Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

No to edit wars!

Please help in finding a way forward. There is a proposal on the table by David to start improving the article from a compromise version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to work on David D's compromise version. Clearly it is a lot better than the bloated, badly written version of early 2007 before it was subject to a GA review and hundreds of hours of work from independent editors.Momento (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As said, I stand with the version I reverted to, as a starting point. That is as much "on the table". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally reverting to a 13 month old version without discussion and in the face of considerable opposition is not the way to do it.Momento (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the current article unacceptable too. The article must be reverted to the time when it had criticism section within this article. As I understand it, there has been deletion of verified content (i.e. source from media or academia) under pretext of double verification (it must be sourced to two media or academia sources). This article must at least go back to the time before such undue deletion start to occur. Secondly, all content which were merely sourced from writing of PR or his organisations should be deleted. Vapour (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and you may be familiar with our policy about sources. Please re-read WP:V#Sources for information on how to deal with self-published sources related to the subject of an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Any contributions to an article can be reverted at any time. If Francis is correct that all the work that had previously gone into a criticism section was first moved to another article, then "merged" without actually being restored, that work too has been lost. Under such circs., I too strongly support reverting to Francis' version and working on that. Relata refero (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Half-broken references

I'll try to make permalinks to currently half-broken references (inadvertent use of citation templates) - can someone help out, I've not so much experience with these templates, nor do I exactly know how to make the best of these references:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, there is a great free resource that creates the cites automatically, for books, journals, URLs, PubMed, etc. see: http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in automated cite creation. At the time I don't even know whether the cite is *useful* and, if it is, how to make the best out of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just responding to your request for help with the half-broken refs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some and tried to consolidate all the repeated ones. I think there are more but I have no more time. David D. (Talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

tx, again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Large amounts of quoted text within citations

Large amounts of quoted text within citations are simply not needed, at all. A simple citation will suffice, to satisfy WP:V. These large quotes should be removed from all of the citations. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just started, and will get more if others don't first. I'm very short on time lately due to family illnesses. The references section appears to be used to provide unneeded flavor and as a possible means to work in unencyclopediac quotations about his teachings, outside of NPOV. We don't I believe see such work in place on other articles on religions or groups. Not appropriate. Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that these large quotes arose out of repeated and heavy accusations of misquoting, misparaphrasing and out of context quoting. I propose to retain these quotes. Andries (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree w/ Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs), they are not appropriate and should all be removed. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
They can stay in some form of course, but at a quick glance (I need to look more closely) it appears to be reading as a POV-based fluffery. We are not to make a pro-Rawat article here, anymore than an anti-one. We're not here to spread his teachings or beliefs. They need heavy pruning. Lawrence § t/e 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We have an article on the subject's teachings so we should restrict ourselves to summarizing that info here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine "claims"

This is just pure POV. We don't qualify simple facts from sources. Do not do that again. Lawrence § t/e 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}}

Requesting that what is bolded in the next quote would be removed from the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro: "[...], his emphasis was on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma."

Reason: this part of the criticism Prem Rawat has been receiving doesn't seem prominent enough for a lead section mentioning. There's nothing about it in the Criticism section, so I think we would better be without it in the lead too. If there's consensus for this then the editprotected template may be enabled as far as I'm concerned. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected now, Francis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
tx for informing. Anyone objecting that I proceed with the removal of this part of the sentence from the lead then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


The lede

Francis Schonken and I are discussing the order of the lede. Everyone is welcome to join in here. In the meantime Francis could you stop adding new material to other parts of the article its distracting. The picture of the house and the links to anti-Rawat sites will never appear in this article because they are clearly excluded by BLP.Momento (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

'splain the last sentence and its attendant assertion. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of edits lost

... in this edit. That is not acceptable. Articles need to get improved, not brought up to a version that misses the hard work, research and copyediting of many editors over a period of more than one year, and that includes responses to GA reviews and peer reviews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A more advisable route is to improve the article rather than revert to a version that is more than a year old. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Too much important info and work has been lost. 30 kilobytes of bloat inserted. Lede destroyed. Only negative criticism highlighted. Unacceptable links etc etc. Having seen how Wiki's inherent goodness triumphed over nastiness during Jossi's COI, I look forward to the discussion these extraordinary edits will bring.Momento (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, that is a very one-sided argument. The version that Francis deleted was a complete new rewrite by Momento and Rumiton that destroyed thousands of edits by many authors. Andries (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands" is incorrect. I had to go back somewhat over a thousand edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further,

--Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for more discussion with Francis. As a compromise to losing what I consider to be good edits I have restored the version from Feb 2008 and included the criticism paragraphs that represent the most significant consensus I could find in the history, from May 2007. I think this is the best starting point. Other version criticism can be found at Talk:Prem Rawat/criticism. I have no horses in this race other than trying to keep this article from devolving into a massive fight. David D. (Talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be protected at Vaassyana's last edit. Inserting a section of criticism that is bigger than any other section isn't balanced. For a start, Jan van der Lans comment that Rawat was a "charlatan leading a double life" is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources. Not just a Catholic priest's view of someone his religion says is going to hell.Momento (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, let us start with the last version by David D. as a compromise version. We can move forward in addressing specific concerns. It is a starting point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to edit that section as you see fit. This is a stop gap edit on my part to preserve the current version. If users here are sensible there will be no reason to fully protect the page. As yet I think everyone has been calm and kept the discussion at the talk page. If you think it is too much prune it down to a suitable size, really, I would not object to you improving what I just pasted into the article. Isn't that reasonable to at least keep the editing environment cooler? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As we have seen editors haven't been sensible. To stick 7 lines of a 25 year old criticism by a Roman Catholic priest into a BLP is over the top. Go back to Vassyana's last and let's talk.Momento (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no I stand with the version I reverted to. Let's take that as a starting point. It has 129 references. The other has only three quarters so many references. Several of the references from the last year are malformed through inadvertent use of citation templates. "Bloat" is equally true of the version I reverted away, etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between 53 kilobytes and 83 Kilobytes, don't you?Momento (talk)

I miss the mentioning of the most prevalent criticism from the lead section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the article.Momento (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thus, it should include the main points of the criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm seeing a lot of disagreement about the types of sources that are acceptable, so in case this helps:

  • The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:BLP.
  • Both scholarly and non-scholarly sources are allowed.
  • Mainstream newspaper and magazine articles are welcome in an article like this, because it's about a popular figure, but the publications should be high quality because it's a BLP; Time, for example, is fine.
  • Third-party self-published sources are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), again because it's a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP.
  • Material self-published by the subject of the article is allowed. People often think this is a bad idea, but the reason for it is to allow the subject to be able to respond to errors about himself that may have been published elsewhere, and also to allow things like dates of birth to be provided, which might not be available otherwise. However, there are restrictions on the extent to which a subject's self-published material may be used -- they are listed here.
  • 3RR does not apply to the removal of BLP violations. I took a look this morning at the report against Momento, and it was ambiguous, because although it was clear he had violated it, some of the external links he was removing were to what looked like personal or anonymous websites, and he can't be blocked for that. Other links he was removing were to things like the Washington Post, and that would have been a violation, but it wasn't clear he had done it more than three times.

Anyway, I hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Slim. I agree with everything she just said here. This is an excellent summary. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with non-scholarly sources for this article is that they do not try to make a summary over a longer period of time. They tend to cover one event or one incident of interview. This is problematic for some aspects of this article, like Rawat's teachings and his claims about himself. Using a published interview as a source for Rawat's claims about himself instead of scholarly sources strikes me as wrong. In another interview Rawat said that guru is greater than God. Are we going to use all interviews that Rawat ever gave to describe his teachings and claims about himself? Clearly this is not a workable solution. Andries (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Update

Please see the new note at WP:ANI/3RR by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs), and the note left by the same user to Momento (talk · contribs)'s talk page. If Momento had not violated 3RR for the first report, or the start of the second, he certainly has by now. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I left him a warning, but I see he's been blocked now. A forced break is probably a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the link to ex-premie website violates BLP. Andries (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about claims of divinity should be described explicitly

Janice, regarding this edit by you [1] Melton wrote that Rawat claimed to be an embodiment of God. This should be described, not toned to such a degree that it is distorted and unrecognisable. Dowton held a somewhat opposing view. Andries (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Melton cite says: "DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness." Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See also some conversation with Janice here: User talk:Janice Rowe#Rawat. I'm going to continue these conversations on this talk page here:
  • Re. the "four children and Boeing 707" rebuttal: still, not in its place, and not really a rebuttal.
  • Re. Messer quote, I'll try and rephrase. --FrancisSchonken (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Janice, no, you are confusing Melton with Lans/Derks. Here is what Melton wrote
"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."
Andries (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Put simply this article should tell Rawat's past as it was, not as he or his followers want to revise it. Rawat consistently spoke out of both sides of is mouth about his Divinity. That is absolutely plain from what scholars have reported. On the one hand we have Momento, even in the face of clear logical defeat, arguing again and again that Rawat ONLY denied being God (see my discussion page to see the full extent of his illogical dissembling) and on the other we have a huge weight of evidence from Rawat's own mouth and reports from the time about how he posed as God Incarnate and had no qualms whatsoever in lording it over people and worse, intimidating people with his authoritative doom-laden threats. Rawat exploited his followers subsequent awe of him to fear to control his believers just like all power-corrupted cult leaders. It's undeniable. What also needs to be clear is that he and his organisation now have money and power and use it to silence critics whenever they can. The final thing that WILL BE APPARENT when this article presents the whole story (and not just a totally biased twisted selection) is that Rawat and his organisation are at great pains to blame others (notably past followers and former incarnations of his organisation that conveniently no longer exist) for Rawat's own mistakes. A perfect example of this has been the persistence of Momento's efforts to slant quotes to give the impression that Rawat was 'misunderstood' and blameless in followers perception of him his as 'The greatest Incarnation of God ever to have trod the planet' etc. PatW (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially on your first sentence. It appears that Rawat's public iconography and image was gradually changed over time. This is fine, of course. However, and especially using sources that predate that shift in presented public appearance, we are obligated to report on how he was perceived and presented by verifiable independent sources at the time. If this is distasteful or unacceptable to some, that is unfortunate, but has no bearing on what the article must contain. Lawrence § t/e 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the problem with the article is that views are presented as facts, even when the views are contradicted by other sources. I will give some expamples later. Andries (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted to see newcomers having a go at trying to storm the battlements around this article. I strongly support their efforts. However I am very disappointed to see the same Rawat supporters still being so staunchly unreasonable here. Everything newcomers are challenging them on has been done before with a lot of effort and reasoning. It's just going over the same old ground. Above there is talk of there being "disagreement about the types of sources that are acceptable". We've tried to get this agreed before. Years roll by and Momento and Jossi absolutely will not accept sources other than ones they vet. They vehemently refused to allow quotes from Rawat out of magazines printed by Divine Light Mission magazines (which Rawat was the editor-in-chief of I think) and which I and some others found in many public libraries. Outrageous isn't it? Also, read the engagements I and others had with this Momento on my discussion page (Someone called Revera really won the argument over the 'Divinity' denials but would Momento accept that and allow some of quotes to be more balanced and in context? No way. My worry is that history will repeat itself and the predominant 'premie' editors here will just wait until the new wave of editors tire of getting nowhere and then they'll revert the article. I'd stake money on that's what'll happen. PatW (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, or was in the past, I think it will be stopping now. Do you have these sources, that we can see, which were denied before? Lawrence § t/e 06:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was about a year ago that I had arguments over sources such as DLM magazines etc. Actually a Rawat follower of more integrity, who was disgusted at the revisionism here, wrote to me privately offering to send me loads of these magazines- he/she wanted to remain anonymous and approved of my attempts to straighten facts out here. Eventually I did not take up the offer preferring to attempt to get some ground rules agreed upon here, and to point out that these magazines are readily available in libraries etc. I strongly recommend looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=121699226&oldid=121579434 to see what a hail of panic the suggestion of even referring to such publications met. Since then I believe that a huge number of Divine Light Magazines are reproduced online. Can somebody provide a link please? The trouble is that anyone who picks quotes from them will be immediately accused of asserting a critical POV. I have no substatial time to engage here any more due to new business pressures. But I will try and help from time to time. Please do take the time to go and read that Talk page from late March/April 1997 to see what your up against and to so you hopefully are forewarned and better fore-armed in your fresh attempts to stop the rot here.PatW (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW, and Slim, self-published sources have in the past led to problems in this article because many, somewhat contradictory, quotes by Rawat appeared in this article, leading to a quote war when each party starting adding more and more quotes that supported their view. Andries (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing that you say that 'contradictory Rawat quotes started appearing' because that is exactly what needs clarification. The Collier quote is a good example. In the end Momento and Jossi relegated that quote to the footnotes. The specific quote being iterated at footnote no 31 in the article now:

"There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life..Guru Maharaji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God."

As it is, the existing paragraph is carefully sculpted by the premies to give the ludicrous impression that Rawat had very little part in actually cultivating the belief in his divinity amongst followers. As is well-known and easily seen by the most cursory glance through his speeches from the time (as published in those DLM magazines I spoke of) the diametric opposite is true. From the following paragraph the impression is now given that he was more or less an innocent bystander and the stupid followers and his mother were to blame. This has been the party revisionist line for some time and Momento vociferously argued that people who believed Rawat was divine had misinterpreted his words through their own stupidity and that basically they were following their own agendas. Again absolutely the opposite was the case. ironically neither Momento or Jossi were around at that time to witness what went on. That is no excuse for revising the past and weasely implying that Rawat's followers simply adopted these ideas despite Rawat's protestations! Here's the current paragraph:

Several scholars wrote that Rawat claimed or suggested to be divine. [27][28]As a guru, he carried divine connotations for his followers, and despite Rawat's appeal to his followers to give up their beliefs and concepts, it did not prevent them from adopting a set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age. Despite his denial in an interview of any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, as well as partly by Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people.[29][30][31]

As I said this is just going over the same old arguments nd I am pessimistic about this article changing as the followers are more committed to maintaining it to their weasely slant than others are to repeatedly take them to task over it. PatW (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are Downton's opinions stated as fact when there are sources that disagree with him?
I propose some rewording, like this (copied from Divine Light Mission "According to Downton, by 1976 the vast majority of students were viewing Rawat primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration,[30]An article commenting on Downton's viewpoint was presented by Lans and Derks, who stated that there was a difference in the initiation policy before and after 1975. While before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for "knowledge", after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour; pre-1975 members joined due to an attraction to Hinduistic ideology."
Source: Derks, Frans, and Jan van der Lans. Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308
Andries (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
PatW, I understand your concern. It seems that dispute resolution is like winning a battle and losing a war, unless you seek dispute resolution every week. Andries (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you been having fun in my absence but a few errors seem to be creeping in. For instance, John Brauns desire to insert the name of James Randi's book into the text when no other book is mentioned is unacceptable. Momento (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I had fun in having reasoned talk page discusion and not having all my edits reverted during your absence. Andries (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was impressed that you stood up for BLP and removed the links. Good editing.Momento (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The photo of the house (if it is Rawat's) clearly violates BLP. Firstly it violates the core intention of BLP policy "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"". Secondly it violates this aspect of BLP = "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". Obviously showing a house that can be identified is a pictorial version of an address. But since no one has provided a reliable source that claims the house in the photo is owned by Prem Rawat, I will follow BLP which says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Pero, quizás está la casa de los espiritus santos, la casa de la paz interna, la casa de la esperanza del mundo. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in cite

Levine's book, Page 96, mentions only Hare Krishna, Unification Church, And Children of God, in the context of the citation. I can provide a full citation if neede. Please correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx. Anyway, I threw the list of other movements out (while performing another edit): this article isn't about these other movements. So I referred to them as "other movements". --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by mother

A criticism by Rawat's mother is considered so important that it is quoted in the lede. Aren't we obliged to add her to the list of critics in the criticism section, so that it reads, "Prem Rawat has been criticized by his mother, religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members".Momento (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I was told that doesn't work here. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as you're sarcastic about the edit not the editor, it's OK.Momento (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

FYI,

Declaration of intent ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was very pleased to see the number of editors in the COI debate who said the simple "Show me the evidence". It's very easy to say something but an entirely different thing to prove it. From long observation of your involvement here and other articles I have always found your editing honest and proper.Momento (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you've said Jossi is that you intend to change nothing about your behavior on the talk pages where you've for systematically intimidated every editor who isn't a devotee of Maharaji, myself included, and you'll continue game the system to obtain the article you want as Rawat's public relations man. Basically what you've said in your declaration is that everything continues to be status quo as far as you're concerned. By the way, in your response to the Cade article you mentioned that John Brauns, Mike Finch, Nik, myself and others have colluded to disrupt the editing of this article. Nothing could be further from the truth, Jossi and I don't know where you got that notion. Sure, I've discussed you and the article out of sheer frustration on that forum, but colluded? Never. I've never colluded with anyone about this article nor have I or any of those individuals ever harrassed you. You need to retract those remarks. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This look like harassment to me. Jossi cautioned Johns Brauns about disruptive editing and this is how he responded- You are making a serious mistake threatening me like this when I have information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public. --John Brauns (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC) [[2]]. Momento (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento - harassment should be reported at WP:AN/I, not on an article talk page. If you want to post a warning to John Brauns about his behavior, please do so on his user talk page, not here. And if you are saying that Sylviecyn and John Brauns are colluding (hopefully you have better evidence than what you've posted, else this seems an WP:AGF violation to me), again, that's not appropriate for article talk pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize John. I shouldn't have commented but I felt it necessary to correct Sylviecyn's erroneous comment for those unfamiliar with situation.Momento (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission to assume Momento is a Hostile Editor

I'm reading and that's the impression I get. I see incivility and hostility. Some of you editors should take this up and not allow yourselves to be trampled. --Pax Arcane 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request declined. Maybe everyone is best to manage his or her own civility level. If that's not enough, follow steps recommended wikipedia:dispute resolution, which afaik does not include a recommended remedy in the line of: "start the dispute resolution by calling each other incivil; if that doesn't help, continue by calling each other hostile, etc..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Honors section

