Talk:Elan Vital (organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.
This article is currently the subject of informal mediation.

You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page.
The informal mediation case and its related discussion is here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elan Vital (organization) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old comments

Please do no add material as a source that is hosted on a non-reliable website. See WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is only a copy of an official letter of Elan Vital. That is fully acceptable. I will revert. Andries 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Read what W:RS says "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves,"
Andries 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but it is hosted on a non-reliable website, and thus, non-verifiable. The pamphlet is not available from the source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that you have done serious but unsuccesfull efforts to verify this information from the publisher? If not, then there is no indication that it unverifiable. Andries 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That would amount to original research. Had that information made available in the Elan Vital website, we could have included it as per WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you cannot say that something is unverifiable if you did not try to verify it. Andries 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You may need to re-read WP:V#Sources. The burden in the editor adding material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I only have to make sure that the information is verifiable. I do not have to proof its existence. If you did serious but unsuccessful efforts to verify the information that I provided then I admit the burden of proof would be fully on me. Andries 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
How can it be verifiable? You found a scan of a letter on a detractor's website and you claim that it is verifiable? How? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It may be accessible from the archives of Elan Vital. They have huge archives, I read. Andries 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What archives? Send an email to Elan Vital and ask them to corroborate that letter, and publish a public statement in their website and you will be OK. Or find a secondary source that describes it. Either will be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay I wrote an e-mail. Andries 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some basic questions

  • Is the 501(c)(3) status of Elan Vital at the IRS still based on being a religious organization?
  • Does Elan Vital self-identifies in any way as religous?
  • Is there some sort of membership in Elan Vital? If yes, are membership numbers known?

--Pjacobi (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The following info is not official, but I believe it to be broadly correct.
1. Elan Vital is an organisation that facilitates people coming together to celebrate an inner experience. As each country has differing organisational laws, Elan Vital is set up differently in different countries.
2. The 501(c)(3) status of Elan Vital in the US is based on its acceptance in the US as a "church," which is defined something like "a coming together of 2 or more people to worship a higher power." (Exact wording not found.)
3. Elan Vital is not a religion.
4. There is no membership in Elan Vital. It is run mainly by a small number of volunteers.
Hope this clarifies things. Rumiton (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
All that clarifies is your personal opinions. Without sources this is no different from what Jossi condemns as "soapboxing". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't quote me :). I will look for the definition of church as it pertains to 501(c)(3) orgs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is quite simple, 501(c)(3) orgs have very specific requirements. The only difference with religious organizations is that they do not have to file form 990. There is a wealth of information here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/index.html ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How is Rumiton's posting of his personal opinions different from "soapboxing"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a rather silly and provocative statement, Will. I was asked for and gave my understanding of a legal situation, based on what I was told by someone connected with the organisation. There was no POV there to soapbox. If something I wrote proves incorrect, by all means attack that, not me. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment was not directed at you, Rumiton, but at another editor who has frequently complained, even to the point of threatening sanctions, those contributors who've given their unsourced opinions on talk pages related to Prem Rawat. What you did, and what they did, does not endanger Wikipedia and a more relaxed, or at least even-handed, approach to opinions and personal knowledge would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. There is a big difference between what some people have done in mis-using talk pages, and what Rumiton says above. Sorry. Rumiton is not advocating for anything that I see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The user is giving his unsourced opinions on matters not directly related to improving this article. Does "soapboxing" require advocacy of a particular position? Insisting that a certain group is not a religion (despite sources to the contrary) appears to me to be advocating a position. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be that we do not have answers to the original questions in this section yet, Rumiton's opinion not withstanding, we do not have the official answers we seek yet. We do know that DLM was categorized as an NRM, and that EV is merely a name change of that group, so unless we have have documentation/facts to the contrary (not opinions, or informed opinions), stick to what we do know, which is that for tax purposes, it's defined as a religious organization. Membership is a bit of a red herring, many religious organizations do not have official memberships (I'll cite if really needed). Let the disagreement begin? Maelefique (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We do have sourced questions to those questions:

1) It is described as a "Church" by Guidestar. We've added that to the article.
2) the artilces of incorporation identify the group as having a "religious...purpose". That's in the article.
3) The group does issue "smartcards" to people who've "received knowledge". That's in the article, but not the total number of smartcard holders.

