Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 3

My Edits: Rationale

I added the very important material about harassment charges made by the premies. They have claimed that the anti- group are harassing them, and have indpenedently verifiable court documents to support this claim. A link is provided. This is important because the serious charge that the anti- group is a "hate group" should be supported. I think an affidavit from an ex-premie admitting this is extremely significant and must be part of the mix.

Similarly, the anti- group and their web page bases a great deal of their support on this John Macgregor's writings. The fact that this person was found by a court to have lied under oath and have been involved in a scheme to steal computer data is something that readers must know to evaluate the credibility of their charges. Again, links are provided.

I tried to smoothly edit the claims of divinity to add the contextual reference point of the 1970's. I don't understand why the anti-group never includes dates of these quotes. Wasn;t Maharaji quite young at the time? Either it is inexperienced scholoarship or intentional obscuring an important fact that readers ought to know. Let's hope it's the former, not the latter.

In the Turn from Divinity section, it is important to flag the hearsay that Maharaji "Maharaji hesitated because he realized that he would have less control over his followers and as a result less income from them." This is a serious charge and there is only Mishler's word for it. I tried to leave the allegation as having been made but not have Wiki adopt is as a fact.

Also, there is no support citation for this Mary Moore person's allegations. She appears nowhere on the Artie page link. Similarly, I have checked and if you re-read the Nya Murray charges on the $5,000, it was not an entry fee, it was a pledge to donate money. Same difference, I suppose, but why not be accurate?

More later.ThanksRichard G. 03:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G. Thanks for your rationale.

Mishlers radio interview is not a hearsay. It is a testimony from one of the very few who could know. It is important to have it included. Andries 03:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not know why they do not provide dates. I will ask.

I do not agree with "As was custom at that time to dress up as Krishna" Can you please explain this. I do not understand why the context of the 1970s is relevant. Claim of being God is claim of being God then and now. What was so different then? Andries 03:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Mishler stuff...but please try to understand here. Mishler says that Maharaji said something. When one person says something, that's a quote. When that person says that SOMEONE ELSE said something: that's hearsay. I realize this is somehow an important thing for the anti-group to have in there, so all I did was clarify that this conversation was never independently verified. Let me illustrate:

According to Bill Jones, Andries often sold John Smith drugs, and used the money to buy pornography.

Now that's a hell of a thing! Should it be repeated as fact? After all, the methodology of the anti-group seems largely established this way. Should the Wiki entry say "Andries is a known drug-dealer?" Should it say "Many people have said they bought drugs from Andries?" Especially if those people are internet aliases?

Of course not. John Smith's statement has to be supported. Is there a court document or arrest record? A trial? Is there evidence from a non-interested party that shows this to be true? That's what you want to see in research.Richard G. 11:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G. we basically agree but there is just confusion about the difference between testimony and hearsay. Andries 12:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goodbye to all

After receiving a series of threatening and anonymous emails today, I have decided to stop contributing to this and other articles on this subject. To whoever sent these: I am not the type to easily give in and I am not easily scared (I was in a war, 20 days in the front line under fire, so courage is not an issue), but I have my kids and wife to look after.

I wish you all good luck with the edits and hope a good and balanced article is achieved. I will be lurking from time to time and maybe contributing to other articles in WP, but not these.

Thanks all, but specially to Gary D, Zappaz and Ed for their attempts to bring order to this process. It was nice interacting with you. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you received threatening emails. It was not me nor did I encourage anyone to send you threatening emails. Andries 03:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, too, am very sorry to hear this, jossi. Consider involving the police. --Gary D 05:29, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

If this is true, I support reporting this to the police. It is not something that I, nor any other ex-premie I know, would support. If Jossi would send me the emails with full headers, I will be happy to assist in identifying the culprit. John Brauns - epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk (BTW, how do you get the username, date and time signature when editing? - thanks.)

