Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 14

message: Material for articles need to be sourced from reliable sources. Large sections of the material is not. In addition, I do not see the need for describing legal battles, in particular as these have not been described by secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will trim that section considerably next week, unless reliable secondary sources are produced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Article trimmed down to exclude all sources not considered reliable sources and all material that is based solely on primamry sources and not reported on secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Hi, I removed the "critical of the critics" links as the original article already has them, and has no "critics" links.  Utilising the 'good for the goose, good for the gander' rule of editing StopItTidyUp 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. In any case that section will be trimmed as well as stated above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Momento, please state your problems with the EL section here, and why you feel that the ENTIRE external links section must be summarily deleted without discussion?  Smeelgova 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good, you are discussing things here, that is a good sign.  The article that may or may not mention Prem Rawat, most certainly mentions his organization.  I do not know which other article you are referring to about a Guru Maharaji from Nigeria?? Please tell me which source that was from??? Thank you.  Smeelgova 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You may need to refer to the abundant archives. These EL fail WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which in particular?  Some are from very reputable sources.  And if this is a Criticism site, why not have some critical links?  What about the "response" links?  Smeelgova 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why am I being asked to clean up your appalling edits? Here's the link you added - We're vegetarians, we don't eat human organs, says the Living Perfect Master, The Daily Telegraph, 2003. As for your comment "The article that may or may not mention Prem Rawat, most certainly mentions his organization", well take it to that article not this. And linking libelous websites violates "the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."Momento 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  For now, let's just leave in Time Magazine and Washington Post, both very reputable sources.  I realize that there is a history of controversy and even some have alleged cult apologism right here on wikipedia of all places... So I will not wade into this too much, at the moment... Smeelgova 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The concept of a criticism article violates the policy on biographies of living persons. It allows unscrupulous editors to fill an entire article with criticism that wouldn't merit a minor footnote in the autobiography on which it is based.Momento 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the above comment mean that you have changed your opinion and now support a merge? Andries 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The headings for each individual scholar are very useful.  These will be expanded once more sourced citations are found for these scholars and their viewpoints.  Smeelgova 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: These websites have disclaimers that states that they list groups in their sites without asserting any specific viewpoints about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I have changed this from "criticism" to "listings".   Hey, I thought you wrote a disclaimer that you try not to edit Prem Rawat articles anymore, due to a conflict of interest??? Did I read that incorrectly somewhere on one of your user pages???  And what was the conflict of interest exactly?  Just curious.  Smeelgova 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My disclaimer was very clear. I will not edit these articles unless necessary, and if I do, I will do so within the established content policies. If any of my edits do not stand the scrutinity of other editors, these edits should be reverted. My disclaimer is here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  I see.  You "may" reduce your involvement.  Nothing specifically stated though.  Interesting.  And what about As I have accepted a position in a related organization - what is that specifically, and what does it entail, if I may ask?  Is the nature of your position public knowledge?  What is the related organization?  Smeelgova 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are crossing a line you should not with these questions, Smeelgova. You should send me an email if you wish to ask these type of questions. And I would say, without intention to offend, that I find it peculiar your sudden involvement in this article, while we are engaged in disputes in other articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, hey, hey, I was just asking.  Soreeeeeeeeeey.  And I find it very peculiar your interest in which types of articles I can and cannot edit.  That is not your decision to make.  Smeelgova 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is not my decision to make, how can I? If you enable your email in your preferences, I could explain privately my point without causing any embarrassment to you or to myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clear that Smeelgova's unilateral editing and repeated insertion of incorrect material in this article is designed to disrupt and intimidate. I have reverted.Momento 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure about the move to a different article name. This was not discussed at all. Undoing that move requires admin privileges. Unless there are objections to undoing the move, I will proceed to restore the previous article title in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Among others by your lack of support to merge this article. Andries 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article name change is appropriate.  