Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 5

Substantial copyedit

I have substantially copyedited the first sections, mostly for clarity. The highlights of this edit include:

Excelent work Gary. My comments below: --Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First Section

• His age at time of arrival irrelevant to scrutiny
• Specified scrutiny was from media
• Added back Singer material
• Added back ex-premie claim that they speak for former students, in an abbreviated form
• Removed reference to Mike Finch’s surrebuttal to the supporters; we’ve already given the viewpoints of both sides; if we aren’t going to give the actual points of that surrebuttal in the article, the reference isn’t necessary here; I believe it is given at the bottom
• Smoothed supporter claims against ex-premies into one sentence

I would argue that age of arrival is an important fact. He was a child prodigy, but still a child.--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard found an interesting article that may shed some light on the subject. You can read some excerpts here: Talk:Prem_Rawat/temp1#Type_III_Apostates. --Zappaz 20:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second Section

• Rewrote intro sentence explaining the criticism of the claim of divinity
• Changed to uniform name convention—“Prem Rawat” for first call in paragraph, “Rawat” thereafter
• Separated criticism from rebuttal, and clean up sequence
• Clarify the supporters' explanation of the cultural meaning of the former divinity rituals
• Clarify claims of Rawat as authoring the move away from divinity
• Revamp the split interpretations of throwing away old materials
• Clean up Mishler statements
• Generally rearrange for clarity

Darshan is not for deities. It is for holy persons or places. I corrected this.--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, you are wrong, where is your reference for this? I do have a reference that it is for deities. Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and religion ISBN 0-877773-980-3 Andries 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree about darshan but you are wrong about arathi. I do have a reference that it is for deities. Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and religion. I only edited one version of the arthi version before it was merged but both versions only mentioned deities. I corrected it in the article. ISBN 0-87773-980-3 Andries 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Third Section

• Disentangle the criticism from the rebuttal
• Remove POV adjectives
• Collect together in sentences and clarify the argument points being made
• Add a reference to the Gulfstream jet
• Note there is no definitive accounting documentation going either way

Mostly it's best to just read the revised sections for yourself and see what you think. I believe I have clarified and advanced both sides' arguments with these edits, but that's of course in the eye of the beholder. --Gary D 05:49, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Gulfstream is not Rawat's. It is leased from a third-party company.Added disclaimer. --Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In regard to this sentence:

To date no financial documentation has materialized that would definitively prove either side's allegations.

I would argue that the burden of proof is on the side of these making the allegations of financial improperty. Both Elan Vital and the PR Foundation and non-profits and as such are audited a required by law. We need to find a better way to describe this, otherwise is not NPOV as it tends to leave a question mark that is unwarranted.

I have changed this to read that no documentation has materialized to prove the critic's allegations. --Zappaz 15:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought that Elan Vital is registered as a church and hence hardly needs to be audited. Andries 17:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

EV is registered as a church, and as far as I understand it needs to be audited, but the audits do not need to be made public. On the other hand, the PR foundation is a secular non-profit so it is audited and the audits made public. In the main article there is a link to the last published audit of the PR foundation--Zappaz 17:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Was the DLM and Elan Vital audited in all the years until 2004? Andries 19:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fourth Section

Not yet done. I will say in advance though that I really don't think the sexual harrassment claim is of sufficient weight to remain. It wasn't against PR himself, and unless his organizations are being held to some higher standard, a harrassment claim against a decent-sized organization in the modern era just isn't probative of very much, certainly not very much related to the theological issues here.

I would agree with you, but doubt that the ex-premies will agree to removal. By some reason, for them this is the second most important allegation, although it was an isolated case in a 30-year span--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I read that Maharaji knew about it and that he allowed Jagdeo continue his many molestations. Will look it up. It was only Jagdeo, yes, that is true. Andries 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fifth and Sixth Sections

• Again, disentangled criticism from rebuttal
• Trimmed POV asides and streamlined for facts
• De-gilded the lily and technically corrected the legal details regarding the litigations

Nota bene on the legal stuff: Folks, this may just be a case of laymen not understanding what they were seeing in technical court documents, and that's cool, but the descriptions of these proceedings were way out of kilter from the legal realities. These were private civil actions between private parties, not criminal actions of any kind. The state never got involved. Contempt of court is not like a crime, the grant of injunction is not like a crime, and the standards and implications are all way different. To the PR supporters I say, look, you want readers to be convinced of the justice of your cause? Then state the facts for what they are and don't gild the lily. Your adversaries were not found to be criminals by the courts, so don't suggest they were. Tell the true facts of the rasty stuff your adversaries did do, without amplification or out-of-context commentary, don't insult the readers' intelligence by drawing their conclusions for them, and they will find your position strongly supported. "Over the top" is not your friend in the persuasion game. I'm telling you pro folks that the descriptions of these litigations as they now stand are far more persuasive than they ever were before, because (1) they no longer sound histrionic, and (2) they will now stand up to research scrutiny. Trust me, I've done you a favor. --Gary D 09:44, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Gary, excellent work! Very readable, makes me want to find out more about what's going on, rather than turning me off as previous editions of some of articles touching on Rawat have. Still, I couldn't resist a few tiny changes or observations:

1. I made some minor copy-edits to Gary's substantial edit. None of these changed the meaning in any way I'm aware of.
2. The rebuttal sections should probably be moved to the ex-premie article.
3. There should be at least one link to the ex-premie article!
4. How about grouping all the articles into one of those upper-right-hand corner boxes? Or putting links to each other article at the bottom of each article? --Uncle Ed 13:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the ex-premie page is now redirected here. We have merged all the stuff of that page into here.

Making a right-aligned box for the ancillary articles is a good idea, but I would suggest waiting until all the ancillary articles have evolved a bit before implementing this.

Gary: excellent work. Tight, clean prose is always a pleasure to read. :)

--Zappaz 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary D's edits--Great work!

Gary, if you ever want a job editing my thesis on democratic theories of emergence in former totalitarian states, let me know! ;-) You've done a great job here. Couldn't help myself, a few tweaks: I added that Rawat does not own the big expensive airplane he flies. Maybe trivial, but the ex page has tons of stuff about the corporate labyrinth regarding the leasing, and I rasied this before but the anti-group never addressed it. WP shouldn;t imply he owns something that he doesn't, especially in the context of "financial exploitation."

Changed the link in the Jagdeo bit about their polices to a direct link to the policies dicussed. I agree with Gary's point that this is not as big a deal as the anti folks would have it be. Not to belittle the suffering of any victim, of course, but Gary is right that entities are sued for this stuff all the time, and here, there appears to never have been a lawsuit at all! Most corporations would be delighted if there were only one instance of this sort of thing in their history. I have gone back to the ex chatroom archives, and there is an awful lot of talk between them about using this incident to get negative press, and the anti people even distributed among themselves lists of journalists working on the Catholic Church scandals, with encouragement to do negative stories about Elan Vital. None of that belongs in the article, IMHO, but still, it speaks very strongly to the motives behind it's appearance here. If it were up to me solely, I'd remove the whole thing or pare it down, but leave that for you all to decide. Should it be cut or pared down?

I changed the heading from "Litigation" to "Legal action." It's kind of jargony, and makes it sound like something between Ford and General Motors! Not wedded to it, but I think it's simpler and clearer. (I'm sure the pro folks would like it to say something like "Ex-premie's illegal activity" but we have to split the difference sometimes!

Still no word on the reliability/citeability of the forum8 page.

Thanks again Gary, Andries and Zappa. Nice work. Richard G. 16:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added some data about additional litigation, regading a cyber-attack via email against the lawyer that represented Elan Vital in the macgregor/gubbler affair. Nasty stuff. Gary: do your magic on the added text if you wish :) --Zappaz 16:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary, in retrospect, I do disagree with one thing in particular. You used the term "cybersquatting" to generically describe what the ex-premie did with the TPRF domain name. But the WP explanation of cybersquatting specifically says that the "wrongful" registrant then tries to sell the name to the rightful owner, which some say, is extortion. That's not what happened here. This Leeson fellow created a TPRF domain for the purpose of confusing viewrs into thinking his web page (with alleggedly smutty pics--I haven't seen them) was the "real" TPRF. Creepy business. At any rate, calling these facts "cybersquatting" doesn't follow WP explanation, and I tried to make it track what the NAF said. Richard G. 18:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For completeness, could we add to the litigation section the breach of copyright claim that Elan Vital Inc. (USA) brought against the hosts of ex-premie.org and Google? The story is at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/copyright1.htm --John Brauns 22:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure... You could add a short paragraph about it. Care to try? --64.81.88.140

Jagdeo

Richard G. you wrote "These claims exist only on the Ex-Premie web page and cannot be independently verified." How do you know that this can not be verified? Have tried to contact the victim Susan H. ? Andries 21:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, this is an article not a "CSI". We will be in trouble if have to conduct criminal investigations at WP... Richard is just stating the source of the claim, as there is no police record due to te lack of a formal complaint filed with the police. I am putting that sentence back in the article. --Zappaz 22:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I tried to reply to an earlier post from you about removing the Jagdeo issue from this article, but serious edits were happening so I'll put my reply here. Zappaz, I speak only for myself but I would have no problem in the Jagdeo story being removed from this article. In order to understand that it is very unlikely that Maharaji did not know what Jagdeo was doing, you would have to know the participants in the account and the culture. Trying to write a NPOV account that we could agree on would be impossible. Wikipedia is better at simple facts like Rawat having exclusive use of a private plane and at least two helicopters. --John Brauns 22:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the word can not if you have not done effort to try. Andries 22:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify. I do not understand your point.

After the work of Richard and Gary, your edits are dealing with minutae and not substative to the progress of this article. I have reverted both edits. --Zappaz 22:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can you say that something can not be verified if you have not tried it? That does not make sense to me. Andries 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, yet another edit war after all the hard work? I will leave this to others to sort out. I am done...--Zappaz 22:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May be it can be easily verified if you write two or three emails. If it is possibly so easy then I think it is wrong to say that it can not be verified. Andries 22:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, see my post to Zappaz above. For those who know Susan, Judy Osborne, Randy Prouty, victim 'A' and the culture within DLM at the time, the Jagdeo account is convincing. For outsiders, it would be too difficult to put the story in a NPOV article. The fact that my claim, that Rawat knew over 20 years ago and did nothing, has been on EPO for over two years and no action has been taken against me by Elan Vital indicates that this is a fight they know they can't win. --John Brauns 22:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I for one have no intention of conducting a mission to start sending probing emails to alleged sex abuse victims. I'll have no part of that. It's insensitive and wrong. Andries, if you think that that it is within the role of editors, I suggest you re-read the WP guidelines. This way off base. Richard G. 01:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jagdeo finds a temporary new home

Okay, someone has to drop the hammer, and that's me, sort of. PR's knowledge and acquiescence in the Jagdeo wrongdoing would be the key to relevance/significance here, as Andries notes; John Brauns explains that the closest we're likely to get to that is a definite feeling that it all fits together with PR having knowledge if you know the situation and you know all the players, and we have a resulting clear consensus (including John) that this is not sufficient for encyclopedic inclusion. Yet I have taken the wussie way out and instead cleaned up the section and moved it over to the Elan Vital page rather than outright deleting it, so that we may give it one more chance over there in the context of that organization's history before we kill it altogether. I frankly don't think it deserves to survive over there, either, but I just hate to hit that "delete" key on any chunk of text before every angle has been exhausted. --Gary D 05:15, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I attempted to "fix" that entry over on the Elan Vital page, but I don't think it works, IMO. I am trying to get some more info on EV and expand that article if at all possible, We can then decide if to hit that delete key or not. --Zappaz 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This Hate Group Allegation

I want to seek the advice from seasoned contributors here about the description of ex-premies as a 'hate group'. The only body that uses this term is Elan Vital, and they have vested reasons to discredit us. Wikipedia describes a hate group as follows:-

"A hate group is a group or movement that advocates violence against or unreasonable hate or hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their religion, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. A hate group includes organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations. This inaccurate information is used for vilification or may be the reason for hostility. Typically they prejudge each individual in the target group as "unworthy" or "inferior" and want to exclude or hurt them. A hate group commonly works to achieve its goals using fear, hate, and intimidation as its modus operandi (or commonly used methods)."

No reasonable informed person would say this applies to ex-premies. Even the justification on Elan Vital's website is false, and without any supporting evidence. Speaking for myself, all I want for premies is that they are informed about their Master. If they want to continue to follow him once they know the truth, then that's fine by me. All I ask from Prem Rawat is that he publicly and honestly account for his past words, and take appropriate action where possible to undo or compensate for the damage he has caused. I know other ex-premies feel the same.

Regarding the NPOV of the article, yes it is true that Elan Vital have described ex-premies as a hate group. Does this mean it is right to include this allegation in the article? Yes, ex-premies have frequently insulted individual premies, as have premies insulted ex-premies; but more often ex-premies have expressed their wish to help premies escape from what they believe is a personality cult using thought control. This is not the wish of those who hate. Many ex-premies have good friends who are still in the cult, and there have been many stories on the forums about premies turning against their close friends simply because they no longer believe in Prem Rawat, and the sadness felt by the ex-premies. Thankfully, some premies do remain friends with ex-premies. Ex-premies do not as a group refer to premies by derogatory terms such as 'hate group' or 'religious fanatics' (although I think the latter term applies to the author of the EV FAQs).

As a result of this, the article includes this attack on ex-premies (even though the article expresses the attack in a NPOV way), but because of our goodwill to premies, no corresponding attack on premies. It seems grossly unfair that, because of our restraint in attacking premies, ex-premies are refered to as a possible 'hate group', but premies are not refered to as possible 'religious fanatics'.

I also think it is absurd, insulting, and possibly libellous, that ex-premies are included in the 'Hate Group' article on Wikipedia.

I would welcome responses from experienced Wikipedia contributors. --John Brauns 23:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Consider, John, that sometimes it's persuasive for your side when the other sided makes a harsh accusation if the readers find it unfounded. The readers are not limited to the conclusions and characterizations explicitly put in the text before them; they make up their own minds as well. A lot of them come from the Western Christian tradition where your side not returning a harsh characterization from the other side may be praised as "turning the other cheek" or "taking the high road." --Gary D 07:28, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. Perhaps the link to the Elan Vital 'Hate Group' allegation could include 'but they have provided no evidence of any of the criminal acts they allege'. --John Brauns 23:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may have missed this Hate_group#Hate_groups_and _new_religious_movements. The qualifiers in the article fit the ex-premies and their tactics: Dehumanizing or demonizing the target; Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced;Claiming to be a minority that speaks for a silent majority; Proclamattion of pseudo-scientific support for their theories. By the look of the allegations made by Elan Vital, if just 50% of these were true, the label hate-group will be most suitable. The NPOV is that the article is saying that EV is claiming that and that the ex-premies are saying that they are saving the souls of the followers and doing a public service. --64.81.88.140 23:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Anonymous - I read the link and it could be argued from it that Elan Vital are a hate group like Scientology, but I don't currently want to argue for that in this article. Your second point is well made as nowhere near 50% of Elan Vital's allegations against ex-premies are true, and almost none have any supported evidence. --John Brauns 23:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John, see, this is just the problem I was wrestling with before. You say you're not a group of any kind when it suits you, but then you say you are a group when it does. You keep trying to have it both ways. I read the definition of hate group above, and the entry DOES NOT say that you are a hate group. Read it again. It says that Rawat supporters make that allegation. And it is not an allegation without rational basis. It may not be correct, and it may not be pleasant, but you cannot deny that there's a pattern of behavior at work by some of your, um, more zealous associates that give rise to the inference. You never seem to deny that these things happen, but always have an excuse or explanation. It starts too look like so much spin after a while, know what I mean?

John, you also say that "Ex-premies do not as a group refer to premies by derogatory terms such as 'hate group' or 'religious fanatics'". That's just not true: your webpages, personal journeys, entries here and elsewhere use the word "cult" hundreds of times. Why are you being dishonest to us? For pete's sake, John, in this very section you call them "cult" members! The pro Rawat people find the word "Cult" just as libellous, invidious and hurtful. As a matter of fact, the word "cult" is a major keyword in YOUR webpage's indexing section, designed to appear on Google searches.I don't have strong feelings about the words "cult" or "hate group" but I do not like being lied to, John. You don't seem to object to the inclusion (which with I agreed) of the Margaret Singer "anti-cult" material, but you are suddenly upset about the use of hate group? John, this is an editing process, not a hostage negotiation.

Finally, and with respect, I have to say your argument (here and elsewhere) that "Elan Vital never sued you for libel, so your alleations must be true", seems disingenuous. You are the same person who said above that monetary concerns were the reason that Macgregor didn't appeal his case. So why is his failure to pursue legal vindication meaningless (and Macgregor is still right in your view) but Elan Vital's choosing not to pursue their rights and sue you guys dispositive? One or the other, my friend, but not both. Lots of people avoid bringing legal claims for lots of reasons. All of them legitimate, and rarely dispositive of anything.

No, John, I agree with Zappas and by extension, Gary, that this piece is pretty much done. Andries' idea of playing policeman and tracking down abuse victims is unacceptable, and the hate group allegation is not libel, and is not adopted as fact but as a POV simply being reported. The piece should remain as it is and further quibbling is obstructionist. Richard G. 01:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard, I strongly disagree with you that this article is near completion, and I ask for time to point out the errors and POV statements still remaining in the article. The time I can give to this is limited, but perhaps we could agree a period of a week to deal with my remaining objections. For instance, in the first paragraph, it states that Divine Light Mission has been superceded. This is not true. Divine Light Mission in the USA changed its name to Elan Vital, Inc. Therefore the paragraph should read 'since renamed to Elan Vital'. Also, Margaret Singer is by no means the only respected independent anti-cult campaigner who refers to DLM/EV as a cult. That's just in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, the existence of the premie site, www.premie.org, proves that it is not just former followers that refer to followers as 'premies'. In the third paragraph, I have never heard any ex-premie say that they speak for large numbers of former followers. I haven't got time to continue this now, but this gives a flavor of further improvements that can be made to the article.

Regarding the allegations against ex-premies on Elan Vital - the vast majority are simply false. I know it's hard to believe that a well designed website could include such a large catologue of falsehoods, but they have. Wikipedia wouldn't allow any of the allegations to be made in one of its articles as there is no supporting evidence, hence my concern about the referecnes to 'hate group'.

I'll answer the other points you make later. --John Brauns 07:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G., I did not seriously recommend anyone to contact victims of sexual abuse. It may be very easy to verify to these allegations. I understand fully that this is not part of Wikipedia but then saying that "the allegations can not be verified" is wrong. Better would be "have not been verified". You can not know whether they can not be verified if you have not seriously tried. Andries 18:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A quick note on the "speaking for large numbers of former followers" thing: that was my take on the position being asserted, and it was Richard who was trying to disabuse me of that notion. If you are saying that the ex-premie group is small in number and admits its viewpoint is shared by very few, you have just collapsed what has been a major disagreement on these pages into an agreement, and left me with egg on my face! (I'd be happy for that agreement, though, even if personally eggy.) --Gary D 07:43, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, no ex-premie speaks for anyone but themselves - how could they, there is no mechanism for anyone giving their mandate - but I know that several hundred share similar views to the vocal ex-premies, as they have expressed those views while passing through the ex-premie forums. As I said before I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of the many thousands who have rejected Maharaji's teachings would express similar views were they asked, although I also accept that many would be indifferent. --John Brauns 09:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we can phrase it as "shares the viewpoint of" or something similar, replacing "speaks for". --Gary D 22:28, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, rather than make an unprovable claim in the article, perhaps we could simply state that 'ex-premies do not claim to speak for anyone but themselves, but over 90% of those who have been followers of Prem Rawat have rejected his teachings'. --John Brauns 23:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John, thanks for maintianing a civil tone...it goes a long way! I understand your position on the "numbers" deal...but at the end of the day, "IF" they were asked they PROBABLY would say..." just doesn't make it. Earlier you said about 100 folks have contibuted their personal views to your web page...that just doesn't come near the numbers of those in the pro-camp. This does not invalidate your views one bit, but really, let's put this behind us already. If you are hardy handful of rugged invididualists, great, but you just can't claim to speak for a "silent majority." *laughing* Reminds me of Richard Nixon!

You also haven't answered your justification for insisting on the derogatory word "cult." It is still plastered all over your web pages. Are you saying that you are going to remove that? In the same light, as of this morning, your web page still has the Jackdeo affair prominently on the front, with the clear implication that it was either Rawat's fault, or he knew about it. Given what you said here earlier, where you planning to retract that? Note that I changed the word "Thanks to" in the description of the helicopter reference. Sorry, pro-Rawat people, it looks like cheerleading. Much more accurate to say "Using the helicopter..." Richard G. 16:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard, I said over 100 people felt strongly enough to submit an entry to the journeys section of ex-premie.org (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journeys.htm), and that an estimated 400 have contributed to the ex-premie discussion forums since they atarted in 1997. Since taking over ex-premie.org I have received many emails from former followers thanking me for the site, and not one from a former follower expressing positive views about Prem Rawat. But as I said, I speak for no one but myself.

Regarding Jagdeo, you appear to have misunderstood my comments to Gary. I said that for those who know the people involved, and the culture at the time, the evidence that Prem Rawat knew that Jagdeo had sexually abused children is strong. For others, the names of the people involved mean nothing, so trying to write a NPOV article on Jagdeo for Wikipedia would be extremely difficult. The article on ex-premie.org is aimed at those who do understand the people and the culture (for instance Judy Osborne, who I remember as a good and kind person, would not have said she had told Prem Rawat if she hadn't).

My justification for using the word 'cult' is that it is described as a cult by all experts in the field, and more importantly, by those who break free of it. Richard, you must bear in mind that ex-premies were premies once, and for many including me, that 'once' is recent. We know how we felt and thought as premies, and we are, frankly, extremely well qualified to say that we were in a cult. To get to the point of admitting that is very difficult and painful, and dealing with the subsequent emotions has been compared to bereavement. I have great sympathy with your partner and other premies who find the word 'cult' painful, but we don't have a better word to describe these religious groups. May I ask you, as a partner of a current follower of Prem Rawat, I assume you did some research when she told you - what did you make of the information on ex-premie.org and the other ex-premie websites? --John Brauns 23:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John, the Hate group article does not say that the ex-premies are a hate group. It says that:

Other groups are more controversial, and little or no consensus has developed as to whether political, religious or anti-religious movements deserve the label "hate group". Some advocates have applied it to some radical activists who engage in "questionable and often illegal" methods to achieve their goals

It clearly says that there is little or no concensus about these labels. --Zappaz 02:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another copyedit pass

Thank you, everyone, for your very nice compliments. I am taking another pass through the article to maybe pick up Section Four and to re-edit in response to some of your comments and edits. Here are some highlights:

• Add back age at time of arrival
• Reduced number of parentheticals in favor of comma phrases or other techniques
• Re-aggregated a few paragraphs from fragments
• Reduce potential POV phrases such as "have never," "absolutely any," etc.
• Good catch on the jet non-ownership, guys, thanks; PR's access to a jet and helicopters is unusual and hence newsworthy, so I have attempted to follow John Brauns' suggested form for noting them without suggesting outright ownership and thus adding their value to his asset pool
• I have taken out my added sentence about no financial documentation materializing, rather than have it used against one side or another. In one sense, the onus would be on PR, since the financial documentation would be in his hands, not the critics'. Yet, there is no requirement for a private individual to release financial records, and we should not imply one.
• Added back the specification of parties in the legal action section heading; this is important to clarify that these are private civil actions and not criminal ones where the state gets involved
• Further cleaned up the domain name case description; clarified it's technically not an arbitration but a UDRP proceeding; explained the reasoning of the tribunal more fully and removed some material that was part of the assertion section rather than the ruling; also brought back cybersquatting but with an explanation; what really needs to happen is for the WP cybersquatting article to be expanded to cover some of these new variants such as occurred here, but please don't sign me up for that task!
• Moved the email forgery material to the motives section, since there is no legal action involving ex-premies yet, and streamlined it

Well, looks like I've run out of time for tonight, but still on my list is cleaning up the rest of Section Four on miscellaneous criticism, and maybe including mention of that copyright action someone was talking about, if it's any good, newsworthy-wise. Be seeing you! (See The Prisoner) --Gary D 07:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Could I ask for one week to raise further concerns about inaccuracy and POV statements in the article? Also, I've corrected my name in your post. It's John Brauns, not John Braun! :-) --John Brauns 07:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terribly sorry about mucking up your name! 8-0 There is no set timetable; I'm personally not done with it for probably another two days or so; beyond that I'm sure everyone wants to take the time to do it right. Especially important is any additional info blurbs, like on that copyright action, since strangers to the topic like me don't know what's substantive out there to add in. The article's not locking down in any event, but a week seems a fine respite period, at least to me. --Gary D 07:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Looking good, Gary. Agree to let this article settle for a week and afford John, Andries and others the time to raise issues and concerns. In the meantime, Gary, would you be kind enough to do a pass on Prem Rawat/temp1? Richard G and I (as well as a couple of anons) have put a lot into that article, but I feel now it needs some of that good old copiedit "magic" of yours. In the meantime I will focus on the ancillary articles. (what's with The Prisoner?) --Zappaz 15:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Happy to, Z; just let me complete my current edit pass on this page, and I'll be right over! In the television series "The Prisoner," people said goodbye by saying, "be seeing you," and putting a circled-thumb-and-forefinger over their eye; it was to emphasize the whole Big Brother/surveillance thing. --Gary D 22:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Claims of divinity

I removed "they say" about publications of the DLM that contain claims of divinity. Why state documented proven facts not as documented facts? How can anyone with a little understanding of Hinduism say that calling yourself Brahma and Vishnu is not a claim of divinity? I really do not understand. Andries 16:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bad taste, the personal life of Prem Rawat

If he does not like ~his private life being scrutinized then he should find another profession. I mean, I explained why people think this important. Andries 18:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These are non-sensical utterances. I agree that a public person's life get scrutinized. What I am talking about is that to be quotable in WP you need more than that. Otherwise it is absolutely unacceptable. --64.81.88.140 18:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion of private life immoral behavior

I object to writing baseless allegations to smear a person's character. According to Andries, it is sufficient that I create a free website in Geocities and write: "Andrie's sister is a whore" and say that me and other have "witnessed" that she was asking money for sexual favors, to be quotable in WP. With that thinking, the fact that Andries may not have a sister at all, is not the issue. Now Andries needs to go and battle that allegation. That is crazy and appaling.

Therefore, I have removed the allegations about the extra-marital affair. These are baseless and of bad taste. The allegation about drinking is another attenpt to smear PR character. He is a pilot for god's sake. Give the man a break. --64.81.88.140 18:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it is based on a first hand account. Feel free to create that website. Andries 18:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First hand account my foot. This is just absolute nonsense. --64.81.88.140 18:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you know that? Have you tried to contact Michael Dettmers?Andries 18:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Man, am I glad I missed that. I have a terrible feeling that what is going on here is that the anti-people are looking at this as a media opportunity to simply say any bad thing about Rawat they can think of, no matter how concatenated its relevance, veracity or probity. I'm really trying not to take any sides here, but the obstructionsim looks pretty one-sided so far. Most people here have done good work editing and all that seems to happen is the anti-people want to jam as much "bad stuff" into a space as possible, raising yet another "what about the time I heard someone say he heard that [something bad]." This is not an "equal time" function, and as I said before, it is not a hostage negotiation. That's not scholarship. Malicious gossip about personal lives has got to be waaay out of line here. Andries, with respect, your "he asked for it" argument is misplaced. Richard G. 18:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard, Prem Rawat's personal life is very relevant for someone who makes public claims that he can give something that gives peace and contentment (and in earlier days knowledge of God and enlightenment). How is someone to judge these claims before making the commitment (five months at least) to learn the techniques of Knowledge? One very obvious way is to look at how the teacher himself behaves. Rawat's heavy drinking from an early age has been reported by Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers and Mike Donner, all of whom spent significant time with him. More recent testimonies confirm that he still drinks heavily. There is nothing wrong with moderate use of alcohol, and if his drinking were not relevant to his claims, then I would agree that it should be kept private.

Regarding your comment that "the anti-people are looking at this as a media opportunity to simply say any bad thing about Rawat they can think of, no matter how concatenated its relevance, veracity or probity. I'm really trying not to take any sides here, but the obstructionsim looks pretty one-sided so far.", from my side it looks like "the pro-people are looking at this as a media opportunity to promote Prem Rawat positively, no matter how much documented information about his past they have to suppress. I'm really trying not to take any sides here, but the obstructionsim looks pretty one-sided so far." See the problem? :-) --John Brauns 23:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G. first read this and then re-think what you say. It is not gossip. It is based on a first hand account and relevant for his credibility. Do you think that Jesus's private life is unimportant for Christians? Andries 18:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did read it. It's gossip. And anything can be "related" to credibility. That's not enough, my friend. Your anti-Rawat stuff on the page surely raises the credibility question many times over. You don't have to go into the gutter to make that point! Please, guys, let's keep the civility. Richard G. 19:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G.,What is gossip, according to you? What is the difference between a first hand account and gossip? I think it is time to request for comments because I deeply disagree with you. Andries 19:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G., I think that Maharaji went to the gutter with his hypocritical behavior, not me. I am only telling this in a NPOV way. Where does Wikipedia say that attributed first hand accounts can not go into an article? Andries 21:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Private life? Private life? Did I hear "private"? Credibiity? did I hear "credibility"? Then check the credibility and motives of these "sources".

And please: comparing Rawat with Jesus, is just too cute... 64.81.88.140 18:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, this sounds quite Jesus-like Andries 18:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have no clue... In the article cunningly mislabelled "Maharaji compares himself to Jesus and reminds us of true devotion" he is talking about his Guru Maharaji. His father. Read the last sentence. Do you think that he wanted to bow his head and heart to his own feet? :). --64.81.88.140 19:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the article Hans Ji Maharaj that you wrote if I remember it well.So you are contradicting yourself.

"At the time of Shri Hans's death in 1966, his youngest son, Prem Rawat known at that time as Sant Ji or Balyogeshwar, was eight years old and publicly declared that he would continue his father's work. This declaration was accepted by his father's followers and his familiy. He then became known as Guru Maharaj Ji."

So clearly Guru Maharaj Ji=Prem Rawat Andries 19:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries: Who is feeding you these tidbits about Dettmers... uh? Jim and the other hate group members? That is so transparent: it is not your English. That is someone else. You joining their campaign of hate is very ugly and stupid. You are wasting your time and not doing yourself any favors. --4.8.16.206 21:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello 4.8.16.206, thanks for your comments. I really try to be open for evidence that I am wrong but I think that the weight of evidence that there is something wrong with Prem Rawat is very big. I think it is important that the public makes an informed choice about involvement in Elan Vital and trusting Prem Rawat. Andries 21:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 4.8.16.206 these are not Andries words, but Jim's. Dunno why he is helping them so much. Funny is that Andries himself has been attacked by the ex-pemies in their discussion forum. Andries persistance in doing Jim's dirty job is hard to believe... --64.81.88.140 21:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

added citations to this David Lane stuff. It's a bootstrap by which the anti gang want to insert allegations of personal behavior. So, I added the cite to Lane's own webpage, and added a line about his own credibility problem with the courts. Turns out he is to Eckankar what John appears to be to Prem Rawat. So much for a dispassionate oberver. Nonetheless, it's still there. The sentence about evaluations of private life is less loaded now, indeed, if the critics say that private life is relevant that's fine, but WP should not use what political scientists call a "push" question: "Would you vote for Joe if you knew he had an illegitimate baby?" Also, added for clarity the time frame when this Dettmer person was the finance minister. I'm sure there will be some other bad thing they'll think of to add in, this time... Richard G. 22:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard .G. I really appreciate that you explain your edits. Thanks. I do not care about the sex life of a politician (e.g. Clinton), but I think it is important in the case of a spiritual teacher.

David C. Lane wrote in a discussion group very negatively about Maharaji and all the other gurus that he had included in his video movie "Digital Baba". [1], [2]. And by the way, is there anybody who writes about NRMs who is not controversial? Andries 22:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Someone keeps making anti-rawat changes and not noting them here. It's annoying. I understand your point about Lane, but postings on a message board aren't scholarly articles (although many people get that confused!) Remember, a WP entry is not a public "trial" or fact-finding debate, and you don't go out and uncover new evidence and interview witnesses, but try to encapsulate the issues BRIEFLY and provide readers with the means to dig further if they wish. I suppose they are all controversial, but you raised the thing yourself: it's about credibility. So, if yyou cite someone for their view on credibility, then their credibility is up for examination, see? There's a point where this gets really stupid, you know from an outsiders' view, anyway...NOW some one wants to argue about the word devotee or student or follower or friend or disciple or mentee or whatever. Nitpicking and obstructionist. Richard G. 22:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ex-premies are not ex-students

This passage is wrong:

More recently, the criticism against Prem Rawat, his students, and the affiliated groups, The Prem Rawat Foundation and Elan Vital has focused through a group of vocal ex-students with an active presence on the Internet.

for the simple reason that any ex-premies who followed Rawat years ago were never his "students". Rather we were devotees. Big difference. I would argue that even now that's a more accurate description but, at least for those of us who left before the mid 80's, it never would have occured to us to call ourselves that.

-- Jim

Okay, done. I also went back to "devotion" in the first sentence, as "love and respect" twanged me as a tad POV. --Gary D 23:11, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wading into Section Four

I am going to establish topical subsections for the miscellaneous criticisms section. We can consider whether to keep them, but their most immediate use for me, if I understand how the Wikipedia edit software works, is to allow me to edit a subsection without stepping into an edit conflict if someone else is editing in an adjoining subsection. --Gary D 22:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm down to a single subsection on personal behavior not yet copyedited, other than the end references sections (though I think the recent edit about the letter writing campaign needs a little streamlining). Generally, today's work from me has been straightforward copyediting. Two notes though:

• About the "associating with prestigious institutions" item, I brought back some former text on this because I think that text expressed it more clearly. I would stick with this unless it changed because Andries moved away from that position. Andries, it look okay to you?
• A preview of what I would/will do with the personal behavior section: first, I would lose the David Lane material entirely; if the relevance of this material to the topic can't be logically explained in a single, straightforward sentence (and I think it can), the section is in trouble anyway. On the other hand, I would re-include the specifics of the allegations, for example, if ex-premies have seen him with an identified woman in certain unusual situations, that's fair game. I think it also much preferrable to the vagueness we currently have. I mean, it's almost worse for the supporters, in that it sounds like he's doing stuff so horrible we don't dare even specify it.

Anyway, I'll give it a shot sometime soon. --Gary D 02:33, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Posting the supporters' views after the critics' is misleading

Posting the supporters' views after the critics', as is the pattern throughout the article, gives the impression that the supporters' positions invariably answer or trump the critics'. It's the power of the final word. Consider the different impression these two passages create:

At some point Rawat or Elan Vital asked his students to throw away old books, magazine and videos that included forms of veneration—the ex-premie group considers this an attempt to cover up the past and revise history, while supporters point to this as an effort to reform from archaic forms toward focusing on the core message.

compared to:

Supporters point to the fact that Rawat or Elan Vital asked his students to throw away old books, magazines and videos that included forms of veneration and see it as an effort to reform from archaice forms toward focusing on the core message while the ex-premie group [why not "critics", by the way? ]considers this an attempt to cover up the past and revise history.

The article consistently does this. Why?

I would say it's because we are following the classic debate sequence of point-counterpoint-rebuttal-surrebuttal. It looks a little odd in this instance, because this criticism article comes in during the middle of the sequence, at the counterpoint stage. (That is one reason why I believe it should be merged into the main article.) The sequence stems from the didactical necessity that one must first make a point before countering it. The sequence here goes:

• Point: PR is a guy who does and says this
• Counterpoint: PR should be discounted because of these critical considerations
• Rebuttal: PR need not be discounted because of these flaws in those critical considerations
• Surrebuttal: PR should indeed be discounted because of these flaws in those rebuttal considerations

This process can theoretically continue in an ever-tightening spiral of specificity, but one must be careful not to descend into the background noise of detail. A critic's assailing of supporters' rebuttal would thus be placed last here, and indeed there was once a mention of such a surrebuttal on this page, but I removed it because it merely referenced the fact of there being a surrebuttal without specifying what the points of that surrebuttal actually were. Specific items of surrebuttal would of course be welcome, and would be put last, per the classic pattern. --Gary D 22:59, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well that's a fundamental problem with this entire Wikipedia approach. What is Rawat? Is he a cult leader whose followers have something to say in his defence or is he a spiritual leader whose critics have something to complain about? I would say that the answer lies in how the world at large would characterize him but we know where those arguments go here. That's why this article is doomed, unfortunately. It gives far too much credence to Rawat on his own terms.

-- Jim

What is the relevance of Neville's pot bust?

There is no rational connection between Neville's pot bust and this article. If you're going to include that kind of irrelevancy, I insist that you mention that the cult -- oh sorry! -- Elan Vital also tries to dismiss the credibility of "a Vancouver lawyer" for embezzling $18,000 from a Rawat organization when it knows full well that that's a lie.

-- Jim

Speaking of unsubstantiated allegations!

You don't want to include first-hand, witnessed accounts of Rawat's drinking, drug-use or extra-marital affairs but you're content to include supporters' thoroughly unproven allegations that ex-premies plan violent acts or drugging and kidnapping members of Rawat's family, computer and email attacks or any involvement in the Scattini-related mischief:

Prem Rawat supporters further allege that as a hate group, the ex-premie group harbors hatred and ill-will [41] (http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm) in, for example, maintaining what they characterize as an anonymous web page and hate speech chat room exhorting violent acts such as plans to drug and kidnap members of Rawat's family [42] (http://elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/0/085/article/). They complain that group members have engaged in cyber-harassment, for example by publishing on the Internet the floor plans of the house where Rawat and his family reside [43] (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/malibu.htm), and in cyber-terrorism through computer and email attacks. No charges have been filed in relation to these activities. In 2004, persons apparently having an anti-Rawat agenda forged the email address of Brisbane attorney Damian Scattini who represents Elan Vital[44] (http://www.quinnscattini.com.au/index.php/news/58/) and sent an email to many Australian lawyers, journalists and business leaders purporting to be an invitiation from Scattini to "worship" Rawat and containing the same photographs of Rawat in Hindu religious clothing as appear on the ex-premie websites. Scattini filed a criminal complaint with the Queensland authorities that is still pending.

Would you like to mention, then, that ex-premies allege that current followers have sent fraudulent complaints to professional organizations like the BC Law Society, under the names of other ex-followers as a form of harrassment?

-- Jim

The section about critics' motives is very unbalanced

It's extremely misleading and insufficient to state that supporters accuse critics of "character problems such as obsessive Internet postings, extensive illegal drug use and drug deal, criminal history and involvement with pornography" or "fitting the pyschological profile of "Type III" apostates who become "professional enemies of the formerly revered organization" and then only say that critics respond by claiming that these allegations are ad hominem attacks and that their character flaws are private and irrelevant as this gives the false impression that critics concede that there's some factual basis for these allegations. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Thus the critics dispute the allegations in substance as well as relevance. Moreover, with respect to the psychological profiling offered above, the article misleads by failing to mention the source of this extremely controversial analysis.

-- Jim

Jim, may be we could add a sentence like "Supporters ~do not provide documented proof that unlawful activities by ex-premies are above average."Andries 23:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)