Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Problems with this article

There are many problems with this article, but the main one is based on the fact that it purports to portray the POV of a very small group of people (there is disagreement about the exact number but both sides accept that they are a small group of no more than 20-30 activists). That in itself is not NPOV. Without fixing that fundamental problem, this article's future will be always remain uncertain. A minority point of view needs to be fairly represented in WP (read WP:NPOV, but I would argue that the article as it stands goes above and beyond a fair treatment. Being unfair, then rebuttals ensue to attempt to balance the article resulting in 52K worth of article that should be able to fit in 20K. I propose to re-write the article as follows

• Describe the ongoing contention between ex-premie group and elanvital;
• summarize the description of the protagonists;
• summarize the criticism of the ex-premie group;
• summarize the ongoing legal disputes between both sides;
• I don't think that there is disagreement about the criticism by the Dutch scholars, Levine, etc, so that can stay as is, maybe just some cleanup.

I will attempt re-write this article based on the above this edit in the next days and seek the assistance of other editors so that a fresh perspective can be introduced. --ZappaZ 14:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the consencus opinion by people who are interestd in obscure gurus is that Rawat is unreliable. Please find one guru rating list that gives him anything other than a low ranking. Taking into account that all scholarly articles (except the one by Geaves) that I read about the DLM contain at least mentioning of criticism (Melton mentions Mishler) and all the others at least one corroboration of the complaints by ex-premies, it is clear that the supporters of Elan Vital are a tiny minority whose opinions deserve only tiny minority space. Andries 17:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Andries believes that the POV of 20 people is a majority opinion. He also believes that the purpose of WP is to make assessments of reliability of people he dislikes. Well, he is wronmg and he can believe what he wants to believe, but it does not change the facts in the ground. I would suggest to Andries to read the discussions on Talk:Prem Rawat about this very subject and listen to the arguments made by other editors. --ZappaZ 18:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, as Andries states, that there may be only 20 or 30 people that are active in that chat at a time doesn't mean that there are not more, that share such views. You cannot limit everything in what happens on the internet. But if you have so and so many scholars, that come to the same or similar conclusions, should give some meaning to it.Thomas h 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have read everything that is written there, I wrote most of it myself,and it does not change my opinions. One class of opinions that is to be taken serious is that one of NRM scholars who all voice critical comments, very similar to that of ex-premies or cite them with the exception of Geaves. For me, this is convincing evidence that Zappaz is wrong and I am right. I do not see what there is more to discuss. Andries 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, to have 4 or 5 articles on Rawat in an encyclopedia is hardly understandable if you look at the importance of this group and i don't mean their Public Relation efforts which should be clearly distinctioned. Why burden the reader with presentations that are meant to lift one's reputation by PR measures. We can start with the criticism article and cut down the others to an appropriate size. Thomas h 17:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

While i was thinking about your suggestion, our friend Nosmo appeared with his wish for abusive editing. Well he can stigmatise and sort whomever he wants in groups at elanvital.org, or make actions of single people into group actions.This is the wrong place.Still thinking. Your suggestion i find noble, but i have seen so much from you, i have to admit, that i am having a hard time to trust you. Still thinking.Thomas h 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Zappaz, you wrote in the edit summary that you restored deletions made by me. I tried my best not to delete text and I mainly restored the old consencus so I am suprized by your edit summary. Could please tell me what deletions I made? thanks. It is very hard to compare because of the different structure. Andries 17:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As to numbers: the ex-premies has a white page directory with close on 200 names of former members - people who had to submit a form to get there. Generally ,one can safely assume that the majority of people prefer to not put their name on a controversial website, so 2000-3000 might be a better guesstimate than your 20-30. --Irmgard 21:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Irmgard. We are not discussing former followers that probably count in the thousands. We are discussing a group of people that are anti-Rawat activists that call themselves the "ex-premies", whose tactics (if one is to judge by the recent affidavits) are morally dubious. I would argue that the kind of behavior of this group will not be adopted or supported by the majority of leavers. Nevertheless, we are just speculating. Clearly, the ex-premie group would want to be considered the spokepersons for leavers, but that aint' so, I'm afraid... --ZappaZ 21:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz "First Class" is not an open discussion forum and you know that. It is a groupware, which may have a chatroom function, but as stated with some former member on forum8 it is/was used as a coordination tool, which is exactly what a groupware is for. You have been into coding as i remember once, though i guess you know exactly what i am talking about. To access a groupware seesion you need a password, it's contents are not visible for external visitors on the internet. It is NOT open. Why do you edit in such a way when you know better? That is not exactly what will make me trust you for your future edits. Thomas h 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What I have been arguing is that the expremie chatroom is not open. There are people called "mods" (moderators, I guess) that censor/edit/remove posts of chat participants. As such, it cannot be called open. The Firstclass groupware is not open either, it is a private environment designed for collaboration, and as such one can argue that it is used for discussions as well. I deleted the text by Andries that states (a) that states that there is no on-line discussion by followers (there is) and that (b) the expremie chatroom is open (it is not). That text was factually innacurate. --ZappaZ

It is a moderated forum, which has it's policies to be followed. There was a development from the early days where former members could exchange their expiriences with rawat. During that discovery processes it sometimes came to breakouts out of anger, with expressions that are not tolerable, though maybe understandable as part of a process of leaving, as described in some very articles here in Wikipedia. Nevertheless there were attacks from premies towards exes as well, they even had a chat, with often use of abusive language. You never mention that, so i consider you are still blind on one eye. At forum8 you can register anonymously or with your full name, participate, and read everything. I mean you know that, and your arguments are out of bias. Former members as well as premies or third persons can get their posts deleteted if they violate the policies. The moderation until now is necessary for it is still a sensitive topic and there are still people exing and finding out how they were conned, that tend to express their anger in an unappropriate way for a public forum. The term "Ex-Premie" is a name used by John Browns as part of an URL for one of his websites. That doesn't mean that anybody who gave a testimony there is to be considered a member of a group. The chatroom is called forum8 and not ex-premies. There are participants who never contributed to John Brauns' website at ex-premie.org. Yet you insist to call every particpant as an ex-premie for obvious reasons that can be followed thru your agenda here at wikipedia. i do not expect that you will ever change your attitude, because you must have spent a remarkable amount of time to set up/manipulate such a framework. Very interesting is, the time parallels, while developing this, with it's specials terms and the taking over of these term and arguments by Elan Vital shortly after that. Since you are not even able to include directly the contradiction of Elan Vitals shouts that McGregor is a liar under oath, and then a couple of month later a person that gives another oath in favor of Elan Vital,that shall now be of substance, i may suggest, that both partie's views may be looked at as one sided statements, and be placed after the scholar paragraphs as you would expect it in a real encyclopedia. The NPOVing yet seems ok, but i am not as experienced as Andries. The whole thing of course smells heavily of the "Mary is not a slut" example which i am sure you very well remember. What about the other 4 or 5 articles?Thomas h 05:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The firstclass group system is not a discusion forum and the following text is 100% accurate and I will restore it. Andries 03:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"There is no active, open discussion group of current students of Rawat on the internet and occasionally current students of Rawat join the dissusion on the discussion forum moderated by ex-premies."

