Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 1

message: I gave this article a disputed warning because some statements have been copied from an official website. Because of the many criticism by ex-members one should not mention these statements as facts in the article. Andries 23:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with your proposal. Separate off-spin articles are normally created when including all the information in the main article would make the main article too unwieldy. I think that a summary of the controversy should be in the main artcle.  Andries 18:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Added summary of the controversy. Hope this satisfies your concern.--jossi 23:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is an absolute disgrace for Wikipedia, if a person like Mr. Heller is not challenged by other Wikipedians. I have worked for more than 10 days trying to pursue the ideal for NPOV, accommodating the other side;s point of view, knowing that it is not an easy task given the controversy. Allowing Mr, heller to do as he pleases in this page, is totally abhorrent. Thus, I added the  controversy template to this page.--jossi 03:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat, jossi. I am working on the article and doing additional research. Found several references that hopefully will enhance this article. I am sure others will join me in attempting to cool off the discussion and continue making the best encyclopaedia there is.--141.76.1.121 20:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolute disgrace for wikipedia

message: Andries continues with his POV campaing against NPOV of this page. In the last edit he inserted innacurate information that he learned fro  hearsay and not facts. Prem Rawat was never the head of any organization. Check you facts beofre posting. Any other attemtp to change this page with biased information will be reported. --Jossifresco 22:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are probably right, according to my scholary reference David V. Barret "The New Believers Sects, 'cults' and alternative religions" pages  325-327 it doesn't say that he was the head of the DLM. I must have misread it.  Andries 17:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just read that the University of Virginia's article considered him the head of the DLM movement so I hereby retract my statement that you are probably right. Andries 18:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Andries continues with POV campaing against this page

message: Andries, your personal attack and posting in the ex-followers forum (see above) is encouraging repeated acts of vandalism against this page: in the last 12 hours multiple acts of vandalism were recorded, including speedy delete attempts, replacing the page with obscenity, etc. I will kindly request that you refrain from adding oil to the fire by posting in the ex-followers forum to air your grievances about this page. If you have amny issues with content, please use the procedures set forth by Wikipedia for dispute resoultion.
:Jossifresco, I did not personally attack you in Wikipedia. I only complaint that your edits have shown repeated blatant intellectual dishonesty. Out of sheer frustration about your behavior I complained at forum8 http://www.forum8.org/forum8/ I didn't realize that this may lead to ex-followers vandalize the article which I do not condone. I just requested the ex-followers on the forum to refrain from vandalizing the article and instead to make constructive edits. Andries 17:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to vent frustration in that manner... and you did mounted a personal attack. Just read your own words. The whole point of this talk page is to reach concensus. Don't you realize that you are too "vested" in this subject to be able to justify an edit as NPOV? Particulary as you do have absolutely no direct experience or knowledge in this subject. The whole idea of the "controversy" page was to anable detractors and critics to present their POV in an NPOV manner, that is, not stating feelings, hearsay and PoVs as facts.--jossi 17:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Jossi, 
It's rather bizarre to see you accuse Andries of being unable to maintain a NPOV given his history with gurus.  At least he was never a follower of this guru, like you are and have been for decades presumably. Indeed, your claim that Maharaji was never head of DLM or EV says it all.  While that may be true in the most formalistic, narrow and technical terms, Maharaji was and is head of all his organizations in any real, fuller sense.  You know that, you're just being disingenuous.
Here, answer these questions and prove me right:
1)  Who named any of Maharaji's organizations?
2)  Who created any of these organizations (not DLM which preceded   Maharaji's tenure as guru)?
3)  Who determines the agenda and structure of any of these Maharaji-related organizations?
4)  Do any of these organizations have any purpose or ongoing activities that are not related to Maharaji?
5)  Who appoints the key personnel in each of these organizations?
6)  Does Maharaji have the power to fire or appoint any person at any level in any of these organizations?
7)  If Maharaji does fire or appoint someone, does he have to justifiy his decisions to anyone?  If so, whom?
8)  Is it not true that every member of any of these organizations is expected to have unwavering loyalty to Maharaji?  
9)  Is work done within or for any of these organizations not considered service to Maharaji?
10)  If Maharaji decided to dismantle any of these organizations, would he have to justify that decision to anyone?  If so, whom?
You know, as well as I, that Maharaji is most definitely in charge.  Admit it.
:)
Jim
::I don't intend to engage you in a conversation. I know it is a waste of my valuable time. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, do so.--jossi 19:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: .and you can do so by posting answers to the questions above in the [Maharaji - Controversy] page. That is what is there for. Happy contributing.--jossi 19:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  You're blowing smoke, Jossi 

