Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 22

message: [...] Text moved to User_talk:Gstaker  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied to you in your talk page at User_talk:Gstaker  I would encourage other editors to respond in user Gstaker talk page, rather than here. Let's keep this page to discuss the article. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A MATTER OF CONCERN

message: [...] Text moved to User_talk:Nik Wright2
Proposed additions
Main article (criticism)
The Elan Vital organisation has published an affidavit which claims to identify members of an active 'critics' group of Ex premies. Of those named one - Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html. Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised  'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists but commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat: http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/   and  http://prem-rawat-critique.org/
Criticism Article
Elan Vital, in an FAQ article about opposition to Prem Rawat and his message, claims that there is a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Prem Rawat, his students, and their organisation. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations.[24
Of those named one,  Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised  'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists and  commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat. http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ and http://prem-rawat-critique.org/
Nik WrightNik Wright2 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chat rooms and sites such as these are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, and Nick Wright is not a notable person that warrants an inclusion of his name in this article. (no disrepect intended see Wikipedia:Notability (people)). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the affidavit in question, it was not "published" by Elan Vital, it is a court record. In any case, we are not linking to that affidavit from any of the articles (and if it is it should be removed) as court papers, unless referred to by a published secondary sources, cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. Based on these principles, if I recall correctly,  mention of these affidavits as well as accusations of "hate group" have been all removed from these articles. I see no reason to change that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked this and and related article and there are no links to the affidavit you refer to. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Named Critic of Prem Rawat 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat
24 ^ Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey leads to:
http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm
which carries http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf
Whether this link is removed or not there are numerous other links to Elan Vital all which interlink with the general claims about ex premies and specifically identifying me. I didn't ask for this notability - it's been conferred upon me by Wikipedia linking to Elan Vital. The resolution is an either or - either all the Elan Vital links on wikipedia  go - or the links I've referenced come in. If you you want to play a game of officious bureaucracy that's up to you, it's familiar territory for me so I guess we'll find out just what wikipedia is made of. If you want to discuss form of words fine - but the issue of links is not debatable given that my involvement is purely because of previous choices made by wikipedia editors.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs)  17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above, there is no direct link to that affidavit as an affidavit is a primary source about a third-party and as such, cannot be linked from this article per Wikipedia content policies. Note that the affidavit was made by a third-party and not by Elan Vital, so any complaints you may have about statements that include your name should be made to that third-party, and not here. Elan Vital is a related organization so links to it are relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Named Critic of Prem Rawat 

message: For those contributing for the first time, please note that these pages are not a discussion forum, or a place to engage in discussions about our opinions, personal experiences, personal problems, legal disputes, etc. Talk pages are exclusively designed to discuss the article, and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk-page discipline