New version

New version of the article as per proposal:

1. Described the different critics
2. Described the ongoing contention between ex-premie group and elanvital;
3. summarized the description of the protagonists;
4. summarized the criticism of the ex-premie group;
5. consolidated the ongoing legal disputes between both sides;
6. Cleanup and summary of scholarly articles;
7. Reduced size of article to fit with the standard 32 KB (See article size)
8. Added references using new ref/note templates;
9. NPOV'ed all entries;

The article now reads better, is informative without overwhelming the reader and references are provided for readers to explore further. Some mor cleanup and reduction of text needed for the Legal & Disputes section, that I will attempt later on. Please read the article in its entirety before commenting. Thanks. --ZappaZ 04:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this article readable. Previous revision was convoluted and very hard to read (could not read pass first few paragraphs), probably due to factious and emotionally-charged editing. Now it is easy to appreciate what the criticism is all about without confusing terms that may be only understandable to insiders (pro and con). A good example that sometimes "less is more". The section about the legal disputes is still hard to read and too long. Would it be OK if I put on my copyediting hat and give it a go? (I am taken aback and surprised to see that you guys can work on articles in the midst of such animosity, and as I am not interested in these kinds of exchanges, I am asking for some space in anticipation that it will not create yet more hostility.) --Janice Rowe

You are most welcome. Feel free to edit, and don't hesitate to be bold while editing. A feminine touch (hope you don;t mind me saying so) may be just what is needed to cool off the air 'round here... --ZappaZ 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah Zappaz i have a question where i am sure you are able to answer, since you asure that there is an ex-premie group, you can tell me their members, where the group is registered, is it an associaton, a club or a society? How to register as a member? What are the criterias. What are the statutes?ThanksThomas h 20:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done a quick editing pass, and made these disputes and legal actions into a chronology, but I think it needs more attention. The referencing method is quite tedious, and I am running out of time. --Janice Rowe

In answering Thomas question, an organization is defined as two or more people brought together by one or more shared goals (See organization. It does not need to have a formal or even a physical component (virtual organizations do exist). In this case, it would be accurate to use "ex-premie group". It will be inaccurate to use "Ex-Premie Group" (note capitalization) as it would connote a formal organization. I will change the capitalization of that term throughout the article accordingly.--Janice Rowe

thanks alot; since those former members do not call themselves ex premie group, can there be a statement that it is Elan Vital's wish to call people like that, i mean somebody must have chosen this term? Thomas h 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. The only place I found the term "ex-premie group" is in the affidavit of John Murray Macgregor. Elan Vital Australia calls them an "Internet-based hate group of approximately twenty disgruntled former students". No mention of the term "ex-premie group". --Janice Rowe

then why should it be used at all? There was another affidavit from Tom Gubler which he retracted later, he alleged that hi gave that affidavit under duress, and so the content may be seen as something dictated. i think it conatins the term also. Nevertheless the link to this document on this very article is now empty , shortly after the rewriting of it. I looked at it the day before yesterday at http://www.one-reality.net (a pro rawat site) and it was still there. I have saved the pdf - file and can provide it for you if you wish, though i think it is not so important. Again, so why do we have to call them ex premie group, if "former members" or "group of former members" is more appropriate and not so much stigmatising( where again, who should it be then, those who post on forum8? These are also changing,taking out times, or just leave for good, difficult that is) ?Thomas h 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I gather that English is not your mother tongue so you may have a different perspective on the use of that term, but I personally do not see any stigma associated with the term "ex-premie group". Don't they call themselves "ex-premies"? --Janice Rowe

you're right. i am from germany. just looked up the dictionary and found out that there doesn't seem to be an exact complement to the german Word "Begriff", just derivatons, maybe somebody has a better one. It is desrcibed as idea, but not the way it is normally used in english. The "Begriff" chair for example expresses the idea of an object that has four legs maybe a rest, and a surface to sit upon, which is common to all kind of chairs( maybe with the exception of some art, that looks like a chair, but gives you a hard time to sit upon). The "word" chair again is more a grammatically expression than the former described. So no, i don't call myself an expremie, so i may be looked upon such, since i have left Prem Rawat. But that doesn't make me automatically a member of a certain group. See, the idea of "Ex-Premie" and it's acssociation with the term hate group, was developed here first hand by Zappaz and Jossi Fresco. They built up a framework in order to give Elan Vital an instrument to defend themselves against allegations and presentations from former memebers. They placed the word Ex-Premies in the "hate Group" article to give to the reader the associaton that this group is generally of ill will and never telling the truth, though there is no proof that there is any organisational structure, that justifies that. They gathered some of the worst expressions out of anger at some of the older forums to support their view, most of them dated year 2000 and 2001. As i said above, that of course these expressions are not tolerable and the later forums have reacted with a more adequate policy. I don't doubt that by some individuals actions were taken, as well as there was harrassement from both sides, though here we have only one side reflected. There never was an agreement and there always have been differing views when someone bragged with something like that. Just like in real life. Many of the participants just take their way out and never return, or return with changed attitudes, so you cannot see ex premie group as a statical entity, but since "Ex-Premie" is used to defame former members that speak out, i find the word ex premie as very near and confoundable. Nevertheless you see in the work of zappaz the effort to discriminate any former cult member that speaks out internals, by intensively editing the apostate article and others, introducing terminology from Massimo Introvigne a well known anti-anti-cult activist.You have this reflected in this article. Be free to decide for yourself if you want to proceed with "ex premie group" or to use another word.Thomas h 06:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks zappaz for adding the gubbler affidavit where we have a rich, almost obsessive collection of the word "Ex-Premie" , as i said, since Gubler stated, he gave this affidavit under duress,the prsumption lies at hand that the text was dictated, at least the possibiliyt should be considered.BTW The link number "22" ist still empty .Thomas h 10:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit by Obey, was not as good as the previous version. For example, he refers to "Rawat apostates", and to "supporters" when actually the assertions are made against the specific group of people called "ex-premies" by the Elan Vital organization. He also attempts to raise allegations to the level of facts (e.g. claims of divinity) when these are just allegations. --Janice Rowe

• Any confusion which may have arisen from apparently elevating the authenticity of certain allegations was not intended. As a disinterested bystander on the topic I'm only interested to see that the quality of the introduction does not remain so embarrassingly poor. It is frankly laughable that anyone could blandly and uncritically characterise the previous effort as superior, with its contorted opening sentence, the less than profound "They level criticism that Rawat made claims of personal divinity or that the critic's former belief in his personal divinity and consequent dissonance with his newer image as human teacher remains unresolved...", and the slouching mess of the third paragraph. In any event the revision seeks to address your points. Please replace references to "supporters" if there is a more appropriate term, and if the relationship between The Rawat and DLM and EV has been incorrectly stated, you should deal with this separately. Obey 08:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Obey. I have improved upon your improved version by making some minor corrections. --Janice Rowe

Janice can we remain with a small letter ex-premies, as you have suggested before?Thomas h 15:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. --Janice Rowe

Some comments

I admit that Zappaz' latest version offers better reading and is shorter that are both advantages. I have however the following complaint and suggestions

• Criticims by scholars and ex-premies should be merged. Kranenborg does this too and writes that the criticims of Jos lammers is a confirmation of van der Lans' opinion. I see no reason to deviate from the structure and the current structure cannot be maintained if I quote more from Kranenborg.

Fully disagree. The criticism is better understood if presented seperately. --ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The criticism by ex-premie Jos Lammers was published in the media and extensively cited in a scholarly article by Dr. Reender Kranenborg. This means that Lammers criticisms can go into three different sections "ex-premie", "media" and "scholarly" with the current structure. This example shows that the current structure is unnatural and awkward and should be abandoned. Andries 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Kranenborg extensively cites Lammers whom he labels an ex-premie. Oviously Kranenborg does not agree that the ex-premies are an insignificant minority. I see no reason why we can't cite Mishler, (ex-president of the DLM) more.

We alreday had the discussion about the ex-premie minority position in Talk:Prem_Rawat#Recommendation and Talk:Prem_Rawat#Viewpoints, and I do not think we have to spend another week re-discussing it. --ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• The story about the afffidavit should have their own sections to give the readers proper background information.

