Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 22

2321:

missions", is directly contradicted by several quotes from PR in Wiki quotes. Mishler's claim that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol", is not supported by any other source. And since "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to biographies of living people", Mishler's comments should be removed for this reason alone. But in addition Wiki policy also comments about the "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view". Furthermore, under the subject of corroboration, Wiki says that if "The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination". And on the "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability". For all these reasons I am going to remove Mishler's comments from this article. It is obvious that they should never have been included in this article since they are exceptional, sensationalist claims without any corroboration by a biased source from 30 years ago who is not alive to discuss them. Mishler's sensationalist comments have been inserted in this article by members of the anti PR group, "The Ex-premies" with the sole intention of discrediting PR and promoting their POV.

4227:"David V. Barrett has been a teacher of Religious Studies and English, a computer programmer and intelligence analyst for the British and American governments, and a journalist. He has been a full-time freelance writer since 1991. As an author he now researches and writes mainly on religious and esoteric subjects. In 1997 he began working on a Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics, studying new religious movements; he is a frequent speaker on this subject at conferences, and on radio and television. One of his previous books, Secret Societies (Blandford 1997), is a detailed study of movements with esoteric beliefs through the ages, including the Gnostics, Cathars, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians and Freemasons. Between them, his various books have so far been published in thirteen languages and seventeen countries. Barrett is a regular book critic; his work has appeared in newspapers and magazines, including the TLS, Independent, Literary Review, New Scientist, New Statesman & Society, Spectator, City Limits, Fortean Times, Catholic Herald, Gnosis, and British Book News, among many others. He has contributed to several specialist encyclopaedias, and is frequently consulted by publishers and by other writers. He edited Vector, the critical journal of the British Science Fiction Association, for 25 issues from 1985 to 1989. He was chairman of the 1990 Milford Writers' Conference. From 1992 to 1995 he was administrator and chairman of the judges of the Arthur C. Clarke Award for science fiction. He is also the reviews editor for Lexcentrics, the website for fans of cryptic crosswords, word games, and the amusing oddities of the English Language." 2358:

put through a medium. Yes? Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 2, 1971 2: People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy. Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971 3: When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 - Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge 4 :Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc. Rawat could not of been clearer. Mishler is clearly making his strory up. Wiki policy is that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Knowledge articles, talk pages, and user pages".

3474:". Rawat has never claimed it and Melton has never claimed he did. You're the only person in the entire world who says that Melton said Rawat "claimed a Sant Mat lineage". Melton said "Hans Maharaji claimed a Sant Mat lineage", he doesn't say that Rawat claimed it. The original sentence, which I did not insert, has been in existence for months said - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, believed that Rawat comes from a Sant Mat lineage and claimed him to be a "Perfect Master", an embodiment of God on earth". It is obviously incorrect. So on January 13th I changed it to - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, believed that Rawat comes from a Sant Mat lineage in which a "Perfect Master" is an embodiment of God on earth". Which accurately paraphrases Melton's quote, since it is already established in the second paragraph of this article that Rawat considers himself to be a "Perfect Master" and therefore Melton's comment that Rawat claims to be a Perfect master is redundant. On 17th Jan you changed the sentence to read - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, 2892:

also be included as these are significant viewpoints as well. You speak of "two sides" of a controversial debate, but that is only your assessment as a detractor, in which you consider your opinion to be one side of the debate and the website of an organization that exist in various countries, that publishes materials, engages in humanitarian activities, organizes volunteer activities for hundreds of thousands of people in 82 countries to be the "other side" of the debate. But that is not necessarily the case. It has been already established in previous discussion in these pages that the opinions expressed in the various websites you own are the opinion of a few individuals. That does not make these few individuals "the other side" of a controversial debate. Don't get me wrong, please: you and others have their right to express your opinions (and you do!) in your personal webpages, and chatrooms and other fora, but these opinions would not be usable in Knowledge.

3264:

John-Paul, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ted Stevens and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people set up a "Criticism of" article to create a negative impression and give them a place to vent their criticism that would not be allowed on a BLP. This article is clealry an abuse of Knowledge in order to attack Prem Rawat. I am delinking it from the Prem Rawat article immediately until this issue is addressed and resolved. I expect this article will be removed and the "Criticsm of" section in the PR BLP to be renamed "Scholarly opinion" and include all scholalry opinion not just negative opinion.

2956:

that the ex-premie view of Rawat is the mainstream view. But I recognise I have to play by the rules if I want be in the game. So, Jossi, you accept that links to an organisation's website are appropriate to show the opinions of that organisation. This article is about Prem Rawat, who has no official relationship to Elan Vital, so do you agree that links to Elan Vital should be removed from this article, and from all articles except that for Elan Vital? Also, since you state that ex-premies are NOT significant, do you agree that links to Elan Vital's opinions should exclude links to their opinions on ex-premies?--

1209:. All of you must know very well what is happening to religion and Knowledge in the materialistic age. All the time, the latest models are being built, the latest fashions are being designed. Day by day men are striving to improve the quality and appearance of their inventions. And today I have to say with sorrow that the Knowledge which was once firmly established in this land of India has been slowly disappearing. But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and 1372:

Time and Newsweek to Ramparts to Rolling Stone, Playboy and People of which I have copies. The research of Stephen Kent in the archives of the U.S. alternative press of the 1970's shows it was only slightly different to the mainstream press, being harsher in it's criticisms. I have only begun my search of the academic journals but the articles I have already read, while different in tone and emphasis, also agree with the the newspaper and magazine articles. I have copies of the following books, some only in electronic format, most in hard copy:

2207:* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media. * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 3072:"Further reading" means "if you would like to read further about this subject". What ever the subhead, the first sentence could be "Over the years Prem Rawat has been mentioned in articles and books by many religious and social scholars. Authors and texts are listed in chronological order - Aardvark (Dictionary of Beliefs & Religions, pp.145 - 1973) Abercrombie (Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428 - 1973) etc. I am not interested in listing the miriad of newspaper and magazine articles that vary from the reasonable to the absurd. 2690:

not backed up by 'reputable sources' have been expunged from Knowledge. I accept that my site (ex-premie.org), and Dr. Mike Finch's site (mikefinch.com), may not satisfy Knowledge's requirements for sources for biographies for living people, but to allow Elan Vital's anonymous opinions to be included in this and other articles, without balancing those opinions, seems to be against natural justice, and will clearly not help in reaching a NPOV article. I would appreciate advice on how to deal with this. --

1416:(a) There is not material in this article that is not properly sourced as per Knowledge policies and guidelines. If there is, please point it out so that it can addressed; (b) Please keep your opinions of the subject to yourself, unless your intentions are to provoke, that is; and (c) Just in case you forgot that very basic premise, the decision of what needs to be included in the article is a decision that will need to be made by the consensus of editors and not yours alone. 1380:

Elan Vital from various Dictionaries and Encyclopedias of Religions, Cults and NRMs that I have found in major state libraries and the National Library of Australia. While I am anxious to hear of any further resources dealing with the career of Prem Rawat, even those that are not suitable to be used in Knowledge, I believe I already have adequate information to say that this article does not portray the same career of Prem Rawat's as do these sources.

31: 325:

or - either all the Elan Vital links on wikipedia go - or the links I've referenced come in. If you you want to play a game of officious bureaucracy that's up to you, it's familiar territory for me so I guess we'll find out just what wikipedia is made of. If you want to discuss form of words fine - but the issue of links is not debatable given that my involvement is purely because of previous choices made by wikipedia editors.

2175:

devotees, the loss of most of his followers, an increasing emphasis in the late 70's on personal devotion to him by his remaining followers and then the closing down of his organisations and public proselytisation, the Eastern "trappings" were jettisoned, the change of name to Elan Vital and obscurity. Later mentions of him in the reputable press talk of him as one of the 70's controversial gurus with a remnant following.

3010:

expected. To hold one view is implicitly a rejection of others. Most of the scholarly criticism of PR seems to come from old studies by obscure Catholic scholars! What a surprise! And to take Will Beback's point, why isn't there a section "Praise of Prem Rawat". Since most critics already appear in the article elsewhere, perhaps we should link to them there and not have a "Criticism of Prem Rawat": section at all.

1929:. There is no doubt that it will not be an easy task, but I am confident that with a lot of patience, and if editors engage in constructive discussions and avoid making negative statements on or off wiki about other editors or about the subject of the article, enough good will can be created that we can take contributions in good faith and end up with a better article we can all feel proud about. 1886:. That article was created to avoid unbalancing this article with verifiable criticisms. Otherwise the usual Knowledge policies and guidelines apply, as mentioned above. If COI editors find consensus on the talk page for new or altered material then there shouldn't be a problem. If TG (or anyone else) has specific proposals for changing the intro then let's see what common ground we can find. - 3227:

section where we alllow opinion to be stated. And currently, the only opinion we allow to be stated is "criticism". This is clearly unfair but rather than increase the size of the article by inserted all the "positive" scholarly opinion, we should just list all the "scholarly" references and links and let the reader make up their own mind rather than only presenting the critical information.

1312:(true guru). You should take the following factors into account: 1. There is no generally accepted definition of the term. 2. A scholarly article or discussion cannot be based on meaningless terms. 3. At the time of the interview, Prem Rawat had been in the West only a short time. His command of English left a lot to be desired. 4. He never announced that he was the Lord of the Universe. -- 783:

shorter. You do not seem to want that, and are acting as if you were a neutral editor, which it is obviously not the case. Pjacobi and Centrx made very good observations, that we can address as editors interested in this article. I invite you to discuss edits, rather than act unilaterally. If you find yourself reverted because you chose not to engage in discussions, do not be surprised.

1743:

admitted signing a false affidavit under pressure I considered to be blackmail. However, that was 3 years ago. I haven't thought about that in years. But I'm glad you've brought it up. If you consider that this invalidates any possible editing I do on this article or any others then you should immediately bring it to the attention of the appropriate Wiki officers and have a ruling made.

1407:

While Rawat himself is unimportant and a minor guru his story is interesting as being one of the most ridiculed and controversial of the 1970's gurus and so deserves more length than it otherwise might. Please remember that our opinions are not appropriate as sources of Wiki articles. Poorly sourced controversial material from followers or critics of Prem Rawat has no place here.

1376:

Cults: What Parents Should Know - Joan Carol Ross, Michael D. Langone The Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia - edited by Margaret Smith and David Crossley Between Dark and Dark - David Lovejoy Soul Rush - Sophie Collier The Living Master - Prem Rawat Holi 78 - Guru Maharaji Hans Yog Prakash - Shri Hans Ji Maharaj Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - editor, C. L. Tandon

4085:

unremarkable" of whom four are associated with Catholic universities? But more telling about your attitude to this article is that you don't try to make it better by removing the repetition created by the merge, you put it straight back in. I'm reverting until someone can find an intelligent argument why only negative scholars are quoted in this article.

3058:

reputable sources without any value judgement. I disagree that references to such reputable sources should be identified as 'further reading' - further to what? Non-reputable sources? I'm not up for the merge, but if anyone is, and they will ensure that all scholarly and other reliable sources are retained, then I would support just one article. --

591:

for that addition, and we could have discussed it, but you chose, yet again, to act unilaterally. In my view, you do not define a person for what he was 20 or 30 years ago, in the first line of a biography's lead, but, rather, for what he is. You can mention what he was, later on as it was done in the previous version of the lead, before your edit.

