|
'''Kenilworth''' is a village located in [[Cook County, Illinois]], approximately 17 miles north of downtown [[Chicago]]. It is the newest of the eight suburban "[[North Shore]]" communities bordering [[Lake Michigan]], and is the only one developed as a planned community. Department store mogul Joseph [[Sears]] purchased 223.6 acres in one of the last undeveloped areas near Chicago's lakeshore for $150,300 in [[1889]]. Seven years later the population had reached 300 residents, fulfilling the legal requirement for incorporation. As of the [[2000]] census, the village had a total population of 2,494.
{{controversial}}
----
<small>[[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive11|Archive 11]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive10|Archive 10]] •[[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive9|Archive 9]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive8|Archive 8]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive7|Archive 7]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive6|Archive 6]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive5|Archive 5]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive4|Archive 4]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive3|Archive 3]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive2|Archive 2]] • [[Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/archive1|Archive 1]]
----
==Ladies and Gentlemen, a toast!!==
(Before reading this, go [http://www.reelclassics.com/Studios/Fox/fox.htm here] and click on "The 20th-Century Fox Fanfare with Cinemascope Extension" link.)
Kenilworth has a reputation as the wealthiest and most exclusive community in [[Chicagoland]]. In April of 2005, American Demographics magazine named Kenilworth's [[zip code]] (60043) the 11th most affluent in the U.S.
Seconding Zappaz, "whew!" I have now prominently flagged this version in the edit history for future editors as the "baseline reference consensus version", and will flag it below on this page as well. This is not to say the article won't change, but whereas before I considered it to be an incomplete article on its way to completion, I now see it as a completed article that will be tweaked and updated over time.
== Geography ==
As I previously suggested, now is the time for us all to band together and protect this article and its bretheren from attacks. Good faith edits are always welcome, but we can be on the lookout for deletes that take material away without compensating with new material, or bulk adds that duplicate what is already in the article. As was noted, there have already been some attacks, these particular ones from an "anti" perspective, and it would do my heart glad to see "anti" editors help revert "anti" vandalism, and "pro" editors help revert "pro" vandalism, as a statement of, "I may agree with your position, but that's not how we do things around here."
Kenilworth is located at 42°5'17" North, 87°42'57" West (42.088128, -87.716009){{GR|1}}.
According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the village has a total area of 1.6 [[square kilometer|km²]] (0.6 [[square mile|mi²]]). 1.6 km² (0.6 mi²) of it is land and none of it is covered by water.
You know, I originally came here essentially as an observer, at the invitation of Jossifresco and Andries, and my initial intention was mostly just to add another voice in hopes of mediating disputes. As I got drawn in to editing and writing myself, however, I came to feel a personal attachment and obligation for getting to a consensus version of a finished article. Now that, in my view, we have arrived, I may stay around and actively edit, but I no longer feel that I ''need'' to, and in the face of this completed article version as a baseline, it may be that I will step back and move on, with only the occasional look-in.
== Demographics ==
Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to raise a glass and propose a toast: ''To cooperation and consensus, to Prem Rawat and Bob Mishler, to Wikipedia and to us''. I'm pretty happy with these articles, and ''very'' happy with how we all pulled together despite conflicting viewpoints to make this process work. Maybe we should nominate them for Wikipedia featured articles, as much to showcase the success of our process of working together as to showcase the articles themselves. I extend my hand to each of you, "pro" and "anti", whether you edited or not; somehow we all fit in together and played a part in bringing the articles to fruition. I hope you will all extend your cyber-hands as well to shake each other's, especially those on the other side of the aisle from you.
As of the [[census]]{{GR|2}} of [[2000]], there are 2,494 people, 792 households, and 697 families residing in the village. The [[population density]] is 1,604.9/km² (4,190.8/mi²). There are 815 housing units at an average density of 524.5/km² (1,369.5/mi²). The racial makeup of the village is 97.27% [[White (U.S. Census)|White]], 0.16% [[African American (U.S. Census)|African American]], 0.04% [[Native American (U.S. Census)|Native American]], 2.25% [[Asian (U.S. Census)|Asian]], 0.00% [[Pacific Islander (U.S. Census)|Pacific Islander]], 0.00% from [[Race (U.S. Census)|other races]], and 0.28% from two or more races. 1.36% of the population are [[Hispanic (U.S. Census)|Hispanic]] or [[Latino (U.S. Census)|Latino]] of any race.
There are 792 households out of which 49.9% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 81.7% are [[Marriage|married couples]] living together, 5.6% have a female householder with no husband present, and 11.9% are non-families. 10.2% of all households are made up of individuals and 6.4% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 3.15 and the average family size is 3.39.
Just in case I do hit the road, I would like to close with something borrowed from a different religious tradition. My apologies to that tradition for borrowing it since I am not really one of its members, but it's a nice piece because whether you are religious or atheist, Western or Eastern, you can usually adapt the phrasing of its sentiment to suit your beliefs:
In the village the population is spread out with 34.8% under the age of 18, 4.0% from 18 to 24, 19.7% from 25 to 44, 29.7% from 45 to 64, and 11.8% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 40 years. For every 100 females there are 90.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 87.3 males.
:The Lord bless you and keep you,
:The Lord make his face to shine on you and be gracious unto you,
:The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.
The median income for a household in the village is excess of $200,000, as is the median income for a family. Males have a median income of over $100,000 versus $69,375 for females. The per capita income for the village is $100,718. 1.1% of the population and none of the families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, none are under the age of 18 and 1.7% are 65 or older.
Thanks, everyone. [A deep bow and a salute.] Channel clear. --[[User:Gary D|Gary D]] 03:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
== External links ==
:'''Thank you''', Gary. Realy hope you stick around and help with the upcoming additional articles. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 03:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
{{Mapit-US-cityscale|42.088128|-87.716009}}
[[Category:Cook County, Illinois]]
:thanks. Gary, working on this article was a tough job for me. Thanks for using your writing skills to this subject. I agree that the [[Prem Rawat]] article is good enough to be a ''featured article'', though I think it is better too wait a bit and I am a bit concerned about the underdeveloped state of important ancillary articles such as the Divine Light Mission, with its somewhat confusing history, and beliefs and practices.. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 04:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Villages in Illinois]]
:Many thanks, Gary. I recognise that, although I believe there is too much supporters' POV in the article, supporters probably believe there is too much critics' POV. If supporters such as Jossi can accept the article as is, then I certainly can. I'll be posting on the ex-premie forum that I think this is the best we can hope for, and to discourage any vandalism. I would also like to thank Andries for his persistence when no ex-premie had the patience or belief to work on the article. Of course, if significant verifiable additional information comes to light, then I will add it to the article, but with appropriate discussion here. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 05:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Thank you Gary. You brought some logic, balance, and sensibility to this article. It's not perfect -- but nothing is. I have taken the time to ask folks on the ex-premie forum not to vandalize the article as it now stands (there are people who are not happy with it). There is always room for improvement, but I do appreciate the time and work involved. Btw, how do you guys manage to do this Wiki stuff and earn a living? :-)
:::Best wishes...
