Hello John Brauns and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
As you know, I have no first-hand experience with either Prem Rawat or with "ex-premies" except through Wikipedia, but I have a question to make sure that I'm correctly understanding what each side is asserting. It's my understanding that Elan Vital has named certain ex-followers as the members of a hate group called Ex-Premies (I'm fairly clear on what they're alleging, because they're fairly determined to repeat the allegation whenever and wherever possible.) But am I correct in believing that the ex-followers they name as leaders of this group are not only denying that they are a hate group, but that "ex-premies" is a group at all, as opposed to simply a description of the ex-member status of those named? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, former followers of Rawat (ex-premies) have, on occasion, discussed the possibility of forming an organisation but have not yet done so. We communicate in public or in private on issues as they arise, but there really is no identifiable group. I own and manage ex-premie.org with help from Jean-Michel Khan, one of Rawat's former instructors. No one else has access to the site. Mike Finch (another former instructor) has set up his own independent site (www.mikefinch.com), as has 'Drek' (www.drek.us). There are currently disagreements about some of the content on these sites, but there is no disagreement about our freedom to publish this information.
Regarding EV's allegations, they have been careful to only name two ex-premies who have been publicly subject to legal action. Neville Ackland staged a one man protest outside two of EV's events in Australia and unrelatedly was imprisoned for drug offences; and John Macgregor who is subject to ongoing legal action resulting from the leak of some documents from Ivory's Rock Conference Centre. Neither are particularly significant regarding the allegations against Prem Rawat on ex-premie.org. The significant information comes from Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner and Bob Mishler, who EV have made no attempt to discredit. All the other allegations on EV's site specify unnamed ex-premies including myself. --John Brauns 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Images
Do I remember correctly that you are involved with the site, http://www.ex-premie.org/ ? If so, I am curious as to how you have obtained some of the images used on your site. If some of these images were taken by yourself or others that can assert that they took the pictures themselves (such as the image of the palatial size estate on the mainpage), then you could upload them to Wikimedia Commons, under a appropriate released license to the public and then they could be displayed here on Wikipedia in relevant articles about the subjects. That would only be the case if, for example, you yourself or someone you know that could release the rights, personally took the picture of the image of that palatial estate. Smee17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I saw you commented on Jossi's talk page about the content of the book itself. Do you know of additional citations not presently in the article, that discuss more of the actual content of the work? Smee00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No. but I haven't researched others' opinions of the book, but the book was hardly circulated outside the cult's followers. Anyone who has read the book, as Jossi claims he has, knows that the reason the book was published, and the meaning of the title, was to publicise that Rawat was the current incarnation of God. The back page of the book begins "Why do more than 6 million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?". Rennie Davis, one of the Chicago 7, says in his introduction to the book, "When a devotee makes the outrageous statement that Guru maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe, it's cause enough for a chuckle. But it also happens to be true." I remember at the time of the book's release that Rawat said of the book that it's as close to 'perfect' as it could be, but Wikipedia rules forbid using original sources or testimonies. Jossi and other followers of Rawat use this, and the fact that no unbiased scholar has ever done a serious study of Rawat, to keep the Rawat article the whitewashed advertorial for Rawat that it is. Jossi, having admitted he has read the book, has opened himself to the allegation that he is a liar by denying Rawat allowed and encouraged his followers to believe he was God. --John Brauns00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could provide any sourced citations referring to what you just said, that would be most helpful. Smee01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, I don't have any citations, but this is an interesting example of what's wrong with Wikipedia when a cult leader is defended by such loyal cult members. Here we have a book, described as the 'authorised story' of Prem Rawat, copyrighted by Shri Hans Publications (owned by Divine Light Mission), where a prominent person at the time declares that Prem Rawat is the Lord of the Universe, and the back cover declares that 6 million people say he is God, and those quotes cannot be centre stage or even mentioned in the article on Prem Rawat. Because no independent professor of sociology or religion has considered Rawat significant enough to write a properly researched paper on him. And Jossi Fresco has read the book, and knows the truth, and spends significant time ensuring the the truth is not told. --John Brauns16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily so. If what you say is truly in the book itself, the book can be used as a reputable secondary sourced citation, in other articles on the project. Smee16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You Say