2665:

illegal activities and motivations, and characterizes them as a 'hate group." This is clearly NOT a 'simple, factual description that is not making any POV claims'. The Elan Vital website is filled with inaccurate statements and downright lies in support of the image of Prem Rawat. This is why it is not a reputable source for this article. --

2599:

selectively cite sources i.e. writing down statements that I consider plausible and corroborated while omitting statements that I believe are uncorroborated. If I cannot cite corroborated statements from reputable sources that also contain statements that I consider uncorroborated or implausible then I have no reputable sources to cite from.

3658:"J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, wrote that Hans Ji Maharaj, his father, claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Melton compares him with other Sant Mat leaders and asserts that Maharaj Ji claims to be "an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." 2351:

with alcohol". Mishler is a biased, uncorroborated source and therefore unacceptable in a biography of a living person. Mishler's claim that "he proposed to Maharaji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God" is in complete contrast to existing comments by PR. Here are four from Wiki quotes that directly contradict Mishler -

1368:

New York Times and the Times of London, the Wire Services: Associated Press and United Press International and other papers of repute such as the Guardian, The Washington Post, the Australian, der Spiegel, the Los Angeles Times, the Brisbane Courier Mail, the Melbourne Age and even the tabloids such as the Daily Mail.

2303:"students" that do not meet the exceptional claims require exceptional evidence policies should be immediately removed". Quite so. But there are no claims "that PR can reveal inner peace", nor that PR is " attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace". 2844:

are unbiased sources. I am willing to agree that ex-premie.org and other anti-Rawat sites should not be used as sources for these articles, if sites controlled by Rawat's supporters are also excluded. Then the Rawat articles will be a true reflection of what the neutral public sees. Do you agree? --

3877:

There are still several instances in this article where scholar's opinions have been inserted, often inappropriately, to bolster a particular POV. Also there are still a few biased sections and headlines. I'm happy to remove them. We should soon have a factual, well sourced, NPOV article which should

3637:

And M-N latest edit is extraordinary. "Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration". Suggests that Melton says that Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master (true), and also claims to be " an embodiment of God on earth" (false) and claims

3413:

I have already corrected Melton's quote several times and twice Mael-Num has changed it back. Melton's quote is - "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji" not " Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage", as Mael-Num keeps insisting. M-N compounds their editing

3009:

I wrote above "I can't really understand why there is a criticism section (Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin don't have them). I can only conclude that anti PR editors have insisted on it". And I have just realised what an anomaly this is. Virtually every person, activity or idea has detractors, it is to be

2955:

which contains a comprehensive library of press articles on Rawat, or the over 100 personal testimonies on ex-premie.org, or the over 400 ex-premies who have posted over the years on the forums, or the library of quotes and videos of Rawat that Elan Vital try to suppress, then it would be established

2674:

Yes, that's a very different type of text than suggested above. It is the opinion of the subject (or his organization). Elan Vital is a legitimate source for the currect opinions of the subject. So long as they are attributed to the organization and characterized as opinions they should be permitted.

2618:

Andries, you are making a fundamental mistake. The source isn't the Washington Post, the source of the claims is Mishler. The WP quotes Mishler, it hasn't made its own investigation or corroborated Mishler. If the WP quotes a factory worker saying "This is a slave labor camp", it does not mean a) the

2357:

1: What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk. Electricity cannot give light. Only the bulb gives light, but electricity has to be put through the wire for the bulb to give light. It's power. Power cannot do anything; it has to be

2302:

Tgubler wrote "It seems to me that any claims that Prem Rawat can reveal inner peace or is attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace emanting from himself or his representatives (ie organisations dedicated to promoting his teachings or his

2217:

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or

1781:

As there ahve been complaints about the introducitno to this articles I suggest we should edit it and it seems to me that firstly we should use a similar introduction to those in the reputable encylopedias of religions, cults and new religious movements currently available. While I am sure we wish to

1584:

You will also see this: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns

1375:

Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? - Charles Cameron (ed) Sacred Journeys - James V. Downton, Jr. From Slogans To Mantras - Stephen Kent CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion - Marc Galanter All God's Children THE CULT EXPERIENCE - Carrol Stoner and Jo Anne Parke Baba: Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Yogi - Rampuri

1367:

I've taken a few more weeks to do further research in the newspaper archives to ensure I haven't been accepting sources that aren't verifiable and might disagree with the most reputable sections of the press. I now have around 300 articles dealing with Prem Rawat from newspapers of record such as the

988:

that that is a common statement in India. We are not asserting that it is true, or that is false. Only that that is Elan Vital's view in respect to statements that were made 30 odd years ago. BTW, I disagree that it is untrue. I know from personal experience that statements such as these are commonly

684:

User:Centrx voiced more or less the same objection as Pjacobi on 28 Aug. so how long do you think that it takes to reach consensus on the exact wording? Facts show that my pessimism is justified. Yes, I will continue to show this kind of editing behavior in the future too, because I think I have very

532:

The current lead is not the best, I agree, but it is neither vague nor "lousy". It is too long, for one. We have agreement that the lead needs work, and we have agreement that we need to redo it. We also agree that first we wanted to address points raised by editors before we get to work on the lead.

324:

Whether this link is removed or not there are numerous other links to Elan Vital all which interlink with the general claims about ex premies and specifically identifying me. I didn't ask for this notability - it's been conferred upon me by Knowledge linking to Elan Vital. The resolution is an either

4050:

An article that discusses a subject is implicitly "pro-subject" because it gives voice to the character and qualities of the subject. It is only natural that, in order to maintain a balanced perspective (i.e. NPOV), that you give at least some voice to any significant qualities that may run counter

3082:

Momento, surely you agree that the entire article should be sourced from scholarly or other reliable sources, not just the content you envisage linking to in the sub-section you envisage. Are you suggesting that any well-sourced critical content be totally removed apart from a reference in 'Further

3020:

This is an encyclopedic article, Momento, and as such it does not contain elements such as "praise of Prem Rawat", beyond these honors and acknowledgments forwarded by notable people. Encyclopedic articles contain significant viewpoints, as editors have contributed to this article in the belief that

2320:

It is clear that Mishler's comments are "exceptional", that is "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". Mishler's claim that "he proposed to Maharaji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God and to live only off his own tax-free gifts instead of income from the

2178:

Much of the Wiki pages relating too Prem Rawat seems to me to contravene the policies for Biographies of Living Persons, especially those sections quoted below. I also note that Jimbo Wales feels so strongly about this removal of unsourced material, positive or negative, that the 3 reverts rule does

2111:

Thanks Jossi and Will for your input and advice. It seems that my honest and plainly stated expression of concern has created a degree of controversy. I did not come here with the intention of disrupting proceedings. Frankly, given the current state of PR articles after 2 years of editing, I do not

2009:

You may disagree all you want, Andries, and no one will be surprised that you do. But you may have missed the warning given by Jayjg (who is an ArbCOm member) in Tgubler talks page. If needed be, I can ask additional neutral administrators to comment, but after seeing the comments by Will and Jay, I

1463:

Andries, you are not new to Knowledge and I am sure thta you understand the importance of discussions and consensus, in particular in articles bout which there are string opinions. If you do not believe that discussions and consensus are important, please let everybody know, so at least we know were

4084:

So you're saying that every Wiki article is biased in favor of the subject? Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, pedophilia, murder? And as for "significant qualities that may run counter to the subject"? Significant? Six scholars in over 40 years come up with "materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually

3201:

It is clear that the "Criticism" section is inherently biased. Allowing only negative opinion violates too many Wiki policies to count. I suggest we rename it "Scholarly Opinion" and list all "Scholarly Opinion" in alphabetical order with references and links if possible. Jossi, do you have a list

3039:

I appreciate your point but the articles on the Maharishi and Shri Chimnoy don't have a criticism section although plenty of criticism is available on the net. I would rather call any scholarly reviews "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" rather than "criticism" as this allows for the inclusion

2843:

Jossi, surely you agree that presenting one side of a controversial debate, without allowing the other side a single word in reply, cannot be considered a 'good compromise'. I think a good compromise, complying with Knowledge BLP guidelines, is to only allow sources that neutral observers can agree

2828:

article. In the past we had a long section on this, coupled with rebuttals sourced to non-reliable sources. The compromise reached after a very long debate, was to remove all material and keep just a short sentence about the FAQ of Elan Vital without getting into details. I think that it is a good

2689:

Firstly, apart from quotes from Rawat on Elan Vital's site, the opinions of the authors of the content on Elan Vital's sites do not appear to be those of the subject. In fact, all the FAQ's on EV's sites are anonymously written. The problem, Will, is that all contrary anti-Rawat opinions that are

2350:

The claims are exceptional because only Mishler makes them and therefore they are "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". Your opinion on Donner and Dettmers is original research and Sophia Collier does not say PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted

1478:

When you read the talk page incl. the archives it will be clear that I have extensively discussed edits and the article. However in correspondence with the generally accepted practice of Knowledge I do not have to discuss new additions to this article that were never discussed before and I will not

1406:

I have already posted the sections I consider need changing and I have discussed the Wiki policies that need to be adhered to. There is much in this article that does not come from appropriate sources and when we remove that the article will be shortened not that I think it is necessarily too long.

1099:

Both of these are your ungrounded opinions, that are of absolutely no consequence to this article. Rather than reply to your opinions with mine, and bust talk-page discipline in the process by converting this page into a discussion forum, I kindly ask you to keep your assessments to yourself. These

3597:

Which can be interpreted as saying "a United Methodist minister believed that Rawat is an embodiment of God on earth." The use of the word "claims" isn't redundant, it's clarifying who believes what. It's extremely unlikely that a Christian Minister would think that Rawat is God, but the way you

3263:

Here's an embarassing fact. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Knowledge. Ones I saw were FDR, George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope

2634:

Since Elan Vital says - "In Australia, Elan Vital is a non-profit organisation that promotes Maharaji ’s message, coordinates events at which he speaks and provides information and materials" it is entirely appropriate that it makes comments and can be quoted regarding anti-Maharaji activities. In

2287:

Lastly, and as expressed several times before, I would appreciate it if you discuss the article rather than the subject and refrain from using these pages to express your opinions of the subject. (a) We do not care about the opinions held by editors; (b) It does not help bettering the article; and

1924:

Thank you, Will for your intervention. TGubler has raised 20 points of concern about the article and the proposal on the table is that we take one at the time, and try to to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction. Once these points have been addressed we can easily undertake revising the lead to

1877:

Both editors here have acknowledged prior involvements with and interest in the subject. Let's take that as a given and avoid making any further personal remarks. Antagonistic off-wiki remarks aren't helpful either. I don't think this article is unreasonably long (4600 words excluding footnotes).

