Wikipedia

Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 11

< Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

UPCOMING MILESTONE

For anyone just tuning in, we are in the final stages of an extensive "pro PR" and "anti PR" negotiation process to arrive at a baseline reference consensus version of this article, with the "dispute tags" due to be pulled off it by 00:01 UTC on October 5, about fifteen hours from now. The "edit swings" in the article have mostly settled down, and I think we're almost there. --Gary D 09:25, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

October 1 edit pass

This light copyedit ended up taking five hours! Minor rephrases are not separately specified below; read the text and see what you think. In addition to the items listed below, I have added comments to all negotiation items above regarding what was done in this edit pass to address each one. I sure hope we are about at the end of it, because this article has now grown to be 30KB long! --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • I ended up not adding a "controversial" tag, because the template now talks about possible disputes, and by golly, as hard as we've all worked to get the "dispute tags" off the article, I ain't gonna concede that.
  • Took out first paragraph phrase bolding, since this article is about something different, and added explicit cross-reference to main PR article. Then added second sentence identifying this article as focusing on the criticism.
  • Reworked the 1970s paragraph phrasing, retained the guru link while phrasing it in terms of Rawat's appellation at the time.
  • Moved Margaret Singer into the 1980s paragraph. Also moved up the anti-cult material.
  • Reformulated the ex-premies paragraphs into an initial one delineating the group composition, then following with one focused on their asserted intent; also added supporter's view of their intentions, per request above.
  • Redid the larger ex-followers group sentence; I actually think what we had long ago in this passage was more informative, but we have never been able to pin down a definite claim about the large ex-followers group's attitudes, so this does pretty well.
  • Generally moved external link citations closer to the text being cited.
  • Shortened the ex-premie rebuttal to supporter's positions in this first section. As I have done before and as I again said I would, I removed the sentence about Finch's rebuttal, because there is no discussion of what that rebuttal is, and the fact that Finch says something is not encyclopedic. I briefly went to the cited page and could not extract something succinct to throw in here that would add meaningfully to the existing rebuttal sentence and cite.
  • Generally tried to excise the creeping spin POV out of the "claims of divinity" section; added short excerpts from supplied divinity-denying passages.
  • Took out a few "no documentation" sentences, as attempting to highlight the non-existent. If there was documentation, obviously it would be mentioned here.
  • Moved non-critical thinking material to miscellaneous criticism section, as it did not directly tie into claims of divinity. Also killed lineage challenge material, as discussed above on this talk page.
  • Rearranged the miscellaneous criticism points; due to growing size of "personal lifestyle" section, promoted it out of miscellaneous criticism to its own section.
  • Again, cleaned the creeping POV out of the ex-premies' motives section. Cleaned up the Geaves episode back to point-counterpoint (don't mess with my prose, boys :-P ). Removed the websites/Internet details, and also the Geocities service complaint (filed, I think, by one of our editors' group)—come back to us if it goes anywhere.
  • Now that the copyright action that went nowhere is included, the description of degree of success of actions against the ex-premies had to be softened.
  • Rearranged the actions against the ex-premies to reflect chronology.
  • Cleaned external reference citations a little bit, more formatting work could probably be done. Which citations are left in is kind of up to everybody, but I would tend to try slimming them down. I note someone took my advice and removed both the satirical websites; now I think that improves everyone's credibility, but don't let me rain on anyone's parade.
  • The usual prose tightening, and a little wikifying.

Um, how much am I getting paid for all this, again? G'nite now. --Gary D 10:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks Gary for the good effort in editing and getting things moving. I have some points regarding this last edit:
  • Criticism. As far as I can see from the ex-premie site and the forums, there are three areas in which the ex-premies are active: 1) Against PR; b) Against followers (i.e. Geaves and others) c) Against DLM, Elan Vital, etc. The article as it stands now makes a mish-mash of all these three. IMO a distinction needs to be made. I want to argue that mixing the three paints a distorted picture of who are these critics and what are their motives.
  • Personal lifestyle. This section requires a stronger rebuttal from supporters. The current rebuttal does not provide a balance to the very serious allegations. I am stil uncomfortable with the power given to one or two person's testimony in this article.
  • The "critics character's and motive" section is IMO, buried at the end of a long page. I request that a link to that section is made from the "sources of criticism" section.
--Zappaz 16:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thanks for your familiar style with gary. it shows me that you expect gary to do what you suggest in spite of gary ensuring his neutrality. so when i understand this right you wish to neutralize any so called anti position. trying also to bring the focus more on "critics character's and motive" to lower the critics credibilty. i want to remind you that if you have the main title "Criticism of Prem Rawat", the average reader expects exactly that. Instead you want to make this more some kind of an accusation for ex-premies(all mentally ill ;-)). Keeping this title IMHO is a clear sign of deception. thomas
Gary D, thanks for your edits. Why is not encyclopedic to insert what Dr. Finch, who is a prominent ex-premie has written down on his website? Remember that ex-premies do not have an agreed, official party line, unlike Elan Vital. Well, may be, I can extract something succinct from the website. Andries 18:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Just spend a few minutes browsing their Forum8... --64.81.88.140 20:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Zapazz and others,
  • Criticism I do not think that the attacks on followers by ex-premies are a substantial part of their activism. Geaves was singled out by one anonymous ex-premie, supported by some and criticized by Toby, only because of his academic work supportive of Prem Rawat. In other words this was a derivative from their criticism on Prem Rawat and the organizations.
  • Personal lifestyle Only a few people have access to Prem Rawat so it is natural that the testimonies come only from a few persons.
Andries 18:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Criticism - No Andries. Dr. Ron Geaves was just the most recent, and FYI, their attacks are in most cases anonymous . They have done damage to many, many of us. They have contacted our employees, they have done smear campaings both in and out of the Internet aginst us. There attacks on followers is on-going. They have also attaked us by disrupting events, calling event venues and spreading fear. If I make a list of all these it will be longer that this article. Do you want that, Andries?
Personal lifestyle - You have absolutely no idea about how many people have "access to Rawat" !!!. It is all baseless speculation on your part. Who or what gives you the right to speculate this way?
--64.81.88.140 20:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Personal lifestyle What I meant is access to Prem Rawat's personal life. I guess that access to his personal life is limited to a few people. Nothing special about that, access to most people's personal lives are also limited to a few people. Besides I read that people were X-rated. Andries 20:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