Yes, I'm pretty sure all his income comes from his followers, as he has never had a paying job in his life, nor a successful invention, and any investment income he has comes from the investment of income from his followers. Of course if you have other evidence than I am happy to be corrected. Regarding using attendance at his events as a measure of his success in propagation, he himself asks his followers to attend his speaking engagements on the Keys website, so if people don't come and see him, they are not following his teachings. --John Brauns 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"Pretty sure" is very different from "ALL". You should be more careful. And you should read Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the talents. Well at least Rawat isn't as big a failure as Jesus who said "love thy neighbour".Momento15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me if I was sure that all his income came from his follower. I answered, yes, I am pretty sure all... etc. Notice the word all is still there, but I qualified my answer with 'pretty' to give you a chance to show that I am wrong. So, do you want to take this chance? What success and failure criteria do you want to apply to Rawat? Certainly by the statements he made when he was young he is a failure, but I'll let you define your own criteria. So, over to you.--John Brauns23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you claimed that "All his income comes from his followers", then when challenged you reduce it to "pretty sure all his income comes from his followers". It is not my job to point out your misrepresentations, you should apply a llittle self discipline. If you don't know something for certain, don't make the claim. And as for Rawat, he said he was going to take Knowledge to the world and that's what he's done.Momento04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are splitting hairs. Yes, I am sure that all his income comes from his followers. Do you have anything substantive to contribute about Rawat's source of income or are you only interested in playing games? I am also sure that if you did a randon survey in the street of any city in the world and asked 100 people if they knew who Rawat was, your chance of finding even one person would be small. --John Brauns07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see it as splitting hairs, I see it as black and white. You say "All his income comes from his followers", an absolute, 100% statement. Now you're saying "I'm sure...". The fact is, it is just your unsubstantiated opinion not a fact. I don't need to contribute to this speculation, I'm just demonstrating the difference between your speculation and fact. A difference that is still lost on you. Who cares who knows who Rawat is. It's not a popularity contest. He's doing what he is doing because he wants to, not to be popular.Momento10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 1 - Rawat has never had a paying job.
Fact 2 - At darshan lines during the 70s and 80s and possibly later, it was made clear to premies that the prefered gift for Rawat was cash, and senior premies stood on either side of the line handing out envelopes for premies could use to donate cash to Rawat.
Fact 3 - Rawat's home address was published to premies so that donations could be made directly to him rather than to Elan Vital.
Fact 4 - Substantial equity stakes in several successful companies have been donated to Rawat by his followers.
Fact 5 - Donations to Elan Vital are used to fund Rawat's transport costs by private jet.
It is stretching the use of the word 'speculation' to use it to describe to logical process from these facts to the conclusion that all Rawat's wealth has come from premies. Regarding Rawat's stated mission to bring Knowledge to the world, if people have never heard of him he has failed. Fact. --John Brauns10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 1 - Correct. He has never charged for Knowledge and he has dedicated his life to making it available for free.
Fact 2 - So what. What do you think he would do with 50 toasters, 23 coffee makers and some potted plants.
Because he wasn't asking people for money for Knowledge. He was inviting people who already had Knowledge to support him providing Knowledge for free to others.Momento05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 3 - Exactly. Shouldn't people have a choice as to where they spend their own money.
Equity doesn't magicly reproduce and grow. It can just as easily be lost. Rawat has greatly increased his original a result of good management.Momento05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 5 - Why is this contentious? Since EV was specificically set up to promote Rawat's work it's hardly suprising that it supports his travel.
