Talk:Elan Vital (organization)

message: *The organization was originally incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation and in 1974 was recognized as a religious organization by the United States Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(3). The organization changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change.[1] Elan Vital states in its website that the name was changed to remove Indian labels and to present Maharaji's message in a manner more congruent with Western culture.[2]
If this text is correct then why do we have two articles on the same organization? Two time periods of the same organization would be handled best in one article. Neither article appears excessively long, and there's some duplication between them. Unless there's a good reason to keep them separate we should consider a merge.    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why to conflate the two articles into one, as most, if not all, reliable sources on the subject describe the disbanding of the mission in 1983. What is the harm in keeping two separate articles? I see none. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with the existing article is that it has virtually no 3rd-party sources. Some sources refer to them in one breath - "DLM/EV". Also, and perhaps most important, there's considerable overlap between the articles.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support the merging of the articles.  This article would fit perfectly as a section of the DLM article, with a redirect.  What is the procedure for doing that?  Jossi, there is only one source -- a disfavored tertiary source at that -- that states the the "mission" (ambiguous, lower case m) was disbanded in 1983.  Given that Elan Vital is very well documented to be the same organization as DLM, with a name change, it is clear that this source is simply mistaken.  It appears that they were referring to the disbanding of the ashrams, which several reliable sources date to 1983. Msalt (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLM=EV? 

message: Here's another Elan Vital branch organization, CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION, in the US that should be added to the list. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it related? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the CBG stands for Community Building Group Ltd, given as part of CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION's address. It's the entity that got sued by the owner of the Houston Astrodome. 147.114.226.173 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any information that ties this group to other Elan Vital groups or to Prem Rawat. There are many organizations that use "elan vital" in their name, so that could just be a coincidence.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with DLM or Elan Vital.  It's a completely different corporation and CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION doesn't show up as a d/b/a of DLM anywhere, any time, as Will said.  Plus, it wouldn't have been "Elan Vital" that would have been sued, it would have been Divine Light Mission.  A forgiveable mistake.  Sylviecyn (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=405714&page=6 Elan Vital Housing Charity]