Needs to be summarized, as it stands it is way to long amd contains editorializing that is not needed. The mention of the Vice-president of India, would be a good addition, as India is the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the best way to incorporate all the comments contained in Wiki quote.Momento (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These need citations. The Prem Rawat page is nice but not unbiased or verifiable. Nice try, though. Anyone who wishes, yank it.--Pax Arcane 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:SELFPUB. In any case, it needs to be summarized further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB prohibits the use of self-published sources for material that is, aomong other things, contentious or unduly self-serving. If these honros are notable they may have been reported in 3rd-party sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keys to the city are unduly self-serving or contentious? I will look for sources, these must be recorded in the public record. Same about other commendations. Will also look for sources for other items. Could you also check on the online archives you have access to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, asserting that one has received honors or awards is self serving. If someone on claims on their website to have received the Nobel Peace Prize we would look for an independent source. It's a difference of degree, not of kind. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The phrase is "unduly self-serving". Admitting any skill or accomplishment, award or recognition may be "self-serving" but not unduly otherwise no one could talk about themselves.Momento (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If claiming to have received numerous awards isn't "unduly self-serving" then please explain what you think meets that defintion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand what unduly means. It means - unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate. For example, creating an award for yourself to win can be "unduly self-serving" but these are awards given by others.Momento (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide an example of a fact that might be claimed by a source that would meet the threshold of "unduly self-serving"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think this discussion is productive. If the issue is one of sourcing, we can look for secondary sources. Let's focus on that shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi asked earlier about what I could find in newspaper archives. There are lots of press releases, but very little else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a third party source (see below), and will continue looking for others. Keys to cities are issued by City Mayors, and is in the public record, so it should be easy to locate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading this correctly, we may have to remove the line that reads "Award for Best Television Program 2004 and 2006: Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace." As far as I can tell, all sources of this point back to PR's websites (tprf.org and wordsofpeace.com), and the link in his article which should point to the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels does not work. A quick Google search does not bring up a website for them,or even a reference to them (defunct?), and the PRNewswire/USNewswire story that repeats this story circularly references the source for it as "The Prem Rawat Foundation". This would seem to violate at the very least, the third, and also the last points at WP:SELFPUB would it not? However, if I'm missing something, lets chat about it here before I go ahead and remove that line, and get all the excitable types around here in an uproar. Any objections? Going once... Maelefique (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that if these are not to third party sources, perhaps shouldn't be used. However rather than blowing them away, leave it for a couple of hours for consensus. Shot info (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Give em till tomorrow (I'm speaking at GMT -5, so about 7 hours), I'm sure they'll find it, but if not, I agree that we need to take it down unless verified by some other source. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a third-paty source: "INSIEME - a revista italiana daqui". Retrieved 2008-02-12. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
jossi, I carefully read that article, (from September 2007, not 2004, or 2006) and see no reference to either the award donator, or the fact that PR received the award, did you reference the wrong page? Also, attempting to adhere to WP:RSUE would indicate that we should strive for an english translation published elsewhere and 2) I don't see where you have a "clear citation, including a direct quotation of the relevant portion of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said". Accordingly, I am going to remove that line until such references are found and we can add it back.Maelefique (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis already deleted it, on his last revert. As for the source, it is a good source, regardless of language. WP:RSUE speaks of a preference for English-language sources. The text (portuguese) reads: Prêmios Internacional e Brasileiro - No Brasil, o programa “Palavras de Paz”, com Prew Rawat já ganhou dois prêmios da Associação dos Canais Comunitários (ABCCOM) , em três anos . Na entrega do prêmio, o presidente daquela Associação, Fernando Mauro Trezza,. You can ask a Portuguese-speaking Wikipedian to confirm the translation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As you say, the point is moot, but it certainly would have saved much time if you'd included that single sentence out of the article the first time, independent translation is not necessary for me, thanks for the offer though. However, the sentence just makes reference to some award, it does not say what award it is, it definitely does not say it's an award for best show of the year. Further, it mentions some other award offered by some other entity which sounds more like the award that has been referred to all this time. It would seem if anything that this reference muddies the waters even further (if possible). "E mais: o programa “Palavra de Paz” acaba de ser reconhecido como o melhor programa de entrevistas/palestras em outra TV comunitária, a CTV (Community Acess Magic) do estado de Maryland, condado de Prince George, próximo à capital norte-americana. O prêmio foi concedido a Jimi Jones, morador de Prince George’s County, que no ano passado trabalhou como voluntário na produção local do programa." (I can provide a translation for you if required). Anyway, I won't spend any more time on this as it's no longer relevent to the article... at least until someone reverts, again, and then I'll step in. Maelefique (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that these two sections "Honors" and "Praise" need to be summarized and collapsed into one. Also, I do not believe that is best for NPOV to have separate sections on "Honors" and on "Criticism". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to remind people about a discussion that might have got lost in the noise, see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Semi-arbitrary_break above.

You will also notice the absence of praise. WQe will need to include an honors section like here [[3]]. And there's ample material here [[4]] to include.Momento (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, The Dalai Lama, section is "Awards and honors" not praise. Are they really equivalent? I looked at the Wikiquote about Prem_Rawat section but I only noticed one keys to the city award, most seem to be spoken praise. I see no reason to have some praise but awards are more concrete. Praise is often given out disingenuously, awards probably less so. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I found these here [[5]] .Resolutions, proclamations ...(cut list for clarity)........Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace.Momento (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how notable resolutions and proclamations are, but a key to a city is probably worth noting. An award for a TV program? Letters of appreciation? Feel free to add them but i think they will look like a parody of a normal award and honors section from a wikipedia article. What about honorary degree's from presitigious universities? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. I'm not really thinking these honors should be included. I just want to illustrate the point that there are two sides to every story. People seemed to be outraged that followers of Rawat might edit this article. The fact that people who hate Rawat might edit is fine. I believe the best article sticks to facts provided by unbiased and independent experts.Momento (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would reiterate, are we really going to document every minor award? Parody still comes to mind when compared with similar sections in other articles, this alone should be good reason not to have such a stand alone section. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, David. We should not. Just a summary would suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But before we discuss that, I think we need to address this: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Can_we_discuss_rather_than_revert.3F ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Words of Peace (WOP) has received the "Honoris Causa" Award from the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for its "important contribution to imparting a culture of peace." It is the third award this international series, featuring Prem Rawat's message of peace, has received in Brazil. The program reaches 10 million viewers. [1][2]

Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Momento (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How many of these awards are handed out a year? (There's a thin line between self-serving and non-notable...) Relata refero (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
... and sometimes a big overlap. --Simon D M (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop....

... refactoring this page! I have asked you three times to stop. This is most unhelpful! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I held myself only to the Hunt section and Photo section until further discussion.
See the first section on this page for my comments. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text (single opinion)

I removed the following from the article (refs nowiki'd):

Based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat, the sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Rawat's message as "banal" in the preface of his book From Slogans to Mantras, and later summarized the criticism of him in the 1970s by the countercultural left.<ref name="Kent2001">[[Stephen A. Kent|Kent, Stephen A.]] ''[[From Slogans to Mantras|From slogans to mantras: social protest and religious conversion in the late Vietnam war era]]'', Syracuse University press, 2001, ISBN 0-8156-2948-6 </ref>

I don't understand the point of this statement in the article. Why should it matter that a single person thought that Rawat's message was commonplace and pedestrian? If Kent later summarized criticism of Rawat by the countercultural left of 70s, why not report on those criticisms? Simply saying that Kent summarized it is saying little more than "criticism exists". Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassyana (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Why should it matter [...]": cheap thrill. Inuendo not argument. You'll have to come up with something better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Rawat's teachings have been criticized for its simplism by Kranenborg. Meditate and everything in the world will be all right. Andries (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well-sourced information about claims of simplistic or over-simplistic elements of Rawat's teaching would be fine. The Kent text is just a throwaway opinion based on limited exposure and a statement that there is summarized criticism. Could you provide more information about what Kranenborg said (a quote or two if possible)? Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Throwaway opinion" — again cheap thrill. That's not how we look at things in Wikipedia. Kent's book easily passes criteria used by Wikipedia for sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I need some time to translate the criticism by Kranenborg of DLM's n(or Rawat's) overly simplistic view. Andries (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Vassyana. Kent went to one talk by Rawat and made his judgement. If his opinion is so important why not add some more of his jewels - " Consequently, I could not fathom what so many of my peers found inspiring about this kid, and I was wholly unprepared for what happened after the presentation concluded. Riding home with a friend that evening in the back seat of a car, I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day".Momento (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And? I was looking whether you attempted to come to some sort of conclusion you want to draw from that quote, but could see none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The criticism by the countercultural left has been at times been extreme and in hindsight sometimes completely without merit. I think that Rawat was labelled a CIA agent (or was it Rennie Davis?). It is important to mention it, because the DLM recruited its members from the youth culture and was a direct competitor in this for the countercultural left. Andries (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there I couldn't have drawn that from what was in the Prem Rawat article. Either the thing is explained, either the "countercultural left" part is left out of the Kent quote, while unclear for the average reader. I'd choose the second option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
One issue I see with Wiki is that much of the opinion and editing is centered on the US. In South America, Rawat's followers were characterized as Communists.Momento (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you recommend some reliable sources that talk about Rawat's movement in South America and other areas of the world? Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an scholastic info. Lots of personal anecdotes from SA premies who were rounded up and harassed. There's a bit in Cagan's book about a premie(s) being jailed and tortured.Momento (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Reender Kranenborg quote. Am I right in thinking that it is something he wrote as a Christian teacher to help Christians proselytise to premies? If so, it is unsuitable for this article.Momento (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with any Kranenborg quote. WP:NOR, you're second-guessing about his intentions. Even if he had these intentions, that wouldn't disqualify him as a source per se. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

@Vassyana: you put the Kent reference back in, but forgot to link to the Wikipedia article we have about that book.

Note that the Kent quote was moved yesterday from the criticism section to the place where you removed it: if I remeber well, Memento moved, saying that was the appropriate place.

@All: No, I don't think we're still going to play the game of removing quotes from the article on "why should it matter [..]", "throwaway opinion", "[I have no argument]", "the author has a different background" etc reasons. That period has afaik finished.

I'm going to put the Kent quote back in, with the book and its author properly linked, but without the for most readers probably rather obscure "countercultural left" part – at least, for that part readers would need to see links that are not given in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We would not permit the use of a newspaper op-ed opinion piece to cite the claims that George Bush's message is "clichéd" or "boring". Prefaces are not part of the general reliable material in a book. Introductions, assuredly, but prefaces are essays that are certainly not academic material. In this case, it's even openly plain opinion based on one experience, instead of a conclusion based on research, and pretty selectively quoted at that. I really don't understand how reinserting the text could be remotely perceived as good practice. Vassyana (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, disagree. Opinion is opinion. This one's from a scholar (a sociologist): whether it comes from the preface or anywhere else in the book is irrelevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a better reference that addresses the issue. So, this should be moot. Vassyana (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Format of "Footnotes" and "References" section is a problem

The norm (I analyzed four weeks of Main Page articles, in November 2007) for the hybrid Harvard-style footnotes and references used in this article is:

(a) In the Footnotes section, provide only enough information (author last name and title of work, for example, or - more commonly, author and year of publication) for the reader to find the source in the References section. [The Footnotes section should also includes page number(s) and - arguably, sometimes - a quotation, of course.]

(b) In the References section, provide full information about the source (year of publication, publisher, ISBN, etc.)

That's not what is being done here - instead, the full citation is appearing in both the Footnotes and the References section. If everything the reader needs to know is in the Footnotes section, then the References section is simply duplication, and should be deleted. (Sources not actually cited in a footnote would be moved to a new, "Further Reading" section.) Alternatively, the information in the Footnotes section should be shortened, as is the norm for Harvard-style citations, with the reader, where interested, expected to check the References section for full details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, John, I wondered about that myself. What about multiple refs to a single source? I guess they should appear as footnotes, to avoid the whole cite disappearing when someone makes a deletion? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not an issue, Rumniton. You can have a <ref>Melton, Encyclopedia of Religions, pp.140-8</ref> and later on another reference to the same book <ref>Melton, Encyclopedia of Religions, p.230</ref>. Then in the Reference section you have the full name of the author, source, publisher, ISBN, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that we seem agreed on this, either (a) one of you can work on fixing this, or (b) I can do it myself. (Also note that in this approach, the "name=" parameter is not necessary because we don't want to combine footnotes if a reference exists; each footnote probably has different page numbers, as jossi pointed out.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hearing no objection, I'll do it myself if no one else gets to it first. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunt Paraphrase

First Hunt Thread

OK Momento, care to explain the reason you took down Hunts comments? Do you want to explain what was flawed about the text? Until you do, this is the fourth thing that I will keep putting back up. Onefinalstep (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over this it will not get any results. Why don't you work with Momento and find a wording that would work for both of you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Momento, how would you like this paraphrased? Please give an example and we can try and work it out. Onefinalstep (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the sentence stands now.
"Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions. Critics alleged that his "opulent lifestyle" was largely supported by the donations of followers." Onefinalstep?
What Hunt actually said was - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers."
Hunt doesn't says "he "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says "he does not personally eschew material possessions".
Hunt doesn't say "critics alleged", Hunt says "critics have focused on".
Hunt doesn't say "his opulent lifestyle", Hunt says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle".
And finally Hunt doesn't say "Rawat was largely supported by his followers", Hunt says" the critics argue that he was supported largely by his followers".

Four deliberate distortions of Hunt's comment in only two sentences. But this info that Rawat was "supported by his followers" is undue weight since it has already been covered in the article with "Rawat became financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". I hope this makes clear the level of accuracy and NPOV that is expected in this article. And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them.Momento (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the main problem is:

  • that the words eschew & denounce are too far apart from each other in their respective definitions
  • that the phrases critics alleged & critics have focused on are too far apart in their respective meanings
  • that Hunt himself does not say Rawat was supported by his followers, but Hunt said his critics claim
  • That we need to include the qualifier "appears" or some word like it when describing Hunts analysis of Prems lifestyle
If you want to be collaborative, I suggest you offer a synonym to the word eschew that you can be happy with, and another phrase that means the same as "critics alleged" that brings our paraphrase closer to "critics have focused on". Also if you wish, we can add a qualifier to the paraphrase so that we make clear that Hunt only says that Rawat "appears" to live an opulent lifestyle, and that it might not be true.
As far as it being "undue weight", yes it has been covered as a fact that he is supported by his followers, but what we are trying to do is highlight that his critics use it to criticize him ... for whatever reason. I think you would agree that this is one of the main bones with his critics. So we need both to explain in a section other than criticism that Rawat lives, in part, off of donations, and, in criticism that his critics harp on the fact that he lives such a nice life and still receives donations.
Further, I want you to make the suggestions for the words and phrases to be used so that I can agree and then move on, but I do want to take a second and say that I really can't see "obvious distortions" with regards to the paraphrase and the quote. Instead of just deleting, why don't you come to the discussion page and tell us your problems with the sentence and we'll figure out a solution. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not see any gross distortions here either, I can see where the words used are not exactly equivalent, and I'm not opposed to the changes of the words pointed out by Onefinalstep (dependent of course on what words are chosen). However I must say that the attitude that produces "And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them." displayed above is certainly neither helpful, productive, collaborative, or necessary. I was under the impression that no one person owned articles in WP, does anyone know if Momento is aware of this?Maelefique (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting distorted summaries is "helpful, productive, collaborative, and necessary". Here's another example Onefinalstep says "so that we make clear that Hunt only says that Rawat "appears" to live an opulent lifestyle". No, onefinalstep, Hunt doesn't say that he says "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers". Hunt is reporting what the critics are doing, it is not his opinion.Momento (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Quite right, however, that is not what I said. Once again, please read before typing. I said the attitude was not helpful, productive, etc. And while deleting distorted summaries could be helpful, I haven't seen anything there that rises to the level of distortion that requires it to be summarily deleted, unless, of course, you mean any statements you don't agree with.Maelefique (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, well then I'll make the changes that Hunt documents that Rawat's critics focus on what they view as an opulent lifestyle which they believe is funded from donations by followers ... etc. Is this ok?
  • And can you please go ahead and give us the synonyms you think are workable for the other problems you pointed out with the paraphrasing? Onefinalstep (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The point that Momento makes is a valid one. Hunt is not making statements about Rawat. That is, he is not claiming that Rawat did certain things, he is simply reporting that other people have said that Rawat did or said this. As a result, his research does not verify anything about Prem Rawat, it simply verifies that some critics said certain things. Big, big difference. It is simply a question of accuracy. If sources are going to be used, then they have to be used in an appropriate manner. Their findings can't be changed to suit the desires of a particular person to wish that they had said something different. Armeisen (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's true, Armeisen. When Hunt says "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers", I firmly believe that Hunt is saying that the lifestyle appears opulent to HIM (the author). I doubt that the critics are saying "we hereby criticize what appears to be an opulent lifestyle". Though I haven't looked up the criticisms he cites, I think it's clear from the context that the critics are, well, critical and Hunt is being more careful (but mostly agreeing) by saying "appears to be" an opulent lifestyle.Msalt (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The summary "Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers", Is completely OR and a distortion of the source. Nowhere does Hunt say Rawat at any point "denounced" material possession. Nor did Rawat "turn away from ascetism", he left "his more ascetic life behind him", in the context Hunt is probably talking about his life in India. The stuff about "enjoying" etc is all OR.Momento (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Memento, you seem to be the only person who feels that this is a blatant distortion. Everyone else, including myself, finds it similar at best and slightly different at worst. Insisting on deleting it is not collaboration, it's "my way or the highway" and does in fact make it look like you think you own the article.Msalt (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I have higher standards. There is huge difference between "no longer eschewing material possessions" and "he does not personally eschew material possessions" which is what Hunt says.Momento (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you do have higher standards, in which case I would encourage you to reach consensus with the bulk of us with lower standards instead of deleting chunks of material. In any case, the article has his exact quote, so we're all good now, right? Why rehash old battles? Msalt (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Hunt Thread

This recent edit [6]: The quote from Hunt reads (Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8):

Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers.

... but the text in the article editorializes this as: Rawat also turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions, and, in fact, appeared to begin enjoying the material life that could be had in the western world. This transformation was funded in part by donations from the many follwers that he had collected. Please correct by staying close to the source and by using better grammar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad libitum, perhaps, yet very close to the quote.
BTW:"...he does not personally eschews..." ???? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
appeared to begin enjoying the material life that could be had in the western world. ???. This transformation was funded in part by donations from the many follwers that he had collected. ?? The quote is the quote, and it needs to be respected. The author had his reasons for stating it the way he did, and that should also be respected. The editorializing is unnecessary and the grammar is atrocious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is also quite derogatory to say material life that could be had in the western world, as if you cannot live a good material life in India, China, Japan, or Singapore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence I included in the article has two sources to validate both the claims. The first part of the sentence is close enough to the quote you referenced for a paraphrase. Is there a problem with the second part based on the reference I used for it? Onefinalstep (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already explained the need to stick to the source with this quote but Onefinalstep doesn't care. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is how the sentence stands now: (I think we should replace the word "denounced" with "shunned" as shun is a synonym of eschew.)Onefinalstep (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers.

