Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 17

message: :: I have removed these comments and references since neither Kranenberg nor Gordon say "PR said he was God or Godlike".
:::Momento, You must have completely misread the words by Melton and Kranenborg. They say it very clearly. Andries 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point them out. There is nothing in the quotes you provide.Momento 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Momento, you can use these cites and write a sumary of what these scholars say, rather than deleting the cites ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kranenborg and Melton:God or Godlike

message: You can vote here Andries 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion [[Past teachings of Prem Rawat]]

message: I've changed my username from "Another Ex-Premie" to "Sylviecyn," because I prefer it.  I'll be using "Sylviecyn" henceforth, and it's not a sockpuppet. I've made a redirect from the old to the new name, and hope I did it correctly.  If not, please help. Sylviecyn 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI, Notice of my Wiki username change

message: The excessive insertion of other people's opinion versus what PR says on the subject has made "Early Western Followers" bloated and confusing. The following section appears twice. Andries, please remove one.Momento 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is more the many quotes by Rawat than the summaries by others of what Rawat said. The problem is that Rawat contradicted himself so many times. I will re-arrange, merge the duplicate statements. Andries 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've come to the conclusion that the problem with "Early Western Followers" is that it contains much that should really be seen as PRs teaching. I suggest we start to eliminate anything that doesn't explicately relate to followers and take whatever else to PRs teachings.Momento 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section "Early Western Followers" is not good. I propose dividing the contents between sections "Early Western Followers" and a new section "Claims and teachings". Andries 09:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have "early followers" at all. I suggested doing it by decades i.e. the 70s= what PR said (quotes), did (tours, family rift), organisation (ashrams, DLM), media (who said what), activities etc. I still think this is the best way to reduce the size of this article. I certainly don't want the 70's to dominate. Comments please.Momento 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, may be the paragraphs about "Early Western followers" should be moved to the article Divine Light Mission and only a summary should be kept here. Statements about Rawat's claims, acts, and teachings are fully on topic and should stay here that are now also in the section "Early Western followers".  Andries 12:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to wait a few days to see in Past teachings of Prem Rawat survives AfD. If it does, we can look at several possibilities in regard to this section and the contents of that article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we will wait, but I already want to state that I will not accept moving the very few statements from reputable sources about Rawat's teachings to the article past teachings of Prem Rawat. In contrast, copying them is okay for me. Andries 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Andries, the decision about how to summarize a section in the event of an article spin-off will be made in consensus with participating editors, and it is not your decision or mine. Stating that you will not accept this or that, is a preemptive statement that is not conducive to collaboration.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. I do think that my statement helps the collaboration by making it clear what my point of view is. It may help getting rid of false expectations. Andries 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion on how to treat an article spinoff, but I consider it bad manners to assert an immovable position a priori without knowing the intentions of other editors. What you are doing is contrary to WP:AGF, as you are assuming bad faith of fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You correctly described my position in this regards as immovable (unless of course we would discover many reputable sources that describe Rawat's teaching), but I do not assume your bad faith. I am only stating my point of view. Andries 19:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, It is on record that you have an "immovable position". Let it be known that this is the case. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is exactly what I am saying. No one has made a mention of moving statements from reputable sources anywhere. You are jumping the gun, for reasons I can only assign to a lack of respect for WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else could be in that "spin off" article past teachings of Prem Rawat than statements from reputable sources about Rawat's teaching that are now all here? Andries 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page and Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, to learn how this work.   ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the article: section of "Early Western Followers"