So the only question that's unanswered is the number of initiates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we haven't answered the original questions of this section in this section, we kinda wandered off into opinion-ville. But! Good news! We've answered those questions now, thanks Will (except for numbers of membership/cardholders). Maelefique (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Smartcards are not "issued to people who have received Knowledge." People who want to attend a private event apply for a smart card, for public events they aren't needed. Private events are not very common, so a lot of premies would not have one. Even if the number of cardholders were known, the figure would not be very meaningful. Also there is simply no such thing as "membership." People contribute to Elan Vital if they feel to do so, they don't join anything. I know this all seems unusual, but it is how things are, and have been for many years. Rumiton (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also humbly suggest that we will not find numbers for initiates either. I was involved in the Knowledge session process in Australia for several years and no names were ever taken, nor any records kept. This was done deliberately to make it clear that people receiving Knowledge were not joining anything and that no contact would ever be made with them if they did not want it. So EV is not being evasive. No one knows how many there were or are. Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, unless you have citable information that contradicts the article's reference, or the website's credibility, here(which by the way, is a registered Elan Vital website), then it's only your opinion about Smartcards, and not very helpful for our article. I'm not convinced number of members is too important anyway, other than to acknowledge that there are generally accepted to be somewhere between x and y thousand followers. Further, and I don't assume we will get the answer but, since each Smartcard has a "unique" number on it, there is not a chance they don't know exactly how many numbers they have issued, ergo, they have at least a rough idea of how many members there are (or at least how many Smartcards have been issued). The website also says it's recommended that people apply for their Smartcard as soon as possible after the Knowledge Session. If my spiritual leader tells me I should do something as soon as possible, isn't it pretty likely that the average follower would probably do that? Or maybe they just don't take suggestions from their spiritual leader seriously? (Unrelated note, reminder to Rumiton, you're supposed to have a Smartcard you know, you can apply here :) ) (Second unrelated note: who picked those two sample pictures?! :) ) Maelefique (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote, though I don't expect it to appear in the article. It was just background. Here's some more. I think you have been paying way too much heed to the "brainwashed cultists" theories. The premies I now know are the most stubbornly individual and generally recalcitrant people I have ever known. The organising body, EV, advises, requests, begs, even adjures them to apply for Smartcards, it makes their bureaucratic duties so much easier to perform. A great many refuse on principle. You can see them at every private event loudly convincing the gate staff (who typically are not premies) that they should be allowed in without ID. I have never heard of them not getting in. Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Stubborn, recalcitrant premies? Surely you jest. ;) -- Maelefique (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir, I do not. Their stubbornness and recalcitrance are legendary. Visit me in Brisbane and I will introduce you. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So it's not just on here then? :) -- Maelefique (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento and I are, it could be said...err...representative. :-) Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DLM=EV?

  • The organization was originally incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation and in 1974 was recognized as a religious organization by the United States Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(3). The organization changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change.[1] Elan Vital states in its website that the name was changed to remove Indian labels and to present Maharaji's message in a manner more congruent with Western culture.[2]

If this text is correct then why do we have two articles on the same organization? Two time periods of the same organization would be handled best in one article. Neither article appears excessively long, and there's some duplication between them. Unless there's a good reason to keep them separate we should consider a merge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why to conflate the two articles into one, as most, if not all, reliable sources on the subject describe the disbanding of the mission in 1983. What is the harm in keeping two separate articles? I see none. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One problem with the existing article is that it has virtually no 3rd-party sources. Some sources refer to them in one breath - "DLM/EV". Also, and perhaps most important, there's considerable overlap between the articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the merging of the articles. This article would fit perfectly as a section of the DLM article, with a redirect. What is the procedure for doing that? Jossi, there is only one source -- a disfavored tertiary source at that -- that states the the "mission" (ambiguous, lower case m) was disbanded in 1983. Given that Elan Vital is very well documented to be the same organization as DLM, with a name change, it is clear that this source is simply mistaken. It appears that they were referring to the disbanding of the ashrams, which several reliable sources date to 1983. Msalt (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edit