Your suggestion is completely OR. And even an accurate quote doesn't belong in the "Westernization" section. And since Rawat being funded by followers is already mentioned in the "Coming of Age" section it doesn't bear repeating.Momento (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I'm not having this argument with you again. If you want to make positive suggestions please do, but otherwise just stay out of it. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Onefinalstep, I have argued that your edit is editorializing the quote. Why do you keep adding it? Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers. That is not what Hunt says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right that Hunt did not mention Rawat's followers funding him, that section of the paraphrase is cited by the other source. But did Hunt did say that Rawat stopped shunning the material life and he did say that he appeared to begin living a material life. Did he not say this??Onefinalstep (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Quote from Hunt: "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him ..."
The paraphrase: Rawat also turned away from asceticism ...
  • Quote from Hunt: "... he does not personally eschews material possessions."
The paraphrase: ... and no longer shunned material possessions.
  • Quote from Hunt: "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle ...
The paraphrase: He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life ...
  • The rest of the paraphrase is supported by both hunt and [3]

So Jossi, what exactly is your problem with it?? I don't understand man, you have to come with something better than "thats not what Hunt says".Onefinalstep (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

Ok, Momento just arbitrarily deleted the Hunt paraphrase with no comment again. I gave him ample time to rewrite the Hunt article and even asked him to choose the words that needed to be changed (please see the "First Hunt Thread" section above on this page). He ignored my requests and simply did not respond. So, I rewrote it with his concerns in mind and placed the sentence back into the article. Then jossi complained about the grammar, which I tried to fix (haven't heard anything negative about it yet). Jossi also mentioned he was concerned with the source not being paraphrased accurately, and I responded that I had sourced the two claims with two different sources (I think he might have thought I attributed the money from followers to Hunt). In response to the deletion by Momento, I reverted (He didn't say why he deleted it except "per discussion" which I don't understand because, as I'm sure you all agree, we haven't come to a consensus on anything yet ... and in fact I am responding to the concerns so far so it's a fluid situation. Before I reach another 3RR, which I will before Momento does (even though I'm not sure he cares), can someone other than me politely tell him to wait till we sort this out? Onefinalstep (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Can we keep any suggestions for the sentence or concerns above the sub section "Here we go again" and relegate the fights down here so we can separate the constructive proposals from the nonsense? Onefinalstep (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Just for the record, this is my comment from two days ago. Onefinalstep claims Hunt says:

"Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions. Critics alleged that his "opulent lifestyle" was largely supported by the donations of followers."

What Hunt actually said was - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." Hunt doesn't says "he "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says "he does not personally eschew material possessions". Hunt doesn't say "critics alleged", Hunt says "critics have focused on". Hunt doesn't say "his opulent lifestyle", Hunt says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle". And finally Hunt doesn't say "Rawat was largely supported by his followers", Hunt says" the critics argue that he was supported largely by his followers". Four deliberate distortions of Hunt's comment in only two sentences. But this info that Rawat was "supported by his followers" is undue weight since it has already been covered in the article with "Rawat became financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". I hope this makes clear the level of accuracy and NPOV that is expected in this article. And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them.Momento (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I do not think that your last edits work that well: [7], mainly because unless there is some common ground found between editors actively working on the article, this will be a ping-pong effort with no traction towards a stable article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes that back the sentence all come from the 70s. Putting it last makes it looks like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years. I originally coupled it with "media attention".Momento (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you may be right, but I think it would be best to take this to talk and discuss. Otherwise this become a game of ping-pong reverts that nobody wins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yiur idea to place that sentence in the place you put it in the lead, is sound, IMO. What I am asking is that you explain that so that others see the merit of making that change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have re jigged it. I have already discussed this at length but........ the quotes that back the sentence regarding "lack of intellectual content" and "materialistic lifestyle" all come from the 70s. Putting it last makes it looks like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years when this criticism was limited to the 70s. It is important that lede accurately reflects the content of the article, unfortunately some editors have chosen to create a separate section called "Criticism" against Wiki guidelines. When this article is cleaned up, those criticisms and the sources will appear in the "Leaving India" and "Coming of Age" sections where they belong.Momento (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hunt stays in till you guys have a consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to revise the statements to better reflect the source.[8] In the process, I removed Price from the reference tag, as she does not discuss his lifestyle. Vassyana (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose this rewrite (abbreviating references that of course should be properly formatted if this goes to the article, but here on talk this is probably clear - if not I'd oblige to give the full text):

Rawat also turned away from asceticism, no longer eschewing material possessions.(Hunt2003 p117) Rawat came to considerable wealth through donations(Cagan2007 pp.218-19) (Hunt2003 p117) and investments(Cagan2007 pp.218-19).

May I ask those having a copy of these books to check whether the indicated page numbers are correct. The quote to the Cagan book refers to this footnote currently in the article: [9] (see also above: #Status of “Peace Is Possible”, where this quote is discussed). May we assume that quote is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with that wording. Hunt does not say plainly that he came into considerable wealth via donations, but rather that critics focus on an apparently wealthy lifestyle alleging that it is supported by donations. Cagan also says no such thing, but rather states that he received stock shares as gifts (apart from donations to DLM/EV) that generated significant wealth. Stick close to the sources. Vassyana (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, maybe there's a semantic difference between "donations" and "gifts".
What I objected to in your rewrite is that you added "According to critics..." - that he came to considerable wealth isn't under discussion is it? (if nor the Hunt source, nor the Cagan source are the best for that, sure there are others) That he received gifts is also recognised generally. Some of these may have come through his organisations, but I don't think that is the issue here, neither in what form these gifts came: he received gifts, and virtually any source would do on that. The Cagan bio adds the investments, which I asked if we can take that for granted (maybe using other sources too). Whether or not he lived an "opulent lifestyle" is maybe not a topic for the "Westernisation" section, as (1) being "westernised" is nowhere a synonym of "living an opulent lifestyle" - as if "opulent lifestyle" doesn't occur in the East or any other part of the world; (2) indeed Hunt says that critics concentrated on that, from which does not follow that Hunt indentifies with these critics (he only reports on the criticism), and to me that suggests that part would probably be better of (for the time being) in a section of the article that details criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, see also User talk:Momento#From beyond the grave --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the "gifts" section of the former paraphrase was supported by a good reference. "According to critics" should not be inserted, because the living situation is verifiable by more than his critics views. The reference supporting the "donations" is sound. The rewrite should be reverted until consensus. I will concede that perhaps there should be a reference that after the gifts, he made good investments to continue his lifestyle. But this is covered in other sections. If you guys need to include it, that is fine, just don't rewrite without consideration. Onefinalstep (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Hunt doesn't say it, you need another source. No where does Hunt say Rawat "no longer" eshews. It's a completely OR interpretation and should be removed.Momento (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Momento to be Blocked

I propose that Momento is blocked for a short period from editing this article. Yet again, today, he has taken it upon himself to continue to delete a statement that is in discussion here and without comment. He has consistently done this, and refused to reach any consensus with the other editors here. The sentence is reasonable, and being discussed for concerns. I think Momento's actions on this and other areas of the article should show a clear reason for this action. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Time for an archive? 53500 words and counting...

This discussion page has quite literally become the length of a book! 50,000 words = a 200 page pocket book. Is it time for an archive of sections that haven't been updated in a few days, or at least a clean up and consolidation of duplicated material? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had second thoughts. I hope that we don't end up having a new debate in a discussion page about how to best edit this discussion page, etc :-)82.44.221.140 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. How about setting up Miszabot with these variables: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_%(counter)d
|counter = 29
|maxarchivesize = 250K
}}

Anyway I also saw someone started archiving, and some sections are going to be brought back by me, for unconcluded discussions, or discussions continued in other sections, that pre-suppose the older section still to be at hand (note that I objected to fragmentation of discussion - scattering the fragments over multiple pages is still less useful). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I archived any discussion that had no posts from 10th Feb on. Sorry if I archived one you still needed. The problem here is that there is just too much recent stuff, the bot will not help with that. As set above nothing will be archived until 14 days of inactivity, yet, every section on this page has been active in the last 4 days. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We could try seeting the bot to 5days and see if it helps?
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_%(counter)d
|counter = 29
|maxarchivesize = 200K
}}
If discussions get archived prematurly they can always be brought back. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I brought back the sections I did think premature to archive. Less than 7 days... works only for Jimbo Wales' talk page imho. But I adjusted my proposal to a minimum I wouldn't go under. Really, I didn't cause the problem of redundant repeats while some people chose to restart new sections on topics still discussed in multiple other sections. Let's avoid further fragmentation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK lets try seven days. Note also we need to define the max size of the archive. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, you had archived a section which was still edited yesterday (#Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references) - no hard feelings, just an argument to have this handled "neutrally" by bot.)

But on the 7 days I think we agree. Any one else second thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly human error is a problem when doing it manually, as you discovered in this case. I discovered the bot template is already at the top of the talk page, it just needed to be reduced from 14 to 7. In all seriousness, it might be necessary to bring it down even lower, but let's see how it goes with 7d. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my proposal I used the "default" of 250K, as it is in the example of the bot's "how-to" page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed that too, not concentrating today. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization of this Discussion Page

I would like to collapse several threads that are dealing with the same issue into one section each respectively, with subsections as appropriate. Main categories that could be stagnate: "The Photo", "The Lede", "Hunt", "Kissing of Feet", "Time Article", "References", and all the discussion over the article about Jossi, his statement of purpose, and everyone's comments who were "disturbed".

I think this would help the snowballing of this page, as well as keep some editors in here from starting new threads about a subject that has been well covered.
Also, I think this would help any outside admins or editors to see in a concise manner the way in which the page is discussed. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've regrouped recent talk about the Criticism section below under #Discussion on "Criticism" section from 8 February 2008 --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on "Criticism" section from 8 February 2008

Previous discussion can be found (for instance) at:

(and other sections of Archive 28)

I've regrouped the "Criticism section" talks from 8 February 2008 here, as the time sequence of these sections had become disturbed, but primarily to avoid their general scattering (leading, for instance, to redundant repeats of same arguments). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. {{criticism-section}}

Now I'm definitely going to revert to the late January 2007 version: that version had a "reception" section (not a "criticism" section), containing positive as well as negative criticism, completely conforming to the recommendations of Wikipedia:Criticism, the "criticism" maintenance template can go in the same revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Francis? Don't you think that it would be best to move forward from a version that has support. Is edit-warring the way to go? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you "reverted", then came to this page pleading to stop the reverting.
I don't like the version you reverted to either.
If you revert to a version that has a problem, and then put up a dispute tag, that was not needed for the version you reverted away, I don't know what to make of that.
I prefer the version that has the positive and negative comments from both scholars and other sources in a reception section, as recommended by Wikipedia:Criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Not worth getting into 3RR territory. I hope you would agree with me on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I can only interpret that as you offering a self-revert to a less problematic version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'd prefer to improve what we currently have here rather than revert back a year. The GA review improved the Jan version significantly. Do we really want to lose those good edits? David D. (Talk) 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but beg to disagree, the version I got from under the dust was less problematic: it didn't need the {{criticism-section}} tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the "Reception" section of Jan 07, is that is misses many sources that were found during 2007. If we add all these, we will end up with a bloated article that does not read well, and that will end up formatted as a series of opinions, rather than a biographical narrative. Let's build up from the current version instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem to put these sources back in. Over 30 sources were also deleted since late Jan 07. Maybe some of these are worth keeping. It's easier to find back more recently added sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Bloat" can easily be fixed by less Draconian measures. It's really just a matter of using good language skills. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding David D.'s opinion, see also this conversation:

[...] I still defend the version I reverted to [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [10]
[...] what you suggest might well be best. [...] David D. (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [11]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual (Suggested) Edits to Criticism Section

I don't have a position or stake in this controversy, and am encouraged by the direction of the most recent changes. So, moving forward, I have some suggestions for relatively minor edits in the Criticism section for clarity and readability.

1) 3rd paragraph (starting with "Kranenborg") -- can we give him a first name, and a brief description of who he is or what his credentials are? Ditto Melton in the 6th paragraph. Is Kranenborg speaking as a Christian leader to an explictly Christian audience? The wording implies so; it might be useful to say so if true or reword if not.

2) The 4th paragraph (Stephen Kent) is awkwardly worded. I bet it was Kent's comment about Rawat that was in the preface of his book, not his experience with him as is written. "on him in the 1970s" would more typically be phrased as "of him...". "described" vs. "treats" is a tense mismatch. Here's a proposed rewrite: "Based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat, the sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Rawat's message as "banal" in the preface of his book "From Slogans to Mantras", and later summarized criticism of him in the 1970s by the countercultural left.[12]"

3) Last paragraph -- "An author initiated in Knowledge" -- Why not use the name, which appears to be Jeanne Messer? Also, "initiated in Knowledge" seems unnecessarily jargony. I don't know exactly what being "initiated" means or entails. How about "Jeanne Messer, an author trained in Rawat's meditation techniques,..." (or Knowledge techniques, or Knowledge system)? Msalt (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I have the actual power to edit this section without a Talk page discussion, but given the heat surrounding this page in general and this section in particular, I think it's a better idea for me to wait until tomorrow at least before going ahead with these, though I consider them content-neutral.Msalt (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I covered most bases of your suggestions. Feel free to review again, and offer new or additional ones. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Msalt, Reender Kranenborg is a relgious scholar. Ditto for J. Gordon Melton. Initiation means that you receive Knowlege. User:Vassyana has argued that Christian sermonizing should go out of this article. I disagreed with most of what Vassyana wrote but I guess he was right in this one. Andries (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Msalt. I'd like to work with Francis on the lede before I get involved in anything else.Momento (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Now that we've cleared up the issue of the photo and the links, it's time to clear up the criticism section. BLP policy is clear = "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one". It is obviously disproportionate to give each critic a paragraph since nowhere else in this article is any other source quoted at length. So I will summarize the criticism.Momento (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've treated this section like the rest. That is summarizing the scholars rather than quoting at length.Momento (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been away on business for a few days and missed the excitement. I must say, even with Momento's necessary criticism summary, to me the article now reads like a great barrel of steaming horse manure. It will take much to get it back. I believe the simple "what, when, where, who, how" approach of a week ago was much more likely to be stable than the present version, which gives undue prominence to criticism. For balance, it will now need a "praise" section. This was what we had before and were trying to avoid, an endless inflation of the article by editors inserting their pros and cons. But I think it is now unavoidable. And do you have any idea how much praise this man has received? Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And do you have any idea how much praise this man has received? Do you have any idea how much no one really cares, save for paid Wikipedia editors? Laughs. Why should praise have anything to do with how we edit? --Pax Arcane 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if Momento and Rumiton restricted their comments and edits to fixing errors. But when they argue about balance and NPOV and how the article should read, overall (as does Jossi), then I (personally) have grave doubts that they are placing the interests of Wikipedia first and their own personal beliefs second. Yes, that could be seen as a failure on my part to assume good faith, but the fact that I found this article to be - in its pre-Register version - an embarrassment to Wikipedia, an opinion I think is shared by many other editors previously never involved with this - indicates, I think, that the intentions of Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton are clear regarding this article.
As a single point of illustration: It's not "Newspapers have remarked on the amount of positive comments about Prem Rawat's accomplishments", but rather "Do you have any idea how much praise this man has received?" Momento should know that a million praises by followers of Prem Rawat should be given less weight than a single sentence by an expert, in a published book by a reputable publisher, about this topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
John, I appreciate your comments, but I think Momento was referring to academy, business, and government leader's praise, not followers. That material was removed in previous edits, including a speech by Vice-president of India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't Momento, it was me, Rumiton, back from my break. And yes, I was saying that if large amounts of criticism are quoted directly in the article, then balancing amounts of praise (not from "followers", from impeccable sources) will need to be included too, for neutrality. It is readily available. Several times I have fended off current devotees who wanted to throw in gushing praise for just this reason, it only incites the other POV. The article becomes huge and the discussions bellicose, and it's a nightmare to make readable and useful. So it's better just to say what the subject has done in his life and quote from 2ndary sources who say that both positive and negative responses have been recorded. This is a neutral, Wikipedic attitude, not biased thinking. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also ask you, John, where do you see me discussing balance and NPOV, and why would that not be appropriate for any editor to discuss that in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
With regard to your second question, the more an editor has a strong personal interest in a subject, the more difficult it is for that editor to remain neutral about it. That's one reason why we have WP:COI. It's much easier to be neutral/objective about factual statements than it is above things like balance and whether specific wording is NPOV or not. As for the first question, I note the following (and I've only gone back to the most recent talk archive):
From Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 27:
  • The personal section should remain as is, as it relates to current events and not those that happen 30 odd years ago
  • There is no need to highlight a non-existing dispute, as it would violate V, NOR and NPOV.
  • when you come to this project it is expected that you check your negative viewpoints at the login screen
From User talk:Jossi#Prem:
  • You cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand thousands of edits to a version you created more than 14 months ago.
From this page (above):
  • Let us start with the last version by David D. as a compromise version. We can move forward in addressing specific concerns. It is a starting point.
  • There is a proposal on the table by David to start improving the article from a compromise version.
  • My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.
  • Why Francis? Don't you think that it would be best to move forward from a version that has support. Is edit-warring the way to go?
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember my comments, John. But my point is that all editors, pro, con, or neutral should be welcomed to discuss NPOV, which is our long-standing and non-negotiable principle. I would hope you would agree with me on that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't agree that all editors should be welcomed to participate vigorously in discussing balance and other NPOV issues for articles in which they have a significant personal interest. I think it's appropriate for such editors to restrain themselves to factual and objective issues, rather than issues that are subjective (what is "neutral"; what is "appropriate balance"). I'm fully aware that this is not current policy, so it - of course - represents my personal opinion. All I can do at this point is strongly suggest to other editors that they should evaluate the comments by you, Momento, and Rumiton as coming from less-than-fully-neutral editors. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You personal opinion not-withstanding, I would argue that it is in contradiction with established principles, of WP:AGF, and WP:CONSENSUS. Neither pro, or con editors should be subjected to the dismissal of their arguments as you suggest unless remedies have been decided by community consensus, or by the ArbCom. I would further argue that it is in talk pages that editors, regardless of affiliation or POV, discuss the details and nuances of NPOV, V, BLP and other related policies and guidelines in the pursuit to creating a good article. See an example of that in many articles in which there are strong POVs at play, such as Homeopathy, Israeli-Palestinian_conflict and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your example of Homeopathy is an excellent one - that's a case where the interaction of editors with strong POVs lead to an Arbitration Committee ruling that put the article and related ones on article probation. I suspect that the "many others" you refer to include a number of other cases where (eventually) Arbcomm had to become involved in order for anything constructive to happen with the related articles. If that's your idea of how Wikipedia should effectively function, we do indeed have very different opinions. As of WP:AGF, that isn't an absolute - for example, with WP:COI, the community has decided not to assume good faith with editors who have clear conflicts of interest, but rather to strongly suggest that they refrain from certain edits. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Praise section PLUS criticism section

I am fine with a Praise section as long as the criticism section gets the same respect.Onefinalstep (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with statements like this: if large amounts of criticism are quoted directly in the article, then balancing amounts of praise (not from "followers", from impeccable sources) will need to be included too, for neutrality - as if WP:NPOV required some sort of equality of criticism and praise. That's why the fundamental issue here still remains that three long-involved editors with strong points of view (in favor of a "positive" article) are acting as if they can somehow be neutral in the same way that editors without such a bias - yes, bias - are relatively easily able to be.
Anyway, we might as well try a "Praise" section if that's what it takes to stop the objections to a "Criticism" section, although it would be better if neither existed because the information had been integrated into the article. But let's drop the "balancing" theory, since that isn't what WP:NPOV is about - it's about appropriate balance. Someone who has done much more good than bad should have an article reflecting that; someone in the opposite situation should have an article reflecting that mix; and editors who have strong biases are singularly ill-equipped to decide what that balance should be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why a criticism section at all? Doesn't Jimbo prefer the criticism woven into the article since these sections become "vandal magnets"? FWIW - I'm totally uninvolved and don't have time to edit any article right now nor do I intend to edit this article but came here because of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. --PTR (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See notes 5 and 6 of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is no question that if criticism can be integrated into an article, it serves the reader better (all related information is in the same paragraph or section). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. The Article Structure section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view seems to argue against it though and points to the manual of style which exposits further. --PTR (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're correct PTR, a "criticism" section violates NPOV policy. NPPOV policy warns about ""Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself". Any criticism should be woven into the article.Momento (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I think you are misreading WP:NPOV. It does not require that criticism/praise be integrated into the article; it merely suggests that doing so is desirable when possible. It further notes that there are differing opinions. I'd say that the right answer is for editors to decide what's best for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph at issue

Alright, here is a paragraph that is being deleted over and over. Lets try and work this one out here on the discussion. Momento, please detail your problems with this entry and be specific.