What story? The propaganda attempt to dismiss these powerful statements made under oath? --ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And also, if the criticisms by the ex-premies are so insignificant then the article should start with the criticisms by others such as scholars. Andries 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The criticism of the ex-premies is not insignificant, their numbers are. Reverted.--ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You cannot say that the ex-premies are insignifican as you always do and then have a structure of an article that does not reflect this. I will first re-vert and then re-write this article. Andries 04:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, I don't know any scholar apart from Geaves who confirms the rebuttals by Elan Vital. In other words, following Wikipedia guidelines, these rebuttals should have minority space. Andries 21:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you need to better understand NPOV. I would kindly invite you to re-read it. --ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In general and in this case , I request you to please stop refering to the guidelines as if I have not read them and try to be more specific in your answer. I will ignore and disgregard any such answer from now on. Andries 04:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the long quote by Levine, I have deleted it. This is consistent with your view that long quotes should go to Wikiquote. Or should I restore all the quotes by goverment and academy officials you deleted from the main article? --ZappaZ 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to shorten the quote by Levine and it is of a different type than quotes by government officials not involved in the study of NRMs. Andries 04:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to respond to your comments, although I am still waiting for an apology from you on your personal attacks against me. I am making an exception now, but note that just the most minimal personal attack from you will be responded with an RfC complaint against you, with exact details of all the personal attacks against me over the last few months. I have enjoyed a few weeks of quiet and I am in no mood to dispel that peace.

Also, I have no intention of re-hashing these conversations again and again and again. Read the profuse discussions we have already had on the subject. It is becoming quite boring, you know?

That said, and with the intention to clarify these issues to other editors involved, here are my comments:

1. We cannot discriminate between a cite by academic A and a cite by academic B, just because it does not support your POV. A long quote by Levine here and the deletion of quotes by academics and notable persons in the main article is not acceptable.
2. The Dutch shcolars that Andries so often promote here in WP (Schnabel, young Haan, van Der Lans and reverend Kranenborg) and Levine are only those scholars that wrote critically of the DLM and Prem Rawat. There are other scholars that wrote about this movement such as Luis Dupertuis, Gordon Melton, Dennis Marcellino, Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, George Chryssides, and of course, Ron Geaves, that do not write critically.
3. The ex-premies, by their own admission are "a small group of internationally dispersed individuals". Compare that with hundreds if thousands of followers and you have an undeniable minority position.

   Hundreds of thousands? Are these the numbers of Elan Vital,though they don't have any lists of current members? I am looking forward for an independent proof of that number which you will surely provide since you did over a year of research by now and would never cite such a big number unfounded ;-), even if they are just a couple of thousand active premies, active former members that speak out are a minority, but not suuuuch a speck of dust Thomas h 16:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• David Barret's World Christian Encyclopedia (1998) cites 5,000,0000 students in India.
• Spencer Palmer's Religions of the World, (1990) cites 50,000 students in the USA and 1,200,000 in other countries. Same number is given by Gordon Melton in several of his encyclopedias and in The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism (1984)
• A press release by the Rawat foundation states 50,000 new students in 2004 (seems to indicate world-wide).

[1]

All those numbers are supportive of my statement above. --ZappaZ 18:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ok,thanks. Do these big numbers indicate active students or just all the people that received initiation once? i am a bit puzzled by this, i travelled the world after Rawat, but had never a chance to see more than a couple of thousands of my ex-fellows, except for India, where most people have more than one guru Thomas h 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have found a bit more modest numbers at the university of virginia [2], i don't know if that was discussed before, all the authors that copy their sources from each other, something that was blamed to the critical scholars before, or shall we count all together and take the average, still open who is yet active or not?Thomas h 19:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers are based on out-of-date total initiate figures claimed by Divine Light Mission in its heyday. That's where these writers got the figures from. I know this because these are the same figures claimed by DLM that I heard in the 1970's from DLM. Back then where I live (a major metro area in the US) sometimes 300 people would attend a local program, when I left in the late 90's up to 30 people would attend, often less than 10 people. Now there are no local programs. The vast majority of the people I know of no longer follow Rawat, and those I know well are critical of him. There is no basis in concluding that those that no longer follow him (and they are the majority) are not critical of him just because they don't post on an ex-premie web site.

So, where's some actual evidence that there are 'hundreds of thousands' of ACTIVE followers? Claims by Elan Vital don't count.

1. (I know that this fact is hard to swallow for Andries, as he faces the same dilemma with his ex-guru: millions of followers and just a few ex-followers telling atrocity stories, but a fact remains a fact, nontheless)

2. Should the criticism of the ex-premies be described in WP? Of course. Should it be over-represented? of course not. It is my opinion that one article that 70% of it is dedicated to their POV is excessive, but that is were we stand now.
3. The ex-premies (those that call themselves ex-premies, that is) represent a minority position, but they are main source of criticism over the last 20 years (when was the last article published by Ancdrie's Dutch scholars?). As such, they are given full exposure. Given the nature of their allegations, rebuttals are a must to maintain NPOV.

--ZappaZ 02:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Scholars of NRMs made more or less the same comments as ex-premies now. Ex-premies' viewpoints are shared and cited by scholars such as Dr. Kranenborg citing Jos Lammers. Rawat was heavily criticized in the media before he sank into obscurity. Rawat receives in all guru ratings that I know a very low ranking. Conclusion, the ex-premies view is dominant and the majority. This is more or less similar for my guru, though he is not as obscure as Rawat. Andries 04:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of Psychological projection? Assuming and "forcing" your own understanding onto others (as if "my concept of reality is shared by most people, thus I am safe"). I woud invite you to read Robert Bly's, "A Little Book on the Human Shadow". You may find that interesting and helpful. --Janice Rowe

I'd prefer scholarly sources, pro and contra, and not assumptions about dispositions of editors here. I am telling that because i know how easy it is to get carried away. (Please Zappaz don't make me a self declared "carried away" while i am telling here this insight, like you did with Andries, whose selfrealization about his POV pushing attitude was taken by you as a self statement to nail him. And concerning your urge of apology from andries, isn't everything Andries has said more or less a compliment compared to a self declared SOB ([3])? Come on, can't you give us a smile about all that and take it easy? Thomas h 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, in Wikipedia a majority is not formed by the number of adherent and certainly not by Indians who do not know Rawat's background and who once visited a meeting by Rawat, but by informed opionons of scholars. Andries 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz wrote:

"We cannot discriminate between a cite by academic A and a cite by academic B, just because it does not support your POV. A long quote by Levine here and the deletion of quotes by academics and notable persons in the main article is not acceptable."

Yes, we can and should make a distinction between academic A and B. In Wikipedia we try to get good sources. Good sources depend on the specialization of the academics. Clearly academics such as psychiatrist Levine, religious scholar Kranenborg, and Schabel who specialized in NRMs, guru, cults etc. can be used as a source. The statements of the academics whose specialization is none of these but were impressed by Maharaji's message, as was the case on the main article, cannot be used as a source and should be classified as an opinion of a lay person and should be moved to Wikiquote. An analogy, we cannot use Einstein as a source for e.g. the ballet if he was impressed by a particular performance and wrote about that, only because Einstein is an academic.Andries 20:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Macgregor's allegations, and some corrections and balances

I want to ask editors if this statement allegedly from John Macgregor should be included in this article:-

In an 2005 affidfavit filed under oath, former Ex-premie John Macgregor seems to confirm many of these allegations. He names as the most prominent members and central organizers of this group John Brauns, Jim Heller, Marianne Bachers, Nick Wright and Jean-Michel Kahn. Macgregor says that in his personal experience many of the people in the ex-premie group are "irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger [...] and that when they purport to report on factual matters they are frequently false and defamatory, unsupported by actual fact basis, and motivated in many instances by hatred, ill will and spite."

Editors should be aware that Macgregor has never met any of the named former followers, and he has never spoken to me. Does Wikipedia allow such poorly sourced, and almost certainly libellous allegations, such as calling me and others "irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger"? If not, then the libellous content should be removed.