See if you can follow this John. I teach a rich man something and he is so grateful he gives me $500. I buy an old car and start a taxi service. Ten years later I have 20 taxis and I sell my businesss for $250,000 and buy two buses. Six years later I have a bus business that I sell for $2 million and invest it for an income of $300,000 a year. Where does that income come from John? The man who gave me $500 or is it the result of my efforts. Rawat has brought Knowledge out of India and to at least 88 countries around the world. If you consider that anybody with an internet conected can hear his message, he has truely taken Knowledge to every corner of the world. By the way, people who campaign to stop wars and poverty aren't failures because people still fight and starve. And they aren't failures beccause people don't know their names.Momento04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Rawat had done what you describe in your example I would agree with you but he hasn't, has he? If, as you put it, "he has dedicated his life to making it available for free", then when would he have had the time to build up a business? And if he has, what is the name of this business? What does it manufacture or what services does it provide? And as that is your only defence, and you acknowledge all the facts above, it appears you have no information to challenge my claim. Regarding propagation, anyone can put up an internet site and claim to have made that information available to to whole world. If people haven't heard of him then he has failed in his stated mission. --John Brauns06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly belive what you're saying - "when would he have time to build up a business?" You should read EPO, it's all there. Dettmers exposes Rawat's devilishly clever way to get rich - " I personally oversaw the handling of Maharaji’s legal and financial affairs with the help of some very reputable and expert professional advisors". As for your quaint idea that " If people haven't heard of him then he has failed in his stated mission", you'd be right if his stated mission was that "everyone in the world will have heard of him" but you have already claimed that his stated mission is to "bring Knowledge to the world". You don't seem to be able to keep one thought going for more than a few sentences.Momento07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, Momento that you are dealing with the very thin edge of the ex-premie wedge in this conversation. The serious intellects and smart thinkers of the hate group have long since given up the childish taunts and talk page mind games. Note that he cannot even spell your name right.202.162.99.23501:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before some statements get removed by overzealous Wikipedia:BLP enforcers, fact nr. 2 is supported in the book by Jan van der Lans "Followers of the guru"/"Volgelingen van de goeroe". That he got his money from his followers has been written down in his article. Source: Price, The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization. in Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 "Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. Note 27: Contributions from premies throughout the world allow Maharaj Ji to follow the life style of an American millionaire. He has a house (in his wife's name), an Aston Martin, a boat, a helicopter, the use of fine houses (divine residences) in most European countries as well as South America, Australia and New Zealand, and an income which allows him to run a household and support his wife and children, his brother, Raja Ji, and his wife, Claudia. In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals." ::Andries16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andries, no one denies Rawat was supported by his followers. The problem is John Brauns' erroneously claim that all his income comes from his followers.Momento04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A grammar lesson. "Was" refers to the past, "comes" refers to the present. No one denies Rawat was supported by his followers in the early 70s and Rawat was subsidising DLM until Aubrey West and Dettmers got together. They realised to need for Rawat to be independent from the vagaries of his followers and as Dettmer's points out, Rawat used some "very reputable and expert professional advisors" to build his own fortune.Momento08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, Momento that you are dealing with the very thin edge of the ex-premie wedge in this conversation. The serious intellects and smart thinkers of the hate group have long since given up the childish taunts and talk page mind games. Note that he cannot even spell your name right.202.162.99.23501:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galf, I wouldn't say I stood up to you! I just wanted to explain why the wealth of critical evidence available about Rawat wasn't included in the article. One thing you may not be aware of is that Jossi, Memento and Rumiton are followers of Rawat who do their best within Wikipedia guidelines to ensure the article presents as positive a view on Rawat as possible. Jossi has declared that he has accepted a position within one of the organisations that supports Rawat's work, but he will not divulge what that position entails. --John Brauns23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect statement, misleading, and inappropriate. As a committed Wikipedian, I endeavor for neutral and balanced articles in this and all subjects treated. Yes, I am in an WP:COI on this subject, and as such I do not edit the article directly as per the guidelines established in these cases. There is no need for me to divulge anything else besides what I have disclosed here: User:Jossi/Disclosure. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, you regularly edit the article, usually to undo some previous edit. If you can show me where you have undone an edit that shows Rawat in a positive light, I will reconsider my view. I notice that you hadn't acted to removed the unsupported statements that I removed in my last edit of the article, for instance. There are other such statements in the article now, such as the claim that Rawat encouraged his followers to leave the ashrams, that you could remove if you want the article to be accurate.
Yes, you have no need to disclose details of your position within one of the organisations that supports Rawat's work, but you could if you wanted to, and the fact that you won't cannot help but make others suspicious. --John Brauns06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum to discuss your personal issues, legal, or otherwise. Please take your conversation off-wiki. Talk pages are for discussion related to improving Wikipedia articles articles and not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so, Jossi, but i wrote to Geoffrey at his website address some time ago regarding these issues and he appeared to have ignored my email. How about it, Geoffrey - continue by email? Mine is epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. --John Brauns18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Jossi, will comply. The discussion has been unrelated to the wiki article, however, I am optimistic that this frank and civil exchange of views may lead to a positive outcome and perhaps some degree of mutual understanding.
John, sorry about your email. I deleted it thinking it was probably a virus laden hoax. Will contact you in the next day or so. --Gstaker02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly removing material from articles, in contradiction with arguments presented by uninvolved editors made via dispute resolution steps, only sheds bad light on your motives and intentions. See this as my last warning before reporting your disruptive behavior in the adminstrator's noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, how else can I illustrate that the disputed material is contentious? All I am asking you to do is enforce Wikipedia rules about BLPs and you and I will have no argument here. --John Brauns (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view
I was asked to look at this, as an independent viewpoint, with no prior knowledge of Rawat, his supporters, or others connected to him, in light of the dispute going on.