message: The dog bark analogy was from the Colorado satsang in 1971, and has nothing to do with criticism: Dogs bark but the elephant carries on. When an elephant passes in India, all the dogs come round and bark, bark, bark. The elephant never even sees them. The elephant isn't aware of what is happening around him. If you don't realize why you have come into this world, if you don't use every single moment, then you are like an elephant, having nothing to do with Knowledge and having nothing to do with time. Everything is saying, "Know, know, know, know me," but you aren't interested. Realize why you have come into this world, why God placed you in this human frame, why God made you so handsome, why God graced you with that most intelligent brain. Why did he do that? Know. Only know. 
As for your request for a quote of Maharaji in which he addresses critics, etc., here you have one for each one of the past four decades.
* July 14, 1973 London, United Kingdom: I know people have written different things about me, “Oh, he has done this and he has done that.” This criticism has been going on for a long, long, long time. But never has anyone criticized what I have really been giving to people. No one.
* May 18, 1983 Mexico City, Mexico: "You know, I haven’t yet left anybody. But a lot of people have tended to leave me. And come back, sometimes. Sometimes they don’t.
* April 6, 1991 Kaohsiung, Taiwan:  I do not know of a single person who has come to Knowledge where Knowledge has not had a profound impact on their life. Maybe now they say, “Oh, no. It wasn’t this way.” But at that time, Knowledge was having a profound impact on their lives.
* November 19, 2001  Philadelphia, PA, USA
:[Question from audience]: I discovered a site on the internet with people who are, quote, ex-premies, who were supposedly close to you, Maharaji.  
:[Maharaji]: They may garner hatred towards me, I do not garner hatred towards them. I have no reason to. If they extended ...(and it’s not “they,” it would have to be individuals), their hand of friendship, of that feeling, and if it was real, it would be accepted today by me as it was the first day they met me. Why? Why? Not because I’m looking for friendship, but from where I sit, I’m comfortable enough to do that.  I’m secure. I don’t have to badmouth anybody. As simple as that. 
≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check to see where these quotes were published. FYI, there is no need for a source to be "in the public domain" to be cited. Just that it can be verified that it was published. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to PatW's request 

message: Dear Scott, I disagre with your last "tweak", for the following reasons;
* You state as controversial that some scholars hold that he made claims of divinity. For a reigious scholar to make such assertions does not indicate controversy.
* Having a sentence about "owning several residences", together with an assertion about guru teaching tradition does not make sense
* Speaking about to "show God" without explaining the fact that he refererd to an inner experience, is misleading.
In summary, this tweak does not work. I will attempt to correct this sentence sometime today, but you or others can go ahead and address my objections, if  so you wish. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the "tweak". It is clumsy and inappropriate. "Overly sumptuous?", "Several residences", "Eastern guru teaching tradition"?Momento 21:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead tweak 

message: It is clear that the title "Early Western Followers" is no longer appropriate since this section has been expanded way beyond the followers. I suggest we follow "Maharaji's First trip to the West" by summarizing  the "Establishment in the West", "Early Western Followers" & "Family Rift" (currently running to over 2800 words) into one "'70s" section (of say 1500 words) and try to set a style that can work for the '80s and '90s as well. That is, what was PR doing and saying in this decade, what were the major happenings. I'm going to make a start off-line see what I come up with.Momento 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather have a section consisting of "claims and teachings." Andries 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure about any of the above proposals. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By omiting what can be gathered into a section on "Claims & Teachings", I have reduced the above to a coherent, easy to read 1000 words. It sets a format for the '80s, 90's and beyond.Momento 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see that. Could you be so kind as to post a draft at Talk:Prem Rawat/Teachings (draft). Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like a very good idea to me to subsume the parts of article that are historic into 'decade sections'. I would be wary of failing to include all key events. The 70's draft seems woefully incomplete as it appears this morning.PatW 09:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add whatever you like.Momento 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change to "The 1970's

message: Momento, if you find a statement doubtful can you please first insert  behind the statement which will yield citiation needed before removing a statement. And also please do not ask for references for statements that are already referenced elsewhere which you have done many times. This yields unnecessary work for me and others. Of course, when a statement is inserted by newbies that is clearly very wrong then you do not have to follow such a procedure. Thanks. Andries 09:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regretably, the quote you provided doesn't say PRs followers claimed PR was God, it says "the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness”.Momento 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will reflect change it a bit to make the references correspond better with the wording, but I think that the differences are small and I consider your objections nitpicking. Andries 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NItpicking? Is it too much to ask that the quotes you provide, do in fact support the claims that you make? You may consider the difference between God and "a manifestation or personification of God" small but it is the difference between infinite and finite, eternal and temporary. There is not a bigger difference in the universe. And even worse, the quote you provide doesn't even suggest that devotees claimed PR was God.Momento 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Momento and others: insert <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>