I've also removed or balanced other blatantly incorrect or POV content in this article. --John Brauns 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that you cannot use Wikipedia to state your own views. You cannot write "John Brauns says this and that", if you are John Brauns. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Andries can confirm that, so please delete or rephrase. As for the statements made in the affidavit, we are just describing these statements and quoting from them. These are legal documents and as such are quotable/citable, in accordance with WP policy. --ZappaZ 23:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also note that I have not met you either, but I have a pretty good idea of what you stand for, what your views are and what motivates you, etc. just by reading your comments. In these affidavits there is no mention of personal meetings, but that "in his personal experience..." Mcgregor thinks that these people are this and that. Again, we are just describing the statements and citing from these legal documents. --ZappaZ 00:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on the policy of WP:NOR and WP:VAIN I will be deleting statements made by John Brauns that were added by John Brauns himself, later today unless someone can attemtp to fix these policy violations. --ZappaZ 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

John has the right to give a rebuttal in an article in which he is personally mentioned. What John can do to make it according to Wikipedia guidelines is to write his rebuttal on the ex-premie website and then it can be cited here. Andries 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I am removing these additions for now. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about this, Andries? Can anyone create a web page, write whatever they want and then cite it in Wikipedia? Is that it? I can foresee spurious web pages and websites created out there just for the purpose of being able to be cited in this encyclopedia. If that is the case, the threshold for reputability would be so low as to render this concept meaningless.Janice Rowe

Is John doing this? I think this is a dilemma of Wikipedia that anybody can allege anything about John, and he shouldn't have the right to set this straight. Why don't you work on a solution to this problem unless you are not interested in John having the right to answer this Thomas h 19:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, anybody cannot allege anything about a person. Allegations must come from verifiable, reliable sources. So the first question is: are the allegations encyclopedic? Even if they are verifiable and reliable, do they belong on this page? Would an article devoted to Brauns be a more suitable location for comments about him? I don't have the answers, but there are relevant questions, IMO. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Will, these are good questions indeed. This is my view:

This article discusses the criticism and the critics of Prem Rawat, and as such relevant material can be included. A legal document as an affidavit filed with the Supreme court of Queensland, is citable/quotable if it is pertinent. Note that elanvital labels the ex-premie a "hate group" and here is a document that tends to provide some kind of evidence of such behavior. It will be a hard thing to convince any editors that these documents are not quotable, I am afraid. As for your statement "allegations must come from verifiable, reliables sources", you will also have a hard time convincing editors that the latter is a valid argument. The NPOV principle calls for attribution, not for assessment of reliability. That is, providing you can cite and show a reference, it would be NPOV to include. The assesment of reliability (or lack thereof) is left to the reader. --ZappaZ 00:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Are Elan Vital/TPRF "reputable" sources?

In the discussion above, Zappaz led me to the NOR policy where I found this:-

"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."

I think Elan Vital/TPRF qualify as an extreme religious group (they and their supporters of course would disagree), so all information sourced to their publications should be removed from the Prem Rawat articles. I appreciate this same argument could be used for original work in the ex-premie websites, but I am willing to follow this through regardless of the consequences. I think the end result would be an article based on the few academic studies (excluding Geaves' work because of his 35 years as a student of Rawat's), the newspaper articles in established publications (excluding the paid advertorials published in recent years by TPRF), the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" published by Bantam Books in 1973), and the few references to Rawat on reputable websites.

So, what do the editors here feel - should Elan Vital/TPRF sources be regarded as "reputable" by Wikipedia standards? --John Brauns 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are missing on the understanding behind that guideline. The issue discussed is with sources that make an accusation or a controversial claim aginst a public figure, for example. As such, that source needs to be checked for reputability. e.g. a website created by a communist group cannot be accepted as a reputable source to state in an article that Bush is gay. This is very similar as to say that a website that is dedicated to the disparragement of Prem Rawat, cannot be consided a reputable source about the character of Prem Rawat. In both cases their opinions could be stated within reason, and not as facts but only as attributed POVs.

You also missed an important sentence from WP:NOR about reputable sources, so I am including it FYI, with emphasis added:

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Note that if your proposal was adopted, a massive amount of content will disappears from WP as many of the sources for articles about organizations and their leaders come from the organizations themselves, their websites and their publications. Provided that these statements are propertly attributed, there is no problem. For example, in the Apple Computers article, you cannot say that "Apple is the most innovative technology company in the world", but it would be NPOV to say "In their marketing literature and advertisement, Apple computers tout their use of technological prowess and innovation as a competitive strength". The key to NPOV is attribution, providing sources for these, and using common sense to assess these sources. --ZappaZ 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lucy Dupertuis and Gordon Melton

Zappaz wrote a list of scholars who do not refer to criticism, but he incorrectly added Dupertuis who referred to criticism and Melton who mentioned criticism by Mishler. I will remove or re-write that. Read e.g Dupertuis "and when the surrounding society, nurtured on traditional psychology's negative views of religious ecstacy and sociology's distrust of authoritarianism, became critical, DLM withdrew into introversionism." Andries 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides there are several other scholarly articles who refer to criticism, e.g. Barrett's refers to criticism by Rawat's mother. Also Stephen A. Kent in his book from Slogan to Mantras mentions his personal criticism but I think that this is self-admitted subjective and he refers to criticism by the countercultural left in the 1970s, especially targeted on the convert Rennie Davis who was their prominent defector 1970s. Andries 14:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You got it wrong, Andries. There is a difference between scholars that leveled criticism against Rawat, such as Levine and there are scholars the reported on the criticism of others. Read my edit.--ZappaZ 14:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts?

If you revert an edit, it is customary to give your reasons for these reverts of editors. The fact that these are either newbies or anons does not give anyone the right to revert without an explanation. Restored. --ZappaZ 14:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

How far can you go in the use of double standard in Wikipedia and extremely biased editing, Zappaz? Restoring blatant POV edits such as here is just one the latest example of this. It is time to admit this and to apologize and to change your behavior before you make other editors angry too. And please then do not again complain about personal attacks and abuse against you on inappropriate places, such as the request for Admin entry, instead of defending and explaining your own behavior there. Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I did explain on the talk page of the editor. The edits are blatant POV and untrue. Kranenborg did provide references. And I do not see any rebuttal in the quotes, just personal opinions. Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The edit by anon wrote that ex-premies provide no evidence that Rawat made claims of divinity. That is a personal opinion and should be removed. I reverted. Andries 17:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if ex-premies have provided evidence of claims to personal divinity, could it be indicated on these pages? Clearly, there is evidence to the contrary, and sources have been provided. To revert this means you have to provide evidence where claims of personal divinity are made. Assertion is one thing; evidence is another. **Armeisen 23:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have also changed the references from stars to numbered footnotes, in keeping with Wikipedia style guides. **Armeisen 23:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is this not using double standard?

I am also waiting for an answer from you why your vehement opposition against using the UVA website for the article on Prem Rawat and the use by you of the same website for David C. Lane is not a blantant case of double standards. Thanks. Andries 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to lower your tone, Andries. I have answered in that article's talk. Note that I will not tolerate accusations or your attempts to escalate a simple edit into a fight. It seems that your anger feeds on these little edits. No way I will fuel that anger.. Bye for now and until Monday. --ZappaZ 14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you fuel my anger by your POV pushing, your use of double standard, your refusal to explain yourself and your unwillingness to admit mistakes. How can anyone not admit using double standards and apologize in such a clear cut case? I simply do not understand this. Andries 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am suprized that you write that this is a small thing ("simple edit", "little edits") for you after your extensive and elaborate discussion between us on the topic of using the UVa website for Prem Rawat on Talk:Prem Rawat. Andries 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Long quote by Levine