Wikipedia principles - John, since you possibly aren't as familiar with Wikipedia and how it works editorially, as others, I'm going to explain some things from basics. Wikipedia edits collaboratively, to try and present encyclopedic information. Often that information contains some facts that this group (or person) or that group (or person) would like it not to contain. Wikipedia is not like a court system, where the rules say what is and isn't okay. Here, the rules are more like principles. There is a principle that information should be sourced from places that anyone can verify. Another principle is that sources must be reasonably likely to be reliable in its publishing (for example New Scientist or Archive.org probably do not covertly modify articles hosted on their websites, but a random blog might). There is no principle that says some reliable sources are "fair" to use, and some are "not fair" and can't be used, which is what I think you're trying to say. There is no principle like that, at all. If a source is agreed to be "reliable" as a source of specific facts, or published information, or evidence of what someone once wrote, in the sense we use the word, then that's that: it's a "reliable source" and it is 100% usable in the areas it is considered reliable.
Archive.org - So to cut a long story short - archive.org is considered by long usage, a reliable source for historic removed copies of web information. It is a reliable source for what a website once said, and that at a given point in time, Prem Rawat or his website stated this or that. If Archive.org hosts a list of information about prem, then that is evidence it was indeed on the website at that time. It is exceedingly unlikely anything was on that website without permission. At the least therefore it either is true, or was claimed to be true.
Comments above - Moving on to your comments above. To be honest, Wikipedia doesn't care if you have "information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public". Nor do most of its editors. You can publicize any or no information you hold, and nobody here will lift a finger to stop you. You can publicize what you had for lunch, the names of any intimate partners you have, the bank details of friends if you have them, the list of everyone you know. Nobody here will lift a finger or stop you. Trying to use such actions as a kind of lever, or influence, is merely likely to get you removed from the site, which will mean you wouldn't be able to participate in any way, even via the talk page.
Wikipedia community concern - What we will lift a finger on is editorial conduct problems. Our concern is that we are working to our standards; you need to work to them as well, or else you will be asked kindly, not to prevent others doing so. That is what others like Jossi are saying. Jossi is an administrator himself. A report to the "adminstrator's noticeboard" means that he will ask other highly experienced users, who are not involved at all, to look at the evidence and decide for themselves what is best to do. It may get a few comments, or hundreds - it varies. But it will be a communal decision, and one of our most repsected, if it happens.
Personal opinion - If the matter is passed on for others to look at, then you will have the eyes of the entire community (or those who wish to be involved). Based on my own experience, they will probably say exactly the same: Archive.org is a source we find reliable, and fair to be used, and you must accept that.
That is my advice and outside view; you're welcome (and encouraged) to ask me or anyone else, if you have genuine questions. There are also pages such as WP:RFC or WP:3O which will allow you to seek others' input from throughout the many thousands in the community. FT2(Talk | email)02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FT2. I have removed my comment to Jossi and related responses. I accept this forum was an inappropriate place to make that comment and I unreservedly apologise to him. In mitigation, I was frustrated by his inability to discuss the issue of the content from the web archive being contentious and not related to the subject's notability. I will raise an RfC on this as you suggest. When I do I would appreciate your opinion. --John Brauns (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(A short note; it might be worth reading the policies on civility (here) and attacks (here). As Jossi has referred to them I thought I'd drop you a link so you could check some of what he's referring to. Of course, it's possible you may be familiar with these already. Broadly speaking, disparaging, insulting, 'ad hominem', and "digs" at people are frowned on; anything constructive can be equally achieved without them - FT2)
Please stop from many further use of "you and I know" or any other type of innuendo in your comments directed at me. I do not know you, I do not share your views, and Wikipedia pages are not the place to advance personal speculations. You can do that in your personal websites, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, are you starting to see what an appalling muddle you have got yourself in? And not just here. You have formed some strongly negative opinions about somebody and you have started your own websites to invite others to reinforce and build on your views. They write, "We all know that..." and then they build further on completely unfounded opinions. OK, people do that kind of thing, it's called gossip. But to get so caught up in it that you try and take this stuff out and present it to the world as the "truth" is going to leave you with serious egg on your face. One day you might have to walk away from all of it. Maybe now would be a good place to start? Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rumiton, if you are going to get personal, then I would reply that one day you are going to have to see that your uncritical regard for Rawat is unhealthy for you. Maybe here would be a good place to start. --John Brauns (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, can you provide me with evidence for this statement: "Just to add to Jayen's comments, Elan Vital, the organisation that has supported Rawat's work for the past 36 years, is registered as a church in the US. --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)". Thanks. Armeisen (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, EV was originally incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation. The IRS sees it as a "religious organization" for tax purposes.Momento (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Divine Light Mission Articles of Incorporation
Here is the opening paragraph from the 'Objectives and Purposes' of Divine Light Mission when incorporated as a Not For Profit Corporation in Colorado in 1971.
