're not trying to link to the actual copied doc itself. If we're talking about the periodical links, the ones mostly used are thirty years old after a single publication, so these wouldn't seem to be a problem under the policy, since there's no attempt to profit from them, for example. A list would be helpful. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Gary, I believe the only questionable material, is, as you say, the 30 year old scans on forum8.org, which don't currently have source publication details, and the Queensland Court judgement. --John Brauns 13:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am talking about the links to the scans posted on forum8.org. These do not have a date, and source is not credited, so readers cannot be sure what are these (are these parts of a book, a periodical, a newsletter? are these published in 68, 71, 85? etc,). Clearly useless in the article without info about them. I am referring to:
  • All scans on Forum8.org "galery" in particular the ones linked directly from the article: [2], [3], and [4]
  • Ex-premie.org has several complete or semi-complete scans of books, magazines and papers on their website. This is IMO contradicting with WP policy and way beyod "fair use". I am taking about: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and I got tired of looking, there is much more.
Clearly we need to give the ex-premies a chance to present their POV in the article. That is not the issue. My concern is that the article can be challenged later and we will be back at square one if we keep links to pages and websites with obvious copyright violations. All what it will take is a complaint to Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation and that wil be it. My proposal is to remove all links to these pages and just keep a link to the ex-premie.org website in the external links section.
Zappaz and others, note that the Wikipedia policy only says that the webpage should not contain a copyright violations. It does not matter if other pages of the website to which the article does not link contain copyright violations. Andries 16:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the Queensland Supreme court judgment and the affidavit, the copies available on the Elan Vital site does not carry such wording about not been allowed to be copied. [12] and [13]. The transcript of the proceedings [14] carries such a message, but that document is not linked to from the article.
--Zappaz 17:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, this document, [15] is linked from the article and as you say carries a clear copyright notice. I don't know why I'm pointing this out as the judgement proves that Elan Vital are lying when they say Macgregor is guilty of theft but I guess I'm just too fair and honest. --John Brauns 23:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The "anti" editors have kind of been put between a rock and a hard place on this, because the they were asked for substantiation of their claims, which is why many of the citations appeared, then there were complaints about too many "anti" citations. I think it just kind of came to be habit with all sides to cite everything, because everyone knew they would be challenged on everything. The PR group of articles are much heavier in specific citations than most other WP articles as a result. We could go to a "minimal citation" system, but I doubt we can pull all the "anti" cites without symmetrically pulling the "pro" cites, without an uproar. Personally, I could go either way; we could pull them all, or leave them all. I haven't reviewed all the above examples in detail yet, but I haven't seen any places where the article links to a wholesale copy of a book or something like that. --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I see your point. I would like then to compromise on my original request, and happy to keep the citacions provided date and source credits for each citacion are made available. Applicable to all the links from the article to the http://gallery.forum8.org/ pages. Although I would agree with a "minimal citation system, I do not think it will fly with neither "pro" or "anti" sides. So, all I ask is for dates and source credits to be made available. so we can remain within "fair use" guidelines and to afford readers some context for these citations. --Zappaz 05:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, "anti" editors, do you understand what Zapppaz wants? Can you get it for us? Thanks. --Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Gary, we are working on it, and the source info for the very first 'Claims of Divinity' scan on forum8.org/gallery.htm was added yesterday. I can't promise to have them all before your deadline, as it involves the cooperation of others who aren't involved in this Wiki article, but many of the gallery scans now have source info, and all quotes from ex-premie.org already had that info. --John Brauns 11:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All citations left in during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wim Haan (resolved)

The excerpt from Wim Haan, selected by Andries is in Dutch. According to Wikipedia policy, the only reason for publish non-english sources is if information is not avalable elsewere. I ask for its removal. --jossi

I do not agree with the removal of Haan's excerpt. I can not find a scholarly resource in English that said the same. Only Singer a bit but she is far more controversial than authors in the CESNUR affiliate book series Religieuze Bewegingen in Nederland. I am willing to send a copy of the article to another Dutch contributor so s/he can check whether I have been accurate Andries 06:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We discussed Wim Haan on the Talk:Techniques_of_Knowledge#Dutch_reference. I remove my objection to keep the reference, provided that context is given here as well (date, bias, motives and substance). ≈ jossi ≈
No particular action during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Convincing people to leave (resolved)

The article says that A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge. . That is not entirely true. Their primary focus is to harass Maharaji, his students and the organizations involved, to interrupt and disrupt events, impose their negative views on the press and diminish people's freedom of belief. --jossi

