Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Dutch quote

Can you please proved the quote in Dutch, so that I can get it professionally translated? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

page 55-56 Reender Kranenborg "Eastern faith movements in the West/Oosterse geloofsbewegingen in het Westen"

(begin paragraph)"Maharaj ji staat zonder meer centraal. Uit alle boeken, brochures en toespraken blijkt dat het belangrijkste is dat hij de ware meester is , dat alleen hij de 'kennis' kan geven en dat men zich volledig aan hem moet overgeven. In de loop der jaren zien we dat de persoon van de goeroe steeds meer centraal komt te staan. Ook de uitspraken van Maharaj ji over zichzelf lijken steeds verder te gaan: steeds meer wordt hij zich ervan bewust hoe groot zijn goddelijkheid is. ' Ik leer ze gewoon perfectie en daarom noemen ze mij de perfecte meester. En ik ben ook werkelijk de perfecte meester, want ik kan de vrede onthullen. Ik kan deze vrede onthullen die perfect is ', zegt de goeroe over zichzelf. ' Guru Maharaji is degene die de werkelijke naam van God geeft. Niemand anders heeft die kracht ' en ' Er hangt een dun gordijn tussen onszelf en de Vader. Het is maar een heel dun gordijn en dit gordijn kan alleen maar opgetild worden door diegene die de autoriteit heeft om dat te doen. Dit gordijn kan alleen worden opgetild door de perfecte meester ' (continues with more quotes)

Andries 01:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern - Thanks for the Referencing Help

Buchert 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Keys Funding

To jossi, my source is on holidays at the moment but he told me it was part of an international fund-raising drive called Initial Funding Drive Keys Project. Maybe you could update your information and raise your understanding of my veracity. Buchert 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the USA? Maharaji's message is available in 53 countries. There is no central organization (in fact elan vital only exists in a few countries). Volunteers in some countries may come together to raise money for projects, such as the production of the Keys. In the US, you can read about fund-raising for this and other projects here:[1] ≈ jossi ≈ 07:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not speaking of the USA specifically though if it was included in the Initial Funding Drive for the Keys Project then calculations for it must also be available. I am pretty sure I will be able to post the documents here if required but I am sure you can determine the accuracy of my statement by checking the First Class archives.

Buchert 21:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not have access to any First Class "archives" about that fundrising drive. ( note: Before you "publish" any documents from FirstClass, note that that is a private email system and that you signed a confidentiality agreement when you obtained your firstClass account) ≈ jossi ≈ 21:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you contact the appropriate Elan Vital or Prem Rawat Foundation officers and ask for the information. Remember we are attempting to create an accurate record of Mr Rawat's life and work and an accurate estimate of the number of his students currently keeping in touch. Thank you for your concern re my legal status but what makes you think I have ever signed any confidentiality agreement? Rest assured I will not publish any such document while you are available to get the correct data. Buchert 23:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Succession

What is the source for the information that Mr Rawat spoke of his experiences directly after his father's death in an interview. It is published in Part 2, The Event, Section 2, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? of the book 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?'

Buchert 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a better quote from Maharaji on a recent interview in which he spoke about that moment. I will be adding it soon. ≈ jossi ≈ 07:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

That is fine as long as the original quote is left in. It should be interesting to see the revision in Mr Rawat's understanding. However his orginal public statments about this absolutely seminal event in his life must remain if people are to have a correct understanding of his beliefs, his proclamations and the beliefs of the "premies" of the time.

220.245.180.130 20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. OK? The picture is fine as it is. Do not re upload. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why should you be the one to make such an important aesthetic decision? Let us have a vote on it after the images are available for all to see.

Buchert 21:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remove most of the references to Mishler's interview in the 'succession to his father's mantle' section. Mishler's account is secondhand, and there is no verification of his claims. So it should not be 'according to Mishler', but rather 'according to a story Mishler heard'. The degree of conjecture and rumour is not befitting of a reputable encyclopedia, wiki or otherwise. In any forum, hearsay evidence is not acceptable. In addition, the perspective of any person fired from an organisation must be treated with caution. Further, the facts are incorrect; Mishler did not have 'a falling out with Rawat in 1997'. In summary, nothing allegedly reported by Mishler has any credibility. If some discussion is necessary, it should be on the 'criticism' pages, clearly labelled as hearsay. **Armeisen 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion of this, I have changed it as noted above. **Armeisen 22:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalizing image

Bukhert: please do not vandalize images uploaded. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 06:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't "vandalize" or dim the image that image. I lightened it up a little so a better image of Prem Rawat was available to the public. I will re-upload the lightened image if you have no objection. The orginal one was far too dark to see his features adequately.

Can we place both images on the page so that people can decide which gives a better likeness? Buchert 21:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what is the need for changing the picture. It is fine as it is. Thanks. --ZappaZ 21:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you just need to adjust your monitor, either brightness or your gamma correction. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Righto, I'll check it on some other monitors first.

Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing Quote

I have cut the following quote from the introduction as there is no dispute about the names and honorifics that were been given to Mr Rawat in his early years or what he prefers to call himself now. It adds no important information and there is much important information to be added.

In his book Clarity ^[2] he says:

My parents named me Prem Rawat. Since then, many people have given me many names. When as a child, I started addressing audiences in India, those who came to listen to me called me Maharaji. Over the years as I have traveled, people on different continents have continued to give me different names, affectionately expressing respect and appreciation. To me, what matters has always been the joy, clarity and peace I can bring through what I offer.

Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Buchert, I think that the uninformative quote was too long. May be we could shorten it to "To me, what matters has always been the joy, clarity and peace I can bring through what I offer." Andries 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andries, I don't think there is any reason to put that quote in at the beginning/introduction of the article. If at some appropriate point in the page it is appropriate to mention Mr Rawat's attiotude to his life then add it in there.

Buchert 21:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a biographical article of Prem Rawat. Not including his onw views on the use of his name is simply unacceptable. Everybody is making a big deal about his name, and here is Prem Rawat 'himself cited in a book he wrote. . ≈ jossi ≈ 21:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

move it to wikiquote I would suggest. The long quote in the beginning that is is hardly informative is quite bad style and inappropriate. Andries 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well jossi I am happy to include Mr Rawat's views on many important issues. However, that little piece has no place in the introduction and is just a piece of self-published vanity puffery. I believe the issues re his name were already settled and I am happy to go along with the status quo. Buchert 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

University of VA Page

Hi Andries, I agree that this page is a mere rehash of existing material and should not be cited. Cite the original sources if you wish to use any of that material. Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What original sources? Do you mean the repetitive rants of these people obsessed with all things Rawat?-70.85.195.139 20:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added controversial quotes from Bob Mishler

In the section First Trip to the West many of Bob Mishler's earliest beliefs about Mr Rawat have been included with no mention of the evolution of Mr Mishler's ideas as he came to know the young Mr Rawat better. I believe it is inappropriate to use selective quotes from a source that give a false picure of that source's ideas. I amsure you will have comments. Buchert 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If that is an allegation by a critic then why are the early positive statements by that critic on the page if not to give a misleading picture of Bob Mishler's beliefs, acceptable? Bob Mishler was the President of Divine Light Mission, directly appointed by the young Mr Rawat Buchert 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Before you make such edits, I would encourage you to read the discussion about the VfD, the consensus version and the debate about merging articles. Also, please sign your comments and please do not create a new section for each of your comments. Thanks. --ZappaZ

21:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Strongly object to a de-facto merge

I strongly object to a unilateral attempt to initiate a de-facto merge. We discussed that issue at length already. The arrival of a newcomer does not warrant bypassing a consensus built over thousands of edits. If editors want to continue discussing a possible merger, so be it, but any attempt to merge the articles without consensus will be strongly oppossed by me and I am sure will be opposed by other editors as well. --ZappaZ 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not attempting a de facto merge. I am updating and correcting this page wherever I think it is appropriate and where I can provide sources that validate my edits. We can discuss the edits and disagree and if necessary get adjudication. I am happy to abide by all Wiki guidelines. I added those quotes from Mishler because the page as it currently stands gave a misleading picture of Misgler's public statements.

Zappaz, I do think that Buchert has to follow Wikipedia guidelines which does not include a concensus version for which he never gave his consent. Andries 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW Can you provide details of your research into the number of Muslim followers of Shri Hans? Buchert 22:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts too about the long quote by Mishler in this article too that Buchert inserted because it describes Mishler's POV about Maharaji's behavior, not his factual behavior. In contrast, the allegation made by three independent insider testimonies (Mishler, Dettmers, Donner) about heavy drinking by Maharaji in the 1970s is clearly biographical information because it deals with Maharaji's factual behavior and hence should not only mentioned in the criticism article or the criticism section. (I am aware that we have already discussed this ad nauseam and that we have not come a millimeter closer on the issue of mentioning critical insider testimonies in this article.) Andries 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I am happy to cut out the parts that describe Mishler's POV and just retain those parts dealing with Mr Rawat's behaviour, his alcohol abuse and his anxiety (which ended up with him in hospital for an ulcer operation). If we keep the misleading positive statements then we must have the negative statements to show what Mishler really saw. After all the current statements are actually just Mishler recalling what the young Mr Rawat said and Mishler's initial attitudes to the young Mr Rawat and not what Mishler said the young Mr Rawat did. My edit includes what Mishler actually saw and that is corroborated by the public record of the young Mr Rawat having an operation for ulcers in hospital. Buchert 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Buchert, on second thoughts, I think I now understand your point. The article describes Mishler's POV about Rawat's not claiming to be God but omits to mention that Mishler later held the view that Rawat had allowed his followers to believe that he was God and that he refused to correct his followers' faith because that would mean less control and hence less income from them. That is, I have to admit, selective and not fair. We should describe all important aspects of Mishler's testimony here, not just the aspects of his testimony that are positive about Rawat. Please correct me if that is not what you mean. Andries 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