message: The paragraph I refer to (below) which formerly was about criticism directed at PR is now more about criticism of Ron Geaves which is a separate issue altogether. Furthermore I propose that editors desist from making unsupported statements as to the organizations response to allegations and I propose to delete such statements until whoever is doing this provides some reputable reference. 
NB. link provided as reference is a 404 Not Found.  http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/11/085/article/  . Is this acceptable Jossi and is there any way of seeing who is responsible for this edit,  so I can argue the point?
Former Text:
The organizations that support Prem Rawat's work as well as current students categorically deny the accusations made by these former key personnel and others, labeling the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students  and impinge on freedom of belief with their  intolerance . (THIS ALREADY LINKS TO GEAVES' STUFF pw)
New Text:
The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have choosen to not address allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended, and characterize the "ex-premie" group as "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" [118]. Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[119] 
: I have provided a working link to EV organisation web site.Momento 11:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further distractive and non NPOV waffle added to Criticism Section

message: The latest edit (by Momento?)reads:
The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended, and characterize the "ex-premie" group as "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" [120]. Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[121]
Rationale for edit
I intend to remove the link to Ron Geaves' page and the whole refering sentence because nowhere there does Geaves suggest that the author's of the "anonymous website" are ex-premies so it is irrelevant. In fact, as a professor who talks about this subject to many people, the attack could have easily been from non ex-premie critics. It is simply conjecture on the part of the editor. I personally know some non-premie theology students who ardently disagree with some of Geaves' opinions. Furthermore following your link Momento, people will find no evidence that the organization have "addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". That is misleading and/or ambiguous. They do not address the allegations themselves, they address the general problem of allegations by describing them as unfounded etc . Can you see the importance of differentiating?
The text will now read:
The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize active ex-premie critics as an  "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students" describing their allegations variously as 'hearsay' and 'unfounded' [120].
PatW 13:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I consider my edit - "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have addressed allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended" is a vast improvement on your edit which it replaced "The organizations that support Prem Rawat's have choosen to not address allegations which they deem fallacious, unfounded and ill-intended". You now claim "They do not address the allegations themselves, they address the general problem of allegations by describing them as unfounded etc" . If you would care to read the section again you will see that the sentence concerned follows on from "They (ex-premies) claim that Prem Rawat's and his entourage's behavior during the early period in the West amounted to what they see as a deliberate and public claims of personal divinity, that these assertions of personal divinity have never been properly disclaimed, and that they continue to the present to be asserted in secret, all for personal gain". In fact, those allegations and others are addressed from the page I linked to. I would appreciate it if you would revert to my edit.Momento 13:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of deletion of reference to Ron Geaves

message: I think that this quote battle about personal claims of divinity in the section "Early westerners" should stop, because it will make the section too long. I do not know how to stop this quote battle. I think that summaries by others of what Rawat said, not quotes by Rawat, should be the main contents of this section. Andries 13:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, interpretations of quotes should be left to the readers, not to the editors. Andries 13:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editors should insert a quote into an article only if it is relevant. You assume that the quote you inserted is relevant because you believe it means PR is claiming to be God. He isn't and didn't, you have misunderstood. That is why it is irrelevant abd should be deleted.Momento 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote proves that Rawat at least suggested that Rawat was God. Let us leave interpretations to the readers. Andries 13:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is not suggesting he is God, anymore than if I say on Monday - "Summer's here" means that all of summer is contained in that one day.Momento 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only your interpretation of what Guru Majaraj Ji meant when he said "The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here".  How you can have the cheek to try and remove the quote - never mind interpret it for everyone - just shows how biased your supposedly "neutral" POV actually is.  Let the reader know what was said, and let the reader decide for themselves. Revera 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I admit that I am a participant in this quote war. Please remember that the agreed upon version by Gary_D did not contain such quotes. Andries 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit it, then you have the power to stop it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote battle