message: Jossi, 
I'm a bit confused as to what this forum's for.  You're attacking Andries here and I was just pointing out how you were, in the process, both hypocritical and disingenuous.  Hypocritical because you are hardly one to suggest Andries lacks the perspective necessary for a NPOV and disingenuous because of your false claim that Maharaji was never the head of DLM or EV.  Now you tell me I'm in the wrong place.  That doesn't make sense.
Of course you won't respond to me substantively.  You simply can't.  The truth is overwhelmingly against you.  
But I'll add this.  Maharaji's organizations do indeed go to great lengths to pretend they're more autonomous than they are, that's for sure.  Perhaps it's to shield Maharaji from potential liability, financial or otherwise, perhaps just because he thinks it looks good to have some independent organization out there that just happens to like him a lot, one hell of a lot, can't stop talking about him, inviting him here, there and everywhere.
Here's another question you're afraid to answer.  Is it not true that Maharaji himself decides on his own initiative where and when he's going to speak in various cities and that the whole rigermarole of him being "invited" here or there and then him "accepting" those "invitations" is mere artifice?  Is it not true that Maharaji in fact has a permanent invitation to speak wherever his followers live and that he and he alone decides where he'll visit?
Discuss this with me, Jossi.  Come on, don't be afraid.  Perhaps, working together, we can agree on certain things and together help fill in the fullest, most accurate picture possible of Maharaji. Hm?
:)
Jim
:Jim, the purpose of this talk page, which is not a forum, is to discuss what should be in the corresponding article about Maharaji (Prem Rawat). This is a serious encyclopedia and the article should give a balanced, objective, well-referenced picture of Maharaji Prem Rawat. Jim, feel free to change the article and please try to provide scholarly references for what you assert. Andries 20:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused 

message: requires that common critical points of view also be mentioned right there in the article - not wished away to a different article. The articles must work as standalone pieces. If you wish to use the "sympathetic" point of view policy (parallel articles from different points of view), Wikinfo is the project that uses this policy. The present "controversy" section cannot reasonably be argued to summarise the opposing points of view  at all - David Gerard 20:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems. Added a summary for the controversy sub-heading--jossi 23:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NPOV]]