:::[[User:CynthiaG|CynthiaG]] 18:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Proud of you fellas! I know it was not easy, so take a well deserved break. And Amen to that Gary! --[[User:Senegal|Senegal]] 18:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're all very welcome! My parting flourish above says more about my sense of the dramatic than about any imminent departure, and it's likely I'll hang around with at least some degree of involvement. I really appreciate John's and Cynthia's efforts to ward off vandalism—I'm sure we all do!—and John, if new information comes to light, Wikipedia wants it! Oh, and the person who really gets shafted from my time here is my wife: "Are you doing that stuff ''again''?" Once again, everybody, good job! --[[User:Gary D|Gary D]] 19:52, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
==NOTE TO FUTURE EDITORS: BASELINE REFERENCE CONSENSUS VERSION==
The present version of the article represents the completed form of a baseline reference consensus version, arrived at after extensive negotiations between Prem Rawat supporters and critics (see archives 2 through the present one), and it is so marked in the edit history for easier locating. We do not expect that this page will not change from here, but you may find it useful as a baseline and as a reference should future edits get out of hand or the article become corrupted. If you should become unsure about what may be acceptable to both sides of the controversy and dispute, we offer this version for your consideration and use. We commend it to your good discretion, and wish you the best! --[[User:Gary D|Gary D]] 03:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
==Emile said that the site had been removed because of copyright violation==
Well, anyway where can I find the TOS complaint to Geocities then I can check it out? Thanks.[[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:That is just speculation. I don't think you can know the exact reasons for Geocities removing that website... Geocities has very stringent TOS. For example. some of the possible TOS violations of that website .(Highlights are mine):
:*(a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, '''harassing''', tortious, '''defamatory''', vulgar, obscene, '''ibelous''', '''invasive of another's privacy''', '''hatefu'''l, or racially, ethnically or '''otherwise objectionable''';
:*(c) '''impersonate any person or entity''', including, but not limited to, a Yahoo official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
:*(e) upload, post or otherwise '''transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law''' or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
:*(f) '''upload''', post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, '''copyright''' or other proprietary rights of any party;
:*(l) '''"stalk" or otherwise harass another''';
:Full list here: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/geoterms.html [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 20:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
==Guess what Jossi==
it is becoming a predictable, I disagree with your edit. :-) The sentence that I inserted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=6660660&oldid=6659226] after the quote that Zappaz inserted is directly relevant to the paragraph. What I wrote is far more NPOV than using a very selective out-of-context quote as Zappaz did. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: :) The book in question is already in the references. All I did wat to move some of your text to the references section. I did not understand why it was relevant to that paragraph. If you think it is, please add it back and clarify it here. Thanks [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 04:11, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
== Links to gallery ==
Removed links to gallery in which scanned material is displayed. Once the sources, dates and attibutions are added to these pages (as promised by owenr of website) these can go back. Othwewise these links are in contravention to wikipedia fair use guidelines. --[[User:64.81.88.140|64.81.88.140]] 16:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Not all scans in the gallery have source and dates mentioned, I have to admit. I have restored the links to a [[webpage]] of the Gallery that does not break any copyrights and in such a way the article adheres to [[Wikipedia%3ACopyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works|Wikipedia guidelines.]] [[User:Andries|Andries]] 12:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Former Followers' Status ==
I have reverted this line 'Some of these ex-premies are former senior staff within the organizations and former instructors appointed by Rawat.' Someone had inserted 'claimed to have been'. There is no question about the status of Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner, Mike Finch and Jean Michel Khan with the organisations that support Rawat's work. What is disturbing is that this change was made from the agreed baseline version without any justification in this Discussion section.--[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 00:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:: John - Sorry about that (newbie here). I added that 'claimed to have been' without entering anything in the discussion page. Sorry about that - will not do that again. By the way, the reason for qualifying their roles is that most anyone can claim high-ranking positions. The reality of their position might not be the same as they claimed. [[User:Chuck J|Chuck]] 01:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Removal of sentence... ==
Andreis - I agree with your deletion of that sentence. Thank you for cleaning up the paragraph on the legal status of the Indian car accident. I am a little new to this and should not have been so forcefull in debunking anyone who would ignore the court's decision. [[User:Chuck J|Chuck]] 18:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==John MacGregor arrest warranty, please provide references==
I removed the following sentence that can be re-added after providing references.
:"''In October 2004, after being discovered that Macgregor lied under oath and after failing to appear in court, an Australian-wide arrest warrant was issued against him for criminal perjury. ''"
[[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following sentences is against the guidelines that disencourage unattributed opionions.
:"''It is assumed that he left the country to avoid the arrest. ''"
[[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Andries, that is a fact. He knows that. The ex-premies know that. So what is the deal? An arrest warrant was issued and he failed to appear in court. I will remove just the last sentence about "it is assumed" --[[User:203.200.122.1|203.200.122.1]] 05:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Wim Haan is biased because he was a Catholic?==
Jossi, in another article in Wikipedia I read that Catholics practice Knowledge. Can you please explain or delete the remark that Haan was biased? Thanks [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:This is information '''you''' provided, Andries... That Haans belonged at that time to a group of catholic critics. This needs to be disclosed, same way we are diosclosing that Dr. Geaves is a student of Prem Rawat. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 07:56, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
::True, I had copied what Haan wrote but how can he have a negative bias only because he is a catholic while other catholics became students of Prem Rawat and remained catholics. I think this is inconsistent.
::About the two years, Haan just recently wrote in Dutch http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/8818.html that he was involved for two years.
:::"Andries, i reply in dutch, because that is my native language:
:::1) mijn betrokkenheid bij DLM was er niet één van enkele maanden maar van circa twee jaar, en mijn contacten met 'premmies' van veel langere duur, tot op dit moment zelfs; alleen is in die contacten DLM compleet naar de achtergrond gedrongen, ik heb een aantal goede vrienden eraan overgehouden, waarbij DLM niet meer aan de orde is; "
::::Translation, "1) My involvement with the DLM was not one of several m
onths but of about two years [..]"
::[[User:Andries|Andries]] 08:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, are you sure that you want the statement that Wim Haan was biased to be retained? Here is what he writes about it.
:Copy from http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/9195.html
:”Dear Andries,
:The comment from premies that i was a member of critical movement within the catholic church and hence the whole article is biased is the most stupid i have ever heard or seen. I ask myself who is biased here. Everyone has his or hers own background. All academics have that background. It is important to have a critical discussion with your own background, and that is what i did.
:My article has appeared in a dutch academic magazine. Before it was published it I have received several comments and changed the article on many points. Especially on topics where my own opinion was that there was a certain bias in the article.
:What the premies actually mean is that no one who hasn't experienced the "Knowledge" can have a reasonable opinion about it: and that is ridiculous. When that would be so, no one could write a book about the Middle Ages at this moment, because we don't live in that timeframe.
:So again, the comment is to stupid to take serious notice off.
:Greetings,
:Wim”
::Not at all.... Haans statement should be retained, just that we needed to disclose his bias. Nothing wrong with that. And, BTW, a "scholar" that uses the word "stupid" to address a disclosure request as this one, is IMO, very unscholarly. Thanks to your posting here, Haans's words will be saved for posterity... Please note that Haans uses the word "article" and not "study". Also, we have not disclosed what kind of scholar Mr. Haans is. Is he a professor? a student? a researcher? That could be also important information for the reader. Could you ask him about what was is tenure at the time he wrote this article? [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 23:12, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:::Jossi, please take into account that not every supporter will agree that Haan was biased only because he was a Catholic and I do not think that dismissing every critical remark as coming from a biased source or from a hate group, instead of honestly admitting mistakes, will increase the credibility of the supporters' view. Besides this strategy may create unnecessary enemies. I mean, look at Haan's reaction hereabove. Haan has by the way still friends from his DLM time. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 10:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::I think that you do not understand. I am not saying in the article that Haans was biased, just that he belonged to a catholic critics group. If Haans was biased or not is for the readers to decide. All we are doing is disclosing Haans allegieances. BTW, we are still imssing info about who Mr. Haans was when he wrote the article. Could you ask him? Thanks [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 15:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
::::::He said that writing this article was part of his study theology at the "Hogeschool voor Theologie en Pastoraat at the town of Heerlen". That is what he wrote in the article. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, just what I thought... Hann wrote this article while being a student of theology, in a small Pastoral and Theology school. We should add this to the article. Otherwise readers may wrongly assume that Haan was a scholar. Another option would be to delete this reference altogether. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
::::::::Jossi, I reverted one of your edits because it was about proven and documented facts, which should not be phrased as an assertion i.e. "Critics assert that Haan critically etc." [[User:Andries|Andries]] 03:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::::OK. I understand. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 03:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
== DuPertuis ==
well, thank god there is ex-premie.org or what do you think zappaz?.
Actually if you read the footnote, it says that this(fullfilment) explains the reason for the disintegration of the communities.But we know it better, don't we? Wasn't it Rawats endeavor to strip the trappings that caused this change? You can have it only one way. And if DuPertuis is wrong with his conclusion, he might be wrong with his statement(the fullfilment) in the first place. Nevertheless this happens when you work with a strongly biased attitude, and why the hell, if you want to push this view forward, haven't you received knowledge yet? thomas
:Thomas, I do not understand what you mean by "thank god there is ex-premie.org". And I do not understand what is the point you are trying to make. And I less understand what this has to do with receiving the knowledge. Is this a conspiracy theory thing again?
:FYI, the reason for including Dupertius assertion about the disintegration of communities is that it counteracts the widely held assumption by the ex-premie group that those that left the teachings of PR, left with a negative feeling about PR and the teachings. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::sure, i understood you point quite clearly. Most of the people that i know (and i know a lot) that left, didn't leave because they were fulfilled or angry, but because they were bored. Bored of the ongoing demands to surrender, bored to always hear that they aren't good enough. But that is only my practical experience with that matter. The disinformation managament from rawat worked quite well. IMO the most bad feelings came up, when those that have left, discovered what was going on behind the curtain. IMHO you can go on, do your little advertisements (ah , even if you leave, you leave fulfilled, nice club...) and keep on heightening the "quality" of wiki.
:::i just wanted to add why you "should" receive this knowledge:
::::::::* if it is worth to make those people that leave such a group and continue to speak out, to categorize them into introvigne's apostate III level, across the board, not caring what these people have to say, no mercy
::::::::* if for you, rawat is the immaculate teacher who always was misunderstood, who has no guilt and responsibility in the "misunderstandings" and
::::::::* if rawat is something for you that must be worth it, no matter how long you stay( because you will leave fullfilled anyway).