This edit contains factual mistakes and violates WP:NOR. Guidestar has nothing to do with American Express (Amex is just one of many partners [1]), and information about the different 501(c) tax status, can be found in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

501(c)3 includes churches along with many other charities. However, IIRC, churches don't file tax returns while some other 501(c)3 institutions do.[2] Are you saying that Guidestar is not a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Guidestar is a reliable source. The issue is that there are many Elan Vital organizations around the world, besides the US Elan Vital. I would suggest renaming this to Elan Vital (organizations), and include information from the UK, Australia, and other countries were related organizations that use the same name is provided. Now, I really need to go. I'll catch up with this tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought the issue was the status of Elan Vital (USA). If there are sources for the other organizations then we should certainly mention those groups too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is the claim by Elan Vital, Inc. that it is apparently not affilliated with any religion whereas people being asked to donate to it are being told it is a church. The interest is of course that, as a church, the money that Elan Vital has available has not been subject to US tax and that though Elan Vital states that it does not give any of its money to Prem Rawat, nevertheless Prem Rawat is an asset that needs to be maintained; otherwise Elan Vital, Inc. would effectively lose one of its objects, though presumably it could still supply DVDs in the event of Rawat's demise. Churches, for instance, can and do provide property for the use of their adherents, and perhaps travel expenses for guest speakers, etc.. It is an obvious question, that has presumably already been answered to the satisfaction of officials of the IRS, to know the amount of benefit that Prem Rawat obtains as the object of Elan Vital, Inc. The article here needs to be very clear about the levels of transparency achieved, in case people otherwise think that there might be something funny going on. If Elan Vital is not a church, then what is it and why are people being asked to give it money as though it were? 147.114.226.174 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that these pages are not a a discussion forum, or a platform for advocating our points of view, neither a place to achieve social, moral, political, or religious justice. Take it off-wiki, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but in the mean time is it accurate to describe Elan vital as not affilliated with any religion whilst there is in existence a web page stated by jossi to be a reliable source (populated, as it happens, with a "Donate" button which may or not be irrelevant to this discussion, depending on your ethical viewpoint) which states that Elan Vital, Inc. is a church? Maybe the best way of presenting NPOV in this instance is to state that Elan Vital, Inc. self-publishes as not being a church for the purposes of attracting listeners and presenting Prem Rawat's identity, but operates as a church for fund-raising and tax avoidance purposes. Is that fair? We ought to resolve what the true situation is so that wikipedia can present what the true situation is. This is therefore a valid discussion for this talk page. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not an issue of fair or not fair. Please become familiar with WP's policies on verifiablity, and no original research. I will place some pointers in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we've already established that Guidestar is a relaible source, and that it clals the group a "church". Elsewhere, a primary source the articles of incorporation, describes the group as having a religious purpose. I think the anon's content issue is correct, even if he makes it poorly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
jossi, I don't think the comment above implies that you you should be concerned with fairness, though you are right to point out that here you aren't :-) It meant, Is that a fair argument, as in reasonable.87.74.18.215 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What is not clear is how you make the connection with original research. Is it possible to explain to the dumbos out there why pointing out that Elan Vital, Inc. collects money by calling itself a church, which it evidently does, is original research? Original research by whom, exactly? 87.74.18.215 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
jossi, It's also seems unclear what your concern is about verifiability. One can verify that Elan Vital, Inc asks people to donate money and calls itself a church simply by visiting the link given. What's unverifiable about that? If that page was unreliable then surely someone would be perpetrating a fraud by allowing it to remain operational. 87.74.18.215 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • UK: An education charity: h[ttp://elanvital.co.uk/elan_vital/profile.html] - [3]
