Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a very strong recommendation to remerge back into the main article (or otherwise refactor the article(s) in order to better achieve the mandatory neutral point of view. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion thread, however, is ridiculous. 95% of the discussion is raving and bickering unrelated to the specific decision at hand. I strongly recommend that the parties in this discussion seek mediation. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat[edit]

Is this the mother of all POV forks? For sure it sets a bad precedent, violates policy and in effect resulted in both Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat to be in totally unencyclopedic style. Merge and redirect. --Pjacobi 16:31, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

  • Keep and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. This VfD is incorrect. There is no Wikipedia:Deletion_policy for what you call a POV fork. Pls note hat this article needs attention. Too many external references and mostly to one singular website. That in itself is inappropriate. The article needs to be re-examined and cleaned up if to remain in Wikipedia. In its current state it is not encyclopedic and sooner or late it will be up again on VfD. --Senegal 22:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not entirely. An article named 'best foo' or 'reasons why xyzzy is bad' tends to be inherently POV. Especially if a NPOV article on the same subject already exists. It would make the most sense, both for an encyclopedia and for NPOV, to put all pro and contra information in the same article. Radiant! 20:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am wondering myself what is going on here? I remeber user:eloquence initiating the critics paragraph in the main article, pointing out that it is mandatory there and that it has to include the link to Criticism of Prem Rawat.Bit funny that is, that he never mentioned that article as being against any policy. But for germany i am sure, we have other rules. ;-) Thomas h 19:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    I vote NOT to delete. In my opinion, and the opinion of all former followers of Prem Rawat who have expressed an opinion, the main Prem Rawat article is 90% pro-Rawat POV. That is a natural consequence of the Wikipedia system, where articles will always reflect the opinions of those who are willing to dedicate the most time to editing. I and others were able to spend some time ensuring that the criticisms of Rawat were at least included on Wikipedia, and although I don't have the time and the inclination to police these articles full-time, after the work I put in to this article, I strongly object to it being deleted. If it was to be deleted, then all the criticisms would have to be included in the main article, which would, I understand, make it too large. --John Brauns 20:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is total BS. The Prem Rawat article was developed over months of deliberations and give and take with the participations of senior editors until it achieved a concensus state that both sides could live with. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
We're not talking about Prem Rawat. We're talking about an article called Criticism of Prem Rawat. Do the editors you speak of all agree that Criticism of Prem Rawat is NPOV? Or was some kind of a deal cut between two factions in which one faction agreed to tolerate Criticism of Prem Rawat in order to protect the Prem Rawat article? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was no such "deal cut". Pro and con factions as well as neutral editors worked on both articles and achieved consesus on both. There are two consesus versions clearly labeled as such in the articles' history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=6365213 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=6403494. --Zappaz 05:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is that why you created this article, Jossi, and said "Opposing views can go here"? I'm ashamed for you, Jossi. I pointed out that this VfD could set a bad precedent; if it passed, partisans would push first to isolate all criticism of their idols into seperate articles, and then hypocritically push for those subtopic articles to be deleted as "POV". But I never had the idea that you would lend yourself to such a dishonest scheme. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not aware of any policy that the article violates; there is also an article Criticism of Wikipedia. There is too much criticism to go in the main article. The article has some problems but that is not a reason to delete it. Problems are too detailed, too much space for rebuttals (some of them are "made up" and flimsy and even ridiculous in the case of accusations of strong bias of respected Dutch scholars and scientitsts), and it contains irrelevant ad hominem attacks on the critics of Prem Rawat. Andries 20:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You found in your country one student (Win Ham) that was quoted Then a Van der lans was quoted by Schnabel. Rebuttals were needed given your tedious insistence to quote from obscure Dutch journals, pathetically trying agrandize their standing, when actually its a known case of circular reference. You and your ex-premie friends brought this onto yourselves. Specially you. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Your reply shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Haan was not quoted by van der Lans. I do not blame you for that because you cannot read those Dutch articles but I do blame you for thinking that you know and giving flimsy and even ridiculous rebuttals. Andries
OK. But face it Andries, your Dutch "scholars" are a student of religion in a small-town in the Netherlands that belonged to a Christian critical movement, a pastor that wrote a book for the KVG (a Christian group) without providing any citatcions to his asessments, and a person that wrote a PhD based on the book of this pastor. Give me a break. Helpless. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • From what Andries says, the problem seems to be an ongoing revert war in the main Prem Rawat article. The proper way of dealing with that is asking for Moderation or Arbitration, not creating a new article on the same topic (because, if the new article is not locatable, it is rather pointless; if it is locatable, it merely provides a new ground for the revert war). As such, merge. Radiant! 20:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Radiant, the situation we have is that if a conscientious, independent, journalist were to write an article on Prem Rawat it would include all the negative aspects of his life so far. The article on Rawat is a whitewashed version of his life so far. What has happened on Wikipedia, is that we former followers of Rawat, who are most qualified to talk about those negative aspects, have been attacked, ridiculed, and marginalised. We don't have the time, inclination, nor respect in the Wikipedia process, to continously fight Rawat's supporters, so when the criticism article was created, a few of us did put the work in to ensure that readers would have the opportunity to read the information that Rawat's supporters are trying to hide. I would support merging the articles, but am loath to go through the arguments again. --John Brauns 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's exactly my point. You claim that the article is POV. Now the procedure to follow is to discuss this with the people that hold said POV, and if that fails, ask for mediation. Or arbitration. It is not appropriate to create a new article like this. Radiant! 09:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