So I'll wait 24 hours to give jossi and ZappaZ time to discuss this but I am quite sure that any neutral judge will agree that if Mishler's statements about his early positive ideas about the young Mr Rawat are kept in then his statements about his later experience of the slightly older Mr Rawat should accompany them. Also I must say that making a statement that the young Mr Rawat suffered from anxiety and drank alcoholic drinks should not be construed as "criticism". If the source has personal knowledge which is validated by the public record of the source's role in DLM and the young Mr Rawat's life then that evidence can be challenged but not summarily dismissed as criticism. It is perfectly NPOV to say that Mr Rawat drinks alcohol, it is POV to decide that this is necessarily a critical statment.Buchert 23:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about Bob Mishler and what he thinks or does not think or thougth. The allegation about alcohol abuse is a straight case of character assassination by enemies of Prem Rawat. All the repetitions of allegations in this page are just another attempt to reinforce these allegations. Repeating these allegations ad-nauseum does not make them facts. As far as Mishler goes, I would delete any "positive" statements he made about Prem Rawat, if there is such a thing, from the article., if that is your argument for adding his allegations. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful, I agree that the best option at this time is to remove the selective quotes from Mishler's radio interview in the Section "First Trip to the West" and replace it with information from a source that can be cited with confidence. Buchert 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the positive comments made by Bob Mishler and replaced them with an interview with Prem Rawat from that time in which he answered questions about the background to Knowledge and his role in that process when he came on his First Trip to the West. This quote was taken from a book which I have referenced, published by Divine Light Mission in that decade and you have deleted despite Senegal having recommended the article should be combed, cleaned up as much as possible so that it get closer to an NPOV state. And you have once again removed my new references. I will request adjudication if you do this again. It is not as if I am adding information from a disaffected source but direct from Mr Rawat's mouth.

I have attempted to add references which include books published by organisations involved in promoting Mr Rawat in the past and they have been removed. I will try again. Buchert 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for removal is that you are bypassing consensus reached after months of work. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your so-called consensus is not graven in stone. Senegal has given a direction and as I am not trying to add what you consider ad hominem attacks on Prem Rawat but information from Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital Sources and reference texts to provide a much better picture than this so-called consensus I have no doubt that the decisions will come down in my favour eventually. Especially as you continue to remove the references as well as the edits. I am keeping a record of all your tactics. Thank you for this education. Buchert 06:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "so called consensus", it 'is a consensus achieved over many months of hard work. You don't need to "keep track of my edits" because the wiki does that already, and finally, the "decisions" will not favour you eventually. It will favour hopefully NPOV and what this encyclopedia stands for. ≈ jossi ≈ 13:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, the concensus was an informal agreement between the editors then. I do not think that Buchert is bound by this informal agreement because he is new and never gave his consent. Andries 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation

Greetings, fellow editors. User:Jossifresco asked me to comment on this dispute. I have read the points made by the pro and anti factions and these are my comments.

Starting approximately this month last year, pro, anti, and unrelated editors including myself spent an inordinate amount of time editing the collection of articles about Prem Rawat, arriving to a compromise that all sides could live with, with the wonderful help and copyediting skills of Gary D.
This article (and the main criticism article) were two of the most edited articles in 2004 in the English Wikipedia
The VfD of Criticism of Prem Rawat a few months ago was inconclusive, with admin recommendtion to either merge or refactor each one of the articles to achieve a better NPOV.
In reading the discussions, I see an effort by the anti faction to attempt to pepper this biographical article with allegations of alchoholism, improper behaviour, or just criticisms made by oponents. These edits made by the anti faction carry a too evident agenda that is to assert their POV in this article. As Zappaz has strenuously argued, We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. (from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
Another important aspect of NPOV is that None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. Allegations and criticism leveled at this controversial person, the organizations involved, etc. are being made by a small group of activists. These activists have several websites in which they make their point of view known to the public in very unambiguous terms. A full article is devoted in WP to their numerous grievances, allegations, complaints, etc. @ Criticism of Prem Rawat

Quoting Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Reading Jimbo's comments on minority viewpoints, the anti faction should not make claims that their POV is not well represented in WP. On the contrary. Neither they can claim that this article is a whitewash, as it already contains a great deal of controversy and criticism such as the succession disputes, the negative press during the early days, allegations of purported divinity as well as a full section summarizing the activists POV @ Prem Rawat#Criticism.

Taking all the above into account, I my recommendation is that unless new material is brought forth by either side (such as a new newspaper article, a new relevant story, a new scholarly study, a new book, etc.), these articles should be combed, cleaned up as much as possible so that they get closer to an NPOV state, and left alone. There are many articles in WP that needs our attention; devoting more time to these articles, after the considerable effort we put last year, is a waste of our energies and will only engender endless edit wars, animosity and frustration for all parties. If you want to get "down and dirty" come and help with WP:RfCs, WP:VfDs, and perform other janitorial tasks. Giving your time to these important aspects of our community will certainly diffuse some of the animosity expressed by editors on both sides of the contention, and you will feel rewarded by your efforts rather than frustrated and angry. These articles have had enough of our time already, and are in my opinion, undeserving of further attention.

If I can be of further assistance with this dispute, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page, just note that I do not check this account too often. I leave you with Gary D's words from the summary at the top of this page. --Senegal 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Characteristic of the classic successful compromise, everyone is a little unhappy with the results but everyone can also live with them. We have commitments from our editors' group to protect these articles from vandalism attacks and to ask their respective constituencies to respect the articles (and our hard work!) as well. Gary D October 11, 2004

Viewpoints

Senegal, I admit that my activities here do not improve the overall quality of Wikipedia very much, but the attitude and behavior of Zappaz and Jossi with regards to this article make me very angry. That is why I keep editing this article. Andries

With regards to majority, I think it is important to ask majority in what respect?