Already within the article itself were highly sourced and reputable citations regarding not just Prem Rawat, but the organizations/groups he has been involved with.  We do not need to just relegate this article to criticism about the man, as his past and present organizations are an integral part of the history of the individual.  Smeelgova 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. But it would have been better, out of courtesy of editors here, to ask if there is consensus for such a move. Ther are articles about the Divine Light Mission, where specific criticism of these organizations could be placed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  It seemed like a relatively simple step, as there was already criticism present from scholarly sources and reputable sources of both the individual and the various organizations and manifestations.  WP:BOLD.  At any rate, the title does seem most appropriate.  We can keep the "related organizations" to a very tight interpretation of only those from .  Smeelgova 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is a "simple step", as undoing an article move is not a trivial task. An article that has been titled for a few years in a particular manner, should not be moved without discussion. Note that undoing a move is not a task that can be easily done by any editor (only admins can undo them), and it is unfair to other editors to undertake such a move without discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did not realize that it was not a simple step.  Nontheless, I was "being bold" with that move, and like I said, I did see that several of the scholarly and well-sourced pieces of criticism were referring to "related organizations" and/or in direct discussion of Prem Rawat as well.  I just though that I would call a spade a spade, to use a term you have used before.  (and I mean that honestly.)  But if this move engenders a lively debate/discussion (among other editors, not just myself)  as to the proper name of this article, then that is a good thing.  Smeelgova 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism by anticult activists 

message: The only way forward with the Prem Rawat article is to remove selective opinion and only allow opinion from recognised scholars. And to avoid abuse of scholastic opinion, they must be treated equally. And that means listing them in alphabetical order with just the author's names and titles. Surely no unbiased editor can object to this solution. It is fair and impartial. Momento 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the standard for other Wikipedia articles. There's no reaosn to treat this subject differently. Non-scholarly opinions are permitted in the articles about thousands of biography subjects, including famous religious figures like Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II (see also Criticism of Pope John Paul II), D. James Kennedy, the Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, etc. I don't think the editors of those articles are all biased. -Will Beback · † · 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Will BeBack that this is not the standard, though I think there are exceptions where Momento's reasoning is valid. For example in the case of Adolf Hitler whose life has been described in multiple reliable scholarly biographies. If the availability of sources is such then I think it would be inappropriate to cite non-scholars. In the case of Prem Rawat I am not aware of a single scholarly article that extensively describes his life and as such I think it is fully okay to use reputable newspapers as sources. Andries 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said it was the standard. I proposed listing scholars by name alphabetically to avoid the POV editing that has plagued this article. As it stands editors are inserting and highlighting only the scholarly opinion that suits their POV. My suggestion is completely impartial and fair and ensures that the "opinion" section conforms to NPOV. Who can possibly object to a "scholarly opinion" section that lists the scholars alphabetically without editorial bias?Momento 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a better way to organize different opinions than to muddle them in alphabetical order.  How information is organized is just as important as the information itself.  Perhaps it would be best to divide the various opinions into those that support and those that criticise? Mael-Num 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the current subheadings organized by alphabetical order are from critical sources.  Smeelgova 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have misunderstood.  I was under the impression that Momento was suggesting that opinions (scholarly or otherwise) of Prem Rawat and his affiliated organizations be organized solely upon their alphabetical order.  I was proposing that rather than use this sole sorting method opinions could be divided between "pro" and "con".  It would be reasonable within those divisions to additionally sort them based upon alphabetical order.  My reasoning for sorting opinions based upon the content of that opinion, I think, is obvious.  It would allow the reader to more easily find what he is looking for.  If the reader wants to learn more about what nice or negative things people have to say, the information is collected in a way that makes it easier to look at.  Mael-Num 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Smeelgova 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I guess I should also add that this is assuming in the future there will be additional opinions given that support Prem Rewat, which implicitly assumes that this article is merged into the main article.  In that light, I don't see why this article should be merged, I like the way it is laid out now.  But, again, I'm assuming that opinion is leaning towards the merge.  So I guess I'm assuming a lot here.  