4th paragraph, "Sources of Criticism":
"A primary focus of the ex-premies is to convince people to leave the practice of Knowledge." (My emphasis on convince)
This is inaccurate. Ex-premies who post on forum 8 will engage in conversation with people who register to post messages on the forum. When premies/students (of their own free will) choose to register and post about pro-Rawat POVs they are challenged. No one is forced to register and post, especially any current students. The stated purpose of the forum is in the guidelines and can be read here:
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/public/guidelines.htm
If someone chooses to register and post on the forum, then they might ask for personal support in leaving the practice of knowledge. This is an option and an individual choice.
Additionally, no one (former follower or student) is forced to open the EPO website and read it.
Therefore, this sentence should also be deleted or rewritten.
Another Ex-Premie 16:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It will be great if you can help to re-write that sentence. Then: what is the primary focus of the ex-premies? Answer that question and re-write that sentence. When doing so, please note that we understand that forum8.org is not he only tool that the ex-premies use, so you will have to address that as well if you could. Thanks--Zappaz 16:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the archives of the chat room, and many many times, whenever a new document is "revealed" or another charge is made, there are several dozen postings from the anti-folks about whether this will "open the premies eyes" or more directly "whether this will convince others to leave Rawat." The archives are full of this, and I don;t understand why the anti-folks are being coy about this goal. The evidence seems to be pretty strong that it is a fundamental "mission" of the expremie organization. Richard G. 19:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Richard, I have rewritten that line to reflect what I believe is the motivation of ex-premies. Yes, we want people to know the truth about Rawat, and believe when they do, most will leave, but if they want to stay that's fine. The previous statement refered to leaving the practice of knowledge, that is different from leaving Rawat. Many ex-premies still practice the meditation techniques. ... --John Brauns 19:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, "pro" editors, you've had a rewrite from the "anti" side, is this issue now resolved? --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
No, not resolved. Saying that Ex-premies say that a primary focus of their activities is to provide information about Rawat that is not available from his official sites, so that those who wish to follow him can make a better informed choice. is a whitewash. What about:
  • Mounting campaigns of telephone calls and letter writing to the employers of Maharaji's students "warning" them that they employ "a member of a dangerous cult." This caused several of Maharaji's students to lose their jobs or have to close their business.
  • Filing formal complaints to professional regulatory bodies to have the law and psychology licences of Maharaji's students revoked. Fortunately, no regulatory body found any allegations worthy of formal investigation.
  • Calling the editors of newspapers publishing fair articles about Maharaji (at times up to 40 calls a day), intimidating them into recanting their articles.
  • Harassing by telephone and Internet the author of academic articles about Maharaji, emailing his supervisor to have him rescind a fair article about Maharaji.
  • Stalking the venues where Elan Vital holds public meetings, contacting the proprietors and flooding them with threats that there may be a demonstration. Then sending defamatory statements about Elan Vital to the proprietors.
  • Trying to learn what entities Elan Vital does business with, and then flooding those entities with "friendly warnings" about who Elan Vital "really" is with the goal to get contracted business cancelled.
  • Systematically calling the venues where Maharaji holds events, feeding them slanderous information and trying to cause them to cancel the event.
  • And more....
They can say what they want, but a rebuttal should also be included. The attempt by Brauns to paint the picture of a nice bunch of people doing a public service from the goodness of their hearts is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Also, to say that many ex-pemies still practice Knowledge is not consistent with what they write. At best you can say "some".--64.81.88.140 16:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think we agree that this is an attributed ex-premie position, and that people are free within NPOV to take any attributed position they want, subject to rebuttal. I think a short rebuttal to this attributed position would be fine. With that, is this issue now resolved? --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Issue resolved for me - Providing the rebuttal even if short, will be substantial. You will have to ask Richard and jossi as well for agreement as they made some points above . --64.81.88.140 05:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Resolved as per above. Attributed ex-premie position + rebuttal --≈ jossi ≈ 22:39, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Added sentence of supporter rebuttal regarding ex-premie intentions during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

Supporters who are active on the internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves, using the Internet to magnify their importance [5] (http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] (http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [7] (http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm)

I proposed deleting this entire paragraph. The One-reality website has taken posts out of context, has used the posts of former posters on the Ex-premie forum that were threatening to premies and Rawat, without including the responses from forum moderators and participants regarding threats to Prem Rawat. In particular, the posts represented by "janet" and "LesT" were criticized by the ex-premies because they constituted threats against premies and Rawat and his family, which is something that is absolutely never tolerated on the forum. Also, the poster "LesT" had to be banned (and still is) from the forum due to his continuous threats and baseless accusations against Prem Rawat. Proof of these "out of context" website postings is in the forum archives when "janet" made the anthrax post (which was deleted on the forum immediately after it was posted). http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=20011205e

Also, who are these online supporters? If supporters remain anonymous, then it must follow logically (and fairly) that posting anonymously is not a negative thing for critics, no? Can't have it both ways. ;)

Another Ex-Premie 15:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting is not an option., as these accussations are posted in several FAQs of Elan Vital and as such they warrant their inclusion... but you could add a rebuttal to that statement. It actually needs it for balance. Go ahead, give it a try.--Zappaz 16:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand because the FAQs on EV themselves are unsubstantiated. Is it unprecedented to delete a paragraph on Wiki?
Thanks.
Another Ex-Premie 16:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What you can do is say: "critics argue that these FAQ are unsubstantiated". Deleting is not an oprion in this case, becase these FAQs exist. Again, please take some time to read NPOV. It will help you understand these distinctions.--Zappaz 16:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do not support deleting this paragraph; it is a position attributed to the supporters. Once fairly attributed to someone, it can be as wacky or as unsubstantiated as you like, so long as that person/group really does say or believe it. I do think we should delete the sentence that Finch has replied, for the same reason I cited before when I deleted it: it's the reply arguments themselves that are encyclopedic, not the fact that someone has replied. If it's to stay, let's have an "anti" editor bring out the reply points themselves. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I would like to add a sentence or two saying that the main evidence against Rawat on EPO is from Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner, the cummulative memories of over 100 of those of us who lived through the era of openly worshipping Rawat as God, and of course the words of Rawat himself. As Elan Vital keep repeating, the number of active ex-premies who keep this information available is small, but EV's website makes no attempt to discredit the main sources of the information. I would add EV make no attempt to discredit me either! Although they make much of the leaked documents issue, much of the information from John Macgregor's articles that upset premies so much came from direct interviews with Donner and Dettmers (as a good journalist he knew not to take the evidence directly from EPO). Unless anyone has serious objections to such an addition I'll work on the wording later today. --John Brauns 07:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph retained, ex-premie rebuttal allegation shortened, Finch reply reference deleted during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Scattini letter (resolved)

Including the Scattini letter here is, I believe, wrong. There have been many attacks of ex-premies that I am sure were by premies but I have no evidence. Should I include them all here? I have no idea who wrote the Scattini letter, and I think there is a small possibility it was done by a premie to discredit ex-premies. You cannot include the article without at least, as I did, saying there is no evidence it was sent by an ex-premie. So can I reinstate it? --John Brauns 22:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You must be joking. To attempt to put the blame of the Scatinni affair on a premie. That is just too funny. Oh man... unbelievable the state of denial that pervades the ex-premie culture. --64.81.88.140 22:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
.140 I agree that is probably an ex-premie but if there is no evidence then this must be stated. Andries 22:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK. I will add it back. But note that people are not stupid, they will know exactly who did this. --64.81.88.140 22:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No particular action during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have added details of Elan Vital's attempt to remove Rawat's words from ex-premie websites and Google's cache under the legal action against ex-premies section. --John Brauns 22:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very cute John, to purposely not include the "anecdotal evidence suggests" at the begining of the statement from Chilling eFfect. Cute.
Compare:
  • Brauns "abrigded" version:
some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users.
  • Original version
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users.
Very cute.
Also cute to say the Google published that letter on that site to illustrate how the law can be used to silence critics.
Veeeeeery cute.