140.please tell me how often do you visit mr rawat in his home, monthly,weekly?. how many personal talks did you have with him? did he give you ever personal (you and him) advice to you concerning your progress in practicing knowledge? you as probably a long time student will be able to tell us how many people have access to his home. then give us please the sources too? with mike finch for example, michael dettmers, mike donner.. the sources are pretty clear. thomas

October 1 edit replies

Gary D's replies to today's comments on his October 1 edit pass:

Andries:Mike Finch rebuttal - I am fully behind including material on the Finch rebuttal. The problem is that it cannot simply take the form of the statement, "Finch has replied," followed by an external link, as that would not be encyclopedic. The encyclopedic material would be what Finch's rebuttal arguments consist of. Hence, I urge you to go to the cited page, summarize Finch's best arguments in a sentence or two (preferrably one), and put that argument summary in where I removed the statement that Finch has replied. The page link can go back in there as well. I started to try to do this last night, but was just too tired. --Gary D 06:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Done, I now support removal of the disputed tags. Andries 09:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that Finch has a website it does not make it encyclopedic. Tomorrow Joe Bloe ex-premie will put up a website and what are you are going to do? Add a a paragraph that he said this and that? Who cares what Finch thinks? If Finch has any special information and data, please add it. If it is just his opinion, it is not worth having it. --64.81.88.140
Sorry, Andries... What Finch thinks about journalists is not interesting, neither worthy of inclusion. Please! --21:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz:three areas of ex-premie activity - I'm afraid I don't follow. --Gary D 06:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, this article is named "Criticism of Prem Rawat", but the fact is that ex-premies activism is targeted not only against PR, but against his students (e.g. the recent Geaves development) and against Elan Vital (i.e. allegations of activity disruptions, threats to venues, etc.). Do we need and article named "Criticism of Prem Rawat's students" and one named "Criticism of Prem Rawat"? Don't think so. But given that these three aspects are widely discussed by the ex-premies, and that this article is mainly about them, it is important to include a statement in the opening paragraph about this. --Zappaz 03:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
yes i partly agree, their should be a more "academical" view added, that is focused on rawat's messages. his prescription for world peace for example, how realistic is it, he is working on it for 30 years, how much has it brought , are students of rawat more peacefull through practicing, are they extraordinary engeaged to improve te worlds situation . and i do not mean propaganda , but hard facts. thomas
Zappaz, I do not agree that a substantial part of the criticism of ex-premies is directed to Prem Rawat's students. It is mainly directed to Prem Rawat and the organizations. Geaves was singled out because he gave academic support to Prem Rawat. In other words it is derived from their criticism against Prem Rawat. Andries 16:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Zappaz:personal lifestyle - I agree these are serious allegations, and I agree a stronger (I would phrase it as a more complete and more specific) supporter rebuttal would be an excellent addition. As I have noted before, the critical voices are heard here because they are the ones writing good, specific narratives on these points. I urge you to hunt up some good, specific supporter rebuttal on these points. Do keep in mind that these rebuttal points need to be already in existence in print somewhere else, and not simply composed from "pro" editors' ideas, as that would cross the line into original research, a Wikipedia no-no. (P.S.: still also need that "Mishler was fired" cite!) --Gary D 06:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Gary: what do you mean appeared in print? What is this? an ex-premie can write whatever garbage he wants in an free geocities website and that counts as appeared in print and it is OK to get included? So if I create a geocities website and rebut all these allegations, will these be "publishable"? Actually I will just do that and then it will have to be included, otherwise all other ex-premies stuff will need to go out as well. You see, these types of allegations are soooo outrageous that in responding to them you are in fact acknowledging them, so I understand why it always has been "no comment". But given the insistence to include them based on apostates accounts, I will do a full rebuttal website and then publish it here --≈ jossi ≈ 15:37, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, the Elan Vital faqs have no provenance but are referenced throughout this article. The ex-premie.org articles have named authors, and the press links are to recognised publications. Can you say the same for articles on elanvital.org or tprf.org? You do know, don't you, that the allegations on ex-premie.org have been confirmed by a current active senior member of Elan Vital? --John Brauns 00:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That could be interesting info. Can you tell us who this "current senior member is"? what was his position, what he confirmed, etc? Thanks. --Zappaz 04:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot. He confided in someone he didn't know had become an ex-premie, and for the time being I need to respect this ex-premie's confidentiality. But the acceptance by Elan Vital of the allegations about Rawat's behaviour is evidenced by the lack of any attempt to rebut them. If they were untrue they would surely have said so in their extensive FAQs. --John Brauns 07:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I actually think that, yes, if you establish a website in good faith with intent to maintain it for the long run and not simply as a sham for purposes of this article, and if you "publish" it publicly into the Internet PR fray and not hide it away, then it does count for purposes of being a primary source WP can then draw from. Its late establishment draws it somewhat into question, but we have gone into pretty thin territory anyway, where the article has moved to more of a news-reporting mode to cover current events in the PR controversy (which is something WP articles may permissibly do), and there is some overlap between the editors here and the "newsmakers" themselves (which is again permissible), so your proposed website as a source is not beyond the pale. Keep in mind, though, that you will be battling specific accounts of events from alleged eyewitnesses, so if your rebuttal is, "I, jossi, who have never been in PR's inner circle, think that's all crap," expect a stinging and effective rebuttal from the "anti"s. Your best bet would be to find someone whom everyone knows was in PR's inner circle, preferrably someone not still on the payroll, who would say, "All those fifteen years Mishler was there, I was also there in the company of PR, and I never saw PR drink, do drugs, run anyone over, or fool around with women." That's the level of specificity and credibility required to do any serious damage to these "anti" I-was-there-and-saw-it-all accounts. --Gary D 19:05, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
oh my gawd, all pro links go to websites as well. the difference is. you can contact mike finch, dettmers etc. and ask them personally about these items. show me one rawat website were i can find a responsible person to discuss the faq's for example. or tell me how to contact rawat to talk about his quotes, seems impossible, doesn't it?(you forgot to wikilink the "apostates" ;-) ).thomas