To provide and operate an institution dedicated to the uplifting of humanity from the sufferings of ignorance by giving the Knowledge of God as revealed by the Perfect Master, Balyogeshwar Param Hans Sat Gurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj (known as Guru Maharaj), the purpose or purposes of said organisation being exclusively spiritual, religious, charitable, educational and scientific.
This was amended in 1973 to:-
1. To operate as a church exclusively for religious, charitable, humanitarian and educational purposes.
2. ...... to propate and teach the true Knowledge of God as revealed by Guru maharaj Ji .....
This was further amended in 1980 to:-
1. To operate exclusively for religious, charitable, humanitarian and educational purposes.
2. To promote the pursuit of the realization of life's purpose (goal) through the teaching and practice of the Knowledge of God as revealed by Guru Maharaj Ji ....
The name of the Corporation was changed to 'Elan Vital' in 1983, with no corresponding change in the Articles of Incorporation.
The next change was not until 2005:-
:The purpose for which the Corporation is organized are to perform religious, charitable and educational activities within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, and Section 39-3-106 of the Colorado statutes.
No mention of Prem Rawat or Guru Maharaji Ji, but it still includes the word 'religious'. The source for this information is the Colorado Secretary of State Business Center website [1] (search for Divine Light Mission).--John Brauns (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jossi link
Where's the link to a page published by the PR foundation or somesuch containing a press release issued by jossi? Need it it for a journalist by Monday. 147.114.226.173 (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one [2]. Just check who is behind that. It is my name, but it is not me. Someone else with a certain agenda? Anyone can publish "press releases" under any name they want on these free sites. Ask John Brauns, for more info of who this "drek" person is. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drek is the web name of an ex-premie who runs two websites [3] and [4]. He used to post on the ex-premie forums but I have had no contact with him for some time. Anyone familiar with the ex-premie online history will know that we are not close friends! I have no knowledge of the site Jossi has linked to, and if Jossi states that someone is impersonating him, then I believe him. Anyway, it is equally possible that someone could be impersonating the Drek person, as the free email address given is not one he uses on either of his websites. Surely someone who wanted to impersonate Jossi would use a free email address with his name? Here is another link that is a little more believable, but again, a free email address is used for the Prem Rawat Foundation which is suspicious - [5]. However, this service requires a minimum payment of $49 per release, so the impersonator would have had to provide payment details to the site. Anyway, Jossi, you could help clarify this murky situation by disclosing the capacity in which you are employed by the Rawat related organisation, and the name of that organisation. As long as you refuse to do so you invite this suspicion. --John Brauns (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, these comments are, in this stage (the acceptance of the case by ArbCom members, which appears nearly materialised) not necessary, you'll have plenty of time to substantiate such remarks once the case has started --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider revising your evidence, so that it is primarily making assertions that are backed by diffs. e.g. "I have asked him to show me such a revert and he was unable or unwilling to do so." Provide a diff. Also, as the onus is on you to demonstrate that jossi doesnt "revert a pro-Rawat edit, regardless of the quality of the source", you would need to somehow find a way to prove jossi deliberately doesnt revert bad edits that are pro-Rawat, and you would need to indicate which diffs you feel he should have reverted, and why. We need diffs. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know more about claims you feeel are missing from Wikipedia due to Jossi et. al. that are backed by reliable published sources (preferably online or with online copies). Perhaps a top ten list of claims with a link to such a source and the wikipedia article you feel the claim should be in? Just fill in the blanks: WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "I have never seen him revert a pro-Rawat edit, regardless of the quality of the source. I have asked him to show me such a revert and he was unable or unwilling to do so. I have been asked to produce diffs to support this allegation."