1607:

Reduced to the level of gutter journalism usually associated with Pix, People and The Age, the article suffered a painful metamorphosis, emerging as a repository of tabloid dross scoured from publications featuring articles which are only marginally more credible than graffiti scrawled on a toilet

1577:

Andries, in your search for material that denigrates PR, you don't seem to have a problem combing through some obscure article written by some obscure religious bigot with a degree in psychology. But when it comes to reading the instructions pertaining to the use of this web site you DO seem to be

1383:

I now intend to begin improving those sections of the article I raised a few weeks ago with better verifiable sources. Unfortunately there are at least 3 editors here who may consider these edits to protray Prem Rawat's life differently to the way they would like. However, I have not made up these

974:

I agree that context is needed by reputable sources. The context is that Rawat never gave this context, so it should not be in the article. Elan Vital does not qualify as a reputable source for this article because it is formally unrelated to this article. Nevertheless, it may qualify as reputable

833:

Also note that in the recent peer review, the issue of the lead was also raised, so there were other eyeballs that addressed that point. I am positive that with a less confrontational attitude, the lead can be improved upon. And of course, I continue to disagree with your assessment of notability,

736:

Once again we see Andries trying to insert his anti Prem Rawat bias into this article. Inserting PR "was described as the leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM), a now defunct new religious movement" is disgraceful. Why not put "was described as living in Miami " or "was described as one of the

590:

That response is disingenuous, Andries, and avoids addressing the fact that we had agree to a certain process, which you obviously wish to ignore. Pjacobi and Cetrx provided input that we need to fix the lead, and we agreed to do so. There is no disagreement on that. You could have made a proposal

4215:

I do not think that Barrett had a degree when his quoted book was published in 2001 nor was Barrett's book published by a scholarly journal or something like that, unlike Haan's article, Also, it is true that Barrett is quoted selectively in the criticism section where criticism and its rebuttals

2891:

You may have misunderstood how Knowledge works, John. The viewpoints of an organization can be described in an article about that organization, as these are indeed, "significant" (otherwise we should not have an article about that organization in Knowledge). The criticism of notable scholars, can

2340:

I do not agree that Mishler's comments are exceptional claims. Rawat was worshipped as divine being which he encouraged by many statements. Mishler's comments are in correspondence with that. I do not agree that Mishler's comments regarding alcohol use are uncorroborated. They are corroborated by

2186:

It seems to me that any claims that Prem Rawat can reveal inner peace or is attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace emanting from himself or his representatives (ie organisations dedicated to promoting his teachings or his "students"

2182:

Firstly, Prem Rawat is a living and controversial person about whom exceptional claims are made that Wiki requires has exceptional evidence to verify it. Evidence about Prem Rawt's attributes and life that is sourced from the subject or a representative of said subject (ie TPRF, EV, etc) needs to

1742:

I was not aware that stating a negative opinion was taunting or provoking. I am as cool as a cucumber that is in the refrigerator and I'd prefer that you stop making comments about my supposed state of mind. I am not in a difficult situation. I have never admitted "stealing computer data". I have

1715:

help is if you make an effort to avoid taunting and provoking by using this page to describe your negative opinion of the subject of this article, given the obviously very difficult situation you find yourself after having admitted in an affidavit that you were involved in stealing computer data

1379:

Their stories, told in much greater detail and including some direct academic research of the members of Divine Light Mission, support the picture in the press and magazines and the academic articles. I also have photocopied pages dealing with Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Divine Light Mission and

1371:

The information and views these newspapers published in these articles about Prem Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji are in complete harmony and agreement through the decades and across the continents. They also agree with the nearly 50 magazine articles published in a range of magazines from

1311:

The term is meaningless. There was never any generally understood definition. It was a vague term of endearment, perhaps invented by someone who had read too much science fiction. In his 1972 answer to the question you cite above, he appears to equate the expression with the hindi term "satguru"

782:

Your actions speak louder than your voice, Andries. You have not given a chance to discuss this, and decided, based on your lack of trust of the collaborative nature of this project and the need for consensus, to act unilaterally. We had an agreement to work on the lead and to make it better and

664:

improve the article, whatsoever. I also do not have such a pessimistic view as you do. I believe that collaboration between editors of opposing views, can produce good results, if there is goodwill and a shared interest in improving the article. Now, if you believe that there is no possibility of

3615:

What an absurd, self serving interpretation. Melton couldn't be clearer, he believed PR came from a Sant Mat lineage, and in Sant Mat, the Perfect Master is an embodiment of God. There is nothing to suggest Melton thought PR was an embodiment of God, let alone God. But that's not the point of my

3143:

I also support merging the two articles. I also want note that Jossi's support for inclusion of contents making critical remarks about third parties from the formally unrelated organization Elan Vital while at the same time support for exclusion of material from the Washington Post strikes me as

2457:

You are misunderstanding the meaning of "divinity" which means "of, from, or like God or a god". It doesn't mean "god". Mishler's claim is unique and not supported by Melton etc. John Macgregor has legally recanted his article. And your obligation as an editor is to ignore your anti PR bias and

2447:

And even if my opinion about the sources are original research (which I tend to disagree with to a great extent), so what. It is the right and the duty of contributors to make good editorial choices. Original research in the article is not allowed, but personal opinions about the reputability of

1614:

Driven by the need for circulation and sales, tabloids and gossip magazines see Prem Rawat and EV as easy targets - subjects for sensational articles containing criticism that falls way outside the boundaries of reason and rationality. Journalist, John Macgregor, wrote a long, defamatory article

1349:

This is all irrelevant. PR described himself in the 70s and 80s as a "Perfect Master", "Guru Maharaji" and "Satguru". If he wanted to describe himself as "Jagannath", "God" or "His Supreme Radiance", he would have. "Lord of the Universe". "Boy Guru", "Child God" are what other people have called

1339:

As his followers often used the term and as it was used regularly in the press (I have 40 such references in press articles I have collected) and as I recall the DLM even produced a movie by that name starring the young Prem Rawat and there was a TV documentary made about him with that title, it

1298:

Exactly. Even though he denied being "God" publicly many times, most "scholars" choose to omit it. Instead, they say he made claims of "divinity" and in its strictest sense, divine means associated with or derived from God (: the divine right of kings). It doesn't mean "is god". So PRs claims of

970:

guideline when evaluating this. As for your last deletion, I would argue that it is a pertinent statement that gives the necessary context. If the intention is to inform readers, why not to afford them the content necessary to understand such statement? Now, if the intention is to shock, that is

803:

Jossi, I have extensively explained my edits and given detailed rebuttals to your sparse and not very well motivated objections. I hope that you can show that you are sincerely interested in improving the article and constructive collobaration by discussing the quality of the edits. I have shown

355:

As said above, there is no direct link to that affidavit as an affidavit is a primary source about a third-party and as such, cannot be linked from this article per Knowledge content policies. Note that the affidavit was made by a third-party and not by Elan Vital, so any complaints you may have

255:

As for the affidavit in question, it was not "published" by Elan Vital, it is a court record. In any case, we are not linking to that affidavit from any of the articles (and if it is it should be removed) as court papers, unless referred to by a published secondary sources, cannot be included in

3850:

I'm happy that the truely awful "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article is gone but this article has now blown out to a bloated 87 kb. Largely because the merge added 20 kb of cricism to a 67 kb article, overwhelming it's NPOV. We could of course add another 40 kb of "positive" content but since this

3226:

As Jossi says, the article is made up of a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources.It is, with the exception of the "criticism" section, entirely factual with little bits of grammar to link it all together. The "Criticism" section is unique because it is the only

2170:

and so little time to keep up even with this discussion page let alone the numerous linked pages. However the discussion on sources here is particularly interesting and it has brought to my attention the need to have a discussion and possibly a ruling on much of the unsourced and poorly sourced

1943:

Well that is good that we got that out of the way. I will commence the edits shortly once I finish ensuring the sources I use are available for any editors to verify quickly and easily on-line. However I would also like to point out that as well as adding and changing various points there does

1516:

Tgubler: I welcome your effort in researching material, but note that research has been already performed by many editors. Most, if not all the sources that you describe, have been used in this and other related articles. Also, note that you have reaised 20 points a few weeks ago, but for some

1488:

As I said before, you may chose to take that route, but do not be surprised when your edits are challenged. This article is not a new article, and it had had the input on many editors over more that two and a half years. Of course, if new relevant material is found it could be added, if it adds

4016:

No. You described as "partisans" the "non-participatory editor (who) merged the criticism article with this one (Francis Schonken) and "people removing the criticism entirely" because they claim that the main article is now too long (Momento). PS I didn't remove the opinions of the "critical"

3127:

The rest of the article remains as is, a neutral collection of undisputable facts. My point is that the "opinion" or "criticism" section is inherently biased since it only contains negative opinions from scholars. Space should also be given to non-negative scholars. But since there are so many

2664:

Will, the text in the article is "In an FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them related to their

2174:

As a simple statement of fact, without any intention to "taunt" other editors as jossi mistakenly accused me of before, Prem Rawat's career based on the reputable, verifiable sources is a simple one of exceptional claims made by and for him in the early 70's, an ephemeral success in attracting

1697:

Thank you jossi. It seems that GStaker has no understanding of Wiki policies. He seems to be mistaking his personal views for the source material on which Biographies of Living Persons must be based. It would undoubtedly be better for you to help him as he will possibly be insulted by a former

1237:

So, let's not get into OR and try to assert our opinions (to which, of course we are entitled to). We have plenty of scholarly sources that refers to the divinity aspects, that we are using in the article already. The chronological set of quotes at Wikiquote makes a good effort of providing an

1140:

I disagree that my assesment and classification of Elan Vital's statement that gurus is greater than God is commonplace is of no consequence to this article. My comment was on topic. Such statements by Elan Vital about general aspects of gurus and Hinduism should have no place in this article.

204:

Elan Vital, in an FAQ article about opposition to Prem Rawat and his message, claims that there is a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Prem Rawat, his students, and their organisation. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and

3212:

Momento, if the criticism article becomes "Scholarly Opinion" with references to scholarly sources, what would be the sources for the main article, non-scholarly opinion? There should one article which should be an objective well-sourced account of the facts about Rawat's life, with no value

3057:

Momento, I agree with you that not only should the criticism section of this article be removed, but that the 'Criticism of Prem Rawat' article should be combined with the Prem Rawat article without specifying whether any piece of information is critical or not. The article should just quote

889:

in India.) If he was not notable, as you assert, he would not have been interviewed. by Mehrotra There are many more indications of notability besides that, unrelated to the 70's, that you can read in the article. This opinion that Prem Rawat was only notable in the 70's is one of a litany of

694:

User Centrx and Pjacobi raised concerns, and these can be addressed, if there the willingness to do so. Your attitude does not bode well, and I would suggest that you show some interest in collaborating with others, rather that asserting your own views whatever your reasons. As you well know,

2806:

Will, the assertions on my and other critical sites, are better corroborated than most reputable newspaper articles, but as I said, I accept that these sites may be unsuitable for Wiki BLP articles. Maybe this illustrates a weakness in Knowledge guidelines, where an 'official' organisation

2598:

All is sourced to a reputable source i.e. the Washington Post. How does it suddenly violate BLP when all is sourced to a reputable source? A reputable source does not suddenly becomes completely disreputable only because it contains a statement that one editor considers implausible. I often

2187:

that do not meet the exceptional claims require exceptional evidence policies should be immediately removed. I haven't read or heard anything like this in any reputable Australian media. Is Prem Rawat being written about in the NY or London Times and I'm missing it out here in Queensland?