Zappaz:link to questioning critics' character and motives section - I don't believe this is necessary. There is a table of contents appearing up top, where this section head appears with all the others, for any reader who wants to jump to it. By this section's nature as rebuttal, it logically has to come at the end, and I wouldn't call that "buried." I have previously trimmed other intra-article "jump" cross-references, so this would be the only remaining one (hence taking on a POV aroma), and it just doesn't add to the reader's experience or comprehension. It's not the end of the world to have it, but this is the sort of thing I was referring to in my commentary to Jim when I said that keeping both sides happy has led to choppiness in the article. --Gary D 06:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. --Zappaz 03:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several small edits

  • In the financial allegations changed "donations" to "money gifts". That is more accurate. You cannot "donate" to PR. He is a person, not a 503(c)
  • Changed "taken donations", to "accepting money gifts". Again, that is more acurate as PR does not take donations.
  • Added date of purchase of house in Malibu. In the 70's that parcel did not cost a very small fraction of today's value. Good investment!
  • Closure of the Ashrams. NPOV'ed Andries entry and corrected grammar.
  • Corrected date of talking to one million people. It was in 2004.

I counted 34 links to to ex-premie.org and forum8.org. This is way to many links for a WP article. I propose to remove all the links to these (as well as these for TRPF and EV), Leaving a small collection of links in the external links section.

--64.81.88.140 21:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

140, for the reasons stated below, your proposal is inappropriate. --John Brauns 00:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for closing the ashrams

.140 why did you remove the statement that Maharaji closed the ashrams without giving a reason? If he gave a reason, then what was the reason?Andries 21:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The reasons are explained in the main article. Go read. --64.81.88.140 22:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.140, I can not find in the main article (PR) that he gives a reason for closing the ashrams. Andries 23:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here it is: Prem_Rawat#Turn_toward_Western_modes_of_teaching --64.81.88.140 01:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
there is something missing. ashrams were reopened in 1977 , starting with so called half-way houses to fullway houses and then ashrams. claims of divinity were renewed. i have the videos from hans jayanti 78/79, watch an obviously his divinity enjoyng maharaji, while the crowd sings like "maharaji you are THE lord". do you want to discuss this item further?thomas
Thomas, may be that should go in the Divine Light Mission article. Andries 08:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
dlm oder elan vital hatten weder mit der öffnung noch der schliessung von ashrams zumindest nach 76 zu tun.ashram premies waren sozusagen mahahajis property. ich war ja selber einer. wir mussten arbeiten und durften keine ausbildung machen usw. thomas
.140 How about, "Prem Rawat did not give a reason for the closure of the ashrams but it fitted in a wider pattern of change from Hindu style of the DLM to more western style." Andries 08:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I counted 34 links to to ex-premie.org and forum8.org. This is way to many links for a WP article. I propose to remove all the links to these (as well as these for TRPF and EV), Leaving a small collection of links in the external links section. --64.81.88.140 21:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

.140 I strongly disagree with removing the external links to ex-premie and forum8. They are important to back up claims. And the interested reader can read further. If you think that the balance is unfair then please feel free to add more external links to Elan Vital's and supporters' websites with rebuttals to criticism. Andries 21:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is ridiculous and unprecedented in WP to have so many links to one website. Show me any other article in WP on wihcn the same site is linked to 34 times. Just put a main link in the External links section. That is why that section exists. The fact is that ex-premies are obsessed and posted hundred of thousands postings and keep archives of them. There is no such a thing as websites of supporter's rebuttals. Followers are way to busy feeling gratitude and living a fullfilled life. There is only mentions about the critics in the FAQ of elan Vital, that is commesurable with their relevance. You see, Andries. This is not a "us" against "them". This is totally one sided. And I do not see supporters any time soon spending time rebutting stupid and baseless allegations. --64.81.88.140 22:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
140, the reason for so many links to ex-premie.org is that there is no other source for the history of this movement. Neither Elan Vital nor TPRF hold archive material such as Rawat's early speeches, the early press articles, or the testimonies of former leaders of Elan Vital or Divine Light Mission. Ex-premie.org is the archive that TPRF pretends to aspire to. There are many websites run by supporters of Rawat but they have so little substance there is no value in linking to them. Why is there no link to www.enjoyinglife.org, the first officially approved premie site? I am happy to support such a link. In fact I've just added it to both the main and critics articles. I love the expressions of devotion on that site.
Regarding lack of an open discussion forum for premies, why is it that premies do not want to openly discuss something as wonderful as Knowledge? Can you give a straight answer?
Regarding time spent, I know that premies have been instructed to use Wiki to paint as positive an image of Rawat as possible. Premies are obeying their Master in being here. I am here because I respect the truth. --John Brauns 23:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are deluded, and you believe in your own spin John Brauns. You must be totally deluded t believe that I am hgere because os my "Master". ROFL!. Premies do not need to "discuss" anything because for them Knowledge is a beautiful personal experience. Not a debate. And what is the problem with expressions of love and gratitude to one's teacher? uh?