message: Andries, you cite Kraneborg about twice in two different articles but wrot to different version of it. Which one is the correct one? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a bit surprized about a sentence in this article (esp. the upper one) which I did not remember ever to have added. I think that somebody must have distorted what I wrote. I will check. Andries 05:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You should. Please do. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that each quote is referencing a different book. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies

message: I am absolutely stunned to see Andries has interpreted "in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God" as "According to a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks, the relationship of the DLM devotees to the guru was identical to their relation to God". This is a grotesque distortion. The correct version correctly credits the view to those "in both these new religious movements", Andries credits this view to "a 1986 article by the Dutch psychologists of religion Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks". The implication being that van der Lans and Derks came to that conclusion. They did not. They are remarking that the opinion is held "in both these new religious movements". These edits are vandalism.Momento 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I have copyedited the sentence to refet the true content of the cite. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have treated you with courtesy and respect, PatW, so the use uf "shameful editor" in the edit summary is not very welcome, to say the least. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The reason I changed "14 objections" to "several objections" is that the numbner of such "objections" is irrelevant. They could have listed 10, 2o or 300. It is hardly an important distinction in my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sloppy? May be, but I still hardly see the difference, especially taking into account in that the next sentence in their article is "The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God". Andries 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem Andries is that you have made "sloppy" edits so regularly that is clearly deliberate. On April 3rd you summarised a reference from Kranenberg and Gordon as saying "PR said he was God or Godlike", when they did not and on April 7th you summarised a reference from Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks as saying "PRs followers claimed PR was God" when they did not. This isn't sloppy Andries, this is you deliberately falsifying material three times in one week to support your point of view. You should stop editing immediately.Momento 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you that I falsified the material. What van der Lans and Kranenborg wrote was very, very close to what I wrote, especially if you read more of their material. I mean, for me "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are for me quite similar. Of course, I am aware that there is a variety of slightly different meanings if you use the many Sanskrit words for God, but in Western terminololgy, this seems to be blurred. Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have just seen your latest edit in which you claim "He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s, but was also called the boy guru. Hinnells, John (Editor) The Penguin Dictionary of Religions 1997 entry Sant Mat page 451. PR has used the titles Guru Maharaji and Maharaji, he has never used the title "Boy Guru". Show me the quote.Momento 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never wrote that he used the title "boy guru". Andries 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your  frequent "very, very close" editing when it is done deliberately to avoid "exact" editing. Likewise I'm not interested, and I assume Wki readers are not interested in your uninformed view that the "Lord of the universe", "manifestitation and personification of God", "the Lord", and "God" are quite similar. Nothing is similar to God by the very definition of God.Momento 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgraceful edit

message: In the second paragraph the following:
In the 1980s he began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission,[9] stepped away from the trappings associated with an Indian guru or Perfect Master and continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher and public speaker, promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge for finding peace within.[10] At that time, minimal organizations were established in several countries called Elan Vital, whose main purpose is organizing events to which Prem Rawat is invited to speak.
This is from the DLM Divine Light Mission stub:
The DLM in the West was disbanded in 1983 and was superseded by Elan Vital.
This is from the Elan Vital Elan Vital stub:
According to Elan Vital, Inc. website, the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital in 1987.[7] The Divine Light Mission, a new religious movement, was criticized by the anti-cult movement in the 1970s. The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements refers to the dissolution of Divine Light Mission.
Divine Light Mission filed an "Entity Name Change" with the Colorado Secretary of State's Corporations Dept. on February 22, 1983.  This is the scan online from that website.  It is listed as item 58 in "History and Documents" page 3:
History and Documents page:
History and Documents
Scan of Entity Name Change DLM to EV (pdf)
Entity Name Change DLM to EV
Also, in the last sentence above the words "minimal corporations" is non-descriptive because corporations are generally small, medium, large, or multi-national.  I propose changing to "At that time, non-profit, charitible organizations were..."
These discrepancies seem minor, but convey inconsistent information.  This should be pulled together to convey the correct (1983 date), remove "dissolution" because DLM wasn't dissolved, for purposes of clarification.   Btw, the link to EV concerning the 1987 date is dead. Comments?  Sylviecyn 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to move this discussion to the respective article's talk pages. Or better, simply fix these discrepancies. Thanks .≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed the sentences you referred to in this article. You are welcome to fix the other articles is you wish. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divine Light Misison/Elan Vital Discrepancies/Inconsistencies