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg(chat)00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request
I do not have any interest whatsoever in communication with you besides discussions related specifically to edits in articles in Wikipedia. Any comments in my talk that are unrelated will be mercilessly deleted. Comments and/or questions in article talk page that are not 100% related to he discussion about edits, will be summarily ignored. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
names
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.
If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou.
Much too late Francis. John has outed me three times and been deleted three times, with a warning "don't do it again". And he did it again.Momento (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK:
Where John posted an alleged irl name (3 instances) it was deleted already. So, regarding the warning template above: all appropriate measures have been taken (revert-wise). Just don't do this again. I don't think the info was posted by John with an intent "to annoy, threaten or harass", but it should be pointed out that it may be perceived thus by the involved person(s), that's the reason any future offense would probably not be treated lightly.
Momento continued to post the alleged irl name on several user talk pages, although insisting the name should not be divulgated. Momento could have posted those user talk messages without mentioning the inadvertent name itself. Kind of alleviates any perceived WP:OUTING infringement as far as John is concerned and/or loads the same perception of inappropriate behaviour on Momento's slate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that John used an IRL with an intent "to annoy, threaten or harass". He was reverted three times by two editors. One revert had the edit summary "don't do it again" but he did. My referring to user: John Brauns as John is exactly the same as you referring to him as John in the previous paragraph.Momento (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add my two cents here, this has been discussed between administrators, and it was agreed that while your mentioning of Momento's either real or alleged first name, and the context of which you did it, did not constituite clear outing, that such a request to refrain from doing so should be complied with. Consider this a final warning, and that a continuation of this behaviour may lead to a block. Steve Crossin(contact)10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed and decided that the use of a first name didn't consituite clear outing, however that said, when a request is made to stop, it should be stopped. He has been given a final warning, and it has been decided that further similar behaviour, after this final warning, will lead to a block. You are most welcome to discuss this on #Wikipedia-en with the administrators there, as that is where I discussed the issue. Steve Crossin(contact)11:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Use of a first name" not a clear outing? Elton, Elvis and Errol will be disappointed. I must wait until Jonh posts a floor plan of my house with an address.Momento (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I started using Momento's real first name because he proposed that I be excluded from a discussion he had started on ex-followers because of my personal involvement. I just thought it absurd that because I have the integrity and courage to post using my real name the anonymous Momento had the cheek to suggest I shouldn't post, and yet, because of his anonymity, no one knows what personal involvement he has with any of the subjects of these articles. Also, the fact that I, and many other former followers, know Momento's identity, and have not used that information to 'harrass' him puts a lie to the oft-repeated allegation on pro-Rawat sites that ex-followers harrass current followers. Momento is free to carry on his profession that is totally dependent on public reputation, while I have to continue to suffer continuous harrassment by Momento's and Jossi's associates (search for 'John Brauns' for evidence of this). So, Momento's claim of harrassment because I used his first name three times is frankly a joke. But OK, I won't do it again. BTW, will anyone censure Momento for proposing I should be excluded from discussions, and will anyone censure Jossi for making the serious allegation that my site defames anyone? Especially as Jossi refuses to quote the text from my site containing the alleged defamation. --John Brauns (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best to keep Wikipedia discussions and discussions in other media separated (or did I misread what you intended with "discussion ... on ex-followers"?).
It's not possible to draw an advantage out of using your real name. Others may choose not to. That is their choice in Wikipedia context, a choice not to interfere with.
Contributors should declare their COI (if there is any). If they don't, the onus is on the user not declaring his/her COI. It's not possible to elicit a COI declaration by using someone's irl name in the Wikipedia medium (and its related public channels like IRC). In that case, the onus would be on the one trying to break someone else's cover. The only alternative I see in such case is an e-mail to the arbcom (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org), ultimately an off-site private communication to Jimbo (if all other channels have been exploited).
No, in Wikipedia it is generally not OK to exclude someone from discussions on the basis of perceived COI. But the COI should be declared (as you usually do!), this leaves room for the people evaluating the discussion regarding the weight of someone's opinion with regard to the overall consensus (or lack thereof).