message: I've taken a few more weeks to do further research in the newspaper archives to ensure I haven't been accepting sources that aren't verifiable and might disagree with the most reputable sections of the press. I now have around 300 articles dealing with Prem Rawat from newspapers of record such as the New York Times and the Times of London, the Wire Services: Associated Press and United Press International and other papers of repute such as the Guardian, The Washington Post, the Australian, der Spiegel, the Los Angeles Times, the Brisbane Courier Mail, the Melbourne Age and even the tabloids such as the Daily Mail.
The information and views these newspapers published in these articles about Prem Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji are in complete harmony and agreement through the decades and across the continents. They also agree with the nearly 50 magazine articles published in a range of magazines from Time and Newsweek to Ramparts to Rolling Stone, Playboy and People of which I have copies. The research of Stephen Kent in the archives of the U.S. alternative press of the 1970's shows it was only slightly different to the mainstream press, being harsher in it's criticisms. I have only begun my search of the academic journals but the articles I have already read, while different in tone and emphasis, also agree with the the newspaper and magazine articles. I have copies of the following books, some only in electronic format, most in hard copy:
Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? - Charles Cameron (ed)
Sacred Journeys - James V. Downton, Jr.
From Slogans To Mantras - Stephen Kent
CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion - Marc Galanter
All God's Children THE CULT EXPERIENCE - Carrol Stoner and Jo Anne Parke 
Baba: Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Yogi - Rampuri
Cults: What Parents Should Know - Joan Carol Ross, Michael D. Langone 
The Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia - edited by Margaret Smith and David Crossley
Between Dark and Dark - David Lovejoy
Soul Rush - Sophie Collier
The Living Master - Prem Rawat
Holi 78 - Guru Maharaji
Hans Yog Prakash - Shri Hans Ji Maharaj
Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - editor, C. L. Tandon
Their stories, told in much greater detail and including some direct academic research of the members of Divine Light Mission, support the picture in the press and magazines and the academic articles. I also have photocopied pages dealing with Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital from various Dictionaries and Encyclopedias of Religions, Cults and NRMs that I have found in major state libraries and the National Library of Australia. While I am anxious to hear of any further resources dealing with the career of Prem Rawat, even those that are not suitable to be used in Wikipedia, I believe I already have adequate information to say that this article does not portray the same career of Prem Rawat's as do these sources.
I now intend to begin improving those sections of the article I raised a few weeks ago with better verifiable sources. Unfortunately there are at least 3 editors here who may consider these edits to protray Prem Rawat's life differently to the way they would like. However, I have not made up these sources, they are the verifiable, reputable sources that this encyclopedia's policies call for. To simplify matter I will make edits directly and if there is any controversy we can discuss and improve as we go along. If anyone has prior objections I am hapy to hear from them. Tgubler 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said several times, this article is too long. I will generally support editing that reduces the length. I will not support substituting facts with opinion, no matter how learned. And I certainly will not support editing without prior discussion on this page.Momento 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already posted the sections I consider need changing and I have discussed the Wiki policies that need to be adhered to. There is much in this article that does not come from appropriate sources and when we remove that the article will be shortened not that I think it is necessarily too long. While Rawat himself is unimportant and a minor guru his story is interesting as being one of the most ridiculed and controversial of the 1970's gurus and so deserves more length than it otherwise might. Please remember that our opinions are not appropriate as sources of Wiki articles. Poorly sourced controversial material from followers or critics of Prem Rawat has no place here. Tgubler 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) There is not material in this article that is not properly sourced as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there is, please point it out so that it can addressed; (b) Please keep your opinions of the subject to yourself, unless your intentions are to provoke, that is; and (c) Just in case you forgot that very basic premise, the decision of what needs to be included in the article is a decision that will need to be made by the consensus of editors and not yours alone.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Momento, there is no such rule that new additions first have to be discussed. Andries 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say there was a rule Andries. Please refrain from distorting my comments.Momento 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do behave as if there is such a rule when you revert new additions with the only justification that they were undiscussed. Andries 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, you are not new to Wikipedia and I am sure thta you understand the importance of discussions and consensus, in particular in articles bout which there are string opinions. If you do not believe that discussions and consensus are important, please let everybody know, so at least we know were you stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you read the talk page incl. the archives it will be clear that I have extensively discussed edits and the article. However in correspondence with the generally accepted practice of Wikipedia I do not have to discuss new additions to this article that were never discussed before and I will not do so. I will discuss substantical re-structuring of the article before I make it. I do not consider it constructive to have extensive discussions about editing procedures for this article. Andries 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, you may chose to take that route, but do not be surprised when your edits are challenged. This article is not a new article, and it had had the input on many editors over more that two and a half years. Of course, if new relevant material is found it could be added, if it adds anything of substance to the article, is not a duplicate of existing material, and enhances the article. That is were consensus is needed. You may not consider seeking consensus to be constructive, and again, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Gstalker, please Wikipedia:No legal threats ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article 