Mael-Num 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They (the editors you mentioned) may not be biased but half a dozen of the most recent editors of Prem Rawat articles regular post on an anti Prem Rawat forum.Momento 09:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, many of the recent editors have never posted on any forum related to Mr. Rawat - and their only experience of him is through the tolerance/intolerance/patience/impatience of other researchers and editors -  and readily available public information.  Surely you must perceive that a supposed bias could be observed by others on both sides of the aisle?  Smeelgova 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a list of editors that have posted on the Prem Rawat article and the anti Prem Rawat forum in the last month - Andries,  Sylviecyn, John Brauns, Tgubler and Nik Wright2. And those are just the ones who can be identified.  Smeelgova did burst on to the scene and incorrectly linked Prem Rawat to an article about an entirely different person wiith the heading "We're vegetarians, we don't eat human organs, says the Living Perfect Master, The Daily Telegraph, 2003". Spare me the rhetoric, no neutral editor would ever make such an oobvious error.Momento 10:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the Mother Therese article. I suggest any editor with time on their hands go and clean up that article.Momento 10:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, first off, no, I did not realize that the article was allegedly not about the same individual, and I did not realize that this was a tabloid paper, and I removed it afterwards.  I am sure that these other editors resent your lumping of them together and attempting to characterize them in this fashion.  And I most certainly do.  This is most certainly a flagrant violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.  If you wish to have cordial working editing relationships with the editors you have named above, I would suggest that you adapt your attitude to a bit of a more nicer stance.  Try to act towards others as you would wish for them to act towards yourself.  Smeelgova 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe for a moment that the editors I mentioned above "resent" me noting that they post the anti Prem Rawat forum, they're proud of it.  And I didn't "lump them together", they get together of their own free will. And I didn't "characterise them", I made no comment, just presented a non-judgemental fact.Momento 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will state again from above:  To quote from Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - (bold in original article).  Smeelgova 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The only way forward

message: I suggest to remove that section. These two sites have disclaimers on their website that make their inclusion irrelevant for this article. See the disclaimers in these websites for more info. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this further down in the article, to an "Other criticism" section.  Smeelgova 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's unfair about the inclusion of this information in its current form.  It is a record that says it exists.  Jossi, what about the legal disclaimers on the sites disqualifies the information, or was your objection to the heading under which it was listed?  Mael-Num 01:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not about fair or unfair. These sites do not "criticize" Prem Rawat. And this article is about that specific subject. The disclaimers say something along the lines of "such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy" (Rick Ross); or "They appear [in the website] because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group." (Steven Hassan); and "These resources reflect a variety of theological and/or sociological perspectives." (Anton  Hein). As these sites do nor criticize the subject of this article, my proposal is that the section should be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's not entirely correct to say that these sites do not offer criticism of Rawat, the DLM, Elan Vital, et al.  I haven't perused all the information, but each of them offers an archive of at least some critical information, at the very least that some people assert cult or cult-like activity and behavior.  I think such an archive is probably significant enough to include based just on that criticism.  I see and acknowledge your observation about the disclaimer, but it's a non-issue.  The legal aspect of the site owner/operator/whatever saying "Hey, I'm not specifically calling anything a cult" in order to protect himself from lawsuit is mooted by the fact that each of those sites most definitely does contain information presented by some documented party that does make such a criticism.  Or in other words, the criticism's there, despite what the disclaimer claims.  Mael-Num 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, but as per your argument maybe the best place would be the External links section, and not in the article body. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very familiar with all the rules of style for Wiki, but from what I have seen in other articles, I think you're right. Mael-Num 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listings by anticult activists 

message: : Dear Mael-Num, prior to this flair up I proposed that this article shouldn't exist.  When I started editing this article I niaively assumed that many biographic articles had attached "criticism of" articles. A little research showed that Prem Rawat is one of a handful of people accorded this treatment. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Wikipedia. Ones I saw were FDR (dead), George Lucas (film criticism), Noam Chomsky (criticism of his politics), Hugo Chavez (politician), Pope John-Paul(dead), Tony Blair (politician), George Bush (politician), Ted Stevens (politician) and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people can create a place where criticism that would not be allowed on the subjects BLP can exist. And exist without any counter arguements.. This article is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia. Momento 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to my contributions here, I gave the talk page and related pages a pretty good read.  