Re. "will anyone censure Jossi for making the serious allegation that my site defames anyone?" – Wikipedia doesn't do "censure" as a principle, so maybe better to reformat that question somewhat if you want a decent response. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC), updated 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, does "Momento" continue to email you regularly concerning the Prem Rawat Talk Forum? I find it so ironic Momento's making such a big deal out this, while Geoff Staker had filled his user page here on Wikipedia with his diatribes of libel and defamation about you, myself and other people using our real name, that not one premie editor said anything to him until I complained loudly, and if it weren't for Vassyana, nobody would have done a thing. Jossi, Rumiton, Momento, and other premies who edit here did nothing about that trash website Staker so proudly showcased on his user pages. I also remember a long time ago when Jossi addressed me by my real name here, I asked him not to, but he told me I couldn't complain and had to put up with it since I had already disclosed on the Forum that I as posting here as Sylviecyn. I looked at the Wikipedia article on Momento's real first name and there are so many in the world, gosh darnit, I wonder how he thinks he's gonna be identified. We must follow the wiki rules. but still, it's curious someone anonymous would believe he's as well known as Elvis Presley. I smell the scent of a catweasel in the room!Sylviecyn (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
Calling someone by their (common) first name does not strike me as an "outing" but doing so despite their opposition appears intended to needle, and that's uncivil. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia project and help us try to maintain a collegial atmosphere. I think we're all here to improve the project even though there are differences in how best to do that. In any case, civility is a requirement, not an option.
I suggest that you avoid referring to other editors by name at all. So instead of saying "Why did Joe add that...", say "Why did we add..." or "The article now says..." It makes everything less personal and keeps the focus on the edits. ·:· Will Beback·:·12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John. I have been thinking about something you recently wrote to the effect that none of the "facts" you have placed on your site have ever been refuted. I actually did try some years ago, under a different username, but my objections were not accepted. I would now like to try again. I have worked at Amaroo for several years, and a number of the details about the Conference Centre which appear on your site are far from the truth. If I send you a true description of these details now, will you change the references to them on your site? Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rumiton, I honestly welcome feedback, and will give serious consideration to correcting the information on the site. As I have previously stated, all the significant criticism of Rawat, such as his drinking, his mistress, his wealth and his encouragement of his followers to see him as God, and to surrender everything to him, are all corroborated, usually many times over. However, less significant details may be lacking corroboration, and may well be inaccurate, so I welcome such corrections. --John Brauns (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, his personal relationships are his business, as mine are mine, and his wealthy lifestyle is obvious. I think it is unfair to claim he said he was God (the Jehovah thing) but he certainly said he was a master and still says so, frequently. But the things I would like to see amended are the way basic Amaroo objects are described. For example, a barbecue designed to feed 20 guests, with a three-foot square cooking plate and a jack to raise it evenly above the wood fire gets peevishly described as "opulent" or "sumptuous" or something. Are you willing to look at situations like this? (Sorry for the delay in answering, I have been very busy.) Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rumiton, uou must have read the Rawat quotations that support the idea that he encouraged his followers to see him as God. He clearly didn't just present himself as a master, and I don't know if you are deliberately lying or you have somehow reprogrammed your own memory to believe what you write. Anyway, I am willing to correct details of his barbecue at Amaroo, but I see little point considering his barbecue at Malibu (including sensors to automatically test the meat) cost over $10,000. --John Brauns (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I object to the suggestion I may be lying, though I have become used to it. I don't think this discussion will prove fruitful if you continue in that vein. The problem is words and how they are understood. God and surrender are loaded words for anyone. To me the master/student relationship (guru shishya) is probably (certainly) the source of many of these problematic expressions over centuries. You can go from the relationship to the words, but not the other way round.
Anyway, I have never been to Malibu, and don't know how many people the BBQ there was designed to feed, but in Amaroo it was set up for 20, which is a normal night at his camp site, with his family, their friends, some guests and a cook. If we agree to drop the "luxurious" from the description, perhaps we might look at his accommodation, several demountable cabins pushed together and joined by walkways. About as luxurious as a moderately presentable caravan park. The only expensive fitting is a very good quality sound system with outside speakers, again intended to entertain a group of people. The original lodge, now a caretaker's house, was even more spartan. Can we also look at the way these things are described? If so, we might go on and look at the financial side of things. Rumiton (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have already agreed in the article that many of Rawat's followers worshipped him as God, and his quotations explain why that happened. I assume you were around at the time and agree that no one, particularly Rawat, spoke of guru shishya. Anyway, this discussion is unrelated to the content of Wikipedia so let's continue by email - mine is epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. --John Brauns (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever given an explanation of the editing process of EPO? It may be worthwhile to establish whether the site qualifies as a one-person operation or, if it has some kind of review process, it might qualify as a more reliable site in its own right. I sem to recall that you said there were others invovled and that there was some process. Will Bebacktalk01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Will. The ex-premie.org site policy is here. There is no formal review process, although other ex-premies would tell me if they see problems with the content. Since I took over the site I have had a request on the home page for anyone, including premies and Rawat, to tell me about any inaccuracies on the site. There have been no substantive complaints. Elan Vital did formerly complain about copyright but declined to test their claim in federal court, and all the disputed material was allowed back by the hosting company. Actually, there have been very few updates to ex-premie.org in recent years. Other sites such as prem-rawat-maharaji.info and prem-rawat-critique.org cover Rawat's current activities far better than ex-premie.org. --John Brauns (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note
As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. --JN46617:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I had written you a long reply to your post on RS/N, but in the end concluded that was not the right venue for that discussion. This is what I had written; if you feel I misunderstand your position, and want to discuss it further, I have watchlisted your talk page.