The situation we have is that if a conscientious, independent, journalist were to write an article on the group of criticis of Prem Rawat that call themselves ex-pemies, it will place them in the correct light: a small, marginal group of obsessed ex-followers with a public agenda of intolerance and harassment. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Did you ever try the RfC, Mediation, RfA cascade? --Pjacobi 23:09, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
pJacobi, ask yourslerf why is John Brauns suddenly so interested? His contributiion to WP has been nil. Whay do you listen to him. He is only here to push his group's agenda of harassment that is so well documented. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:45, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, I thought I explained the level of my interest very clearly in my post. I check out the articles once a week or so, and intervene where significant changes happen or are proposed. Deletion of the article is clearly a significant change. I contributed significantly to the Criticism article. I haven't the time, the interest, nor the belief in the system to put any more time into Wikipedia. That should be clear enough for you. There is certainly nothing sinister requiring highlighting of the word 'suddenly'. --John Brauns 07:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well documented? The only well documented case is John MacGregor case who was sued into bankrupcy for a small offense and is now suffering for a suicidal depression due to this. Andries 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Andries is right - none of the other allegations on Elan Vital's websites are documented at all, let alone 'well-documented'. --John Brauns 07:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, not for the Rawat articles. In the end I was reasonably happy that any readers would be able to do the necessary research to avoid being ensnared by Rawat's cult. I did try to get the mention of former followers ("ex-premies") as a "hate group" removed from the Hate Group article, but to be honest, the process is so laborious, and Rawat's supporters so dedicated, I gave up. All I do now is keep an eye (maybe once a week) on the Rawat and Criticism articles to ensure that nothing too inaccurate gets included. --John Brauns 23:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I tried a Rfc and very few editors responded. Andries 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no ongoing revert war, i really have a problem with such superficial statements by now. Many people that give their comment about that thing don't even take their time to read the articles and talkpages, especially pjacobi . If you wanna see an edit war read the talkpages from august/september/oct last year. Too vigorous for you? Then please shut up. Thomas h 21:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with Thomas_H though he could be a bit more polite. Please read the articles and possibly the discussion pages incl. the archives BEFORE voting here. Andries
  • Keep. I believe that the VfD is founded on a mistaken notion of what WP:NPOV means and calls for; I do not believe that it even is a "POV fork", let alone "the mother of all POV forks" as Pjacobi calls it. A POV fork, to my understanding, would be if someone who didn't get his way at Criticism of Prem Rawat started a new article with a title like "[[Censure of Prem Rawat]]" -- creating a second article that is in every real respect on the same topic as the first, with no good reason to do so and with the bad reason of avoiding/defying consensus in this fashion, by filling the second article with that which he had been blocked from at the first.
This is not "forking" in that sense; it is instead separating out one aspect of a larger topic to be covered in detail in its own article. (If you try to edit either article right now, the editing screen will actually suggest to you that you do this -- that you find a way to spin some of the detail off to a new article.) Pjacobi seems to be arguing that that particular aspect is inherently POV, but he seems to mistake "people will clearly have strong POVs on the subject" for "the subject is clearly inherently POV". IMHO, it is difficult for a subject to be inherently POV; to do so it usually either has to incorporate an opinion directly into the article title or it has to commit the existential fallacy. Direct opinion-incorporation into the article title (like Radiant!'s "[[Reasons why XYZZY is bad]]" is usually so clumsy that NPOVing the title is easy and produces a better title, like "[[Criticisms of XYZZY]]". Of course, in theory the new title could be committing the existential fallacy -- but to do so, it must be making an assumption that something exists, and there must be serious dispute over that statement of existence. Is anyone actually seriously claiming that Prem Rawat has never been criticized??
A final note on the timing: this article was created eight months ago, by a self-described proud student of Maharaji. It was specifically created as a place for critical views of Prem Rawat to be aired (as can be easily verified). For eight months, it has served that purpose. Now it's being claimed that the subject itself is inherently POV and that this merits deletion of the article? I trust that Pjacobi nominated this VfD in good faith and that he does not want a bad precedent to be set, but I can think of a worse precedent that could be set, that of separating the sub-topic "Criticism of ..." out to a separate article when the main article gets too large and then saying "No, this article shouldn't exist, we'll have to merge those parts which fit back into the main article." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is about one of ten VfDs on POV forks, I participated in. Just today, by random chance, I put up four of them (thanks to Andries for pointing to Criticism of Wikipedia). Generally speaking, most senior editors tend to agree that all POV forks must be killed. This discussion is to clarify, whether the situation with this article is special.
But the most important things I've heard so far, is that the main Prem Rawat article is 90% pro-Rawat POV, that The article on Rawat is a whitewashed version of his life so far and that Rawat's supporters [are] so dedicated, I gave up. This strongly suggest to me, that the entire topic needs serious re-assessment, and merging the Criticism of Prem Rawat article into the main article would be a very important first step.
Pjacobi 00:26, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Prem Rawat article was developed after a very long process of give and take and agreed by consensus. Read the abundant archives if yoiu want to check it. It is fully NPOV as agreed by many. many editors that participated in its development. The statement you quote is probably made by one of the critics trying to push his POV. You bought that complaint without checking. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:09, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, you created the article that you're now trying to delete. You created Criticism of Prem Rawat and the very first text you put in it was "Opposing views can go here." If we looked closely at the edit history of Prem Rawat, what would we really find? Would we find you making any effort to make and keep Prem Rawat an NPOV article or would we find you removing criticisms and saying "Put that over in Criticism of Prem Rawat, that's why I created it!"? And now you're trying to delete your own article as too POV?! -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Why not? How could I have known that the article such a stupid article? --≈ jossi ≈ 21:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if the main article is already NPOV, then this criticism should be deleted. If the main article is POV (as mainly the author of this criticism claims) then they should be merged. Either way this criticism has no real reason to exist.