I've seen you post this information several times.  At this point, it's old news.  Given that this "Criticism of" article isn't unique, I fail to see how it's an abuse of Wikipedia at all.  It seems a very appropriate outgrowth of the original article, and serves to offer more detailed information about the subject without unnecessarily cluttering the article Prem Rawat.  If your research had turned up no articles other than this one, then you may have a valid point.  Or perhaps that would mean Wikipedia needed new guidelines to allow and encourage more criticism.  Either way, this is not the case.  There is an article for criticism of Prem Rawat, just as there are articles for criticism of George W. Bush, George Lucas, and the former Pope.  Again, I fail to see any problem.  Should we have more articles noting well-documented criticism?  By all means, have at it.  But why delete this reasonably large and thoroughly cited collection of information?  An encyclopedia is where significant information is collected, not expunged.  Mael-Num 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I just did a quick search in Wikipedia of "Criticism of".  It turned up about 140,000 articles with subjects ranging from Hinduism to the space shuttle program.  It seems your research, which only turned up 5 criticisms "on a single topic or subject" should have been more thorough. Mael-Num 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Momento refers to biographies of living people that have a "Criticism of" article, not just generic articles, Mael. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon, but that's a red herring.  My point still stands.  Mael-Num 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I need a new computer! When I type "criticism of" into search of Wikipedia is only get 31,911 hits. And. of course, that doesn't mean 31,911 articles as Mael-Num claims, it means the phrase "criticism of" turned up 31,911 times. Perhaps you can explain this anomaly M-N?Momento 08:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I can't explain it.  Maybe you do need a new computer.  In any case, it doesn't change the points I raised above.  Mael-Num 08:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As Jossi gently corrected, I was talking about "biographic articles" not "articles" as is clearly stated in the second sentence of my post. And you made no points because they were all based on your misunderstanding.Momento 08:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they actually had very little to do with that point, because my finding some 140,000+ hits in a search was mentioned as an aside in a latter note, completely separate from my original argument.  I recommend you reread it.  Mael-Num 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you said 140,000 articles not hits!Momento 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did at first, but as I mentioned above that's non-sequitur. Mael-Num 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I counted more than five, and in any case, that means very little.  Even if it were less than zero, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, as I said above. Mael-Num 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mael, this article is what is called a "spinoff" article (See Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). The proposal that Momento is seeking consensus for is to merge back the content in this article to the main article, not the deletion of the article (if merged, this article will redirect back to the main article.) Also note that this is a biographical article and that there are articles about Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital. Specific details and criticism of these organizations can be placed there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying the, that's good to know.  I have read the talk page, and was aware of this article's spinoff basis, but I wasn't aware that the merger was the desired change (I'm pretty sure the notion for deletion was mentioned once or twice).  Still, I wanted to kick out some alternate ideas for what could be done with this article if some editors feel there's undue weight on the negativity.  It may ultimately be more rewarding than resorting to what is ultimately shuffling papers around between file folders.  Mael-Num 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: It is pretty obvious that this article has become a personal battle ground between two editors who have a previous issue. Do us, Wiki and readers a favour and stop using this article as a venue.Momento 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice, Momento. Thanks for reminding us of talk-page discipline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please excuse yourselves

message: This article is a farce and I'm going to merge it with Prem Rawat and remove all the editorial bias.Momento 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a unilateral move that does not have the consensus of many of the editors involved in the discussion on this page.  Smee 07:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Smee said. Mael-Num 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since consensus seems to mean Smeelgova and Mael-Num, I'm sure readers and editors will agree  with the Wiki policy "where rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them".Momento 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.  Let us hear what other editors have to say about this.  Smee 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And please don't threaten vandalism on the article, as that's what you seem to be suggesting by manipulating the article despite consensus and common sense.  You may feel frustrated for some reason, but take a deep breath and relax.  We're all pulling in the same direction (I hope).  Mael-Num 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's all academic follks

message: In contrast to what I suggested hereabove and in contrast to the books by Van der Lans and Schnabel, I have to admit that I had not provided the Dutch original of the 1982 book by Kranenborg. As I have already stated, Kranenborg miquoted van der Lans. 