message: I think it lacks notability and encyclopedic relevance that the Rocky Mountain News or the Australian Associated Press referred to Elan Vital as a cult. It testifies to nothing, except the linguistic preference of the author. Jayen466 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to stick to what the sources say, we do not want to be accused of interpreting the data, merely providing it from good sources. Do we have any information that the Rocky Mountain News, and/or the Australian Associated Press, are not credible sources? Maelefique (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. I could bring a dozen cites of this type: Bryan R. Wilson describes EV as a new religious movement. CESNUR include it in their list of new religious movements. Lewis describes it as a movement within the Radhasoami tradition. Scholar X describes EV as an outgrowth of the Sant Mat tradition. Etc. etc. It does not say anything of encyclopedic relevance. It would be better to cite an author who has something specific to say about Elan Vital, whether they call it a cult or an NRM or whatever. We can use the word the sources use, but the source should say something of substance. Jayen466 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bigger picture is that EV is simply the new name for DLM, which unquestionably has been frequently described as a cult.  Why do we have separate articles for the different names of the same organization?  Clearly, this organization has evolved to the point that, in its EV incarnation, it is rarely called a cult.  This metamorphosis is something that should be described in a single article. Msalt (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing Jayen466, I'm saying that if we are going to use that source, we should not change the wording. I'm not talking about whether or not we should be using that source at all. Is that what you're talking about? Are we talking about 2 different things here? Maelefique (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We were talking about two different things. ;-) I agree that if we quote a source, we should as a rule use the terms the source uses. Jayen466 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Per Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research (my highlight): Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources' available.   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Australian Associated Press" sounds classy, but it owns many newspapers, of widely varying credibility. The Courier-Mail is one, and I would argue it is far from acceptable for a WP:BLP, and is becoming more tabloidal every day. The front page shown on the Wikipedia article is representative: "Nation's Day of Shame!" About? A football match. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text:   The term "counter cult" and anti cult is even used in the Apologetics Index: research resources on religious cults, sects, new religious movements, alternative religions, apologetics-, anticult-, and countercult organizations, doctrines, religious practices and world views. [...] An annotated guide to apologetics and counter cult research resources . See also  Anti-cult movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The link you provided (Apologetics Index) is the site of a fairly extreme Christian group trying to discredit anybody whose beliefs or practices are non-Christian. Please try to find better sources, and please don't dignify this kind of opinionated raving by calling it information. I smile when I read your description of the term "cult awareness experts" as "more neutral". Cult is very negative. Experts is very positive. Do the two somehow cancel and make a neutral? C'mon Sylvie. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about this Apologetics Index, Rumiton, do you have any sources that I can read regarding them? Maelefique (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologetics Index and the married couple (Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson) that maintain the site and their blog are not only not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, but their apologism is quite obvious. The publishers operate from an evangelical, Christian point of view [...] to provide Christians with apologetics research resources on cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines and practices ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you, Rumiton, and Momento really need to knock off the Christian-bashing here.  We live in a Judeo-Christian culture, so your evaulation of sources based on their religous affiliation is unwelcome here.  Apologetics Index is the other side of the CESNUR story, and no it’s not an "extremist” Christian organization.  Sure, the website owners are Christians, but so what?  It's offensive when you and Momento engage in Christian-bashing the way you do when you don't like the what the reputable, published, reliable scholarly sources have to say about Rawat in particular or nrms/cults in general.  That's not part of an editor's job based on my understanding of NPOV writing, anyway.  The fact is that CESNUR promotes a very particular pov about "cult awareness experts" (a very negative pov), they've set themselves up as being more credible than all other non-CESNUR scholars, including very reputable academics like Margaret Singer, against whom CESNUR conducted a huge campaign to discredit her work when she was alive, because they didn't like her or her work.  