  • Some scholars have criticized Rawat for living a luxurious lifestyle and, while a teenager, being immature.[4][5] Reender writes, that in the Divine Light Mission, members were expected to turn over all material possessions to the mission and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex.[6]The scholar J. Gordon Melton, a research specialist in religion and New Religious Movements, reported that "Maharaj Ji frequently acted like the teenager when he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader." [7] Onefinalstep (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this sentence "Maharaj Ji frequently acted like the teenager when he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader.", gets summarized as "Some scholars have criticized Rawat for living a luxurious lifestyle and being immature"? Clearly the immature thing was related of him being 16 years olf at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, the sentences that get placed on here for discussion soon lose their context and relevance due to the hyper editing. Two of the sentences I put up here, this, and the Hunt critique have lost any place they had in the article while they were sitting around here waiting for the people who deleted them to help rewrite them. Also, the statement, "while a teenager, immature." seems idiotic, I agree, but I think that statement has been boiled down to its nubb at the moment because a further expansion and comprehensive critique of Rawat's personality (which critics have attacked) is impossible on this article. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Jossi. As for Reender, he is commenting on Divine Light Mission not Rawat. But he's wrong even then because the only people who were "expected to turn over all material possessions to the mission and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex" were the small minority of people who asked to live in the Ashrams. I should say at this point I have read everything there is to read about Rawat and in the hundreds of hours researching this article I have found impeccable sources to back every edit I made. Many of the flurry of edits being made recently suffer from a superficial understanding of everything that has gone before.Momento (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi -it would help a great deal if you would (a) not just criticize one sentence in a suggested paragraph but rather (b) respond to the entire proposed paragraph by (c) suggesting alternative wording. Your limited response does not significantly help arrive at consensus; rather, it simply delays the issue. Please propose an alternative. (And since the sentence you criticize has two sources, not one, please make sure that you draw from both in terms of suggested rewording.) Consensus requires both sides to make suggestions, not for one side to propose and the other side to do partial critiques.
Similarly, Momento, instead of patting yourself on the back (I have found impeccable sources to back every edit I made), you might actually want to respond to Onefinalstep's proposal with alternative wording. And if that's going to take a day or so, just say so, rather than leaving the impression that you've responded when in fact you have not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
While we wait for the "Criticism" section to be moved, I have added an "Honors" section for balance.Momento (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to base one

Per the above #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, but I'll give it more respect to the non-footnoted sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss rather than revert?

Francis, your last edit removed some material that was being discussed, and about which sources were being found. For example, see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Sources_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this. It was the best measure now, as explained above at #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on, Francis? Your input here is welcome, but doing this for the third time is not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm forced to disagree. Quite strongly, actually. I think you'll find most editors here feel the same. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Recall that I created a temporary holding page at Talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism for various incarnations of the criticism section. I would suggest using that as a source for adding relevant material. Clearly not all should go into the article but it does allow us to determine if any quality commentary has been inadvertantly missed out. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I said above that I think Francis is right in this matter. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discipline

As has been remarked above (in a section on another topic), it's not such a geat idea for things that already have a separate section on this talk page, to just ignore it and start another section on the same topic — especially when the discussion in the previously existing section is still active.

For instance, Jossi's revert (the one I re-reverted) is already discussed above in #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D. The criticism section is a problem, see for instance also above #Criticism section. The version I reverted to doesn't have that problem. And solved the problem far better than the solutions proposed above at #Criticism section. And I explained why in the section some sections above that section, #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, and there I also explained how I would act to address that problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism (take n)

To balance the Criticism section I will restore the Praise/Awards section as soon as I have a full list of 2ndary sources. I do not like this, it makes the article look promotional or schizoid, but while Criticism remains as its own section, in defiance of Wikipedia advice, I see no alternative. Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You can look at ways to integrate the material in criticism section into the appropriate sections, without losing any material. There is no reason that it should not be possible to do. A very short summary of the honors received, such as keys to cities, would also be useful. Same about the fact that his TV programs are available in Canal Infinito (a Time Warner channel in South America and southern states of the US), 31 Brisbane in Australia, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will do that. Rumiton (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, as I explained above in #Talk page discipline the discussion about the criticism is still active in at least two threads above:
No, appending yet another instance of discussing the "criticism" topic, to a thread that started out on something else will not do. Certainly as very awkwardly you come to another new conclusion not yet really explored in these previous threads. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
While it is a good idea to keep discussions together, I think that it is worth exploring the possibility of integrating the material in the criticism as well as any "honors" in the appropriate places in the biography. This idea has the support of several editors (including several uninvolved editors), while others disagree. If there is no agreement on how to move forward in this regard, or there are no compromises possible, we shall need to explore dispute resolution on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to decide on what criticisms and what praise to include (on a separate page or on the talk page) - write a paragraph for each - and then review each item and come to a consensus on where in the article they belong. --PTR (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope the amount of material will change a lot shortly, as more sources come to light. Might be good to hold off for a few days. Or perhaps not. We can always discuss again. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please not that has been discussed already years ago and then I argued that criticisms and praise from relevant experts in the field is okay in the article. An analogy, if George W. Bush likes the star wars movie then we do not mention his in the article star wars because he is not relevant expert in the field or a notable journalistic soource. Andries (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section

While we're integrating sections, the "personal life" section seems unnecessary. Is there a point to the section that I don't understand? Isn't the whole article about his life? We mention Rawat's arrival to the U.A. chronologically, so why wait to the end to mention his citizenship? We mention family relations throughout, so why leave mention of his wife to the end? All of the material can be placed chronologically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see merit in this approach, Will. But just note that in many bios, private/personal matters are separated from aspects of the notability of the person. SO, I am not sure. Let's hear what others have to say about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've worked on a lot of bios of politicians; almost always, there is a "personal life" section because the chronological parts of the article are, following the section where the person has finished his/her education, pretty much devoted to career, political positions, etc. Things like spouse, kids, and religion don't really fit in anywhere else. The section is usually put at the end of the article, sort of as a catch-all.
My personal preference is to integrate personal information into the main article, where that fits. But if there are one or two loose facts, which need to go into a personal life section, then (arguably) it makes sense to add others where they aren't critical to understanding a chronological sequence.
In other words (sorry for rambling), it does depend. Integrate if you can do so completely; put stuff into a separate section at the bottom if that doesn't cause problems for the reader in following events earlier in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The bulk of the material isn't personal at all - it lists his business interests. Perhaps a solution wqould be to integrate the personal stuff (citizenship, wife and family), and then rename the section "Business activities" or something like that. We could move the investment income stuff there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters much, but what John says seems logical. Leave the personal odds and ends till last. Rumiton (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Personal odds and ends" - would that include his family relationships? His place of birth and education? His sources of income? Where do we draw the lines between his teachings, his career, and his personal life? Is being a guru his career, or is it being a pilot and inventor? The heading is inaccurate, so this discusion is on which improvement to make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at the section I see your point, but still don't find it all that significant. How would you arrange these issues? Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I see you have already made a suggestion. Though I think his activities that are separate from his more notable roles are pretty appropriately classed as "personal." We can't call them "Private" or they wouldn't belong here. "Personal" seems about right to me. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a fine line. The 70s Time article talks about his family relationships. Is it in or out?Momento (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The only material in this section about family are two short sentences: A U.S. citizen since 1977, Rawat lives with his wife in Malibu, California.[82] They have four grown children. Since he moved to Malibu (at least part time) in the 1970s, the material could be moved to the "Coming of age" section that covers the mid- to late-'70s. The remaining material appears to be about businesses and isn't any more personal than the rest of the article. I propose a title like "business activities", but maybe someone else can think of a better phrase. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Business activities would be a very short section. I think there are way more pressing issues with this article. 13:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Kissing Prem Rawat's feet

Please do not remove cited material, as happened here, which was then restored here. Discuss here. Lawrence § t/e 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary used by Momento (talk · contribs) - Removed incorrect cite, was also blatantly false. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Given the wide media scrutiny on this article, this article will be closely monitored. Lawrence § t/e 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it unfortuante that this article is scrutinized only after Wikipedia (and somewhat unfairly Jossi) received so much outside criticism. The lesson learnt is, I think, that obscure controversial articles cannot be left alone to fighting factions, because one faction may gain the upper hand and then the article becomes completely unbalanced. Andries (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that scholarly material is more suited to cover this aspect than newspaper articles. Read what Jan van der Lans and Derks wrote [12]
"DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness."
Andries (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that isn't in line with our general policies on sourcing in general. Time Magazine is certainly a noble and acceptable source. Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I admit of course that the Time is an acceptable source, but why use it when a better more scholarly source is readily available? I can see no good reason. Andries (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please define "better". I'm serious. TIME is a highly respected source. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If both sources satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, why not simply use both? Cirt (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If two sources accomplish the same thing, but one may be more accessible to general readers, I believe it preferable to default to the easier to access one. If both exist, use both. Either way, we will report that his family and followers kiss his feet, as it is a sourced fact. Lawrence § t/e 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well let's hope we can get some more experienced editors as the Time magazines articles cited are from after Rawat came to the West and therefore don't belong in the section Cirt puts them. [8][9]. Momento (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section. Removing valid sourced historical info, as you did, was not correct. I like to think I'm at least an experienced editor by now. What is your definition of experienced? Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'll fix the mistake.Momento (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As you have a pending 3rr report on you for this article, you may want to take a break. Lawrence § t/e 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"don't belong in the section Cirt puts them" - I did not "put" anything there. It was already there. I was merely undoing Momento (talk · contribs)'s removal of cited information, that he had removed with a blatantly false edit summary. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was me that added that information, and I will be adding more sourced information as time permits. I put it in the slightly wrong section, but it can be moved to fit the chronology of Rawat's activities. Removing it outright with a false edit summary was not a wise move. Your reversion was good. Lawrence § t/e 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). It is one thing for Momento (talk · contribs) to continue to be disruptive. It is quite another to remove obviously cited information to a WP:RS/WP:V source. It is quite another to use blatantly false edit summaries while disruptively doing so. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Note

This latest series of edits by Momento (talk · contribs) seems to use selective quoting in a weasel wording style, and also removed one of the 2 TIME citations, again. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time used to produce 52 issues a year. Please cite the correct one for the quote. I removed the incorrect one.Momento (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought there must have been another Time magazine intended since the ones cited clearly said 1972 and 1975. Please be more careful.Momento (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be consistent Lawrence. You said "That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section." and so I moved the cite to the appropriate section. Now you're complaining about it and have put a quote about Rawat in the US into the section of Rawat in India. My head's spinning.Momento (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone need pic of Rawat smiling while having his feet kissed?

Is it possible for inclusion? --Pax Arcane 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have one? 216.165.4.30 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I can quickly provide a link. --Pax Arcane 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The "overweight teenaged guru" happily getting his feet kissed. http://www.sott.net/signs/images/darshan.jpg --Pax Arcane 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This sort of stuff is pure goading and unconducive to a consensus approach. Stop it. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be best to find free-use images. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional references

Can some regular editors add relevant material from the following references to the article ?

  • Eileen Barker, "New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction", pages 178 etc.
  • Alan Aldridge, "Religion in the Contemporary World: A Sociological Introduction", pages 58-59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.255.235 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why, and why don't you do it? Onefinalstep (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Barker wrote some excerpts from follower Jeanne Messer's article about the effect of mediation that are currently in the article Divine Light Mission. Andries (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Jeanne_Messer ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this "effect of mediation"? (OK, I'm kidding, Andries. Carry on with your unique and special understanding of English.) Rumiton (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility, notably WP:SKILL, please. Andries was talking about meditation, obviously, which is a typo: there isn't even a conclusion to draw w.r.t. language skills, even if that would be appropriate in Wikipedia talk page context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I said I was kidding. I don't think Andries took it seriously. His English is imperfect, as is my German, and he has helped me with that. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumion, to answer your question about the effect of mediation, there was no mediation. I had filed three mediation requests with Momento to the mediation committee but they had all eventually been rejected. Andries (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, God. OK Andries. OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat's Travel in 1980

I am editing the Coming of Age section because it contains unnecessary and non-encyclopedic detail, specifically, a list of a dozen cities Rawat visited on his 1980 tour. Before reverting this edit again, please justify why this detail belongs in the article. I know of no other comparable speakers that receive this kind of treatment in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia; compare Tom Peters, Robert Bly, Deepak Chopra, etc. Are we now going to list band tour dates in their articles? And why does it matter that Rawat spoke on "newly purchased land"? Msalt (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Teachings

I have removed the statement about the positive effects of meditation. It doesn't really fit into a section on Prem Rawat's teaching, and could constructively be placed in a section or a new entry on the benefits of meditation. Armeisen (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Momento (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here, I am going to edit the teachings section further to focus on what the teachings are, while removing claims of the benefits or harms they might cause. Listing lots of benefits of the Teachings does not illustrate them, is not encyclopedic and reflects a non-neutral POV. There is nothing neutral about describing premies as " finding benefits such as increased energy levels, an increased awareness of coincidences and a tendency to see them as divine interventions, as well as improvements in their marriage and work life." That would be like an article on Mercedes-Benz cars saying that "Mercedes drivers love the hand-craftmanship, superior handling and status they receive while driving the cars." It might very well be true, and documented by verifiable sources, but it has no place in an encyclopedia.
The fact that one can find a source does not change the fact that this is OR, or to be more exact, WP:SYN. On the other hand, the material about the historical tradition in which Rawat's teachings arose is fascinating AND the very model of what an encyclopedia should provide. Msalt (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Momento (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. I think there should be a summary that explains that practitioners DO experience subjective benefits, but the fondling phrases should disappear. If they have not already. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I'm sure we can find practitioners claiming detrimental effects as well, but I don't think such subjective analyses have any place here. I think we can presume that an author/speaker has a career because those who read or listen to them find some benefit from their words; it doesn't need to be spelled out. Again, look at comparable speaker/authors. Tom Peters' article could certainly list verifiably sourced examples of companies that profited in dollar terms from adopting his recommendations, but that would clearly be non-encyclopedic advertising. And of course there is nothing like that in his article. Msalt (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Early 70s Time article

I have taken out "...kissed his feet when they were in his presence". Redundant and unencyclopedic. They could not kiss his feet when they were not 'in his presence."

I don't know whether this edit was done by a premie or not but it is certainly the sort of weasely way that premies argue they should change original wordings. Why? Because what 'in his presence' tells us is that at the time (1970s) there was a 'lingo' in effect which had real meaning. In this case it strongly hints to us that Rawat's presence was considered something special and indeed sacred (as it most certainly was and still is to this day). In short, it emphasises the fact that people used to worship him as Divine which is exactly want premies now want to hide. This is a perfect example of how re-wording can produce an entirely different meaning and whoever suggested this change please tell us who you are and whether you accept my point.PatW (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi what do you think about this? Come on, you're kind of referee here. Why do you think someone would want to change that wording? Do you approve of this sort of logic?PatW (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am nor referee, Pat. I see that the text now does not show "in his presence", because it is obvious. Seems a good argument to me. The article is in Time magazine, which I doubt have had any "lingo" related to darshana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed you've missed the point. It's not that subtle. So how much re-interpretation can you tolerate Jossi? Can you not see that this amounts to toning down the meaning to add to the impression that Rawat was LESS worshipped and 'revered' than he was? Your turning a blind eye amounts to favouring your POV since we all know that that this article has been plagued with controversy about Rawats perceived divinity and who was responsible for that. PatW (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The original text from TIME is:
  • The Maharaj Ji's mother and three older brothers literally worship him, kissing his "lotus feet" whenever they are in his presence. [13]
The key word there appears to be "whenever". In other words, they did so every time they saw him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Another key word is "lotus" that should be included.Momento (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, whenever they 'saw him' and whenever they 'were in his presence' have quite different meanings. How many people do you know who you would say 'when I am in your presence' to? Most people that I know would think I was fawning or mad if I said that. Can I just make a strong request here that people understand that altering the language of quotes and paraphrasing like this is not innocent because the sum of the many such revisions and modern interpretations of original language amounts to giving the reader a very different impression of the relationship that Rawat had with his devotees than was implicit in the original language. It's just more weasely revisionism. Please can people just put stop this habit.PatW (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be bending things a bit here, Pat. Seems you want the article to show the recently-out-of-India period in the weirdest possible light. Time didn't claim they said "when I am in your presence" to their son/brother, or that anyone ever said that. That was the reporter's way of describing the situation. The family foot kissing itself is unwestern and startling enough, without the titillating, redundant and unencyclopedic modifier. Rumiton (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am so not bending anything Ruminton. Now you're trying to distract from your POV pushing by blaming me! It's you who have altered the meaning, not me for goodness sake. Let's get this straight..You are the one who thinks that the reporter is casting the situation in 'the weirdest possible light' not me. And I have changed nothing. I happen to think that the reporters words perfectly reflect the mood and lingo of the time. If you think the truth was LESS weird then a) that's simply your POV and b) you are quite out of place to tone down any 'weirdness' or emphasis implicit in his report. You're way out of place to censor a reporters words because you don't like the way he put things. Your also way out of place to act upon your POV that he was being inappropriately 'titillating'. That is simply none of your business. As anyone who was there at the time will confirm, it was totally commonplace for followers to say blissed-out things like 'when I'm in Maharaji's presence' and everyone talked about him in highly reverential terms. There is nothing titillating or inaccurate about reporting that whatsoever. It's so obvious that you're trimming out all such language contemporary to the time, in an attempt to show it in a different light. If you think it looks too 'weird' that's again simply YOUR problem-not mine. Anyway, why are you uncomfortable to show Rawat's past in it's full 'weirdness'? It matters that the craziness of those times is NOT sanitised by you lot to suit Rawats new public image. This is not an advert for the 're-invented , reformed Rawat. Besides it's simply paranoia and fear from Rawat that he will be judged as having lapped up and encouraged people to worship him (which of course he did) and it's reprehensible to weasely brush all that under the carpet here. In short, I am not trying to show the 'out-of-India' period in a weird light - the reports of the time do that quite adequately without my intervention. [User:PatW|PatW]] (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's also totally transparent that Jossi pretends that he thinks your arguments to cut out the lingo are 'good' (see his mystifying non-reasoning above) because actually he supports the POV pushing you are doing. This place has more weasels per square inch than Toad Hall! It's quite dizzying. PatW (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths, Pat, deep breaths. I think it is right and inevitable that the way a social or religious phenomenon is described 35 years after its inception will be more mellow and mature than when it first appeared as a startling and apparently incomprehensible import. The better understanding we now have of the role of the guru in Indian culture, and especially of the Guru-shishya tradition illustrates this. What do you think? Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're trying to cast those times in such a way that it doesn't raise questions about how 'weird' it was because you are sheepish about admitting the extent to which Rawat himself subscribed to, and encouraged all that Indian God-man, Avatar stuff and all the supposedly 'respectable' tradition it was rooted in. There's no need for me to take a deep breath here Ruminton. I am perfectly clear about this. You, Jossi, Momento, Ron Geaves..who-ever you bring to the table spouting so-called 'mellow, mature, educated, kindly' descriptions of the Indian Guru culture, you will never be able to paint those times and events as wholly reasonable or healthy. It's always going to look pretty damn weird to modern, less religiously-inclined and frankly, more sensible and educated people. And I tend to agree with the Indian Government that their Guru Traditions should be drawn into question for the abusive effects they've clearly had on their populace over the centuries. (They have an active policy to expose fraudulant Gurus as it is a real problem there).