  • Spain: [4] "Fue clasificada por el Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales como fundación benéfica de asistencia social con el número 28/1084, en virtud de la Orden Ministerial del 11 de febrero de 1999." tr: "Classified as for the Minister of Labor as a charitable foundation for social assistance". Changed its name from "Fundacion Elan Vital" to "Fundación La Paz es Posible". [5] - Siguiendo la voluntad expresa del fundador, la fundación tiene por objeto básico ayudar a las personas a la comprensión y realización del potencial humano mediante el conocimiento del propio ser, de acuerdo con los principios y enseñanzas del señor Prem Pal Singh Rawat, y promover la difusión pública de estos principios y enseñanzas. ("Following the will expressed by the founder, the foundation intends to help people in the understanding and accomplishment of human potential by means of the knowledge of the self, in agreement with the principles and teachings of Mr. Prem Pale Singh Rawat, and to promote the public dissemination of these principles and teachings.")
  • Switzerland - Elan Vital Stiftung, "Elan Vital Foundation", [6] - [7] - Förderung und Verbreitung der Vorschriften und Lehren von Prem Pal Singh Rawat, bekannt unter dem Namen Maharaji, insbesondere durch: Anwerbung, Ausbildung, Unterhalt und Unterstützung von Personen, welche die Philosophie von Maharaji lehren und verbreiten; Schaffung und Unterhalt von Zentren der Verbreitung; Unterstützung von bestehenden Wohltätigkeits-Organisationen in irgendeinem Teil der Welt, welche Ziele verfolgen, die mit der Lehre des Maharaji vereinbar sind; Verbreitung von Publikationen und audiovisuellen Aufzeichnungen; Organisation von öffentlichen Vorträgen und Seminaren.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So we know that they exist - I don't see how we can write more than a sentence mentioning them though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
We can look for more sources, if needed. In any case, there is no one "Elan Vital", and only one seems to have had a past as DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it necessitates a change in the title. Either these groups are closely linked enough to be covered as one overall group or they are independent enough to be treated in separate articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
These are not "groups", but organizations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If DLM is categorized (even in our article) as an NRM, and further, the article states that EV is merely a name change from DLM, does it not follow that EV is also an NRM? Also, regarding the above discussion, Could we not just include a simple sentence stating that other EV splinters have formed in other countries with different status regarding their nature, varying from country to country? Maelefique (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Will, I appreciate the effort to pick a more neutral name ("religious organization" instead of "church"). However, I think we should use whichever term the actual documents use (the filing papers of DLM => EV, or if those are not available, the applicable section of IRS regulations), rather than choose one ourselves. Otherwise we're approaching OR. Does anyone know what the original term is? Msalt (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm using "groups" and "organizations" interchangeably. If the difference is important let's find sources to establish which is the correct term for each one. As for "church", we have the Guidestar who says that it's a "church", we have the articles of incorporation that say it's an organization with a "religious...purpose", and we have the IRS rules that lump together churches and other exclusively religious organizations. The Guidestar page is the best source, since it's specific and secondary. The articles of incorporation are primary documents and would normally be inappropriate to use alone, but since they confirm and illustrate the secondary source they're appropriate to use here. The IRS page is generic, and should only be used for our own edification. The verbose solution would be to cite both sources. Something like: The EV has been described as a "church" for tax purposes and is listed as an organization with a "...religious...purpose" in its articles of incorporation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That may work, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I like that approach too Will. Maelefique (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
After some rewrites it ended up as:
  • Elan Vital, Inc. in the USA is a 501(c)(3). It has been labelled a "church" in reference to its tax status.[8] As of 2005 the articles of incorporation describe its purpose as performing "religious, charitable and educational activities".
The Colorado SoS database is hard to link, but I suppose we should add a citation to the articles of incorporation. I hope this is acceptable to all. I also added mention of Spain and Swwitzerland, and a few minor changes.[9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Will. 2 thoughts; 1) I'm not sure 501-c-3 works as a noun, does it? I love minimalism as much as anybody but the voice in my head that reads text out loud when I edit wants a noun such as "organization" to follow it. 2) I think it might be a bit too hedged, to the point where it seems to be arguing against the central fact it is making, that EV is, at least in some senses, a church. How about this? I think it states the facts without judgment, while communicating that tax motivations are at least part of the reason it is called a church and that church is not the whole story:
  • Elan Vital, Inc. was organized in the USA as a tax-exempt church under IRS rule501(c)(3).[10] As of 2005 the articles of incorporation describe its purpose as performing "religious, charitable and educational activities".