Type in four tildes: ~~~~ There should be button on your edit page, maybe second from the right on the toolbar above the edit window, that will do this for you automatically...voila: --Gary D 22:49, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary --John Brauns 14:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, Jossi, but there is no need to give in .... use a sockpuppet account. That is exactly the reason I am using one to work on these articles. Although sockpuppet accounts are considered "uncool" they are an excellent way to protect your indentity. See sockpuppet#Legitimate_uses

--Senegal 11:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New "sources of criticism" section

I have created a new section at the top of this article to try and encapsulate the dispute (as rages on these talk pages, for instance) over whether the critical group is large or small and whether the Internet group speaks for a larger constituency. There's a lot more I'd like to do to copyedit this article, but I think it's better to go slow and get everyone's reactions to the main text rearrangements before delving into the details. --Gary D 08:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

God work, Gary D. It reads much better and gives a much needed context.--Senegal 11:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anachronism

Richard G., this anachronism is nonsense. I mean, Hindu style devotion still continues in some groups, like my former group in 2004. Why is the time of 1970s important? It has little to do with time. My former group reached its height of popularity in the West in 1999. Andries 12:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It has EVERYTHING to do with time. In 1600 the common currency was that the Earth was flat. Similarly, the cultural context matters here. You had privileged western children allegedly taking vows of poverty and dressing up in robes, right? There's got to be a larger explanation for that!!!

And, with all due respect (and I really mean that) try not to import your angry feeling about your own group into this matter. I have no real idea about that group, and if they still do Hindu stuff, that's their problem. But please, don't evade the important question. When you quote someone as supporting your argument, you should allow the reader as much fact to evaluate the quote, and a date is signifigant. That's just basic scholarship, as opposed to a pub argument.

It's all about transparency. I don't like admitting this, but I suspect more than ever that the anti-group has purposefully avoided adding dates to their material. I just don't know why, and "because we don't have to" just doesn't seem like a very persuasive argument.

Let me put it another way: What's the harm? Why not show that the words Rawat is alleged to have said were said in 1972? How could that hurt their argument? Richard G. 13:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard. Please read these sentences and my comments:

He also used to dress up as Krishna in ceremonial garb. Elan Vital says that Maharaji was 13 years old when he came to the West and as a young boy, the presentation of Knowledge and his public persona was handled by Indian adults steeped in Indian ways. In the 1970s people of the hippie generation were on average more open to Hindu rituals and Indian cultural influence. Elan Vital's website says that the Hindu background now seems anachronistic but was culturally accepted in the 1970's.

The way this is worded implies that Maharaji only dressed up as Krishna when he was a boy of 13 and that Indian Mahatmas somehow had undue influence upon him to make him dress up as Krishna.

In 1979, at age 22, married with two kids, Maharaji was still dressing up in Krishna costumes, wearing a crown on his head, sitting upon throwns on a stage, and dancing with the premies at festivals. His own wife Marolyn would place the crown on his head. Will EV now blame his actions on his wife? No one forced M to wear these costumes. I worked on making some of the flower malas he wore on stage, as well as embroidering gold thread onto the new gold-colored Krishna pants he needed specifically for the 1979 festival. No one made him wear these costumes in 1978-1979 when he was by then quite westernized in his lifestyle.

The Hans Jayanti Festival, 1979 in Kissimmee, Florida is one example of this. It was an international five-day festival where (then-called) premies from all over the world attended. It was boasted that up to 20,000 premies were in attendence. At the same time in 1979, he was also managing a very large aircraft reconfiguration project called DECA -- a project to get him his first jet. Prem Rawat was fully able to make his own decisions well before age 22 and definitely at age 22. I saw him make many decisions nearly every day about design and engineering matters concerning the B707 aircraft. Surely, Elan Vital isn't implying that Maharaji was somehow subjected to coercive persuasion by his own Mahatmas at age 22. Are they, and are you implying this?

Also, how can anyone assert that "hippies" in general were attracted to all things that were Hindu or Indian in nature? That's quite a large generalization, considering how many "hippies" lived in the U.S. alone.

Also, regarding dating of the old DLM publications: there is no group effort or conspiracy to publish these transcripts of Rawat's "satsang" with the dates purposely omitted. One ex-premie happens to have a lot of the older publications and sometimes he forgets to place dates on them when uploading them. Actually, some people who post on Forum 8 have asked that these items be dated, myself included. This person is busy with a job and two kids. Sometimes he forgets to date the uploads. Very simple explanation. There's no big mystery here.

Cynthia Sept 5, 2004

Well, I will re-read it but to say that claims of divinity are different then and now is, I think, nonsense. May be I misunderstood what you wrote because some of what you wrote was a copy from Elan Vital but written down as fact, which may not have been your intention. Andries 13:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

edits...