--64.81.88.140

I took the Chilling Effects quote from EPO, where it had been previously taken from Chilling Effects. Chilling Effects have clearly changed it since we quoted them and I am happy to change it to the later version. Regarding Google's motives, what do you think their motive for publishing the letter was? I also take it that 'cute' is a compliment, for which I am grateful. :-) --John Brauns 18:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Brauns added that Google forwarded the letter they received for publication on the Chilling Effects website. There is no evidence of that. Either provide evidene of that or delete that sentence. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)::
Okay, "anti" editors, do you have a cite for this? You know, The Chilling Effects website and the CESNUR article are to me pro-and-anti mirror situations where each side is beginning to stray rather far afield into third parties. I would be pleased if we could reduce both to mere mentions. --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)::
The letter was sent by Stroock to Google, and the letter is published on the Chilling Effects website (http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=650). To my knowledge neither Elan Vital's lawyers nor Google sent the letter to any other party. It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to decide that Google sent it to Chilling Effects. If you want to change it to ,/::'The letter that Elan Vital's lawyers sent to Google is now published on the Chilling Effects website' ::I would accept that, but I'm a little bemused by the complaint! --John Brauns 17:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Resolved. Using proposed wording. I have made that change. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:42, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Material retained, Chilling Effects reference shortened during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

House in Queensland (resolved)

House in Queensland - we need a source for that data. --Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I think this is discussed in EPO in an Ivory's Rock article--can an "anti" person dig this up as a quickie? Thanks. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Here it is - http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm#figtree - This includes a statement from Elan Vital describing how the house was bought for Maharaji's personal use and was later transferred to Myrine Investments, the Channel Island registered company that also owns the Amaroo land. --John Brauns 18:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the citacion. Gary, I guess that this one is resolved now.--Zappaz 22:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retained during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Credibility concerns (resolved)

Credibility - concerns about some of the statements as these were made by one person only, without any other reliable reference beyond hearsay. (e.g. hospitalization, ulcer, extra-marital affairs, etc.). These can stay only if this is clearly explained. --Zappaz 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ulcer and hospitalization are discussed by serveral news articles and acknowledged by PR or organization spokesmen; I think the extra-marital affairs are atributed properly; I'll confirm that during my upcoming edit. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I'm calling this resolved; several of the "resolved" items I will be taking care of in my edit.

Attributions confirmed, material retained during October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Denial of claims of divinity

Claims of divinity have been denied by Maharaji publicly in numerous ocassions in the early days as well as nowadays. This fact is glaringly missing from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

There are some example denials in the article, as quoted by the news media. I have not seen, which is the "anti" people's point, anywhere PR ever directly addressed the followers' adoration and responded, "look, you have it wrong, you seem to think I'm personally divine, and that's a mistake." If there is a quote like somewhere, it deserves to go front and center in the rebuttal section. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Someone posted a link to two recent video clips in which Maharaji denies in unequivocal terms that he is not god. These and other statements need to be recorded in the article as rebuttals.--≈ jossi ≈ 16:02, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
May be we should also include the statement that Maharaji did not protest when his followers addressed him with the Lord. 1979 or 1980 videoclip with a song that begins with "maharaji you are THE lord"
Andries 16:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am sure that Gary can weave this nicely in the text. Rawat has denied several times that he is not God (in the early days as well as in recent years) but has never rejected the devotion and the expressions of gratitude coming from some of his students.
In reading http://tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_conversation.htm one may start to understand the phenomena of this fascinating subject.
--Zappaz 18:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does any "pro" editor have a transcript of some good, short, very concise excerpts from the above? And Andries, if you are committed to the above, I would suggest a very short mention. --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


  • Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world. 1973
  • I am not sitting here saying "I am the messiah, I am the prophet"... But If you want that peace in your heart, I can make that happen. 1985
  • My efforts have always been to help people understand and feel the feelings within. People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the 'old silver haired guru with flowing white robes.' I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, 'You need peace.' When people asked, 'What is your qualification?' I said 'Judge me by what I offer. 1999
  • I’m me. I am a human being. Many things have been said about me. Many of these things have come from people’s own emotions, good or bad. I’m proud to be a human being. I am very happy that I have this life. I am also happy that I can feel joy and pain like everyone else. I’m happy being me. Some people would love to put labels on me, but I am just me. [16] 2001
--64.81.88.140 05:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added short excerpts from above quotes in October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Solo piloting (resolved)

The article mentions that ""he is a pilot that often files himself". This is incorrect, Maharaji always flies himself. (If anyone thinks that this is not "work" let them think that.) ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for this? I'm a little uncertain whether it is permissible to fly a personal jet like a Gulfstream V with a crew of one. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Rawat always has a co-pilot and has mentioned that the co-pilot also flies the plane. The co-pilot is not a premie. Mary Moore, who managed Rawat's aircraft for about a year mentions him (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journs/moore.htm - the mention is about two thirds the way down).--John Brauns 18:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that that wording missed the fact that Maharaji flies the aircratfts himself as part of his work, (of course with a co-pilot!). I have removed the word "often". Given that this is a supporter's rebuttal, I hope it can stay as is.≈ jossi ≈ 22:51, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

No particular action in October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Cyclist incident

I still want to insert the cyclist incident.... Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...Regarding the cyclist incindent, I don't see what is the reason for inclusion (????). But please add it to the text so that we can have a look. --Senegal 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please proceed, Andries. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
How about?: "Michael Dettmers writes that he wittnessed Maharaji killing a cyclist due to a car accident, which Dettmers says could have happened to anyone. [17]Dettmer says that Maharaji ran away from the accident and he later heard that Maharaji let another person take the blame. Dettmers considers Maharaji's behavior after the accident as an indication that he can not be trusted and not worthy of the devotion that premies gave him. "Andries 21:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Add a version of the above paragraph in the October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ashram closing complaints (resolved), only the debt must be added

I still want to insert...the complaints about closing the ashrams. Andries 21:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:What complain about the Ashrams, Andries? If you know about it, please add to the article? --Senegal 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::Please proceed, Andries. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

:::Nothing provided; not included in October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

complaint has been added. Andries 08:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holy breath

The article should include mention of "Holy Breath"

As Another ex-premie has pointed out elsewhere, Rawat used to give all new premies "Holy Breath". In their first darshan line, they were supposed to cup their right ear as they approached and he would blow into it. This supposedly sealed their newfound relationship as devotees to the living Satguru. Obviously, Rawat was supposedly "holy". That was the only reason his breath was considered so too. Premies would often swoon afterwards.

