I receive an email from somebody who expressed his disappointment with Wikipedia, especially with regards to the article on the controversial inspirational speaker and former guru Prem Rawat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_rawat. The person who intends to write a critical article about Wikipedia is an ex-follower and has a good reputation. I do not like Wikipedia's reputation to get hurt because of his article on his website but I cannot do anything for three reasons. First, the article is locked. Secondly, I will be away from the internet for some time. Thirdly, the situation is still highly polarized as can be read on the talk page. I have to admit that some ex-followers of Prem Rawat will only be satisfied if you start the article with something like "Prem Rawat is a charlatan cult leader who has misled thousands of people with his propaganda and who claimed to God almighty to save mankind. Due to this many people wasted many years of their lives." Though I feel strongly that the ex-followers are partially right due to my own experience with a charlatan guru aka cult leader, I understand that this can never be written down following NPOV guidelines. There is also a recurring, general problem with writing about new religious movements (NRMs) and that is to what extent criticism of the critics of NRMs should be allowed in the articles. I am hoping for general guidelines. Here is what I wrote on the talk page, "I only said that a person who chooses to pose as a guru and teach meditation techniques is open and should be open for public scrutiny. The people who believe and have followed this person and found him wanting and then openly criticize him are open to scrutiny, in so far, their involvement with this guru was serious, genuine and sincere. Their criticism of the guru is, of course, open to scrutiny too. Apart from the authenticity of their involvement with the guru, one could ask whether some of them have an ax to grind but this should not be based on mere speculation or conspiracy theories. There should be some strong documented indication that they had an ax to grind otherwise no suspicions should be mentioned. With regards to the same thing with my former guru, this was a comparison that may give others more insight into my point of view and into the fact that this unfair, insulting character assassination of critics is very common by supporters of controversial new religious movements. The defenders have to resort to ad hominem attacks on the critics because they ran out of reasonable or logical ways to defend their guru. Andries 07:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)" I also wrote a satirical article about Wikipedia being a cult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andries/Wikipedia%3Acontroversy See you later. Bye. Andries K.D