message: Jossi just 3 quick questions please.
Can you tell me if it is acceptable for someone to remove a factually accurate description and replace it with a false one as has happened here? And without any explanation?  Is anyone breaking Wikki protocol here if so who?
Text formerly read
'Most current criticism is focused though a relatively small group of former followers calling themselves "ex-premies" who have an active presence on the Internet.  This group summarise their criticisms as "14 Objections"  the first of which revisits their devotion etc.'
Somebody deleted the '14 objections' and generally rephrased like this:
'A website that purportedly represents this group's viewpoint mention several objections the first of which revisits their devotion during the 1970s'
So can whoever did this edit please reasonably justify removing that fact? I'm all ears. I can accept that the 'website purportedly represents this group's viewpoint'..is fair and accurate but not the suggestion that only 2 objections are raised at the website when they categorically list 14!  Anyway I've changed it back and will continue to do so until somebody explains to my satisfaction why it should be otherwise.PatW 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, PatW, but several does not mean two.several: of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many;/ What about "a series of objections"? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @
17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it again to reflect the actual title of the 14 objections and that should settle any dispute about the words "several, few, one or two."  It's only fair, given the ex-premie group are called a hate-group, to show that there are more than two objections (that are described in the text).  Also changed "character" to behavior.  Anxiety and alcoholism are not character traits.  Also cleaned up some English usage in the paragraphs.  Please note everybody:  When you use quotes, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, such as I said, "What's fair is fair."  Sylviecyn 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I can live with that edit. I have edited the sentence a bit for NPOV. PatW: NP about that "shameless" thing. Just be aware that some type comments can ignite passions we don't really need. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Criticism. re EPO

message: I have again removed the link to Ron Geaves' page and the whole refering sentence because nowhere there does Geaves suggest that the author's of the "anonymous website" are ex-premies so it is unfair to suggest that it is. As I've already pointed out,  he is (increasingly it would seem) a professor who talks about this subject to many people and so the attack could have easily been from non ex-premie critics. It is simply conjecture on the part of the editor. I personally know some non-premie theology students who ardently disagree with some of Geaves' opinions.  I will tirelessly continue to remove this until such time as somebody can satisfactorily prove that it is about ex-premies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs) 
:PatW, no need to tireless do anything. I will change the sentence structure to ensure that the anonymous website is not assigned specifically to the "ex-premie" group. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi - there is no such thing as an 'ex-premie group'.  Several hundred 'former students, PWK's or former 'devotees' have trouped through the various web forums that have been online since 1997.  Many have posted personal 'Journeys' on EPO, dropped in, and dropped out. Most don't even know one another but find common things to talk about.  That's all. Craigfitzroy 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to find a mirror of that annymous, but it is gone. I wish you could see it. It could made this exchange a much easier one. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a mirror at home.iprimus.com.au/edreyfuss/ (I don't want to link, so just add http:// before that) . IMO, it is quite obvious that it is from an anonymous member of the critical "ex-premie" group. I would suggest you read that page and tell me what you think. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I will re-add the cite with a caveat that it is not sure that was dobe by the "ex-premie" detractors, with a wikilink to his article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UK police report confirms Dr Geaves assertion that the London bombers were not part of al Qaeda or any terrorist group and received no help or funding from them. It was four individuals who wanted to be martyrs and made their own protest and manufactured bombs according to material on the internet.Momento 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is evidetly the work of one of the detractors. The anonymous website as gleefully announced site in their chatroom to their considerable delight to this cowardly and shameless attempt to smear Dr. Geaves name. IMO, it is one of them. Of course I have no more evidence than the page itself. Anyone reading it will reach the same conclusion, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As for your disparraging comments about Dr. Geaves, please spare us the rethoric. The newspaper article is a total fiasco, quoting the professsor out of context to make a good story and rais controversy. Shameful. I would suggest you read the full address. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you don't own wikipedia or this article.  Please stop behaving as it you do, by constantly lecturing people.  Bullying people can also be construed as personal attacks.  I didn't read anything disparaging about Ron Geaves written by PatW.  Anyway, I agree with Pat.  The section should come out.  This isn't a biography about Ron Geaves.  It's inappropriate, proves nothing, and you're wrong about people "gleefully accepting that website."  I most definitely did not like it and I said so loudly.  This is a real below-the-belt cheap shot against ex-premies because you believe they are a hate group. Sylviecyn 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody owns any article in Wikipedia. Heck, even anons can edit. And I am not bullying anyone, BTW. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have edited the article to include your caveat. And, BTW, I am entitled to have an opinion. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somebody has put back sentence about Ron Geaves without explanation.