Rawat discontinued the process -- I THINK! -- but has never commented on it in recent times that I'm aware of. Perhaps Zappaz can tell us how common and insignificant this ritual is in India. Or maybe Richard can ask his premie girlfriend for the apologists' lowdown. Otherwise, I'd say it's solid proof that Rawat purported to be divine.

-- Jim

Thanks for that comment Jim. Feel free to add a description of that ceremony to the article. --Zappaz 18:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This Holy Breath nonsense is foolish gamesmanship. ... Richard G. 19:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're right Richard, Holy Breath was foolish nonsense but it was a ritual of the NRM that is the subject of this article and was practiced by Prem Rawat with his new premies until at least 1980. It's not foolish nonsense to have brought it up because it was an important ritualistic gesture of sealing the divine connection between a premie or devotee with their Perfect Master, Prem Rawat. I don't know how this practice originated but every new premie couldn't wait to get Holy Breath. This was common practice during darshan lines in the 1970s when Rawat held many programs through-out the U.S., Europe, Australia and beyond. As a premie approached Maharaji in the darshan line a premie would cup their hand to to their ear and Rawat would cup his hand to his mouth in a blowing motion, hence, a premie received Maharaji's Holy Breath. Are you making fun of a NRM practice, even if it may or may not have been discontinued now? Jossi admitted he didn't know when I asked. Has EV been asked if this practice is continued when premies pay respect in current darshan lines?
Another Ex-Premie 23:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The pressing practical problem is that Jim does not do article edits, and I don't think Another Ex-Premie does either. Andries, if you want to throw something in on Holy breath, feel free. If left to my edit pass, it will probably get something between a clause and a sentence of passing reference condensed from Jim's above text, probably placed somewhere near the darshan reference. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Surely this is not for the criticism article. The fact that Darshan and Holy Breat were important parts of following Maharaji is part of his history and should be in the main article. It doesn't seem like criticism to me! --John Brauns 18:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FYI, Darshan and Arti are already covered in the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, so will you be adding a description of the giving of Holy Breath to first time Darshan receivers to the main article, or shall I? I'm sure your memory of the practice matches Jim's. --John Brauns 10:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently this is headed for the main article, so nothing added to this article in the October 1 edit pass. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mishler being fired

I have removed the sentence, 'Supporters claim that he Mishler was fired and had an ax to grind when he made these statements.' I will be happy for a version to be reinstated if any evidence can be provided that he was fired. As Bob Mishler was President of Divine Light Mission (the most senior position) at the time, such evidence should include who sacked him. Bob Mishler himself says that he resigned, and I remember at the time the story among premies was that he had left voluntarily. I believe the sentence was inserted by someone with no direct knowledge who simply wanted to try to discredit Mishler's testimony. I am happy to be proved wrong on this. If a version of the sentence is reinstated with appropriate evidence, then it should also include that Mishler claims he resigned. ... --John Brauns 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Pro" editors, do you have a citation or source for this? --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Added both POVs to the sentence. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:59, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
We still need a "pro" citation for this. I plan to re-massage this sentence in my edit in any event. --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
The current version reads:- "It was in 1979 that Bob Mishler, President of Divine Light Mission from 1972-77, gave a radio interview critical [3] (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/mishler.htm) of Prem Rawat after he was fired. Critics say that there is no evidence of that and that Mishler resigned voluntarily." The reference to Mishler being fired is presented as fact not POV. It's not critics that say there is no evidence of him being fired, it is a fact that no evidence has been presented of him being fired. Critics have presented evidence that he resigned (Mishlers's own words, the fact that he had the most senior position, our memories of the stories at the time, and the fact that until this article no one has ever, to my knowledge, published the view that he was fired. Unless some evidence can be presented that he was fired, and as I've said before the minimum this evidence should include is who fired him!!!, then all mention of him being fired should be removed. --John Brauns 07:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sentence reworked; despite no provision of citation for firing, references to firing left in for now in October 1 edit pass, due to their obvious vagueness. However, I would support them coming out altogether if no citation is found. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Text moves

I have been moving text blocks into personal sections and negotiation sections to keep all focus on discrete text issues that need to be resolved. We might consider indicating, with strikeout or something, as each of these issues are resolved. Fix the disputes that remain, that's the deal, that's the goal. --Gary D 04:55, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

For anyone puzzed by my continuous frenetic rearranging and commenting and busybodying here on the talk page, let me explain: As people in my profession are wont to do, I am building a paper trail. I am building a paper trail so that anyone digging back into this page when it has been archived will be able to see that everyone on all sides, whether they are willing to personally edit the article themselves or not, was given a full chance to raise and argue every point they wanted in or out. People can always say the consensus judgment calls came down wrong, but this way no one can claim a railroading or a refusal to consider absolutely everything they wanted to say. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Finally, it is true I have started to apply pressure to everyone to get this process wrapped up. It is not that I am in a hurry, but I learned from the theme song to the old western TV show "Rawhide" that you have to "keep them doggies movin'" if you want a successful round up. --Gary D 08:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

(...move 'em on, head 'em up, head 'em up, move 'em out...)

Did you know?

Did you know?

  • Did you know that Andries is offering the ex-premies to create a website and host the copyrighted materials in Forum8.org in the Netherlands in an attempt to bypass Wikipedia copyright guidelines? http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6614.html

LOL! --4.8.16.157

yuhuuu yippi you must be james bond. i am toby and yes i suppose zappaz is paid. i did not say he is, this is my opinion.he is too blatant intelligent to believe this stuff , why should he give so much efford in it. maybe he is in love with rawat. that is fine with me. didn't i tell you to ask zappaz before you accuse somebody or make allegations? anothers premie's english is much better than mine which obviously has a foreign touch. the anti-anti-cult front from cesnur is documented and the can-scientology link is the greatest favour you could give.and i am the only neurotic who talks about that, why the plural? are we in propagation again? btw. do you have a written permission by EV to watch f8?

