Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 7

Tit for tat

If we have two groups, each claiming to be "the good side" while utterly condemning the "other side" as "bad", what shall we do?

In US partisan politics, undecided voters often choose the candidate whose campaign seems "nicer" -- so that "negative campaigning" can backfire on mudslingers. It gets really tricky and confusing if one type of "mud" is the accusation that one's opponents are "attackers and mudslingers".

Since this article requires consensus (not a majority vote), I have up till now not commented on personalities or 'tactics' of article contributors. (Well, except maybe to point out a few especially calm and helpful folks -- sorry if that was a "personal remark" ;-)

So I would really prefer to see this talk page focus on specific and concrete suggestions on improving the Prem Rawat series of articles. And let's try to avoid criticizing individual contributors: I don't care WHO says WHAT. I just want to know what we're going to put into the article. --Uncle Ed 17:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ed, you're not seeing the picture clearly. This article is ostensibly about Prem Rawat. Some people follow him and have nice things to say about him, some people are former followers and have bad things to say about him. Rawat's defenders, taking a page from his Elan Vital, his own organization, have met the evidence against him with an obvious strategy of offering implausible explanations and simultaneously mounting ridiculous character slurs against the critics, trying to make us the real story.

Ed, I have yet to see a single supporter here even try to justify Elan Vital's claim that I admitted embezzling $18k from them. No one really believes that. There never was a single cent lost from that community. It was just a stupid joke I once uttered which they have very foolishly tried to make hay with. You and I both know that that's because truth isn't what this is all about for them. It's deflecting scrutiny from Rawat.

How would it be if I claimed that 140, or 122, or some other premie harrasse me, writing to my employer, etc? It's not hearsay, could that make its way into the article? No, of course not. Yet the premies get away with it several times over.

Do you have any idea how John MacGregor was harrassed by the organization and premies after he wrote his article "Blinded by the Light"? This was before that whole issue with the EV docs. And then after? You have NO idea. And he's not the only one. Many exes, including myself, have been harrassed galore, but that's not relevant for the article somehow. Spurious, lying allegations about exes are but not the other way around.

So I'm SOOOOOOOOO SOORRRRRYYYY if I'm taking up a bit of bandwidth on your talk page here but, honestly, Ed, if you were in my shoes, you'd do the same thing.

-- Jim

OK, OK. I hereby declare no more criticising from my side. It is going to be hard, in particular if intentionally provoked, but I will do my best to keep it to myself.. B-). --64.81.88.140 19:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could not agree with you more, Ed. It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow the editing process with so much mudslinging going around.

I have visited the ancillary articles and I see that Zappaz, Andries and Gary D have already done a bit of work there. Not much left to do on these IMO, or is it?. Besides these articles. Is there anything left to do at this stage? --Senegal 19:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jim, several points of reply:

1. "This article is ostensibly about Prem Rawat. Some people follow him and have nice things to say about him, some people are former followers and have bad things to say about him." Couldn't agree more.
2. If Elan Vital are publicly claiming that you "admitted embezzling $18k from them", then their claim and your counter-claim (that you were just kidding) could go in the article, if you want.

Hi Ed,

Here is the particular part of the particular FAQ that concerns me (I've deleted references to others):

Are the people in this hate group credible?

Of the 15-20 people posting as various anonymous personae on the hate site, it has been documented that:

One, a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work.

This is not exactly a cross-section of normal, ordinary, functional, law-abiding citizens. '

As I said, EV knows this is a lie. This is not arguable. First, my entire post was jokey such that it should have been obvious to anyone that I was kidding. Second, and far more importantly, I explained that I was, in fact, just joking immediately afterwards in that very forum thread. Third, when foolish premies siezed on my joke and tried to mischaracterize it as a real admission of a serious felony, the former coordinator of the community I lived in, Jack Tuff, still an active and very dedicated premie, publically reported that there never was any such loss or anything like it. This is proof beyond all question that EV is willing to lie in order to protect Rawat. By the way, one-reality.net still tries to defame me with this too, pretending that there's some sort of open question as to what the truth was.