message: Obviously, there's no point adding anything to this article if it's going to be always whitewashed by cult members.  Rawat said:
"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith."(Various excerpts - Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji)
These are sample quotes from the heyday of his 'ministry'.  The quote that Jossi has posted is just a sample of his current, vague way of speaking but the man has a past, not just a present.  I suggest that any fair representation must have both. It would be misleading to suggest that Rawat's still talking this way.  But it would be equally misleading to hide the fact that this is indeed how he first addressed the world, when he challenged every man, woman and child alive to ask the most important question imaginable:  Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?  
That's why we had books, movies, songs, posters, magazines, conferences, anything possible to get the world's attention.  Maharaji proclaimed that the event he would hold in the Houston Astrodome in 1973 was going to be the most holy and significant event in human history.  Is THAT not a significant aspect to who this man was?  Could one ever do a fair article about the Heaven's Gate cult and not mention their leader's prophecies about the comet Hailey-Bopp?  Would it matter if there were any current members still alive to constantly complain?
You Wikipedia guys have to control this environment.  Fair is fair and that article the way Jossi's written it, with its small section about the 'controversy' as if to suggest that this man is not nothing BUT controversy -- a teenage Lord of the Universe who threatened the world with damnation if it didn't allow him to rule the planet -- is hardly fair. 
And notice how Jossi tries to turn this into an ad hominem attack on me as if I'm the issue.  Same old, same old, same old.  The subject matter is Rawat, a perfidious cult leader who's made millions upon millions bilking innocent people who fell into his trap.  At the very least, I implore you, do not allow this cult to hide the man's own words.  They speak for themselves.
Thanks
:Jossi does appear to be camping on the page. Jossi, there's a difference of opinion that has references - removing the POV you disagree with is not "reverting vandalism" - David Gerard 10:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, After reverting so many times yestrday, I missed the last one. I can see now that it was an ex-follower posting. I have re-edit the best I could as suggested by Andries.--jossi 22:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: "You Wikipedia guys have to control this environment." Yes, I try to do that but in order to do so I have to follow time consuming procedures and also have independent people taking the time to see what is going on here. Wikipedia has more than 260,000 articles so the administrators have little time. It will be clear that I think that Jossifresco is not using Wikipedia the way it intended to be so I have to follow formal procedures. I could use some help in this.  Andries 10:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Jossi the one continuing to revert the page? 

message: Jossi, what upsets me so much is when you remove information instead of correcting it. I believe that some of the information provided by ex-follower is unbalanced but when you simply remove it instead of adding the other side of the story then this is against Wikipedia policy and is, I think, unfair. Andries 19:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you. I will do my best. But please note that the detractors are very obsessed with this. Thet are IMO very unbalanced as individuals, and spend extraordinary amounts of time in collecting information about maharaji, his life and that of their followers. They even quoted a letter of gratitude I wrote myself over 5 ears ago... That is SICK, IMHO. To be so obessed with it... They have used the Internet to peddle innuendo and hearsay, many times quoting things out of context and spinning the innuendo ad-nauseum so much so that they have made them into truths that they belive passionately. If there is a cult around here is the ex-follower cult.
--jossi 19:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that I understand the attitude of the ex-followers very well. I guess they feel betrayed and besides they want to prevent other people to believe and do they same things that they did, which they know see as costly mistakes. I have the same with my former guru.Andries 20:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that. But I believe in the power of free will and know that human beings have the capacity to stand on their own feet and make their own assessment about maharaji (or any other subject). I have benefited so much from his teachnings and I am grateful. What is bad about that? I am satified and content. What is bad about that? The fact that you took a bite from a bad apple, does not make all apples bad.  In fact, the thirst that made you go look into that guru, is the noblest thing we have as human beings. Do not ever give up in your quest to find peace. You deserve peace, Like I do.--jossi 21:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The answer is, of course, that all those things must go in - supportive and critical - for NPOV. Two users on a talk page cannot come to a binding agreement for an article to violate NPOV - David Gerard 23:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please correct and improve, do not remove

message: --jossi 05:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Way forward?

message: Really, I wonder if you have any sense at all how pathetic you look here.  You refuse to discuss anything reasonably.  You flail like a silly little boy (making fun of my last name, for instance). You make bald-faced assertions which you know are pure lies (the Maharaji quotes I posted were "heavily-editted").  And to top it all off, you pontificate about "nobility" and spout stupid guru-parrot talk about "peace" etc.
I'm going to add some stuff to the article which will be non-controversial in the sense that no one could honestly deny it's true.  But you sure won't like it.  But then tell these good people how you run your own website for Maharaji followers and how you actually edit and censor their "expressions" to make them fit your current view of what an ideal cult looks like:
Right from the start, you've lacked the honesty or courage to speak with us directly.  You're a coward, Jossi, a pathetic, childish coward.  Yes, it's too bad for you you posted with your real name.  What WERE you thinking?  If you'd posted under another, you could have lied and dissembled without even a thought of accountability.
Jim
::I will not attempt to respond to the rantings, accusations and character assesination by Mr. heller. It is below my dignity to do so. Wikipedians, please note that Mr. Heller is a criminal defense lawyer. Most probably he has picked up his abrasive style in court. Maybe when he does his interrogations of victims of alleged crimes, he has to be forceful and abrasive to defend the alleged criminals. Well, I will not give him the benefit to play word games with me, or to make me angry. Sorry.  You may also ask Mr. Heller to explain his motives and tell you about his obsession with all things Maharaji. Maybe then we can all forgive him for his vituperations, baseless accusations and overall bad taste.--jossi 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you think you look here, Jossi? 