In the Sources of Criticism section, it said: "The ex-premie group claims that many if not most of these former students are disgruntled with Prem Rawat even if they are silent about it, and that these former students support their criticisms."

There's no numbers to support this, and this is juggling several thoughts at once, so I tried to make the same point in a simpler manner: "The ex-premie group says that their numbers are growing, while supporters of Prem Rawat assert that the bulk of former students have simply moved on with no ill will toward him and do not share in the ex-premies' viewpoint."

That states the "who's more popular" controversy simply. (Richard G. 13:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I think this change may go beyond simplification to actually changing the information expressed; the changed version states the claim as, "we're small but growing," while the original version states the claim as, "we're already huge but mostly silent." I believe an essential part of the ex-premie group's claim is that they have a great bulk of all ex-followers behind them. However, at this point that is merely my take on what the critical group is claiming and I don't have a specific cite for it, so it would need to be verified before I care to go to the mat to change this back. --Gary D 17:40, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

In the "claims of divinity" secttion, I clarified the first line. The ex group says that part of their anger is they never got a satisfactroy explanation about the divinty stuff, while here it outright says "now denied." Which is it? One thing for sure, is they do not make these claims now, and they did in the past.

Now take a deep breath here, you pro Maharaji folks, but I cut a lot of the "rebuttal" stuff and deleted it as a section. The small insertion of facts alleged there are now interleafed with the criticism, so that it is balanced but reads more logically. Just as the anti-group shouldn't swallow the main article with their critical views, the critical views shouldn't be overwhelmed by the rebuttal stuff. The goal ought to be balance and clarity supported by factual evidence. (Richard G. 13:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I agree that critical assertions and rebuttal answers should be grouped together on a point-by-point basis. I would counsel caution, however, in ensuring that the critical point being made is fully given before starting in with the rebuttal counterpoint, in other words avoiding a premature mixing of a rebuttal statement in amidst the criticism statements. The reader may become confused as to whether the critics, whose views are being discussed at that point in the text, have suddently and inexplicably made a pro-PR statement. Some clear line of demarcation always needs to be drawn to announce the change of voice, and going back and forth too quickly will fragment each side's points and dizzy the reader. I am not going after any specific examples of this in the current verstion, but am mostly raising this issue as a general consideration. --Gary D 18:27, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

In the "financial exploitation" section, these are very serious charges, certainly libellous if not absolutely and provably true, and I can't imagine that Wiki (or anyone) should adopt as fact the inference to be had, namely, that Maharaji or Elan Vital is misusing charity funds. That's got to be a crime and it is imperative that this not be adopted as a fact. It's fair to say that the criticism exists, but it must be clear that this fellow has never been charged by the IRS with tax fraud or something like that. In short, the article must present it as allegation, not as a fact. Also troubling is the paucity of documentation to support the claims that people gave specific amounts of money. Thus, it's been tightened up. At the same time, I deleted the rebuttal stuff in this regard that is not germane to this narrow but very serious point.

More later. Richard G. 13:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard G. Thanks for the explanation. Yes claims of divinity are now denied so that can and should be stated as a fact. See the FAQ of Elan Vital Elan Vital's website

"Q:Why was he called "Lord of the Universe"

A:In Western culture, when a title is given to a person, it comes with a position. In India, by contrast, such grand labels as "His Holiness" or are given on the basis of affection or admiration. The use of this title, which was used only in the '70s—an era of love for all things Indian— does not imply any claims that the person is holy anymore than the use of "His Excellence" means that the person is an embodiment of excellence. "I am a human being, and you are a human being," says Maharaji, "and that is the basis of this relationship." Other people in India have also been called "Lord of the Universe" well before Maharaji, without its ever implying that they claimed to rule the universe or have anything to do with its creation.

Q: Why was Maharaji described as "Greater than God" in the '70s?

A: Such statements were made in the '70s at a time of affinity for all things Indian. People in India routinely pronounce the Guru as God or even greater than God. To the man on the street in India, "Guru is greater than God" is a common statement. Such statements can be difficult to understand in Western countries. In India, however, they are seen as"

I see your point and agree. Denied is fair. Richard G. 13:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think that fraud is the main issue but exploitation. Ex-premies blame themselves for being so gullible and naive to give large donations.