The problem is, eliminating the article on Criticism of Prem Rawat is unambiguously and definitely a POV move unless the material is fairly merged into the parent article. Who is going to guarantee that "fair"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Is Prem Rawat that notable he has to have an entire article that exceeds quota? I find that very hard to believe. Megan1967 00:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't think a controversial religious figure could possibly merit more than 32KB? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The main article on Prem Rawat already includes a summary of the criticism. The critics pushing to keep this article are a tiny group of ex-followers that are using the Internet as a way to increase their perceived relevance. They do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism. Prem Rawat is a remarkable teacher with hundreds of thousands of students in 80 countries. In 2004, 50,000 new students learned his techniques for finding peace within. Last year he spoke in front of 1.4 million people. In 2004, he received the keys to the Citiy if Miami and spoke at the Italian parliament and the Universal Forum of Cultures in Barcelona, etc. See http://tprf.org/media_press_room.htm. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
"They do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism." Oh, so is that why you created an entire article for their viewpoint? An article that you are now trying to delete as too POV (isn't the truth really "not the right POV"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Obvious POV fork. Why are we suddenly getting so many of them? Criticism of Prem Rawat belongs in the Prem Rawat article. Those critical of Prem Rawat need to be able to state the case in a manner that is tolerable to those supportive of Prem Rawat, and vice versa. If the Prem Rawat article needs to be split because of size, it should be split on the basic of topic, not point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dpsmith, this is not an "obvious POV fork". There was so much criticism that it could not all go in the main article. The main article contains a summary of the criticism. The construction was agreed upon both by believers and opponents of the guru. If you do not have time to read and study the subject then DO NOT VOTE HERE. Andries 05:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right, it's just an amazing coincidence that Prem Rawat is overwhelmingly favorable and Criticism of Prem Rawat is overwhelmingly critical. What we have here are two articles neither of which presents a neutral point of view. Why not split the article by topic? Prem Rawat's life and the movement he inspired? I'd add that the 32K guideline is just a guideline. Articles over 32K should be split so that a very small number of older browsers are capable of editing the article as a whole, but there's never any urgency about that. Sections over 32K should be split promptly, of course. My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dpbsmit, The article Prem Rawat is not overwhelmingly favorable nor is the article Criticism of Prem Rawat overwhelmingly critical. The opposing factions would both like to have sentences to be deleted in both articles. E.g. in the Prem Rawat article the students of Prem Rawat would like to see the statements by Mishler about the succession removed. And the opponents/ex-premies would like to see the rebuttals and the ad hominem attacks on them removed in the Criticism of Prem Rawat. I repeat ad hominem attacks. How can you say then that the article is a POV forks when there is such a strong mixture of negative and positive issues in both articles? Andries 20:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Shrug) I calls 'em as I sees 'em. To me the structure of the article is "critics say negative thing, critics say negative thing, critics say negative thing, supporters say brief rebuttal. Critics say negative thing, critics say negative things, critics say negative thing, supporters say brief rebuttal etc." Your mileage may vary. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Smith, a more accurate summary of the article would be "Wiki contributors give corroborated information about Rawat that Rawat supporters don't want in the main article, Rawat supporters give lame rebuttal..." Actually, I'm coming around to the view that we should merge the articles. I am willing to put the time in to ensure that only reliable sources are included. Any sources that are proven to be unreliable will have to be rejected, or quoted as such in each reference. For instance, I can prove that Elan Vital and TPRF are unreliable sources for information about Prem Rawat. The only other sources are independent media articles, and personal testimonies. Yes, let's merge the articles - should be an interesting exercise. --John Brauns 23:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DpSmith, no you do not give a fair description of the article. A fair description is: Criticism followed by rebuttal and that ten time repeated. Please show me one criticism without a rebuttal. Andries 01:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It should be an interesting excercise indeed. Vote for delete and merge. I am ready for you. It will be fun. --64.81.88.140 00:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete , about time. total bigoted pov. --Phat grrl 04:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Phat grrl has eighteen edits.
  • Keep and cleanup Abstain for now, it took us months and a huge effort to get to where we are now. (Discussions filled over eleven archives on this article alone: Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat). The article may need some cleanup, though. I do not think I have the stomach for another round. I'll have to think about it. If there are good editors that want to attempt this, I warn you it won't be easy. An opened can of worms is too poor of an analogy... --Zappaz 06:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) --Zappaz 05:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • user jacobi hasn't until now, pointed out one single line of the article and explained, why it is POV,the same in the german wikipedia. Rename the Critics in "annoyances with prem rawat" or something else and he will have an argumentation problem. Tell me jacobi, is it that the POV-fork results in a buffer overflow of the wikipedain policy stack and therefore it has to be avoided? My advice: rewrite the library. Maybe you do better some programming. Your decisions based on your lack of your ability to read properly are proven, by setting the urv-flag in ther german article because you couldn't find the author's names in the head of the article. Thomas h 09:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - branching out criticism articles is not POV if the subject is summarised in the main article. Thus, the remedy here is to include a few summary paragraphs in the main article - David Gerard 13:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • David, a few summary paragraphs are already there: Prem_Rawat#Criticism. And it is more than enough. Why should Wikipedia allow a tiny group of vociferous critics with a stated agenda of harassment and intolerance to fill an article with their conspiracy theories, "testimonies", hearsay, innuendo and obsessions? --≈ jossi ≈ 15:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Why should Wikipedia be used to freely advertise a heavy drinking, smoking, adulterous, lying, greedy, religious cult leader, by a tiny group of vociferous cult members, with a stated agenda of harrassment and intolerance to critics, to fill an article with gushingly uncritical praise, and not a single objective critical analysis of Rawat's very flawed life???? Jossi, prove to these neutral people here that you are capable of objectively criticising Rawat, and list three mistakes you think he has made in his life. I will wager that you cannot. --John Brauns 19:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If this is what you think, don't be surprised when people say you belong to a hate group. Prove to this neutral people that you are not doing this out of compulsive, obsessive hate. Your are the worst kind of bigot there is, insuferably self-righteous, and pathologically obtuse. --64.81.88.140 00:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear 140, this isn't an issue of what I think, but what are the facts. As a follower of Rawat for 25 years, I think that other followers, and prospective followers, have the right to know the truth about Rawat. Would you follow a diet from someone who was obese? Rawat clearly does not have peace in his life otherwise he wouldn't drink heavily, smoke, cheat on his wife, and demand the best material gadgets his followers' money can buy. All these allegations have been repeatedly corroborated, as well as the fact he lies about his past. The truth might look unpleasant expressed in the stark terms I did, but for someone who makes the claims he did and still does, it is clearly in the public interest that the truth about Rawat be known. And where have I been obtuse? Anyway, looks like the consensus is now to keep the articles as they are, so you will be spared months of arguing about the validity of every source for the Prem Rawat article. --John Brauns 07:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't call me dear, pleeeze! 25 years? So why did you stay with Prem rawat for 25 years? If you were so stupid to follow him for so long, what makes you now credible? The fact that you left him? How does that work? Sudden enlightenment?
  • Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth. Professor Bryan R. Wilson, Fellow Emeritus at the University of Oxford.
  • Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group. Bromley, Shupe, and Ventimiglia
I rejected Rawat largely because he, and Elan Vital, kept information about Rawat hidden from me. When I became aware of this information, I considered it, considered the good aspects of my involvement, and made my choice. I became active as I think other people should also be able to make the same informed choice. I partially agree with these statements about the bias of former followers, but I am sure everyone agrees that testimony from current followers is at least, but probably more, unreliable. I know my testimony as a follower was, although sincere, unreliable, as I wasn't aware of the facts. Being aware of my own potential for bias, I try to ensure that the facts on ex-premie.org are verified. Facts are facts - we might put different weight or spin on the facts because of our bias, but unless the facts are disputed (and Elan Vital have yet to dispute a single fact on ex-premie.org), they should stand so that interested readers can make up their own minds. The only argument I can think of for not publishing facts about a prominent person is that it could be an invasion of privacy. In the case of Rawat, as he claims to be able to teach a method of achieving personal peace, how he exemplifies this peace in his personal life is of utmost importance, and is definitely in the public interest.
The solution to the problem of current and former supporters having bias, is to have the article written by people who have never been involved, are not related to current or former members, and of course have not been hired by current or former followers. The flaw in this is that very few such people have any interest in the subject of Prem Rawat. The few independent newspaper articles that have appeared in recent years have no problem in including criticism of Rawat. --John Brauns 10:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • David, we're not talking about the Prem Rawat article, which arguably is NPOV because of the short "criticism" section. I don't say I think it's NPOV, but it's arguable. The question is with Criticism of Prem Rawat. Do you honestly think this article is neutral? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DpbSmith, articles do not have to be neutral but they have to follow NPOV guidelines. The critical points in the article all follow the NPOV guidelines. If you think otherwise then please tell where. They are well documented and in some case voiced by objective, unbiased academic sources such as Haan, Schnabel and van der Lans. Some of the rebuttals to the points of criticism are flimsy and undocumented and sometimes even ridiculous and do not always follow NPOV guidelines. Andries 19:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't it strange that now you're talking about why should they be "allowed" to fill an article with their views of Prem Rawat when you were the one who created the article and said "Opposing views can go here"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Antaeus for that one, i didn't know this, though i watched the talkpages intensively. That is indeed strange. In fact, a deceptive trap. I am still wondering with what kind of dubious characters i will be confronted here yet. 19:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)Thomas h 19:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, you uncovered a worthy piece of evidence. Of course it is hard to assume good faith, when a contributor of the main article creates a "Criticism of..." article and advises critics to put their arguments on that page. --Pjacobi 21:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
Hold on. You are mistaken. The Prem Rawat article was not written by a group of supporters. See the history and the contributors. The article contains information that is not all supportive of Prem Rawat. This is not about being allwoed to do this or the other. The decision to add an article about the criticism as presented by the4 ex-premie group was made by consensus and by the mediation of User:Gary D. Problem is the article evolved to be this strange cocktail of hearsay, testimonies from apostates, and citations of obscure Dutch scholars. That is why thus article needs either a good cleanup or to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


  • i agree with yossi, and i have already mentioned user:eloquence who started this paragraph. Although i hear those words that you use jossi, mostly coming out of your mouth, as if you are married to them; does repeating it like a parrot, make them become real one day? i once have had a friend who tried to solve his relationship problems that way, not very successful, unfortunately. No we have a german sysop here pjacobi who wants to play the sherrif. Makes a big mess and will then dissapear again, leaving us with the pieces.Thomas h 15:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record: I'm not admin on any wikipedia. --Pjacobi 21:07, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Keep. The main descriptive information about Prem Rawat is at 32KB, and could be larger. The criticism/controversy information about Prem Rawat is at 32KB, and could be larger. Attempting to include both these aspects in a single 32KB article space would lead to condensation and omission to the point of unintelligibility. Larger articles are indeed to be broken out according to topic, and that is what happened here: the criticism/controversy article is actually a large break-out Prem Rawat subtopic article. It cannot be scattered into other articles because it fills an entire 32KB article space all by itself.

Prem Rawat is not one article, but actually a complex of several articles: a main introductory description/history article, one on his teachings, one on his support organization, one on his father, one on criticism/controversy, one on his yoga techniques, a few other minor ones. This complex of articles, and especially the main and criticism articles, are the product of hundreds of user-hours (no exagguration) and many real-time weeks of patience, research, delicate political negotiation, wading through invective, and carefully executed and justified editing. When the process was complete, the results were an example of a balanced and informative text crafted in a polarized atmosphere where everybody had the ability at any moment to press the delete button, but managed to compromise anyway. When it was finished, we specially marked those versions in the edit history as the final reference versions, so that they could serve as baseline versions if there was too much "info creep" or "POV creep" in subsequent editing.