::than wouldn't it be straightforward to gain that thing? I mean, if not, what are you doing anyway?thomas
== Jan van der Lans ==
I have tried to locate that book but it is only available in Dutch. Andries: could you provide the citacion used by der Lans to support his assertion? [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 18:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
#If found the quote by van der Lans in another book (Dr. Reender Kranenborg's book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen" published in 1982 so I do not have the exact context. I had read van der Lans' book years ago but had totally forgotten this quote. I can easily borrow van der Lans' book from public library though. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#It is not true that van der Lans' book is a critical study about gurus. I remember the chapter about the Hare Krishna's that I had read years ago and that was quite positive. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#It is an exaggeration to say that it was for clergy. I mean, it is a well known book about the subject here. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#I do not think that he was ever ordained as priest. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::"''Guru Maharaj Ji is the example of a guru who has become a charlatan with a double life. On the one hand, he tries to remain loyal to the role that was forced upon him (it appears by his mother) and to the expectations that his followers have of him. In private however, he leads a life of idleness and pleasures. If he visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is hired for him and his family. His visits to premies are only casual and he spends the rest of his time watching TV or rented videos and visiting night clubs. Only a small circle of insiders know this and know his life style. Based on this information, one could easily say that he is a fraud. Using a different approach, one could see him as victim of his surroundings.'' "
:from the 1981 book "Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland" (Followers of the guru: current religious movements in the Netherlands) http://www.ksgv.nl/2-18.html page 117 by Jan van der Lans http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/obits/vanderlans.html, professor in psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::*Lans was an ordained Roman Catholic priest. Check his Bio.
::*You did not include "Catholic" in the University of Nijmegen mention (I added it already)
::*Read the description of the book by the KSGV http://www.ksgv.nl/2-18.htm. It is clearly a studies of gurus, sponsored by the KSGV (Catholic Study for Mental Health),. Would you care to translate the summary?
::*The cites for what I consider very speculative assertions must be based on media stories from the 70's or quoting another scholar that cites these. I mean, his assertion about the role being impossed by his mother is completely erroneous, and how does he knows that Maharaji watched TV in his hotel or visited night clubs?
::I would appreciate if you get the book and check othe sources for his citacion.
::[[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 21:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::*I checked his bio and the bio says that he received a training as a priest. It does not say that he was a priest. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::*I do not know how he could write it with so much certainty but I think that his opinion worthy of inclusion. I mean, he does not think that the stories are all a conspiracy by apostate former members. That is significant. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::*Van der Lans is not alone in his opinion (which he did not write down as a fact) that Prem's mother was the leader. Kranenborg shared this opinion writing, "After the death of her husband the mother of Maharaj Ji, known as Mata ji is the actual leader of the movement." in his 1982 book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen" ISBN 9021049651 page 52 [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::*I could translate the Dutch information about the book, which says very little, but please believe I generally do not use information from anti-cult crusaders, or from evangelical Christians who write about "cults" for their congregation. There are some but I chose not to use their books. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::I did some research. Clearly der Lans is a Cahtolic theologian and surely critical, by nature. The KSGV ''undertake its activities from a Christian inspiration'' as per their website, and their publications are targeted at the '"pastoorat", i.e. pastors, churches, etc. We ought to find out what are his citacions for that assertion. I will be not surprised to see a "circular reference" here. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 19:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
:::::::Jossi, you may be right about the circular reference. I found van der Lans' book in the public library and I think -it is not very clear from the text - he bases his harsh judgement on the German book by Reinhard Hummel ''Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen'' Stuggart 1980. But you are wrong in your assessment that it was written for clergy. After all, it is available in the public library . Besides the Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel cites van der Lans in his 1982 book ''Tussen Stigma and Charisma: nieuw religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid/Between stigma & charisma: NRMs & public mental health'' ISBN 9060017463 on page 173 as if it were a neutral source when writing about the mental health of the members of the DLM. Besides I think, van der Lans would not risk his reputation as a respected scientist by writing a biased, prejudiced book. I asked Thomas to get Hummel's book. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 14:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The KSGV is a publisher wit a very specific POV and the majoriy of its books targeted at clergyman and pastors (look at their list of publications). As a "sponsored" book it clearly supports that POV and expects a readership that will not question anything negative about "gurus", thus the lack of citacions provided by der Lans. IMO, this reference is indeed helplessly biased. You can leave it, but do not delete the assessment of it.[[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 18:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Jossi, I really think that followers make a fool of themselves by dismissing every tiny bit of criticism as biased (van der Lans and probably you will say the same about Hummel and Kranenborg), or coming from a hate group (ex-premies), or from people colluding with a hate group (me), or from a person who has no credentials (like Haan with two years of participant observation). Why can't you admit that some mistakes have been made in the past? Van der Lans wrote about many gurus and groups, like Bhagwan, Hare Krisna/Praphupada, 3HO/Yogi Bhajan, DLM/Maharaji, Yoga, Unfication church/Moon but he wrote only about Maharaji as ''an'' example of a charlatan (Kranenborg had accidentally change ''an'' into ''the'' when quoting van der Lans). [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::No, Andties, you and your ex-premie friends are the fools here. The fact that you keep trying to "dig dirt" by briging up "scholars" like Haans (widely demostrated here that he '''was not''' a scholar, but a student of an small religious school), or helplessly biased authors such as Lans, is plenty proof of that. How can Lans accusse Maharaji of being a "charlatan' without himself becoming one? on what basis, if not his own bias and lack of committment to thruth did he write that? Pity that he is now dead, otherwise we could have asked him about his reasons for writing that. The only fools here are the ex-premies, and mostly '''you''' for helping them. Maharaji keeps receiveing awards and recognition around the world, for his work and his relentless pursuit of peace, hundreds of thousands of people are interested in his message and thousands upon thousands of people have chosen to become his students (this year more than 50,000). So whatever a small group of ex-followers, you Andries , and critical authors such as Haans and de Lans say is pretty much irrelevant. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 19:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
::Jossi, I think that van der Lans wrote this based on the book by Hummel and media reports, some of them in Dutch language (Volkskrant newspaper, and Haagse Post magazine) to which I do not have access. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 09:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Linking to user pages ==
Thomas: linking to a user page from an article is quite unusual. By doing so you also eliminate the possibility of someone seeing that there is no article about Anton Hein and deciding to write one. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 22:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Sources of criticism ==
For the second half of the last sentence in this section (in italics) to stand: "Supporters say that this alleged support from journalists is a figment of Finch's imagination, and that Rawat continues to be welcome to speak at public forums ''and his message being hailed as unique and noble by academy and business forums throughout the world.''" I would think we'd need to have some citations from some of these groups who say they find his message to be so. Otherwise, the statement as it is seems just so many [[weasel words]]. [[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 23:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:There are plenty of quotes to support that statement in Wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji#Quotes_about_Prem_Rawat. You could add a link to there. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
::Good enough. [[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 00:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Ex-pemie.org no longer registered to an association ==
After contacting the orginal webmaster of ex-premie.org, the registration of the ___domain name, ex-premie.org, now reflects the reality that the ___domain name, and the website, are privately owned, and not owned by an organisation. The ___domain names ex-premie2.org, ex-premie3.org, ex-premie4.org have always been registered privately. The article has been amended accordingly. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:I recorded the fact that the ownership was changed in December 2004 after 8 years under ownership by "Ex-Premie Organization"[[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 01:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks, Jossi. I've corrected the 8 years to 7 (ex-premie.org was first registered in 1997), and I've made the wording a little more precise, as I'm sure you know registration of a ___domain name does not imply ownership of the site. The site is owned by whoever has the contract with the hosting company. I personally think this is far too much detail on this minor point, but if we are going to have this level of detail, then it should be accurate. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::Zappaz, I notice you have changed the text under discussion (calling it 'simplification'), and I accept most of your minor changes. You have however, introduced misleading text, when you state that 'Brauns asserts that...'. Yes, it is true that I assert that, but the reason I linked to the site history webpage is that it was written by all the webmasters, so it is evidence that it is not just my assertion. I think given that the ownership of the site is being put into the spotlight here, it is important to link to the site's history. In the spirit of cooperation, I won't correct the text before you've had a chance to comment. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 22:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::I am breaking my silence here ... I hope that is not a mistake. We shall see...
::::The assertion made by you is that ex-premie.org does not belong to an organization. The link to the webmaster page is what lawyers call "self-serving", so I consider the statement to be an assertion made by John Brauns, the current webmaster (previous webmasters are not making that assertion in that page, only that they were webmasters). That is exactly what the text says, together with the fact that for a number of years it was registered to an organization called "Ex-premie organization". Let the reader be the judge. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 23:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::Zappaz, no it won't be a mistake - I will not make any further allegations about your motives in editing pages related to Prem Rawat and Ex-premies. So in view of your reply, may I reinsert the link to the site history page so that, as you say, readers can judge for themselves? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 23:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Schnabel ==
Yet another case of circular references. Schnabel cites Van der Lans, that in turn does not provide citacions for his critical assessment. The other references provided by Schnabel do not have any of the bulshit written by der Lans. I will add that to the paragraph as a rebuttal.