message: Adries: I would kindly request that you stop cavorting with ex-followers and claim that you have the power to remove me from Wikipedia. You know that this is not possible. I have been the main contributor to this and many other articles and making honest attempts to make it NPOV. Also, please do not brag about how David "got me". I quote (posted on the ex-followers forum by Andries) "Jossi, if you don't like Category:New religious movements, it can go in Category:cults  . I have atempted to be fair and courteous here, but it seems that this is not possible as Andries, David and Mr. Heller are more interested in pushing their own anti-cult, anti-religion anti-guru, skeptic PoV than in an NPOV Wikipedia.--jossi 16:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cavorting with ex-followers

message: We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
(highlight is mine)--jossi 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From NPOV page

message: Jossi, I want to thank you for the concessions that you have made but I will still request you to be banned from Wikipedia if you remove one of the following documented facts from the article. With documented facts I mean the information described in schorlarly references that I have at home David V. Barret "The New Believers". Scholarly references serve as the basis for articles in Wikipedia. If you have other scholarly references that dispute the points hereunder then please let me know. Facts according to Barrett include 
# that he fell out with his mother after his marriage. 
# that he became the guru of the DLM in 1966 
# that the event in the astrodome in Houston was a disaster 
# that Maharaji had legal battles with his brother over the DLM 5. there were press reports in which his mother said that she disapproved of Maharaji's luxurious living style. 
# that the closing of the ashrams in 1983 
# that he used to style himself as the Lord of the Universe 
# that the DLM used to be criticized for allowing Maharaji living a luxurious lifestyle on the donations of his followers. 
# that the DLM was sometimes criticized for its emphasis of emotional experience rather instead of intellect 
Kind regards, Andries 03:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Documented Facts

message: I have decided to take a step back from this page to give a chance to other Wikipedians and contributors to enhance and improve the article. The violence of the discussion is simply not of my liking, neither the personal attacks against me and the infantility, lack of civility, and obtuseness that some people have demonstrated here. Instead, I will go back to my digital paintings and enjoy that for a while.... I trust that the NPOV principle of Wikipedia will prevail and that concensus could be build on the content of this page (given time and a lot of patience.) BTW, Heller thinks that this page needs to be written from a journalistic point of view. Not so, Heller. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. And it is also not a soapbox top push the detractors PoV. Maybe someone can help him understand that. As I said I will stop contributing to this article for a while, although will continue to monitor it for vandalims and offer suggestions via the this Talk page. Regards, --jossi 15:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking a step back

message: My apologies for getting too personal or long-winded perhaps. It was part of the explanation for the compliment I gave for the NPOV write-up. Will stay on topic in future.
I look forward to Wikipedians with NPOV taking a good look at this issue. 
I think Mike Finch, original submitter of the article, was just frustrated with the constant replacement of his article with others from followers. Now that more Wikipedians are getting involved and some more structure for edits is in place, perhaps he will re-involve himself.
From what I've read from him, he seems one of the cooler heads of the ex-followers.Mary Moore 21:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he can then politely ask the non so coolheaded ex-followers to stop vandalizing the article with obscenity. Eleven violations on the last 24 hrs. And BTW, I am only backing off from editing the article, to allow other contributions and to help reach NPOV. But I am monitoring the article for vandalism and to rise red flags if ex-followers try to impose their POV here.--jossi 21:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should apologise to Jossi first for your abuse. He has graciously backed-off from editing to allow others to reach concensus. What about you? Would you as the representative of the critic ex-followers be as gracious? By the way you acted so far, I don't think so, but you still can surprise us--168.143.113.138 23:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies... 