Now you tell me, please, how one could write a comment on this that was NPOV? Is it enough, in your view, to simply state that EV says that one critic admitted stealing this money but he says that he was just joking and points out several reasons that he should be believed? Would that go far enough for you, Ed? The problem is that this issue should be closed. It's a simple fact that they're lying and the more interesting issue is what arises from that: why?

How would you report this fairly according to your NPOV guidelines? Really, I'm curious.

-- Jim

1. The sentence John MacGregor was harrassed by the organization and premies after he wrote his article "Blinded by the Light" ought to be in the article (with a source), along with an EL/premie response.
2. "Spurious, lying allegations about exes are but not the other way around." If this is the POV of ex-premies, i.e., that EV or PR are spreading dirt about critics in an attempt to discredit them, then this definitely should be in the article.

What I'm going to do is encourage the Prem Rawat series of articles to address the topic of relations between the organization and its ex-members. What I'm not going to do, as you probably realize already, is try to "get to the bottom of the controversy" and endorse the POV that they're just harassing you (or, contrariwise, that you're just harrassing them). --Uncle Ed 22:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I am confused here:

• There is no mention of this alleged embezlement neither in this article nor in the Prem Rawat article
• The issue Jim is discussing is a reference made in the FAQs of Elan Vital
• I could not find Jim's name in any of these FAQs

So, I do not understand the bruhaha about this. The best we can do is to say in the article that Elan Vital is making false accusations against Jim about an alleged embezlement. But if we do that, we will need to disclose Jim's name. Are we sure we want to do that?

(Jim: if you have an issue with the allegation made in the FAQ of Elan Vital, Wikipedia is hardly the place to address that...)

--Zappaz 04:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. You can indeed say that Elan Vital is making false accusations but you don't have to name me. That doesn't follow. Just like they didn't specifically name me in their FAQ. All you need say is that Elan Vital has resorted to blatant lies in order to discredit their critics. Yeah, I know ... I'm really holding my breath .... -- Jim

I do not see a problem on adding something along the lines of "critics complain that Elan Vital is making false accussations against them in order to discredit them". You can try and add something like that to the article.--Zappaz 15:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Zappaz 15:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about:

"critics complain that Elan Vital is making false allegations against them in order to harass, intimidate and discredit them. They give the example of Elan Vital claiming on its website that one of them admitted embezzling $18,000 from a Rawat-related organization although, in truth, the critic merely joked about doing so one day, immediately explained he was joking and no money was ever reported missing"?

-- Jim

Cult awaress Network

Zappaz, have you read the site? You wrote "wide array of academic articles about cults" Geee, if you call that academic. I could write better articles than those, I mean it. Andries 04:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology, which owns and operates the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) sued the original Cult Awareness Network into bandruptcy and took it over. It then took possession of all of the original "CAN" confidential files, including those of clients. It deceives people into thinking it is a place where folks can get help if a loved-one is trapped in a destructive cult. It has advertising on its site that discourages people from getting mental health care from professionals, including discouraging people from taking medicine prescribed by psychiatrists and medical doctors.

It smears, demeans and defames the late Margaret Singer, Ph.D, who was a world renowned and respected expert on cults. Singer was the Psychology Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley until she died last year. CAN is yet another biased website being used here to futher the pro-Rawat agenda which is to discredit anyone who is critical of him. It is unconscionable that this site has been placed as a link within this article -- just because someone "thinks" the articles are interesting.

IMO, the use of this website is tantamout to promoting The Church of Scientology and Elan Vital/Rawat.

CynthiaG 14:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, Cynthia:

1. It wasn't me that added that reference. I just wikified the Cult Awareness Network entry by Cynthia
2. Looking at that site's content I would argue that it may be relevant as it has a critique of Singer
3. Providing we are saying who's behind the site, I do not see a problem in keeping it.

--Zappaz 15:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just removed the CAN link. It's an inappropriate website to place within this article, even though you "wikified" it. It's purpose is to deceive unknowledgeable people (note it's name and then its content about cults and so-called anti-cultists) and there is no reason for it to be placed in this article. All of the CAN references to Singer are strongly biased against her work/studies. IMO, no more anti-Singer (and other cult expert) references are needed within this article. With all the sources from Melton, Introvigne, Barker, CESNUR, and Geaves, (all considered cult apologists by other known scholars) there is more than enough bias against former followers of any personality cult leaders, especially ex-premies.