You see: you delusion makes you think that devotion is "bad", when actually is a sublime experience. Thank you for adding that website. --64.81.88.140 01:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fine this is about devotion ,an agreement at last. Wouldn't it be nice for newcomers to know that the path is about devotion, instead of coming up with a more neutral thing like "if you want peace, there are technics and a guide". i think it would be much more honest to tell what this is all about in the beginning. (btw i haven't forgotten m's satsang where he stated that ,"honesty may be nice, but devotion is much higher",is it that what i am experiencing here?). thomas
Devotion is not a requirement. How could it ever be? Either you feel gratitude, respect and love for Maharaji as your teacher or you don't. It is a wonderful feeling, let me tell you.... To be able to say "thank you" and mean it. Priceless. Without a gift there cannot be gratitude. People can prepare and receive the gift of Knowledge and accept Maharaji's guidance and inspiration, if that is what they want in their lifes. A conscious choice made with eyes wide open. The gratitude? Yes, it is there for those that feel it. --64.81.88.140 15:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thanks for your expression. It is just the gratitude, as you mentioned.I always thought it is the aim of the path to reach,are your sure you understood this right? please tell me.thomas
.140 the ex-followers try to document their proof. You have to understand that only (ex-)followers are interested in this subject. That is why everything comes from one website. Please take into account that it took the ex-premies years to collect the information. Allegations_against_Sathya_Sai_Baba is a similar subject and has also many links to one website, though organized in a different way. The more controversial a subject is, the more references are needed. If supporters are unwilling to do the effort of giving a rebuttal then so be it. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Andries 23:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not talking about "ex-followers" in general, Andries. I am talking about the specific dynamics of the ex-premies as a group. These people are patologically obsessed and the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Just go and read their rants. Pathetic and sad. Where thye will be in 10 years from now? read my lips: hanging onto a past they have not grown out of, continuing their diatribe of victimization and cheerlading one another in the members-only little Forum. Pathetic and very sad.--64.81.88.140 01:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this link:-

as I can't see what relevance it has to critism of Prem Rawat. As always I am happy to be pursuaded it is relevant. --John Brauns 23:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You cannot delete anything unless first you discuss it here. I have reverted that delete. --64.81.88.140 01:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I notice you have given no reason for the inclusion of that link. There is no mention of cyberstalking in the article so the link should go. If you support its inclusion, you must give a reason. I have found nothing in these discussions to explain why it is there. --John Brauns 07:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
John, there is a mention oc cyberstalking in the Ron Geaves paragraph.Andries 08:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect clause

I wasn't sure where to add this.

who say they once believed in Rawat's divinity see this change—which they do not see as a liberation but as a dodge—as a primary source of their disillusionment, and now ....

I have removed this clause as it is incorrect. No ex-premie I know believes this. Those of us who continued believing in Rawat during that change believed that he was hiding his divinity to enable new people to better approach him. Our disillusionment came from other sources. --John Brauns 23:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You cannot remove an important point without discussing it first. That was the agreement. This paragraph explains one of the most visible aspects of the ex-premies. It needs to stay.--64.81.88.140 01:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
140, the clause is simply wrong, and is clearly not one of the most visible aspects of the ex-premies. Show me one journey on ex-premie.org or one post on the forum where the writer says this. It must go. --John Brauns 07:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gary D October 3 trim edit

On the way to removing the dispute tags, I am doing minor cleanup edits to keep things in bounds.

  • Re-wikified Rolling Stone and New York Review of Books, and italicized
I've put a space between the links to the Wiki articles and the link to the articles as they looked like one link. --John Brauns 21:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Re-arranged, tightened, and NPOVed the new material in the sources of criticism section
  • General tightening of new material
  • Generally moved arguments back into point-counterpoint-rebuttal sequence
  • Grouped together arguments added in disparate locations
  • Moved the closing of the ashrams material (slimmed down) to the paragraph on the "removing trappings caused further controversy" since it dovetails so nicely there, and this avoids expanding the miscellaneous criticism section
  • Re-ordered the Mishler and "further controversy" paragraphs, and re-ordered the content of the paragraphs above these two, all for better conceptual flow
  • Removed the intra-page jump link
  • Re-instituted John Braun's deletion regarding how ex-premies viewed the move away from trappings. I fear this passage grew into its larger form through my own editorial bungling. John has credentials to speak for what the ex-premies are charging, unless he has mis-cited something in ex-premie materials, and he seems pretty definite that the characterization he deleted is not to be found in the ex-premie materials
Look, I'm taking a risk by posting under my real name so the least you could do is spell it right! :-) --John Brauns 21:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Slimmed down Geaves' rebuttal to the essentials
Why Gary? This is an example of ex-premies harassment. her we have a receint case, newsworthy and it get's slimmed down? I have added some of Geaves comments. --64.81.88.140 15:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The only suggested action against Dr. Geaves from "Emile"'s website was to contact his employer. I don't support that but as I said on Forum8 at the time his employers already know of his allegience, so as Dr. Geaves said, such action was futile. I have added, however, a comment about his participation in the official Elan Vital video, 'Passages' which gives rise to a number of questions which he refused courteous requests to answer. --John Brauns 22:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Tried changing "unverified" testimonials to "purported" testimonials. Does that help anyone?
About half of the testimonials have been submitted under the authors' real names. Many of these people are known within the premie and ex-premie communities. There is no question that they are genuine, and no words such as "unverified" or "purported" are appropriate. I have removed the word "purported". I have also removed the allegation about spamming search engines as it is untrue, and is not supported by any evidence. Ex-premie.org has a high ranking because of its relevance and, more importantly, traffic. --John Brauns 22:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Broadened personal lifestyle section heading to include "choices" (largely to cover hit-and-run allegation, which is not a lifestyle)