message: ::In order to avoid a revert war, because I'm poised to delete this paragraph today, I again object to the inclusion of this paragraph because it about Geaves, not Rawat.  It's also redundant, vague, and is awkwardly written to the point where it's almost unintelligible to an uninformed reader. Let's discuss this further, please.  If you insist on including this paragraph, I'll have no choice other than to expand it to include an explanation of the dispute between ex-premies and Ron Geaves. If anywhere, it belongs in Geaves own biographical article, not here.  Also, if the word "authoritative" is attached to Geaves as a scholar, I propose that same word be applied to references of all scholars within the article. Perhaps we need to get a dispute resolution on this matter.
::"Ron Geaves, a professor and Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester who has published authoritative articles in academic journals about Prem Rawat and his message, in a response to an anonymous website that attacked his professional standing and his views, stated that "[they] are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them."[119] This anonymous site refers copiously to the various "ex-premie" websites but there is no evidence that this anonymous website was created by a member of the "ex-premie" group and neither does Ron Geaves suggest that in the statement he made as a response to that website." Sylviecyn 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this paragraph is off-topic and the adjective "authorative" is very much non-NPOV. Especially when taking into account that the all the scholars who make statements that could possibly be interpreted as critical are described as "Catholic", "reverend" etc. suggesting that they must be highly biased and prejudiced against non-Christian faiths. I have read enough articles by these scholars to know that they were not highly biased and that their scholarship was generally sound, though like all religious scholarship not completely free of bias and mistakes. Andries 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Off topic? How can this be off-topic? We are talking about the criticism section, in which the detractors of Prem Rawat are listed. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is 100% wordy of inclusion. Maybe the wording needs to be tweaked, but that is all. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, it is evident that the Geaves' paragraph is off-topic by your own words that you use to describe the paragraph i.e. " A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat". In other words, the paragraph does neither deal with an attack on Prem Rawat or criticism of him nor with rebutal of the criticism i.e. it is off topic Andries 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you visited that page? Have you read its contents? I find it quite intersting that the critics want to remove that cite. Why? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would really like to see the Prem Rawat article greatly shortened and full of facts, not wallowing in a sea of opinion. The lead section and "Childhood in India" are a good examples of the former, "the 1970s" and "Criticism" are examples of the latter. It has been suggested before that this article could be based on the indiputable facts of PR and that issues that are open to interpretation be handled in other articles i.e. "Teachings of PR" and "Criticism". I think Wiki editors have an obligation to Wiki readers to produce an article on PR that clear, concise and accurate.Momento 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: PatW, please do no make these type of baseless accusations. If you see an edit that you disagree with, just say so. Making these type of accusations are unproductive and uncessary. I am glad you are reading the Wikipedia policies and   guidelines. It will make it very easy if we all apply these consistently. Hope you get to work with the same enthusiasm on other articles, as pointed out by Momento.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your clarification about your intentions. I will explain my edits more clearly, hopefully you'll do the same in the future. As for your question about the inclusion of the description of the attack against Dr. Geaves, note that the criticism section, describes the detractors of Prem Rawat. A very public attack by a detractor against a notable student 'and scholar of Prem Rawat is wordy of inclusion. Let the reader make up their minds about who is behind it. I have tweaked the text to remove the term "authorative" from the sentence as it is a value judgement on my part, as per your suggestion.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph with the POV of Ron Geaves