Regarding your edit, I don't have a problem having that there but you have make a better translation of the text. Now it reads pretty poorly. If you place the Dutch text of Chapter II, page 33 from Schnabel thesis, I'll get it properly translated. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 16:26, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:It is not a circular reference. Schnabel refers in that section to an article "Wereldbeschouwelijke aspecten van de exotische tegenstroom: Een inleiding vanuit de empirisch-kritische benadering/Aspects of the world view of the exotic counterculture: an introduction from the empirical-critical approach" – In: Derks o.c.,67-89 (1981) by van der Lans that van der Lans wrote in the same year as his 1981 book "Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru". Schnabel refers to that book on page 173 (I think when writing about the mental health of the followers) [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) (amended on 17 Dec. 10:23)
:Here is what Schnabel wrote, which I translated in English. I do not understand why I have to type in the original Dutch text. The ex-premies thought that the English was good enough. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Chapter II, page 33
::"The message of the DLM focuses completely on the person of Guru Maharaj Ji. Divine love and truth manifest in him. One can have part in this by surrendering totally to the guru whom one will always follow. If one does this then one will become conscious of one's core inner self (Knowledge). One experiences Knowledge during meditation of which there are four types: meditation on light, on sound, on the name, and on nectar.
::Apart from the meditation, the DLM knows yet two other basic rules i.e. satsang and service. Satsang means here discourses in which the Knowledge is propagated, in which one testifies of the omnipresence of Maharaj Ji, and in which advice is given to solve problems. Service means here to serve and fulfilling service. Every member is expected to do effort for the movement, for the propagation and for its preservation.
::The guru Maharaj ji takes a central place in the presentation by the DLM. He is the perfect master who can reveal the truth to everybody, who has the answer to all questions. The DLM always tries to refer to the guru in its advertisements. One tries to recruit new members by organizing lectures, introduction evenings, and by sending propaganda material. "
::Used literature for the above mentioned paragraphs:
::*Van der Lans - (Dutch language) Wereldbeschouwelijke aspecten van de exotische tegenstroom: Een inleiding vanuit de empirisch-kritische benadering – In:Derks o.c.,67-89 (1981)
::*Pilarzyk, Th. – The origin, development and decline of a youth culture religion: an application of sectarianization theory – Review of Religious Research 20 (1978) 1, 23-24
::*Köllen, K. - (Dutch language) Jeugdsekten in Nederland – Amsterdam, Allert de Lange, (1980)
::*Foss, D.A. & R.W. Larkin - Worshipping the absurd and the Negation of Social Causality among the followers of Guru Maharaj Ji – Sociological Analysis (1978)
::*Messer J. – Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission – in Ch. Y. Clock & R.N. Bellah (Ed.), o.c., (1976) 52-72
::*Mildenberger, M. – (German language) Die religöse Revolte. Jugend zwischen Flucht und Aufbruch – Frankfurt a.M. , Fischer (1979)
::*Downtown Jr. J.V. – Sacred journeys:The Conversion of Young Americans to the Divine Light Mision – New York, Columbia Un. Press (1979)
::*Downtown Jr. J.V. – An Evolutionary theory of spiritual conversion and commitment: the case of the Divine Light Mission –J. Scientific Study of Religion 19 (1980) 4, 381-396
::Note: Schnabel refers in his dissertation to hundreds of sources but he mentioned the above sources when writing about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 09:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Chapter II, page 33 (Dutch original)
:::"De boodschap van de Divine Light Mission concentreert zich helemaal op de persoon van goeroe Maharaj Ji. In hem manifesteren zich goddelijke liefde en waarheid. Hieraan kan men deel hebben, door zich volledig over te geven aan de goeroe, die men dan ook altijd zal volgen. Als men dit doet, dan zal men zich bewust worden van de innerlijke wezenskern (Knowledge). 'Knowledge' ervaart men tijdens de meditatie; er zijn vier meditatietechnieken, te weten: meditatie op het licht, op geluid, op woord en op nectar.
:::Naast de meditatie kent de Divine Light Mission nog twee andere grondregels, namelijk: satsang en service. Onder 'satsang' verstaat men voordrachten, waarin de kennis gepropageerd wordt, waarin getuigd wordt van de alom-aanwezigheid van Maharaj Ji, waarin raad gegeven wordt ter oplossing van problemen. 'Service' betekent dienen en dienst doen. Van ieder lid van de beweging verlangt men dat zij/hij zich inzet voor de beweging, voor de verspreiding en de instandhouding ervan.
:::In de presentatie staat de figuur van goeroe Maharaj Ji voorop. Hij is volkomen meester, die aan ieder de waarheid kan onthullen, die het antwoord heeft op alle vragen. In de werving wordt dan ook altijd verwijzen naar de goeroe. Nieuwe leden tracht men te werven door het organiseren van lezingen, het houden van introductieavonden, het toezenden van propagandamateriaal."
-----
==Perfect Master==
.140 The paragraph about the implausibility of the claim to be the only Perfect Master is not only about succession of his father but also about other persons claiming to be Perfect Masters. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 12:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Your wrong again Andries. Maharaji '''never''' said he was the only perfect master, or that he his one. He always said that there is '''one''' perfect master and that it is up to each human being to look for such one, and if you find him to follow him. --[[User:64.81.88.140|64.81.88.140]] 16:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::It won't be difficult to find an academic source that says that Maharaji did claim to be a Perfect Master, and the source will be right. Maharaji suggested strongly that he is the Perfect Master. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::You are clueless, Andries. It is delusional wishful thinking. Face it: You have no understanding beyond the one that comes from your collusion with the ex-premies to pile-up on the criticism. It is disgraceful and shameful. They curse you, accuse you of crazy stuff, and you keep going back to them. Unbelievable that you do keep doing their dirty work for them after all they say about you.
:::I have reverted your edits. Please desist from loading up this page for no reason. It is already 42 K and what you have added is already been said in this and the main article.--[[User:64.81.88.140|64.81.88.140]] 22:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Jossi, where in the main article? How is this voiced there as criticism? If this article gets too long then please remove some of the rebuttals; This article is called "Criticism of Prem Rawat" not "Rebuttals to Criticism of Prem Rawat. I do not rely only on the information of ex-premies as can be read on the discussion board where I openly voice my skepticism. Apart from their information I also rely on scholarlry NRm information . I would like to hear more from premies but there is hardly information on wwww.maharaji.nl and when I ask them they tell me to watch the Keys- videos. That is not constructive. Also I do not trust their intellectual honesty. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 06:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Why do you call me Jossi? I am not Jossi. If you think that I will let you write whatever garbage you want without a rebuttal just because this article is about criticism, you can forget it. I just removed the stuff about the succession, because it is covered in the main article, in the Divine Mission article, and in the Hans Ji Maharaji article. Enough said. I neither trust your intellectual honesty, nor your motives for helping the ex-premies. You must have a real problem if you accept their vitriolic attacks against you and continue helping them. Take a vacation.--[[User:64.81.88.140|64.81.88.140]] 16:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Sorry but German Translation got completly crippled ==
German editors found our articles "Prem Rawat" and "Kritik an Prem Rawat" so obscure that they categorized it under [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ich_brauche_Hilfe#Hilfe_-_obskure_Linkfarmen], which means, they suspect the whole construct to be done as a catalyst for linkspamming. The critics-article will get deleted because they see it's mere existence as POV. And the main article is already completely shortened. None of those editors have read the originals or are even interested in it. So much to Wikipedia - Germany.[[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 18:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:As you may have noticed, I put this article on VfD, too. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 18:41, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
What about the main article? Guts for that? I know the editors, you have no chance! [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 18:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry there is no reason as per policy to delete [[Prem Rawat]], but there is of course much reason as per [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] to change it. In contrast, creating the [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]] was against policy from start. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 18:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
::What policy? The VfD is incorrect. There is no [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy]] for what you call a POV fork. If an article needs attention due to POV, please list it on [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]] -- [[User:Senegal|Senegal]] 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] strongly discourages two articles on one subject, one pro, one contra. For editors who oppose this policy, the [[Wikinfo]] project was created. So in strict reading of the policy, the articles should just be merged and [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]] turned into a REDIRECT, possibly speedily deleted after link corrections. But it has become customary, to use VfD for non-trivial cases, to give an opportunity to comment and vote. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 20:05, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
::::::PJacobi, why don't you take the time to read the two articles and then you would come to the conclusion that there is not one pro and one contra article. Both contain critical information and both contain positive information. You seem to be totally ignorant about this subject or the Wikipedia guidelines or both. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I've read both articles and I consider them both to be disappointingliy unencyclopedic. The ''Britannica'' would have approved neither of them. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:06, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
::::.so it's unencyclopedic? But that was not your reproach. it was POV. where is that now. Delete those articles because they are unencyclopedic or POV? So you put it on VfD because of POV and that's not the case after you read it finally. But it's unencyclopedic. So leave it there. What is now, where are you? 22:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::You take the ''Britannica'' as a measure, here? Thanks for making me chuckle.You have no idea what is going on, would you proceed with the other articles ,please ? [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 22:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's on VfD because it is a POV fork. And the fact of POV forking had contributed to the sub-average and unencyclopedic state of both articles. So, by carefully applying [[formal logic]], you see, that there is no arrow of [[causality]] between unencyclopedic style and VfD, only a correlation, due to a common cause. And note, that the problem of POV forks have been addressed numerous times in a wide range of fields in Wikipedia. This is not a special case. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 23:08, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
::: so how do you want to proceed, delete the critics article first? and then one day somebody merges something into the main article? Or rewrite the whole thing and delete the flawed articles afterwards? destroying is easy but taking the responsibility to fix the whole thing is something else. i wonder where you will fit in. You started the whole process, i expect from you to take responsibility and fix it as well[[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 23:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh Gosh... here we go again... Don't think I have the stomach for another round. Who opened the can of worms? --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 05:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Request for Comment ==
In response to some comment of mine, an editor has stated that "articles do not have to be neutral but they have to follow NPOV guidelines. The critical points in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article all follow the NPOV guidelines." That is not my understanding of what NPOV means.