message: Since Elan Vital says - "In Australia, Elan Vital is a non-profit organisation that promotes Maharaji ’s message, coordinates events at which he speaks and provides information and materials" it is entirely appropriate that it makes comments and can be quoted regarding anti-Maharaji activities. In the same way Apple Computers can  talk about and for Steve Jobs and be used as a source of material when writing about Steve Jobs.Momento 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's a simple, factual description which deosn't make any POV claims. If it said "fastest growing", "oldest", "biggest", etc. then those assertions would require independent sources, or be couched as "claimed"/"stated". -Will Beback · † · 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, the text in the article is "In an FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them related to their illegal activities and motivations, and characterizes them as a 'hate group."  This is clearly NOT a 'simple, factual description that is not making any POV claims'.  The Elan Vital website is filled with inaccurate statements and downright lies in support of the image of Prem Rawat.  This is why it is not a reputable source for this article. --John Brauns 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a very different type of text than suggested above. It is the opinion of the subject (or his organization). Elan Vital is a legitimate source for the currect opinions of the subject. So long as they are attributed to the organization and characterized as opinions they should be permitted. -Will Beback · † · 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, apart from quotes from Rawat on Elan Vital's site, the opinions of the authors of the content on Elan Vital's sites do not appear to be those of the subject.  In fact, all the FAQ's on EV's sites are anonymously written.  The problem, Will, is that all contrary anti-Rawat opinions that are not backed up by 'reputable sources' have been expunged from Wikipedia.  I accept that my site (ex-premie.org), and Dr. Mike Finch's site (mikefinch.com), may not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for sources for biographies for living people, but to allow Elan Vital's anonymous opinions to be included in this and other articles, without balancing those opinions, seems to be against natural justice, and will clearly not help in reaching a NPOV article.  I would appreciate advice on how to deal with this. --John Brauns 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about Prem Rawat, not Mike Finch or John Brauns. Elan Vital is the organisation created by Prem Rawat to promote  his message and as such has every reason to be a source for this article.Momento 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, Criticism of Prem Rawat is about the views of Mike Finch, John Brauns, and other critics.  Some of this dispute seems to center on the appearance that criticism isn't being allowed. Perhaps the solution isn't in this article, but in the other.  -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There is also a web site that is critical of the critics of Prem Rawat (http://www.one-reality.net/). So where do you stop? I can't really understand why there is a criticism section (Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin don't have them). I can only conclude that anti PR editors have insisted on them.Momento 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymously written? All FAQs that I have read in hundreds of sites do not have a "specific" author, but are considered to be the official viewpoint of the owner of the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, are the assertions that you'd like to source to other websites opinions or facts? Jossi, what's your advice? -Will Beback · † · 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, the assertions on my and other critical sites, are better corroborated than most reputable newspaper articles, but as I said, I accept that these sites may be unsuitable for Wiki BLP articles.  Maybe this illustrates a weakness in Wikipedia guidelines, where an 'official' organisation supporting a notable living person can be quoted in that person's biography, but non-notable criticism cannot. --John Brauns 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My advise has been all the time that as per WP:RS, "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", a short mention of the material about the FAQ on "opposition" could be included here, at the Criticism article, or better, at the Elan Vital (organization) article. In the past we had a long section on this, coupled with rebuttals sourced to non-reliable sources. The compromise reached after a very long debate,  was to remove all material and keep just a short sentence about the FAQ of Elan Vital without getting into details. I think that it is a good compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, surely you agree that presenting one side of a controversial debate, without allowing the other side a single word in reply, cannot be considered a 'good compromise'. I think a good compromise, complying with Wikipedia BLP guidelines, is to only allow sources that neutral observers can agree are unbiased sources.  I am willing to agree that ex-premie.org and other anti-Rawat sites should not be used as sources for these articles, if sites controlled by Rawat's supporters are also excluded.  Then the Rawat articles will be a true reflection of what the neutral public sees.  Do you agree?  --John Brauns 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood how Wikipedia works, John. The viewpoints of an organization can be described in an article about that organization, as these are indeed, "significant" (otherwise we should not have an article about that organization in Wikipedia). The criticism of notable scholars, can also be included as these are significant viewpoints as well. You speak of "two sides" of a controversial debate, but that is only your assessment as a detractor, in which you consider your opinion to be one side of the debate and the website of an organization that exist in various countries, that publishes materials, engages in humanitarian activities, organizes volunteer activities for hundreds of thousands of people in 82 countries to be the "other side" of the debate. But that is not necessarily the case. It has been already established in previous discussion in these pages that the opinions expressed in the various websites you own are the opinion of a few individuals. That does not make these few individuals "the other side" of a controversial debate. Don't get me wrong, please: you and others have their right to express your opinions (and you do!) in your personal webpages, and chatrooms and other fora, but these opinions would not be usable in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I didn't follow the previous discussion, but although it might have been claimed that Rawat's critics are a 'few individuals', it certainly hasn't been established.  If Wikipedia allowed links to http://ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm which contains a comprehensive library of press articles on Rawat, or the over 100 personal testimonies on ex-premie.org, or the over 400 ex-premies who have posted over the years on the forums, or the library of quotes and videos of Rawat that Elan Vital try to suppress, then it would be established that the ex-premie view of Rawat is the mainstream view.  But I recognise I have to play by the rules if I want be in the game.  So, Jossi, you accept that links to an organisation's website are appropriate to show the opinions of that organisation.  This article is about Prem Rawat, who has no official relationship to Elan Vital, so do you agree that links to Elan Vital should be removed from this article, and from all articles except that for Elan Vital?  Also, since you state that ex-premies are NOT significant, do you agree that links to Elan Vital's opinions should exclude links to their opinions on ex-premies?--John Brauns 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope I didn't mislead you Will Beback. The sentence I quoted above comes from the Elan Vital website and I quoted it to confirm that EV does provide information about Prem Rawat. As John Bruans points out this article says that Elan Vital claims etc. which characterizes their comments as opinions.Momento 10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elan Vital as a source