[edit] Elan Vital Housing Charity

Here's another Elan Vital branch organization, CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION, in the US that should be added to the list. 147.114.226.174 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it related? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the CBG stands for Community Building Group Ltd, given as part of CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION's address. It's the entity that got sued by the owner of the Houston Astrodome. 147.114.226.173 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any information that ties this group to other Elan Vital groups or to Prem Rawat. There are many organizations that use "elan vital" in their name, so that could just be a coincidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with DLM or Elan Vital. It's a completely different corporation and CBG ELAN VITAL CORPORATION doesn't show up as a d/b/a of DLM anywhere, any time, as Will said. Plus, it wouldn't have been "Elan Vital" that would have been sued, it would have been Divine Light Mission. A forgiveable mistake. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cult references

I think it lacks notability and encyclopedic relevance that the Rocky Mountain News or the Australian Associated Press referred to Elan Vital as a cult. It testifies to nothing, except the linguistic preference of the author. Jayen466 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to stick to what the sources say, we do not want to be accused of interpreting the data, merely providing it from good sources. Do we have any information that the Rocky Mountain News, and/or the Australian Associated Press, are not credible sources? Maelefique (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I could bring a dozen cites of this type: Bryan R. Wilson describes EV as a new religious movement. CESNUR include it in their list of new religious movements. Lewis describes it as a movement within the Radhasoami tradition. Scholar X describes EV as an outgrowth of the Sant Mat tradition. Etc. etc. It does not say anything of encyclopedic relevance. It would be better to cite an author who has something specific to say about Elan Vital, whether they call it a cult or an NRM or whatever. We can use the word the sources use, but the source should say something of substance. Jayen466 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The bigger picture is that EV is simply the new name for DLM, which unquestionably has been frequently described as a cult. Why do we have separate articles for the different names of the same organization? Clearly, this organization has evolved to the point that, in its EV incarnation, it is rarely called a cult. This metamorphosis is something that should be described in a single article. Msalt (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing Jayen466, I'm saying that if we are going to use that source, we should not change the wording. I'm not talking about whether or not we should be using that source at all. Is that what you're talking about? Are we talking about 2 different things here? Maelefique (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We were talking about two different things. ;-) I agree that if we quote a source, we should as a rule use the terms the source uses. Jayen466 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research (my highlight): Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources' available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Australian Associated Press" sounds classy, but it owns many newspapers, of widely varying credibility. The Courier-Mail is one, and I would argue it is far from acceptable for a WP:BLP, and is becoming more tabloidal every day. The front page shown on the Wikipedia article is representative: "Nation's Day of Shame!" About? A football match. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It needs to be pointed out that CESNUR should not used as a benchmark, or a gold standard for determining whether or not a scholarly source is more or less reliable and/or unbiased than others, or for determining the standard of using the term "NRM" over "cult." CESNUR is an organization that promotes a very specific and particular pov about this subject, and promotes the negative, biased term "anti-cult movement" or "ACM." They invented it and promote it, so using the term "anti-cult movement" instead of using the more neutral term "cult awareness experts" here is, indeed, promoting CESNUR's negative POV about other scholars of cults and NRMs that don't agree with CESNUR. I've studied this subject extensively in recent years. The controversy between CESNUR-minded scholars and others in the fields of NRM/cult research and study is a complicated one. Here's an article from Apologetics Index that tells the other side of the CESNUR controversy. I'm not saying that all members of CESNUR hold CESNUR's pov or that CESNUR-affiliated scholars shouldn't be used as sources. I'm providing this information only to inform editors here who may be unaware of the controversy and orign of "anti-cult movement," and indeed, how CESNUR's bias has been used on Wikipedia to obliterate the use of the term "cult." I am not promoting the use of "cult" over "NRM" in the Rawat articles either, because I think the use of NRM would be big step forward here. That said, I also don't think that when writing an NPOV article, anyone should substitute the word "cult" for "NRM" when in fact the realiable source uses the former. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "counter cult" and anti cult is even used in the Apologetics Index: research resources on religious cults, sects, new religious movements, alternative religions, apologetics-, anticult-, and countercult organizations, doctrines, religious practices and world views. [...] An annotated guide to apologetics and counter cult research resources . See also Anti-cult movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided (Apologetics Index) is the site of a fairly extreme Christian group trying to discredit anybody whose beliefs or practices are non-Christian. Please try to find better sources, and please don't dignify this kind of opinionated raving by calling it information. I smile when I read your description of the term "cult awareness experts" as "more neutral". Cult is very negative. Experts is very positive. Do the two somehow cancel and make a neutral? C'mon Sylvie. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this Apologetics Index, Rumiton, do you have any sources that I can read regarding them? Maelefique (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologetics Index and the married couple (Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson) that maintain the site and their blog are not only not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, but their apologism is quite obvious. The publishers operate from an evangelical, Christian point of view [...] to provide Christians with apologetics research resources on cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines and practices[11] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you, Rumiton, and Momento really need to knock off the Christian-bashing here. We live in a Judeo-Christian culture, so your evaulation of sources based on their religous affiliation is unwelcome here. Apologetics Index is the other side of the CESNUR story, and no it’s not an "extremist” Christian organization. Sure, the website owners are Christians, but so what? It's offensive when you and Momento engage in Christian-bashing the way you do when you don't like the what the reputable, published, reliable scholarly sources have to say about Rawat in particular or nrms/cults in general. That's not part of an editor's job based on my understanding of NPOV writing, anyway. The fact is that CESNUR promotes a very particular pov about "cult awareness experts" (a very negative pov), they've set themselves up as being more credible than all other non-CESNUR scholars, including very reputable academics like Margaret Singer, against whom CESNUR conducted a huge campaign to discredit her work when she was alive, because they didn't like her or her work. That's a fact. Massimo Introgivne, the founder and leader of CESNUR isn't even an academic scholar of NRMs because he doesn't have the academic credentials to make the claim: he is only an Italian patent attorney. LOL! That fact, in and of itself, is quite controversial and enough to cause editors here to use great caution when citing CESNUR's pov. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not bashing anyone. Only stating that Hein is a self-described Christian evangelical, that promotes Christian apologetics, and that neither Hein or his website have an article in Wikipedia. My opinion of these sources, I keep to myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Margaret Singer reputation was strongly challenged by the scientific community during the DIMPAC controversy and the subsequent lawsuits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Singer's report on brainwashing was challenged not her reputation. I know as much, if not more than you do about all of these various controversies, Jossi, so please stop pushing your POV here as if you're the ultimate expert on this subject. Margaret Singer remains a very reputable source for purposes of this and any other article about NRMs/cults, here on wiki and worldwide. The fact is the CESNUR folks hated her and tried to ruin her reputation. Btw, I didn't voice an opinion above, if you read my post correctly. I was pointing out the many controversies surrounding the many various sources which are used on wikipedia and the possible pitfalls when editors write about nrms/cults using only CESNUR as their guide, and I advised caution against doing that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Look, I'm an atheist and I find it offensive when you, Rumiton and Momento frequently evaluate various scholars here based upon their religious affiliation. That has no place on wikipedia, and I know I'm not alone in that opinion. Once again, if someone is a credentialled academic, published, and considered a reliable source by wiki standards, then their religious affiliation is irrelevant. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not placed any words in your mouth, have I? Read DIMPAC, and read Margaret Singer. After the DIMPAC controversy, her testimony was rejected by four judges, and no longer could she pursue a career in providing testimonies in court cases. How about that for having her reputation challenged? Also, how can you find it offensive that I point the fact that Hein is a Christian apologetic, when that is what he claims to be in his own website? Or when I point the fact that a scholar is a Protestant evangelical, writing for a Christian publisher that targets pastors and churches? That is not offensive, just simple, verifiable facts. CESNUR publishes works by many scholars and holds conferences with organizations such as Eileen Barker's INFORM, in which prominent scholars participate, see http://www.cesnur.org/2008/london_prg.htm ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not have the time to go in-depth on this at the moment, and I have not finished reviewing the website in question. Having said that, to make an inference that if something is not in Wikipedia, it's not important/notable is a bit ridiculous, or is that seriously what you think jossi? Maelefique (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:NOTABILITY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There is some disturbing information about Anton Hein from Rick Ross [12] That material in itself is not enough notability for an biographical article on Hein, per WP:ONEEVENT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that information about Hein because I didn't know that about him (yuck). I was just using AI as means of demonstrating the academic disputes. Here's a much better source of information that explains all of the various disputes between CESNUR and other academics in this field that is from ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) with a prologue by Michael Langone, PhD. who is definitely not a convicted sex offender. Academic Disputes and Dialogue. Also, here's another interesting blurb from the same Rick Ross website that you found the info on Hein. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I know about the disputes between ICSA and CESNUR, and I also know about various attempts made to bridge the chasm between theme and scholars from both camps. One can argue that the issue is more political than anything else [13]. In any case, why are we discussing them here? There are articles about these two organization in which this can be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See my first post about CESNUR about which you began an argument with me. I simply wanted to inform folks that CESNUR is a controversial org., is the source of the ACM term, and has a particular POV about NRMs. It's not the gold standard for sources on this subject. That's all. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we using CESNUR as source? I don't think so. We are using scholars that may have participated in CESNURs' conferences, or papers presented there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the pro- and anti-CESNUR debate, one of the problesm with this article is that it has very few 3rd-party sources. I think we should be looking for more rather than deleting the ones we have. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as that does not mean that a scarcity of good sources means we should keep bad ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Virginia