IMO, I would say this is nothing more than Rawat students piling on the rhetoric of the NRM movement. I'll keep deleting the CAN link if it's put back into the article. Once again, it's purposely deceptive based upon its name and how it was obtained by the Scientologists, therefore not credible.

CynthiaG 15:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia: It is not a good idea to remove a reference just because you don't like it. If you want to remove it, you need to explain why it is not relevant, regardless of your POV. The fact that it is a Scientology website has nothing to do with its value as a reference or lack thereof .

I would like to know what other editors think about keeping/removing that reference. My vote is to keep the reference with the wikification of the CAN article as a disclaimer, in particluar due to the critique of Singer, as she is prominently mentioned in the article. --Zappaz 16:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well for a change I (partially) agree with Zappaz :) i.e. that is not a good idea to delete a website only because you do not like the contents. That is not how Wikipedia works. On the other hand, I think that Scientology is a good example of, what I believe to be, an unreliable reference. I think we should only add websites that either directly refer to Rawat or are referred to in the article. Otherwise we could include all website relating to gurus and cults and NRMs. It is not referred to in the article so I choose to remove the website. Andries 16:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know a lot more about the "Cult Awareness Network" than about "Maharaji". They spread disparaging information about new religious movements, especially the Unification Church, and they put inquirers in touch with deprogrammers -- possibly collecting a fee for this. When they finally went too far, they lost a lawsuit and got taken over by the Scientologists. Singer got discredited, when her psychologicial theory of 'mind control' was declared "not scientific" by the American Psychological Association, and could no longer pick up huge fees for providing 'expert testimony' in court. I've heard the "line" spouted by Cynthia, but the considered cult apologists by other known scholars claim is horsefeathers. Actually, there's quite a bit of calm, reputable sociological work done by well-regarded academics on the NRMs. And they just don't agree with the anti-cult & counter-cult movements. There's just no such thing as brainwashing: people believe what they choose to, and people join or leave wacky religious (or political) groups whenever they want to. --Uncle Ed 16:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--

--

you mean wacky cults like e.g. the unification church from criminal moon? true, only complete idtiots could fall for that? Xenu

--

--

I concurr with Ed and Zappa. The article on Singer is relevant IMHO and should to be included. Singer's work was controversial, to say the least, and the article refers to that. The CAN site also includes good material about de-programmers, also mentioned in the article. It is a no brainer: the reference is valid and needs to stay. I have re-added it. --Senegal 17:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The APA did not say that Singer's study was unscientific (that was not what was stated) they said it was inconclusive. Then the CESNUR/INFORM folks ran away with it and wrote tomes about the non-existence of mind-control or coercive persuasion.

I don't see how anyone can say that this article can have contributions written by former followers of Rawat, when everything we add is deleted or vice versa. I mean, why bother when we get trashed by the pro-Rawat side as well as by the Wikipedians? This is an article about Prem Rawat, not Margaret Singer or deprogrammers.

But, if you want to bother, and for the sake of fairness, I direct you to the following articles published in 2002 by the (then) President of APA, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Psychologist, Stanford University professor, and other articles published in the November, 2002 issue of the APA's Monitor on Psychology that discusses mind-control and, by golly, they actually use the word cult, too (mind you, this is the same APA that CESNUR uses as its basis for trashing Singer on mind-control):

Zimbardo article: Mind control: psychological reality or mindless rhetoric? ::http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.html

In same issue: Cults of Hatred Panelists at a convention session on hatred asked APA to form a task force to investigate mind control among destructive cults.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults.html

Finally, the "reading and website recommendations" in the above-mentioned "Cults of Hatred" article are listed here (you might find some authors that surprise you):

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults_read.html

Sorry for interferring with your article, premies.

CynthiaG 18:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Senegal, think twice, you open the door for all kinds of articles and websites that I think are relevant. I know many. Andries 18:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia, the second link (re: 'task force') you supplied led me to the following:

"APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology found the report "unacceptable," lacking in scientific evidence, relying too much on sensational anecdotes and providing insufficient information for APA to take a position on the issue."