Even the most respected scholars (with the exception of wishful-thinking premie academic Mr Geaves) such as Mark Jurgensmeyer, are very clear that all these traditions are shot through with hypocrisy and prosaic power struggles and their books do not indulge in nostalgia or display sympathy for the beliefs of these traditions. To the contrary they generally offer de-mystifying, prosaic explanations for the sociological phenomena around this culture. I agree that we need better understanding of the Indian Cultural roots of Rawatism but I don't think that the way to go about it is to dress it up in respectable or sympathetic terms. I think it is a very bad start to be cutting out the 'informative' lingo from those times. Those times were replete with idiosyncratic colourful lingo and where they were described in such terms it should be left alone. There's nothing immature or sensationalist about retaining those descriptions - in fact it's important that you don't to try to justify or add respectability through any contrived 'mature or mellow' paraphrasing. 'PatW (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am sympathetic to the attempt to tone the language down. We are dealing with a journalistic source here. A scholar of religion with some understanding of Indian religion would probably not have written that way. There is an undeniable Western cultural bias at work in the Time article, trading on the shock factor a Western audience feels about this kind of gesture.

Now, in India, touching the feet of a respected person is an everyday gesture. It is, and that is very difficult for Westerners to "get", no big deal. It's the West that has a problem with the gesture, because to the Western mind it feels masochistic and/or sexually loaded. The gesture has no such connotations in India. Translating it into a Western context, it is roughly equivalent to a handshake combined with a polite bow or curtsey, or, in a religious context, kneeling in front of your vicar and having his hands placed on your head. Staying with the Christian context, kissing the feet might be comparable to kissing the ring of a Cardinal. The thrill of deviancy that the Western mind feels upon reading such a description, and which such a description is designed to evoke, is really the result of cultural ignorance. To want to perpetuate this kind of thrill in Wikipedia is cheap.

We are taking due care in Wikipedia to call prostitutes "escorts" when that is how they wish to be referred to. We refer to male-born transsexuals as "she", out of basic human respect for the individual. We take care to ensure that we call ethnic or religious groups by the names that they prefer to use for themselves, rather than the terms that outsiders and critics would use for them. We are certainly not in the business of filling our articles about such groups with abusive terms that have been used about them. To me, to insist on this kind of sensationalist description of another group's religious practice is also a subtle kind of abuse. It flies in the face of everything that Wikipedia is about.

It is not much different from citing a source that says "negroes have huge, protruding lips". It is true, in a way, but still abusive, stupid and disrespectful. Mutatis mutandis, I suggest the same applies here, in a religious context. So I propose we lose the cultural bias and stick with a neutral description of the actions described. -- 172.189.122.83 (talk) (Jayen466) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to point towards, a mature and intercultural approach to the article. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Jayen. It's well known that people in India don't use toilet paper but use their left hand and then wash it. I guess we should be grateful Time didn't say "Guru who doesn't use toilet paper" etc.Momento (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is political correctness gone mad. Just who are you trying to avoid offending here Jayen? Because frankly your attempt to categorise this mildly sensational news report as offensive racism is lame. It is sensationalism of the mildest type and could never be construed as offensive to Indians. I fact it is only offensive to premies who want to play down his once so important divine role which is why I ask who you are really trying to avoid offending here Jayen. Do you propose to cut out all language which reflects the historic fact that there was some surprise and questions raised that this man was worshipped as God? The fact is that devotees (including Rawats family, kissed his feet and worshipped him as God. It was NOT a casual greeting it was an affirmation of 'His' divinity and Rawat (then known as Guru Maharaj Ji-the 'Satguru') was cast in and accepted that role. How this suddenly becomes something you can't report accurately is highly questionable. By the way Jayen, are you a follower of this man too? PatW (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, I feel you would do well in this debate to stop stigmatising people who hold a different opinion. None of us are idiots, none are brainwashed, we are just seeing and evaluating things differently. Rumiton (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As an outside observer, I don't think your criticism fairly describes Pat W's comments, Rumiton. I don't see him stigmatising people, and the words "idiots" and "brainwashed" are yours, not his. He is not in this section "bending things"; he is simply advocating a direct quote of a verifiable source, rather than the admittedly neutralizing paraphrase you advocate. I don't find the original out of line at all; neither Time nor PatW deserve to be compared to blatantly offensive racist comments or described as "abusive, stupid and disrespectful" as Jayen did. And in my opinion, telling PatW to take "deep breaths" was condescending and disrespectful, Rumiton. No need for that.
Yes, PatW is showing a bit of emotion here, but so are the three people arguing against him, and to my eye his comments are more respectful and less personal than yours, Memento's and Jayen's. So let's focus on the issue at hand (I say realizing that I am precisely not doing that right now.) Msalt (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See [14]. Emotions are emotions, but these types comments should not be made here. He was already warned [[User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3], and hope he will not do that again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the comment you cite is way out of line, and I hope no one makes comments like that again. I guess I didn't find "brain-washed" when I searched because of the hyphen. All the same, there has been a lot of discussion since then, and from what I see PatW has been behaving himself recently at least as well as Rumiton and Memento. Perhaps because of your remonstrance.
Given your stature on Wikipedia, and your much-discussed involvement with Rawat, it would be wonderful to see you put as much energy toward calming those editors who seem to be sympathetic with Rawat, as with those critical of him. "Deep breaths" is simply baiting; no one wants to hear that from an antagonist. "Abusive, stupid and disrespectful" is pretty darned close to a personal attack, even if it technically describes a comment rather than the person. Etc. Msalt (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just who are you trying to avoid offending here Jayen? Isn't that obvious? The followers of Prem Rawat, in this case. Don't they deserve the same amount of concern as male escorts? Much of Wikipedia is still filled with transparent attempts to ridicule the beliefs and practices of religious minorities, or to create revulsion towards things or people that members of such minorities consider meaningful in the context of their religious lives. At times this is uncomfortably reminiscent of the mentality that created Judensau images on German cathedrals. In my view, Wikipedia has some catching up to do in this area, to bring it level with the concern shown to other groups. Note that this does not mean that I propose to ban mention of views that ridicule religious groups in Wikipedia. However, such views should go into a "Reception" or "Criticism" section, and come with attribution. They have no business in the main part of an article, which should be written in as neutral and factual tone as possible, without the salacious addition of titillating information.
On a more practical note, of the three references following the phrase "his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship.", only one (18) seems to apply. I haven't been around this article long enough to see where the other references (17, 19) came from originally and whether they can simply be deleted, so I'll leave this to a more knowledgeable editor. Cheers, Jayen466 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen Jayen, You are simply imagining that this report is offensive to premies. The fact that you and they are demonstrating offence is what is inappropriate and questionable. There is a fine line between excluding genuine criticism and unnecessary use of bigoted reports which of course one has to be aware of, but in this case it is simply not bigoted or critical. The only word which has a sensational tone is 'literally' (which is kind of superfluous). Suddenly according to all of you, saying 'when they were in his presence' is deemed a bigoted comment rather than an innocent illustrative one . Why? Furthermore to cite the expression 'Lotus Feet' is also not condescending at all. That is what premies called his feet quite openly in those days. The fact seems to be that you sympathise with the premies new-found embarassment and desire to distance themselves from this culture which they once embraced, and you are prepared to let them tone down perfectly respectful descriptions of their past here. I question that an encyclopaedia is the place to support revisionism under the guise of wanting to not offend the sensitivities of a religious group in an inappropriate way. Next you'll argue that Wikipedia shouldn't report Scientology's former teachings about UFO's and disembodied spirits ec. because it's rude to talk about things they now are shy about. An encyclopaedia should not pander to the desire of reformed religious groups or any other groups desires to change history. By citing history you are not approving or endorsing it. To cut out the word 'prostitutes' from historical quotes because the derogatory meaning is now unacceptable is absurd. Also to cut out relevant, illustrative quotes where reporters use other derogatory terms such as 'Nigger' is also doing a disservice to all. Contrary to your opinion, there is NO merit in 'toning down' the language of the past. The present is a different matter. If premies don't want to be called 'devotees' now we naturally don't do that but we should not change the language of quotes from the time that refer to 'Maharaji's devotees'. Same with escorts, transsexuals, you name it. PatW (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pat, I appreciate your thoughts. I still think that it was the right decision to tone down the wording and hope that you can live with it as it stands. We are using the Time article here simply as a source of historical fact, rather than as a source of historical colour. Such colour as there is in it, beyond the facts described, reflects the cultural attitudes of Time Magazine at that time, rather than the attitudes of Premies. As a purely hypothetical (and probably daft) example, if we had a historical verbatim from 18XX saying "There are about 100 niggers living on Mr Y's plantation" I should think we would not write, today, in an article on the historical person Mr Y, that he had about 100 niggers -- we would write, quite naturally, that from contemporary accounts it appears he had about 100 slaves. (By the way, I do think that many of the Scientology articles have been terminally strangled by anti-cult sentiment.)
References 17 and 19 are still there: since they do not back up the preceding sentence, I'll go and delete these now. Ref. 17 contains a longer text passage; it that is considered useful by anyone, please restore in the appropriate place. Cheers, Jayen466 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do take your points and can live with the wording since it is not a direct quote. Of course it would be heinous to use the quote itself and change the wording. The Guardian newspaper here in the UK would love to hear that Wikipedia administrators approve of that as there quite a bit of criticism of Wikipedia there. I suppose what bothers me is that generally the 'colour' is so rigorously toned down so as to effectively not attract interest. I want the opposite of the 'strangulation' of the article by anti-cult sentiment. I want the encyclopaedically interesting facts to be presented here that naturally attract interest to Rawat as it is a subject that I would like to see fairly discussed and yes, questioned very publicly and openly. What I do not approve of is when articles about minority religions are controlled by themselves. This article probably has historically swung from a critical bias to the opposite extreme. The trouble is with cults is that when the facts about them do become fully known then anti-cult sentiments will naturally arise - why? because the public naturally disapproval of the abuses and evils that go on behind their closed doors. So if this article does become one day 'strangled' by public reaction then I won't be so surprised. But I agree that we should start by giving Rawat a very fair chance to account for himself. (Which is effectively what is happening via his followers here). Must dash.PatW (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the Guardian. You realise that according to the Guardian, all of us here are part of an exploitative cult too? The reality is much more mundane. Frequently, what is naively viewed as spontaneous generation is in fact the product of a relatively small number of people who have been induced to provide a huge amount of unpaid labour. The lifeblood of Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic. This is very clear in the Wikipedian's credo of "writing an encyclopedia". But all that'll happen is they will work for free, while elsewhere the Wikia investors will reap the rewards. But it's a powerful dream. If someone does something for love, there will always be those who claim that they must have been duped and brainwashed. As though people had no riches to give, and giving always made you poorer rather than richer. But there you go. Sorry for this off-topic remark. I am glad the passage is okay for you. Cheers, -- Jayen466 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I like you Jayen. You are a good person, and I shall tell you so shortly on your talk page. :-) Rumiton (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayen writes:If someone does something for love, there will always be those who claim that they must have been duped and brainwashed. As though people had no riches to give, and giving always made you poorer rather than richer. But there you go. Jayen, how many Wikipedia editors have been truly damaged by their voluntary work? How many people, on the other hand, who follow charismatic religious leaders later claim to have been damaged, or (as in the case of Jim Jones' followers) were significantly damaged? ie. they followed their leader to the grave. I hope you can see the distinction. I lovingly served Rawat from age 17, (1974) lived in his ashrams and dedicated my life to him as he recommended. My claims about the extent to which his teachings were unhealthy are well-considered and I don't appreciate the insinuation that people who make claims about having been brainwashed probably don't understand the principal that 'giving makes you richer.'
Your comment could appear very 'sweeping' and condescending towards those people who HAVE been seriously affected by their giving. I know of very genuinely motivated premies who gave their entire incomes and inheritances to Rawat and who now regret it. Others like myself simply gave our time and gave up things that Rawat recommended we should - like having a career and relationships etc. That was the rules of joining his Ashram. There are plenty of people who in retrospect feel that Rawat has actively avoided responsibility for encouraging that level of 'giving' and that modern day premies help whitewash the period during which he demanded very considerable sacrifice. The bulk of the criticism towards Rawat is from people who have discovered that there was a good deal of hypocrisy and coverup from Rawat which indicated that he was cynical towards their genuine commitments and sacrifices. Since you confess to concern that premies are not offended here, perhaps you could extend that concern towards the victims of Prem Rawat too.
Ruminton is excited about your 'goodness'. I shouldn't be too flattered. There is nothing good if you lean towards casting criticism towards Rawat as flippant or support any viewpoint that former premies were not genuinely motivated and have missed the benefits of 'Knowledge' as a result.PatW (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you ask, how many Wikipedia editors have been truly damaged by their voluntary work? The contribution lists of some high-volume editors show that they have spent 10 to 18 hours a day editing Wikipedia, making 100-200 edits per day, for months on end. It could surely be argued that this must be having severe effects on their social and family life, as well as their ability to earn a living. It is conceivable that such editors might in some years' time be disaffected and blame Wikipedia for the fact that they missed a significant part of their lives, without much to show for it (unlike the "Wikia investors", to follow the Guardian's tack).
I believe it is somewhat unfair to compare Prem Rawat to Jim Jones; just like there have been political leaders in countries around the world who have been murderous and corrupt, this does not make all of them so.
I appreciate you sharing your personal history. I understand your regret and have not and would not make the accusation that your disenchantment is due to any personal shortcoming of yours. I think it is perfectly fine and healthy for people to move on and leave that which no longer fits with them behind, and to view their involvement critically in retrospect.
My comment using the word "flippant" applied specifically to the page in Randi's book. This I do consider lacking in substance. However, I am in favour of including criticism. To me, the article felt a little bland and sanitised when I first came across it, due to the lack of controversy. (It also had too many, i.e. 3, references to Prem Rawat's flying his own planes.) I think the article has improved since then. However, I think criticism should be sourced in accordance with encyclopedic standards. Encylopaedia Britannica would not cite Randi, however popular he may be; he is an academic irrelevance in the study of religion.
If there is a particular passage or section you find offensive in the article as it is now, please elaborate. Best wishes. Jayen466 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on your actual use of the word 'flippant' nor was I directly comparing Jim Jones to Rawat. I was making the distinction that Wikipedia editors potential regrets over their wasted time simply pales in comparison to the suffering and confusion that people who follow duplicitous charismatic leaders suffer routinely. I think most people would agree that it is your comparison that is rather stretching the imagination. Some comparison with Jim Jones is not innappropriate because he exemplifies the recent religious leader whose charisma and wrongness resulted in conspicuous tragedy. There are plenty of people who feel that Rawat during the seventies could have gone that way. His own top henchman made the comparisons. I hesitate to discuss this here further but here is a quote from ex-premie lawyer, Marianne Bachers, who makes a case for the comparison you say is unfair. Might I suggest you investigate the complaints against Rawat a little more? Incidentally others might want to do that too, to get the gist of the main criticisms.

PatW (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Dettmers' October 22 post disclosed that in order to work around Maharaji, and to be in his inner circle, a premie had to be 'X rated'. This meant that the premie had to be told that the rules that applied to ashram premies did not apply to Maharaji. In other words, Maharaji's behavior was not to be questioned and was to be kept secret. The premie had to accept this unquestioningly, and if s/he showed hesitation, they would not be allowed to serve in this capacity. Michael said that he interviewed many premies in order to determine if they met the X rated qualifications. I was very disturbed by this revelation and have pondered it repeatedly. Last night I finally understood why this information so affected me. As many of you know, I was one of the attorneys who defended Larry Layton at both of his trials -- he was the only person charged with a crime in the US related to the mass suicide at the Peoples Temple compound in Jonestown, Guyana. I learned everything there was to know about how Peoples Temple operated and how Jim Jones was able to convince his followers to administer poison to their children and then kill themselves at his command. What struck me so much about Michael's post about 'X rating' the people close to Maharaji is that this is exactly the behavior that happened in Peoples Temple with those around Jim Jones. Jones was presented to his congregation as a messianic, God-like figure, who was the embodiment of Christ, and who behaved (supposedly) in a Christ-like manner. In fact, like Maharaji, Jones drank to excess, abused drugs, had numerous mistresses amongst the congregation, perpetrated physical and emotional abuse upon those close to him and increasingly demanded larger and larger displays of devotion to him. In Maharaji's case, he demanded more ostentatious material donations as a demonstration of his followers' devotion. Jim Jones did not seek material assets -- he demanded that church members display their unquestioning dedication by carrying out his orders -- by doing things such as engaging in a physical altercation in a weaker family member in front of the entire church. Regular members of the congregation went along with these demands because they believed that Jones was living a Christ-like existence - a lie perpetuated by those closest to Jones. Those lies played a large part in why over 900 people went to Guyana and ultimately gave up their lives to Jim Jones. I can't help but see the similarity between the behavior of those closest to Jones and those close to Maharaji who were 'X rated'. Of course, Maharaji never took his flock to a remote jungle location in order to isolate them, no suicide ritual was practiced and then actually put to use. But, the way these organizations were run at the top is chillingly similar, and was designed to achieve the same result: allowing the leader to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to the rules set out for his followers, and investing those who perpetuated this lie to those below with power and prestige they would lose if they told the truth. Had those around Jones not perpetuated his lies, many people might not have followed him to the jungle and there have met their demise. In the same way, those around Maharaji who agreed to shield others from the knowledge that Maharaji did not have to play by the rules he insisted the rest of us follow on pain of forfeiting our souls, allowed people to give up their lives to ashrams and other devotional activities which were nearly the functional equivalent of suicide. People lost the best years of their lives based on this fraud. That is what I now grasp from Michael's post. I make this point because I think that it is time that the people who were and are around Maharaji realize the broad consequences in the lives of other premies of their blind devotion to Maharaji.