Scholarly majority? Articles or books that claim to be of scholarly standards by Reender Kranenborg, Saul Levine (see this talk page), Foss and Larkin who were quoted in Dr. Ron Geaves 2001 article (Rawat's teachings have no substance), Dr. Paul Schnabel, Wim Haan, Dr. Jan van der Lans, the UVa article agree at least to some extent with the complaints and criticism by ex-premies. The only one who does not agree at all with the criticism is Ron Geaves who is a student of Rawat. Andries 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Majority of the people who had inside knowledge of Rawat's private behavior during the 1970s with regards to his heavy drinking? Then it is a 100% majority, three (Mishler, Dettmers, Donner) out of three. Andries 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Majority of the overall population? Before Rawat sank into obscurity, the DLM was very unpopular according to Saul Levine. Of course, now it is not possible anymore to assess his popularity. Andries 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Majority of the people who are interested in obscure gurus in religious leaders? Then I think that Sarlo's guru rating service is the best availabe resource that gives Rawat a very low ranking. Andries 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In all these different explanations of "majority" mentioned hereabove the ex-premie view is the majority.

Andries 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the views of ex-premies are well represented in Wikipedia but the testimonies of the ex-premies are not integrated in this article. In contrast the rebuttals (that I consider flimsy and ad hoc) by premies in the criticism article are always there. These double standards that led to a somewhat wikipedia:POV fork-like article should be corrected. Andries 10:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to Andries comments about "majority" :

Majority of scholars?. The discussion about scholars we already had it at length. I have given context for each and every one of these scholars. Some wrote that they wrote based on hearsay and a couple of newspaper articles. The other cites the former, without checking sources. Win Haam was a student of religion and belonged to a critical Catholic movement. The UvA article was written by a student and does not agree with the ex-premies viewpoint. that is a fabrication. Levine makes outrageous assertions without providing sources for these in an article that even you agree is a piece of sh*t.
Majority of insiders? There are dozens upon dozens of people that had personal access to Prem Rawat during the 70s and 80s and up to date. Mishler, Donner and Dettmers only represent 100% of the people that brought up such allegations, among hundreds that were close to Prem Rawat and even lived at his residence. Overall, Mishler, Donner and Dettmers represent no more than at the most 3% of these people. All others have either not brought up or plainly denied any such allegations.
Majority of people? Right now 9 million people that have attended events with Maharaji and more than half a million have received his techniques of Knowledge. This dwarfs the number of these ex-premies (less than 20-odd people that post regularly on the ex-premie chatroom). Prem Rawat has received recognition from many government officials, academics, and United Nations representatives (I will be adding a section on this, now that you ask). No such thing can be said from any expremie. The only think that you can call obscure in this context are 20 people in a chatroom posting incessantly and rehashing their allegations in dime-a-dozen websites.
Majority of the people who are interested in obscure gurus? Sarlo's rating service acknowledges that they don't have a rational methodology for evaluating gurus (quote) Are there any "rules" to be understood and applied here? At least firm guidelines? Or is it just prejudice / gut feeling / seat o' pants? Understanding that fixed rules always get you into exceptions and paradoxes – without exception! – there are nevertheless useful principles that may have wide application. Sarlo goes on to explain his unique and eccentric criteria that totally lack any accepted methodology or even rationale and rigorous thinking. Hence Sarlo's ratings only represents only the opinion of one eccentric individual.

The only sensible conclusion is that the POV of these ex-premies is just that: a minuscule minority position. They do not like to hear that, but a fact is a fact is a fact, and as such they should be represented in this article 'in the correct proportion only to achieve NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi,

Majority of scholars? It is not up to you to assess whethere they had good reasons to write what they write. The fact is that there are quite a lot of scholars who made critical comments about Rawat that are very similar to the complaints that the ex-premies now make on the internet. Hence that makes them a majority regardless if Jossi thinks if they did not have good sources and references for what they wrote.
Majority of the people who are interested in obscure gurus? I never said that Sarlo's guru rating service was an ideal source but it is, I think, the best available. Do you know a better source?
Majority of people? The documented fact is that Rawat was very unpopular among the public in the West before he sank into obscurity. Apart from Levine Foss and Larkin wrote "As it achieved notoriety, the Mission alternatively became the focus of public outrage and ridicule." It has now become impossible to give accurate numbers. And also, if Rawat was so popular where is the chatroom with thousands participants of his students? There is none. So that means 20 or more against 0. That is a 100% majority.
Majority of insiders? If Mishler's, Dettmers', and Donner's testimonies are contradicted by others then provide a list of these testimonies under their real names. As long as the list is not there they continue to have a 100% majority. This is the most important form of majority, I believe, because it is a majority of experts about the subject.

Thanks. Andries 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Andries: Your arguments do not stand the test of reality, only the test of your bias:

There are three and a half scholars that wrote criticism against Prem Rawat, together with criticism of other non-mainstream groups. Some of these of the scholars were obscure until you started splattering their names all over Wikipedia.
You will have a hard time convincing anyone that Sarlo's is a good source. Sarlo is a follower of Osho. Quote: Dedicated to the vision of Osho
Prem Rawat has 'not sunk into obscurity", unless you consider obscure meeting 1.5 million people in 4 months and 50,000 people receiving his techniques of Knowledge last year alone. I will be uploading some recent pictures to add to the article and you will see for yourself.
Foss and Larkin? Have you read that article? That is an obscure piece of literature. It is only cited by mmmm, let me see ... the ex-premie group, who else! See the goole search
Popular chartrooms for students? 20 against zero? That was a good joke.
That argument about these three being the majority does not stand the reality test. They are three of three, that's it.