I re-inserted (among others) the long quote by Levine in the article because I do not know how to summarize this quote that is already condensed. I admit that I generally oppose long quotes in any article in Wikipidia, but this one is really informative about the psychology of followers and, again, I cannot shorten it. Andries 14:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The long quote and the re-addition of allegations will only result in my addition of rebuttals. Reverted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Levine's quote and yourt "inability" to shorten it, I find that the short citation is more than sufficient. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have not argued why my additions are irrelevant, or not notable. Please do not removed relevant information from the article. Thanks. Andries 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't thank me, Andries, unless you mean it. The article was paired down by Zappaz a few months ago, in a manner that the allegations as well as the rebuttals were removed. So, please do not play games with me about "please do not remove relevant information", as if nothing had happened for the last two years with this article. That version stayed stable for a few months. If you want to restart the war again, be my guest. It is a waste of time. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I never agreed with Zappaz version and the only reason why I did not change it was because I wanted to think about his edits and my lack of time. In contrast, you started endorsing and reverting to a new version with a completely different structure, though you and everybody involved had given your more or less formal consent to another version. Andries 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your agreement ot lack thereof is of no consequence, as this is not your article. Tens of editors have contributed since last time you did. Note that any type of personal acussations will be totally ignored by me and not addressed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I know that you do not trust me, but if you doubt my sincerity when I state that I am unable to summarize Levine's long quote then I suggest you try to do it yourself. Andries 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot summarize it, you can ask for help. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So I see that you are not interested in a dialog, just on a revert war. I am restoring the version that was stable for months. That is my last revert for today. If you revert back I will place a complaint for WP:3RR. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What is there still to discuss? We have discussed everything at nauseam. I see that you are only interested in removing critical information, including the testimony published in the media of the worldwide ex-president of the DLM, Bob Mishler and scholarly attributed criticisms, such as the one by Levine. Andries 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you, Andries, that you yourself edited this current version several times in October, if fact accepting the compromise edit by Zappaz. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I reverted several times to the old concencus version, but got reverted and hence I started changing the contents. Andries 16:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am placing a request for violation of WP:3RR≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is crazy! An ex follower of guru sai baba with an obvious grudge is the one writing this stuff against Prem Rawat? No way. Joshua Kermogh

Back at this again, Andries? I was under the impression that this was a resolved issue, but I see I am mistaken. I was warned by Jossi of your attempt to open the can of worms yet once again. I was having a great time away from Wikipedia and thought that you were over this already. You proved me wrong. --ZappaZ 19:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, Can you please explain why you removed the comments by Bob Mishler, the ex-president of the DLM? Same for Levine. Thanks. Andries 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

in spite of the unresolved topic i have reverted to Antaeus last edit. Come on, let's talk about it first. What's the problem? Thomas h 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It is inaccurate to say that I opened an ex-premie yahoo forum and I had publicly corrected this. I opened a forum for all interested parties. So any comments not related to this article can go there instead of here. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prem_Rawat_aka_Maharaji/ Andries 20:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article - it has been protected for almost three weeks. Please do not resort to edit warring if not all disputed issues have been resolved, but discuss on the talk page or try one of the established means of dispute resolution. Thanks. Izehar 16:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has been discussed to death and many request for comments have been placed and the opposing faction continue to disagree. Do you have any other suggestions? Andries 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism in the media

I have reworded this part somewhat. The original suggested that there was quite a deal of discussion of Rawat in the media during the 1970s but only two references were provided. This is hardly a "fair amount" in a decade; rather it is minimal. Certainly, if a reasonable number of references could be provided that cover the decade of the 70s, then the original wording of the article could be reinstated.**Armeisen 06:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There was quite a lot of media attention. I will check and add some more. Andries 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by the ex-premie group

The sentence, 'They call themselves "ex-premies," based on the practice, largely discontinued in the West but still used by Rawat, of Rawat's students calling themselves "premies."' does not make a lot of sense in the second part. On the one hand, the claim is that Rawat uses the term, and then so do his students; yet the practice is "discontinued". So, if it is "discontinued", who still uses it? I've changed the sentence to make it more internally coherent, to this: "They call themselves 'ex-premies,' based on the practice that was used in the 1970s and 1980s of calling Rawat's followers 'premies'. Outside India, that practice has been discontinued." **Armeisen 06:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, the sentence "Since the late 1990s, with the arrival of the Internet," is factually incorrect, since the internet "arrived" somewhat earlier that this. However, it is accurate to say,"Since the late 1990s, with the exponential growth in the internet and in the number of people accessing it,...". This is simply a stylistic change. **Armeisen 07:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims of personal divinity

The third paragraph of this section makes claims about Rawat's statements at Millenium 73. Is anyone able to verify these statements? If not, they should be removed. If they were reported, then there will be a source somewhere. There are many other verifiable instances when Rawat spoke about God and did not indicate that he was God. However, the source for the Millenium exchange would be good, because it is one of the few places where Rawat specifically diavows that he was god.**Armeisen 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are from the press conference at the Astroworld Hotel in Houston, Texas on Nov 9, 1973.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone has any evidence that Maharaji stated "I am greater than god" then perhaps the statement could be changed back. Does anyone have such evidence? Errol V 12:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I've tidied up some of the sentences and footnotes so that they read more clearly. This is a minor edit. I've also done the same for footnote 7 in "Criticism in the media". **Armeisen 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Miami Magazine reference missing

In the Divinity Claims section, there is this reference to a 1979 interview with Rawat in Miami Magazine:-

In an interview with the Miami Magazine, in 1979, Prem Rawat spoke of what he believed God to be. In answer to the question, "If God is within, can't people experience God without the help of someone else?", Prem Rawat said, "God being within is one thing, and experiencing God is another. Just like having water in front of you is one thing, and drinking is another. God is within you. God is omnipresent."[14].

The link '14' does not appear to work, and I cannot find any reference to Miami Magazine in the references section. Could the editor who added this section please correct this? Thank you. --John Brauns 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not add it, but I am trying to find out the date and issue number of that magazine were the interview apeeared. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article history, it appears the interview was in a publication called 'The Golden Age', from July 1979. I understand this is long out of print and that Rawat's followers were asked to hand back copies in the early 1980s. Do Wiki rules allow such a reference? Should the magazine article be scanned somewhere before reference is made in Wiki? --John Brauns 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A scan of a magazine article from a known magazine is not needed to be published as it is a copyright violation in most cases. Nevertheless, if the date and/or issue number of that magazine can be found, that would be acceptable as it would be verifiable. The cite refers to a the "Miami Magazine". I am making enquiries to find out information about such magazine and the date/issue in which it was published. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I hope you can find a verifiable reference for this. It it clear that the editor who inserted the paragraph was quoting from The Golden Age, and not Miami Magazine, so it is more likely that we will find a copy of the former. I hope you would agree that in cases where the publication is long out of print, then a published scan of the publication is required, especially where, as is so often the case with these Rawat articles, the content is disputed. --John Brauns 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For some unknown reason, those references were deleted. You are right, John, I was quoting from an interview in the Miami Magazine, reproduced in the Golden Age. I have a copy of that interview. Errol V 11:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm working through these references so that they all appear in a consistent format. For a while, they will not appear to be at all coherent. Please bear with me, for the final result will be worthwhile, as some references do not even appear at the moment. Errol V 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The ISBN number for the Rolling Stones book "The Seventies" is incorrect. I have corrected it and added a publication date. Errol V 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "claims of personal divinity" section is a reference to a press conference at the Astroworld hotel in Houston in 1973. Apart from this reference, is there anywhere that this press conference has been documented? A reference is only useful if someone else can check it, here that is not possible. Perhaps it should be discarded if there is no proper reference. Errol V 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "claims of financial exploitation" section is a reference to the claims against Rawat. Is there a reference for this? I have removed the reference, as there are no claims that any action was successful. Errol V 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the references have been transformed to the standard Wiki format, and I will delete those after no. 39 that still remain in the page in the old format in case anyone has any problems with the references as they stand. I will be editing some of the material now that the referencing is in a reasonable state. Errol V 13:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

"The sources of criticism come from individuals related to the anti-cult movement of the 1970s, some media articles from the 1970s and 1980s, articles by several scholars in the 1970s and early 1980s, and since the 1990s, some former students who call themselves "ex-premies."[1] The criticism is levelled at what they consider claims of divinity made by Prem Rawat, their unresolved dissonance between their former belief in Rawat's personal divinity, and his newer image as human teacher; at what they view as apparent historical revisionism, financial exploitation, hypocrisy, encouragement of uncritical acceptance, and at other issues."