Andries 13:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's too subtle a distinction. The way it was written clearly implies fraud or tax dodging, even if that's not what you meant. And let's be honest, the ex-group's pages and chatrooms are rife with claims that Rawat is a crook or corrupt or worse. This is the implication here, and if that's NOT what you mean to say, then you have to be clear and precise. Thanks Richard G. 13:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Concerned about the Gubler affidavit

I'm concerned about the prominent placement and lack of context around the Gubler affidavit. I think it needs to be put farther down in the article and given more context, for the following reasons:

• At the time of making the affidavit, Gubler is asserting himself to be an ex-ex-premie, so all the same disgruntled qualifications that can be applied to Mishler can be applied to him.
• More to the point, it appears from the affidavit's recitals that Gubler was at the time he executed the affidavit in criminal trouble for his info-lifting activities, so there are strong motivations for him to say whatever they told him to say in order to save himself.
• It is not actually "sworn," which the article recites, but is rather "affirmed." I don't know how big a difference that is in Australia, but it makes the article text technically inaccurate.
• There is the matter of his later recant, and the various article versions I have seen call into question whether the court's refusal to allow him to recant had anything to do with the veracity issues being raised here. I have not researched the recant stuff.

In short, I think this is evidence that some ex-premie members were engaged in some dodgy stuff and really don't like the guy, but I don't think it stands as an objective admission by the ex-premies as a group that they understand themselves to be a harassment and hate group, which its current high placement within the article without further context suggests. --Gary D 18:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting to see that hearsay and "testimonies" are given more credibility than a court document. Something is amiss here if this is the way the article will be formed. Here is a clear case of somebody signing his name on a piece of paper saying what he said (read it, it is an eye opener). It must be displayed prominently. An affidavit is an affidavit, regardless of being "sworn" or "affirmed".

And, BTW check Gubler's postings on the ex-premie forum and other places. He definitively sees himself as part of the group of ex-premies. Actually, his "standing" within the group grew quite a bit as a result of his actions. Ex-premies even congratulated him for his "efforts".

--64.81.88.140

It is true that Tom Gubler is an ex-premie now and continues to post on their forum but I think that this casts doubts on his sincerity in the affadavit. Andries 21:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So you think yourself to be in the position and be qualified to make these distinctions? You are ignoring my point: you yourself are giving more prominence and more credibility to hearsay, than to a court document. Don't you? --64.81.88.140 21:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If Tom Gubler was sincere in the affadavit then he would not associate with the ex-premies anymore. I mean, if I did something like Tom Gubler then I would say anything to save my reputation and my business. Again, I object to the word hearsay. I think that testimony is a better word. Andries 21:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I Just read the circumstances under which he signed the affadavit. He was afraid that his marriage would suffer because his wife was/is a student. News articleAndries 21:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he was afraid about his marriage, he would have not done what he did. Can you spell accountability?

This Gubler is the kind of person that can be called "disgusting" and still be able to say that it is NPOV... :)

1. Lies to his wife
2. Betrays people that paid him for a job, by stealing data
3. Is so incompetent that he gets caught
4. Signs an affidavit in which he tries to exculpate himself
5. Once the deal is done, recants and says it was signed under pressure (yeah right, the judge did not buy it)
6. Brags about it with his ex-premie buddies
7. Says that he "leaked" the documents. Oh yes, cute. Can you say "steal"?
8. Writes an essay (yep, that is true...)
9. Suddenly he is the "star" of the ex-premies, revered and congratulated, featured as an example on the ex-premie.org website.

If that does not prove where these guys come from, I don't know what will. --64.81.88.140 02:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's dynamite evidence, it's just not conclusive fact, so WP can't give it an imprimatur. People in Salem, Massachusetts and throughout medieval Europe admitted to being witches, and people in Stalinist Russia admitted to treason; many signed sworn documents. Since Gubler no longer affirms his words and Gubler is not the group, like hearsay and "testimonies" this document needs to be contextualized and attributed. --Gary D 22:58, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it needs to be contextualized. What about the fact that ex-premie.org calls these "leaked documents" when these actually are "stolen documents". Contextualize that as well, please. [1] --64.81.88.140 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the verb "leaked" in the cited page pertains to the Gruber-to-Macgregor transfer. As to how Gruber got the documents in the first place, I have seen the competing verbs "stolen" and "copied" proposed. Based on the specific acts described in the affidavit, which acts I don't think Gruber disputes, I would propose "misappropriated," which is how US law might describe it, and nicely captures the wrongfulness of the acquisition while acknowledging the "loaves and fishes" nature of copied data. --Gary D 02:27, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, let me understand: if I gain access to your house under false pretense, and steal your list of customers and other sensitive data while getting paid to repair your computer, then gave a CD with all that data to a third-party because I don't like what you believe in, knowing that the data will show up on a website for all to see, would you say that I "copied" your data, "missapropriate" your data, or that I "stole" your data? How will you characterize me?