All your arguments all fall against the test of reality: the fact is that the ex-premie group are a minuscule, irrelevant, yet obssessed, group that is simply using the Internet to voice their grievances in a manner that is completely disproportionate with their relevance. I will be adding some new information in the Criticism article that will prove this point to you once and for all, if you are just able to face the reality of this group of people that you have befriended, as it really is and not as you would like it to be. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

All the scholars that I mentioned are either not obscure or their articles were published in non-obscure scholarly magazines.
if Sarlo is not a good source then here is another guru rating. [3]. Maharaji is seen as unreliable by, I think, anyboy who knows something about obscure guru. Is there any guru rating list that gives Rawat a high ranking? Only in countries where a lot of people have no access to the internet he may still be somewhat popular.
And if he was really popular as you claim then there would surely be a discussion group on the internet apart from that by ex-followers.
Geaves cites Foss and Larkin. Of course they are not cited much, after all who is interested in such an obscure guru? Is there any sociological article about Rawat or the DLM that is cited much? Andries 04:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If Prem Rawat is an "obscure guru", why are you spending so much energy in this article? What bugs you so much, Andries? Why are you so angry and why you have chosen to channel your anger against someone that you have no knowledge of. Have you asked yourself these questions? Have you read the affidavit by John Macgregor? What excuses and lies you tell yourself now after reading that testimony, that allows you to dismiss it and not even acknowledge any of it? Don't you see that you have been duped? These people that you are de-facto representing their POV in WP, have no credibility and your allegiance with them, plainly weird. Have you asked yourself why are you editing this article? Those are questions that you ought to ask yourself and listen to your own answers. Nobody cares about your answers, Andries but you. Honesty is our best of friends if one wants to grow as a human being, but our worst enemy if we just want to hide and blame others for our shortcomings. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Trolls and Hombres

it gets boring to always revert that stuff. The items brought forward by RichardG and Jossi are getting "suddenly" now support from anonymous proxied guys and and id's like mr reyes. Why not let them do it? Since Zappaz seems to be paralysed by his bias to let his intellect work for the other side, in this case Wikipedia. Let them do their propaganda job. Delete the criticism article, mortify those who leave such cults. The English Wikipedia will be judged by it's contents. The German Wikipedians reacted on the translation of "Prem Rawat" their way. They cut it down to a little piece of information about a cult. Period. My anger about that is now flying away and i wonder if that is just the right way for an encyclopedia.Thomas h 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unauthorised, uncorroborated, use of my name in this article

I have just removed mention of my name in relation to a link to a website. RichardG made some unsupported allegations about website ownership earlier, and has declined to respond to my challenge. --John Brauns 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Added quote from the Keys website

This article looks more and more like an advertisement for Prem Rawat's business, and if were not for Andries it would be only such. I haven't the time or the energy to correct the POVs that Rawat's devotees keep injecting into this article, and it appears no other former follower has either. For the record, the previous concensus, IMO, was never based on the article being a fair compromise, but on the fact that at least readers had access to the truth about Rawat. If Wiki supporters are happy for Wiki to be hijacked by religious cults, then so be it. Anyway, to be helpful to those trying to spread Rawat's message, I've added a quote from Rawat's 'The Keys' website. No criticism is required. --John Brauns 22:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is a "religious cult", then what does this make you, Brauns? An anti-religious bigot? --67.15.76.142 00:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

and why were the following sentences deleted? This is fair an good summary of the criticism by scholars.

"Several scholary articles from the 1970 and 1980s articles about the DLM, Rawat or new religious movements made various criticisms or critical comments, some of them similar to the complaints of ex-premies that they later voiced on the internet. For example, irrationality among followers was noted by Wim Haan (1981); discouragement of critical thinking by Rawat was described by Dr. Paul Schnabel (1982); Rawat leading a double life by the professor of psychology of religion Dr. Jan van der Lans (1981); the DLM having no substantial contents by the sociologists Daniel Foss and Larkin (1978); Rawat making claims of personal divinity and having an inappropriate lifestyle by the religious scholar Reender Kranenborg (1982); and concern about financial exploitation of followers by the psychiatrist Saul V. Levine (around 1989)"

I think it is time for Wikipedia:request for comment or page protection because I have no intention to comply with Jossi's deletions and Jossi keeps deleting my additions. Andries 12:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We have gone through these in detail already. The way you present it paints a distorted picture, you do not leave a recourse to rebutt these., unless we expand fully. Van der Lans did not cite his sources and wrote his essay for a Christian institution. Levine did not provide any sources for his wide assertions.. Schnabel cites Van der Lans. Etc, etc, etc. It all boils down to the discussion about a merger. If you want to present a POV, I can present an opposite POV. We have done that already at the criticism article. What you are trying to do is an unilateral marge. Go ahead with the RfC. I already requestd a page deletion before your and the new guy on the block's attempt to bypass consensus. But it was not acted upon. ≈ jossi ≈ 13:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no place here for a summary of scholarly criticisms. I will add the fact that van der Lans' book "Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru" was written for a catholic institute. Wikipedia is not the place to make ad hoc comments on the research of scholars, neither in this article nor in the criticism article. Of course, we can and should select the experts on a certain subject but once whe have done so then it is inappropriate to count the references for their assertions and then to write in Wikipedia that they didn't do their work well. That comes very close to original research and is in fact inserting personal opinions. Instead of these kind of rebuttals, let us try to find other research that contradicts these criticisms e.g. Ron Geaves who accuses Foss and Larkin of bias. Andries