This paragraph has problems. First, Rawat's divinity isn't the only complaint of ex-premies, there are 14 objections, which I think must be listed or at least summarized because this is the criticism article. Second, the mention of "cognitive dissonance" is unsourced, not to mention incorrect. In other words, "cognitive dissonance" is definitely not a complaint being made ex-premies. Using that term is POV and must come out. Sylviecyn 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph attempts to summarize the criticism, not just the criticism of the small group of people that call trhemselves "ex-premies". I would argue that their POV is a minority POV and too bloated and over-represented. I would condense all the criticism by this small group to a couple of paragraphs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Third Paragraph: Pejoratives - Cult/Apostasy

Jossi, the following sentence was changed to include the word pejoratively as follows:

"The criticism by ex-premies is pejoratively dismissed by Elan Vital as allegations typical of apostates."

It's not POV plus I included the link to the proper place in Wiki to show it's not POV. According to Wikipedia, in the section Category:Pejoratives, the word apostasy is a pejorative term just as the word cult is listed as a pejorative. I added the fact that EV is using a pejorative word to describe ex-premies, that's all. Whether or not I think apostate is a pejorative is immaterial because Wikipedia defines it as such. Let's not have a revert war, Jossi. What this edit does is to provide the reader with a clearer and more accurate description of EV's characterization of ex-premies when they refer to them as apostates. We can discuss this, or you can change it back to my edit. If you refuse both, I'll be reverting it the morning as I don't have the time now. Thanks! Sylviecyn 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say that Ean Vital uses apostasy as a pejorative. You can only say that they use the term. See WP:NPOV. Attributing a value judgement to a source is not POV. For example, saying "XYZ is stupid" is POV, but saying "A stament made by ABC says that XYZ is stupid" is NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on your logic, therefore, I can insert the comment: "Ex-premies dismiss Prem Rawat's and his student's revisionism of Rawat's past in the west and further claim that Prem Rawat is the leader of a destructive cult," without any qualification that the use of the word "cult" is a pejorative according to Wikipedia, and that would also be NPOV as well. I'm not saying I want to put that particular sentence into the article, but that's based upon your logic. Thanks. Sylviecyn 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on Marianne Bachers in litigation section

This overly-large section is POV pro-Rawat and is inaccurate. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Bachers won the suit. The settlement is confidential, so there are no sources for the sections which interpret the outcome. Only the parties and attorneys to this case are aware of the litigation specifics, particularly the settlement.

I ask user RenatoP to discuss this here because this new section might open Wikipedia up for litigation for libel and defamation, based upon the libelous information on One-Reality website of named individuals on that site (in addition to Ms. Bachers), if the section is left as is.

Also, please note that this article is about the "Criticism of Prem Rawat," not "Criticism of the Critics." Let's duscuss this. Thank you. Sylviecyn 13:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that your are mistaken about Bachers winning the suit. She did not. The suit was against 20 "John Does", and one of them came forward and counter-sued with a anti-SLAPP motion. Bachers withdrew the complaint and the person that counter-sued withdrew the anti-SLAPP. So, in reality she did not win anything. I would suggest that you read the documentation that is available online before you make any comments. The summary by RenatoP seems quite accurate IMO, but needs some formatting and cleanup, though. You may have been confused by statements she made on-line and that she later removed, but the reality is quite different as per RenatoP's summary. Regarding your comments about these statements being libelous, I would argue that as these are based on verifiable and on-line documentation, it cannot be labeled as such. As for the criticism of the critics, it is definitively appropriate. Note that Ex-premies redirects to here and that if the critics make statements is it appropriate to list rebuttals and other pertinent information about them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you have your favorite lawyer by your side, because your English ain't that good. Otherwise, I have no comments to make to you,Prem Rawat, your beloved Maharaji, or his cult's inner circle, Jossi. Sylviecyn 17:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What? I do not understand what you are saying.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is called Criticism of Prem Rawat, and yes rebuttals of these criticisms belong in this article. Comments about (former) followers are off-topic. Andries 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments about former followers belong to the article if related to litigation in the context of their criticism and if there are reputable sources can be used to describe it. Value judgements are not allowed unless fully attributed and sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they cannot, because they are off-topic. This article is not called Disputes between students of Prem Rawat and his detractors Andries 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes they can be included, of course. These are pertinent and not off-topic. This article redirects from Ex-premies, and includes material about alleged harassment of this group against students. As such, it can contain legal proceedings between these parties as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they cannot. Rebuttals of criticism of Prem Rawat belong here but this goes far beyond that and is a feud beteen a detractor and a current student. Let us request mediation, because revert wars or request for comments have in the past not brought us far. Andries 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

<< I don't think that mediation is necessary. The litigation stuff was there since the beginning of the article and should not be removed. You are welcome to edit the content and make it better if you wish, but censoring is not an option. And you can place an RfC if you want third-party opinion. As for revert wars, you are the one engaging in these and getting banned, so do not start one. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that we come a millimeter closer on this issue? I do not think so. Have requests for comments worked in the past? No. What is left? Mediation. Andries 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that most of the litigation stuff was here quite a while, but most of it is related to rebuttals of criticism. The latest case is not in any way removed with rebuttals with criticism, but is simply a feud about a personal attack on a website. Andries 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the court documents. When you do, you will see that it is highly relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UT)

I don't see how the One-Reality website can continue to be listed on any of the PR articles as a reputable source. Like it or not, Jossi, the result of the lawsuit is that Staker had to place this on the splash page:

In the past, I mistakenly posted statements that attributed criminal conduct to Marianne Bachers. I have since learned that these statements are false. I sincerely regret any harm that the misstaments [sic] have caused. All statements that impute criminal conduct to her have been removed from this web site. Ms Bachers and I have entered into an agreement under which neither of us will make statements about the other in a public forum. If either of us violates this agreement the violator will pay the other party the sum of $10,000.

This admission by Staker of misstatements on One Reality (spelled incorrectly to boot!) was a requirement of the settlement, and doesn't coincide with the Pro-Rawat slant within the section here based upon your legal opinion, Jossi, that Ms. Bachers lost. That doesn't sound like "lost case" to me. Furthermore, if Staker was mistaken about Bachers, it also places doubt on the One Reality website in terms of it having any credibility to be used as a source in any of the Rawat articles now or in the future. Also, who is the person RenatoP, that placed this here without discussion with other editors? It's very rude to do this without introduction of themself or explanation. When I asked for an explanation, you responded, Jossi. Is RenatoP your sockpuppet? I think this needs to be investigated by another admin.

Also, once again, this article is not about ex-premies. The redirect was agreed upon when you or someone else began another article called "Ex-Premies" when this one was also in progress. It was scrapped and redirected here, but the title of this article is "Criticism of Prem Rawat," which is the subject matter. Sylviecyn 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it very objectionable that you accuse me of sockpuppetry, and would suggest that you refrain to make such comments in the future, unless your intention is to taunt and provoke. I expect that you address this in your response. I find it even more objectionable that you want to remove material that you find to be against your POV, without taking the time to review the court documents that are publicly available. The material added by RenatoP does not say anything about a party winning or losing, so I do not understand when you speak of a "pro-Rawat" slant. I also never said that Bachers lost, just that she did not win either as she withdrew her complaint after Staker, one of the "John Does" she was suing came forward and filed an anti-SLAPP motion against her (you may want to read SLAPP#California for more info). So nobody won really, and that is what the material says. The material presents a chronological account of what happened during the litigation based on available court documents. As I said, the content needs to be cleaned up and tightened here and there, but in general it seems an accurate account of what happened. You are welcome to read the court documents yourself and see if you can improve the content. For example you could summarize Staker announcement and link to his website as a ref. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, why don't you mention that Staker lost his SLAPP suit and was appealing that dismissal when the parties finally settled? Funny how you leave that out.--Jim Heller 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I absolutely did not accuse you of anything, if you read my post, I asked you a question, which you still haven't answered. It's important to read the words, Jossi. Have a cup of tea and calm down now. I just found it strange that you answered a request that I made of RenatoP, an unknown editor, that's all. In fact, you haven't addressed my concerns or questions, you just went on the defensive here.