Pat, I hope you believe that I am not trying to antagonise you in this, but I find that the material you just inserted to be a most disreputable tactic in this debate, guilt by association. Among several thousand words you placed in this public space, the words "Jim Jones" appear in connection with Prem Rawat 14 times, and the text includes a lot of memorable phrases like "followed him to the jungle and met their demise." You appear to be trying to create a connection in the minds of editors between the two, and there is no such connection. In 50 years in the public spotlight, Prem Rawat has never been convicted of any crime. On the contrary, hundreds of thousands of people claim to have benefitted from his teachings (though their testimony is rightly excluded from Wikipedia.) He never claimed to be leading a "Christlike life" or to be himself following ashram rules. The ashram lifestyle was for those who chose it, and he chose family life, as did many others. There were absolutely NO RULES of lifestyle for people who received Knowledge, at that time or now. As I recall, the "X rated" thing was public knowledge, light-hearted, and about simple confidentiality. The sinister overtones you are trying to inject were absolutely not there. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sinister overtones absolutely were/are there. Sorry I simply cannot agree. There's really no hidden tactic here from me either, I swear. My inclusion of this quote was simply in response to Jayen who basically said there was no comparison with Jim Jones when there apparently was although not to the extent that Rawat advised people to kill themselves- he just advised people to surrender their lives to him. So his effect on people was admittedly not anywhere near as catastrophic - although it was arguably sometimes destructive. I should maybe add that quite a number of people suffered mental breakdowns under the pressure of his teachings. The point is that there are comparisons but not in every area. There are important differences too. However, I remembered talking to Michael Dettmers once who told me that at the time of the Jonestown tragedy there was real concern at the DLM top level not to be perceived as another similar cult. I personally observed and made the judgement that there were similar manipulative dynamics going on in Maharaji's court (as it were) and I happen to think Marianne Bachers put it very well so I quoted her. One other thing, although you keep saying the Ashram lifestyle was a choice. It really wasn't if you had surrendered your choices as Rawat recommended. The whole danger of such systems where there is a supposedly Divine person in control is that vulnerable people are subtly coerced to 'surrender' to doing what the Master recommends instead of what they want to do. Prem Rawat REPEATEDLY demonised the mechanism of following your own mind by literally saying your mind is your number one enemy. The mind, he taught, would do anything to stop you surrendering to Maharaji and the only way to not fall foul of it's wiley deceptive ways was to OBEY HIM. Prem Rawat used to scream and yell at us about the value and urgent need for us to surrender to him and the fast track way he proposed was the ashram. At one time the most common word in his speeches was 'Surrender.' Would you say that the Pied Piper who led children into a cave was innocent and it was the childrens fault for not exercising their choice in the matter? I think I should stress here that it was a significant part of the teaching of Knowledge to approach Rawat with 'the heart of a child' so from the outset one was effectively 'inspired' into abdicating one's normal adult choice mechanisms. What you are failing to acknowledge is that with Prem Rawat there were enormous suggestions made from him as to what choices followers should make and an array of now transparently cultic power games at play, such as having a hierarchy of privileged devotees who were given another secret to keep. The X-rating thing was not as you say "public knowledge, light-hearted, and about simple confidentiality" (nobody I know knew of all this till it was later revealed on the internet and even then few could bear to believe it) Contrary to what you suggest it was absolutely effective in concealing behaviours which Rawat knew would be potentially confusing to premies. Also I personally think that being sworn to secrecy is key to the way the whole Knowledge/Master thing works. Knowledge being the most obvious precious secret that all premies promise not to reveal. Having guarded secrets makes people feel special and also creates ties to the person to whom the promise of secrecy is sworn. And, as we well know (and that is supported by Colliers book which is used here) Prem Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth about his Divinity depending on who he was addressing...To reporters he would say "I am not God' whilst he would dress up as Krishna in front of premies and say stuff like 'Guru is greater than God . If you want to be proved wrong on this I would be happy to do so on my talk page BUT if you go there you will see I have already had this argument with Momento there who so conspicuously lost the argument it's not really worth going there again in my opinion.PatW (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and...partly why I write so much back at people here is because some of the arguments that are thrown my way appear to me so tortuous and inaccurate that to not make some attempt to clarify would be simply immoral. I cannot bear to see the wrong impression being given. This article purports to report on a large part of my life which was inextricably tied up with Rawat and which I see here being falsely represented. Maybe I should just leave it to you guys to argue with truly impartial types. To be frank they seem to be doing a much better job of separating fact from fiction than any ex-premies have ever done. Hooray. Obviously Jossi and now you find my honest comments utterly unwelcome.PatW (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I think we are in danger of straying into discussing the subject rather than the article, something that has got me into admin trouble before and I dare say will again (can you let us alone for a moment, Jossi please?) No doubt the Indian government warns about corrupt gurus but they do not question the guru-disciple system itself, the tradition of profoundly honoring the teacher which is at the heart of all Indian schooling, from general education to music, dance, writing, art, and of course, spiritual growth and meditation.
That they do not include Prem Rawat in their warnings was demonstrated when the Vice President of India put his reputation on the line to praise Prem Rawat's work (ref coming soon, I hope) as have a host of other government and semi-government officials in India and abroad. I don't disagree with you that those early times were not "wholly reasonable or healthy," and I don't think the article gives that impression. It was a jolting culture shock for us all. But I feel the transition times passed a long time ago, and what was good and universal has mostly been retained. No doubt the evolution will continue. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be particularly pleased about that if I were you. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat has also come out in defence of various other spiritual leaders, including the "yogi master" in a northern state who apparently said that he had a course in yoga that would cure cancer and prevent AIDS, or perhaps the other way around. You try adding "VP of India", I'll make sure that the wording reflects that he isn't a particularly difficult endorsement to get. Relata refero (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any mention of any such issues at Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. Also checked news archives and found no issues either [15]. Hes seems to be a supporter of Naturopathy, but that does not make his endorsement of a public figure to be questionable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[16][17][18][19]. As I said, best to not mention any connection with the VP. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Of these four links, one mentions Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as being in a a guest list. I do not see any mention of an endorsement, and even if there was such endorsement, the material does not belong here, but in the article about Ramdev. If there is published criticism of Shekhawat in regard to the subject of this article, that would be different. I am looking for Indian newspapers stories that published information on the Indira Gandhi indoor stadium event of August 2006 , that was attended by 25,000 people, and in which the VP made a speech. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent)You cant have it both ways. Either you think this is a notable enough act/endorsement that it goes in the article; in which case I think we owe it to the reader to tell them exactly what else the source of the endorsement supports. The truth is, of course, that it is not notable. As Rumiton says "he put his reputation on the line...". Exactly. He doesn't have one, because he attends meetings for large numbers of spiritual leaders and releases their books and opens their offices and praises their foreign exchange earnings and inner peace. So, as I said, if you make the decision to put him in the article, then you are making the decision that his words on Rawat are notable or in any way exceptional. And that implication, that misleading of the reader should not be permitted to stand without some form of context. (And as for your "lack of an endorsement", here's the VP on the cancer-curer:"He has assured the right to lead a healthy and disease free life to all".)
Also Here he is saying"..he received inner strength and attained peace of mind which helped him with the recovery...Swamishri has helped spread the Indian culture across the world. It is a great mission. He is continuing the mission of Swami Vivekananda.." about Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Here's a sign of his closeness with another well-known "godman". http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about209931.html Here's] 200,000 and a speech at Shree Guruji's. Does a picture emerge? Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see anything in that blog post or the other source, that has any implication for this article, and ddding "context" such as you suggest would be a violation of WP:OR. In any case, I will bring the source, and then editors will look into it and decide if worthy of addition or not. But first, I need to find it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're implying that a speech by the Vice-President is notable. Implying that is a bloody enormous violation of NPOV in the light of all these facts, and one I think you would do well to avoid. Whatever. Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A speech by the vice-president of the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world is notable by default. That he is Indian and addresses Indian cultural and religious issues, is no surprise. Try and negate a speech by the vice-president of the US Dick Cheney, just because he is a controversial conservative. As you are using the word bloody", I would say that dismissing the VP of India because he is Indian, would be a bloody demonstration of Western bias that has no place in this pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say until you actually try to add this, in which case I will investigate the wording, but I'd like to point out that equating a tendency to indiscriminate enthusiasm for leaders of spiritual enterprises with "addressing Indian cultural and religious issues" is a bit of a stretch, and perhaps a demonstration (OK, I can't use the word again) of another sort of bias. Relata refero (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
One could argue about a tendency to indiscriminate enthusiasm for specific groups in the case of Cheney as well. And yet, we would not dismiss it. Orientalism or Western bias is of no consequence in the pedia. People are what they are and they say what they say in the context of the culture/politics in which they act. What's new? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero, I would politely request that you check your prejudices at the door if you are to contribute constructively in this article, which is very much about the way totally different cultures and philosophies have interracted. To say that the second highest elected official in the world's most populous democracy "has no reputation" comes across as breath-taking hubris. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hubris-schmubris. If the implication is that Mr. Shekhawat has an ability to discriminate between spiritual leaders - which is what I presume he is being considered worth a mention in this article for - then I'm afraid, as the evidence I presented suggests, he doesn't have one, because he is indiscriminate.
On the Cheney comparison, if a right-wing organisation wished to put in their article that Cheney has nice things about them, I'd certainly want it qualified somehow. (The only reason that there might be a difference is in what is expected of the readership of the two articles; I don't suppose that the readership of this article is generally familiar with Mr. Shekhawat's behaviour, but it is likely that the readership of an article on a small right-wing organisation would be.) Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you do not hold Shekhawat in high regard, and you may have your reasons. But this is not about your opinion of Shekhawat, is it? Time to re-read WP:V? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't the slightest idea how I regard him as a politician or as a man.
Whether his giving a speech at a function organised by a leader of a spiritual movement is a notable event is what this is about. And I've demonstrated that it isn't exceptional in the least, and pushing it into the article thus gives it a slant. Time to re-read WP:NPOV? Relata refero (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

the word "cult"

I'm wondering why, before I just added the word, there was not a single instance of the word "cult" in the article main body (it appeared only in references) despite repeated and numerous media references to the movement as a cult, or in the context of a cult? Lawrence § t/e 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The word cult appears in Divine Light Mission, the movement that was considered by some to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question, Lawrence. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad question, Lawrence. We have dealt with this about 560 times, and here we have to go again. To summarize; "cult" is high on Wikipedia's list of words to avoid for several great reasons. The neutral voice of Wikipedia cannot use it because it has no non-negative meaning (nobody goes to work on Monday and says "I joined a great cult on the weekend.") But even more because it is essentially meaningless. It is a word used primarily by large, bizarre religious groups against probably equally bizarre smaller and newer groups, who have not been around long enough to defend themselves. It is the essense of the unencyclopedic mindset. Rumiton (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There are well-defined sociological uses of the term. The term is sociologically better defined than new religious movement. Andries (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't describe groups as "cults". We should report it when notable sources call groups "cults". Since groups connected to the subject have been called "cults" on many occasions, it would be a disservice to readers and a violation of NPOV to omit references to that term. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Melton does not describe DLM as a cult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, Melton listed DLM in his "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America." I agree with Will Beback. Msalt (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that, as I provided that source. Have you read the book? Read the introduction of the book and the Divine Light Mission entry. The DLM is described as a new religious movement based on the spiritual tradition of the Sants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, Jossi. I have read the section of the book as presented (by you I believe) on the Talk\Scholars page, but haven't had time to get to the library yet. It's a reference book so can't be checked out. Perhaps you could add the introduction there as well when time permits? Also, is it OK if I add to that page, either new articles that I find, or ellipsed portions of the articles listed? Thanks, Msalt (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Section one surveys the broad range of issues surrounding the topic of "cults" (note the scare quotes), the popular label given to alternative religions [...] a number of false stereotypes exists about them. [...] Section II discusses approximately twenty of the older, more established nonconventional religions. Section III gives an in depth treatment of the prominent and growing New Age Movement. [...] Section IV is the heart of the volume. It discuses sixteen of the most significant "new" religions which have emerged in America. (Introduction)

The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside the mainstream of Western religions. [...] Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term. They divide religious groups into three categories,: churches, sects, and cults. [...]Cults represent a force of religious innovation within a culture. (Section 1, p.1)

The Divine Light Mission is covered in Section IV, so Melton is describing the DLM as a new religion movement. Melton's use of the term "cult" refers to the social scientist use, which differs from the pejorative use as explained in Section I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks. Msalt (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To Andries. I don't wish to denigrate your English, Andries, you speak at least 3 languages very well while I struggle with 2, but the sociological meanings are irrelevant. This is a source for ordinary English speakers, and to them cult is a very, very bad word. New Religious Movement is not too precise, nor is it common, but it is self-explanatory, and probably the best we can do. Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I object to this edit. It removes content that does not need to be removed. The edit summary says "removed excessive, unnecessary and non-encylcopedic detail". If you believe so, please discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again? Please see #Talk page discipline.
The edit is discussed above at #Status of “Peace Is Possible” --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to move it there. The objection stands for lack of consensus for removal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And the edit, removes other sources that are not discussed in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To be more clear, I am discussing my edit of the "Other Aspects" section -- removing the paragraph about Rawat's investments -- in the section Did Donations Make Him Rich, where the topic was in progress. I am discussing the Cagan book as a source in that existing section. I will however discuss my edit of the 1980 travel and speaking engagements below, in a new section, because I don't think there is a current section for it. Msalt (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the consensus was that the book is fine for uncontroversial information. That is what these sentences are. I have restored them. Rumiton (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just had to restore this absolutely uncontroversial information yet again. No consensus has been reached. Please discuss here. Rumiton (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, I discussed this edit before the fact and have continued it after, in the #Status of “Peace Is Possible” section. I think my explanations are reasonably clear. Please join us there for that discussion. Msalt (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above has shown this info to be both controversial, disputed, and as it is only sourced to self-referential, self-published sources as discussed above, it should not be in the article. That is, unless it could be sourced to some better WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources not affiliated heavily with the subject of the article himself. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss this in the #Status of “Peace Is Possible” section Msalt (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly unbalanced, to say the least, to report Mishlers - admittedly unsupported - appraisal of a predominantly money-grabbing leadership in the "Critisism"-section, simultaneously deleting Cagan's statement on the origin of Rawat's income, calling it contentious, while casually overlooking the fact, that Rawat does not charge people for being taught the techniques of Knowledge, or seeing him at a program. Not only unbalanced, but plainly manipulative, hopefully unintentionally. Please respond, whoever.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed in the section #Did Donations Make Him Rich. Please discuss this up there. I will quote your comment in that section and reply there. Msalt (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity to move to another section, as it is being discussed here. And I do not feel my observation has been responded to. I rather feel slightly patronized. Anyway thanks for trying.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your observation has been responded to at some length in #Did Donations Make Him Rich, where the conversation continues. I'm sorry if you feel patronized, that was certainly not my intention. The need to keep discussions centralized predates my presence here; I'm just trying to follow the rules. You can read the reasons at #Talk page discipline. Msalt (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find anything there that relates to my request. Is it yet possible that you do can not communicate? Amazing experience! Is there anybody else out there?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I forgot to put the # in my link to the local section. Thanks for checking. I fixed it now, or you can use this link: #Did Donations Make Him Rich. The last 6 paragraphs as I write this, starting with "Rainer P. wrote...." Msalt (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Donations Make Him Rich

That the donations of followers made him rich is an undisputed fact.
Price, Maeve, The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. (note 1) Sociological Review, 27(1979)
"Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. Note 27: Contributions from premies throughout the world allow Maharaj Ji to follow the life style of an American millionaire. He has a house (in his wife's name), an Aston Martin, a boat, a helicopter, the use of fine houses (divine residences) in most European countries as well as South America, Australia and New Zealand, and an income which allows him to run a household and support his wife and children, his brother, Raja Ji, and his wife, Claudia. In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals."
Andries (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That is from 1979. Many things have changed since the 70's, as you already know. Prem Rawat does not charge for his appearances, the use of his speeches in materials such as DVDs, TV programs, CDs, etc.

Does Maharaji benefit from the activities of any of the organizations promoting his message? No. Most of the organizations promoting his message are non-profit and by law cannot provide a financial benefit to Maharaji or any other individual. The financial records of these organizations are impeccable in this regard, and absolutely no money flows from these organizations to him or his family. He receives no benefit from the activities of the not-for-profit organizations supporting his work and no income from attendance at his addresses nor from the sale of materials.He supports himself and his family through private means. [10]

The dissemination of his message of peace is made available in more than 90 countries and 70 languages. TPRF’s humanitarian activities are entirely supported by voluntary contributions and the sale of related materials. As a private investor, he supports himself and his family through independent means.[11]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the quote from Elan Vital is simply wrong in saying that non-profit organizations cannot provide a financial benefit to any individual, by law. The head of the United Way makes $1 million a year, and there are dozen of religious figures (mostly Christian fundamentalist TV preachers) who lead lives of luxury paid for by their non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. Msalt (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The title is confusing, I think there is a clear difference between a "donation" which is "something that is given to a charity, esp. a sum of money" and a "gift" which is "a thing given willingly to someone without payment" or a "contribution" which is "a gift or payment to a common fund or collection". Since Rawat didn't charge for teaching or speaking, he was reliant on "the generosity of his devotees".Momento (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Having said that, I would argue that there is merit in adding a sentence in the appropriate point in the chronology, that presents Maeve's point about the the financial independence of young Rawat, and the role that followers played in affording him that independence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, though, you only need to be made rich once, don't you? If somebody gave me, say, a billion dollars, and then I renounced acceptance of donations and supported myself via "private means" (i.e. investment income), that doesn't make it inaccurate to say that I got rich from others' donations. I don't know the particulars of Rawat's financial situation, but I don't necessarily see that what Jossi says refutes the 1979 quote. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Rawat has never renounced acceptance of donations. --John Brauns (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. See my comment above, which I had an edit conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that Rawat was 16-years old at that time. Maeve's full quote: ''Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue is already covered in the "Coming of Age" section - "Rawat, now legally an adult and financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, took control of the Western DLM". Like getting rich, it only has to be said once. I think we need more emphasis that unlike Maharishi and TM and many other NRM/philosophies that require tithing and paid courses, Rawat has never charged people to receive the techniques of Knowledge.Momento (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Rawat's investments from the "Other Aspects" section. For one thing, the two sources were not independent: Cagan (as discussed elsewhere) and the maharaji.org website. More importantly, it's just not encyclopedic to discuss an author/speaker's investment strategy. Unless you are famous for your investments (e.g. Warren Buffet, Paul Allen), why would we include it? To pick an example, Tom Peters is a writer/speaker specializing in business, for heaven's sake, and his article does not discuss his investments.