message: I have gone through the 70s section and put the quotes and references in chronoloigal order.Momento 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still not completely chronological. Andries 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: Between tours, Prem Rawat lives with his wife in Malibu, California in the U.S. They have four grown children. He is an experienced airline transport-rated pilot and holds a number of pilot ratings on jet airplanes and helicopters. His resume discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a U.S. Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications.[16] A US citizen since 1977,[17] he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.[18]
First of all, people don't like "between" things.  I've removed "between tours."  Second, where's the resume?  Without a source, the material must come out.  Sylviecyn 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy. The reference is there. It was retrieved from www.maharaji.org as stated in the reference. Why to remove between tours? Are you disputing that Prem Rawat tours the world? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are nine instances of the word "tour" in the article, which makes it obvious that M tours the world, and using "between tours" is an awkward and superfluous English usage.  No I don't dispute he tours.  Of course I don't.    I can't find anything on TPRF, which is where your link leads, that states anything about his piloting, etc. credentials.  Can you point me to a more specific page titled "resume."?  The sentence reads "...his resume discusses..."  I'm just looking for the specific "resume" source, not the splash page to the website.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference reads (my highlight):  (1999). Maharaj.org. URL accessed on January 1, 1999.. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good enough, Jossi for purposes of a Wiki article. There is no reference on the current TPRF page that provides current information to back up the paragraph references to Rawat's resume.  All I'm asking is to please provide the resume, or it should come out, imo, because of no verifiable source.  Sylviecyn 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Web cites include the retrieve date because of the nature of the web in which pages changes. move or get deleted with time. It is perfectly OK for Wkipedia to refer to web pages that are no longer online. You may want to check the web archive at [archive.org. Note that there are several cites to the 1999 version of maharaji.org, including one recent one added by some of the critics, in reference to the lineage of masters reference. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here it is http://web.archive.org/web/20010811064958/maharaji.org/facts/answers.htm - You will need to disable Javascript in your browser to see the page, otherwise you will be redirected to a different page. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the resume?

