"
 Organization of this Discussion Page  

I would like to collapse several threads that are dealing with the same issue into one section each respectively, with subsections as appropriate.  Main categories that could be stagnate: ""The Photo"", ""The Lede"", ""Hunt"", ""Kissing of Feet"", ""Time Article"", ""References"", and all the discussion over the article about Jossi, his statement of purpose, and everyone's comments who were ""disturbed"".
I think this would help the snowballing of this page, as well as keep some editors in here from starting new threads about a subject that has been well covered.
Also, I think this would help any outside admins or editors to see in a concise manner the way in which the page is discussed.   

Balance Teachings and Criticism Sections
As the teachings section has a link to a teachings page which is 100% pro prem could someone restore Criticism of Prem Rawat and add a link from the criticism section? 82.150.96.2    

 Criticisms 

Since Prem Rawat is controversial a criticism section feels relevant. This criticism section has been deleted or removed several times without comments by Momento and/or others. A previous article called ""Criticism of Prem Rawat "" has also been deleted. It has also been noted that an external link to a site about Prem Rawat and his work has been removed by Jossi without comment. However edit warring is prohibited Wikipedia:Edit war.

Any disputes should be dealt with using the dispute resolution process. 76.102.196.148   178.26.39.46

I removed that link on the basis of Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, as well as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. As for the ""criticism section"", please read the archives were this has been discussed.  (talk) 

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user. This article is the only one you have ever edited. You have shown a dishonest approach by describing the website you tried to link to as a “website about Prem Rawat and his work.” I suspect you know very well that site is an unmoderated attack site set up with no purpose other than denigrating the subject of this article, who is a living person and protected by the Wikipedia guidelines and rules for  Biographies of living persons. You are doing yourself no favours and are heading for a charge of  disruptive editing. Please avoid this by reading the extensive archives of this discussion page before contributing again.   

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user, just like me. This article is one of many that I have edited, but since my ISP changes my IP address from time to time, it just seems I am only editing articles relating to Mr Ji's operations at the moment. I am sometimes incredibly dishonest, but my contributions to wikipedia have to be assessed not on the basis of my appalling crimes, rather, whether they make sense and are informative. I know very well the ex-premie sites are antagonistic towards Mr Ji and that nothing must ever be published that calls into question his good name and the multiple money-collecting organisations run in his name. This is an important piece of international law, with which every article in wikipedia must comply with as at present, under pain of persecution from the latter-day Praetorian Guard. Your contributions will be mercilessly deleted by a handful of premies whose spiritual path has led them to be the guardians of the premie-controlled pages in wikipedia. All I can say is to repeat something once said by a little known British leader some while ago, a man called Winston Churchill. He said: ""Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up. 84.9.48.220  

 Rumiton, your comment in it's current form can easily be seen as a personal attack. You should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's the policy. The site being referred to describes itself as an information resource covering Prem Rawat and his work, and according to Jossi's comment above it's ok to refer to a biased site such as the site