1184:

and when others with an opposing POV quote mine too then the quotes in the articles will become endless. Scholarly summaries of his teachings are fine and may be quotes selected by scholars, but highly selective quotes from his many teachings and speeches cannot be used for this article.

3096:

I would rather call any scholarly reviews "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" rather than "criticism" as this allows for the inclusion of the many scholarly reviews that are not critical. As it stands there is no mention of scholarly reviews that are not critical and that to me is

722:

Your suggestion that I do not collaborate with others is completely untrue. I welcome discussions on the merit of my edits, but I oppose reverts and objections to my edits merely by referring to the lack of concensus because I think that that will not or hardly improve the article.

4195:

Somebody added a Barret's quote to "other criticism". A) I do not know why it cannot be added to the scholarly sources, as was pursusing a Ph.D. in Sociology of New Religions in 1991. If Hann is there, Barret should also be there; and B) given the material that I made available at

660:<<<<outdent (ed conflict) I would also kindly ask that you refrain for making overly positive judgments about your own edits. If these edits improve the article or not, is for the consensus of other editors to make. My view, for example, is that your last few edits 1384:

sources, they are the verifiable, reputable sources that this encyclopedia's policies call for. To simplify matter I will make edits directly and if there is any controversy we can discuss and improve as we go along. If anyone has prior objections I am hapy to hear from them.

1299:"divinity" amount to him saying something like - a true Guru's legitimacy derives from his "association" with God or that what he gives "derives" from God. Claims of "divinity" have nothing to do with claiming to be God. Therefore we must take care not to confuse the issue. 3732:

The scholarly opinions section only lists a few of these scholars, and mainly the critics or critical aspects of non-critics such as Hunt and others. We need to add a short paragraph of each of the scholars. I have access to most of these sources and will provide some text

2486:...and despite the discussion there, and the excellent arguments made about the poor quality of the source and the selective quoting, you have re-inserted that material 17 times in this and other article. Do you thing that editwarring will resolve this? Highly unlikely. 3483:". Which Melton never said. And so, once again I changed it back, 18th Jan. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first started editing these articles but as they said in some James Bond movie - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action". 3240:

That is the article we have now, meticulously sourced to a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources. A criticism section is OK, as many other articles do have these in BLPs, providing that the critical viewpoints are in compliance with

2254:

Indeed you have a lot to learn about Knowledge policies and guidelines, given your analysis above in which you selectively cite from some policies and some guidelines. I could selectively cite from policies to counter your assessment, but I will not do that. See

1985:

I do not see that you have understood the advise given to you about your conflict of interest. See your User talk page and the comments made here by Will: You need to make your contributions to the talk page and seek consensus and not edit the article directly.

1396:

As I have said several times, this article is too long. I will generally support editing that reduces the length. I will not support substituting facts with opinion, no matter how learned. And I certainly will not support editing without prior discussion on this

3820:

he was. And credit where it's due, he did a fine job of it. I'm just a little concerned that the opinions of the criticism article may have been marginalized, having gone from a full-blown separate article to a set of sub-headings buried two sections deep.

695:

attitudes such as the one you are exhibiting only result in edit wars and accomplish absolutely nothing. So, please do not complain when edit wars ensue. Just remember who decided to act unilaterally and bypass the need to seek consensus when that happens.

3954:

merged the criticism article with this one, despite there being more objection to such a move than for it on the talk page, and the fact that the criticism page has thus far survived over 2 years of efforts to have it deleted or merged, now we have people

2277:

material from this or other articles based on your current understanding of policies and guidelines, note that each and every piece of text in this article is properly and meticulously sourced and in compliance with Knowledge content policies. If you see

1944:

appear to me to be much positive poorly sourced statements about Prem Rawat in this article and possibly some editors have not realised this because their own original research into Prem Rawat's "Knowledge" has given them unWiki-ish opinions of his life.

1618:

To date, EV and PR have shown no interest in suing for defamation. That could very easily change. Its time that EV and PR started giving serious consideration to litigation. Well founded defamation suits have the potential to generate much needed income.

476:

He was described as a leader (de facto, de jure, figure head) of a new religious movement (Divine Light Mission) in scholarly sources, but he changed his presentation significantly and has now become rather obscure. I do not know how he is described now.

876:

Notablity is by no means just measured by press coverage in the West, Andries. He had a status of "celebrity" when he arrived to the West as a 13-year-old guru, and the media attention was based on that fact. As you probably know, he was interviewed by

1232:

This has been discussed to death in many previous discussions, and I do not see the benefit if doing another pass at that. You speak of selective quotes to push a certain interpretation, but you do yet the same thing here. The same satsang ends with:

3516:"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." 3449:"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." 2224:* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. * It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. 432:

Please fix the introduction to this article so that it clearly states who this person is and what he does. Proper encyclopedia articles do not begin with "John Doe was born on August 15, 1963." and then proceed into a narrative of the person's life.

2341:

Donner, Dettmers and the book by Sophia Collier. If the sources is old then the year should be mentioned so the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. The entry does not state or suggest that the comments that Mishler made then are still valid.

1782:

improve upon their articles it seems to be a good start to do something similar based upon reputable, verfifiable sources that are not original research or based upon the subject's representatives contentious and self-serving, unverifiable sources.

1716:"for the purpose of harassing and harming Prem Rawat and his students". So, keep it cool, discuss the article but not the subject, and be aware that you are in a very precarious situation as it pertains to contributing to this and related articles. 2435:

Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and/or the volunteer entities were cult like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. The implications are absolutely false and

975:

source for organizational issues, but it is certainly not a reputable source for general statements about gurus, India, and Hinduism. The statement that "Gurus is greater than God" is a common statement in India voiced by Elan Vital is untrue.

965:

No one agreed to leave the lead untouched. Theres is agreement by all involved and non-involved editors that the lead needs improving. I am sure that it can be worked out, if we apply ourselves to do this. I would suggest that we refer to the

3598:

rephrased in your edit is ambiguous. I'm trying to reduce the ambiguity. If you can think of another way of doing that, by all means change it. But to even vaguely say that Melton thought that any Sant Mat leaders was God is a distortion.

2989:

I hope I didn't mislead you Will Beback. The sentence I quoted above comes from the Elan Vital website and I quoted it to confirm that EV does provide information about Prem Rawat. As John Bruans points out this article says that Elan Vital

3478:

in which a "Perfect Master" is believed to be an embodiment of God on earth". Since Melton didn't say Rawat claimed a "Sant Mat lineage", I changed it back the same day. You changed it back on the 18th, again saying that Melton "noted that

189:. Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists but commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat: 212:

Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists and commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat.

2413:

by John Macgregor that appeared ppeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002.

3983:. I have never suggested only critical opinion (on the contrary, I support it). However, a campaign to marginalize critical opinion is a serious thing. And unlike your defamatory claim, it has substance as evidenced by your actions. 3376:. I personally don't think a merger is the proper thing to do, and I describe (ramble on) my reasons for this opinion. I think it would be most helpful if you and other interested editors also lent your thoughts to the discussion. 1089:

It would be different if the DLM had given this context more or less at the time when he said it, but now it seems like retrospective apologist unscholarly untrue assertion voiced by his fan club to explain away an embarassing past.

2066:

to make any type of assessments or comments on other editors motives or understanding. You will be ill advised to continue making these type of statements, given your situation and the advise given to you by neutral administrators.

3709:, I must admit, has done an admirable job with the merger. I think it works fine, and everything has been blended nicely in an NPOV manner. I am glad that a neutral uninvolved editor was able to be bold and step up to the task. 2645:

I agree. That's a simple, factual description which deosn't make any POV claims. If it said "fastest growing", "oldest", "biggest", etc. then those assertions would require independent sources, or be couched as "claimed"/"stated".

1277:

Getting rid of the media seems a good idea to me. Their contribution to this article is often biased and inaccurate. Since the subject is claims of "divinity", it is only fitting that PRs frequent and unambiguous denial should be

1603:

AND SO IT CAME TO PASS that an article in a formerly reputable on-line encyclopedia was rewritten by an unemployed former bricklayer who gets his jollies by adding a daily dose of toxic diatribe to an on-line Hate Group forum.

2190:

I'm wondering if maybe I'm not reading these policies correctly and I'd enjoy hearing some feedback and criticism. I don't want to create any controversy on Wiki if I'm mistaking the underlying situation and Wiki policies.

1035:

I refer to the description of denials of his divinity that he gave in the media when asked. When asked in other places he did not give such denials. See e.g. here from the book the Living Mastery written by Guru Maharaj Ji

1007:

The inclusion of the reply by Prem Rawat "Guru is greater than God" was not intended to shock but I included it to correct selective quoting that downplayed his responsibility of the faith of his followers in his divinity.

3347:

I have begun tidying this article prior to merging, many small changes to improve readability. But it is hampered by the random insertion of "scholalry opinion" which interrupts the narrative without providing much useful

2718:

is about the views of Mike Finch, John Brauns, and other critics. Some of this dispute seems to center on the appearance that criticism isn't being allowed. Perhaps the solution isn't in this article, but in the other.

569:

Because we will never reach consensus so the article will always remain in a poor state. I think it is better to make edits that clearly make improve the article even if there is no consensus regarding the exact wording.

3851:

article is already way too big, the best approach is to treat "critical" scholars the same as other scholars, and that is to simply name them without highlighting their comments to suit a particular POV. I will do this.

1340:

seems particularly appropriate for this article. While a definitive definition of exactly what it means could never achieve consensus there is little doubt that the general meaning was instantly recognisable to anyone.

450:

I propose adding a sentence, like "He is a teacher of four meditation techniquest that he calls Knowledge.". It is difficult to be precise because both Rawat and his followers (who edit here too) prefer to be vague.

3959:

because they claim that the main article is now too long. Well, the article is too long, and we should fork off the criticism, or it isn't and we keep it here. But understand this : the criticism stays. Try me.

1066:

When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine

256:

Knowledge articles. Based on these principles, if I recall correctly, mention of these affidavits as well as accusations of "hate group" have been all removed from these articles. I see no reason to change that.

627:

Jossi, your reply contradicts Knowledge generally accepted practices. The first sentence should describe why a person is notable and it is fine to describe him what s/he was when s/he was still notable. See e.g.

1256:

Is doesn't seem to contradict, it absolutely contradicts your incorrect interpretatiion. And "The Ruston Daily Leader" isn't a scholarly publication? Could you remove the quote you inserted Andries or will I do

580:

My edits clearly addressed the objections raised by Pjacobi and Centrx. If you disagree with them please try to explain why and please do not attack the edits only by referring to the lack of consensus. Thanks.

184:

The Elan Vital organisation has published an affidavit which claims to identify members of an active 'critics' group of Ex premies. Of those named one - Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit

2419:"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." 3316: 1235:

That can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj.

3422:

A Christian minister isn't claiming that some Guru is a god. He's recognizing Rawat's claims and beliefs about himself" is an unwarranted attack on my editing and clearly intended to put me off editing this

862:

If you disagree about the lack of current notability then please explain why he received much more media coverage in the past then now? This is also described by Hunt whose writing you yourself copied here.

