>Do you honestly believe Maharaji would give a nano seconds consideration to what Wikipedia does or doesnt say?<

The lines of management control in EV are notoriously blurred so it's impossible to say just what Rawat has or hasn't 'approved' - although 'approval' is frequently sought.

Comparing the reports in a newspaper with what is happening at Wikipedia is to miss the point completely. EV via an individual who is a devotee of Rawat and who has a contractual relationship with Rawat/EV,  has put great energy into trying to control what is published about EV and Rawat.

However one looks at it EV has made an investment in Wikipedia and the rest of the world is entitled to make a judgement about Wikipedia based on its content - and to then draw conclusions about both Wikipedia and those organisations that have made significant efforts to contribute to a presentation on Wikipedia. It is a simple fact that both pedofilia apologists and Elan Vital have sought to control their respective presentations on Wikipedia - and that Wikipedia has actively facilitated those presentations.

It is also a disturbing fact that Elan Vital in its DLM incarnation, whether purposefully or by neglect, facilitated a pedophile to abuse the children of Rawat's followers.

Elan Vital can not complain if the company it chooses to keep reflects on it and Rawat. Quoting CESNUR in its FAQs has aligned EV, in at least some measure, with the extreme right wing; amongst the right wing cultist 'libertarianism' has frequently been used to excuse pedofilia. If EV doesn't like these connections being made, it should take more care of who it aligns itself with.