All fascinating. Now everyone back to work. --Gary D 01:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Very busy with work, so I won't be able to do anything until the weekend. Popped in to say I'm not Toby. :-)
Another Ex-Premie 19:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for article resolution by October 5

I am proposing that we work to close all still-open "must have" article disputes by 00:01 UTC October 5, the beginning of next Tuesday Greenwich Time. That would give us seven days to get the current controversies resolved. At that time we would:

  • Pull the "disputed tags" from the article (maybe leave on a "controversial article" tag to direct people to the talk page)
  • Establish the article's then-current version as a baseline consensus reference which future editors could return to or draw from heavily if future versions get out of hand
  • Band together, pro and anti editors alike, to protect the page, which would mean:
    • Revert any reposting of "diputed tags" to the article, unless the article changes significantly
    • Scrutinize and liberally revert any future block deletes (say, more than two consecutive sentences) from the agreed-on version, unless there is compensating text added
    • Scrutinize any large adds
    • In case of doubt, respect and generally defer to the agreed-on version
  • Generally get on with our lives and other Wikipedia articles (do I sound tired?)

This does not mean the article would be frozen. It does mean, however, that the wide-ranging disputes that have raged in the past would be considered settled, and we would resist re-opening them, unless new material or sources were brought up. I am making the suggestion at this particular point in time as it appears the active anti editors appear to have finished at least making a talk-page reference to all the remaining things they feel they must have. People who have walked away in disgust, them we will never satisfy, anyway. However, if there are people, especially "anti" people, who don't feel comfortable doing the writing themselves but who want something more included, leave a specific item mention on the talk page, along with a reference to where on ex-premie.org or elsewhere the material can be found, and I (and I'm hoping Andries) will be happy to take a look at it and include it here if we can. In addition, I plan to perform in the next few days and before my proposed deadline a minor-substance-but-mostly-style edit on the entire article, of the type I have performed before, with corresponding commentary on the talk page, also as before. I will run my edit sufficiently in advance of the deadline that any feathers I ruffle with the edit can be smoothed in the meantime. --Gary D 01:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good and timely plan, Gary. Look forward to your proposed version --Zappaz 03:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nota bene!

(That's Latin for note well!) In almost every still-open negotiating point above, one side or the other is being asked to come up with something, either a citation or a (usually short) piece of text. If you want the text but don't want to write it, tell me and I'll write it, but then no complaining. None of these items or requests is so large or intractable that it can't be closed by the—well, okay, my—October 5 deadline. I'm openly pressing both sides: The time for "more time," at least for this go-round, is over; otherwise, we're just heatedly dithering to no avail. The onus is on you. If you don't produce on a point, nothing can happen in your favor on that point. And if you want it to be included in my edit pass, it needs to be provided real soon. --Gary D 00:17, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I am planning my edit pass for twenty-four hours from now, 05:00 UTC on October 1. --Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

So what does Gary really think?

Gary,

I want to ask you something. Of the various editors here, you seem like the closest to someone I can trust and respect. That is, you're smart enough, a good writer and I do think that you're simply into this Wikipedia project for its own sake. In other words, you don't have a particular dog in this fight, as they say. I certainly don't feel that way about some others who have, to my eyes, demonstrated quite the opposite.

So here's my question. It might have no bearing on where this article finally settles but I'll still ask: how do you feel about this article? Do you honestly feel that it fairly represents who and what Rawat is really all about? Do you really think it presents us former followers in a fair light? Is it such an outrageous thing in this Wiki Wiki environment to ask you what your honest opinion is of Rawat and why? Also, while we're at it, how do you feel about the fact that Rawat's critics are focussed upon and disparaged far, far more than are our counterparts for other, ahem, "New Religious Movements"?

Finally -- and this might be the toughest question of all for you -- do you think that people like me who have expressed our disgust at the way this article has shaped up are just simply blinded by our prejudice, our "Level III Apostate Syndrome" etc. or do you think that, truth be told, we might actually be right and this entire gloss on Rawat is simply a shiny coat of shellac on a most undeserving subject? That any real investigative journalism -- which I know is anethmatic to Wikipedia -- would expose Rawat in muhc, much harsher, but more accurate, light?

Just curious.

Thank you in advance for giving this some real consideration.