You are not understanding what I said. You are welcome to cite your Dutch scholars, and you have done so remarkably well at the criticism article. In fact, you have done it so well that Google has picked up on your edits... :) These scholars must be quite happy with the attention you are giving them outside of the Netherlands. I have actually helped you with your scholars by professionally translating the Dutch quotes. That aside, what I am objecting to is a summary that does not allow context such as the examples I gave above. What you are doing is enacting a merge that was not agreed upon as the discussion in this page attest. Wanna break the previous consensus? Get a new consensus. Comments about scholars are all over in WP (see apologist article, biographical articles of scholars of new religions, etc.) It is part and parcel of the debate.≈ jossi ≈ 15:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Andries, please stop from attempting a merge without calling it that. You have expanded the criticism summary quote extensively, so be happy and leave it at that. Can you? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

no, I can't because the allegations of heavy drinking is in itself not criticism but biographical information and hence belongs here. If there was only one person who made this allegation then one could have doubts whether it belongs here, but it is made by three insiders and hence too credible not to be mentioned. Andries 00:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. These are no "biographical" that is just character assessination. For these three "insiders" there are hundreds insiders that will state the total opposite. You have no right to smear a person just because of these allegations. In any other circumstance, and if this was not an article about Prem Rawat, adding these allegations would be totally absurd, ridiculous and totally unacceptable. It is only because your allegiance to the ex-premie cause, because of your own unresolved apostasy that you are here. You do not listen to reason, only to your own anger. I have tried and tried to accommodate your POV but you do not seem to care. I am really tired of you. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I do listen to you but I continue to disagree. How does the reader know whether the allegations are character assisimation or the truth? How do you know? Mentioning the information enables the reader to make up his own mind. Look at the George W. Bush article about his alleged alcohol and drug use. That is biographical information. His alcohol and drug abuse are not only mentioned in a special article Criticism of George Bush, in which the Democrats present their POV of Bush. If there are inside sources of the 1970s and 1980s who contradict Mishler, Dettmers, and Donner then let us add them. I admit that your and Zappaz' behavior here makes me angry. Andries 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

my daughter did a summary about Robbie Williams' Life, recently for school. Robbie's alcohol problem and rehabilitation were a self-evident part of all Biographies that she fumbled through. Thomas h 07:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no story about alcohol abuse in George W. Bush article. You are making that up. And by the way there is an article about George W. Bush military service controversy, and a one line mention about it in the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ 10:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, there is a story about alcohol and drug abuse by Bush copied from the version today (17 Aug. 2005). This proves that allegations such as these, if they have a certain minimum of documentation and credibility are biographical and should be mentioned.

"Bush has described his days before his religious conversion in his 40s as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He says that he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Reverend Billy Graham. [6], [7], [8]

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [9] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [10] In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [11], [12] See also George W. Bush substance abuse controversy."

Andries 10:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about Bob Mishler. It is also not an article about what the he thought. It is an article about Prem Rawat. I deleted all the Mishler this, and Mishler tha. Also made the summary of the critics, what is supposed to be, a summary. They already have an article larger than this one in which they do tell their story. --Morse

All Hell Broke Lose?

What's going on? In the span of few hours, our hard work over months of edits has been lost to silly and childish editwarring. I held Andries responsible for the mess, and I will not help him clean it up. You messed it up, Andries, you pick up the pieces. What a f*** waste of time... --ZappaZ 05:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the neutrality warning

I gave the article a neutrality warning because of the following reasons

disproportionate use of references by Rawat and his students. Only the non-follower Chryssides (who is a direct colleague of follower Geaves) is used as a reference. Kranenborg is mentioned as a reference but his comments were removed from the article. So this means that 10 out of 11 references for the article are from Rawat himself or his students!

So what? ≈ jossi ≈ 10:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

removal of the summary of scholarly criticisms.

You can restrore that ≈ jossi ≈ 10:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the omission of heavy drinking by Dettmer, Mishler, and Donner in the biography part.

Andries 10:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

These are not biographical aspects, as well argued above.≈ jossi ≈

Your only intent in this article has nothing to do with NPOV, but to express your anger and push your POV. ≈ jossi ≈ 10:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, if you really cannot see that there is a neutrality problem when 10 out of 11 references for this article are from Rawat himself, or from his hagiography written by his followers or from devout followers then I think that you are very blinded by your POV, taking into account that the subject is a controversial religious/teacher of meditation techniques and there is very detailed information about his life available from ex-premies, who have a totally different story to tell. Andries 20:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, can you please provide references for your assertion that "Guru is great than God is a common saying in India" I knew Hinduism quite well, but the first time when I had heard of it was due to Rawat. Read also the following [4]Thanks in advance. Andries 20:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that hint, i've never read that inteview before. At least it appears as a real bit research for me and it demiystifies the "came alone to the west to bring his message" thing. Of course probably too authentic to have a place here, almost this article doesn't deserve something like that. I am still waiting for Zappaz to dig his piles of papers to show me that Hans has adressed muslim and hindus to almost equal parts, which of course doesn't exist and so it is better that he has forgotten to do that ;-). Thomas h 12:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the Guru article, and ask any Indian. ≈ jossi ≈ 06:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the guru article and Brahmanand says so, which I wrote. I think it may be a common saying in Sant Mat, but you cannot generalize this for the whole of India. Andries 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I asked a colleague, who grew up in Bombay, in a neutral way, whether the saying "Guru is greater than God" is a common saying and he immediately and strongly denied it. Andries 10:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Especially, like mentioned in that interview, when it was used in a monotheistic context. Maybe the impact of such a statement in the west was reason for some surprise for Rawat and the family, and when they found that because young westerners took him by the word, and suddenly wanted to dedicate their lives, with all the donations and money, they screwed it up and even more money was flowing, how comfortable. Thomas h 13:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you might enhance your mental frame of reference in this matter if you try and read the "Hans Yog Prakash", written by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - if you accept him as an authority on this subjekt. Nice reading, too! And freely and completely downloadable on the Ex-Premie.org, imagine that. Rainer P., 18. August 2005 12:25