To me (and to courts), this means that the DIMPAC/Singer concept of "mind control" is not scientific. You, on the other hand, are welcome to intrepret APA's findings any way you wish. Wikipedia, of course, takes no side on controversial issues but merely reports what the various sources say.

And if a "cult" is a "religion regarded as spurious" and you regard my religion as spurious, than obviously I'm "in a cult". In other words, you sharply disagree with my religious beliefs (and that's okay with me :-) and think my church therefore has a fraudulent basis. But I'm not an idiot or even an imbecile, because I can recognize idtiots as a misspelling even without a spell-checker; I'm at least a moron. ;) --Uncle Ed 15:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i am not Cynthia(she wouldn't definitely misspell), and sorry for provoking you. I just wanted to know if you are so free to include yourself to the people that fall for wacky religious groups , as you mentioned so simply. Well ,the answer was almost predictable,means that you have found for yourself something, really special, no matter what other people think. i am glad it didn't rock your mood.regards. Xenu

You didn't rock my mood; I like being "misunderestimated" (er, if that's the word :-) --Uncle Ed 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits to Sources of Criticism

As promised, I have started to edit the article. So far I have only done the first section, 'Sources of Criticism'. While keeping changes to a minimum, I have tried to let it flow better, giving a better historical context to the criticisms. I have included two links to in-depth articles from 1974, which are critical in the true sense of the word, and are a fair reflection of how outsiders viewed Prem Rawat at the time.

I changed the phrase 'the media subjected him...' as this made Rawat look like a victim of the media.

I added a reference to Bob Mishler as he could be regarded as the first active ex-premie.

I reworded the description of ex-premies correcting the incorrect statement that the majority left over 20 years ago. The fact is that most current active ex-premies left since 1999. I removed the part about ex-premies feeling 'betrayed, angry and disillusioned' as although this may be true for some, it does not accurately reflect the feelings of ex-premies, and is too complex a subject for this article. I also reworded the part about the size of the group, and representation of the 'silent majority'.

Given that prominence is given to the views about ex-premies of 'supporters', I have added that ex-premies believe these are a minority of current followers that do not represent the majority. (BTW, neither I nor any previous EPO webmasters has ever spammed search engines - whatever that means - EPO has a high ranking because of its relevance, but more importantly to search engines, its traffic.)

Yoiu cuold be not more wrong. ex-premie1, ex-prmie2, ex-premie3, ex-premie4 are what? Mantlepiece adonrments? The only reason yoiu are prominent on Goggle is becasue of obsessive use of the searcjh term "Maharaji" and "Prem Rwat" in your 1,000 pages. Nothing to do with traffic. Spamming you do, my man. --Phat Grrl 03:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ex-premie mirror sites were set up not to get higher placement in search engines, but in response to two successful Denial of Service attacks on the then host of EPO. The website is about Maharaji/Prem Rawat so of course his name is included in the text and metatags. This is NOT spamming. Spamming could however be defined as having www.maharaji.xx websites for just about every country, when one with a language option on the home page would so. --John Brauns 07:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope that any further changes to this section will be supported by reasoned discussion here, and not anonymous edits. --John Brauns 00:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your edits have added absolutely no value to this article. The only changes have been to bend this article to the POV of the critcis. Paragraphs that were NPOV are no longer so, and will now need to be re-written back. Prose that was well written and flowing, now needs to be re-edited. If your intention is to do the same to the rest of the article, that will be real bad. I will most definitively NPOVing your edits as soon as I have some time. Hope that other editors will do the same.--64.81.88.140 02:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John: Let me explain something to you. What was requested and expected is that you would either augment the article with new information or provide new information that could be added to the article by other editors. What you have done is to re-write a complete section. This amounts to a revert of a lot of work from me and other editors that was tacitly approved and commended by several active editors. That is unacceptable. The points you made above could have been added, and the incorrect dates, corrected. Re-writing the article is not what is required, nor what was expected. Before I revert your edits and incorporate the substance of your corrections to the previous version, I will leave some time and space for other editors to comment as well.--Zappaz 03:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a contributor of mellifluous prose that has now been munched on by just about everybody, LOL & ;-) , I urge patience and restraint in responding to John, Cynthia, and any other ex-premie editors coming on the scene. Heck, I'm just thrilled to see them participating. John in today's edit has among other things contributed some additional 1970s material, given us an update to the timeline in the 1980s, talked on the talk page about what he was doing, and I believe at least attempted to throw the other side some concessions, which is both commendable and rare. Has he also added an "anti" spin? Well, maybe so. But I've got news for yas: to my eyes, almost every ex-premie edit has come with "anti" spin, and almost every supporter edit has come with "pro" spin. But spin can always be killed later on, while additional substantive information is precious. I would suggest each side let their opponents "get it all out" as much as possible, hell, downright fill the article with stuff, and then the knife can fall in consensus at the end. That way, no one can come back and say (regardless of whether or not it is so) that they were never allowed to tell their full story, or were intimidated away from editing in mid-stream. Giving full and free reign to the other side is a path to everyone forever holding their peace at the end of the process. --Gary D 06:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gary and Zappaz for your response. I really do not feel I have rewritten the article. Where I have added to or corrected the existing text, I tried to make the minimum of changes. Regarding the accusation that the previous version was NPOV, let us look at one paragraph as an example:-