The thrust of the new text doesn't emphasize that it was a defammation case that obviously was settled in favor of Bachers and evidence of that is the blurb on Spaker's website and his removal of material about her. Also, this case don't concern EV or Prem Rawat, it was a legal suit between individuals. It doesn't belong here at all. The slant is that M. Bachers was harassing Rawat's students and continued to do so during the suit. It's totally POV. An example of this is the unsourced comment about how many hours Carlos Harden was deposed, with the very POV implication is that X number of hours, with X number of objections, is unusual in any case. Where's the source for that, and further, where's the source to provide information about how long an average deposition lasts and the average number of objections in the same? See? It's slanted and POV. There are many more examples of this within that section, which I will address as time permits. Sylviecyn 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have read the online court documents and they tell quite a different story than is spun in this article! Sylviecyn 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of sockpuppetry and I find that unacceptable. You have not responded to my objection about these accusations. And I am very calm, BTW. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, it was a question, not an accusation. I quote from above: " Is RenatoP your sockpuppet?" No accusation, maybe you read it incorrectly. Sylviecyn 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am willing to accept an apology, but I see that you have no intention to do so, Fair enough. Just note that if you say that "Is RenatoP your sockpuppet? I think this needs to be investigate--Jim Heller 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)d by another admin.", that loooks and feels as an accusation. OK? Otherwise, why would you ask for an "investigation"? Never mind, let's put that aside for now, but note that any more accusations such as these will not be acceptable and remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, at the same time, why not get another admin to look at your distortion of the public record vis-a-vis your involvement in the lawsuit? You clearly lied when you said that Marianne "failed absolutely" to interrogate you when you know that, in fact, you had already agreed to be deposed but were merely fighting over the extent of your testimony when the suit was settled. Your order for protection was an order to limit the terms of your testimony not avoid it altogether.--Jim Heller 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

???? What public record? What distortion? What this has to do with anything? This article is not about me. Please remain on topic, and refactor that comment you my talk page or yours. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The public record is all the filings and the exhibits attached which includes the letter stating that you'd agreed to the deposition which flies in the face of your claim that Marianne had "failed absolutely" to interrogate you. If that isn't a distortion, then nothing is. I can understand your being upset about this but who's to blame really? Why did you have to say that Marianne "failed absolutely" to interrogate you when you know that the only reason you weren't deposed was that everything was suspended pending Staker's appeal of his dismissed SLAPP suit? Don't blame me that you got caught.--Jim Heller 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, isn't this just like your saying that no one won anything? The fact is that Staker lost his SLAPP suit and was in the process of appealing when the parties settled. --Jim Heller 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bachers Litigation: what is "really" being said

Do Cynthia and Jim realize that they may in fact be defaming Ms. Bachers? Ms. Bachers posted a note to the Ex-Premie chatroom saying that although she did not obtain a judgment against Staker, she did manage to get permission to depose and interrogate some of Rawat's students. That statement was incorrect by dint of incompleteness: as the article makes clear, Bachers asked the court to continue this discovery and permission was explicity denied by the court. Have you read all the papers, Jim? What part of "all discovery shall cease" do you not understand?

Also, Jim and Cynthia don't want to bring up the fact that Ms. Bachers retracted the posting. That begs the question: WHY?

More importantly, and the real problem, is that above Jim and Cynthis say that Bachers clearly "won" her case. Since she sued for damages and none were obtained, and there was no ruling that the speech in question was false or defamatory, how did she "win", Cynthia? The only answer is that she "won" the right to depose premies. Therein lies your defaming Ms. Bachers. Even Jim will tell you that it is a violation of legal rules to file a complaint for the purpose of harassing or deposing people. Cynthia, if you insist that this was the goal of Ms. Bachers and that this goal was achieved, then you are CLEARLY saying she violated the bar rules. Is this what you two are saying? Does Ms. Bachers know that you are accusing her of professional miscionduct?

And Jim, Staker did not "lose" his SLAPP suit. I know you are only a criminal defense attorney for steet criminals (according to your own postings, anyway) but his defenses to Bacher's claim were never adjudicated. It was a denial of a motion, not a substantive decsion. Shame on you for misleading like that. Or didn't you study civil law?

Finally, what in the world are you doing here, anyway, Jim? This is a pattern for you. Come in, make a lot of half-truth arguments, offend and insult people, disprupt the flow of dialog, make a big loud ruckus about leaving (you accused the whole Wiki world of being "in the cult's pocket" and all sorts of conspiracy theories) and you go away...only to slink back in and start the whole thing over again. How can we miss you when you won't go away?RenatoP 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RenatoP, it's exceedingly hypocritical and cowardly to belittle what you think of my life in the world when you yourself are anonymous. Can you see that? If so, apologize. If not, say as much and let others judge you accordingly. I also don't know what you mean by "steet criminals". Is that an Australian expression perhaps? The fact is I defend people charged with crimes. What do you do in life? Any idea? Anyway, most of what you're saying is clear nonsense. Staker lost his suit. It was dismissed, not for some procedural defect but on its merits. In other words "substantively." Yes he filed an appeal but so what? A proper account would reflect that he lost and was appealing, not that nothing was determined.

But I'll comment a bit further as well on a bizarre trend I see in followers of Prem Rawat, the one-time Lord of the Universe. You, Jossi, Momento and others all seem to suffer from this problem and that's an inability to use or understand words properly. Where did anyone ever say that Marianne's only goal was to depose premies? No one did. It was one of her goals on the road to a larger one which she ultimately compromised in her settlelment. The fact is that every substantive interlocutary motion was decided in Marianne's favour including having Staker's SLAPP suit dismissed. Get real.--Jim Heller 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating to witness your denial of the facts. No substantive motion was decided in her favor. If it was, she would not have settled, would she? If she had any hopes to win her defamation case against 20 John Does, how come she suddenly decided to settle after one of them stepped forward and filed an anti-SLAPP motion against her? Yes, the motion was denied without opinion, an automatic adjudication to the appellate court, but during the mediation process that is a due diligence in the appelation process, Bachers settled. All that effort of two years attempting to go an a "fishing expedition" trying to interrogate students of Maharaji, gone bye bye as it never happened, by dismissing her suit 'with prejudice of complaint:

• with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost'
• With prejudice: When a case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you are so very, very wrong it's truly laughable. Marianne won every last application in court, substantive and procedural. She sued John Does because Staker, and whoever else associated with EV who is behind his defamatory one-reality site cowardly and hypocritically hid his identity anonymously while he lied and harrassed real people who simply have the audacity to speak out against their former cult leader. She sued Carlos Harden because he had said on another forum that he knew who these people were. Carlos sought a protective order saving him from having to testify. He lost. He then did testify and basically said that much of what he'd posted before was lies. Still, he offered some information such as the fact that -- get this -- his legal fees were being paid by none other than Charles Glasser, the self-promoting internet free speech maven. The irony is amazing. Here's Glasser fighting to protect an anonymous, defamatory website simply because it attacks the critics of his cult and its leader. Did he pay your fees to, by the way? Staker's?

Anyway, Staker then appeared -- only because someone had to and the cult decided that they might block Marianne's action by fighting it as a SLAPP suit. Someone would have to be the plaintiff for that action so finally the cowardly sniper behind one-reality stepped out from the shadows. He filed his suit. He lost. There's no such thing as an "automatic appeal" here. He simply lost. The judge denied his motion. That was completely substantive.

At that point, Marianne, having already won the right to depose others had subpoenaed you and, as I've shown before and despite your claiming that she "absolutely failed" in her efforts to interrogate you, you had already agreed to be deposed. You headed back to court to fight over the terms of your deposition but that motion was tabled because Staker filed an appeal of his loss.

It was then that Marianne and Staker settled. You ask why would someone settle if they've already won? That's such a naive question, Jossi, as there could be all sorts of reasons. There's always a risk in any litigation and perhaps Marianne didn't want to extend herself financially in case she did lose the appeal. NB: that's not necessarily a reflection on the relative strength of her case or the likelihood of winning or losing. It could be more a function of the downside if she did lose no matter how small the chance.