message: It is clear that the "Criticism" section is inherently biased. Allowing only negative opinion violates too many Wiki policies to count. I suggest we rename it "Scholarly Opinion" and list all "Scholarly Opinion" in  alphabetical order with references and links if possible. Jossi, do you have a list of "Scholarly Opinion"?Momento 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, if the criticism article becomes "Scholarly Opinion" with references to scholarly sources, what would be the sources for the main article, non-scholarly opinion?  There should one article which should be an objective well-sourced account of the facts about Rawat's life, with no value judgements on those facts either way. --John Brauns 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Jossi says, the article is made up of a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources.It is, with the exception of the "criticism" section, entirely factual with little bits of grammar to link it all together. The "Criticism" section is unique because it is the only section  where we alllow opinion to be stated. And currently, the only opinion we allow to be stated is "criticism". This is clearly unfair but rather than increase the size of the article by inserted all the "positive" scholarly opinion, we should just list all the "scholarly" references and links and let the reader make up their own mind rather than only presenting the critical information.Momento 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the article we have now, meticulously sourced to a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources. A criticism section is OK, as many other articles do have these in BLPs, providing that the critical viewpoints are in compliance with WP:BLP. There is a discussion about a re-evaluation of a possible merger of the separate criticism article into this one, at that article's talk page.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an embarassing fact. 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, George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ted Stevens 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 set up a "Criticism of" article to create a negative impression and give them a place to vent their criticism that would not be allowed on a BLP. This article is clealry an abuse of Wikipedia in order to attack Prem Rawat. I am delinking it from the Prem Rawat article immediately until this issue is addressed and resolved. I expect this article will be removed and the "Criticsm of" section in the PR BLP to be renamed "Scholarly opinion" and include all scholalry opinion not just negative opinion.Momento 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, it was Jossi that created and set up the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Sylviecyn 10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly Opinion

message: User:Nik_Wright2 has opened a mediation page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic.  I have volunteered to be the mediator.TheRingess 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Announcement 

message: I have begun tidying this article prior to merging, many small changes to improve readability. But it is hampered by the random insertion of "scholalry opinion" which interrupts the narrative without providing much useful information.Momento 04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tidying" can be good, but is there a consensus for a merger? -Will Beback · † · 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe such a discussion is underway over here.  I personally don't think a merger is the proper thing to do, and I describe (ramble on) my reasons for this opinion.  I think it would be most helpful if you and other interested editors also lent your thoughts to the discussion.  Mael-Num 08:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge or delete, I don't care. But having a special "Criticism of" article about Prem Rawat is biased.Momento 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be argumentative, and not to divide the debate into a sprawl across multiple talk pages...but could you briefly summarize why you feel this?  I am genuinely curious.  And please, be candid.  Mael-Num 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up