I'm not going to burn my political capital by delving into selection of external links and references, unless things start to go crazy down there. I do want to call attention to the fact that the article is now at 31KB, so less is truly getting to be more. If tomorrow is as active an editing day as today was, I imagine I will be doing another clean-up re-edit at the end of it. --Gary D 09:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Gary. A large issue concerning the ashram closings that isn't mentioned is that upon the closings some ashram premies were left in debt. You may not think the ashrams were much of a big deal, but there is testimony about this in the forum archives. There is little time now to search for them.
Some premies were left with personal debts of $20,000 plus. So the transition wasn't only about adjusting to non-monastic life, but also adjusting to non-monastic life with enormous debt in the early 80s. Ashram premies had made a life-time commitment to living in the ashram and Rawat had told us that was how it was and then he pulled the plug on whole thing.
I want to add that this "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article has become more of a POV criticism of the critics. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to take a crash-course in NPOV writing this week due to other commitments.
Another Ex-Premie 14:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Debts? Give me a break! Making exceptions the rule? Great strategy but I will not let you excercise it here. Sorry! -- 64.81.88.140 15:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not proposing any new strategies. Btw, who the heck are you to disallow what someone says here? I assert that when Rawat closed the ashrams, all of the existing debt incurred by ashram premies was reverted back to those individuals whose personal credit had been used to incur these debts. Not all ashrams split the bills evenly. Because of the ashram closings, premies then became individual premies who were left in the lurch by Rawat because they had made a life-time commitment that Rawat reneged on himself (I should say he reneged on the lifetime commitment thing through Instructors, who broke the news to ashramers about the closings).
Did Maharaji or did he not take any personal responsibility concerning this, since he was the person who had defined the ashrams and demanded poverty as a way of ashram life? Did Rawat or did he not ask DLM/EV to assist ashram premies in any way through their transition into mainstream life after living in the ashram (a monastic and communal lifestyle)? I assert he did not.
Did Rawat or DLM/EV ever acknowledge that indeed there were personal debts that existed upon the ashram closings? I assert no. These debts had previously been paid by the communal pooling of income. Ashram premies were required to live in poverty, don't forget. Did Rawat ever personally speak to the ashram premies about the closings? I assert he did not. I'd love to know if he did because so far, I've yet to hear from him about it. If you've got evidence that contradicts my assertions, well, then, provide it, don't censor or censure me.
I'm making a valid point. If you have any evidence that proves Rawat did assist ashram premies to readjust in any way, I'd sincerely love to hear about it.
Another Ex-Premie 17:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are making gerealizations. I lived in the Ashram for 5 years and I did not leave with any debts and do not know of anyone that was left in that position. All members of the ashram got together and clean that up before dispersing. If you have a specific account of what you have said above about debts, go ahead and state it. We all understood the reasons and needs to closing the ashram. --64.81.88.140 20:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of making generalizations when you say "All members..." and "We all understood..." I don't believe you can speak for all ashrams members any more than I. Still waiting for verification that Rawat told the ashramers about the closings himself -- personally.

Another Ex-Premie 13:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The names of Prem Rawat should be bold

.140 I think the names of Prem Rawat should be bold in the first paragraph. From Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout"

"The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold text (subject) at a natural place in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. The name of the subject may appear slightly different from the title of the page, or may include variations, but normally it is identical to the page title."

Andries 16:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Andries. Exactly. The subject of this article is the Criticism of Prem Rawat. Bolden than if you want. Check for example the Scientology page. The criticism page for Scientology doe not have that in bold.--64.81.88.140 17:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But then it is logical that the other names of Prem Rawat is made bold too. I mean, for me this is common sense. Andries 17:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. It doesn't. See Garys's comment above #October_1_edit_pass. Also, adding Pal Sing is irrelevant here, as now one calls him that. Add it if you wish to the main article.--64.81.88.140 20:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticism against Prem Rawat's students

.140 Please give a list of criticism against Prem Rawat's students including names and dates of criticism. Thanks. Andries 17:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For starters you have the recent geaves campaing. That alone warrants inclusion given the allegations made in the Elan Vital FAQs. Reead also my plans below.--64.81.88.140 17:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Okay, I will agree with the inclusion if you can show me documenations of your claim. Until you have provide it, I think it is fair that the statement stays out of the article. Andries 17:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry. it stays. Tell me: how do you defend what they have done to Geaves? How? You are as blinded by your POV as the ex-premies. --64.81.88.140 17:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not defend the anonymous website against Ron Geaves. Andries 17:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Then help me keep the sentence that talks about harassment of students. --64.81.88.140 17:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Geaves is one student. Andries 20:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And Dettmers is one ex-student. If his "testimony" is good enough to be quoted here at lenght. Then one student's harrassment by ex-premies should count as well. Got that? --64.81.88.140 01:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Andries think is not relevant

What Andries thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant to this article. The fact is that ex-premies have and are targeting followers with different campaigns. Ask them about what they have done to Tim Gallwey, Linda Pascotto, James Shaw and others. This is a fact and consistent with the allegations made against ex-premies in the elan vital FAQa. I am compiling a list with specific attacks against followers. Given that this page is already 31K I am planning to create a new page "Activism of ex-premies against Prem Rawat' followers" that I will link from here. Coming soon. --64.81.88.140 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) ~