3970:

Thanks for your ultimatum. It's ironic that my treating of all scholars equally is seen by you as having a "partisan agenda". As opposed to your agenda which is to only include "critical" academic articles.

2548:...because he did not address the main point raised, that was never the reputability of the Washington Post as a source, but the selective quoting to avoid shattering the credibility of these statements. 2950:

Jossi, I didn't follow the previous discussion, but although it might have been claimed that Rawat's critics are a 'few individuals', it certainly hasn't been established. If Knowledge allowed links to

2705:

This article is about Prem Rawat, not Mike Finch or John Brauns. Elan Vital is the organisation created by Prem Rawat to promote his message and as such has every reason to be a source for this article.

3021:

what is included in the article are indeed significant viewpoints, based on sources deemed reputable. This, of course, include whatever criticism has been forwarded, if that criticism is well sourced.

4132:

Let's give it some time, Mael. If it does not work, we can always split it back. Rather than making this page a battleground, there is a lot that needs to be done now that the merger has taken place.

3396:

Not to be argumentative, and not to divide the debate into a sprawl across multiple talk pages...but could you briefly summarize why you feel this? I am genuinely curious. And please, be candid.

233:

Chat rooms and sites such as these are not reliable sources for Knowledge, and Nick Wright is not a notable person that warrants an inclusion of his name in this article. (no disrepect intended see

2268:

concerns that you want addressed (besides the 20 points you made a few weeks ago) let's hear them. The ensuing discussions may give you a chance to learn about how WP content policies are applied.

665:

reaching consensus, then I would suggest that you do not participate in editing this article. You cannot assert your lack of confidence inthe ciollaborative editing process, by trumping consensus.

1811:. First, we should attempt to resolve the issues raised by you and others, and then when we have accomplished that we can attempt to develop a lead that summarizes the article in the best manner. 618:

And also why not introduce the Knowledge by saying that they are four mediation techniques? Why being so unnecessarily vague? Why do you think that my edit in this respect made the article worse?

2737:). So where do you stop? I can't really understand why there is a criticism section (Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin don't have them). I can only conclude that anti PR editors have insisted on them. 1479:

do so. I will discuss substantical re-structuring of the article before I make it. I do not consider it constructive to have extensive discussions about editing procedures for this article.

1207:

In the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord says that whenever religion becomes corrupted and evil increases, He takes a human body and manifests in this world to destroy evil and to protect His devotees

2179:

not apply. Naturally this would impact on these pages so greatly that I'd like to discuss it first. I will be away from a computer for the next 4 days but look forward to jossi's thoughts.

1843:

What would also help is rather than making the same statements about "contentious and self-serving unverifibale sources" repeatedly, that you point these out so that they can be addressed.

3173:

motives. As for a merger, we have attempted this in the past and failed miserably. We could try again, I guess. As for the EV stuff, note that I have removed the contentious text from it.

2824:, "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", a short mention of the material about the FAQ on "opposition" could be included here, at the Criticism article, or better, at the 2198:

Unsourced or poorly sourced questionable material, whether negative or positive, in articles about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page.

3441:, even if you feel emotionally charged about the materials in an article. To correct you, your selective quote omits the information which validates my edit (and invalidates yours) 984:

Of course it is not a reliable source for information about Hinduism. There is no disagreement there. But my argument is that it is a statement by a related organization explaining

939:

ad b. because I do not have multiple scholarly sources for this statement and even if it can be sourced then it strikes me a subjective and hence not suitable in the lead section.

4094:

Amusing. You clearly cannot follow the meaning of my response, and you therefore attempt to dismiss it out of hand by claiming it is an unintelligent response. Indeed, someone

2750:

Anonymously written? All FAQs that I have read in hundreds of sites do not have a "specific" author, but are considered to be the official viewpoint of the owner of the website.

2384:

and Frans Derks wrote that Rawat made claims of divinity. I have not found a religious scholar who denied that Rawat made claims of divinity. Read for example the statements by

910:

And if he was still notable how come that there is in most cases not a single newspaper article about him when he speaks in a certain place or country? It used to be different.

4200:, the quote added seems to me to be selectively picked. Barret wrote an entire chapter on the subject. I would suggest adding some of the more pertinent quotes to the article. 4110:

Please note that user Francis Schonken is one of the hundreds of other Dutch speaking contributors to the English Knowledge who can easily spot inaccuracies in translations.

3544:

To my knowledge, there is no hyperlink. What I copy-pasted is the full text found in the footnotes at the end of the main article, and the citation listed is Gordon Melton,

2473: 2133:

I see VictorO has inserted "to people living in ashrams". Whilst I agree that the previous quote was wrong, what is our policy regarding incorrect but well sourced material?:

1615:

about PR that was published in at least three Australian tabloids. Macgregor now refutes his own article and has apologized for writing it. So much for tabloid credibility.

2619:

WP is a slave labor camp or b) that the WP has determined that the factory is a slave labor camp. Quoting someone does not give legitimacy to the claim in any shape or form.

4177:

Crossing out number three cuz I moved that one, as per Jossi's suggestion. What remains in that section is no longer a "collection of links", and could be expanded upon.

955:

Jossi, I do not remember to have agreed to have the lead untouched. Tgubler agreed with this. Not me. It seems that you try to remind me of an agreement that I never made.

971:

better left to sensationalist tabloids. Knowledge is not a tabloid, and it is our responsibility as editors to provide context when needed. 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1581:

Go to the top of this page. In one of those baby-poo brown boxes you will see this: "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."

3864:

Obviously "Criticism in the Media" is a bias and rather than put 20 kb of "positive media" in as balance, as can be found on the TPRF website, I have removed it as well.

1069:

Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter).

1309:

For Andries' benefit, the following comment should help to clarify the meaning of the term "Lord of the universe" and the way in which the term was used in the 1970s.

135:

I would encourage other editors to respond in user Gstaker talk page, rather than here. Let's keep this page to discuss the article. Thank you for your consideration.

1764:. Should there be any question in any editor's mind about the verifiability of any newspaper articles I quote then they can relieve such stress by a quick look there. 2417:"The indefatigable Jim Heller tracked down Michael Dettmers, who'd managed Maharaji's assets, personal affairs and "presentation to the world" from 1975 till 1987. 2218:

blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

1539:

Also note that most if not all of the books you mention as sources, are all from known "anti-cult" protagonists, some of which are quite controversial. There are

3114:

Momento, you are missing my point. If you have a section called "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" what would be the source of the rest of the article? --

1100:

comments are not helpful, unless you consider the obvious anti-Rawat bias that you espouse to be useful in assessing your edits and intentions for this article.

2538:) who commented, was not exactly impressed by the "excellent arguments about the poor quality of the source and the selective quoting" and supported inclusion. 551:

So much for consensus, Andries. Why is that that you refuse to seek consensus and continue to assert your ideas rather than reach agreement with other editors?

2211:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

3470:

No one disputes that Rawat claimed to be a "Perfect Master", it is stated loud and clear in the second paragraph of the article. That's not the issue. It is

2112:

share your faith in Knowledge's processes, however, I will endeavor to follow to the rules, such as they are. Hopefully, something acceptable will emerge. --

356:

about statements that include your name should be made to that third-party, and not here. Elan Vital is a related organization so links to it are relevant.

1176:

No, because it will lead to a quote war that we have seen before. The quote that you want to insert seems to contradict Rawat's repeatedly voiced faith in

3040:

of the many scholarly reviews that are not critical. As it stands there is no mention of scholarly reviews that are not critical and that to me is biased.

384:

a discussion forum, or a place to engage in discussions about our opinions, personal experiences, personal problems, legal disputes, etc. Talk pages are

2458:

recognise that Mishler's comments are sensationalist, biased, unsupported and questionable and therefore not suitable for a biography of living person.

2504:

It is also peculiar, Andries, that you do not assist in reverting material that is not compliant, such as the recent reverts I had to perform. Why?

409:

I have moved personal material and other comments not related specifically to this article, from this talk page to the respective user's talk page.

3779:, so that editors can add the most relevant material to the article under the scholar's heading. Once we have done that we can delete the sandbox. 1493:

enhances the article. That is were consensus is needed. You may not consider seeking consensus to be constructive, and again, that is your choice.

1238:

insight into the evolution of the presentation of Prem Rawat's message. Let's stay within the boundaries of a biographical account of the subject.

1072:

She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.

931:

Why not put a. "was described as living in Miami " or b. "was described as one of the greatest representatives of the peace movement in the world".

760:

I think my wording was very neutral and factual. Please try to get me banned from the article, because I think this article needs more eye-balls.

3245:. There is a discussion about a re-evaluation of a possible merger of the separate criticism article into this one, at that article's talk page. 2571:

Edison commented after we had already discussed the selective quoting from the Washington Post, so he could have addressed that if s/he wanted.

2562:

Your complaints that I selectively quoted are completely unjusstified because I have repeatedly offered to quote more from the Washington Post.

3729:

is admissible and not necessarily a POV forks. Nonetheless, it seems that the merger is gaining acceptance. There are a few little problems:

460:"four meditation techniquest" is meaningless to the general reader. It has to be something like religious or spiritual leader or teacher. — 3144:

having double standards in assessing the reputability of sources. The statement sourced to Elan Vital about Prem Rawat's critics violates

1160:

A clearer rebuttal from the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" is "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk".

519:

And as a result of the lack of concensus the lead is still vague and lousy, as repeated complaints from non-involved contributors, like

498:

I disagree with the term "has now become obscure." You can read what notable people have said about him in the last couple of years at

154:

Thank you for your help, jossi. I am taking time out to fully examine the guidelines you have provide, and other Knowledge material. --

3763:

Haan's article was published in a scholarly magazine. I suggest renaming the section into "scholarly sources" or something like that.

1652:

As there are new editors involved, that may not be fully aware of how this project works, I would like to re-assert the importance of

3911:

Grouping information in a logical way (i.e. that this subset of people hold a common opinion) isn't bias. This smacks of lawyering.

1017:

What selective quoting do you refer to? I only see one quotation there and that is that one.All others were moved to the footnotes.

343: 737:

greatest representatives of the peace movement in the world". I am going to apply to have Andries banned from editing this article.

2635:

the same way Apple Computers can talk about and for Steve Jobs and be used as a source of material when writing about Steve Jobs.

919:

Sure it was different then. The media frenzy around a 13-year-old boy guru is no longer warranted. 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1454:

You do behave as if there is such a rule when you revert new additions with the only justification that they were undiscussed.

501:. We had a discussion about the lead a few weeks back, and we reached no consensus on how to describe Prem Rawat in the lead. 4138:

Rename the section to "Scholarly opinions" , or similar, as per Andries suggestion (let's leave Hann's discussion for later)

3950:

Obviously it didn't take long for the partisans to stomp forward their agendas. After a hitherto non-participatory editor

2242: 234: 1517:

reason, you have not chosen to continue these discussions. If you chose not to discuss your edits, and act unilaterally,

4120: 3893:

The basic organization should either be chronological or per subject. It should not be per POV, scholarly or otherwise.

2535: 749:

1. because a very short summary was repeatedly requested by independent non-involved editors such as Centrx and Pjacobi.