Those final reference versions represent the best and most encyclopedic, readable, and informative work complying with the 32KB rule that could be produced on this highly polarized topic in the "mutually assured deletion" Wikipedia environment. I am weak at the thought of all the work they took. I am weak at the thought of it all going away. --Gary D 03:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Gary D, I appreciate all this effort, and I agree that splitting the article using factual subtopics (like teachings, organinzation) is the method of choice. But the having a separate "Criticism of Prem Rawat" (in its current state and with it objectives) is surrendering the NPOV. The Criticism article and all other P.R. articles give totally different views about P.R. - this is the core issue, why this is an undesirable POV dork. Of course, of the P.R. critcs themselves are notable enough, the "Criticism" article can be used to depict them. --Pjacobi 11:44, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Critics notable? How can an tiny group of vociferous critics (approximately 20 of them) can be notable? I'll tell you how: by obsessively posting hundreds of thousands of posts about P R and spamming the search engines with it, that's how. Yes, a small group of obsessively dedicated people, can become notable ... but to allow them to use Wikipedia as a soap-box to become even more notable? That would be a travesty. Do they deserve a mention, of course! But a whole article based on hearsay and apostates' testimonies? Outrageous. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, you do realize that in the real world, the testimonies of the people you label "apostates" are considered more reliable than testimonies from current members? Former members may have some sort of vested interest in portraying the group in a certain light. But current members definitely have such a vested interest. The small number of supposed "experts" on new religious movements who claim that apostate testimonies must be discounted is dwarfed by the rest of the social science world who view such disaffected former insiders as their most valuable informants. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting your use of real world. What is the real world, Antaeus? Apostate testimonies are not all equal. I am talking about the group of apostates that have been labeled professional enemies. Note that most people, just move on, taking with them whatever experience they had. I have several close friends that no longer practice Maharaji's teachings. They learned what they learned, they did not see the need for a teacher anymore, and they stopped being students. No big deal. Then there is the few of those that make it their purpose in life to become professional enemies. Some of them make a career and a living out of it. They write books, become special "witnesses", etc. Others just become consumed with their hatred of their former love. Some of them become obsessed, bordering on the pathological. Do you know that these people come together online daily to check the latest news on Maharaji, day after day, after day, after day for years? Regarding your assertion about the "rest of the social world", note that Sociologists have studied the subject and most agree that testimonies of professional apostates is not reliable. There is abundant research in the subject. Apostates such as the ex-premies are not an exception. They are a minuscule group, and yes, in a free society they have the right to express their point of view, as long as their actions do not impinge on other people's freedoms. Their actions speak for themselves. Since we started working on these articles, I have received hate mail of the most disgusting nature, targeting me and my family, for the only reason that I post here under my real name. Tell me that this is also part of being the most valuable informants. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Jossi, but you're committing the ad hominem fallacy from the moment you classify some critics as "professional enemies". You're right that most sociologists do not regard the testimonies of "professional apostates" as reliable. That's because real scholars don't commit such a fallacious pre-classification to begin with! Tell me, if you were the Better Business Bureau, and you were trying to find out who were the good companies to do business with, and who were the ones ripping off their customers -- would you automatically classify any former customer who says that a company behaved with complete disregard for their customers and for the law, and who is angry about that, and who lets people know about it, as a "professional unsatisfied customer" who is not to be believed?! Why on earth wouldn't someone who was cheated and tricked by an unethical company be rightfully angry, and why on earth would it be considered evidence of bad faith for them to blow the whistle on the goings-on? And yet you're claiming that the majority of the academic world (instead of a tiny minority disproportionately relied upon by cult-structure groups) takes any public announcement of "I was cheated and tricked by an unethical group" as not just evidence, but proof of bad faith, of being a "professional apostate". Any so-called scholar who decides that only those former members who are not angry enough to speak up are a truthful source of infomation on whether the group did anything to be angry about is a scholar not worth his salt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are you a sociologist your self that you speak with such confidence about this subject? Really... Are you saying that Eileen Baker, Reender Kranebourg, Jeffery Haden, Gordon Melton, David Bromley, Irving Hexman, Anson Shuppe, and Douglas Cowan to name just a few are not trustworthy? Are you sure you know better? Have you read their books, papers and encyclopedias? Or maybe have you bought the buls*t spread by Anton Hein? The smear campain against them by the countercult movement is expected, but does not make it right, neither appropriate. Talk about ad hominem attacks! --64.81.88.140 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All right, let's do that, let's talk about ad hominem attacks. As you know, though it is quite often conflated (accidentally or deliberately) with the general notion of any sort of identification of a person or any sort of critical commentary about that person, ad hominem actually refers specifically to trying to disparage an argument, not by finding flaw with the argument, but by imputing flaws to the person who holds the argument, or by suggesting some particular rewards that a person would stand to gain from the triumph of their argument, and arguing that such flaws or rewards, in themselves, somehow affects the validity of the argument. So, looking at this, we can clearly see that "the testimonies of apostates are invalid because they are serving some pathological inner hatred" and "the testimonies of apostates are invalid because they are making careers out of criticism" are exactly examples of this latter type of fallacy, ad hominem circumstantial attacks.
Now, sound academic scholarship is built on a foundation that includes a grounding in elementary logic. A college sophomore with a single course in logic under their belt should be able to see the flaws in discounting the testimonies of a whole class of persons based on ad hominem circumstantial argumentation. Thus, it is shoddy scholarship to adopt such a principle, and a "scholar" who adopts such a principle is a shoddy scholar. You have now introduced the names of specific "scholars" who do in fact advocate this fallacious filtering, and you are accusing me of ad hominem against them. But simply put, even if I was the one who had named all those people, even if I had said "they're shoddy scholars, and their position on apostate testimony is shoddy scholarship", it still wouldn't be ad hominem. If I had said "their position on apostate testimony must be shoddy because they are shoddy scholars", it would be ad hominem -- but the fact is, I didn't. The position is shoddy scholarship because it's founded on an elementary logical flaw. Asking "how dare you call these authorities I have now appealed to a bunch of shoddy scholars!" is the wrong question; the right one is "if these 'scholars' are promoting a position which has an elementary logical flaw as its bedrock, what right do they really have to authority?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In short, what you are saying hat these scholars don't use "elementary logic" and that you know better than these scholars. It could have been said in just these last 8 words. I would kindly suggest that you break open one of their books and read them rather than dismiss their findings as shoddy scholarship. Chutzpah!--64.81.88.140 22:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't just say it. I showed it. If there is some argument buried in one of their books which could actually make a case for dismissing the testimonies of an entire class of persons based on ad hominem circumstantial reasoning, I would suggest you show it; it's not really very convincing or impressive when you just sneer that I should read their books and then strut around as if you'd actually presented a rebuttal. By the way, I must tell you, it's very amusing that when I say "This is not a general truth of the sociological community, it's shoddy scholarship only promoted by a small coterie," Jossi's response is "It is so! This is something that most sociologists believe, not just a small coterie!" and your response is "How dare you accuse Eileen Baker, Reender Kranebourg, Jeffery Haden, Gordon Melton, David Bromley, Irving Hexman, Anson Shuppe, and Douglas Cowan of shoddy scholarship!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You did not show anything beyond your arrogance in putting yourself above highly qualified and respected scholars with a bit of rhetoric about the ad hominem fallacy, that by the way is a recursive fallacy in the way you are branding it against these scholars. Small côterie? Show me a group supportive of your position and then we talk again. --64.81.88.140 03:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Translation: "I am still appealing to authority to support my position, since I cannot support it myself. I do not understand the ad hominem fallacy, so I will continue to commit it myself by claiming that you are arrogant and poorly-educated and that accusing you of these flaws somehow affects your argument. I will also invent something new called a 'recursive fallacy', but it's really just the old double standard, where instead of actually presenting evidence that you are in error, I'll just blather that you are compounding your error by failing to fall in with my assertion that you are in error. Now, I am still basing my whole argument on appeal to authority, and I'm going to try to get you to fight on that ground, so start naming authorities so that I can start throwing accusations at them, too." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Faced with lack of arguments and references to support your earlier ones, an astonishing response and not so clever a maneuver designed to avoid grounding your assertions. --64.81.88.140 19:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Translation: "More of the same." =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Suggested reading for Antaeus:'': Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference "Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research" 2002 by Douglas E. Cowan, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology, University of Missouri-Kansas City. --64.81.88.140 23:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm very concerned. If you have been the recipient of harrassing emails I strongly condemn it. I have been the harrassment target by premies who post online and who have created a website using my real name to harrass and libel me, so I know how awful and frightening it feels to be such a target, so I sympathize with you. It's never acceptable behavior. If you want to provide evidence of this, I would be happy to expose that unacceptable behavior and publicly condemn it on the ex forum with a strong demand to anyone who reads the ex-premie forum to stop it. Please let me know, because I can safely say that all the ex-premies that I know (especially the ones who post on the forum using their real names) would also protest anyone harrassing you, Jossi. It's simply wrong and very bad behavior, whichever side of this argument one is on.