That's a fact.  Massimo Introgivne, the founder and leader of CESNUR isn't even an academic scholar of NRMs because he doesn't have the academic credentials to make the claim:  he is only an Italian patent attorney. LOL! That fact, in and of itself, is quite controversial and enough to cause editors here to use great caution when citing CESNUR's pov.   Sylviecyn (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not bashing anyone. Only stating that Hein is a self-described Christian evangelical, that promotes Christian apologetics, and that neither Hein or his website have an article in Wikipedia. My opinion of these sources, I keep to myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, Margaret Singer reputation was strongly challenged  by the scientific community during the DIMPAC controversy and the subsequent lawsuits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Margaret Singer's report on brainwashing was  challenged not her reputation.  I know as much, if not more than you do about all of these various controversies, Jossi, so please stop pushing your POV here as if you're the ultimate expert on this subject.  Margaret Singer remains a very reputable source for purposes of this and any other article about NRMs/cults, here on wiki and worldwide.  The fact is the CESNUR folks hated her and tried to ruin her reputation.  Btw, I didn't voice an opinion above, if you read my post correctly.  I was pointing out the many controversies surrounding the many various sources which are used on wikipedia and the possible pitfalls when editors write about nrms/cults using only CESNUR as their guide, and I advised caution against doing that.  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  Look, I'm an atheist and I find it offensive when you, Rumiton and Momento frequently evaluate various scholars here based upon their religious affiliation.  That has no place on wikipedia, and I know I'm not alone in that opinion.  Once again, if someone is a credentialled academic, published, and considered a reliable source by wiki standards, then their religious affiliation is irrelevant. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not placed any words in your mouth, have I? Read DIMPAC, and read Margaret Singer. After the DIMPAC controversy, her testimony was rejected by four judges, and no longer could she pursue a career in providing testimonies in court cases. How about that for having her reputation challenged? Also, how can you find it offensive that I point the fact that Hein is a Christian apologetic, when that is what he claims to be in his own website? Or when I point the fact that a scholar is a Protestant evangelical, writing for a Christian publisher that targets pastors and churches? That is not offensive, just simple, verifiable facts. CESNUR publishes works by many scholars and holds conferences with organizations such as Eileen Barker's INFORM,  in which prominent scholars participate, see http://www.cesnur.org/2008/london_prg.htm ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not have the time to go in-depth on this at the moment, and I have not finished reviewing the website in question. Having said that, to make an inference that if something is not in Wikipedia, it's not important/notable is a bit ridiculous, or is that seriously what you think jossi? Maelefique (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:NOTABILITY  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is some disturbing information about Anton Hein from Rick Ross  That material in itself is not enough notability for an biographical article on Hein, per WP:ONEEVENT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that information about Hein because I didn't know that about him (yuck).  I was just using AI as means of demonstrating the academic disputes.  Here's a much better source of information that explains all of the various disputes between CESNUR and other academics in this field that is from ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) with a prologue by Michael Langone, PhD. who is definitely not a convicted sex offender. Academic Disputes and Dialogue.  Also, here's another interesting blurb from the same Rick Ross website that you found the info on Hein.  Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know about the disputes between ICSA and CESNUR, and I also know about various attempts made to bridge the chasm between theme and scholars from both camps. One can argue that the issue is more political than anything else . In any case, why are we discussing them here? There are articles about these two organization in which this can be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my first post about CESNUR about which you began an argument with me.  I simply wanted to inform folks that CESNUR is a controversial org., is the source of the ACM term, and has a particular POV about NRMs.  It's not the gold standard for sources on this subject.  That's all.  Sylviecyn (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we using CESNUR as  source? I don't think so. We are using scholars that may have participated in CESNURs' conferences, or papers presented there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as that does not mean that a scarcity of good sources means we should keep bad ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult references