"guru greater than God" or "guru heavier than God" . Some other sources [5], [6], [7], [8],, [9], [10], [11],[12] ≈ jossi ≈ 14:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

source number 18 is a copy of the wiki guru article,17 says his glory is greater, 15 says it's a joke, 14 says nothing about greater, but describes the function, 13 says more than god but not greater, 12 nothing with greater than god, 11 is OK but the same source than 16. Nonetheless we have had a long discussion with Lordwhatwashisname? from India. He said this saying is widely spread but you can never say for all of India, India is too big and has too many religious streams to make such a statement. That is probably why Andries collegue from India rejected this. But with your tendency to simplification i cannot help you. Sorry.Thomas h 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So, if you are so clever, why don't you find an alternative wording that reflects this. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

why did you want a generalization in the first place anyway, is it so important? I know, or i think i may know. It is because of the pending reproach that this quote was used purposely to bind followers to an overhuman idol to exploit them. The more natural this "saying" is on a day to day basis all over India, the more innocent the boy must have been in using it. Ok. Did you read [13] by now, and put your antipathy for Jean-Michel aside for a while? The boy was not alone. The familiy was always behind/after him. It might be quite another story. Even if you don't intend to reflect anything of this here, it will probably make you think. So, why not just add another reference from a living teacher who uses the same phrase, like amritapuri and an e.g. in front both of them and you have two prominent personalities, one alive , one dead that stand for that phrase and the e.g. indicates that there a more.Thomas h 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The origin of guru can be traced back as far as the early Upanishads, where the conception of the Divine Teacher on earth first manifested from its early Brahmin associations. Indeed, there is an understanding in some sects that if the devotee were presented with the guru and God, first he would pay respects to the guru since the guru had been instrumental in leading him to God. To illustrate the elevated status of a guru, some saints and poets have sung the glory of the guru:

Kabir

Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate?

I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.

Brahmananda

It's my great fortune that I found Satguru, all my doubts are removed.

I bow before Guru. Guru's glory is greater than God's.

Sahjo Bai

I can afford to forget God but not the Guru. I can not equate God with Guru.

Hari Bhakti Vilasa ( 4.344)

One does not directly worship one's God. One must begin by the worship of the Guru. Only by pleasing the Guru and gaining his mercy, can one offer anything to God. Thus, before worshiping God, one must always worship the Guru.

Jossi, how do you technically give a neutrality warning to an article? I'd like to do so for the German "Elan Vital" - article. Rainer P., 18. August 2005 24:00

Just put {{NPOV}} at the top of the page. I have done it for you, you can check it. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________

The Apostasy Problem

Proposition [1]: The testimony of apostates is unreliable - after Wilson, Bromley & Shupe etc.

Condition [1]: Prem Rawat and his pre circa 1980 followers were de facto adherents of the Rhadasomi tradition as taught by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - Prem Rawat's father and Guru.

Condition [2]: Prem Rawat and his pre 'circa 1980' followers are no longer adherents of the Rhadasomi tradition as taught by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj.

Deduction [1]: Conditions [1] and [2] require that Prem Rawat and his longest serving followers must be apostates of the Rhadasomi tradition and the teaching of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj.

Deduction [2]: If Proposition [1] holds then Prem Rawat and his longest serving followers are unreliable sources of testimony for all aspects of Prem Rawat's mission prior to Prem Rawat's and his longest serving followers', collective apostasy in the early 1980s !

Dev Bhikar 21:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Dev Bhikar

ROFL ≈ jossi ≈ 22:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Since the cult doesn't consider itself as a cult nor a religion not even an organisation, ,leaving members cannot be called apostates. Yet by excessively using this term against former members, jossi and friends are revealing the true character of this cult. Yet ,you may argument, those former members are apostates because they are against an imaginary cult, that only exists in their misunderstanding. Jossi definitely doesn't reflect anything of this. This case is unfortunately NOT considered in the apostate article. If you ask Zappaz kindly he will be more than happy to add it to the apostate article.Thomas h 06:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that Bromley doubts the factual accuracy of testimonies more than what is required by common sense. He doubts the interpretations by apostates and wrote about the politicis of apostasy and the social influence on apostates. Here is an email that he wrote me after I had written him quite an angry email

"Mr. Dagneaux,

Thank you for your note. I think if you are going to criticize my workyou should at least do me the courtesy of reading it first. I think my work on apostasy is misunderstood. I do identify a group of former members who ally with countermovements and play a political role in the countermovement in opposing those movements. I do not intend to question the veracity or integrity of leavetakers. There are many cases of exploitation and abuse in religious movements, as in all institutions, and it is not my intent to impugn the integrity of individuals victimized by any group. Obviously it becomes complex to sort out charges and countercharges in specific cases, and my theorizing is not the basis for such evidence sorting. I have no knowledge of your situation and no reason to question your accounts of your experiences. I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences and the movement if you care to share that information.