Will, the University of Virginia has an excellent online resource called New Religious Movements, created and supervised by the late Jeffrey Hadden. Here's DLM/EV's page. This source was protested here in the past on the basis that, 1) It was written by a student of Hadden, not Hadden himself; and 2) The research includes references to the ex-premie site (EPO). It's interesting that EPO is considered a reliable source that's acceptable for use when writing academic papers, but not for Wikipedia articles. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The site was a student's project in the 1990's [14] and the project has been deprecated and no longer used. Many of the links do not work anymore, such as the advisory board [15], site map [16] and even their home page [17]. The Virginia University new websites about religious movements is here: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ and here http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite correct, while there are a few problems with the links (the first two are external to the project), we're not here to debate their expertise in coding, the homepage is easily reachable here, their image map was sloppy (.htm, not .html in the link). Quoting from the homepage directly, " Last updated: 05/22/05", so someone somewhere has been updating things, the other sites you point to do not seem to have the same material as this one does. I'm not sure they are the new versions of this material, where did you get that idea/information? I cannot find any text on this site that would indicate it has been deprecated and/or replaced. It does appear that portions of this website have been moved to a new subdomain at religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu, however that seems to have been done unsuccessfully, and I'm not sure it's too relevant, unless you'd like to suggest that the moved portions contradict articles in the sections we have. Maelefique (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are new versions of that material: See Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Elliot III, Eugene M. "Divine Light Mission - Elan Vital" in Baumann, Martin (2002). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-223-1. . Elliot III was the student that wrote that page. I will need to go to the library to retrieve that entry, but if memory does not fail me it is quite different that the student work done in 1999. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't see where this was a student's project as you claim in your cite, thanks for at least making this entire page cite in english this time, that helped. In fact, the text refers in the first person to the fact that you can retrieve his course lecture notes, when you go to that page, you have the course lecture notes for Mr. Hadden's Sociology 257 class. Ergo, it seems safe to draw the conclusion that the page you are referencing is from the professsor himself, not a student, and if you re-read the first paragraph, if that's where you're drawing your chronology from, that's not what it says. Further, the welcome page also contains this, "Last modified 11/26/00". You may want to refresh yourself with these, WP:CITE#Why_sources_should_be_cited, bullet number 4 specifically, WP:REFB because this is the second time you've done it to me, and WP:PROVEIT#Burden_of_evidence, which should be pretty straightforward in its context (very first paragraph). Maelefique (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are saying. We have a newer source which I provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you have another source, I already quoted from the page, 2005 dated. Your source says 2002. I do not see a problem with using either, or both, sources. Maelefique (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The page in question was last updated in 1999. A newer article with same name appeared in a non-self published publication in 2002, that is the source I provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please fix your link then, as the link you provided, which is here was last updated on Tues, Aug. 31, 2004. It is in fact, 2 years newer than your "new" source. If you need me to explain how to find that information, no problem. If