message: ::Will, the University of Virginia has an excellent online resource called New Religious Movements, created and supervised by the late Jeffrey Hadden.  Here's DLM/EV's page. This source was protested here in the past on the basis that, 1) It was written by a student of Hadden, not Hadden himself; and 2) The research includes references to the ex-premie site (EPO).  It's interesting that EPO is considered a reliable source that's acceptable for use when writing academic papers, but not for Wikipedia articles. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The site was a student's project in the 1990's  and the project has been deprecated and no longer used. Many of the links do not work anymore, such as the advisory board , site map  and even their home page . The Virginia University new websites about religious movements is here: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ and here http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite correct, while there are a few problems with the links (the first two are external to the project), we're not here to debate their expertise in coding, the homepage is easily reachable here, their image map was sloppy (.htm, not .html in the link). Quoting from the homepage directly, "   Last updated: 05/22/05", so someone somewhere has been updating things, the other sites you point to do not seem to have the same material as this one does. I'm not sure they are the new versions of this material, where did you get that idea/information? I cannot find any text on this site that would indicate it has been deprecated and/or replaced. It does appear that portions of this website have been moved to a new subdomain at religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu, however that seems to have been done unsuccessfully, and I'm not sure it's too relevant, unless you'd like to suggest that the moved portions contradict articles in the sections we have. Maelefique (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there are new versions of that material: See Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Elliot III, Eugene M. "Divine Light Mission - Elan Vital" in . Elliot III was the student that wrote that page. I will need to go to the library to retrieve that entry, but if memory does not fail me it is quite different that the student work done in 1999. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't see where this was a student's project as you claim in your cite, thanks for at least making this entire page cite in english this time, that helped. In fact, the text refers in the first person to the fact that you can retrieve his course lecture notes, when you go to that page, you have the course lecture notes for Mr. Hadden's Sociology 257 class. Ergo, it seems safe to draw the conclusion that the page you are referencing is from the professsor himself, not a student, and if you re-read the first paragraph, if that's where you're drawing your chronology from, that's not what it says. Further, the welcome page also contains this, "Last modified 11/26/00". You may want to refresh yourself with these, WP:CITE#Why_sources_should_be_cited, bullet number 4 specifically, WP:REFB because this is the second time you've done it to me, and WP:PROVEIT#Burden_of_evidence, which should be pretty straightforward in its context (very first paragraph). Maelefique (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand what you are saying. We have a newer source which I provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have another source, I already quoted from the page, 2005 dated. Your source says 2002. I do not see a problem with using either, or both, sources. Maelefique (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page in question was last updated in 1999. A newer article with same name appeared in a non-self published publication in 2002, that is the source I provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please fix your link then, as the link you provided, which is here was last updated on Tues, Aug. 31, 2004. It is in fact, 2 years newer than your "new" source. If you need me to explain how to find that information, no problem. If you have some alternate method of finding that date, I would STILL be very interested in how you arrived at that date (not sure how many times I have to ask a simple question before I get an answer). Hopefully we can work together on this so we don't have to go and fix any future mistakes that might be made by faulty research. Maelefique (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring to the article itself:  I will be going to the library and provide the text of the 2002 source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if you tried to cite the article you're talking about, instead of some random page at that site, and even so, I still have a problem with your dates, the bottom of your new cite says last modified "11/27/01", but if you check the page properties in your browser, it was last altered Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:30:37 PM, maybe they forgot to update the bottom of the page (or maybe it's some automated process, point is, I don't know, and neither do you). I don't even really care about this article, but I care strongly that we get facts correct (if you want to say that your above comments were not intended as factual, merely as opinion, then please feel free to ignore this entire rant, and also please make an attempt to make it more obvious when you're stating an opinion, this read like you were giving facts). I cannot/refuse to believe you are this careless with facts, so I just don't know what to think here. Also, you still haven't answered my question, again, where do you get your date for this article, it's original creation date? Are you ignoring the "last modified" tag right underneath it? I don't see where this is noted as a student project either. I don't see where it's been deprecated, and I can easily demonstrate that it is still used. We're using it! For the 4th time, in different words in case that's the problem, where are you getting these ideas from? Maelefique (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, Jossi, it's not "Virginia's University" (big faux paux) it's University of Virginia, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson. It's a wonderful university and practically sacrosanct among all the state universities in the U.S. because of Jefferson and his love of learning and teaching. I thought you'd like to know that.  Americans are especially proud of it. I know I am. :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  University of Virginia, it is. Tx. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome.  Jossi, I think in another time we could have been good friends and maybe even kindred spirits.  I welcome any new sources you can provide from Eugene Elliot.  I love to see how students evolve into professionals.  It's so interesting.  Learning new things is a wonderful process. Thanks to you, too.  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: lol, thanks, I guess you didn't read the whole edit summary, or the joke was a little too subtle. I'm a big fan of spelling too. If nothing else, our pedantic tendencies might be something we have in common (and aren't ya just happy I saved you or jossi from doing yet another "cult" revert?). Maelefique (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Virginia 

message: An editor recently added two long quotes. They appear to mostly deal with Prem Rawat's teachings, rather than with EV in particular. I trimmed part of one, but I think we should avoid duplication. If something is a teaching of the EV that isn't a teaching of Prem Rawat then this would be the place to put it. But if it's part of Rawat's teachings then it belongs in the other article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EV versus Teachings of Prem Rawat 

message: Why does this article carries a  template? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it was added because the article is mostly sourced to the group's website.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on bibliography article 

message: Ex-Premie.org - Site of former adherents to Elan Vital added. Maharji.com removed - personal website not specific to organisation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Added {[tl|No more links}} to EL sect. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Elan Vital has either dissolved, or is dissolving. 
Their website indicates they are no longer taking donations, they "will be ceasing operations in 2010," and they are directing their supporters to a different group, known as "Words of Peace Global." 
Not sure how to proceed. 
Startswithj (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add a note to that effect. It'd be best if we could find a secondary source, like a newspaper, that discusses this change. But if we minimize our conclusions a primary source, like the Elan Vital website, is sufficient.   Will Beback  talk   22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be updated to reflect dissolution of the "Elan Vital" organization?