This article consists primarily of criticism of Prem Rawat. I acknowledge
*All criticism is placed in the mouths of others ("Students say," "ex-Premies say", "critics assert," etc.)
*Many of these statements seem to be sourced via external links. (I can't always match a statement with a link, though; for example, in the statements "In their discourse, critics assert that in many of his early addresses he was referring to himself when speaking about Guru Maharaj Ji. Others say that he was referring to his father and teacher, also called by the same title" I'm not clear on who these critics are. I'll assume that the writer ''could'' probably source them).
*Counter-arguments by supporters are mentioned.
Nevertheless: can this article, or any such article, be considered to embody a neutral point of view? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 22:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:That's two separate questions. The first one, I will abstain on; I have no comments on the current state of the article. On the second question, the one you ask in the RfC, whether such an article could embody a neutral point of view, I'll come right out and say "Yes". Merely having an article on the subject "Criticism of X" takes no position on whether the criticism is true or false, justified or unjustified -- it merely makes the statement that such criticism ''exists'' and does not occupy the '''very rare''' category of "absolute lunatic fringe criticism which is such absolute rubbish that not even NPOV requires that it be covered ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia". (And no, supporters, no matter how much dirt and invective you hurl at the critics of Prem Rawat, it will not push them into that category. Save your breath.) -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 02:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Save ''your'' breath, Antaeus. They have the right to criticize me, my fellow students, my beliefs and my teacher. And I reserve the right to criticize their pathological obsession, their intolerance and their behaviours. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 05:03, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
----
<del>::i am just following you from the DfV-Page were you avoid to answer why you have created that article and said "opposing views go here"; to pop up here with such sincere questions. i feel tricked by you and i want to express my distrust to you as a person. [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 22:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)</del>
:::????? I honestly don't understand what you're saying. I have not created this article. I have not edited this article. I have not edited the [[Prem Rawat]] article. I'm sorry you distrust me, but I'm honestly baffled by your comment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 22:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::i apologize see my talkpage [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 08:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::OK, thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Thomas mixed something up, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&limit=100&offset=700&action=history]. The article was created by [[User:Jossifresco]]. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 22:36, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
* Following this from WP:RfC, I'd like to point out some things about NPOV. First of all, any information negatively and/or positively charged in nature, ie, criticism, praise etc can perfectly well be NPOV if it's true. You have to establish sources and references for information that is allegedly disputed, regardless the nature of the information. The NPOV policy states the way information should be written for it to be included, not what the information is about. In this article's case, I notice it is an article dealing entirely with negatively charged information. The question is can this be NPOV. Yes of course the information can be NPOV if the author does not contribute any bias of his/her own. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 13:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== from VfD ==
On 25 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat]] for a record of the discussion. That discussion did conclude with a strong recommendation to refactor this and the main article in such a way as to better achieve a [[NPOV|neutral point of view]].
== Added link, copyright claim against prem-rawat-maharaji.info ==
Haven't been here for a while - good to see that article is pretty much as we agreed all those months ago! --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
== Levine ==
Andries added a citation from Levine's article. I included more information from the same article. Read it. I also referenced another article in WP. Your deletion is contentious and uncalled for. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 21:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I hardly recognize your addition in Levine's article. It is true that Levine's analysis of the life in the cult for the DLM member was based on the ashram time, but there is not indication that his classication of the DLM was too. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:I also see 17 references in Levine's article. Two of them are from 1977. Which one do you mean? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::Levine's article does not produce a single source from which his disparaging comments can be drawn. So, that is just his opinion, without any justification. A scholar worth its mettle, will produce references, studies, articles, and cite profusely to support his points of view. Eight of his 17 citations are, guess, '''Levine's own articles! '''. I have yet to see other scholars citing .... himself! The other seven citations are widely generic references that provide ZERO support about the disparaging comments that you quoted. The '''only''' source he discuss is the magazine "And Its Divine" and "love Song" (p. 96). He does not provide issue number, article name, date, nothing. Levine's article is a piece of shit, if you ask me. Badly researched, badly written, The best part stuff is in his conclusion. After an abysmal critique of a few groups, he says: "[...] I have become both sanguine and cynical about global pronouncements and generalizations." yes, right, as if that statement could compensate for his horrendous pronouncements and generalizations , bordering on paranoia, that he made in this sick little article. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 22:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::Jossi, I do not believe that you have read all 17 references so that you can assert with certainty that he did not references for what he asserted. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I did not have to read all the citations. When a scholar writes a paper he adds refs to his text, just as we do here sometimes in WP. Levine's opening statement from which you quoted, do not have any references or citations listed. The first six references (1 to 6) are generic anti-cult articles (First lines in Levine's article: "Readers of this volume and other literature on the subject<sup>1-6</sup> might conclude that all cults are particularly bizarre and oppresive". (LOL for his no, no, to generalizations...). The last seven are just references to his own papers and articles. The only referece i makes directly is to citations 7 and 8 (p 96 bottom). Citation 8 is yet another of Levine's article and citation 7 ios a generic pshycology study on the mechanics of belief as seen from a phsychiatirc perspective. So, really his citations are not so, maybe more a "bibliography". So again, please do some homework before selectively quoting from stupid little articles. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 22:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::::And by the way, see if you can find '''any''' scholars that cite this guy. You will be lucky to find 3 or 4 citations for '''other articles''', not this one. I have yet to find a single paper that cites this article. Notable my foot. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 22:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I do not think that all articles by scholars are so meticulously referenced. I think it is coming close to original "research" when you try to assess the 17 references of scholarly articles, withour reading them. I admit that Levine's article isn't very good. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Again, thre are not 17 refereces, but only eight. I have only stated the fact that he did not provide references or citations for the assertions that you quoted. That has noting to do with original research. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::So you expect a scholar to give a reference at the end of every sentence and if he doesn't then you do not have to read the references at the end of the article: you just assume that what he writes is unreferenced. To me this sounds worse than original research: it sounds like jumping to conclusions. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 00:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::No Andries. This Levine '''starts''' his article with a blanket condemnation and a conclusion ''per se''. Throughout the article he makes no attempt to provide sources, citations, studies, other peer reviewed articles etc. Nothing, nada, zilch. The 6 citations he offers, are referenced under the ''"Readers of this volume and other literature on the subject'' sentence, meaning that this is just a bibliography he offers to readers. He does not make '''any''' attempt to disclose sources for his conclusions (or shall I say his bias?). That is what I am saying on my edit: the '''fact''' that he does not provide any references to substantiate the wide condemnation he makes and the '''fact''' that he refers to practices that were abandoned in the mid-eighties. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::May be I miss something but I still think that you jump to conclusions about his alleged missing references. And by the way, he does not condemn the DLM: he only says that the DLM has a bad public perception. Yes, later he writes about the difference in living style between premies (subsistence) and Rawat (ostentatious opulence). [[User:Andries|Andries]] 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::He makes an assessment and states it as a fact. Even in WP we do not allow that. And he does not even bother to say ''why'' he makes that assessment and based upon what information collected, when he collected that information and where. If that is scholarship, Andries, you can call me [[Colombus]]. I am not ''alleging'' that there are no references: Levine '''does not''' provide any references. If he ''had'' any refereces to substantiate his assessment, believe you me that he would have used them. So I am only pointing out '''facts''' about this article: No date, no direct references for a wide condemnation, and scoping his cirticism to what he referes to. That's all. Another "gem" from this guy: ''[...] these terrible groups have typical life-styles which defy imagination, and which are obviously weird''. And you call this a serious scholar? Yes, seriosulsy biased, that is. I tell you what, find me '''one''' citation of tihs article in a peer reviewed paper, and then we talk. OK? [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 01:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
You cannot delete the text I added because you don't like it. What is the point for dicussing anything here if you then go and delete my edits? I exaplained to you that from the 17 references, 8 are his own, another six are generic anti-cult mumbo jumbo, and one is a serious study of te mechanics of belief. None of these are supportive of the disparaging comments he makes in the opening his article. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 15:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
: I continue to think that you have no right to judge in the Wikipedia article the way Levine support his statements with his 17 references in his article unless you have read all of the 17. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:I deleted your text because the arguments that you use to defend your text sound like a combination of both original research ''and'' jumping to conclusion. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::It is neither. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 15:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::May be you could explain yourself a bit more, because I continue to disagree which may be based on a lack of understanding of your arguments. Thanks. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Jossi, Levine provides 17 references and you say that he doesnot provide sources in the Wikipedia article without having read the 17 references. How can you seriously defend this text?