In this case, where Rawat's wealth and lifestyle and the source of his income are controversial, it constitutes an original research argument (WP:SYN if you accept the sources) rebutting the claim attributed to Mishler in the criticism section that money was diverted to Rawat. I don't believe this rebuttal belongs in the article at all, but if it is determined to belong, it clearly should be in the Criticism section. Msalt (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rainer P wrote (in a new section that missed this discussion):
I think it is highly unbalanced, to say the least, to report Mishlers - admittedly unsupported - appraisal of a predominantly money-grabbing leadership in the "Critisism"-section, simultaneously deleting Cagan's statement on the origin of Rawat's income, calling it contentious, while casually overlooking the fact, that Rawat does not charge people for being taught the techniques of Knowledge, or seeing him at a program. Not only unbalanced, but plainly manipulative, hopefully unintentionally. Please respond, whoever.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If the statement sourced to Cagan about Rawat having investment sources of income is a rebuttal to Mishler's criticism -- which you strongly imply -- then it logically belongs in the Criticism section, right after Mishler's charge. Listing it under "Other Aspects" is inappropriate and misleading.
However, it is not our job as editors to answer arguments on behalf of Rawat. That would clearly be original research; and if valid sources are listed, it would specifically be WP:SYN. You should read the section #Status of “Peace Is Possible” on this Talk page -- it makes clear that the Cagan book is NOT accepted here as an independent, verifiable source. An apparent consensus has emerged that Cagan is appropriate only for non-controversial points, and your own argument here makes it obvious that this point is controversial.
Also, you seem to be assuming that any criticism of Rawat must be counter-weighted with the answer to the argument. I don't think this is true, any more than any positive statement about Rawat needs to be "answered" by a critic. Encyclopedias are not designed to illustrate debates, giving equal time to all sides; they are for presenting consensus information on the subject. Otherwise, the article starts to sound like a person having arguments between the voices in his head. Msalt (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Msalt, agree with all your points except: "Encyclopedias are not designed to illustrate debates, giving equal time to all sides; they are for presenting consensus information on the subject.", which is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV, non-negotiable policy, e.g. "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." (bolding added, from second paragraph of WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction, I was mistaken. I'll read through that policy some more. Does that mean that, indeed, for every individual point presented, the opposing view must also be? (as opposed to a general representation of each of the relevant sides in the course of the article)? It seems to me that might be unwieldy in practice. Msalt (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is probably the most unavoidable policy of Wikipedia. I appreciate that might be different from what you do on your website, but Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and WP:NPOV is very much at its core.
Now, re. "Does that mean that, indeed, for every individual point presented, the opposing view must also be?" – no, only if the opposing point has received sufficient coverage in published, non-marginal, non-trivial, secondary reliable sources, and is no WP:BLP infringement (each word in that string of qualifiers has its distinct meaning – the links I provided don't explain everything, I'm just illustrating that they have some track record here at Wikipedia). Anyway, that's why there's quite some discussion on the quality of sources, while that's a crucial component for the application of the WP:NPOV policy.
So, no applying the WP:NPOV policy is in no measure "unwieldy", although the discussion of the quality of the sources may lead to some unwieldiness in the process (but we try to keep that on the discussion pages, and out of the encyclopedia properly speaking) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Unwieldy? That's a good word for it. See my suggestion earlier today for cutting all this stuff out and just presenting the basic facts about Prem Rawat's life and work. The more I think about it, the more it seems the only way to go. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Msalt (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
But I must disagree with your suggestion above that charities

might be expected to enrich their founders. If that is happening it is a perversion of the laws as they pertain to non-profit organisations and clearly wrong-doing. There are no grounds for suggesting Prem Rawat is guilty of this. Guilt by association again. Rumiton (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no guilt to be associated with -- it's entirely legal in the United States. I don't know about other countries. Leaders of non-profit organizations are entitled to salaries and perks comparable to people in similar private orgaizations. Hence, the leaders of United Way, etc. make 6 or 7 figures a year, fly first class or in private jets, stay in expensive hotels, etc. It may offend those who donate money to these charities but it's entirely legal, on the theory that non-profits are entitled to compete fairly for executive talent with for-profit organizations. We don't punish working for the common good by (legally) requiring poverty. For many it does tend to work out that way though. Msalt (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue, Msalt, is that Prem Rawat is not an executive of any of the many organizations that support his work. He receives no speaking engagement fees, honoraria, or royalties from the sales of materials based on his speeches, such as DVDs, CDs, books, etc. Nada, zilch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"He receives no" - needs to be matched with a statement of what he does receive, unfortunately the agencies engaged in this - Elan Vital Inc. and the Elan Vital Foundation do not publish those figures - merely the coda that "He does not etc". In this respect fly first class or in private jets, stay in expensive hotels, etc Msalt is absolutley correct to invoke the practices of US Non Profits. Rawat may not be an Excutive of any organisation but he is treated as an 'executive speaker' by Elan Vital which funds his travel by private jet and luxury hotel stays.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with that? You are welcome to add sources from the Elan Vital website in which this is covered:[20] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing legally wrong with luxury accommodations and resources (helicopters, etc.) of non-profits being used by the employees of the organization, as I've said. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this would be complicated by the fact that the individual does NOT work for the organizations, as Jossi and others say. There would be a real question of quid pro quo; these organizations clearly are receiving a large benefit from having Prem Rawat speak; how many would show up if he did not speak, live or by satellite? If they are providing luxuries in return, and he is not an employee, it certainly sounds like he should be declaring the market value of the accommodations and such that he receives (use of jet aircraft, etc.) as in-kind income. Legality aside, there is frequently controversy about these practices particularly with non-profit organizations receiving charitable donations. Congress is currently investigating several fundamentalist Christian speaker/authors for their use of luxuries provided by charitable organizations they are connected with. Bottom line: controversial, no reliable sources, doesn't belong on page (pro or anti). Msalt (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When has Elan Vital Inc. or EVF ever published figures regarding the annual exenditure on Rawat's International travel ? EVI hides behind its Church designation to avoid publishing its Form 990 declarations and EVF hides behind Swiss confidentiality Laws. All there is available in the public domain is the same coda repeated endlessly by the supporting organisations, saying what Rawat doesn't receive. There is nothing in the Source you quote that would add to this article, just more self serving promotion. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You asked the question, not me. And please do not use this page to advocate your opinions, see WP:NOT#SOAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of bizzare resonse is that ? You asked What is the problem with that? and quoted a source. I replied with an explanation of what is wrong - and an assessment of the Source you gave. So if I reply in terms you don't like I'm breaking the rules ? If I assess a Source that you have given, as "not valid", that's advocating my opinion and in breach of WP:NOT#SOAP ? Sounds like WP:WL to me, but that's just my opinion.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote says " financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees". Not "donations". The fact is Rawat is like a busker, he lectures and teaches for free and only receives what people freely give him after he has performed.Momento (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact is Rawat is like a busker, he lectures and teaches for free and only receives what people freely give him after he has performed. Do you have any evidence of this ? How is the collection done ? A busker works in public without any agency promoting her/him. Rawat 'gigs' by getting million dollar support from Non Profit and Charitable organisations, is it your contention that these organisations are helping Rawat acrue personal donations ? This would be an important addition to the WP article, please supply references. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of “Peace Is Possible”

not to be confused with [[21]]

The “biography” by Andrea Cagan is used a for ten references in the current article, 10.5% of the numbered footnotes.

During the same year that Andrea Cagan's premie book was published, she also authored a book called The Loved Dog: The Playful, Nonaggressive Way to Teach Your Dog Good Behavior ISBN 1416938141. Perhaps she should be invited to contribute here :-) 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The status of Cagan’s work is brought into question here : http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/prem_rawat_followers_exposed.htm

From which:

"the book is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography procured by Rawat’s followers. The publisher of Peace is Possible is given as Mighty River Press which lists its address as P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 US, its CEO’s name is given as J. Levin. No business with the name Mighty River Press is on record with the Pennsylvania State Corporations Register,[12] [22]however P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 is given as the address of James Levin, President of a business called Neighborhood Restorations, vice President is given as Scott Mayo. The name Neighborhood Restorations appears as part of the title of a range of businesses of which the officers are James Levin and Scott Mazo.[13] [23]

An SEC filing says of Levin and Mazo:

The General Partner of the Operating Partnership is WPB L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership (the "General Partner") whose general partner is WPB II, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("WPB II") which also serves as the Developer of the Apartment Complex. WPB II is equally-owned by James Levin and Scott Mazo. Mr. Levin, a Certified Public Accountant, has been involved with the development and syndication of tax credit projects since 1990. Mr. Mazo has been involved in the development of the tax credit projects since 1990 and commercial rental properties since the mid 1980's. Since forming a partnership in 1992, Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo have developed over 350 units of affordable housing. Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo are also the sole owners of Prime Property Management, Inc., a property management company which is serving as the Management Agent for the Apartment Complex. [14] [24] The name Scott Mazo appears on a FEC filing which lists Mazo as being Employed by Neighborhood Resorations, and which gives his home address as Gulph Mills.[15] [25] Scott Mazo is also the name of a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation,[16] [26]details lodged with Guidestar give the address of Scott Mazo TPRF Board and Treasurer, as Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania.

In Summary:

James Levin is the CEO of the self described family business (Mighty River Press) i.e. Levin is the owner or is a co-owner of Mighty River Press. MRP is the publisher of the Rawat biography. Therefore Levin is, via the unregistered Mighty River Press, the publisher of Rawat’s biography.

James Levin has been the business partner of Scott Mazo for twenty years, they have more than thirty business listings in which they share partnerships.

Scott Mazo is the Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.

The relationship between Levin and Mazo undermines any suggestion that Peace is Possible has been published independently of Prem Rawat or his promoters. Its use as a reference for an encyclopedia is dubious, not because it is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography but because the ‘authorisation’ has been deliberately disguised.

End of extract

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is used for basic bio info (see list), which even if we accept your claim of lack of publishing independence, is still falls with what is permissible under WP:SELFPUB.
  1. Prem_Rawat#_ref-0 - Names of family members
  2. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan.232_0 - Date of birth
  3. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan.232_1 - That he tours extensively
  4. Prem_Rawat#_ref-9 - The name of the school he attended
  5. Prem_Rawat#_ref-23 - Date of marriage
  6. Prem_Rawat#_ref-33 (not sure what this one is for)
  7. Prem_Rawat#_ref-35 date of moving to Miami Beach with his family
  8. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan_1 - Use of 707 for touring
  9. Prem_Rawat#_ref-38 piloting leased executive jets
  10. Prem_Rawat#_ref-73 Pilot licenses
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that the book is fine for basic biographical details (unless it contradicts other sources on these points), but that we should stay away from it for anything contentious, in keeping with this talk page's apparent philosophy of using only the most reliable sources. All of the references Jossi cited above seem appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi carelessly omits the most controversial of the references (currently number 83) to Cagan's book, and that is in the 'Personal' section, related to his income. The quote is "He received stock shares in corporations as gifts, which later generated significant dividends for him. Some of these companies were sold, generating substantial windfalls, and his profits were reinvested smartly. One particular company that developed large-scale software applications for government contractors went public, generating considerable wealth for Maharaji and his family". How Rawat acquired and maintains his wealth is probably the most controversial aspect of his life, so I propose this reference is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not self-published by the subject unless it's published on his own website or by his company. This book is self-published by Mazo (if what is written above is true). Using a self-published book as a source for a living 3rd-party is not consistent with either WP:BLP or WP:V. Perhaps this is good time to ignore the rules so we can allow it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OTOH, if the book makes contentious claims, such as mentioned by John Brauns, then we should probably treat it like any other 3rd-party vanity press book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some agreement on this matter? Do we keep this book as a source or not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the photos and speeches in it, it is an authorized biography. That would make it acceptable.Momento (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen the book. Is it called an "authorized biography" or is that just an opinion based on looking at it? I think we need to be fair here and hold all sources to similar standards. If Rawat writes an autobiography, or cooperates with an authorized biography that's one thing. But a self-published (aka "vanity) book is different. I can't see a logical reason to use a different standard for a book written by a current associate then for one written by a past associate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say it "authorized" but it has personal photos and speeches in it that are copyrighted by Elan Vital. What then is your view of the unsourced photo of a Malibu house that has been in this article for days?Momento (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See #Third Photo Thread for the thread about the photo of the house. This thread is about Peace Is Possible. However there is one analogy: This article has a copyrighted photo belonging to Google but that doesn't mean that the article is authorized by them. If the book meets the same standards we place on other sources then we should keep it, but I don't see anyone saying we should set a lower threshold because of its POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some agreement on this matter? Do we keep this book as a source or not?

No this can not be kept because it is not honest - either it IS an authorised biography, which means there should be a quotable entry in the book explaining that - or it is no more than a Vanity effort, self published by an individual who has close links to the subject, but who has deliberately obfuscated those links. Without a clear statement in the book itself about its status, it is untrustworthy. The book needs to be removed as a reference and as with any other WP article where an illegitiate source has been removed and which can not be replaced by alternative sources, the material in the article which is dependant on the removed source, will itself have to be removed. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


The framing of this discussion is out of whack. If we are not using this source for contentious claims, the source is valid. If there is a specific sentence in the article about which there is a dispute, we discuss that specific sentence and decide if to keep that specific cite or not. The attempt to remove a source entirely from an article, because someone thinks that it makes a contentious claim, is incompatible with common sense and with established guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties. In the editing of this article sources have been held to the highest standards, which this book doesn't meet. At least one assertion from the book is contentious. Which established guidelines would have us use such a reference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:V, policy. On the other hand your contention ("We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties") is not how it is phrased in WP:V. If this source is "self-published", then it is self-published under auspicies of Prem Rawat himself (then it can be used); if it isn't published under auspicies of Prem Rawat, then it is a secondary source, and it can be used. Probably, it is somewhere in between (with the role of Prem Rawat in the publication process somewhat unclear): it can, at least, be used on general biographical facts. Even if other sources contradict such data, it can still be used in the form of: "this source says so-and-so; that source says so-and-so". There is no WP policy disallowing to use it as a source in the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, one of our major guiding principles in selecting what we put in the article and what we don't is WP:NPOV, not the reasonings of http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/prem_rawat_followers_exposed.htm - if they think they're better placed to say how an encyclopedia article should be written, they should simply do so, and not lecture on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:V says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons..." This is a self-published source. The publisher isn't Prem Rawat. Therefore he's a 3rd-party. That's pretty much Wikipedia 101. If we had a source saying it's an official biography published under the auspices of the subject then that might change things, but we don't. All we have is a Wikipedia editor who's looked through it and said it appears to him to be an authorized bio. That's original research - again, Wikipedia 101. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You see: you inverted the wording:
  • We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties (your paraphrase)
  • Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons (real WP:V)
...they can be used, not as "third-party sources", but still as "self-published sources" for those living persons, subject to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the real question of this section (Status of “Peace Is Possible”), I'd treat it with the same status as a hagiographic resource, similar (for example) to how Jean de Joinville's biography of Saint Louis is used in the Wikipedia article on that person (see Louis IX of France#Sources). Now that biography was by all means "self-published", and also not written by the king who is the subject of that article. Many details on that king's life are derived from that hagiographic account. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The press release announcing the publication of Peace is Possible is produced on of The Prem Rawat Foundation's web site.Momento (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, the book is self-published by Mazo and Levin, and can be used as a reference about them. Prem Rawat is a third-party. If Rawat writes an autobiography and has it self-published then we can use it as a source about him, but not about other people. The Prem Rawat Foundation is yet another entity, and I don't see the relevance of a press release on their website. Prem Rawat has no offical ties to the foundation that I can see. It may exist to further his teachings but it's not controlled by him. Finally, Saint Louis died long ago so the issues aren't comparable. Herodotus may have been self-published, but that isn't germane to this discussion either. Will Beback NS (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite follow this discussion. I thought a self-published book is one that the author has published themselves (the implication being that no one apart from the author considered it worth publishing). The author, in this case, is Andrea Cagan, a reasonably successful biographer. The book is published by Mighty River Press. According to their website, this title is currently the only book they have published. But in what sense does this make the book self-published? It was not published by Cagan. Granted, there seems to be a clear link between the publisher and the subject. But would this, for example, mean that an official biography of the pope, written by an outside biographer and published by a publishing house with strong links to the Catholic Church, would be inadmissible as a source in Wikipedia? Am I missing something? -- 172.189.122.83 (talk) (Jayen466) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you have missed nothing, 122.83. The problem is that the book says that Prem Rawat was gifted with (presumably) a lot of money, shares etc. when he arrived in the west as a child, and the money was well invested to provide a high quality lifestyle for him and for his family today. All sources agree that he does not ask for money, either for teaching the knowledge techniques, or for his public appearances, or as donations. Maybe some people still personally contribute to him, maybe none do. We don't know, and it is nobody's business except theirs. Some anti-Prem Rawat editors here are trying to discredit the book so as to keep the issue unresolved and create a suspicion of money grabbing. Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton either provide evidence of your claim or withdraw your remarks about 'anti Rawat editors' - otherwise you are in breach of [[27]]

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the book is not self-published, which appears in doubt, the next trhreshold it must meet is reliability. I gather that some sources have been rejected because they were not "scholarly". All source, whether positive, negative, or neutral, should be held to a consistent standard. If this book meets that standard then it should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the book, and it is by far the most exhaustive biography ever published. The Author's Note reads: Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you are being dishonest. You know that Cagan did not interview a single former follower of Rawat for the book. She did not interview Mike Finch who organised Rawat's first trip outside India. She did not interview Saphlanand, Rawat's first western mahatma. She did not interview Mike Dettmers, who ran Divine Light Mission. She did not interview Anth Ginn who taught Rawat's children. She did not interview any of the people who have written their stories for ex-premie.org. She did not interview any of the owners of critical websites. Exhaustive? If you wanted to illustrate your deep bias you could not have done so more clearly than that remark.--John Brauns (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You could have made your point without personal attacks. I only stated what the author said. I would appreciate, if in the future, you avoid making value judgments on other editors, unless you want so say something nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, you, not the author, described the book as 'by far the most exhaustive biography ever published'. Will you withdraw that claim and admit it is wrong? If not then the description of you as dishonest is simply a statement of fact.--John Brauns (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The taunting has gone far enough... You and others are, yet again, creating a toxic atmosphere in this talk page. I will not respond to the baiting. I made my opinion of the book know and reserved to myself my opinion on yourself So you can make your opinions know in a productive manner, and stop and calling them 'facts'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on treating the Cagan book as a hagiographic account, as I suggested above? Does anyone need an explanation on the meaning of the word hagiographic? (If needs, I'd try to explain further) Does anyone need further explanation on how to go about with hagiographic sources in Biographies of living persons (BLP)? If needs, we should maybe elaborate on that: WP:BLP does not contain direct information on that type of sources, as far as I can see (the division between "third party sources" and "self-published sources" is too coarse for hagiographic accounts, as they fall between these two categories of sources).