John, you are not comparing like with like. Geaves is a professor of religion whose writings on Rawat have been published by half a dozen highly rated, neutral, third-party academic publishers. These are decisions made in the outside publishing world; these are the decisions that according to site policy should inform our decisions as to which authors to include. You, like Nik and Sylviecyn, have consistently refused to accept this principle, arguing instead that we should be informed not by the scholarly publishing world's judgment, but by yours. You wrote:
... Geaves has been a follower of Rawat for 40 years, and in case anyone here doesn't understand, followers of gurus do not criticise their guru, and will try to present their guru in the best possible light. This applies to scholars as well as to simple uneducated followers. Downton said it very clearly; "That premies had lost their capacity for criticism [of Rawat] was fairly clear to me" (Sacred Journeys p188). This is why we should be very cautious in using any follower as a source. Ex-followers have also been criticised as sources, but although I am not currently suggesting that any ex-follower be used as a source, I would invariably choose to use an ex-follower over a current follower as a source. Following a living guru is not the same as being an adherent of an established religion. So, my position is that Geaves can be used as a source for content that he himself gives sources for, in peer-reviewed publications. Any claims he makes without sources should be considered suspect and should not be used. --John Brauns (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You've compared the RS status of Geaves' publications with posts on the forum you have created for ex-followers of Rawat:
... I am arguing that Geaves is not a reliable source. If you are refering to posts on my forum then I would argue that my forum is also not a reliable source, so I'm sure we have no disagreement there. The fact is until we have a consensus on Geaves we have no reliable source for those figures. Why don't you continue the discussion above on Geaves as a reliable source? Surely you can see that it would be better to establish here if and how Geaves can be used as a source before making edits to the articles? I have posted above my reasons for objecting to Geaves as a source. ... --John Brauns (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I felt this line of argument was particularly perverse given that ex-followers' posts in your forum, even posts that you had made personally there, named broadly the same attendance figures for Rawat's US events as Geaves, yet you still claimed these figures should not be included in WP because we had no reliable source for them (discounting both Geaves, without plausible justification, and your own forum posts agreeing with Geaves, justifiedly so). That really blew my mind. I might have seen merit in your argument if I had found credible evidence that you yourself honestly believed Geaves' figures to be wrong.
Beyond that, there is no support in WP policy for statements made by a reliably published researcher needing themselves to be cited to another author before they can be included, as you proposed in the excerpt from your post above. This would come to the same thing as saying the author should not be used at all, which is clearly what you would prefer in this case.
Your and Geaves' private (dis-)affiliation is not at issue here. What is at issue is that Geaves has impeccable publishing credentials, and that you edit without apparent commitment to implementing site policies and guidelines that enjoy broad consensus here, and without any apparent interest in contributing to Wikipedia except its articles relating to Rawat. In these articles, including the BLP, you, Nik and Sylviecyn have time and again argued for the introduction of self-published sources that one or several of you have personally contributed to, highlighting the sharply contrasting attitudes you take to sources depending on their point of view.
I have no faith in your commitment to site principles, for the reasons given above. The impression I have gained is that you want to write the article on Rawat according to your personal convictions, just as you do on your own website on Rawat. WP is not the right platform for that.
It might help if you began to edit some other topics in Wikipedia, just to get a feel for how the handling of sources is supposed to work, away from a topic that you are so invested in. It is something you have never done, over 2.5 years of contributing here. At the moment, I find it impossible to argue with you, since you appear to shrug off any policy-based argument with an attitude of "I know better", and the resulting discussions are circular and endless ... I would really much rather spend the time on reviewing a few FACs, writing content or participating in more productive talk page discussions. Please think about this, and about the reasons why you are here.
As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.
Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.
This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.