::::I have provided abundant information about the reasons for my edit. Read them. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::::What I read is that you think that he has no sources without having read the sources. May be he as digressed on the subjects in his own books. I do not consider the information that you provide convincing. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Look Andries, I will explain once more: He writes (highlights are mine): ''we will use as examples hroups about which '''appears to be''' considerable external unanimity. [. . .] and the Divine Light Mission '''have probably''' been held in less esteem by more people than most other groups combined''. Levine makes no attempt to provide evidence of his obvious speculation, by using "probably" and "appears to be". Then he goes on on an "analysis" of behaviors and practices, without providing any references in the body of his article, besides a generic references on page 96, last line. So my edit it is accurate. Failure to see that, only shows your inability and/or unwillingness to concede that this article is an absoulte piece of shit. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 18:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::There are three issues: one that the article's opning paragraph are sheer speculation, by useing "appears to be" and "have probably". The second issue is that Levine makes an analysis of practices and lifestyles that were abandoned in the mid 80s The third is that he provide no sources for his analysis of these practices. I have made a point to cover these three points. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 18:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you are confusing speculation with normal scientific reticence in making bold statements. The sources for his descriptions of his daily life are probably his own books based upon his own experiences. I already admitted that is not a great article. Again, you cannot expect scholars to provide references at the end of every sentence that they write. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::(a) Leivine is no "scholar". he is a Physichatrist; (b) He ''makes a point''' of his own speculation by using weasel words ("probably", "appears to be"); and (c)In reference to the analysis he makes of DLM, he provide '''no direct''' references for his sources. That's my edit. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 19:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think you are putting a spin on his words by your edits and give a possible false impression of his article. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I disagree. I am just puting the article in context. "Context is everything" is a golden rule in accurate reporting and research. Google "Context is everything" and learn something about it. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 21:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I agree that giving context is important, but I think that you are going beyond that i.e. by spoonfeeding the reader with your contestable conclusions about the article. Why not confine ourselves to the undisputed facts about Levine and his article and let the reader decide about the article? Confining ourselves to the undisputed facts means removing "speculate" and also saying that in spite of the 17 references that he provides, he fails to make it clear which of the references, if any, is used to substantiate his assessment of the DLM's lack of popularity? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 15:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not spoonfeeding. But to address your concern, I have attributed the critique of the article, moved the paragraph to a more appropriate ___location (before discussing ex-premies), and removed the details about the article as it is already in the references. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 21:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
== website ownership ==
What are our sources for website ownership? I checked "Whois" for one and it did not mention the supposed owner. Another listing says "allegedly". "Allegedly" according to whom? Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 01:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Read the exchange between John Brauns and RichardG [[Talk:Prem_Rawat#NO_MORE_LINKS]] [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 03:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Website onwership, deleted. [[WP:CITE|Cite your sources]] or lose it. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 07:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:::That exchange simply shows RichardG claiming that John Brauns owns them. That's not proof of anything. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 20:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::If RichardG cite sources, it can be added later. Facts, such as ownership of website by John Brauns, is discussed in the article and should stay in the external likns sectio. Same about anonymity as that is also discussed. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::I don't see where the allegation of Gubler owning a site is mentioned. Regarding Brauns, there's this comment in the text:
:::::*In December 2004, John Brauns, owner of the ex-premie website, changed the registration of the ___domain name to his own name after more than seven years during which it had been registered to the "Ex-premie Organization". Brauns asserts that ownership of the website has always been in the hands of individuals. The size and true influence of the ex-premies are in dispute; there are something over one hundred purported testimonials on an ex-premie website[http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journeys.htm],..."
:::::However that link does not ahve anything to support Brauns' ownership. Being "anonymous" is typical of websites - shall we add that to all Prem Rawat-related websites that do not list an author for all of their material? Regarding this warning "(Note: contains language and images some may find offensive)", according to whom is it offensive, and why? Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 23:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Anonymity is ''atypical'' of websites. A website has the ''imprimatur'' of his/her author, or the organization/company behind it. An anonymous website, lacks the accountability of authorship. These critics make a big deal of their anonymity, so that it is why that fact it is featured. How much it cost to put up a website? 10 bucks? How many lies can they can tell behind a veil of anonymity? As many as they care to make. I don't care much about the obscenity warning, mind you. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 23:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:These sites are anonymous: http://maharaji.net/, http://elanvital.org/. Shall we mark those as "anonymous" too? Where's the source for the ownership of the other sites? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding, or you don't know how to read? Maharaji.net footer: ''Design and content © Prem Rawat''. Elan Vital: ''Elan Vital, Inc., PO Box 2220, Agoura Hills, CA 91376, 818-889-1373''. Show me the names and/or address and phone numbers of these websites, and you can then remove the anonymous label [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Ownership and authorship are separate issues. Those notices you've posted simply say which company or person owns the copyright to the webstie, not who wrote the material. "Elan Vital, Inc" is not an author. According to Whois, there are names for all of the owners of those other websites. If you want to include the listed owners of all Prem Rawat-related sites then we can do that. I still don't see any evidence for the Brauns or Gubler ownership, or why one site has been labelled as "offensive". -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Are you a lawyer? If you were you would understand that if you own a website you are legaly responsible for its content, unless you make a disclaimer for content that someone writes and publishes on your site. Anonymous sites as the ones we are refering to are just that: sites who's authors disclaim any responsibility and accountability for what they write, by hidding behind a veil of anonymity. Maharaji.net clearly describes its author:Prem Rawat. Owner is The Prem Rawat Foundation. An address and phone number are available. Same as Elan Vital. The critics websites are anonymous, author and owner: no name, no address, no accountability. Even WHOIS records are veiled. So these sites are, guess what: ANONYMOUS. That is a '''fact'''. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 02:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:The owneres are clearly listed in Whois. To claim that they are not is incorrect. To claim that the author of these sites is not known, while the authors of the unsigned material at elanvital.org is not anonymous is also incorrect. Please treat all websites equally. Either remove the denigrating editorial comments from these sites, or add the same comments to all of the other sites. How do you know that they are veiled and veiled is different from anonymous anyway. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 05:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::You are avoiding replying to my arguments. There are no names, addresses or telephone numbers, AND the authors declare their anonymity in their home page. WHOIS is cloacked. Stating that these website are anonymous is not "denigrating" but a statement of fact. '''Reverted'''. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 05:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::OK, so then 98% of all websites are anonymous by that definition. I've taken the liberty of adding the same designation to some of the Prem Rawat sites with unidentified authors or "veiled" ownership, or identified the owner and author. Next I'll start adding the names of alleged owners of some sites, without any sources, of course. Would that prove the point? If not, shall I start calling other websites "pseudononymously operated", again without any sources for proof? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 06:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::Willmcw. with all due respect, what you are saying shows a total lack of knoweldge on the subject of web registration, ownership, whois and authorship. 98% of site are not anonymous. Only those that want to be anonymous are anonymous. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 06:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Please educate me. How is a site run by the "Maharaji Information Group" anonymous while a site run by the "Elan Vital, Inc" is not anonymous? Are the names of the Elan Vital, Inc., owners, officers and staff available? Or are they "veiled"? There's no author listed for this page:http://elanvital.org/about.html. Doesn't that make it anonymous? The only info available for this website, http://www.wordpaint.com/ is the name of the registrataion company, TUCOWS INC. Yet another anonymously run website. And which forums on the internet require the use of real names? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Will, If a website owner wants to hide his/her identity, that is OK. But that it is not what is being argued here. A website without a declared owner/author is indeed anonymous, and as such it has a leser degree of "accountability" than a site that their owners are clearly identified and contactable. The fact that we use anonymity on the Internet (hey, ZappaZ is my ''nome de plume'' and not my real name!) is a wonderful thing but has nothing to do with this discussion. Anyone can create a website/blog/forum either for free or for a a few dollars. That is a wonderful thing as it allows hundreds of thousands of people to excercise their right to freedom of speech. That is all fine and wonderful. Yet, when we evaluate sources for an encyclopedia, we ought to excercise caution when we quote/cite/refer to online sources as our ''primary source'', in particular when these are anonymous. So, labelling an external reference as "owner and author anonymous", gives the necessary context for readers, '''in particular when a website portrays itself as a provider of information in a controversial issue''. It is all about assessing the reputability of a source. We ought to give readers that info, don't you think?--[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Read [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources|Using online sources]] (highlights are mine):