Supporters who are active on the internet label the group an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen obsessive Internet addicts who speak for no one but themselves, use the Internet to magnify their importance [5] (http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech2.htm) by spamming search engines, and manipulate the media to shed negative light on Rawat [6] (http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/007/article/). Ex-premies claim that these supporters who are critical of ex-premies on the internet are a small minority who do not represent the thousands of current followers, who are largely unaware of the allegations against Prem Rawat.

The first sentence (apart from the phrase 'active on the internet') is how the paragraph read before my changes. It was 100% POV of the Rawat supporters. It linked to an anonymously maintained website that is clearly libellous, and the language is deliberately insulting. Apart from qualifying 'supporters' I kept the sentence unchanged. My additional sentence is by comparison a mild counter. I took on board Gary's advice to allow readers to make up their own minds where there is serious disagreement between the internet active supporters and the active ex-premies, who I have already argued here are comparable in number.

You are missing on the concept of NPOV. The original text was quoting the POV of the supporters, not a fact. Also, the last paragraph you wrote is sheer speculation and spin. How can you say that current followers are unaware of allegations? It is in the FAQs of all the Elan Vitals --64.81.88.140 08:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

140, surely it is clear to you that a paragraph that 'quotes the POV of the supporters' without any further comment or qualification, has to be POV for the supporters. Regarding your comment on current followers being unaware of the allegations, as a result of what you wrote, I would be happy to change that to 'current followers who do not read the internet are not aware of the allegations'. You have made me realise that the EV FAQs are helping inform current followers about the allegations - thank you. --John Brauns 21:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My further participation here depends on how my changes to this section are treated. This is not a threat - just a recognition that my time is limited, and if I believe it is being wasted here, then there's no point in continuing. --John Brauns 07:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will argue exactly the same. --64.81.88.140 08:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well ... I see your point and I am willing to hold my breath and clinch my teeth for a while in the spirit of achieving peace at the end of the process. But cute jewels of spin such as Ex-premies claim that well over 90% of Rawat's followers have rejected his teachings, although neither Rawat's critics nor his supporters can claim to speak for all his former followers as it is not possible to canvass their views, are simply unaceptable. (why not 60% or 95% or 99%?) LOL!

Attempts to estimate the number of people who have received Knowledge outside India and who have left put the figure at more like 99%. The figure of 90% was to avoid this kind of dispute. The figure quoted in the book 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji' was 6 million, so my estimate of 90% former followers would give Rawat 600,000 current followers. Would you claim more than that currently? --John Brauns 07:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot speculate on the number of people that receive Knowledge and how many people have "left". (By the way, left what?). And what is this distinction about "outside of India". What, people in India are not human beigns? Nowadays there are Knowledge sessions every day around the world. But you can clearly assert ( and you have alreday done that) that the ex-premies are just a very small group of people.