--24.64.223.205 00:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Jim

Thank you for your confidence in me, Jim. It may be true that flattery gets you everywhere, cuz in this case I find myself willing to violate my own exhorations and engage you in a little talk-page-only chatter. I like to think of myself as essentially neutral regarding PR; I am neither premie nor ex-premie, and didn't know much about him prior to this. However, I do now have a dog in the fight, namely my pride in the text I have authored and my time and effort invested toward making these articles a success in encyclopedic terms.
Persuasion and debate are my business, and I spend a lot of time thinking about them. An encyclopedia is not about persuasion, it's about informing, but let's be honest, both sides here are feverishly into persuading as many readers as possible to their POV, and I can tell you a little something about that. You as an "anti" editor need not panic—these articles are not whitewashes of PR. I told the "pro" editors I was out to write a main article that was not unsympathetic to PR and I think I mostly succeeded in that. Nonetheless, PR takes four or five serious body blows in the course of the main article and the criticism article. You could say that I delivered some of those blows. Ironically, these are rarely discussed in the heated talk-page debates. That's because the blows were fact-driven, not spin-driven, while most of the factional efforts went toward spinning characterizations, not taking on facts.
Equally ironically, each side here has at certain times fought hard for material that actually weakens their case, because IMHO both sides are taken in by the fallacy that readers will accept at face value whatever you tell them, hence, if mild spin is good, stronger spin must be better. This ignores the important factor that readers like to draw their own conclusions, in large part from the tenor of your presentation iteself, and if you push a reader far enough to snap the credibility thread, all is lost. I even have a cautionary example for you: go check out The Mother and you let me know if you come away from that article convinced that author has delivered a solid story about a great woman. In the reader's mind the blight you see in that article also rubs off on the beloved subject matter: "That author is a total wack job, so this 'Mother' character must be one, too." This is why a very effective persuasion tactic is to lure the other side into making an outrageous or ineffective argument, and each side here has more than once eagerly volunteered to be the outrageous sap, though the other side never seems to recognize when they have been handed this on a silver platter.
Instead, everyone has that Perry Mason syndrome, where they think winning the argument means anihilating the other side, which isn't the case: an effective cross-examination doesn't leave the witness crying, it leave the witness grinning but the jury snickering at him. Here, the Perry Mason syndrome means the "pros" want people to come away from the article kissing PR's feet (no pun intended) and the "antis" want them to come away spitting on his picture. Neither side can achieve that. The divinity claims topic is a good example: is PR selfless beatified servant or cynically evil carnival huckster? The facts say he's neither, he's somewhere in between, so neither side can ever be happy, but I'm happy, because the facts manage to speak for themselves in these articles.
That leads me finally to answer your questions: I feel reasonably good about the articles, because they manage to inform. They are a little choppier for the political fact that both sides have to be appeased, and a single editorial voice without the need to persuade would have yielded a somewhat better product than this tug-of-war. However, they do manage to convey the essence of the story that comes through from the sources I have seen, without being too polemical either for or against. If I have to award a slight advantage, it's to the "pro" editors, but that's only because they get together and actually edit, while the "anti" people mostly just vent their spleen on the talk pages. That's why many of my edits may seem "anti"; I'm often just trying to fill in for the largely MIA "anti" editorial voice. But neither side has hijacked these articles. So why don't they appear balanced to you? Brutal truth, yes, you are indeed blinded by your prejudice, but no more so than the pro side. .140 is just as enraged as you are about the articles' appalling POV, only in the opposite direction. All of you think it would kill you to give an inch of ground, unaware that true persuasion would lie in doing exactly that.
Which leads to your next question, about disparagement of ex-premies. The "anti" side still doesn't get it that this is some of the best material in their favor: What do you think readers, most of whom are subconsciously steeped in the "turn the other cheek" milieu of Western spirituality, are going to think about a religious group who unloads salvo after salvo of "goddamn drug-dealing, pornography-producing hate group" invective on their former bretheren turned opponents? And it's just the same when the ex-premies hurl wild invective back at PR. You each should instead be wildly reverting to get your own side's "satirical site" off the page, because I'm here to tell you, it absolutely destoys you. You should be happiest when the other side is at their shrillest, just as they should be when your side is at yours. When you are each shrill is when you each lose. Dig it.
Speaking of shrill, a last note on "investigative journalism": An encyclopedia is not investigative journalism. I have no doubt a Geraldo Rivera or a Michael Moore could serve up some juicy dish on PR. But their readers and viewers are looking for a Gerry Springer-style rush; they expect the spin will be thick and the deck will be stacked, and they don't care. That is not what a reader expects, however, when he cracks an encyclopedia, so the analogy is inapt.
Okay, I imagine I've managed to malign just about everybody on both sides, but I tried to at least maintain balance. I apologize if I've offended or hurt any feelings, but you asked and I care little to hide my own POV. Go edit Lyndon LaRouche or some other article for a while that you have little investment in but which has bitterly polarized factions, and you may forgive what seems like harshness in what I have expressed above. --Gary D 08:33, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


thanks for your explanation. i appreciate this effort. but i must also mention that it is a sympathetic thing as well. i read the acim article, where you did a lot of editing and i might say that beneath many other interests you might have, there is also that "corner". Correct me if i am totally wrong. than we have richard g. whose girlfriend is a premie, i do not expect any real neutrality from that side. i watched zappaz for a long time, he is my "paganini", he did a research of 10 month as he mentioned to present rawat's POV(he also mentioned that). jossi and 140 , i don't know, appears to me sometimes like an unhappy version of dr.jekyll and mr. hyde. when i saw how andries had been treated, i knew i wouldn't have a chance due to my limited language skills. as a matter of fact, a non point of view is no view at all. so there are these rules and it is mainly a matter of composition and writing style to present a certain POV as impression between the lines.i want to express that i am not angry about anybody here, though some things got me a bit upset(but that is my problem). and hey 140 down there, give us the freedom to stay blinded, you have your freedom to offer your ear at darshan line. the documents on EPO ,copyvio or not speak for themselves, and you know that.thomas


The real question is why do you care so much what Gary D thinks or does not think about this subject? Are you sudenly doubting yourself and your campaing? Do you need reassurances from 3rd parties?
Your chutzpah is just too much, Jim. To say that this article gloss over your criticism is way too much. If at all, your tiny, minuscule group of ex-premies have been given one full page to present their POV. That is a huge concession given your true relevance. The problem of the ex-premies is that you guys spend too much time with each other and your thinking (and actions) never challenged by "outsiders". You are clearly blinded by your thinking and unable to accept that fact of what you really are and do. Face reality, Jim. It is about time you do. Can you just for a while be just "Jim" and not an "ex-something"?
And also: Any real investigative journalism would expose the ex-premies in much, much harsher, but more accurate, light. --64.81.88.140 03:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


To the contraire, my good friend! Rawat's like an old, old, old stripper, perhaps in her 80's, with a small, loyal following of degenerate losers who are willing to keep showing up, paying their two bucks and masturbating at her "timeless" fan show. If you squint hard enough ... well, it sure helps if your eyesights failing to begin with. But take the show out into broad daylight?
Think about it!
Think about Rawat having to actually discuss exactly who or what he thinks he is and all that good stuff. Now that's a show that would really be worth the price of admission!
-- Jim