1600:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you an accurate assessment of The New Revised Version of an article on Prem Rawat.

3736:

Win Haam does not qualify as a "scholar", so it may need to be moved to a subsection "Other", or something like that.

2788:

John, are the assertions that you'd like to source to other websites opinions or facts? Jossi, what's your advice? -

1630: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 38: 4173:

3. The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.

609:

There are no reputable sources for what he is now, because he is too obscure now so we have to write what he was.

3726: 2825: 2807:

supporting a notable living person can be quoted in that person's biography, but non-notable criticism cannot. --

1543:

other sources that refer to the DLM and Prem Rawat, that are more neutral and accurate sources: These include:

1053:

And further from (from a question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972

4147:

There is duplicated material due to the merger that needs to be cleaned up. That will clear up some needed space

890:

asserttions made by detractors that you may have been listening too much to, given your association with them.

4197: 4151: 4144:

The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.

3776: 3742:

The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.

2282:

text that is not, I am sure that all involved editors would want to know so that it can be promptly addressed.

1045:

Q:Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth?

4017:

scholars because the article is too long. I removed them because only showing "critical" opinions is biased.

3616:

edits. My pioint is the M-N has consistently stated that Melton says that "Rawat claims a Sant Mat lineage".

3578: 2715: 2256: 1883: 1247: 1122: 1026: 998: 899: 843: 792: 704: 674: 600: 560: 542: 510: 418: 397: 365: 285: 265: 246: 144: 120: 339: 170: 4071:

it is most fair to give voice to theories, ideas, or criticisms that run counter to the subject at hand.

4124: 4028: 3706: 3363: 2793: 2724: 2680: 2651: 2142:

We can choose not to use well-sourced material, but if it is used then it is not allowed to distort it.

2000:

I disagree. I do not think that TGubler has a conflict of interest and he is free to edit this article.

1891: 3169:

You can spare us your assessments of other editors, unless you want to encourage editors to comment on

2010:

do not see it as necessary. Nevertheless, he can contribute to this article by way of the talk page.

3387:

Merge or delete, I don't care. But having a special "Criticism of" article about Prem Rawat is biased.

3312: 335: 224: 3333: 2476:

about what I see as Momento's inappropriate repeated removal of sourced material from the talk page.

2230: 1552: 1287:

I am not aware of any scholarly source that denied that Prem Rawat made personal claims of divinity.

331: 4178: 3831: 3808: 3710: 3679: 3535: 3534:

Thank you. And is there an available full citation and/or hyperlink for the above verbatim quote?

3495: 3722: 1879: 1807:

I will ask some neutral administrators to look into your situation. As for the article's lead, see

1661: 1522: 853:

I can only notice that you do not address the quality of my edits but merely refert to procedures.

4041:

At last Mael-Num has raised their true colors. You say the article is "pro-Rawat", please discuss.

2234: 2113: 1945: 1783: 1699: 1620: 1586: 1408: 1385: 1341: 1313: 155: 3725:, that is is not a guideline, and that there are situations in which splitting an article as per 3154:

about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

2389: 2373: 1711:. I have explained Gstaker applicable policies and placed a warning on his talk page. That would 3992:

Personal attacks? Didn't you just refer to me as "the partisans to stomp forward their agendas".

2288:(c) It does not create a conducive environment for editing. Thank you for your consideration. 2238: 2151:

Since the original inaccurate quote was inserted by you Andries, maybe you should take it out?

1708: 1560: 533:

Nevertheless, we could resume the conversation about the lead now, if that would be fruitful.

132: 109: 2580:

That is the contention, Andries. When taken as a whole, these statements are in violation of

276:

I checked this and and related article and there are no links to the affidavit you refer to.

3574: 3359: 3214: 3115: 3084: 3059: 2957: 2845: 2808: 2789: 2720: 2691: 2676: 2666: 2647: 2529: 2397: 2385: 2381: 2369: 1887: 465: 438: 1266:

No, because that is a media publication too. Then we should remove all media publications.

4240: 4205: 4163: 3784: 3754: 3666: 3329: 3320: 3250: 3178: 3128:

sources it would be necessary to limit them to brief references and links where availabel.

3026: 2897: 2834: 2755: 2589: 2553: 2509: 2491: 2393: 2377: 2293: 2072: 2015: 1991: 1934: 1848: 1816: 1721: 1685: 1653: 1637: 1568: 1548: 1530: 1498: 1469: 1421: 1243: 1105: 1022: 994: 895: 839: 788: 700: 670: 596: 556: 538: 506: 414: 393: 361: 307:^ Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey 281: 261: 242: 140: 116: 47: 17: 4068: 3951: 3935:

Incorrect, as stated below. Let's try to keep this discussion in one place, shall we?

3817: 3804: 3290: 1926: 1808: 1669: 1544: 967: 878: 209: 186: 4099: 4072: 4060: 4032: 4002: 3984: 3980: 3961: 3936: 3912: 3822: 3795: 3689: 3599: 3525: 3462: 3438: 3434: 3397: 3377: 3242: 2581: 1673: 1665: 1657: 1585:

relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." --

1556: 388:

designed to discuss the article, and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding.

4031:

for any offense that my strong words may cause, but understand that this ostensibly

3902:

Agreed, I put the scholars in alphabetical order. Therefore there is no POV or bias,

713:

I have asked Pjacobi and Centrx whether they think that my edit was an improvement.

312: 4217: 4111: 4086: 4042: 4018: 3993: 3971: 3927: 3903: 3894: 3879: 3865: 3852: 3764: 3639: 3617: 3558: 3484: 3424: 3388: 3373: 3349: 3289:

Momento, it was Jossi that created and set up the Criticism of Prem Rawat article.

3265: 3228: 3203: 3159: 3145: 3129: 3098: 3073: 3041: 3011: 2995: 2821: 2738: 2706: 2636: 2620: 2600: 2572: 2563: 2540: 2477: 2459: 2449: 2439: 2425: 2401: 2359: 2342: 2332: 2322: 2304: 2152: 2143: 2134: 2001: 1480: 1455: 1446: 1433: 1398: 1351: 1331: 1300: 1288: 1279: 1267: 1258: 1222: 1186: 1181: 1165: 1142: 1091: 1077: 1009: 976: 956: 942: 911: 864: 854: 814: 805: 761: 738: 724: 714: 686: 633: 629: 619: 610: 582: 571: 524: 478: 452: 4231: 2204:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

1445:

I didn't say there was a rule Andries. Please refrain from distorting my comments.

4141:

The reference about "primogeniture" should be deleted as per previous discussion.

3739:

The reference about "primogeniture" should be deleted as per previous discussion.

318: 4244: 4220: 4209: 4181: 4167: 4127: 4114: 4102: 4089: 4075: 4056: 4045: 4021: 4005: 3996: 3987: 3974: 3964: 3939: 3930: 3915: 3906: 3897: 3882: 3868: 3855: 3834: 3825: 3811: 3798: 3788: 3767: 3758: 3713: 3692: 3682: 3670: 3642: 3620: 3602: 3538: 3528: 3498: 3487: 3472:

your repeated insistance that Melton said that "Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage

3465: 3427: 3400: 3391: 3380: 3367: 3352: 3337: 3323: 3293: 3268: 3254: 3231: 3217: 3206: 3182: 3162: 3132: 3118: 3101: 3087: 3076: 3062: 3044: 3030: 3014: 2998: 2960: 2901: 2848: 2838: 2811: 2797: 2759: 2741: 2733:

Indeed. There is also a web site that is critical of the critics of Prem Rawat (

2728: 2709: 2694: 2684: 2669: 2655: 2639: 2623: 2603: 2593: 2575: 2566: 2557: 2543: 2525: 2513: 2495: 2480: 2462: 2452: 2442: 2428: 2404: 2362: 2345: 2335: 2325: 2307: 2297: 2248: 2155: 2146: 2137: 2116: 2076: 2019: 2004: 1995: 1948: 1938: 1895: 1852: 1820: 1786: 1760:

I note that a series of newspaper articles about Prem Rawat have been posted on

1725: 1702: 1689: 1677: 1641: 1623: 1589: 1572: 1551:, Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch, Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, 1534: 1502: 1483: 1473: 1458: 1449: 1436: 1425: 1411: 1401: 1388: 1354: 1344: 1334: 1316: 1303: 1291: 1282: 1270: 1261: 1251: 1225: 1189: 1168: 1145: 1094: 1080: 1030: 1012: 1002: 979: 959: 945: 914: 903: 882: 867: 857: 847: 817: 808: 796: 764: 741: 727: 717: 708: 689: 678: 636: 622: 613: 604: 585: 574: 564: 546: 527: 520: 514: 481: 471: 461: 455: 444: 434: 422: 401: 369: 349: 289: 269: 250: 227: 158: 148: 124: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4035:

move may ultimately cause a number of problems. ] 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1489:

anything of substance to the article, is not a duplicate of existing material,

1215:

The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world

208:

Of those named one, Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit

4236: 4201: 4159: 3780: 3750: 3662: 3246: 3174: 3022: 2893: 2830: 2751: 2585: 2549: 2505: 2487: 2289: 2068: 2011: 1987: 1930: 1844: 1812: 1717: 1681: 1633: 1564: 1526: 1494: 1465: 1432:

Momento, there is no such rule that new additions first have to be discussed.

1417: 1239: 1101: 1018: 990: 891: 886: 835: 784: 696: 666: 592: 552: 534: 502: 410: 389: 357: 277: 257: 238: 136: 112: 3461:

Clearly the claim is not Melton's, but rather Rawat's, as I have described.

1213:. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. 1195: 4052: 2952: 1327: 380:

For those contributing for the first time, please note that these pages are

300: 3638:

to be "a fitting object of worship and veneration (false)". Sorry times up.

4064: 3582: 1761: 1547:, Charles H. Lippy, John Bassett McCleary, Ruth Prince and David Riches, 1199: 1177: 499: 3721:

I agree. Thanks Francis. Just note that your edit summary referred to

3585:

lineage in which a "Perfect Master" is an embodiment of God on earth."

3803:

There was none. I think the neutral uninvolved editor was utilizing

4121:

Knowledge talk:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English

2221:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

214: 190: 3317:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic

2368:

We have gone to this ad nauseam. Several religious scholars, like

834:

for reasons already expressed several times in other discussions.

218: 194: 2400:, and David V. Barrett about this issue. I continue to disagree. 3494:

What is the actual verbatim quote from Melton, for comparison?

3358:"Tidying" can be good, but is there a consensus for a merger? - 2734: 2183:

meet certain standards else it should be immediately removed.

25: 1925:

the article, that we all have agreed needs tightening as per

3654:

That should be easy to fix. Something along the lines of:

1194:

For example, he Rawat seems to contradict this quote in his

1039:

Q:Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God-consciousness?

4154:

that need to summarized and add the to "Scholarly opinions"

1668:, and the importance of abiding by our content policies of 1164:

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 2, 1971. Can we use this?

885:

just a few months ago. (FYI, Maholtra is the equivalent of

813:

Where did I make this agreement? I think you misremember.

755:

3. It was and is the only thing for which he was notable.

2433:

Andries, Macgregor has sworn an affadavit which says -

2331:

It needs to be a lot more than well sourced, Andries.