::::::<blockquote>'''Evaluate the reliability of online sources''' just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers, like the New York Times or The Times of London, are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. '''At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources. Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work'''. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. </blockquote>
To begin with, unless we are using these webistes as sources, then the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources|Using online sources]] does not apply. As for anonymity, the websites have identified owners, the "Maharaji Information Group". As for authorship, show me webpages, aside from blogs and forums, in which the author of each page is specified. They are very few and far between, and Prem Rawat's websites are no different. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Will, that argument does not fly. These websites ''are'' anonymous. The "Maharaji Information Group" does not qualify as "[[owner]]" or "[[author]]". "Owner" is a ''person'' or an ''organization''. For these not to be called anonymous, we need a at least a name of a person or the name and details of a ''[[bonafide]]'' organization. "Author" is the person that penned the piece, or the organization that commissioned the piece. In this case we have neither of these, thus the qualifier. You don't need a statement of authorship for each page, as you argue, as you don't need a statement of authorship for every page in a book. Taking that metaphor further, a book is penned by an author or authors (sometime writing under a [[pseudonym]]) and it is owned by the publisher of the book. Fortunately, we do not have such a thing as a book without both an owner and declared author. We may have a book owned by Publishing House ABC, but written under a ''nome the plume'' or pseudonym. But luckily, we will not find a book without ''both'' a declared publisher and an author. And yes, these websites have been used as sources in a few instances, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 20:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
::I think you are pushing the definition. We have the owner, the Mahraji Information Group. However you are claiming that they are not a "bonafide" organization. What proof do you have for that? As for the authro, show tme the names of the authors of the Prem Rawat sites. They don't seem to be listed. If the "anti" sites have been used for sources, then it is in the attribution that the supposed anonymity should be mentioned ("According to an anoymous source..."). These sites seem no different from millions of internet sites, and adding special disclaimers is apparently being done to discredit their contents. That's pushing a POV. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::Bonafide? That's easy: If you had to chose between purchasing a product from a website that does not publish a phone number or an address to which you can complain if the product is defective; or one that does, which one would you chose? This is an interesting debate, and I gather that it has many implications, not only for this article, but for any articles in which a controversy is described. What is the ''perceived'' value of an "anonymous"/"no-owner declared" website? How valuable/reliable/fact-checked is the information contained in these sites? How they compare with sites in which authorship accountability is evident? I would argue that whoever wrote that piece in [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_source|Reliable sources]] was spot on: "Many websites are created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world." My view is that users have the right to be alerted to the fact that a site linked from an article is anonymous and its owner unknown. That is not done to ''discredit its contents'' in front of readers, but just to ''present the facts'' in front of the reader. Subtle distinction. These websites are anonymous. It is up to the reader to assess if they have been written by "intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world", or not. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 22:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Just thought I would contribute to this debate, surprisingly on Zappaz's side. Whilst mikefinch.com is owned and authored by Mike Finch, and ex-premie.org is owned by myself and the authorship of most of the articles is clearly stated; prem-rawat-maharaji.info (and other sites) are clearly anonymously owned and authored. Does this matter? I don't think so. My understanding from reading the PRMi site is that it simply presents information about Rawat in a way that is more accessible to journalists and researchers than the sources for the information on the site. Apart from being linked on these articles, I am not aware of the site being used as a source for any of the information on Wiki. I agree with Zappaz that the official pro-Rawat sites all have identifiable legal site owners and content copyright owners, so it would be incorrect to call them anonymous, even though the individual authors are generally anonymous. Other privately maintained pro-Rawat sites are clearly anonymous. (NB, I have corrected the entry for ex-premie.org which claimed it mostly pseudonymously written. )--[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 08:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::A good journalist knows how to evaluate his sources. An anonynous website, providing no substantive information about ''their'' sources, will be taken with a big pinch of salt. In particular when the website is allegedly written by anti-Rawat activists as explained on the home page of prem-rawat-maharaji.info. The negative spin, nicely concealed I must say, it is way too evident for a serious researcher to be accepted at face value. First thing a journalist would do (if he/she cares for objectivity) would be to contact Prem Rawat Foundation or Elan Vital and ask about their side of the story. Regarding Expremie.org, is that website written mainly by you? --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 19:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::I would welcome any journalist contacting TPRF or EV! When they have done so in the past they invariably come away with a negative view of the organisations and Rawat. The problem is that no news organisations are interested in the subject. The authorship of most articles on EPO is clearly stated on the website. BTW, EV and TPRF not only provide no 'substantive information about their sources', they also provide no substantive information!!! --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
== Kranenborg's cite ==
Can you provide the Dutch text for that quote? I would like to have it properly translated. Now it reads very strangely. Thanks. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 05:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
== Macgregor's Apology Not a 'Public Letter' ==
I have amended the text regarding Macgregor's apology. This was a post on an obscure discussion board, and although publicly accessible, cannot be described as a 'public letter'. He was asked both in public and privately that if he was really sincere then why had he not published the apology in the Australian newspapers where his critical articles had appeared, or in Indymedia? He declined to reply. If he had truly felt remorse, then surely he would have done everything he could to undo what he had done, rather than post on a discussion board pretty much only read by those who have a direct interest in Rawat.--[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:I am glad that you agree with me that the expremie forum is "an obscure discussion board" and that postings (or copies of these postings) are not of enough quality (as sources) to be used as citacions to substantiate a claim, in particular in a controvesy such as this one. Anyone can say almost anything about anything on these forums, accountability is close to zero. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::The forum is only obscure because Rawat is obscure, or to put it more precisely because Rawat has become obscure. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::No, Andries. A discussion Forum is obscure for many reasons: a) Lack of accountability; b) Coloquialism; c) Anonymity; d) in a moderated forum (and I believe theirs is) the moderator can censor/delete/edit any post. No one can take a debate in a public forum such as that one, as a serious source for accurate information. Interesting to read in the context of trying to understand the mindset of these people? Of course. But that's more or less it, IMO. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 20:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::The issue here is whether Macgregor's apology can be described as a 'public letter' so please stick to the point. Macgregor did NOT make his apology public in the sense he made his critical articles public. Regarding your attack on the content of the ex-premie forum, if a named person posts on the ex-premie forums, and is willing to back up the content of that post in a court of law, then that post has as much accountability as any other source regardless of how obscure the subject matter is. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 20:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::In a court of law, of course. If we have such documentation that would make a world of difference. But as long as it remains in the ___domain of a chat room, well, credibility is not something you would normally associate with it, don't you think? As for McGregor's letter, it seemed to be quite a public apology. At least that was the impression I was left with after reading it. I am not sure that the newspapers that published his articles would want to retract, because that will realy put them in a pickle... explaining to their readership the whole story? Mmmm don't thing so. As for Indymedia, that is yet-another website in which anyone can write about anything, on any subject and get "published". Welcome to the World Wide Web! --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Zappaz, Rawat's critics have not linked a single allegation from Wiki to the ex-premie discussion boards precisely because of the reasons you give. Those serious allegations that were originally posted on the discussion boards and are now on ex-premie.org have been checked with the people making the allegations, and if necessary will be supported in a court of law. This is why I, and the previous webmasters, have not been taken to court. Someone has, though, decided to link to Macgregor's apology, which only exists publicly in one place, which is the very place whose credibility you criticise. I would think that you would be demanding that reference to Macgregor's apology should be removed because of the lack of credibility of its source. Why haven't you? --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
::Let that melt down my tongue. If i understand this right, John McGregor as an apostate who critizises, has no credibility especially not on the ex-premie chat forum. But his apology on another forum, that even Jossi doesn't want to be associated with is something, that is completely acceptable to you? Come on. In my eyes you loose any credibility if you insist on that logical blunder.[[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Here is another one concerning reliability of websites [http://www.manavdharam.org/ssjm/1_brief_into.html]. This one has an address, phone and faxnumbers. According to this site, there never was a Prem Pal successing Hans, at least nothing important enough to be mentioned. The job was taken over by his eldest son Sat Pal.
:::* His father passed away in 19th July 1966, bequeathing his mission and unfinished work to his eldest son. ''When the time came, Satpal Ji Maharaj took command with his characteristic zeal and efficiency, dedicating himself to fulfilling his father's dreams. He has never deviated from the ideals and path taught by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, no matter what the cost. His integrity and clarity of vision, his noble character, self-discipline and patient effort have earned him the respect of all sections of society. '' Why doesn't Sat Pal has it's own article in Wikipedia, from their viewpoint? There is no reason not to handle it with equal respects.[[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 07:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome to start an article on Satpal. Note that the reference about their claims to succession and the controversy around it are already fully developed at [[Divine Light Mission]] including a link to that page. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 14:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
==Object to be made part of an extremist group==
I received Knowledge in 1975 and was in the ashram for a few years. I lost contact with this in the mid 80s, and moved onto other things in my path. I object to the assumption made here that me (and others like me) are part of these extremist "Ex-Premies. I am an "ex-premie" but I effusively reject their ways and object being grouped with them. Can I ask that whenever you refer to these people you do that by their names or by using a nomenclature that makes it evident that these are a group of people with extreme views and not the norm? --[[User:Menyo|Menyo]]
::ups, did anybody accuse you to be an ex-premie? Did i miss something? You created your account on 16th of august and one of your first actions is a forward defense of not wanting to be put in one pot with THE Ex-Premies, seemed to be for you the most urgent thing, before starting anything at Wikipedia. What do you know about THOSE? Is everybody of THEM to be put in one pot? [[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
------
:There are factual mistakes and POV problems in the version restored by Menyor
#"documented activities of the ex-premie group." Where is the documentation? The only documentation that I have seen is that regarding John Macgregor and the attack on Ron Geaves by "Emile"
#Kranenborg is described as fundamentalist. Where are the references for this? I think this is quite a crazy assertion. Because fundamentalist is not an orginally Dutch term for Christians. There was, as far as I know, no fundamentalist movement among the Dutch denominations in the Netherlans (I have to admit that this is not my specialism). [[User:Andries|Andries]] 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
----
I have removed the allegation made by Jossi Fresco that Jan van der Lans was helplessly biased because he wrote for clergy. Anyone who has read his book will know this to be ridiculous: in his book he writes that he was accused by the public of being paid by cults or taken in by cults. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 00:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:You can remove it, I will add it again. You will not get away in pushing your POV. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 02:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
::I have no problem keeping it if it is re-worded into something like "Jossi Fresco, an American student of Prem Rawat who cannot read Dutch and has not read the book and lives in the USA considers the book helplessy biased because he asserts that the book is targeted at clergy." [[User:Andries|Andries]] 12:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
== References to website ownership MUST state sources ==
I have again removed my name as the owner of two website. Whoever is anonymously adding my name should either state their sources (as required by Wiki rules) or desist. The owners and authors have a right to their privacy and Wiki should not support breaches of that privacy. I will escalate this matter as high as need be. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:Sources added, as requested. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
== John Macgregor affidavit ==
Added information from John Macgregor's affidavit.[http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf] Some excerpts for your perusal. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 00:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::JOHM MURRAY MACGREGOR, of Ratchadamnern Roda, Chiang Mai, Thailand, states/affirms on oath:
::1. I am a competent adult over the age of 18, and make this Affidavit, under no duress or coercion, and if called to testify as to the facts stated herein I could do so thruthfully
::4. Contrary to reports and claims published by myself and others I was never privy to "secret" or "inside: inform tion that was to be hidden and not available to other volunteers.
::6. In 2001 I began to undergo emotional issues of a serious nature that caused me to suffer a severe lack of judgement. These emotional issues manifested in a combination of depression and unfocused anger. I began to communicate with members of a loose connection of individuals who call themselves "Ex-premies" as former students of Prem Rawat. These people maintain a sewries of internet web pages and chat rooms a goal of which is to create an atmosphere of ill will and malice toward Rawat and his students. I was one of the worst offenders.
::7. Members of the Ex-Premie Group validated my self deception that I was not responsible for my emotional issues or life choices, and that if any blame was to be laid, it was appropriately directed at Rawat and his students.
::8. I have had many conversations with the members of the Ex-premie Group, and have read hundred of their internet postings and writings. The goals of the Ex-Premie Group are often obsessive, malicious and destructive in nature. The Ex-Premie Groups, through the use of the internet interferes with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery and for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawat's.
::9. The Ex-Premie group consists prominently of the following individuals: John Braun, Jim Heller, Marianne Bachers. Nick Wright and Jean-Michel Kahn amonst others.
::10. The Ex-Premie Group's actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. Further instances include:
::- The internet publication of photographs and address of Rawat's private house with maps of children's bedroom;
::- The internet publication of personal details about Rawat's home life, and the private life of his family and children;
::- Contacting businesses with which the volunteer entities have contractual obligations and, attempting to intimidate them into avoiding these contracts;
::- Researching and publishing Prem Rawat's whereabouts;
::- The publication of entirely false stories of a defamatory nature on the internet and encouraging media to report these fabrications as fact.
::12. Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and/or the volunteer entities were cult-like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. These implications are absolutely false and unfounded.
::13. I found that the more vitriolic and defamatory my writings about Rawat where, the more support and comfort I received from the Ex-Premie Group. Because I craved this attention and validation, I sought to have published further similar articles.
::15. In retrospect, I am of the opinion that many of these persons are irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger.
::16. I have reviewed the statements about Rawat, his students, the volunteer entities posted on the Ex-Premie Group's websites and find that when they purport to report on factual matters they are frequently false and defamatory, unsupported by actual fact basis, and motivated in many instances by hatred, ill will and spite.
::18. During the course of 2003/2004, I made allegations of impropriety against the claimants and their legal advisers. These allegations were the product of my overwrought state and they were wrong. These stories were designed to paint the Claimants as a dangerous shadowy cult abusing the litigation process to silence criticism. I understand and acknowledge that the litigation was not directed towards silencing criticism, but instead Claimants were appropriately protecting themselves against the activities of an antagonistic group as would any other business people in the circumstances.
::20. In the course of my involvement with the Ex-Premie Group, I filed several complaints to various tax and regulatory bodies around the world, hoping to initiate expensive and burdensome investigation of Rawat and related volunteer entities. I acknowledge and admit that I had no factual basis upon which to make such allegations, and that the complains I filed were supported by unauthenticated, incomplete or out-of-context documents designed to paint a sinister picture.
::21. Since the litigation I have had the chance to reflect upon the activities of the Ex-Premie Group, my involvement with them, and their motivations. I have come to realize that my involvement was misguided, and that I have to accept personal responsibility for my own life choices and actions.
::22. I believe that I woe Prem Rawat , the claimants, their legal advisers and all of Rawat's students and apology for my actions, and for allowing myself to be used by the Ex-Prfemie Group. I believe that persons have the right to chose their own path of spiritual discovery, and the right to leave a chosen path, but that people do not havce the right to incite hatred and interfere with other's choices.
::Affirmed by John Murray Macgregor on APril 27, 2005 at Bangkok, Thailand
:::Gosh, what a damning document, if I may say so. Read together with the apology he wrote in the chatroom, it provides a quite significant insight into the work of these critics and their psychological makeup. --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 17:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Sinister, sinister, goshgoshgosh. If i'd hold your balls in an iron grip baby, you'd sign anything[[User:Thomas h|Thomas h]] 18:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
==Neutrality warning==
I gave the article a neutrality warning among others for the following reasons.
#Rebuttals start with "Supporters say" which should in many cases should say Jossi Fresco says. Jossi gives flimsy and ad hoc rebuttals e.g. in the case of Jan van der Lans. This habit is in itself quite against Wikipedia policies but it is very wrong that Jossi pretends to speak on behalf of supporters when he is in fact speaking on behalf of no one but himself. I tried to correct this but Jossi keeps reverts me.
#The criticisms of ex-premies should move downwards.
[[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
-----
Also I want to re-organize the article per allegation again. Now it reads "Other criticisms" which incorrect because the criticism are in many cases are just the same criticisms as made by ex-premies. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:No problems. I will work on these and remove the NPOV warning. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 18:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Jossi, can you please try to integrate your additions and modifications in the old (and also current) organization of the article? Thanks [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::No. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::::So this means that it should be clear to everybody that Jossi is breaking the concensus version. In this case you are clearly the culprit. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::It is interesting that you bring the consensus issue only when it is convenient to you. You killed that idea when everybody was asking you to abide by the consensus version. Sorry, that does not work. Reverted. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 20:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::::::What you do is changing the whole structure of the article which is far worse than adding or removing sentences, as I did. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I did not change the structutre of the article. Others did. I just added new material to it. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 20:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Why didn't you change it back to the old structure then? Why not do it now? [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::You opened the can of worms, not me. Now you need to live with the consecuences. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 20:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
==Disputed warning==
I gave teh article a "disputed" warning because of your untrue remarks about the sources for Schnabel. I know that you are handicapped with regards to Dutch language but somewhere in the archives I wrote down a dozen of the hundreds sources that Schnabel used. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:Show me. My understanding is that Schabel sources about his comments about Prem Rawat were solely from Van der Lans. [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi ≈]] 20:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Please check the archives first. Thanks [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
| 