Thank you Gary for the response. I actually agree with all of your points. I sincerely believe that people can make their own minds about this or any other subject and that spin and innuendo is way too transparent to most people (just follow the presidential campaign...). people can smell that stuff from miles. My hope is that this and other reated articles can reach a stable and balanced condition. I am hopeful that this will be possible, given your involvement and the involvement of other editors. --≈ jossi ≈ 16:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your answer, Gary. A few things though:
1) Persuasion is my business as well. I'm a criminal lawyer. I can tell you with the confidence that, when it comes to cross-examination, there are many ways to skin a cat. You depict one but there are others. Recently, for example, I defended someone on a serious charge who was being framed by a former friend who claimed my client had confessed to her. After two days of cross-examination which varied from the kind of understated sarcasm you mention to fairly direct, aggressive confrontation, the witness began to admit that she'd perjured herself. After a few more questions, she was clearly caught in her lies and getting further entangled with every word. Finally, she simply keeled over. Passed out in the witness stand. Both the ambulance attendants and jurors were rolling their eyes. The prosecution dropped the charges and we all went home. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that that was neither effective nor persuasive. Everyone "got it", I can assure you: my client was innocent.
My point is that it's every bit as much a fallacy to avoid the "Perry Mason" moment as to try to force it where it just isn't possible. In terms of Rawat, though, it's available all over the place. Trust me, I really know what I'm talking about. Not only was I in the cult itself for eight years or so but I've been involved in the ex-premie internet scene from the start. I remember when premies first denied that Rawat even said some of the things he said in the early days only to be caught defenceless -- just like that woman on the stand -- when confronted with some of the quotes we've accumulated. Those really have been "aha!" moments and any fair-minded person would have "enjoyed" them as such. Then, when Rawat started actually trying to explain away his representations as the Lord, as for example in EV's FAQs, it really did become hilarious. Again, I'm sorry you don't have the eyes to appreciate it. I can tell you that I've shown this evidence to many an outsider and their responses have been always the same: Rawat is an obvious fraud. The only question they have, and a fair one at that, is whether or not he's self-deluded and if so to what extent.
2) Your tendency to try to ride straight up the middle, in my opinion, gives you a certain blind-side that obscures your vision. Consider your comments regarding the satire both sides engage in. Ex-premies satirize a fellow who did indeed claim to be the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, who danced around in a Krishna costume and encouraged people to line up to kiss his feet. There's a lot to work with there. What do premies satirize? Ex-premies' persistence and refusal to simply shut the f**ck up. Sorry, Gary, but there isn't much to work with there at all. In the result that some of the ex satire is really funny and biting. Not all, some. But there isn't a bit of premie satire that comes off as anything but mean-spirited and flailing.
3) Limiting your examples of investigative journalism to Rivera or Moore (a person I particularly loathe for his duplicity) is such a blatant straw man argument it's almost embarrassing. It makes me wonder where you're really coming from and what special interests you protect in your life that makes you so wary of a real, honest investigatory story. Thomas makes a good point when he points out the various interests of some of the editors here. I still think you're better than people like Zappaz, who I stopped taking seriously the moment he dissembled about the divinity claims, or Richard G. But you reveal a lot about yourself with that one little comment. If I could cross-examine you, Gary, who knows what we'd find? :)
4) I don't think you really said if you thought the article gave a fair depiction of who Rawat really is. But then it sounds like you can't figure that out for yourself anyway, can you? You seem to suggest that he's an enigmatic character who is every bit as likely to be a saint as a sinner. Tell me, did you watched the OJ civil trial? Did you watch his testimony? Imagine Rawat trying to explain first why he used to say that he was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva combined and then try to explain his later explanation that everyone in India talks that way! I promise you that you would jump off the fence in you could sit through that cross-examination. Perhaps your problem and that of some of your fellow Wiki editors is simply a lack of imagination. Oh well, there I go, offending everyone!  :)
5) I do get your point about an encyclopedia being understated to some degree and that there's some real benefit to that. I would submit that EPO is, in many respects, understated for that very reason. Yes, that's right. I think EPO is far from shrill and does indeed simply present facts which intelligent readers can infer from as they will. Now us exes arguing, well that's a different story. We don't all have that kind of temperment, nor should we have to. This comes back to your limited view of effective persuasion strategies. But then I think you already get my point.
:)
Cheers, Jim --24.64.223.203 17:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


To repeat what I have said several times before, I have been researching this subject for almost a year and I have been contributing to this article since more or less the beginning. I find this subject fascinating and hope one day to write a paper about it. I must confess that my POV is not so much "pro", rather anti-"anti" if you wish. As I have said several times before in my disclosures, my libertarian feathers get pretty ruffled every-time I come across people who's leitmotif is to threaten a person's right to pursue his/her beliefs.
Jim's vitriolic comments above and throughout the talk pages of this and other articles, says it all about what "persuasion strategies" means in his dictionary. Gary, you may be the only one to remain unscathed, but given Jim's last comment may be that H2SO4 is coming your way too... :)
My sense is that if there is passion in the discussion is because people care passionately about it. Pity that sometimes that passion takes over, civility is lost, and the editing process suffers.
As interesting as these polemics might be, the important thing is that the articles are shaping up to be good encyclopedic articles on the subject, providing facts, information and the points of view of the involved parties, and I thank all these that contributed to the effort so far.
--Zappaz 23:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, you yourself are hardly the paragon of civility. Why? Because you dissembled about the divinity issue and refused to properly discuss it. In terms of this article it is a very big issue, perhaps the biggest. It's not just the initial claims that matter but also the way Rawat deflected all responsibility for them afterwards. Add to that the way EV and people like Geaves have grossly distorted the history of the claims and then, even more importantly, the way Rawat still insidiously sustains and promotes those beliefs (as evidenced by the devotional goo on ELK), and you can see just how central an issue this is. But you lacked the courage of your convictions -- or worse, an honest belief in your position -- and refused to discuss it properly. I well admit that that tried my patience.
As I've said, and will say again, your approach to scholarship is a travesty. Perhaps your admitted "anti-anti" bias is the problem. I'm sure it's at least part of it. I guess you can't philosophically accept the fact that there are frauds who deserve big warning signs over their heads. I would love to hash that one out with you too but I'm not holding my breath.
But this civility thing ... here's a story that I think's illustrative of the problem with your complaint. The biggest trial in Canadian history is wrapping up now in Vancouver. It's the case where two Sikhs are charged with blowing up an Air India flight from Vancouver to India back in the 80's. The Crown had all sorts of problems with various witnesses including one who claimed he didn't speak English despite his having given a clear, long statement in English to the RCMP. Worse, he'd say one thing one day then, when confronted by the Crown the very next, and shown a transcript even, he'd pretend he'd never said them. How he kept a straight face through was a real mystery. Anyway, the Crown lost it. Started asking the guy if he was stupid, stuff like that. Now the judge gave the Crown shit and reminded him, not once but twice, that, as Crown, he must maintain civility at all times no matter what. And maybe he's got a point when it comes to agents of the state or representatives of the Queen and all that.
But, frankly, I'm glad the Crown lit into the guy a bit. He deserved it. He was playing the duck and, to me, that is often far more uncivil than raising one's voice. Being dishonest is uncivil. You were dishonest. So, please don't lecture me about manners. Anytime you want to properly discuss the divinity issue, I assure you I can do so rationally and courteously. But that requires a real committment on your part to see the issue through. To date you've demonstrated a committment to obscure the facts and to run from any proper analysis. And yes, I find that disgusting.
--24.68.220.3 02:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Jim
everybody has a certain reason to be here. for premies, it is clear. ex-premies have their reasons as well and were successfully directed to the apostate III thing to diffame them and lower their credibility. so when zappaz says that his background is libertarian and he is more anti-anti just for the sake of it, i have my doubts.the premies in their understanding do not follow a belief or belief system, he seems to be defending the wrong kind of people. if somebody would tell jossi "you are in a belief system", he would deny that.on the other hand as far as zappaz is editing in his sense he'd gracefully look over it. zappaz motivation IMO may lie more in a personal negative experience and feels like some kind of a revenge. thomas