What was/is their function~s in organizations. Andries 17:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, what you are saying that is you are the President of the Prem Rawat Foundation or if you are a volunteer you are fair game to be attacked and harassed as a person? Sorry to tell you this, but your actions here in defending acts of harassment by the ex-premies in this page show a total lack of compassion and a blindness that are hard to belive. --64.81.88.140 17:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I guess then the criticism is directed against the organization, i.e. the president of the organization, not him/her as a person. Please tell me more about alleged harassment. I am also willing to contact this person. I do not know what to think or write if you do not give details. Andries 17:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Give me some time. I am compiling a list. And I am talking about personal attacks, not against the organization. Lately they have been "cleaning-up" their forum archives in an attempt to decrease the damage to their credibility done by their own words. I want a paragraph in the article that talks about this "revisionism" by the ex-premies. Ask John Brauns about it. He know exactly what I am talking about. Go to their Forum and ask them, Andries. Ask htem about the deleted posts. Thanks to the Internet archive project http://www.archive.org/web/web.php, I have access to these deleted postings. --64.81.88.140 18:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
140, I have no idea what you are you talking about. Neither I nor anyone else has done any 'cleaning-up' of the forum archives, except in one case on request of a person unfairly maligned. I cannot promise that there is no other unfair criticism of current or former followers in the archives, but I do promise to remove such unfair criticism on request. I have had this offer on ex-premie.org for some time. --John Brauns 20:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then you agree that ex-premies critic not only PR, but his followers as well. I am compiling a list and it ain't pretty. --64.81.88.140 20:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
140, you made a serious accusation that I am 'cleaning-up' the forum archives. I think you should present some evidence or apologise. Yes, ex-premies criticise some current premies, but that is not the same as harrassment. I am not aware of any harrassment of current premies by ex-premies, and even though you have mentioned some names, you have not given any details of what has been done to them. I do however know of many examples of ex-premies being harrassed by premies. Do you want details? --John Brauns 21:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What do you call this (excerpted from Jim Heller response to Dr. Geaves letter highlight is mine) :
  • You say that some of your colleagues know of your background. I would suggest that the next time you decide to write about Rawat, you ensure that they all do. The editor of the journal you published in certainly didn't know you were a premie and she expressed some surprise at the fact when I asked her. One would expect that, as a responsible and ethical academic, you'd want to ensure there were no such "surprises" in the future.
What do you call that? a public service? Yeah right!
If you are the webmaster of Forum 8 and the previous Forum 7 you know exactly what I am talking about. And I don't feel like apologizing to any one at this moment. Any problem with that? The discussion in the Forum about ex-premies being the victims is just so cute. Perpetrators as victims. Cute. --00:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not the webmaster or owner of Forum 8 or Forum 7. I used to administer Forum5 before I took over ex-premie.org. Yes, I read Jim's post and I cannot see anything in it that remotely comes close to harrassment. Geaves 35 year allegience to Rawat is of central importance to his academic work for the reasons Jim outlined. Geaves has not commented on his appearance in the 'Passages' video which he cannot argue was an objective academic exercise. His appearance in Elan Vital promotional material proves his conflict of interest. --John Brauns 07:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

dear 140 and anybody else

i just wanted to do a reply on a short exchange with 140 which i find important, i will repeat it here first fyi :

fine this is about devotion ,an agreement at last. Wouldn't it be nice for newcomers to know that the path is about devotion, instead of coming up with a more neutral thing like "if you want peace, there are technics and a guide". i think it would be much more honest to tell what this is all about in the beginning. (btw i haven't forgotten m's satsang where he stated that ,"honesty may be nice, but devotion is much higher",is it that what i am experiencing here?). thomas
Devotion is not a requirement. How could it ever be? Either you feel gratitude, respect and love for Maharaji as your teacher or you don't. It is a wonderful feeling, let me tell you.... To be able to say "thank you" and mean it. Priceless. Without a gift there cannot be gratitude. People can prepare and receive the gift of Knowledge and accept Maharaji's guidance and inspiration, if that is what they want in their lifes. A conscious choice made with eyes wide open. The gratitude? Yes, it is there for those that feel it. --64.81.88.140 15:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

my reply:

dear 140.i did a little research. look that is what it is all about, a clear sign to me that nothing really has changed. and i am not even telling that you should not go this way, this is your free choice. i think it would be fair to tell the people what it is that they can expect. Like i said ,the simple message of peace gets somehow blown up into heights that cover up several religions in one place. Everybody may for yourself read that excerpt from Rawat ,March 2002:

"This whole sphere, this whole world of Knowledge and the Master and, practicing, and devotion, and participation and all that— This is traditionally in India is called the path of devotion, bhakti marg. All the Masters came from this. All the Sikh gurus came from this. All the Masters you talked about came from this. It is regarded as the highest path, inclusive of Buddha— Because any time, any time there is a Master, wants to talk about a living thing, boomf. That's where they find themselves. And, amazingly, enough, it is not called the path of enlightenment, and it is not called the path of Knowledge, and it is not called the path of service, and all of those things, inclusive, it is then given the name. And the name is devotion."

Buddha for example -- the noble eightfold path. Ever heard of that? think for yourself. but the most embarrassing thing here is. we have lawyers, teachers, educated people here, that help providing a pro rawat page , doing him the favour to present him almost to his wishes, when things like those above mentioned are clear and do belong into any encyclopedia on the top. an encyclopedia is there for general information available and not for a selected assembly in favor of anybody.thomas
Thomas, do you have a date and place and website for this quote? Then it can go into Wikiquote. You raised is an interesting subject and I can hardly resist the temptation to mention my comments and questions. Andries 21:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Yes. that would be a wonderful quote to add to Wikiquote. Excellent choice. Thank you for the research. I do not see why would you see this as embarrassing. Beats me. Look at it: the hateful testimonies of a small group vs. the hundreds of thousands expressions of gratitude and yes, devotion. You see, an ex-premie writes one testimony about their experience and that it is no more to say (unless he is obsessed with Maharaji, like some ahem "critics"). People that feel gratitude in their hearts, express that daily. What a difference love makes. :)
This is consistent with what I said before. There is a message of peace, and there is an offer to help. If you want Maharaji's help, good. If you don't, good! Move on. That has been his message all along! No one is denying that. OK? --64.81.88.140 21:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's stay on purpose

As agreed, we are working to reach a point in which we can remove the {{dispute}} tags and protect the article from vandalism and major deletions and edits. I kindly encourage everyone to try and stay on purpose. If you want to conduct large discussions as the ones above, please do that on Usenet or on the many forums available out there. Thanks.

I would propose that we go ahead and commit to the article after the promised "final" edit pass by Gary D. Otherwise it is an endless and all consuming effort and there are other articles out there to take care of.

And please peel your eyes for vandalism on the ancillary articles and revert as soon as you see that. Someone with IP 204.203.22.98 (that says he is a critic) has been vandalizing the articles with obscene comments and promising to continue doing just that. Let us all deny him that pleasure. --Zappaz 02:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 4 clean-up re-edit pass

First: my apologies to John Brauns for continuing to screw up his last name. For what it's worth, I will offer the excuse of "muscle memory": it turns out I very often in my work have occasion to type out the singular form of his last name, including the singular possessive form, so by now my typing fingers just fly over that word in the singular form without my brain ever getting involved. My bad. Nothing personal.