I also read on the Prem Rawat Foundation that Maharaji has spoken to 6.5 million people, not given Knowledge. So, the 6 million people quoted in that book, may have included people that receivd Knowledge before Maharaji's time, or something like that. Something does not compute here.--64.81.88.140 09:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?' in front of me. Here is the quote from the back page:- Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet? This was written in 1973, and I remember Rawat saying this book was close to being perfect. The 6.5 million figure from TPRF's site is the sum, according to TPRF, of the total attendance at events where Rawat spoke during a recent tour. Almost all of these were in India where going to see a visiting guru is part of the culture. --John Brauns 21:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that John is the owner of ex-premie.org, and the amount of inward links he is creating for his site from WP, is unacceptable. This is tantamout to propaganda and self-serving. Just in this edit excursion, he "managed" to squeeze-in half a dozen links to his site. Ouch!

I 'squeezed in' 3 links not 6. If these historical articles were available in the TPRF Press Room I would have been happy to link to that site, but TPRF and Elan Vital for some reason have not kept a public library of press coverage, even though I am certain they have all these articles in their archives. The pages linked do not contain any commentary by ex-premies but just the articles as they were written in 1974. Gary appears to support their inclusion. --John Brauns 07:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I still count six on that section... You can make a statement about these early articles, and provide a link in the reference section. --64.81.88.140 08:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are 62 external links in the body of the article. Why are you asking me to move the links to those articles to the External Links section? --John Brauns 21:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also concerned about the 'crawling" little edits by Cynthia, withouth substantiation in this talk page and the loss of good text due to these edits. --64.81.88.140 07:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, 140. Cynthia, perhaps we could work together on changes to ensure they are agreed by consensus? --John Brauns 07:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, John, I already stated that I'm finished trying to work on this article (see my message on the talk page of the main article). So I guess you're on your own here unless someone else is willing to try. I am quite concerned about the two websites that are linked to these articles that are libellous and demeaning to named ex-premies. I don't see them as satirical; I see them as personal attacks by anonymous students of Rawat.

I know I broke the Wikirules here (there are so many!) and I have already apologized for upsetting the apple cart here. Good luck!

CynthiaG 15:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so we're all agreed that we're furious but we're going to give those bastards from the other side a chance to pack all their lies, calumny, spin and deception into the article before we all go back in together to do final edits and deletes. I submit this is a workable plan. Alright everyone, back to adding in more information, detail, and text. --Gary D 23:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

thanks that is all i wanted to know.Xenu

(Did you read my mind?) :) --64.81.88.140 23:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are we having a little trouble with my dry, acerbic wit? Let me clarify: My remarks above were directed at everyone, on both sides. --Gary D 07:01, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I for one appreciated your humour, Gary. What I need to know is what is going to happen to this first section? It seems everyone is waiting for some undefined moment before editing (or reverting) my changes. I would like to know the result before committing further work. --John Brauns 21:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have made an additional edit to the Sources of Criticism page by adding the sentence 'These ex-premies include former senior staff within Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission, and former Instructors personally appointed by Prem Rawat.' --John Brauns 22:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just keep editing and adding text and info. No one will "revert" your changes unless there is a good reason. Most probably, once all the text is added, it will be reviewed for NPOV and the text copyedited for flow and ease of reading. Note, that there is no guarantee that your edits will remain as is. That will be left to concensus.

Regarding the sentence above, adding "Some of" to the begining of it, will help the NPOV. --Zappaz 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zappaz. I'm sure you can understand my nervousness after some of the comments above about reverting my changes, re-editing my prose, and NPOVing the section! I would have liked to see what that means before continuing, but with your encouragement, I'll have a go. Don't you think 'Some of these ex-premies are...' means the same as 'These ex-premies include ....'? --John Brauns 22:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John, I think Zappaz called it about right as to what will happen. I expect there will be only a few light edits to your material as you are working on it over the next few days:

• We are in an informal "anti"-editors-adding-material phase, and you seem to be about the only remaining "anti" editor interested in working on the page (Andries is also active, but he has already been here long-term and I think he's mostly done), so I don't expect any major editing to your stuff until you declare on this page, "okay, I'm done" (maybe within a week or so?)
• During this interim period I am urging all "pro" editors to exercise the utmost restraint regarding your material, and if you feel an edit during this period to your material has gone too far, I would support you reverting it.
• Once you have declared you are done, the editorial knife will fall in a search for consensus, and I expect the discussion to be hot and heavy, though hopefully relatively brief.

In short, John, this is your time to bring your expertise to the article, and we appreciate all your efforts. --Gary D 18:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)