message: As a senior admin, I'd like to weigh in with the request that we all follow the rules.
#Be courteous to the other contributors.
#Don't replace the entire article with your own biased point of view.
I blocked "204.203.21.238" (with an expiry time of 10 minutes) for repeatedly posting polemics on Prem Rawat page. I'll triple that, if I have to... --Uncle Ed 00:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's follow the rules

message: Signed-in contributors, thanks for a job well done. I took a quick look at the article and see no major difference between Andries's version and my latest version. Just formatting stuff for my part, mostly. And I don't think the article should be entitled "Maharaji" because that sounds too much like the similar word maharajah (see Merriam-Webster definiton here). Moreover, no one but his followers calls him this, so it's too obscure: it would be like putting the Sun Myung Moon article at "True Father". 
More work should be done, however, to include objections by detractors, such as rumors of financial, legal, or sexual improprieties -- provided these are documented with evidence like John Smith accused Maharaji of molesting his daughter in an ashram in July 1983 or the like.
I don't want a whitewash, or a blanket condemnation. Let's write a balanced article. --Uncle Ed 01:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, special thanks needs to be given to the unsigned contributor with IPs 141.76.1.121 and 141.76.1.122. Most of the NPOVing was done by him/her. --64.81.88.140 01:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, all the Hindu/Indian style gurus are listed in Wikipedia under their monastic names, like Prabhupada, Sathya Sai Baba, Swami Roberto, Ram Dass, Muktananda etcetera. Hence I do not think that the article should be renamed. Andries 04:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks Ed. From my research, Prem Rawat is widely known as "Maharaji", but I agree that it would be better to wait until the article stabilizes before changing the title again. Note also that the title of "guru" is not mentioned in any of the official sites. Looks like he gave up that title in the 80's. Regarding the characterization about Prem Rawat, it seems that this man has been and continues to be controversial as stated on the opening paragraph. In reading some of his speeches, he does not come across as a "guru", neither he claims supernatural powers as other swamis and gurus do, at least not in the last 25 years. I would suggest staying away from such characterizations. I am doing some additional research that will hopefully yield results worth posting. In regard to the negative give & take, we need to help the newbies understand the basics, point them to the right direction and ask them to trust the process.--141.76.1.121 14:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work

message: Anyone reading this page from top down will see that what's really happened is that the outrageously whitewashed article about Rawat has been challenged and corrected bit by bit and that Jossi has screamed and fought every inch of the way.  Anyone who thinks I've been 'abusive' to Jossi is imagining things.  What I first tried to do, if you'll bother to look, is ask Jossi questions designed to resolve the issue he created about whether or not Rawat was the head of the various organizations founded in his name. Of course, Jossi refused to answer, instead heaping silly insults on me.  Then, when I posted an excerpt from a very well-known (albeit embarrasing) satsang of Rawat's, momentous in its own right as Rawat himself called this his "Peace Bomb", his proclamation to the world that he was the Lord and you'd be foolish to ignore that fact, Jossi blatantly lied, claiming that it was "heavily-editted".  You can see that he's been entirely mum on that transgression of his.  Of course, just imagine what it really means.  It means that he's wilfully lying here.  That's a lot to admit, isn't it?
But then I have some anonymous people suggesting that I'm the one who's at fault here!  Is this the Mad Hatter's Tea Party or something?  There are times and places for righteous indignation and one just has to be when one is being falsely accused of fraud.  Any of you anonymous types who are blaming me for my tone with Jossi, please tell me this, how would you like it if you were falsely accused like that?  It's all well and good to want things to want to resolve disputes civilly.  I'm completely for that.  But I don't see any of you Wikipedians even trying to resolve this one other than to throw out some general platitudes.  Come on, people, there's a specific issue before you.  Jossi has alleged that the quotes I put are "heavily-editted".  I say they're not.  Isn't there a single one of you who thinks it's important for Jossi to support that allegation -- in which case, by all means, ban me, if you like.  I sure wouldn't want someone so duplicitous having the ability to alter any articles here if I was in charge -- or to deal with the fact that he made a serious, false allegation?
I'm getting sick of hearing about NPOV-this and NPOV-that at the expense of some attention that needs to be given even more fundamental values.  You don't lie.  Lying is bad.  Start with that one.   Please AND thank you Jim
:You need to cool off. jossi has backed-off already. Be courteous, civil and keep the hyperbole in check. If you want to contribute to the article, do so within the guidelines. FYI, I am a long-time contributor to several Wikimedia projects, the only reason I am posting incognito is to avoid being harassed by some of your not-so-pleasant 'friends'. I am too old to revert my user page every 5 minutes.   You may benefit from reading  Wikipedia:Civility  netiquette, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Who, Why?, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement--141.76.1.122 03:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is already becoming something is not supposed to be:  Usenet. Please note that this page is to dicusss content. If you want to, you can politely air your grievances in Jossi's talk page User_talk:Jossifresco. Please keep this page on topic. Thanks. --141.76.1.122 04:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Kafka?  I hope not 