In any event, they settled. Now you, quite erroneously, read something into the fact that the case was then dismissed "without prejudice". God, Jossi, that's so funny! All that reflects is that this was, of course, a final settlement. It was a terms both parties must have wanted and agreed to. Indeed, I'm not sure if you can even have a settlement otherwise.

So what, at the end of the day, did Marianne win? Well, for one thing, she was able to learn that Carlos Harden, once a prolific online defender of Rawat's, was just blowing smoke half the time. She also won by learning that Charles Glasser, for some strange reason, would pay his legal fees. A more important thing she won was the knowledge that Staker was the one-reality sniper. She also won his application to have her suit dismissed (although, it's true, we don't know if that judgment would have been sustained on appeal. But then you could say that about any judgment that wasn't fought all the way to the Supreme Court.) More importantly, still, and something you never mention, Marianne won by forcing Staker to not only take down all his defamatory BS about her but to also have to admit on his site that it was all wrong. Staker's credibility, not that he ever had any, is shot.

Despite whatever outrageous spin you and your friends might want to put on this -- and you've already been caught in one clear distortion of the facts -- that's the real story.

--Jim Heller 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Really amazing to see your attempts to spin thi... Bachers walked away with nothing but a carefully worded announcement on Staker's website. As for the reasons for the Bacher's settlement, we may never know. The fact is that she folded when the appeal was filed, and that says a lot. As far as I can read from the appeal notice, Staker was ready to go all the way. In any case, you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine, and we have already taken too much time and space in this page to discuss this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Jossi, whatever. By the way, did Charles Glasser pay your legal fees too? --Jim Heller 19:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to RenaltoP and other Wikipedia users: I have chosen to use the name "Sylviecyn" as an editor on Wikipedia. No one here has my permission to use my real name and I consider it to be "outing," which is in violation of Wikipedia protocol. Thank you. Sylviecyn 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sylvienc: You have disclosed publiclythat you are Cynthia in your chatroom when you were posting as User:Another Ex-Premie, so your request for anonimity is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, Geoffrey Staker admitted he was mistaken, and he removed all of the defamatory material about Marianne Bachers from his One-Reality website, including accusations of criminality (with photos) about Attorney Bachers who is a member of the California Bar Association. That's an obvious part of the settlement (even though the settlement is confidential) otherwise the material about her would still be there and there wouldn't be a statement by Staker. That's what Attorney Bachers won. Let me reiterate: Staker removed defamatory statement against Atty. Bachers. Thereby her reputation as a long-standing civil rights attorney in California, is protected against further defamation by Staker on his website One-Reality, which is linked on the Prem Rawat articles here. For more information about Marianne's reputation as an attorney in the San Francisco civil rights attorney, see Women Defenders, MARIANNE BACHERS TO BE HONORED FOR HER LIFE-LONG DEDICATION TO HER CLIENTS ON DEATH ROW

Staker tried to ruin her reputation and he was stopped. That's not nothing, Jossi. Sylviecyn 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the lenghthy complaint (linked as a reference). Then tell me if she won anything, besides an well crafted announcement on Staker's website. She did not. Ms Bachers may be an excellent attorney in defending death-row inmates, but that has no relation to the case. Bachers settled when faced with an anti-SLAPP suit, and dismissed her lenghty complaint against 20 "John Does" with prejudice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, as you've conceded, you're not a lawyer and are incompetent to fully understand this litigation. And, as demonstrated when you falsely claimed that Marianne "absolutely failed" to interrogate you even though you had in principle agreed to be deposed and were only disputing the scope of your testimony, you are not a fair or reliable analyst of what happened here. As I tried to explain above, you are extremely misinformed about the law and, whoever's filling your ear, is filling it with nonsense. Who is that, by the way? Is it Charles Glasser? Did he pay your fees and Staker's as well as Harden's? And where'd he get the money from? Indeed, Jossi, why not invite your legal advisor, whoever it is, to come here and defend these wacky views of the law?--Jim Heller 18:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I was never interrogated by anyone, so she failed. And stop asking questions about my finances or my attorney or anything about my personal life, becase you aint' getting any answers. As for your invitation to "defend wacky views", note that for the 10th time I am telling you that Wikipedia is not a chatroom, USENET or a discussion forum. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And you may be a lawyer in Canada, but I am not sure you are familiar with civil law in the US and in particular in the state of California. I understand that you are a criminal defense laywer and you may not be familiar with US civil law. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm also entitled to insist that the facts don't get distorted. It's a gross distortion of language to say that Marianne failed ("absolutely failed" is what you first said) to interrogate you when you had already agreed to be questioned and were in the process of seeking a court order to limit the scope of the questioning when suddenly the whole process froze due to Staker's anti-SLAPP suit. You clearly misrepresented the situation. There's no point discussing it further as, once again, you refuse to use words properly.

But for your information, I went to law school in California and am easily familiar enough with civil law there to see that you're not.--Jim Heller 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not interrogated by Bachers or her lawyers, so I am entitled to say that she failed to do so. That is not a gross distortion of language, but a simple and plain fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Get real. Before you knew that I could access the lawyers' letters confirming that you'd agreed to answer Marianne's questions, you represented that she had "failed absolutely" to interrogate you. In other words, that she had tried but was unsuccessful. The truth, on the other hand, was that your deposition never came to pass because of the settlement. You can say all that you want but the record speaks for itself.--Jim Heller 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

She did not get away with her attempt to depose me, same as saying that she absolutely failed in her attempt to interrogate me. No only that but she failed in her suit agains 20 "John Does. Not only that but she dismissed her complain with prejudice. Now, these are facts ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And just in case you forgot your civil law studies:

n. 1) the act of voluntarily terminating a criminal prosecution or a lawsuit or one of its causes of action by one of the parties. 2) a judge's ruling that a lawsuit or criminal charge is terminated. 3) an appeals court's act of dismissing an appeal, letting the lower court decision stand. 4) the act of a plaintiff dismissing a lawsuit upon settling the case. Such a dismissal may be dismissal with prejudice, meaning it can never be filed again, or dismissal without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of bringing the suit again if the defendant does not follow through on the terms of the settlement.[4] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the parties agreed to this term. So what? Why don't you talk about the fact that Staker was forced to stop defaming Marianne and to acknowledge that he'd published wrong information about her? Anyway, your credibility is left as it is. The facts speak for themselves.--Jim Heller 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Credibility, you say? Then explain the statement Ms Bachers posted in your chatroom about the failed lawsuit, and then removed a few hours later without explanation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch it, Jossi. Unless Marianne actually spoke of her lawsuit as "failed" you are once again misrepresenting facts and distorting reality. My recollection is that Marianne told the story much as I have. She explained the suit and that the parties settled. Nowhere did she say that she failed. You either suffer from a language problem, a logical problem or an ethical one but Marianne did not say that her lawsuit "failed". As for why she took down her post, again, there could be all sorts of reasons. Why don't you ask her?--Jim Heller 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the one with the lanuage problem is you. I did not say that Bachers said that the suit failed. She posted an account that have lead you and others to believe that she won the suit. And then she took it out for reasons that we can only speculate about (my opinion of why she did that I chose not to comment on). I have absoultely nothing to ask of her. And that is my final comment on this long off-topic discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't say Marianne said her suit failed but the way you characterized it as such, particularly given that this is what we're arguing about, implied that she'd conceded something along those lines before deleting her post. Why else would you even mention her post and its deletion? Anyway, I'm not anywhere near as inexperienced in the law nor as generally sloppy as you, thankfully. I never said that Marianne won her suit so don't make yet another mistake by putting those words in my mouth. I said that she won every ruling, procedural and substantive, that occured until the parties settled and that's exactly what happened. Would you like to go through them all individually? You have demonstrated much about yourself through all this.--Jim Heller 00:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)