To Thomas, language problem/theoretical background

If language is the problem then just write what you think should be inserted in German on the talk page. I can translate it into English. Andries 12:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danke Andries für das Angebot. Mir ist aufgefallen das es für das Verhalten von Rawat aus der sogenannten Antisicht kaum theoretische Untermauerung gibt. Ich meine das Buch "The Guru Papers" findet zum Beispiel keine Erwähnung, wo doch die Symptome von Rawat ziemlich eindeutig dem in diesem Buche aufgezeigten Modellen entsprechen. Das Magengeschwür , der Alkoholismus, die Nichtherausforderbarkeit(unchallengable), usw.. Vielleicht sollten wir das mal zusammen ausarbeiten.thomas

Andries, that was a classy assist. --Gary D 06:07, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Passend wäre ein Absatz wohl in miscellanious criticism zwischen der Aufzählung von Bluthochdruck, Alk und soweiter und den Angriffen auf ehemalige Anhänger die es wagen darüber zu sprechen . die ganze Aufteilung der Sektion Kritik ist etwas unglücklich, ich frage mich wo die brillianten schreiberischen Fähigkeiten wie im Pro Artikel zu finden sind. Aber sei's drum. Aus den Kapiteln "The Traps of being a Guru und "Scandals,Saints und Self-Centerdness" liesse sich gut zitieren(beinahe das ganze Buch passt wie die Faust auf das Auge ;-) ). thomas
Thomas, the book "The Guru Papers" has a huge drawback and that is that it has no references to experiences of followers or mentions specific gurus. It is more a long, theoretical, somewhat repetitive essay that makes many very good points with regards to gurus and their followers incl. Maharaji. I think that this essay-nature makes unsuitable to be included in this encyclopedic article. It would be great though for a journalistic article or an essay. I re-read the chapter to which you referred and yes, this is 100% Prem Rawat. May be the chapter was written on the basis of Prem Rawat's story. If we use it as a theoretical background then it possibly refers to itself. As a consequence we would be we writing and thinking in circles.
I agree that it would be good to include some theoretical background but then I prefer to use
1. a cult checklist in e.g. the Divine Light Mission article, or
2. use Eileen Barker's list of problematic groups, or
3. we could mention Jeanne Messer's observation of psychological changes of converts to the DLM, as mentioned in Barker's book "Introduction to NRMs", or
4. elaborate on Dr David Lane's excerpts on assessing the authenticity of a guru from a book, or
5. mention that eloquent gurus are the ones who are more likely to be unpredictable, harmful and dangerous according to British psychiatry professor Anthony Storr as expressed in his book "Feet of clay: a study of gurus". .
Andries 21:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hallo Andries, du siehst ja, da möchte einer seine Jahresarbeit nicht gestört wissen. Eine Kritik die sich vehement mit den Kritikern beschäftigt, ist natürlich ein Schuss in den Fuß und rechnet mit der Oberflächlichkeit der Leser. Ich frage mich ob ein solcher Unsinn gebildeten Leuten wie Richard oder Zappaz nicht auffällt oder ob das an den Universitäten in den Südstaaten so üblich ist.Hattest du eigentlich die Videoauschnitte gesehen, wie Rawat sich als "The Lord" besingen lässt und das offensichtlich genießt? Eine klare Widerlegung der FAQ's von EV. Schade dass sich Zappaz und die anderen hinter den copyvios verstecken müssen. Allzu viel Courage scheint ja nicht vorhanden zu sein, dass würde seine Arbeit auch vehement komplizieren.thomas
Andries. Let's finish this article first.
  • If you want to add throretical stuff about gurus in general please do so in the Guru article, to which you can wiki-link from this and other articles if you wish.
  • Regarding other articles, i.e. Divine Light Mission, let's discuss them in their own talk pages.
  • The David C. Lane stuff can go in his article that is what it is there for.
  • The validity of the cult checklists are currently being challenged in the Talk:cult page, so adding one here is bad timing.
--Zappaz 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ouch, but we have a lot of theoretical lines of how bad former members of cults are in general, especially if they dare to speak out internas. sorry, i cannot take this really too serious. interesting would be also how libertarian convictions cope with sympathy for authoritarian structures. especially when people that try to gain their liberty again are getting defamed.your kind of libertarian attitude is hard for me to understand(except if you have political ambitions, would mean you have no convictions at all). thomas

Prouda yous fellas

Thanks, everyone, for pitching in to "burn down" several of the remaining unresolved issues. You know, this is sort of like NASA's procedure for resolving issues before a shuttle launch; whether you take that as a positive or a negative is up to you, LOL. Additional unresolved issues that at least have proposed solutions I will also be including in my edit pass, now planned for 05:00 UTC on October 1. --Gary D 04:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would hope that NASA doesn't launch too often before resolving issues. LOL! Because I don't have time to even familiarize myself with NPOV until this weekend, I suppose I missed this launch. However, as I understand it, Wiki articles are never absolutely finished and can be edited any time. Is that correct?
Another Ex-Premie 18:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another_Ex-Premie, yes, it is formally true that a Wikipedia article is never finished but I, and I think Gary_D and others too, would appreciate it very much, if we could finish it and move on. The trenched nature of the subject made the article difficult and tedious to edit. So I would appreciate if you could write down the items that you would like to include to speed up things. Andries 19:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another Ex-premie: Read Gary's proposal above (Proposal for article resolution by October 5). In it it explains what is the proposed agreement on what we can do and cannot do after October 5. If you do what Andries request, it will be the easiest. Gary can then wave your text into his edit. --Zappaz 21:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/Archive_10&oldid=1211856812"