message: I propose to archive this talk page. I'd just like to keep the initial bit by Andries about locking up the article, and one or two kind offers of help; plus ex-devotee Mary Moore's remarks about the difficulties of being objective after getting out; plus the most recent article-related talk. (I'll just leave all the personal remarks in the archive if anyone's interested.)
Somebody else could do this, of course. I'll check back in a few days, or sooner if I get a chance. --Uncle Ed 21:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Ed, go ahead. Just add some commentary after Andries' regarding NPOV with some links to relevant pages, for newbies' benefit. Although the article is stabilizing now, I will not be surprised if it heats up again later on. Thank you--141.76.1.122 22:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: While you are at it, can you delete the page Maharaji - Controversy instead of redirect? This is now in the main article.--141.76.1.121 22:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping on topic

message: I am now going through the article, trying to find substantiation/references for some of the assertions made.
Found a Office of the Chief of Chaplains (Dept. of Army) document from 1993 that substantiate section "Maharaji's Teachings' regarding lack of liturgy. Added to references. I am now verifying a few other references and wil post when validated. --141.76.1.122 23:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, the DLM was a NRM, which was a prominent part of the history of Prem Rawat so that justifies the category NRM, regardless of Prem Rawat's assertion that he didn't teach a religion and regardless of the question whether Elan Vital is a NRM.Andries 04:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What .122 says is that this is not much to do with what Prem Rawat says or doesn't say,  and what the DLM was or wasn't, but a lot to do with the reference provided. That reference from the US Army is too strong to ignore. If for them it is not a religion, then it isn't, unless another reference to the contrary can be provided and added. -64.81.88.140 05:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.81.88.40, I have to admit that scholarly works are the basis for Wikipedia articles, but apart from the references, I think, that one should use common sense. When I read the early excerpts from Maharaji's speeches with its many references to Hindu mythology, Sikh/Sant Mat terms and the Bhagavad Gita then the assertion that DLM was not a NRM sounds ridiculous to me. Elan Vital is mentioned in the serious Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland vol. 4/Religious movements in the Netherlands (which I have not read) edited by Reender Kranenborg and in Eileen Barker's NRM: a practical Introduction and in David V. Barrett The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Relgion Now that I am reading the latter it does say that the DLM was a NRM and that Maharaji was a guru. Andries 16:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantiating 

message: The page has been stable for a couple of days. Although not all facts presented in the article are 100% checked & substantiated,  I think it presents a pretty decent NPOV. I am removing the totallydisputed template, toning down to disputed, leaving the controversial template for a while. --141.76.1.122 15:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute status? 

message: Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment