Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 8

Innaccurate interpretation of Introvigne's article

The article now says:

"They categorize these men's remarks as the allegations that apostates typically make. as explained in an article by sociologist and CESNUR’s president Massimo Introvigne in which the causes for this behavior are studied. [42] ( http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Acropolis.html )."

I think this is inaccurate. Introvigne does not say in that article that these allegations are typically made by apostates, nor does he explain the causes. Please state where Introvigne says so, if you disagree. Note that Dettmer's, Mishler's and Donner's story as told in Wikipedia only tell about his behavior, not about narratives of capture and branding the old organization as evil. I will change it. Andries 17:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you read the article in full? Clearly Introvigne speaks about the difiiculty of accepting an apostate's testimony. If you change it, it better be good. We can also add a reference and citation from this article: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/experts/apostates/kliever/kliever.html --64.81.88.140 23:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 64.81.88.140 I have read the whole article. I copy the paragraph that I think is relevant (correct me if I am wrong) from Introvigne's article here.

"Type III narratives define the role of the apostate. In this case, the ex-member dramatically reverses his or her loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he or she has left. "The narrative," in Bromley’s terms, "is one which documents the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue." The former organization could easily label the apostate a traitor. However, the apostate—particularly after having joined an oppositional coalition fighting the organization—often claims that he or she was a "victim" or a "prisoner" who did not join voluntarily. This, of course, implies that the organization itself was the embodiment of an extraordinary evil. Having been socialized into an oppositional coalition, the apostate finds a number of theoretical tools (including powerful brainwashing metaphors) ready for use, which help to explain precisely why the organization is evil and able to deprive its members of their free will."

I think the "dry" testimonies about facts by Dettmers, Donner and Mishler about Prem Rawat's behavior as written in Wikipedia are not, as Bromley wrote "the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue." Note that Mishler wrote that Prem Rawat is a victim and a perpetrator at the same time. The article says nowhere that testimonies about facts by apostates are unreliable. I have to admit that it seems to suggest that an inpretrated story using the theoretical tools of the anti-cult movement should be taking with a grain of salt, though it does not even say that explictly. Andries 09:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

64.81.88.140, you can add the following site http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/experts/apostates/kliever/kliever.html if you want but it is, I believe, a Scientology site and should be labelled accordingly. Andries 09:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hehe! I see that you think that giving a reference to an article in a Scientology webiste is bad and will reflect poorly on the followers POV. That is so transparently funny... LOL! I do not have a problem whatsoever, add the reference, please... You and other ex-premies live in a black-and-white world. You, the proud "owners" of the "truth" (see Jim's comments about truth), and anyone that in your view does not follow "your" belief is, well, evil. A reading of the world that has created the most devastating losses in human life. That is the way it starts. --64.81.88.140 15:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yeah, take a cigar and inhale for 2 or 3 times. your chair course will be much better then. after that, hack your mac again. Xenu

64.81.88.140, okay I have to admit that it was a dirty trick to encourage you to add a scientology website to support the view of students. I do not own the truth and I do not see the Elan Vital story as black and white thing. I do not think that students are evil, only misguided and they mostly cause harm to themselves, not to others. I care about about misguided followers/students, because I see many similarities between my own painful experience and the (ex-)students of Prem Rawat. Andries 22:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you stop playing the good samaritan, Adries? It is hardy appropriate here, and and a bit condescending and insulting. Who gave you the right to "save" anyone? Maybe it is you that needs saving... :) --64.81.88.140 01:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RE: Professional enemies according to Intovigne. It would be more accurate to say amateur enemies. Don't know of any ex-premie who gets paid to be a critic of Rawat.

Another Ex-Premie 14:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia and indefensible ideas

It's no surprise that Wikipedia, unlike the rest of the world, favours indefensible ideas. That's the price of its NPOV policy and philosophy. If one has an indefensible idea of any sort which might otherwise be attacked and ridiculed, its proponents can present it on Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that the earnest Wiki editors will guarantee that it does not get laughed off, shouted down, cornered, exposed or any of the other things that fortunately happen to false ideas.

As Ed said, quite happily I'm sure, Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. In fact, perhaps that should be Wikipedia's subtitle:

Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia where Truth is Meaningless

A little truth in advertising, perhaps?

Oh no, there's that word again!

)

-- Jim

Jim, this is about the fourth time you comment on WP's NPOV policy being useless. You can make your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view, instead of here. Thanks. --Zappaz 22:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

I'm not interested in anything you've got to say. As I told you before, you squandered any possible respect I could have for you when you refused to admit the obvious truth about Rawat's divinity claim in 1990. You can thank yourself for that. -- Jim

I know that you don't care much for my opinions, and that is OK with me. But if you seriously have an issue with NPOV, as it seems, you can and will be heard at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. You are not the only one that does not agree with that principle... --Zappaz 06:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. I do not recall saying that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. On the contrary, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia editorial policy is accuracy. I believe this means getting as close to the truth as possible.

Perhaps you are confusing "neutrality" with "indifference". You wouldn't be the first to make this mistake.

It is not because we are indifferent to the truth, but because we recognize that it's supremely difficult to GET to the truth, that Jimbo created his neutrality policy. It bears re-reading from time to time; it says that when we CAN'T GET at the truth, due to irresolvable conflicts between sources, THEN we will forbear to take a position on the matter, and stand above the controversy by merely reporting what the various sides claim.

It's like a judge who throws out a lawsuit or, better, a "hung jury" which returs no verdict -- not because they think the matter unimportant, but because they could not AGREE on the truth. Rather than getting bogged down in limbo, Wikipedia simply says, "We don't know."

Some people say Wikipedia has no "values", but honesty is actually a Wikipedian value. When we honestly don't know, we say so. --Uncle Ed 14:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I couldn't have put it better myself. Wikipedia IS like one big hung jury. That's an excellent analogy. But what I can tell you, as a criminal lawyer, is that an accused who's facing an overwhelming case just LOVES a hung jury. He might not be able to get outright acquitted but if he can just get a hung jury, who knows? Maybe the prosecution won't run the case again for this reason or that.

So "guilty" parties, or anyone who's facing a "case" against them they can't beat -- like Rawat for instance, would absolutely love this place. Good one. :) -- Jim

Yes, Jim, approching Wikipedia from the POV of a criminal lawyer may be a tough one. Luckily, the world, is not a Judge, a jury, lawyers, and a defendant. Thank God for that.  :) --Zappaz

Actually, Zappaz, the world is indeed a judge in the sense that history leads to some ineluctable conclusions. It's undeniable now that the American revolution was timely and justified. It's undeniable now that American slavery was an idea whose time was up. It's undeniable now that the earth circles the sun and it's equally undeniable that we are the products of evolution. It's also undeniable that there have been people and movements who have tricked and exploited people with religious tomfoolery and that these groups can be fairly called cults. It's a pejorative word but isn't that exactly the word you want for such negative, destructive exploitation which can lead to all sorts of unnecessary human suffering even death? Heaven's Gate was a cult. Would the NRM scholars say otherwise?

And it's safe to say that the world scoffs at Heaven's Gate, just as it does the Moonies, Peoples' Temple and Scientology.

If Wikipedia wants to ignore the world, so be it. It trivializes itself in the process.

-- Jim

Wim Haan

Andries, is there a translated edition of that book or paper? If there is, please provide the info an ISBN (if it is a book). If there is no translation, its place its not here but in the "nl" version of this article once it is translated. --Zappaz 18:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz no, there is no translation, I am afraid. It is okay to use non-English sources See discussion I became a member of the library of the Vrije Universiteit just to get this source. I promise that I will use it in a fair and accurate way. Andries 19:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with trust... We need to understand the reason for inclusion. Please translate a couple of paragraphs and post here for all to see. Until then, I have deleted the citacion. The discussion you pointed to, says: ...it is standard scientific even in English practice to quote foreign language papers if that is the best reference on a particular point. Hardly the case here, unless you can demonstrate it. --64.81.88.140 01:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a good additional reference. You have no right to delete good references. I want to say that this reference comes from CESNUR affiliated scholar Reender Kranenborg. It is, I think, the best available in Dutch language. The author happened to write in the ex-forum recently [1] If it is a good reference then it can be included. The reference comes from an almost impeccable source. Andries 01:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it may be an impeccable sources, but I have the right to know what it is. So, please translate for us a copuple of paragraphs.. (BTW, the URL you gave for the exfourm does not work.--64.81.88.140 01:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It takes a lot of time to translate. If you want to read some an other article about a NRM by Wim Haan then you read here but his article about the DLM is more personal than the one online because he was personally involved in the DLM for a relatively short time. 01:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You behavior is making me doubt.... What is the problem on quoting some of it here in the talk page. Until you do, I am deleting BOTH the article and the reference. Sorry. --64.81.88.140 02:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Double standards prevail here again. I do not remember having deleted the very suspicious reference of Ron Geaves, though I had not had the chance to read his article.

paragraphs by Haan page 37 "3. The sequel

When somebody show interest and visits often satsang meetings and also requests more information, then the possibility is offered to visit so called aspirant evenings.

Aspirant evenings are quite similar to satsang evenings. The group is smaller though. In my case 4 to 5 people. The aspirant evenings are more molded according to the needs of the aspirant. People can ask mutual questions. The aspirant poses questions if there is something unclear, though the answers rarely bring more clarity. The mentor of the aspirant poses questions if he wants to know whether the aspirant makes "progress on the spiritual path." "

Andries 02:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

paragraphs by Haan page 40 "4. The Intitiation and the ascetic life of the premies

If the aspirant has been found fit and found "ripe" for the Knowledge, then a "Knowledge session" is organized, during which the aspirant is initiated in the four meditation techniques. That what happens during these initiation ritual is kept completely secret. The premies promise during the event not to talk with people from outside about the meditation techniques that they were taught.

The reason for the secrecy is probably the conviction that the meditation techniques and the initiation without the intention to live a life a devotion to Maharaj Ji does not make any sense. Apart from that, knowledge of the fact that the techniques are also used by other groups will probably not help to increase the interest in the DLM. The relationship that will be started between the disciple and guru is of central importance. Literally it is said that the meditation without this relationship is of "no value"."

Andries 03:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the translations. Some corrections to the issues presented by this author (BTW: what was the year this book was written? Things have evolved a lot over the years...)

1. There is no such a thing as "being found to be ripe for the Knowledge". Once you have prepared and listened for a few months you can receive Knowledge, by simply asking for it.
2. There is no such a thing as an ascetic path.
3. The relationship between a student and a teacher are indeed of utmost important in this and any other human endavor (music, art, sporst, etc.)
4. There are no longer "mentors". The preparation is self-paced and self-assessed

So, now that you have translated this, I still do not see any refrenece to the text you wrote. Did you translate the "wrong" paragraph? --64.81.88.140 05:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

paragraphs by Haan page 39

"The intensity with which someone desires Knowledge is seen of utmost importance, including when assessing if somebody is ripe for Knowledge. "As soon as somebody really wants Knowledge, he will receive it", it is said. But this is on the condition that the mind is bypassed. As long as the mind rules supreme there will be always "concepts" that try to take away the desire for Knowledge.

The premie community defines the word "mind" as being conditioned i.e. all influences that make man wander away from his true nature.

Sometimes the battle against this word degenerates in complete irrationality. Every criticism and objective approach is then branded as "mind". If somebody feels bad or did not have good experiences for a long time during meditation, then the person is "in his mind". Discussions with outsiders are often avoided, because they could possibly stimulate the mind"

Andries 08:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. You have not told us what year was the book written. Once you give the date, we need to add it to the sentence to give it time context. Rebutals follow:

• There is no such a think as "the premie community"
• The assessmnet of readiness for Knowledge is self-assessed. No one does that for you
• There is no such condition that the "mind be bypassed". LOL...!
• No one discusses his/her experience of Knowledge as it is very personal
• Discussions with outsiders? This is cute... Outside of what? LOL!
• The interpretation of "mind" is completely obsolete. Maharaji abandones that distinction because it was always so missunderstood. The only think I have heard Maharaji speak in the last 15 years is to Think for myself, walk with my eyes wide open, Live consciously and stand on my own feet. I know, I know, you and other anti's will call this revisionism. I call this an relentless effort to evolve and make himself and his message understood. --64.81.88.140 14:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

64.81.88.140 The article is from 1981. The word "bypassed" may be an inaccurate translation but I can not correct it at the moment because I do not have the Dutch original where I am now. I am not impressed when Prem Rawat says things like "Think for yourself", and "stand on your own feet" because he may say and do other things that completely contradict this. His teachings and and practices in Elan Vital and the DLM have to be seen as a whole. Andries 16:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are in' no position' to judge. You have absolutely no idea, beyond your prejudice and pre-conceived ideas. In that context I "perfer" an ex-premie account 10 times over than you assessment, that is by all means, irrelevant to this article. Your "anti-cult" campaign on WP gives it away. --64.81.88.140 17:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

unfortunately for 140 i do agree with andries, and i am an ex-premie , here you have your 10 times over. btw. your symbiotic collaboration with other cult-members still reflects poorly on the outcome.hope that rawat will like it. thomas

What reflects poorly is your disregard for evolution. You are stuck in a time-warp. Consider moving on. You guys use the word "cult" as an assault weapon. Have you ever heard of the basic freedoms of a human being? Andries campaing of "saving the lost souls" is arrogant, pathetic and one that I reject with all my might. The freedom I have, to chose my path to joy is none of your business. I am getting tired of all of the righteousness and arrogance brandished by Andries, you and other "ex-premies". BTW, this "ex" business is getting on my nerves as well. Be for something instead ogf against something for god's sake. What good is to be an "ex-husband" ... man! ... go and find yourself a nice lady and start having fun again. :) --64.81.88.140 18:52,18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by evolution?Could you please explain? thomas

64.81.88.140 I agree with you that it is often unfair to use the word cult with its very negative connotations. I do not oppose your right to follow Maharaji, neither is it a point of discussion in the article. Andries 14:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Be honest, Andries... Do you want me to copy and paste here your numerous comments about your "anti" campaing and how you see that as a public service to "alert" people? --64.81.88.140 20:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I admit that I see it as a public service to write, what I see as, the truth about Prem Rawat. I do not see how that contradicts that what I wrote hereabove. Andries 21:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Main problem with this article

A "Criticism of .." article should not be created unless the section in question becomes dominant, in which case it should be summarized in the main article. The main article Prem Rawat contains nothing but a link to the criticisms. That is entirely unacceptable per our NPOV policy.--Eloquence*

I have now added a summary to Prem Rawat.--Eloquence*

This is work in progress: read the summary of the process at Talk:Prem Rawat--64.81.88.140 14:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Financial section

The research I'm doing over on the /temp1 page has led me to revise the financial section here, now that I understand each side's arguments better. Among other things, the nature of the critics' arguments has led me to re-insert the value of the various assets even though PR is not their listed owner. BTW, I don't know if it will make any difference to Jim, but this is a place where that classic point-counterpoint-rebuttal-surrebuttal sequence of presenting arguments that I was discussing with him earlier on this page leads to his side's argument being given the final say. --Gary D 08:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I understand the idea behind "point-counterpoint-rebuttal-surrebuttal sequence" but request some kind of guidelines about what is considered an allegation. What does it take? For example, there is currently an allegation about "luxury fleets of cars including Rolls Royces used by Rawat and his entourage". This is a utter fabrication with no corroboration. Why it is included? because an ex-premie wrote about it on a website? An 'anything goes type of approach, will do no good to this article. --64.81.88.140 20:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article discusses PR being asked in a 1973 news conference about (plural) Rolls Royces, and the reporter saw him driving a Mercedes 450 SL; the 1974 Ramparts Magazine reporter listed six cars, "mostly Rolls Royces and Lincoln Continentals"; the San Francisco Examiner, quoted in The Realist magazine, talks about PR taking delivery of a Mercedes 600. This passage in the article has been toned down now at any rate, so we're probably doing okay. --Gary D 09:39, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Then you need to give it time context: In 1974, .... This is 30 years ago. The current text reads as if this is a current fact. Also note that there is no such a thing as an "entourage". Nowadays he flies himself and drives himself.--≈ jossi ≈ 19:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Why Does Wiki Take a Stand on Evolution but not Cults?

This is from Wiki's site on evolution:

EvoWiki's goal is to promote general evolution education, and to give mainstream scientific responses to the fallacious arguments of creationism, the Intelligent Design movement, and other antievolutionists. See our goals, editorial philosophy and suggested uses of EvoWiki.

Look at that! Wiki willing to actually get off the fence and take a position for a change.

So why not here? Surely anyone with half a brain can see how "fallacious" EV's arguments such as those in its FAQs? Why the double-standard?

EvoWiki has a different aim as Wikipedia and hence different guidelines. It is just another wiki site that was inspired by Wikipedia but it has no formal connections to Wikipedia. Andries 18:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that one might as well ask "Why does Magazine take a stand on evolution but not on cults?" One magazine may choose to take a stand on evolution, and a different magazine may choose to take a more neutral stand regarding cults, but there is no contradiction there. They are two different magazines, not one entity called Magazine.

I can see how it might be difficult at first to spot that they are two wikis, not one, since EvoWiki uses the same default layout that Wikipedia does. But attention should be paid to the large graphic at the top of the left column on each page, which is the Wikipedia globe when the site is Wikipedia, and is some other graphic when it is a different site using the MediaWiki software. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are the Supporters' Attacks on Critics Unique for Wiki?

I've looked around at other controversial groups like the Mormons, Moonies and Scientologists and I can't see anything that comes close to the ugly ad hominem attacks this website allows against Rawat's critics. Am I missing something? Jim

No, I think you are correct. As far as I know only the Prem Rawat article has such ad hominem attacks on his critics in Wikipedia. Sathya Sai Baba used to have them too but I deleted them because I thought they were irrelevant. Andries 18:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's resident "Moonie", I can say tell you why the Unification Church & Sun Myung Moon pages have not descended into a whirlpool of hate speech:

• The Unification Church has only 5,580 members (and their children) in the United States, and hardly any of them bother to go online to promote the church.
• When 'opponents' come and mess up 'my pages', I try to take at least a week before responding.
• I always refuse to get into an edit war with the opponents; I'd rather have the article be 'wrong' than do that.
• Or maybe it's because of Rev. Moon's personal example of "loving his enemies".

There were some problems with the Mormon articles, but I spent a significant amount of time mediating there, so that contributors would be nice to each other.... ---Uncle Ed 19:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sorry for interfering, but i just read the mentioned moon article, and if i understand this right rev. moon was sentenced by court. on the other hand you gladly quote court decisions that declare the work of cult-analysts as non scientific. mhmmm. that makes me think. thomas

That's a darn good point, Thomas, and I concede the inconsistency. If you're interested, please cross-post your comment to talk:Sun Myung Moon and we can continue the discussion there. --Uncle Ed 20:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the invitation ed, but i prefer to stick around here a bit, haven't got that much time anyway. i just wanted to express that things are in fact often more difficult , than what you expressed before. the anti-brainwashing campaign, is of course a common point of interest for groups that face such kind of accusation. i agree , there is no brainwashing, at least not with water and soap ;-) . But you can definitely influence human beings. that can get up to a high degree. look at an 18 year old marine, for example, he knows almost nothing of the world. and he is getting conditioned to killing people he has never seen. if he would be older and maybe a bit wiser, he might regret to have taken that step ever . he didn't have that information in the beginning. once you have decided to give faith into something, and get told to never doubt what you will provided with, and you follow that, there is no way out.thomas

Let us keep things in perspective: The attacks have been quite intense by both pro and con factions in this and other related talk pages. Regarding this article (yes, this is what we are here for!), I have toned down some of the wording. In any case, the personal attacks by Jim and anons have been leesening over the last few weeks and more work is going into the main articles and acillary articles, instead. That is a good sign.--Zappaz 19:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your perspective is skewed as usual. The article's about Rawat. The only reason that anything negative about any of his critics would be relevant would be if it directly undermined our credibility. The character slurs both EV and the supporters who've contributed to this article offer are irrelevant and only make sense if one buys into the "hateful-apostate-run-amok" bullshit proffered by NRM apologists. For some reason, the articles about other alleged cults don't go down that road. They simply state the critics' arguments and the supporters' responses.

Andries explains how he deleted such irrelevant ad hominem attacks from the Sai Baba article. Now, if you go there, you see a much more foccused piece which, like Andries says, does not get into slagging the opponents.

So you tell me: is the Sai Baba article missing something? It sure doesn't seem that way. It's rather straightforward. Proponents claim this / opponents claim that. End of story.

So why should this article be any different? -- Jim

You are right about the credibility issue. In these types of controversy, credibility plays a pretty big role, don't you think?

Please note:

1. This is an article on the Criticism of Prem Rawat and its main critics the ex-premies;;
2. The "ad-hominem attacks" as you call them, are posted on several FAQs of Elan Vital. The article is reporting that fact and quoting these FAQs
3. As long as these are properly quoted, they should remain on the article.

--Zappaz 21:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong as usual, Zappaz. My understanding is that this Criticism article is merely a temporary construct which will eventually be integrated into the main article which is, obviously, about Prem Rawat and Prem Rawat alone. It is not an article about us and we are not fair game as subject matter anymore than are ex-mormons, ex-scientologists or ex-moonies. Yes, EV has resorted to ad hominem, bullshit attacks in its FAQs but the premies here and their friends, like you, shouldn't repeat those spurious, defamatory allegations as if they were either true or relevant.

-- Jim

Jim, these comments about me being "wrong as usual" are not very nice... :)

• Interesting comment that anyone not 100% supportive of your POV is either a premie or one of their friends
• Note that the idea of merging the two articles may not be possible after all. We need to remain with a 32 Kbytes limit per article, so most probably we will end up with several articles: one biographical, one on the criticism (this one), one on the teachings, etc.
• Regarding the the critics being "fair game" or not, this is not the issue. That is what is being presented in the article: a) that there is a small group of vocal critics and b) that some of them have committed crimes an c) that Elan vital makes allegations, that in their view, further diminishes the credibility of that small group. --Zappaz 03:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

It's not that anyone not 100% supportive of my point of view is either a premie or their friend but you have proven to be a stalwart defender of this cult indeed. Your extremely dishonest and ultimately evasive handling of the evidence that Rawat bullied his followers into worshipping him as God as recently as 1990 proved that. That's beyond dispute, Zappaz, but you pretended to not see that and, when pressed to rationally defend that view, dissembled. It would only stand to reason that an outsider like you should be flexible and receptive to being corrected by someone like me who actually knows much, much more about this group than you'll ever dream about. But your own philosophical predeliction that makes you defensive of cults like Rawat's makes that impossible. In the result, at a crossroad, you chose dishonesty. When Rawat's own official Indian publication quoted him scolding his followers for forgetting that the guru (i.e. him) was really Hari -- which that publication itself translated as "God" lest there be any possible misunderstanding -- acknowledging that Rawat claimed to be God in that instance was a proven fact beyond dispute. Your evasive dance around that was truly disgusting. You know, disgust is a natural reaction to dishonesty in some cases. That was definitely how I felt watching you then.

Perhaps you think I make too much of this one little issue. I don't. I see it as critical for several reasons. One is that the fact that Rawat made that claim then proves that Geaves, who you have no apparent qualms about despite his very questionable ethics in hiding his conflict of interest in this area, is seriously wrong about Rawat's "evolution". That quote completely undermines his entire revisionist theory which scapegoats everyone and their mother -- literally, his mother -- for the sins of the guru. It's also important as it puts the lie to EV's representations too. Finally, it's important because it should have been enough to stop you in your tracks and make you realize that if it was the truth you sought in your alleged research about Rawat, you'd bet on the wrong horse. A lot hinged on that issue.

But you chose dishonesty and proved that there's no reasoning with you about this group.

-- Jim

I do not understand the reason for this discussion. The website of an organization challenges the credibility of it's critics by making comments on the critics character and reliability. What's new? --Senegal 21:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're the guy who thought CAN was an authoritative citation, right? LOL! I can only guess what you're really all about. Listen, Senegal, take a look at the other articles on other alleged cults and you'll see. When an investigative journalist writes a piece on Scientology, does it matter if he got busted for growing dope? No, of course not. It's a question of relevance. The "character" of Rawat's opponents is a non-issue.

-- Jim

You are right on one count: An investigative journalist do not have an ax to grind, or posts thousands of postings a month on the subject for 10 years. But you do. That is the difference. The motives and character of the small group of critics are important in this article.--64.81.88.140 03:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well,well, is this group really that small? i discovered the site in mhmm 97 , 98? i visited it once in a while , sometimes with a pause of more than half a year. maybe there is this kind of interest because there is something awfully wrong with rawat? of course not for you. but hey, there is freedom of speech also. there is proof, thank god, of what rawat said when he was lord in the west(he still is in india). and faking the past, which you decided to be a part of, is making all those ,that speak out on f8 liars about what they experienced when they were part of that themselves. that may be reason enough to get upset. in the end, all the oppostion you get is in fact homemade. the tactic of redefining oneself by pushing off all responsibility and changing some uncomfortable facts, was a faulty decision, in my opinion. of course this is now a wide field for you to participate(do service, a bit cynical, forgive me). thomas

more edits

School has started and I've been quite busy...

snipped some dupliciative language

clarity about the back and forth about how many former students are or aren't still around. Added context to that argument.

Left the bit about the value of the aircraft but there was a lot of repetitous arguing from both sides that didn;t do any work.

added back to financial section the disclaimer that rawat not charged with wrongdoing

why finch page gets three seperate links? You could do that with ANY site. One frontpage link is good enough. Someone's try to load up the ball. (Got baseball on my mind!) Richard G. 01:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Two items cut from the financial section I would argue are important, and so have restored them (obviously they will be grist for the discussion mill eventually, but please be aware we do have a sort of informal anti-substantial-delete moratorium in place on this article for the moment). First, the Mishler item on his proposed investment plan supports the critics' charge about where the money originally came from that PR now lives on as an investor. Second, the material on holding corporations was not repetitious but is instead surrebuttal to the supporters' rebuttal argument above it that because PR does not hold legal title to these assets, they don't count toward being his or toward his lifestyle being luxurious. --Gary D 02:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

That was the agreement, Richard... Let us give the critics the time and space they need to add more text if they want to. My understanding is that by end of this week, we shall review the article and hopefuly reach concensus on its content. :--Zappaz 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So the Articles Won't Be Merged After All?

Is Zappaz right when he says that the articles won't be merged? Both the Scientology and Moon sites display the Controversy sections early and prominently. Why should Rawat get any different treatment? What matters most, I believe, is what a relatively passive reader sees on his or her first read, assuming that they'll do no further clicking. When someone's as controversial as Rawat, the former Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, the primary page should reflect that. Instead, it seems like the cult and its apologist friends have succeeded in bloating the article sufficiently to displace the real story off in some sidebar. People aren't going to look up the Crticism of Prem Rawat, at least not as readily as they might Prem Rawat himself. Obviously.

-- Jim

The Prem Rawat and criticism of Prem Rawat articles will be merged, eventually. If Zappaz and Gary and Andries don't do it, then I will do it. I just think they can do a better job of it than I can.

But the division into 2 or more articles was intended only as a temporary measure, to help people like Jim get their two cents in. As long as having the division is helping us write about the topic neutrally and accurately, I'll support the division. As soon as those article stabilize, the division will no longer be needed.

Unless there is some special aspect which deserves such in-depth treatment that merits its own article (like Sun Myung Moon's views on Jews and Israel, which spawned Unification Church and anti-Semitism). --Uncle Ed 15:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ed, there are two competing proposals on the table: one to merge and another to summarize the criticism based on the model of the Scientology article. Please read the summary at Talk:Prem_Rawat. We agreed to separate the articles to enable editors to do their work unencumbered for a while, but no decision has been made yet. I hope that you will not attempt a unilateral action on merging the articles, but hopefully help reach concensus on how to proceed. Also note that Gary D, Richard, myself and others have been doing extensive work on a proposed main article, now at Prem Rawat/temp1. Gary has put a lot of effort in developing a substantial chronology of PR's life, including the controvesial aspects. The summary section on the criticism is not yet completed, so I encourage a bit of patience to allow editors to complete work on this article, the main article and the ancillary articles as well. Once all that is done we can discuss how to proceed.

Jim: If you like the way the Scientology page is designed, and would agree with a similar treatment for the Prem rawat article, we will be in agreement for once. --Zappaz 16:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This probably started with a comment I made that began to retract my former position in favor of a unified, integrated article. Our problem now is article size. As Zappaz mentioned, I have been working on the Prem Rawat/temp1 article, beefing it up with (I believe balanced) biography, and with pride of authorship now kicking in, I plan soon to propose it as a replacement for the current main article, as the other versions IMHO come off either as puff pieces or as odd collections of non-sequitur sentences alternately digging and praising PR. However, the /temp1 article is currently bobbing just below 30KB, even with things like pared-down External Links and References sections, whose paring down was made possible in part because the article doesn't currently get into the criticism specifics. I have been a strong public proponent of an integrated article, and if we could let the 32KB limit go (my IE browser has no problem with it), we can still have the integrated article. Otherwise, I propose a compromise, as follows. We have already pushed specifics of PR's yoga techniques off /temp1 to the "Kriyas" (now "Techniques of Knowledge") article. The "pro" editors would like to add the substance of PR's current message to /temp1. My compromise would be that neither the criticism substance nor the PR message substance would be included in /temp1 as it becomes the main PR article, leaving it as straight history and biography, but both anti/criticism and pro/message would be summarized there and referred to their own articles. That would address Jim's concern, such that a casual reader of only the main article would not be indoctrinated either for or against PR, but instead just given PR's basic life story, alerted to the existence of the anti and pro material, and given the option to click over to either or both. --Gary D 19:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The real story needs to be told. And that story is one of courage and evolution and humanness. One of effort, dignity and nobility. That story has not been told in any of the articles so far. The long story of harrassment by a group of vocal critics is indeed a sidebar story.--64.81.88.140 17:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Courage as demonstrated by running over a cyclist and letting some kid take the rap. Courage as demonstrated by never having the guts to admit just how misguided he was when he proclaimed himself the saviour of mankind. Courage as shown by his secret long-term affair that made a laughing stock of his wife for decades. LOL!

-- Jim

As I said: The long story of harrassment by a group of vocal critics is indeed a sidebar story, no matter how hard you and your friends try. And if you keep LOL'ing you will lose your voice. :) --64.81.88.140 18:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jim, please provide first hand accounts about the cyclist and the discourse with Hari in it in 1990 or its transcript then it can go into this article. Andries 17:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes... keep throwing mud digging "first hand accounts" from 30 years ago, why not.... then don't complain when mud is thrown at you as well. --64.81.88.140 18:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

.140, I really do not know what you are up to but if this is a threat to me then you have broken the guidelines of wikiquette. Andries 18:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relax Andries, why you are so uptight..? What I said is that it is a double standard to complain of attacks on the credibility of the critics, when the critics have been for the last 15 years and continue to be engaged in attacks on the credibility of Pem Rawat, his students, his supporters and the organizations that support his work.

If you want to know who is breaking the "no personal attacks" etiquette, check Jim's posts above. In each one of his responses there is a personal attack against an editor. --64.81.88.140 18:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

oh Mick just left the cult after 30 years, did you read his posting on F 8 ?He is now an unlit match. What do you think? maurice