Here is some suggestions:

1. I copied the data
2. I stole the information contained in that data
3. I missapropriated the information

--64.81.88.140 02:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the above situation, I would vote for the verb, "misappropriated." I still have possession of my customer list, and now you also have possession of my customer list, wrongfully. US law would call that "misappropriation of trade secrets." The verb, "stole" I would reserve for the traditional "carrying off of my oxen" situation, where now you have the property and I no longer have it. So I guess if you take my customer list and also delete that list from my computer, we would have the more classic "carrying off" situation and I would move to the verb, "stole." --Gary D 02:49, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. What about if the list of customers by being published, will mean that many of your customers will stop doing business with you, because the list also contained notes about their private dealings with you? You may still have the list, but by the list is not as valuabe as it was before and your professional standing diminished by these actions. In my book that is called stealing. Something that I had, was removed by another person via an illegal action. --64.81.88.140 03:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would stick with my suggested verb regardless of eventual outcomes, if we don't have a "carrying away and immediately depriving" scenario. Here's another case: you come with sledge hammer and smash my marble statue in my front yard. Now you have deprived me of the benefits of my ownership, but you haven't carried the property off. You may have committed malicious destruction, but this wouldn't be characterized as "theft." The best description of "theft" requires both. I'm not saying "theft" would be stark insane to use in this situation, but "misappropriation" would be more accurate. --Gary D 06:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point.--64.81.88.140 10:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May be we could make a separate section on Gubler and Mcgregor. Andries 10:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If your intention is to push the section down the page, no way. The Gubler-Macgregor affair is explosive and supported by third-party, official evidence.

Also note that the correct word for what Gubler-Macgregor did is "collusion" and not "cooperation" as it contains criminal elements. Corrected. Also, your attempt to write "expose possible money fraud" is just too cute but also too transparent POV. Removed. Read the court orders, they did that for one purpose alone: to further their campaing of harassment, very well described in the affidavit. --64.81.88.140 11:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it is far more POV to put it under the section sources of criticism. It is not, I believe, a black-and-white matter, as you want to suggest and it deserves a separate treatment, in a separate section. I will insert that Macgregor said that he wanted to expose money fraud. You can call this harrassment but he said that he saw it as exposing a charlatan who committed money fraud for which he wanted to collected evidence. Andries 12:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

affidavits/Gary's edits OK with me

I see the points made above, and although I would say that what the legal stuff shows about the anti group's activities is far worse than merely "dodgy" (as Gary puts it) I understand moving the Gubler affidavit lower in the text and don't have a problem with it. As for his recant, I went back and looked at the actual court transcript, and indeed, the court found that Gubler's credibility was not sufficient to warrant tossing out the affidavit.

I have to admit that I find it consistently disappointing that the ex-premie page is highly selective about what documents they do and don't show. I suppose that's their right entirely, but I am beginning to have serious doubts about the reliability of that website as a primary source. It's just too disingenuous in too many places, and is often so inflammatory that it yields much heat but little light. But that question, and the question of why Gubler would sign an affidavit and whether he meant it then and what he means now, etc etc etc are a sideshow, I agree.

We still haven't seen a coherent answer about the lack of scholarship on the anachronistic stuff, particularly, dates and places for quotes. That's easily fixed, I'm sure, if those relying on it for factual support roll up their sleeves and do the homework. (Ooops, I sound like a teacher again!)

Best, Richard G. 13:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right when you say that ex-premie is opinionated. This is often the case with websites of ex-members of NRMs who feel betrayed and hence have difficulty describing objectively what is wrong with their former groups. I believe that ex-premies have good reason to feel betrayed though. Andries 13:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a second that these guys are genuine in their hurt. And their emotional disappointment should be treated with respect, to be sure. That's no substitute for concise, accurate scholarship, though.Richard G. 14:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)