you have some alternate method of finding that date, I would STILL be very interested in how you arrived at that date (not sure how many times I have to ask a simple question before I get an answer). Hopefully we can work together on this so we don't have to go and fix any future mistakes that might be made by faulty research. Maelefique (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the article itself: [18] I will be going to the library and provide the text of the 2002 source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be good if you tried to cite the article you're talking about, instead of some random page at that site, and even so, I still have a problem with your dates, the bottom of your new cite says last modified "11/27/01", but if you check the page properties in your browser, it was last altered Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:30:37 PM, maybe they forgot to update the bottom of the page (or maybe it's some automated process, point is, I don't know, and neither do you). I don't even really care about this article, but I care strongly that we get facts correct (if you want to say that your above comments were not intended as factual, merely as opinion, then please feel free to ignore this entire rant, and also please make an attempt to make it more obvious when you're stating an opinion, this read like you were giving facts). I cannot/refuse to believe you are this careless with facts, so I just don't know what to think here. Also, you still haven't answered my question, again, where do you get your date for this article, it's original creation date? Are you ignoring the "last modified" tag right underneath it? I don't see where this is noted as a student project either. I don't see where it's been deprecated, and I can easily demonstrate that it is still used. We're using it! For the 4th time, in different words in case that's the problem, where are you getting these ideas from? Maelefique (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Jossi, it's not "Virginia's University" (big faux paux) it's University of Virginia, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson. It's a wonderful university and practically sacrosanct among all the state universities in the U.S. because of Jefferson and his love of learning and teaching. I thought you'd like to know that. Americans are especially proud of it. I know I am. :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
University of Virginia, it is. Tx. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Jossi, I think in another time we could have been good friends and maybe even kindred spirits. I welcome any new sources you can provide from Eugene Elliot. I love to see how students evolve into professionals. It's so interesting. Learning new things is a wonderful process. Thanks to you, too.  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling. Maelefique, per your last edit summary, the word is pejorative not to be confused with perjurious. And Sylvie, it is faux pas, not faux paux. I know, fussy and pedantic, I have been told this before, something to do with my upbringing...or something. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, thanks, I guess you didn't read the whole edit summary, or the joke was a little too subtle. I'm a big fan of spelling too. If nothing else, our pedantic tendencies might be something we have in common (and aren't ya just happy I saved you or jossi from doing yet another "cult" revert?). Maelefique (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EV versus Teachings of Prem Rawat

An editor recently added two long quotes.[19] They appear to mostly deal with Prem Rawat's teachings, rather than with EV in particular. I trimmed part of one, but I think we should avoid duplication. If something is a teaching of the EV that isn't a teaching of Prem Rawat then this would be the place to put it. But if it's part of Rawat's teachings then it belongs in the other article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Why does this article carries a {{primarysources}} template? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it was added because the article is mostly sourced to the group's website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)