Can we also keep discussions on this page concentrated on what contributes to a better quality of the Prem Rawat article? I'd be very grateful! --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree on treating the Cagan book as a hagiographic account. Please keep your comments NPOV. Thanks.Momento (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The book is not an hagiography. Have you read it, Francis? If you have not, on what basis are you making this comment? The book is available in Amazon, get a copy and have the information you need to make an assessment on the type of book it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make a "comment", I asked some questions. And answers are coming in, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading this Wikipedia description of the modern meaning of 'Hagiography' I would say that Cagan's book 'Peace is Possible' is plainly 'uncritical' and even 'reverential' and therefore qualifies as hagiographical. Jossi why do think otherwise? Why is it NOT hagiographical?
The term "hagiography" has come to refer to the works of contemporary biographers and historians whom critics perceive to be uncritical and even "reverential." For example, critics of historian (and John F. Kennedy associate) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. often call him a "Kennedy hagiographer."PatW (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to post something similar. Jossi why would you consider Cagan's book to have objective critical aspects to it and not reverential? I have not read it, I could, but a short explanaition would be preferable, thanks. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The book is not reverential at all. There is plenty of controversy covered, such opposition to his father, the opposition he faced in India as a child-guru from the Arya Samaj, the controversy about his mother and elder brother turning on him, how that affected him and was hospitalized, how some anarchists at his first appearance in France, threw egss and tomatoes at him, questions posed to him in the Griffin show about him being wealthy, and much more. Most definitively not a "reverential" presentation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"questions posed to him in the Griffin show about him being wealthy" – interesting, could we have anything about that in the article? Imho has the advantage also that Cahan wouldn't be the only source. Also, when there is criticism about him being wealthy, contained in the Prem Rawat article, I'd like to hear the man himself about it. Jossi, or anyone else having the book, could you give a useful excerpt? And another question, what year are we speaking for this Griffin show? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On November 28, 1973, a few weeks after the event, Maharaji appeared on The Merv Griffin Show on television, where he fielded questions with great confidence. Merv asked him, "Are you rich?" Maharaji smiled and replied, “I am absolutely rich, the richest man in the world probably. Because you don't have to be rich in money to be rich. You have to be rich in heart." (p193)

We could try and find the transcript of the show. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi says: The book is not reverential at all. There is plenty of controversy covered, such opposition to his father etc.
Reporting that Rawat was the subject of controversy does not really amount to fairly covering it does it? This book only comments from the perspective of Cagan (who I gather was commissioned indirectly by Rawat to write this biography - she's hardly going to write an unflattering book is she?) Fine but where in this book is the perspective of these critics represented? She did not interview any it would seem. Jossi is possibly only telling half the story when he says that Cagan covers plenty of controversy. It's kind of kind of a half-truth. I still think that this book is in effect self-published and indeed technically hagiograhical but I am not bothered by the actual use of it here so far. I just think it tells us that Rawat wants to keep control of 'the telling of his story' and this book is simply another example of how his wealth permits him to do so. I am personally uncomfortable with people who can effectively buy credibility and avoid accountability through sheer wealth. There was an occasion a few years back when an interview with Rawat appeared in a corporate glossy mag in the US. This interview was flaunted by premies I know here in the UK as some kind of proof of his credibility which bothered me...they actually believed that this magazine had approached Rawat for an interview. Out of curiosity I picked up the phone and by luck got straight through to the CO of the mag. Even I was rather taken aback to find him in a spate of intense annoyance and repentance, furious to have discovered that the entire interview was more or less fictitious in that it was a paid for 'advertorial' (apparently without his knowledge or consent), and with Q's and A's contrived and supplied by Rawat's organisation and presented falsely as a genuine interview. He told me that the standards of his paper had been, in his opinion, compromised and that the editor in question was being reprimanded. He was utterly apologetic and was at pains to say that his paper would never make the same mistake again. I put the phone down feeling rather sorry for him ...what I had suspected was evidently correct. So it's all very well painting the picture that Rawat is globally well-respected but it's rather underhand to illustrate this with examples of accolades or seemingly frank interviews which turn out to have been bought and very far from open and fair. I am not trying to engender suspicion at all. I am simply saying that Wikipedia should be careful not tolerate similar pretentiousness and that we should be on guard against this kind of self-promotion posing as proof of someone's notability.PatW (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of words here. Let's aim for consensus. Jossi and Rumiton, do you dispute that this book was published by a one-time publisher with close ties to Rawat? Evidence has been presented that it is not an independent effort, unlike the scholarly and journalistic works relied on elsewhere in this article, and I see no rebuttal. PatW and JohnBrauns, do you agree that this work is OK for non-controversial biographical details, even if it is (arguably) hagiographic? If so, then we can agree to disagree on hagiography and move on.
I see only two places where this book used as a source that are or could be controversial. My compromise proposal would be that we keep the source for everything else, don't use it in these two places, and drop the points if they don't have other verifiable sources. Those points are 1) the source of Rawat's money (as discussed above); and 2) the fact that he pilots his own rented jets around places. The latter point is tangential at best and clearly serves mainly to portray Rawat in an impressive light. It's already very close to NPOV if not over the line, and certainly shouldn't be in this article without a rock solid source. Msalt (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this with some reservation that this does not become the thin end of the wedge. There is quite a lot of controversial stuff in the book that (if my memory serves me well) people wanted to include which was objected to. It may have been a reference to the so-called 'hate group' of ex-premies although I don't exactly remember.PatW (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are no objections, so I'm going to go ahead and remove Cagan as a reference for the two controversial points I listed above. Since the remaining text is either unreferenced or an apparent WP:SYN effort to make points, I'm removing it too. There was also some unnecessary detail (a list of cities he spoke in in 1980?! Imagine if we listed such things for every public figure!!) so I summarized it. Msalt (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, you are making a mistake. You cannot claim consensus for removal when there is none. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Voices as diametrically opposed as John Brauns and Rumiton -- as well as all of the less involved editors I have see who discuss it -- agree on using this book for only non-controversial points. Jossi, you yourself said in this section "If we are not using this source for contentious claims, the source is valid.". I don't see how this is not a consensus.
Now I grant you that I acted on that consensus in ways that are less accepted, but I announced my intention in advance with clear reasoning, the only comment was grudging agreement, and as I read it the WP:BLP policy demands that editors immediately remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. It encourages shorter rather than longer articles where controversy exists.
So this only issue is, are these points controversial? Well here we are arguing about them. Isn't that by definition controversial? Msalt (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, apparently there is a consensus on only using Cagan's book for non-controversial biographical information. You yourself claimed that it was being used in that way above. I don't see anyone objecting. The reference to Rawat's source of income is without doubt controversial, so what possible objection could you have to its removal? --John Brauns (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to claim anything unwarranted. Did you have an objection to limiting this source to non-controversial points? I proposed that as a compromise to get past miles of contentious discussion, and following your own words (I thought.) Please accept my apologies if I misinterpreted your words, and if you could offer an alternative course of action or at least an alternative understanding of the verifiability of this book, that would be very helpful. Msalt (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to Rawat's source of income is without doubt controversial? Why? There multiple sources that describe these sources of income: Cagan's book, his own biography (1999), the Prem Rawat Foundation site, and others. Are you saying that all these sources are controversial? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Two separate issues here, but the answer to both is yes. 1) The source of Rawat's income is controversial. It's argued at great length here on the Talk page, #here we go again and of course in the current section. In the article itself, his sumptuous lifestyle is mentioned in the lede, and allegations that money was diverted to Rawat's personal use are in the criticism section. 2) The sources you list are all controversial as well, as none are independent. As I read the various policies, none are acceptable in this article for that reason, except for "his own biography" if you mean an autobiography. And if we use that as a source, I suggest that the point more reasonably belongs as Rawat's response to the criticism, in the Criticism section, language to the effect of "Rawat responds that all of his money comes from....." etc. and using the autobiography as the source. Msalt (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If we assume that this book is an authorized biography, as some have suggested, then it's likely that all three sources you mention are essentially the same. None of them are independent of the subject. It may be appropriate to include the assertions so long as they are attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, you are correct - none of the three sources are independent, and Rawat's wealth has to be the most controversial issue of his entire life, so self-published sources should not be used for this issue as in --John Brauns (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)WP:Selfpub.
The author is Andrea Cagan, a successful biographer, and the publisher is Mighty River Press. It is not a self-published book in the sense of WP:SPS. What does appear to have been demonstrated is that the publisher has strong links to Prem Rawat. I would be in favour of Will's solution, which is to include the information, but with attribution that makes clear the link between the publisher and the subject. Perhaps we could refer to the book as a "semi-official biography". -- Jayen466 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, I have not problems with having any text that needs it to be attributed to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, several of us are making attempts at a consensus or compromise position on this issue. From what I've seen, you are resisting these efforts without offering any counter-suggestion or even explaining why you don't agree. This makes it difficult to move forward. We need some points of agreement to build upon. Can you please clarify your position on these issues?

Do you agree there is a consensus on using the Cagan book for only non-controversial points?

Do you agree that the Cagan book has not been demonstrated to be an independent, third party source?

Do you agree that Rawat's wealth or material lifestyle is a controversial issue?

Do you agree that the source of Rawat's wealth or material lifestyle is a controversial issue?

Thank you.Msalt (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The original source of his wealth is well covered by multiple sources (as per the article text), there is no dispute on that aspect. So why it would be controversial to quote sources about today's sources of income? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be tremendously helpful to the cause of consensus if you could agree to something, anything, that we could build on as common ground. The whole concept of using Cagan for only non-controversial points came from your words. Is there some reason you are denying us this favor?
As for the original source of his wealth, I don't know the subject as well as you obviously, but from reading the article I don't see that his original source of wealth is self evident either. His father was a successful teacher, so that's one possible source; his followers were good to him, that's another. It's not clear when investments may have kicked in. We do know that his wealth and lifestyle have been controversial from very early in his presence in the U.S. and to this day. People here on both sides of the issue are arguing about whether he accepts donations, whether he charges for his works, whether he indirectly encourages or discourages gifts, whether the word "gifts" or "donations" is more appropriate. There are multiple Talk page sections devoting to arguing over the issue. It is clearly controversial. We're arguing about it as we speak!
Everyone in this debate, starting with yourself, seems to accept that Cagan is not valid as a source for controversial issues. The BLP section clearly states that verifiable sources must be independent and third-party; even the most fervent pro-Rawat editors here don't claim Cagan's publisher is. In fact, they are trying to justify the book under self-publishing or autobiography (which doesn't work either, because for SPL the authorship is in doubt, and autobiography that is not SPL again needs to be published by an independent, third-party publisher.) Msalt (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You maye have missed some threads above. Here are some quotes about sources of wealth:
Maeve's quote Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees.
Price's quote: . Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees.
Hunt's quote Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers.
So the source of his wealth, was from the "generosity of his devotees". These sources are already used in the article. Can you then explain to me why do you consider the fact that he maintains his wealth as a private investor to be controversial? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the controversial aspect is the implication that he is no longer supported by the generosity of his devotees. I know for a fact that he is, although I also accept that his income partly comes from return on investments. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources for how much income is from each source. --John Brauns (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I know for a fact that he is, really? In any case, as you said there is no sources available to support that claim, and we have his bio, the Prem Rawat website, and Cagan's book (in particular, given details about these investments), so I do not see the problem here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, there are lots of things you know for a fact that could not be included in a Wikipedia article because the source of your information does not satisfy Wikipedia rules. I know that Rawat's supporters continued to give him money well after the period Cagan refers to because they have told me they do (with pride I might add) and as they were good friends I believe them. --John Brauns (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's not controversial, then why are his investments even mentioned in his article? We don't discuss Robert Bly's investment strategies. I don't want to repeat myself, Jossi, but there are thousands of words on this talk page devoted to arguing about whether Rawat is currently getting money from devotees, whether he charges for speeches, even whether "gift" or "donation" is the right word for money he receives. It is clearly controversial, and declaring that he receives income from investments is clearly a point made in the service of this debate. You must see the irony of arguing that our current argument doesn't exist? Msalt (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Msalt, but I do not understand your point. Yes, there are thousands of words in talk, because some people believe this to be controversial, when it is not. The sources are unequivocal, why don't we stick to the sources we have? Why would not be appropriate to say that he never charged (past and present) for teaching the Techniques of Knowledge? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We are well beyond logic and reason when you can say "there are thousands of words of argument about this, because some people think it's controversial, when it's not." I have no further words to describe the absurdity therein. Or I suppose it could be condescension -- you who disagree don't count, all of us who matter agree -- but I prefer not to think that is your point.
The sources are NOT unequivocal. The only source provided is one that by consensus is not independent and reliable enough for controversial points. If we are to allow such sources, I will bet folding money that John Brauns and PatW can bring in other sources that are not independent or reliable enough, but which clearly state that Rawat is supported by gifts from devotees. The number of RELIABLE sources to settle the question is zero. Therefore, we should not be making statements about the source of his current income one way or the other in the article. Can you show me any other bio of a comparable speaker/author that discusses their income source oustide of a controversy? There are hundreds to choose from. Msalt (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the subject's business interests are irrelevant to this article; not contentious, not even interesting, just irrelevant. It is a ploy to say "This must be contentious, for here I am arguing about it." Reputable sources are not arguing about it. They agree that he asks nobody for money, ever. And John, I would suggest that while your friends may think of themselves as giving money to Prem Rawat, they are probably giving it to support a propagation campaign, local events, TPRF aid program or similar. I have heard people use the term "giving money to Maharaji" for all these things. Decades ago it was deliberately made impossible to give money to Prem Rawat personally, unless you happen to meet him somewhere and thrust an envelope into his hands. Rumiton (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to attack me by calling my argument a "ploy", especially when it constitutes the most basic kind of common sense. There are no reputable sources on the table whatsoever for the current source of Rawat's income, so saying that "reputable sources are not arguing about it" has no meaning. Reputable sources are not discussing the source of his current income at all, so this article should not discuss it either. Msalt (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was agreeing with you, Msalt. There are no sources unconnected to the subject saying anything about his finances at all. No contentions. No nothing. I take your point, and no doubt stand corrected, about the charities remuneration thing in the US. I think in Australia we are living in a more innocent time. High living by charity founders would leave us collectively aghast. Anyway, it is clear that Prem Rawat is not in any material way connected to the running of TPRF. Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see and appreciate a lot of agreement. I was just objecting to the characterization of my argument as a "ploy", if I read you right. I may be utterly wrong about everything I write but (to the limits of my self-awareness) my arguments are sincere and earnest. It seemed like an unnecessarily personal attack. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Msalt (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus

Several editors have claimed that there is consensus to use the Cagan book for non controversial references. That consensus has by no means been reached.

The problem with the Cagan book is that it is not honestly presented. Is it self published ? Is it authorised ? Is it a commissioned work ? If so who commissioned it and on whose behalf ? Without clarity over its status, any reference to the Cagan book whether concerning controversial issues or not, places the referencer (in this case WP) in a dubious position. The work must at least be recommendable as a reference in its own terms, but if those terms are obscure how can it be recommendable ? [[28]] raises an argument on this page regarding another putative source, I’m not sure that I agree with the argument, but if it is applied to one source it must be applied to all:

Well, as far as I can see, the site owners remain anonymous: [5] [6] [7] Could I sue the site owners like I could sue a publisher for publishing defamatory information? If the answer to the question is no (and I think it is), then that means the site does not have enough encyclopedic standing to be used as an external link. The reason being that whoever posts the information is not in practice prepared to vouch for its accuracy; if the same information could be found in a printed book, with a named publisher and author, it would be a different matter. -- Jayen466 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the Cagan book has a named publisher, no legal entity appears registered under the given name, and while an individual is named as the CEO of the named publisher, unless some legal entity exists, there is no functional position of CEO. Clearly Cagan is a named author but it is not clear what her status actually is. If she was commissioned by some individual to prepare material provided for publication, Cagan’s role would not be that of an orginating writer but that of a sub editor or copywriter whose own legal responsibility could be considered subordinate to the commissioning party. And the Commissioning party is entirely anonymous in which case to use Jayen466’s words whoever posts the information is not in practice prepared to vouch for its accuracy.

At the very minimum the short comings of the Cagan book as a reference must be clearly flagged in any use in Wikiedia, but even then the book should be only used where absolutely no other source is available.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the compromise of using Cagan for only non-controversial points as a consensus -- following Jossi's wording -- as a way to sidestep the thrash over the Cagan book. But I'm afraid the consensus is falling apart because of what I consider the insistence of several editors on squeezing controversial points through the loophole.
If we have to address Cagan directly, then I agree with Nik Wright2 that it is not a verifiable or reliable source under various policies, not so much for the anonymity (maybe that too) but mainly because it is not independently published. Even to qualify under the autobiography exemption, a book needs to be published by an independent third party publisher, and this book clearly is not. At the same time it does not fall under the self-publishing exemption because someone other than Rawat wrote it, and at best the authorship is not clear (another violation.)
I consider Cagan comparable to the Randi book -- tolerable in the short run as we try to move towards some kind of consensus, but needing to be replaced at the first opportunity. And ultimately, neither source should really be relied on in this article, in my opinion. I happen to think that deleting the text based on either book at the moment would be provocative and a sign of bad faith. There is a policy somewhere (sorry, I'm wiped out) about giving people time to find better sources instead of just deleting. I would put the various points sourced by either of these books in that category. But hey, let's spend our time finding those better sources instead of thrashing, and then we won't have to worry about it. Msalt (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ ".:: INSIEME - a revista italiana daqui ::". Retrieved 2008-02-11.
  2. ^ "Prem Rawat's "Words of Peace" Receives Brazilian TV Award". Retrieved 2008-02-11.
  3. ^ The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization. pp.279-96
  4. ^ Kranenborg, Reender. (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language) ISBN 90-210-4965-1
  5. ^ Levine, Saul V. "Life in Cults". Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association (From the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion). Ed. Marc Galanter. Pg 102. American Psychiatric Pub, Inc (1999). ISBN 0890422125.
  6. ^ Levine, Saul V. "Life in Cults". Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association (From the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion). Ed. Marc Galanter. Pg 100. American Psychiatric Pub, Inc (1999). ISBN 0890422125.
  7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in Americapp 141-145
  8. ^ Time Magazine, 2 November, 1972. Junior Guru"
  9. ^ Time Magazine, April 28, 1975. One Lord Too Many.
  10. ^ "NAM Frequently Asked Questions". Retrieved 2008-02-11.
  11. ^ "About Prem Rawat". Retrieved 2008-02-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_29&oldid=1142530312"