message: I've had a go at these 2 paragraphs to try and make them balanced.  Perhaps the hardest was to precis the Australian court case. Could do with one general link to a fuller ref on this. (rather than loads of refs). I also have put some info on my User page so people can see where I'm coming from.
Most current criticism derives from former followers, some calling themselves "ex-premies", that have an active presence on the Internet.  The latter group summarise their criticisms in a letter titled "14 Objections, An Open Letter to Prem Rawat Followers" http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/objection.htm. The organizations that support Prem Rawat characterize these critics as an  "an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals that constantly harass Rawat and his students". The former dismiss "ex-premies" allegations against Prem Rawat generally as fallacious, ill-intended, and unfounded hearsay. Allegations are addressed within the FAQ sections of their official websites.  http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htmIndividual critical former students have denied being members of a hate group and in turn describe such allegations as 'defamatory'. http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/art/hg.htm
In 2004 in Australia, lawyers acting on behalf of one the organizations that support Prem Rawat successfully brought legal proceedings against two ex-premies for an alleged scheme to misappropriate data from the organization's computers. During these proceedings both ex-premies signed affadavits describing the ex-premie group as a hate group who conspire to harass Rawat and his students and who are given to making false and defamatory reports about them.  In one affadavit the former student apologized for his participation in the ex-premie schemes. The other attempted to retract his testimony claiming he signed under duress but this was disallowed by the court.
PatW 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the current version is good as is. Can you please explain why this new version is better? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to the changes you have introduced and the method by which you did this. We had a discussion  above in which several editors contributed, in response to your requests, to make these paragraphs more accurate. Now you have decided to act unilaterally and make major changes. I do not think that this is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not delete references, as these are needed. Also note that the lawyers were not acting on behalf on an organization, but of several individuals. I will make some edits and add some more references. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. The affidavits describe Georges Charles William Laver and the Ivory Rock Conference center as second applicant. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have taken the prevous version and some of your edits and attempted to merge significant aspects of both. Hope this last edit will work for you. I will not be able to work on this any more until tomorrrow. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am OK with these suggestions of yours. Please add the reasons for the lawsuit (i. e. "a scheme to misappropriate data from Elan Vital's computers" and replace the word testimony with "admissions" as per Judge Muir's words. As there are no sources for Gubler's statement that he was "coerced" we ought to stick with what the judge said. As for the "prepared testimony", I am not sure we can say that. Both signed their affidavit documents but we do not know how were prepared or by whom. As far as one can see from the Gubler document, he made some corrections and deleted some paragraphs before signing. I will be bsuy most of to day and unable to make these edits, so I leave that in your capable hands. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. Thanks. Just a small adjustment about who brought the charges. (FYI, the website that you cite is an anonymous website and there is no evidence that was written by Gubler). ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 11:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might have missed something but why is it " an alleged" scheme? Surely it is proven.Momento 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed alledged since the sentence already says the proceedings were "successfully" brought, it has already been established that the charge was proven and not simply alleged. In any case, people are brought to trial for murder, theft, fraud etc; a trial or proceedings doesn't imply guilt. They are charged with murder, theft, fraud etc, it is than up to the trial to prove guilt or innocence. Momento 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: This article has grown by 10 kilobytes in a month. At 96 kilobytes it is 20 kilobytes longer than the article on Jesus and 46 kilobytes longer than the preferable size.. At some point it must be reduced by splitting.Momento 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to remove the Argosy magazine quote and its use as a reference. The magazine claims that in 1970 PR "announced that he was 'The Lord of the Universe'". This is simply not true. He does not even mention the phrase "Lord of the Universe" in the Peace Bomb satsang. Furthermore, there are three errors in the first paragraph alone. Argosy is not a credible resource for Wiki.Momento 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you agreee it's a misconception, I'll note that in the article.Momento 00:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Argosy, being a pulp fiction magazine is not a reputable source IMO. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen the abuse handed out to Wiki editors on this page and also in the ex-premie forum and I do not want  to be subject to it.Momento 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to removal of Argosy article.  Momento, there are plenty of passages in this article that could be removed because of redundancies in order to reduce its size.  The inclusion of Argosy is within Wiki guidelines.  Sylviecyn 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy for the Argosy reference to remain now that it has been flagged as "incorrect". Likewise with Viva as being "facetious".Momento 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, you cannot insert comments about the contents of sources: we either accept sources or not, but if we accept them then we do not try to evaluate the contents. We leave that to the readers. Andries 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: I'm going through to change a lot of "he's" to "Rawat."  This will make the article conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) section "Subsequent use of names.  Sylviecyn
:I also changed all the "Prem Rawats" to "Rawat" for consistency (that's how the bio manual says to do it, too).  But, there wasn't any consistency with regard to bolding the name, so I removed the bold "Rawats" because most were in regular text, and that seems like the way it's done in other wiki bios, see Bill Clinton.  I didn't change any refs or items where it was appropriate to keep the full name.    Sylviecyn 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style specifies that the last name may be used after the first iteration. Rawat is a very common name and he is not know as such, he is known as Maharaji and as Prem Rawat. I will restore Prem Rawat so that the full name appears once in each paragraph only. After that it is OK to refer to either He or Him or Rawat. The example of Cinton does not apply here because you seay "Clinton" everybody will assume that you are speaking about the ex-president. Same of Bush. I attempted to do that as well as removing the unnecessary bolding. I may have missed one or two. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the article is "Prem Rawat," so I don't see how your logic applies because, well, it's the title of the article!  Clinton is a much more common name to English-speaking people than Rawat is, so there goes your logic too. The use of too many pronouns makes the article boring to read, the sentence structure very awkward and ambiguous, and is considered poor English usage.  But, I'm not going to bother reverting because I'm more interested in the content than the style of this article. In the future, I'd appreciate if you checked with me first, before undoing a lot of work.  Thank you. Sylviecyn 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, this issue was discussed previously, and the consensus we arrived at was to use Prem Rawat just once in each paragraph, so I would say that before you do a lot of work that affects the article as a whole, you may want to check with other editors as well. That will save a lot of time and aggravation.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many pronouns