From  Reender Kranenborg (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language)  pages 65-66
:"Kritiek
:Over het algemeen hoort men niet veel kritiek op de Divine Light Mission. [ ..] De meeste kritiek is gericht op van levensstijl van de jonge goeroe. Zo schrijft Van der Lans:
::'Goeroe Maharaj Ji is het voorbeeld van een goeroe die een charlatan geworden is met een dubbel leven. Enerzijds probeert hij trouw te blijven aan de rol die hem destijds  - naar het schijnt door zijn moeder - is opgedrongen en aan de verwachtingen die zijn volgelingen hebben. Privé leidt hij echter een leven van nietsdoen en genieten. Als hij een festival bezoekt, wordt voor hem en zijn familie een hoteletage afgehuurd. Hij brengt slechts terloops een bezoek aan de "premies" en besteed de rest van zijn tijd met kijken naar de t.v. of gehuurde films en het bezoeken van nachtclubs. Slechts een kleine kring van ingewijden is op de hoogte van zijn levenswijze. Men can hem op grond hiervan gemakkelijk voor een bedriegen uitmaken. Een ander benadering is hemt te zien als slachtoffer van zijn omgeving.' 18
:Iets soortgelijks beluisteren we ook in de klacht van de uitgetreden 'premie' Jos Lammers:
::Zo gauw hij ergens artiveerde, sloot hij zich met een aantal "security-premies" die hem overal vergezelden op in zijn hotelkamer om zich pas op de avond van het programma weer te vertonen. De enkele keer dat ik hem wel te zien kreeg was wanneer hij in de stad inkopen wilde gaan doen en juist deze ontmoetingen maakten het voor mij moeilijk om mijn vertrouwen te handhaven. Mij en de ander plaatselijke leiders liet hij op zo'n tocht volkomen links liggen, behalve wanneer er betaald moest worden. Dan kon de plaatselijke DLM-afdeling ervoor opdraaien, terwijl hij zelf op de programma's enorme bedragen aan donaties verzamelde.
:{reply by premies and Maharaji}
:Een ander punt van kritiek is 'het simplisme' van de beweging. [..] 'Ex-premie' Jos Lammers zegt:
::Jezelf leren kennen en leren waarderen, je contacten met anderen leren maken , gelukkig leren zijn, het is allemaal geen eenvoudige klus. En er komt heel wat meer voor kijken dan vier meditatietechnieken en het blindelings navolgen van een leider.
:[..]
:Ontmoeting
:[..]
:In de ontmoeting met 'premies' is de kwestie van de levensstijl van de goeroe, ondanks het feit dat deze het zelf geen punt vindt, toch van groot belang. Een satguru die in dure auto's rijdt, die een groot zeiljacht heeft en veel geld ontvangt van zijn volgelingen mag dan voor de 'premies' geen probleem zijn, voor een volgeling van Jezus is hij dat wel. Vanuit de verbondenheid aan Jezus mag gevraagd worden waarom Maharaji niet eenvoudig, nederig en gewoon leeft. Er mag ook gevraagd worden waarom hij het geld dat hij ontvangt, voor zichzelf gebruikt en niet voor de armen. 
:Het is verder legitiem te vragen waarom de sociale organisaties die destijds zin opgezet totaal zijn verdwenen."
Andries 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kranenborg (1982) Dutch original

message: There is a notice atop this page saying it is an archive, and shouldn't be edited, but that the current page should be edited instead. The link to the current page just takes you back to this one! I don't know enough about how wikipedia works to fix this, can someone look at it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to archive #14. Avb 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is an archive?