Now, to tonight's re-edit points:

  • Reverted the first paragraph addition. Gilding the "pro" lily.
  • Reverted the Geaves expansion. Gilding the "pro" lily. We already open the paragraph with the notion of harassment, and Geaves' feelings about academic and religious liberty do not address the actions against him.
  • Restored Finch's statement about outside journalists. This is an attributed statement, and that is indeed what Finch is claiming on the cited page.
  • Cleaned up a little of who is contending and responding to whom. I don't see much significance to separating out Elan Vital from Internet supporters for contention purposes, but then it doesn't really hurt to do so, either, so I left it.
  • Re-instituted spaces between wikilinks and external citation links where they appear adjacently.

Special comments now to the two folks who lost the most edits in today's activity, luckily one "pro" and one "anti":

To .140: I realize you suffered the most in my edit tonight, so I offer you this: while some of these latest edits don't fit so well here at this stage of the game and space in this article has about run out, if you move forward with your "ex-premie activity" article there is an open 32KB to play with, and I suspect you can fully express yourself there on the points you were desiring to advance. BTW, however, I would also urge that the "Teachings" article is of higher encyclopedic priority.

I understand, Gary. Thanks for the good efforts. I am working on the ex-premie activism page but I will take my time. People that have been harassed don't feel like having their names back in the "font-line" again, and I realize it will take time to convice them to come forward. I am not involved on the teachings article so I will keep working on this one. Thanks again --64.81.88.140 15:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To John Brauns: I would let the final Geaves surrebuttal material go; the denial of supporters' characterization of harrassment adds little, and the "Passages" video material opens up a new topic that doesn't bear in surrebuttal to Geaves' rebuttal to the charges of hiding his pro-PR orientation. I would also urge you to hold your peace regarding "purported" or "unverified" testimonials, as otherwise we launch into a credentials contest over the pedigree of multiple Internet postings (are they non-duplicative, non-hearsay, etc.). Also, the thing about spamming search engines is an attributed statement of the supporters, and I presume they really do say this somewhere. If you can come up quickly with a cite for an allegation of the ex-ashram residents being in debt, we can throw in an attributed sentence portion for that.

Gary, first of all I want to say I am happy with the current version apart from one point, and I thank you for the work you have put in. I have made one small change, reducing the number of links to ex-premie.org regarding Mike Donner from three to one. I'm sure no one will complain about that! Regarding Dr. Geaves, the 'Passages' video is of central relevance to this issue. In his new website he argues that his work is objective, his faith is private, and hence he does not need to declare a conflict of interest. He also argues that his critics are anonymous. The page on ex-premie.org which has been there for two years was authored by Joe Whalen and myself, neither of us are anonymous. The questions were put to him politely, consisting of one email to his work, and one letter to his home address. He has made no attempt to contact us with his comments which I have promised to publish on ex-premie.org if he wishes. This was clearly not harrassment. The paragraph as it stands does not include anything countering the allegation.
I absolutely disagree with the rant above. Clearly the ex-premies are trying to cover up the disgusting attack on Geaves. --64.81.88.140 15:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This brings me to another point. Ex-premies have been genuinely harrassed on many occasions. I have been thinking of adding this to the article but I felt I would have to ask each one in turn for permission to use their names here. Read http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/jwcac.htm for details of just one attack which resulted in ex-premies livelihood being threatened. Read Jim Heller's recent post on Forum 8, http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6936.html for more details. Another ex-premie whose only activity was contributing to the forums under his real name lost his job as a result of letters from premies. He now posts anonymously to avoid the same happening again. The ex-premie.org was closed down for two weeks in 2001 after two Denial of Service attacks, the second of which had a major negative impact on the hosting company's business. The premie discussion forum regularly libels ex-premies, but fortunately, none of the official sites link to it.
So I guess what I'm saying is that asking for one sentence denying that Geaves has been harrassed and pointing out that he does have a case to answer is not asking a lot in view of the one sided allegations of harrassment. How about Critics point to Dr. Geaves appearance in the Elan Vital promotional video, 'Passages' as evidence of his conflict of interest [1]. Otherwise, assuming the article is not further changed, I am happy to sign it off. As always, though, I cannot speak for other ex-premies. --John Brauns 10:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You really believe that the Geaves attack in these websites was not harassment? No, of course, that was a public service, sorry. And the call from Jim Heller to the journal about Geaves article was also a public service. right?. Brauns: There is no conflict of interest, there is no pubic service, just good old bigotry. -64.81.88.140 15:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
140, so far, in spite of our differences, we have managed to behave civilly towards each other, so at this late stage, when we have almost agreed on the article, it is sad that you use words like 'rant' and 'bigotry' in reference to attempts to reason. Did you read the Ron Geaves page on ex-premie.org? Was it harrassment? I don't have any evidence that the 'Emile' site was written by an ex-premie, so there is no evidence that ex-premies have harrassed Dr. Geaves. I'll await Gary's response but you have removed the 'disputed' tag prematurely. --John Brauns 19:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, what you are saying that Emile, that posts in the Forum8 and converse with all of you (and was applauded as well) is not an ex-premie? So he is doing all of that work (creating a website, spoofing the logo of Dr. Geaves college, quoting extensively from the ex-premie website), just for fun? And I stand firm in my assessment that that article is pure bigotry. Check also this recent post http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/6953.html That is what, in your opinion?
I have placed the tags back. Will leave the pleasure to remove them to someone else. --64.81.88.140 19:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
John, it is true that there is no formal evidence that the Emile who created the website is an ex-premie but common sense tell so. I believe that Emile would not have created the websit if Geaves at least had tried to communicate about the passage video. May be we can insert something like:
"Some ex-critics believe that Ron Geaves has failed in his duty as a scholar to discuss, what critics consider, a misleading video about Maharaji in which Geaves was a main speaker [2] and consider the website an attempt to inform the public about scholarship, that they consider biased and one-sided due to his conflict of interest that he failed to mention to some of the interested parties."
Andries 19:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Looking forward now, I think it's clear that the "disputed" tag can come off. I may or may not be around at 00:01 UTC to remove it and my other temporary notice at the top of the article, and I don't care if someone else feels like going ahead to do the removal. However, if we have another busy pro/anti edit day between now and then, I am committing to one more clean-up edit pass at or soon after that magic hour, to produce the version I will consider the final product representing the consensus baseline reference version. If no one has removed the tags by the time of my edit pass, I will do so then. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare at that time to break out your toasting glasses, for I think we have done a pretty darn good job of all this, furthermore essentially by consensus and thus without ever having to bring in outside Wikipedians to vote on any deadlocks, and so I plan to wax ceremonial. --Gary D 09:25, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Removed the tags. Thanks again for your efforts. --64.81.88.140 15:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geaves edit by Andries