I also want to point out to you that the particular sociologists of NRMs that are quoteed and referenced in the Rawat articles have been discredited as cult apologists by their peers -- other sociologists of NRMs. In particular, Gordon Melton has been strongly criticized by his peers because of how he dealt with The Family, which, as you know, is the child sex abuse cult that has been in the U.S. news so much in recent weeks. Introvigne is another controversial "scholar" of NRMs who has also been scrutinized by his peers because of his extremist views about "apostates." Melton was paid by The Family (Children of God) cult, and he also appeared in one of their promotional films/videos. Not all of these scholars paint former members as "apostates being automatic liars" -- Benjamin Zablocki and Steven Kent come to mind. Another Ex-Premie 13:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are no such "Rawat articles" that mention Melton, that by the way is a very respected scholar. Show me the "discredit by their peers". Bulls*t yet again. --64.81.88.140 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The "Prem Rawat" article, as well as "Criticism of Prem Rawat" that is the subject of this current discussion, both cite Gordon Melton in the Resources and Bibliography sections. One assumes that when an author and their material is cited, that they are a reliable authority, and Melton sets himself forth as an authority on the subject of NRMs, even though he has received strong criticism from his professional peers. Here is the link to a website called "Skeptic Tank" that published an article titled "When Scholars Know Sin," by Stephen Kent and Theresa Kreb. In this article, Melton's and his colleague's questionable activities when studying NRMs, is discussed. But, this is fairly old information that has been available for quite some time. I recommend you brush up on the subject of sociologists of NRMs and destructive cults, as well as psychologists and other professionals who also study NRMs and destructive cults, before you jump in and call it all "bs." IMO, one must become informed about all sides and pov's of a particular subject before one can make an informed conclusion or opinion.
http://www.skeptictank.org/wsns.htm Another Ex-Premie 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you really believe that smear campaign? Who the hell are Stephen Kent and Theresa Kerb? --64.81.88.140 22:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You make me do all your homework; that's okay. It's not a "smear campaign," but you don't have to believe me. On the Apologetics Index website, you can read Melton's, Shupe's, and Lewis's responses to the above-mentioned article and then there's a link at the bottom of the page where you can also read the response from Stephen Kent called "Clarifying Issues --A Rejoinder to Melton, Shupe and Lewis." It's a published debate online that's quite interesting. Also, there's proof Melton took money from The Family. It's on an IRS income reporting form and also available for viewing online. Again, you don't have to believe me, the copy of the form is linked below on the movingon.org website (a website that supports those poor kids from The Family cult that were so horridly abused). Yes, I believe those kids. Also, Melton has given favorable reviews (for money) to other destructive cults like the Scientologists and the Aum Shinrikyo cult (the cult that put sarin gas into the Tokyo subways). Draw your own conclusions. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c34.html http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=31&ID=987&searchTerms=gordon%20melton&qlid= Another Ex-Premie 23:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hein's site, Mon dieu!, Stephen Kent, oh non!!!: Suggested reading for you as well:: Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference "Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research" 2002 by Douglas E. Cowan, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology, University of Missouri-Kansas City. ---64.81.88.140 00:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I inserted the polarized, major differences of opinion among scholars in a new paragraph at cult. It does not have to be discussed here. Andries 11:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - After reading Gary's comments, I reluctantly vote to keep. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

None of these articles should be allowed (Criticism of Wikipedia should be merged to Wikipedia). The best action when you find one of these is to merge it into the main article. If it's too complicated to do, just cut and paste and mark the article for cleanup. That's why Wikipedia is collaborative. Merge and delete DJ Clayworth 04:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly ... and these two article are an excellent example of collaboration. Hundreds of hours of it and consensus achieved. --Zappaz 05:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not commenting on whether or not any given version of the Prem Rawat article complex is neutral or not. But Gary's explanation about it being a set of aticles makes sense to me; a similar structure can be found at United States or other articles which cover huge topics (broken down into History of the United States, United States culture, etc.). keep. Meelar (talk) 06:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I just want to point out here that having an unsubstantitated, repeated allegation on Wikipedia (See Hate-Group article) that ex-premies are a hate-group (I know, I know, the wording isn't "just exactly like that") makes it mighty, mighty, uncomfortable to come here and write/edit on Wikipedia. The only source to support that allegation is the Rawat cult on it's FAQ webpages. Jossi Fresco has spent more time trying to discredit ex-premies than ensuring that an accurate writing of facts about Prem Rawat takes place. He gets quite cantankerous towards any ex-premies who've tried to participate in the "wiki process." All of the Prem Rawat articles are pure POV advertisements and promotional pieces for Prem Rawat, written by current cult members (yes, I know the word "cult" is censored and considered obscene here). I just wanted to point that out and say that which ever way this vote goes, I'll never recommend any of these articles about Rawat as anything more than novellettes or fairy tales, wishful thinking on the part of current "students" of Prem Rawat. The "Past Teachings of Prem Rawat" article is a particularly hilarious example of what happens when facts get in the way of writing about the truth. If I cared much about Wikipedia, I'd fight for the truth here, but, on the whole, all the Rawat articles present such a distorted and revised view of Prem Rawat, that they all need to be sent to the scrap-heap and rewritten. That is, of course, if Wikipedians are actually interested in anything factual. Yeah, that hate-group allegation is quite stunning -- it's there because a cult says so and no other reason. Hey, I call's 'em like I sees 'em. Another Ex-Premie 12:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You don't need my help to be discredited. The ex-premies hateful comments in these pages as well as in their forums against Maharaji and against people that are appreciative of Maharaji's teachings, their ill-will, their obsession, and their intolerance for people that believe differently, speak for themselves. You are most welcome to participate in Wikipedia. I am not stopping you: WP is open to anyone who cares enough about a subject to contribute to it. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, I don't need your approval or permission to work on Wikipedia articles, but frankly, I don't have time for your ankle-biting. It's tedious. Nobody is abridging your freedom to practice a religion, either Jossi. Anyway, Prem Rawat states right on his Elan Vital and Prem Rawat Foundation website FAQs that the practice of Knowledge is not a spiritual practice, philosophy or a belief system, but, you seem to want to have things both ways, otherwise you pout and point fingers. Fact is, Rawat has always claimed that what he offers is not a religion, so I don't really know where your "freedom of religion" complaint is coming from now. I didn't get selected by Prem Rawat's inner circle people to work full-time for him because I did not understand Maharaji, Knowledge, his message, or my own devotion to him. But, I do understand very well that you don't want me talking about that secret project. You and your premie friends are so adamant against my talking about it that you even try to tell folks that I was never even there in Miami Beach, Florida, from 1979 through 1981, and if I was there that I'm crazy, and so mentally unbalanced, that no one should ever believe anything that I say. And you have the nerve to accuse ex-premies of being a hate-group that dehumanizes people. Fact is, Jossi, I don't need Wikipedia, or your or Prem Rawat's permission in order to tell the truth about my past as a foot-kissing devotee, and my telling the truth about my life as a devotee of Maharaji is really none of your business, and it certainly does not take away your ability or your freedom to be a practicing premie now.
Another Ex-Premie 12:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To clarify a few things:
  1. The freedoms I referred to have nothing to do with religion. I spoke about the ill-will, hateful comments and intolerance expressed by ex-premies against me, my fellow students, and my teacher;
  2. I have no idea who you are (nor that I care to know);
  3. I have absolutely no idea about what you say is a "secret project";
  4. I did not know you knew any of my friends;
  5. You have the inalienable right to express your views, and so am I;
≈ jossi ≈ 17:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, may be you could do more effort to understand why ex-premies make hate full remarks about your teacher. I personally think that he has deserved them due to his dishonest behavior and false advertisements. Andries 20:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are entitled to think whatever you want and to help these people as you have done so dutifully over the past months. But note, that whatever you "personally think" is inconsequential to this conversation. FYI, I have no intention to "understand" a group of people that think, speak and behave as they do. I know Maharaji close to 25 years, both as a teacher and as a person, and I can assure you that I have not been in the company of a human being that is more noble, impeccable, kind and inspiring as Maharaji. Through thin and thick (and this is not an analogy, I have been in a war as a soldier, for example), his inspiration and guidance have been there from me throughout all these years, consistently. I must admit that given my experience of Maharaji and his teachings, it makes me sad to see the hearsay, gossip and appalling remarks and actions by that small group of people, and see their ill-will, arrogance and attempts to be seen as credible as even more saddening. If that is the company you chose to keep, Andries, it is your choice, and so be it.

≈ jossi ≈ 00:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, it sounds like you're simply too emotionally attached to the subject matter to be involved in this article. You seem to be almost seething at the mere possibility that someone would disparage your beloved Maharaji, irrespective of the facts and evidence and their implications, large and small. This doesn't seem good for your own mental health and I'm sure it's unsettling for others who are trying to edit the article(s) from a different perspective. For example, I, personally, would like to add a couple of things to one of these articles. New evidence has come to light that Rawat once bragged to the Boston Globe about having millions of criminals as followers. These people would be willing to steal cars, hijack planes, even kill others or jump out windows and kill themselves if they thought it would please him. This was said just days before Mahatma Fakiranand tried to kill the reporter who threw the cream pie at Rawat. Furthermore, in the late 70's, Rawat claimed that Knowledge could give one supernatural powers such as the ability to make things levitate although, he warned, he could take them away in a flash if the devotee wasn't dedicated enough to him. I think these are key points that must be added somewhere, especially given Rawat's and EV's current attempts to characterize his past as they do. But, Jossi, even if these facts are perfectly documented, as I believe them to be, will you allow their admission to stand? Or will you just go ballistic and sabotage the editting as you have in the past? I'm glad some new eyes have taken a look at these Rawat articles. Perhaps they'll finally receive some real balance. I'm just not sure that you'll want to stick around for the process. I think it will pain you too much. --24.68.221.224 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Like you care about my mental health, Yeah right). You don't scare me, Mr. Anonymous, Try me... In any case your friend Andries has already done that for you. He shall get the credit. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Try me", Jossi? Are you threatening to not allow those additions to the Criticism article to stand even if fairly stated and documented? See, for all I know, you might be paid to do this. I'm not. I can't get into an endless edit war with you. So tell me clearly, will you fight those edits providing they're fairly presented? Both are sourced to official DLM or Elan Vital publications. Yes, they're outrageous. Yes, they fly in the face of how Rawat presents himself these days. But they're legit and exceedingly relevant to the question of who this guy is. Can you handle the evidence or not?

