Hello John Brauns and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
I trust you'll be interested in this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
I created Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Momento 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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 Brauns 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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. Momento 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 4 - So what.
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. 202.162.99.235 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Momento 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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. 202.162.99.235 01:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the mess I stirred at the talk page and thanks for standing up to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galf ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Gstaker 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This was amended in 1973 to:-
This was further amended in 1980 to:-
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:-
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)
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)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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."
I think this would be much more convincing if you produced the diffs, which would show a lack of reply. Hohohahaha ( talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, including you.
Re. [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11]: don't, per WP:OUTING (policy). Permission to remove this message if you understand what it means. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Would it be possible for you to provide/upload an image to Wikimedia Commons for free-use in the article Ex-premie.org? Perhaps a screenshot of a portion of the main page seen at http://www.ex-premie.org/ ? Cirt ( talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Beback talk 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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. -- JN 466 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
... 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)
... 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)
Now, shoot. What have I got wrong? -- JN 466 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello John Brauns,
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.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello John Brauns and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
I trust you'll be interested in this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
I created Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Momento 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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 Brauns 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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. Momento 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 4 - So what.
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. 202.162.99.235 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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. Momento 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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. 202.162.99.235 01:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the mess I stirred at the talk page and thanks for standing up to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galf ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Gstaker 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This was amended in 1973 to:-
This was further amended in 1980 to:-
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:-
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)
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)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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."
I think this would be much more convincing if you produced the diffs, which would show a lack of reply. Hohohahaha ( talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, including you.
Re. [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11]: don't, per WP:OUTING (policy). Permission to remove this message if you understand what it means. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Would it be possible for you to provide/upload an image to Wikimedia Commons for free-use in the article Ex-premie.org? Perhaps a screenshot of a portion of the main page seen at http://www.ex-premie.org/ ? Cirt ( talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Beback talk 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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. -- JN 466 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
... 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)
... 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)
Now, shoot. What have I got wrong? -- JN 466 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello John Brauns,
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.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)