2194:

Main article: Knowledge:Biographies of living persons

1698:

bricklayer attempting to teach him Knowledge policies.

3775:

I will be adding full text material in a sandbox @

2994:

etc. which characterizes their comments as opinions.

210:

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html

187:

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html

3926:

It is bias when you don't include any other subset.

2474:

Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

989:made in India, particularly in the Northern parts. 3328:I have closed this case. There was no resolution. 1058:what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe? 313:http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm 3504:I gave the verbatim quote above, and again here: 2201:Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence 1519:do not be surprised if your edits are challenged 4232:http://www.thenewbelievers.com/The%20author.htm 4051:to the subject. That is why, in an article on 3745:There is duplicated material due to the merger. 1563:, Sandra S. Frankiel, James Lewis, and others. 752:2. It was backed up by several reputable source 301:http://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat 4001:Did you just identify yourself as a partisan? 1596:SOMEONE HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS FARCE 319:http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf 3459:"Maharaj Ji...claims to be a Perfect Master". 1042:A:Yes. I am permanently in God-consciousness. 407:Unless there are objections, I intend to move 8: 3794:Uh...where was the consensus for this move? 2820:My advise has been all the time that as per 3581:minister, believed that Rawat comes from a 3476:noted that Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage 2264:As said many times before, if you have any 1198:where he expressed faith in the concept of 936:ad a. because that did not make him notable 3678:I agree with Jossi's clarification here. 3546:Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America 3319:. I have volunteered to be the mediator. 2953:http://ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm 4150:I have stared adding source material to 3372:I believe such a discussion is underway 3213:judgements on those facts either way. -- 4027:I apologize in advance and publicly to 1211:then manifested Himself in a human body 1762:http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/ 1555:, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis J. 1048:A:You yourself must realize the truth. 131:I replied to you in your talk page at 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2171:material on these and related pages. 1064:Maharaji: You don't know.... Do you? 7: 2166:So Much To Learn About Wiki policies 1326:sounds like an exact translation of 928:Momento, to answer your question. 24: 3481:Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage 2259:to get a glimpse of what I mean. 1612:TABLOID ARTICLES and LITIGATION 746:The reason I wrote that because 215:http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ 191:http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ 29: 4198:Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Barret 3957:removing the criticism entirely 3561:'s phrasing to explain my edit: 3315:has opened a mediation page at 2584:, as these are poorly sourced. 219:http://prem-rawat-critique.org/ 195:http://prem-rawat-critique.org/ 3688:That sounds good. Well done. 3557:Also, allow me to deconstruct 2214:Using the subject as a source 1878:Note that it's part of a set, 1525:, in case you have missed it. 1126:03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1: 2514:17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2496:17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 2481:08:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 2463:11:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2453:10:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2443:20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2429:10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2405:10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2363:10:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2346:08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC) 2336:22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 2326:20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC) 2298:23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 2273:Before you consider removing 2249:23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 2156:19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2147:19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2138:02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2117:06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2077:21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 2020:15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2005:11:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 1996:21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 1949:21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 1939:03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 1896:01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 1853:21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1821:21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1787:21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1726:21:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1703:21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1690:22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1642:22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1624:11:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1590:14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1573:22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1535:22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1503:16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1484:13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1474:22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1459:02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1450:02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1437:02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1426:00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 1412:03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1402:02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 1389:23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1355:19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 1345:23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1335:06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1317:04:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1304:01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 1292:21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1283:20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1271:20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1262:20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1252:16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1226:11:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1190:08:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1169:06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1146:07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1095:23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1081:10:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1031:03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 1013:23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 1003:23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 980:23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 960:21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 946:20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 915:23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 904:23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 868:20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 858:20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 848:20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 818:21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 809:20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 797:20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 765:20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 742:20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 728:18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 718:18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 709:17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 690:17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 679:17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 637:18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 623:17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 614:17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 605:17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 586:17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 575:16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 565:16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 547:16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 528:16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 515:16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 482:11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 472:11:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 456:09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 445:08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 423:01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 402:15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 370:18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 350:17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) 290:19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 270:15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 251:14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 235:Knowledge:Notability (people) 228:14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 159:17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 149:05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 125:01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 4245:17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4221:16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4210:16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4182:16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4168:16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4128:12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4115:12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4103:21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4090:11:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4076:09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4046:09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4022:11:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4006:09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3997:09:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3988:09:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3975:09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3965:08:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3940:09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3931:09:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3916:09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3907:08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3898:08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3883:07:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3869:07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3856:06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3835:04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3826:04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3812:04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3799:03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3789:00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3768:07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3759:01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3714:22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3693:21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3683:20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3671:15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3643:12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3621:12:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3603:09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3539:09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3529:08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3499:07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3488:07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3466:00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3428:05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3401:02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3392:20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 3381:08:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 3368:02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 3353:04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 3338:06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 3146:WP:RS#Self-published_sources 2524:The only uninvolved editor, 2308:03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 296:A Named Critic of Prem Rawat 164:A Named Critic of Prem Rawat 3979:I urge you to refrain from 3324:19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 3294:10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 3269:08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 3255:19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 3232:21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 3218:18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 3207:21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3183:17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3163:16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3133:21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3119:16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3102:09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3088:08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3077:01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3063:00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 3045:06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 3031:00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 3015:22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2999:10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2961:23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2902:02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2849:02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2839:17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2812:02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2798:17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2760:16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2742:08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2735:http://www.one-reality.net/ 2729:01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2710:00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2695:12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2685:09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2670:07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2656:07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2640:03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2624:20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2604:18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2594:18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2576:18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2567:18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2558:18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2544:18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 1056:Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, 881:on his weekly talk show on 4261: 3577:, a religious scholar and 1631:Knowledge:No legal threats 1202:as can be read hereunder. 1180:. This quote seems to me 4098:shown their true colors. 3727:Knowledge:Content forking 3414:error with a comment that 3148:on the following points. 2826:Elan Vital (organization) 4152:Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars 4119:See also my comments at 3777:Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars 3457:To restate for emphasis 180:Main article (criticism) 3202:of "Scholarly Opinion"? 