--24.68.221.224 04:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP -- This is just silly. The Criticism section was "forked" off because the acrimony was making editing impossible, and a concerted effort from what fit the Wiki definition as a "hate group" attempted to fill the original article, in fact, swallowing up the whole. The best compromise was doing it this way.

The circus played out like defining something like "cherries." Instead of saying "cherries are a small round fruit," and having a parenthetical section that said "some people don't like cherries" these people tried to define cherries as "the foul-tasting seed of hell, poisonous to the touch" and then circular and anecdotal reasoning to say "I heard a guy who once looked at a cherry and he was turned to stone, so don't even LOOK at cherries." And for citation, see an anonymously maintained web page and chat room that no-one admits to running. And just look at the nasty language above.

Much ado about nothing, and having edited the pieces a lot I say KEEP. Richard G. 14:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Why not just merge and let it be oversized for a while? The 32K limit isn't important. It only affects people who a) have an old browser, and b) have a compelling to edit the article as a whole, instead of within sections.
IF, as claimed, the Criticism of Prem Rawat article is accepted as NPOV by both factions, THEN, there should be no objection to merging it into Prem Rawat as a section entitled (say) "Criticism of Prem Rawat" other than the size of merged article being over 32K, which is a minor issue.
When the article is deemed to be stable and people have an overview of the entire content, then there should be a discussion of how to refactor it into a series of <32K articles. Make a comment on the Talk page explaining why the article is being allowed to exceed 32K, and if there are actually any active editors who have affected browsers and are being prevented from doing some specific thing, I am sure they can make a polite request on the Talk page and some other editor will do it for them. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm....why not? Another thing is that at the german wikipedia the same process is going on. there the criticism article will be deleted probably. the arguments of david gerard and the existence of the critcism paragraph that points to that article are being simply ignored. i do not know what to think of it all, but most voters look at the article series, and i mean both the english and the german translation as a mess. So if you do not know the background of those articles and their history , just from a foreign standpoint so to say, people are disgusted of the unencyclopedic style.Thomas h 15:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I said go ahead, merge. I will have a field day deleting all the outrageous lies and testimonies your kind peddle. That will be great fun. --15:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lies? I remeber your betrayal well, when you faked the guru article with the pseudo source from the Upanishads. You are the right guy to manage "outrageous lies". And jossi then referred to it. So, are you jossi? Same hate ,Same style. Thomas h 17:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did not fake anything. You are the fake. --64.81.88.140 18:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here the betrayal [1]and here Andries uncovered and removed it[2] it.Shall i also link where you as jossi referred to it and how we talked about it? Thomas h 08:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Criticism page on Prem Rawat on Wikipedia and also to merge it with the main article on Prem Rawat. Jossi, who is one of the principal contributors to the Prem Rawat page argued for a separate page for any criticisms. Now he is requesting it's deletion because of its POV. The Criticism page is backed up by both verbatim transcript of Prem Rawat and by scholarly assessment. It seems rather transparent that the push for deletion is a calculated strategy to remove any viewpoint that does not adhere his and other followers' POV.Verification note: This user's vote is the one and only edit in Wikipedia.

  • Keep -- I vote to keep, but in my opinion the article needs a thorough cleanup, such as removing 75 external links to the critic's website (Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor should it be a marketing tool for any website), and I belive the article needs a thorough NPOV of the article, removing gossip, etc. --Chuck 21:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
are you sure you didn't mix ex-premie.org with elanvital.org and tprf.org and a couple of others in this article to get to the number of 75? We should then count the pro-rawat links at the main article and follow that through all forks.This is a brilliant idea. In the end we will all know what a linkfarm can be and who invented it in this case.Thomas h 23:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ahem chuck, i found your mistake, you just took the number as shown in the article until a certain paragraph and thought this all must be links to critcs-sites. So what does that mean. 1. You did not read the article by no means, otherwise you would have noticed the piles of links that lead to pro-rawat sites as well. 2. You have no idea how much and how intensive your pro-rawat mates have collaborated in this special critics article 3. You come here and give a vote and a judgement solely because you are follower of rawat and want to silence critics Thomas h 11:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who originally authored this VfD, please let me state a (strictly speaking off topic) remark: The discussion here just doesn't look sane to me (and all PR articles, pro and con, just doesn't look encyclopedic to me), so if there would be any chance of enforcement, I'd propose banning all premies and ex-premies from editing all PR related articles. --Pjacobi 12:05, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Sir: I don't think it's appropriate for you to be characterizing the mental health of people who have made comments here as "not sane" or "insane." That goes for those on either side of this argument. I demand an immediate retraction and apology from you and Wikipedia. Btw, are you in any way officially paid by,or affiliated with, or employed by Wikipedia? Anyway,in reponse to your proposed ban of premies and ex-premies from writing/editing any Prem Rawat articles, would you also include in that ban-from-writing/editing, any and all of the PR article writers/editors who are being paid by Elan Vital or Prem Rawat (or any affiliated organizations) to write/edit on Wikipedia on their behalf, by requiring them to make a full disclosure of the same? Would you also include in that ban the "hate group" article (that characterizes ex-premies as a hate group) and the "Purported List of Hate Group" article, and all of the other articles in which people have also been involved in writing/editing, such as apostates, cults, anti-cult movement, etc.?
Another Ex-Premie 12:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I commented on the sanity of this discussion, not the mental health of the combattants. And I hope the former doesn't reflect the latter. And, as you may have guessed from my initial remark, I considered that ban to be practically unenforceable, so it's only an utopian solution. --Pjacobi 13:56, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
hello pjacobi, i see you have the same rough temper when it gets you as i have. I can understand that you want to have it simple, but unfortunately the interest of independend people in that matter is limited. I appreciate the effort of MBq concerning the "Lehre" Paragraph in the german scratchpage for example, but it is simply wrong and the content is indeed unencyclopedic. It takes time to do a research and you have to visit "physical" libraries to really cover a topic. Google research alone will never bring you close to an acceptable result.Thomas h 15:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=49850700"