Andries: I have reverted your edits. This is why:

  1. To say that that website is a public service is totally unacceptable. I have not seen any critic saying that, only denials that it is them that did it.
  2. Adding such a provocative sentence a few hours before the deadline is not acceptable.

Clearly the Geaves case in a good example of what supporters claim against the ex-premies behavior, Any attepmts to whitewash will not be accepted.

I have a question for you Andries.:Do you really believe that the motives behind that horrendous website (go and check it again, please) is anyting but bigotry? Andries: that website is an example of what this people think thay can get away with. Outrageous.

--64.81.88.140 20:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

.140 You can call that whitewashing but I think there is another side to the website that should be mentioned. I did not remove any text. Like ex-premie Toby, and in contrast to John Brauns, I do not agree with the website but the perspective of some of the critics on the website should be added. I do not think that I wrote in a provocative way and besides it was before the deadline. I did not say that the wesbite is a public service. I only wrote that some critics see it that way, and though they have not used the same wordings as I, I am quite sure they will agree with characterizing their position as such. Andries 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.140 you may remember from some time ago that I protested when you inserted the story about the anti-Geaves website here because I thought that then the whole story must be told, not just the supporters' version. Still, you insisted on adding the story. Andries


.140 no I do not consider the website bigotry. I can fully understand that people are hypersenstive of whitewashing something that has harmed them deeply. I am myself hypersensitive of whitewashing my former guru too. [3] Andries 21:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are mixing apples and oranges, Andries. If the ex-premies want to criticize Dr. Geaves for the "Passages" video or anything, let them do it in the Miscellaneous criticism if they want to. The edit you did is in the section about the ex-premies motives and modus-operandi specifically in regard to an outrageous and anonymous website with the tiltle "Ron geaves in Academic Fraud". I would suggest that you stay away from this one, Andries. Let one of the ex-premies add that stuff if they want. The reason I ask this should be obvious. --64.81.88.140 21:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rebuttals should be added where they belong i.e. near the accusations. Andries 21:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Andries, really... There are no accussations in that paragraph! So there is no need for rebuttals.!!!! Just stating the facts. read it again, please! It already states the critics allegations against Geaves. --64.81.88.140 21:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.140 well I would call this an accusation "Supporters see this as a cyberstalking attack on Geaves' professional life and an attempt to have him fired for his religious beliefs." Andries 21:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Andries, I beg you., You are exhausting! READ THE WHOLE PARAPGRAPH. Critics POV is already there. :
They point to an effort launched on the Internet in September 2004[60] [61] to coordinate a campaign to write to Chester College, the employer of Dr. Ron Geaves, asking that he be sanctioned for publishing papers favorable to Rawat in academic publications without informing the publications that he was a follower of Rawat's. Supporters see this as a cyberstalking attack on Geaves' professional life and an attempt to have him fired for his religious beliefs.
I will ask you again: Leave this to the ex-premies. Let them write what they want about it. You cannot speak for them. Period. --64.81.88.140 21:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


. 140 okay, I understand that Gary D is on your side in this case and I guess I am wrong. I leave it like this. Andries 04:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed tags removed

Phew....! After all that hard work, we find ourselves here, alive but somewhat exhausted. I am sure that neither side is 100% happy but hopefully reached the stage of "can live with it, although reluctantly".

Thanks to all for the hard work and in particular Gary D for the commitment to see this through and the patience to deal with our passionated POVs. Let's now go work on other articles (keep an eye on this and ancillary articles as vandalism was rampant today.) --Zappaz 00:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 5 final re-edit pass

There is actually almost nothing to the actual edit pass, but I did want to comment on and close the remaining open issues:

  • Thanks to .140 and to John Brauns for understanding about my prior edits.
  • I tried to beef up the Geaves thing a little per Andries' and John Brauns' (sp!) request, but it just doesn't work, because the video reference in this context only goes to demonstrate that Geaves is a PR follower, and Geaves and the PR supporters apparently don't deny that. You may think the claims against Geaves are holy truth or rank fiction, but what the article explains the critics are contending he did wrong is already very clear, and needs no surrebuttal comment. Put a little differently, there is no need for another sentence on the video as evidence of a conflict of interest, for if Geaves did as the critics characterize he did, the conflict of interest is clear. I did manage to throw in one additional "alleges" regarding critics' anonymity. At the risk of just moving this fight elsewhere, I note that a Ron Geaves article was started a little while back, so if folks think more detail needs to go into the Geaves story, that's the place to put it. For example, John Brauns' items above to me about Geaves (private versus public faith, anonymous versus not really anonymous critics, etc.) would be at the level of detail of such a page, I think.
  • Reverted the bullet formatting in the "critic's motives" section; bullet formatting usually requires an intro sentence, and I didn't want to mess with it at the last moment. I have no problem with something like this, but let's walk across the magic threshold first.
  • Trimmed a little lingering POV here and there that had managed to stick
  • Misc final formatting
  • Alleged supporters' harrassment of ex-premies, along with alleged debts of ex-ashram members, and, well, anything else, just didn't make the time cut. I leave these to the good discretion of future editors and future rounds.
  • Proofread and caught a few erroneous tidbits.

--Gary D 03:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) Well, there it is. So let's celebrate...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat/Archive_11&oldid=95766199"