2716:Criticism of Prem Rawat 2472:I left a notice at the 2257:Knowledge:WikiLawyering 1884:Criticism of Prem Rawat 1664:, the understanding of 1521:. You may want to read 3592: 3523: 3454: 3308:Mediation Announcement 2630:Elan Vital as a source 2062:And an extra reminder 4029:User:Francis Schonken 3707:User:Francis Schonken 3566: 3509: 3444: 1882:, that also includes 1670:neutral point of view 1666:what Knowledge is not 1578:visually challenged. 685:good reasons for it. 577:(amended for grammar) 171:User_talk:Nik Wright2 42:of past discussions. 3005:Elephant in the room 2411:Blinded by the Light 1709:not bite the newbies 1707:In Knowledge, we do 1674:no original research 1648:Talk-page discipline 1553:George D. Chryssides 1324:Lord of the Universe 376:Talk-page discipline 3723:Knowledge:Criticism 3433:I must urge you to 1880:Category:Prem Rawat 1658:no personal attacks 1523:Knowledge:Consensus 804:already that I am. 176:Proposed additions 103:A MATTER OF CONCERN 4216:should be quoted. 3420:"Read the excerpt. 2390:Reender Kranenborg 2374:Reender Kranenborg 1196:peace bomb satsang 4243: 4208: 4166: 3787: 3757: 3669: 3437:and refrain from 3435:assume good faith 3409:Vexatious editing 3253: 3197:Scholarly Opinion 3181: 3029: 2900: 2837: 2758: 2592: 2556: 2512: 2494: 2448:sources is okay. 2409:From the article 2296: 2247: 2233:comment added by 2075: 2018: 1994: 1937: 1851: 1819: 1724: 1688: 1640: 1629:Gstalker, please 1571: 1561:Jeffrey K. Hadden 1533: 1501: 1472: 1424: 1250: 1125: 1119: 1109: 1029: 1001: 902: 846: 795: 707: 677: 603: 563: 545: 513: 421: 400: 368: 348: 334:comment added by 288: 268: 249: 200:Criticism Article 147: 133:User_talk:Gstaker 123: 110:User_talk:Gstaker 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4252: 4239: 4204: 4162: 4125:Francis Schonken 3981:personal attacks 3783: 3753: 3665: 3579:United Methodist 3575:J. Gordon Melton 3439:personal attacks 3313:User:Nik_Wright2 3249: 3177: 3151:not contentious; 3025: 2896: 2833: 2754: 2588: 2552: 2508: 2490: 2398:Jan van der Lans 2386:J. Gordon Melton 2382:Jan van der Lans 2370:J. Gordon Melton 2292: 2246: 2227: 2071: 2014: 1990: 1933: 1847: 1815: 1720: 1684: 1636: 1567: 1529: 1497: 1468: 1420: 1242: 1121: 1118: 1104: 1021: 993: 894: 838: 787: 699: 669: 595: 555: 537: 505: 413: 392: 360: 347: 328: 280: 260: 241: 205:motivations.[24 139: 115: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4193: 3703: 3411: 3345: 3310: 3199: 3007: 2632: 2394:Reinhart Hummel 2378:Reinhart Hummel 2318: 2228: 2225: 2208: 2195: 2168: 1660:, the need for 1650: 1549:Bryan R. Wilson 1365: 1322:To me the term 430: 378: 329: 298: 166: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:Talk:Prem Rawat 12: 11: 5: 4258: 4256: 4248: 4247: 4234: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4192: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4170: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4148: 4145: 4142: 4139: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4069:Mother Theresa 4025: 4024: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3878:remain stable. 3872: 3871: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3718: 3717: 3702: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3686: 3660: 3659: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3443: 3442: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3344: 3341: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3221: 3220: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3136: 3135: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3091: 3090: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3034: 3033: 3006: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2659: 2658: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2569: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2499: 2498: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2445: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2407: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2338: 2317: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2284: 2283: 2270: 2269: 2261: 2260: 2223: 2210: 2206: 2197: 2193: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1593: 1545:Andrew Kopkind 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1337: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1254: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1192: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1062: 1060: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1005: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 937: 934: 933: 932: 923: 922: 921: 920: 908: 907: 906: 879:Rajiv Mehrotra 871: 870: 860: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 811: 772: 770: 769: 768: 767: 758: 757: 756: 753: 750: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 720: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 625: 616: 578: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 429: 426: 377: 374: 373: 372: 323: 317:which carries 297: 294: 293: 292: 273: 272: 253: 169:Text moved to 165: 162: 152: 151: 108:Text moved to 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4257: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4229: 4226: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4190: 4183: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4171: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4158: 4153: 4149: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4122: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4104: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4088: 4083: 4077: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4061:string theory 4058: 4054: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4034: 4030: 4023: 4020: 4015: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3949: 3941: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3925: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3884: 3881: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3857: 3854: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3836: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3824: 3819: 3816: 3815: 3813: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3749: 3744: 3741: 3738: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3715: 3712: 3708: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3644: 3641: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3622: 3619: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3604: 3601: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3503: 3502: 3500: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3426: 3421: 3417: 3408: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3351: 3342: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3307: 3295: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3270: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3239: 3238: 3233: 3230: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3216: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3196: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3153: 3150: 3149: 3147: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3126: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3089: 3086: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3046: 3043: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3004: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2987: 2962: 2959: 2954: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2850: 2847: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2813: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2708: 2704: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2617: 2605: 2602: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2568: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2539: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2464: 2461: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2451: 2446: 2444: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2344: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2315: 2309: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2165: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2136: 2132: 2118: 2115: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1950: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1788: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1678:verifiability 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1616: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1582: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557:Gordon Melton 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1362: 1356: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1315: 1305: 1302: 1297: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1260: 1255: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1159: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1052: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1006: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 983: 982: 981: 978: 973: 972: 969: 964: 963: 962: 961: 958: 947: 944: 941: 940: 938: 935: 930: 929: 927: 926: 925: 924: 918: 917: 916: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 884: 880: 875: 874: 873: 872: 869: 866: 861: 859: 856: 852: 851: 850: 849: 845: 841: 837: 819: 816: 812: 810: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 794: 790: 786: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 766: 763: 759: 754: 751: 748: 747: 745: 744: 743: 740: 735: 729: 726: 721: 719: 716: 712: 711: 710: 706: 702: 698: 693: 692: 691: 688: 683: 682: 681: 680: 676: 672: 668: 663: 638: 635: 631: 626: 624: 621: 617: 615: 612: 608: 607: 606: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 584: 579: 576: 573: 568: 567: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 531: 530: 529: 526: 522: 518: 517: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 483: 480: 475: 474: 473: 469: 468: 463: 459: 458: 457: 454: 449: 448: 447: 446: 442: 441: 436: 427: 425: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 354: 353: 352: 351: 345: 341: 337: 333: 326: 321: 320: 315: 314: 310: 308: 303: 302: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 274: 271: 267: 263: 259: 254: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 231: 230: 229: 226: 221: 220: 216: 211: 206: 202: 201: 197: 196: 192: 188: 182: 181: 177: 174: 173: 172: 163: 161: 160: 157: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 129: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 114: 111: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4194: 4172: 4131: 4118: 4109: 4095: 4026: 3956: 3947: 3946: 3774: 3661: 3653: 3545: 3524: 3480: 3475: 3471: 3458: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3348:information. 3346: 3327: 3311: 3200: 3170: 3083:reading'? -- 3071: 3008: 2991: 2829:compromise. 2633: 2532: 2471: 2434: 2418: 2410: 2356: 2319: 2279: 2274: 2265: 2226: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2063: 1712: 1651: 1617: 1611: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1540: 1538: 1518: 1515: 1490: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363:This Article 1323: 1308: 1278:represented. 1234: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1182:quote mining 1163: 1120: 1065: 1057: 985: 954: 832: 771: 661: 659: 630:Jimmy Carter 466: 439: 431: 428:Introduction 406: 405: 385: 381: 379: 327: 322: 316: 311: 306: 304: 299: 222: 207: 203: 199: 198: 183: 179: 178: 175: 168: 167: 153: 107: 106: 78: 43: 37: 4057:creationism 3948:Here we go! 3830:Could be. 3360:Will Beback 3215:John Brauns 3116:John Brauns 3085:John Brauns 3060:John Brauns 2958:John Brauns 2846:John Brauns 2809:John Brauns 2790:Will Beback 2721:Will Beback 2692:John Brauns 2677:Will Beback 2667:John Brauns 2648:Will Beback 2229:—Preceding 1888:Will Beback 1464:you stand. 883:Doordarshan 521:user:Centrx 386:exclusively 336:Nik Wright2 330:—Preceding 225:Nik Wright2 36:This is an 4033:good faith 3701:The Merger 3343:Tidying up 3330:TheRingess 3321:TheRingess 986:their view 887:Larry King 309:leads to: 223:Nik Wright 95:Archive 25 90:Archive 24 85:Archive 23 79:Archive 22 73:Archive 21 68:Archive 20 60:Archive 15 4237:≈ jossi ≈ 4230:See also 4202:≈ jossi ≈ 4160:≈ jossi ≈ 4053:evolution 3781:≈ jossi ≈ 3751:≈ jossi ≈ 3663:≈ jossi ≈ 3548:, pp.142. 3374:over here 3291:Sylviecyn 3247:≈ jossi ≈ 3175:≈ jossi ≈ 3023:≈ jossi ≈ 2894:≈ jossi ≈ 2831:≈ jossi ≈ 2752:≈ jossi ≈ 2586:≈ jossi ≈ 2550:≈ jossi ≈ 2506:≈ jossi ≈ 2488:≈ jossi ≈ 2436:unfounded 2290:≈ jossi ≈ 2069:≈ jossi ≈ 2012:≈ jossi ≈ 1988:≈ jossi ≈ 1931:≈ jossi ≈ 1845:≈ jossi ≈ 1813:≈ jossi ≈ 1718:≈ jossi ≈ 1682:≈ jossi ≈ 1662:consensus 1634:≈ jossi ≈ 1565:≈ jossi ≈ 1527:≈ jossi ≈ 1495:≈ jossi ≈ 1466:≈ jossi ≈ 1418:≈ jossi ≈ 1328:Jagannath 1240:≈ jossi ≈ 1102:≈ jossi ≈ 1019:≈ jossi ≈ 991:≈ jossi ≈ 892:≈ jossi ≈ 836:≈ jossi ≈ 785:≈ jossi ≈ 697:≈ jossi ≈ 667:≈ jossi ≈ 593:≈ jossi ≈ 553:≈ jossi ≈ 535:≈ jossi ≈ 503:≈ jossi ≈ 411:≈ jossi ≈ 390:≈ jossi ≈ 358:≈ jossi ≈ 278:≈ jossi ≈ 258:≈ jossi ≈ 239:≈ jossi ≈ 137:≈ jossi ≈ 113:≈ jossi ≈ 4100:Mael-Num 4073:Mael-Num 4065:Wal-Mart 4003:Mael-Num 3985:Mael-Num 3962:Mael-Num 3937:Mael-Num 3913:Mael-Num 3823:Mael-Num 3796:Mael-Num 3690:Mael-Num 3600:Mael-Num 3583:Sant Mat 3526:Mael-Num 3463:Mael-Num 3423:article. 3398:Mael-Num 3378:Mael-Num 2536:contribs 2266:specific 2243:contribs 2231:unsigned 1654:civility 344:contribs 332:unsigned 4218:Andries 4112:Andries 4087:Momento 4043:Momento 4019:Momento 3994:Momento 3972:Momento 3928:Momento 3904:Momento 3895:Andries 3880:Momento 3866:Momento 3853:Momento 3805:WP:BOLD 3765:Andries 3640:Momento 3618:Momento 3559:Momento 3485:Momento 3425:Momento 3418:should 3389:Momento 3350:Momento 3266:Momento 3229:Momento 3204:Momento 3160:Andries 3130:Momento 3099:Momento 3097:biased. 3074:Momento 3042:Momento 3012:Momento 2996:Momento 2739:Momento 2707:Momento 2637:Momento 2621:Momento 2601:Andries 2573:Andries 2564:Andries 2541:Andries 2478:Andries 2460:Momento 2450:Andries 2440:Momento 2426:Andries 2402:Andries 2360:Momento 2343:Andries 2333:Momento 2323:Momento 2316:Mishler 2305:Momento 2235:Tgubler 2153:Momento 2144:Andries 2135:Momento 2114:Gstaker 2002:Andries 1946:Tgubler 1927:WP:LEAD 1809:WP:LEAD 1784:Tgubler 1700:Tgubler 1621:Gstaker 1587:Gstaker 1481:Andries 1456:Andries 1447:Momento 1434:Andries 1409:Tgubler 1399:Momento 1386:Tgubler 1352:Momento 1342:Tgubler 1332:Andries 1314:Gstaker 1301:Momento 1289:Andries 1280:Momento 1268:Andries 1259:Momento 1223:Andries 1200:avatara 1187:Andries 1178:avatara 1166:Momento 1143:Andries 1092:Andries 1078:Andries 1010:Andries 977:Andries 968:WP:LEAD 957:Andries 943:Andries 912:Andries 865:Andries 855:Andries 815:Andries 806:Andries 762:Andries 739:Momento 725:Andries 715:Andries 687:Andries 634:Andries 620:Andries 611:Andries 583:Andries 572:Andries 525:Andries 523:prove. 479:Andries 453:Andries 156:Gstaker 39:archive 4241:(talk) 4206:(talk) 4191:Barret 4164:(talk) 3952:boldly 3785:(talk) 3755:(talk) 3667:(talk) 3251:(talk) 3243:WP:BLP 3179:(talk) 3027:(talk) 2992:claims 2898:(talk) 2835:(talk) 2756:(talk) 2714:OTOH, 2590:(talk) 2582:WP:BLP 2554:(talk) 2526:Edison 2510:(talk) 2492:(talk) 2396:, and 2380:, and 2294:(talk) 2073:(talk) 2016:(talk) 1992:(talk) 1935:(talk) 1849:(talk) 1817:(talk) 1722:(talk) 1713:really 1686:(talk) 1638:(talk) 1608:wall. 1569:(talk) 1531:(talk) 1499:(talk) 1470:(talk) 1422:(talk) 1067:bliss. 662:do not 462:Centrx 435:Centrx 4067:, or 4063:, or 4059:, or 4055:, or 3733:soon. 2822:WP:RS 1397:page. 193:and 16:< 4179:Smee 4123:. -- 3832:Smee 3818:Bold 3809:Smee 3711:Smee 3680:Smee 3536:Smee 3496:Smee 3334:talk 3171:your 2530:talk 2239:talk 1676:and 1541:many 1350:him. 467:talk 440:talk 340:talk 217:and 4096:has 3807:. 2280:any 2275:any 2064:not 1491:and 1257:it? 382:not 237:). 3814:. 3541:. 3501:. 3366:· 3362:· 3336:) 2796:· 2792:· 2727:· 2723:· 2683:· 2679:· 2654:· 2650:· 2392:, 2388:, 2376:, 2372:, 2245:) 2241:• 1894:· 1890:· 1680:. 1672:, 1656:, 1619:-- 1559:, 1330:. 1246:• 1217:." 1025:• 997:• 898:• 842:• 791:• 703:• 673:• 632:. 599:• 559:• 541:• 509:• 470:• 443:• 417:• 396:• 364:• 346:) 342:• 305:24 284:• 264:• 245:• 143:• 119:• 64:← 4184:. 3837:. 3716:. 3685:. 3573:" 3416:I 3364:† 3332:( 2794:† 2725:† 2719:- 2681:† 2675:- 2652:† 2646:- 2533:· 2528:( 2438:. 2237:( 1892:† 1248:@ 1244:t 1205:" 1123:@ 1108:• 1106:t 1027:@ 1023:t 999:@ 995:t 900:@ 896:t 844:@ 840:t 793:@ 789:t 705:@ 701:t 675:@ 671:t 601:@ 597:t 561:@ 557:t 543:@ 539:t 511:@ 507:t 464:→ 437:→ 433:— 419:@ 415:t 398:@ 394:t 366:@ 362:t 338:( 286:@ 282:t 266:@ 262:t 247:@ 243:t 145:@ 141:t 121:@ 117:t 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index