David G. Bromley"

Zappaz, I hope that you learn from this email hereabove that you go far beyond even the POV of all academics (Bromley has quite an extreme opinion of apostates) in your excessive (and hence insulting) scepticism of apostates and that your proposed methodology and opinion on excluding Mishler, Dettmers and testimonies in this article is baseless.

Andries 11:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for the new neutrality warning

I gave the article again neutrality warning because of the following reasons

disproportionate use of references by Rawat and his students. Only the non-follower Chryssides (who is a direct colleague of follower Geaves) is used as a reference. Kranenborg is mentioned as a reference but his comments were removed from the article. So this means that 10 out of 11 references for the article are from Rawat himself or his students!
Omission of heavy drinking by Dettmer, Mishler, and Donner in the biography part.
Many business accolades. These business accolades should only be at wikiquote, not here.

Andries 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography vs. References

Just curious, what's the difference between the "Bibliography" and "References" sections in this article? RDF 15:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

DRF, References are direct references from the article, while bibliography is additonal/relevant reading (same as "Sugested readring"). ≈ jossi ≈ 15:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV warning?

These are fully attributed, by notable people, hence compliant with NPOV. The only reason Andries adds an NPOV, is that it does not fist is POV. NPOV warning removed. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This list of subjective opinions should go to wikiquote. If we add these subjective opinions then we could as well add some some subjective opinions by critic Jim Heller. Andries 15:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jim Heller is not notable, these leaders are. With your interpretation we should remove then all material from this article and the Criticism of Prem Rawat article that is attributed to any person, under the new Andrie's rule of "No subjective opinions". That would be totally unacceptable and contrary to NPOV. -- ZappaZ

15:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

may be Heller is not notable, but certainly Abbie Hoffman (as a person) is and Mike Finch, Dettmers, and Mike Donner are notable (as followers). Andries 16:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the business accolades, I do not see anybody who is notable as a person, or as a follower. I think we should replace these subjective opinions with the opinions of people who are notable (as a follower or person) like Abbie Hofmann, Finch, Dettmers, and Donner. Andries 17:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, the degree to which you are blinded by your POV when editing this and the criticisms articles leads to hilarious consequences. Look at the the amount of rebuttals and text from Elan Vital and supporters in the criticisms article and compare it to the small amount of space that critics (including first hand testimonies with factual contents about Rawat) have here. I request you to abandon your true believer mindset when editing articles related to Rawat in Wikipedia and to be fair and reasonable when assessing sources. Please try to be more detached. If this were an article about an obscure religious leader that did not happen to be your own, would you then also oppose so strongly adding documented, detailed information about the leader from sources provided by his former followers, taking into account that those sources are the most detailed and documented that are available? Andries 16:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are attempting to represent the POV of a tiny minority. You have even failed even to comment on the damning affidavit from a former ex-premie in which all these "rebuttals by Elan Vital" are confirmed under oath. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to read Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Complaints_against__User:Andries_and_User:Willmcw, to understand Andries advocacy better: by validating the POV of the expremies (a minority viewpoint), he is in fact validating his own (another minority viewpoint as eloquently presented in that talk page). That is a very obvious observation of Andrie's attitude in these articles. The purpose is not NPOV, but is the validation of his own POV. --ZappaZ 16:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

when trying to assess what is a minority and who the majority one should look at the experts on the subject. For example, the experts on the subject of Rawat's private behavior are Dettmers, Donner and Mishler. That is a 100% majority because there is no one who contradicts them. Other experts on the DLM and Rawat religious scholars or people who did partipant observation, like Wim Haan, who published his results in the magazine about religious movements of the Vrije Universiteit. Some of them made very similar complaints and criticisms as ex-premies. The experts on Rawat are not the (lower) middle class people in India who once visited an event where Rawat spoke and they should not be included when assessing who holds the majority view. In other words, I think that ex-premies hold a majority view. Andries 16:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you think wrong. We have already discussed this subject in this page quitre extensively. repeating your arguments again and again, without addressing what was said before by several editors that challenge your POV doe not help ≈ jossi ≈ 16:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

That was a pretty disgusting statement, Andries. Are you implying that "lower class" Indians are ignorant? I have met hundreds of these "lower class"; Indians, and I can assure that some of the people who's POV you defend have les that 1% of the integrity, common sense, humility and brilliance these people have. I can accept your POV, but I will not allow expressions of bigotry in these pages. --ZappaZ

17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that lower class Indians are ignorant about Rawat's background. And Elan Vital or Rawat do not give much background information to people who are interested. Andries 17:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant personal comment by Mike Finch. He is not a notable source. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that Finch is not a notable source, but if you insist then I will add sources from followers who were notable i.e. Dettmers, Donner, and Mishler. Andries 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed not notable comments. These three are not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the Mishler, the ex-president of the DLM is not notable as a follower? It seems to me once again that you are blinded by your POV when editing this article. All those business people are not notable, neither as a person, nor as a follower, but you seem to be blind for this. Andries 20:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about "being blinded". These people are not notable, unless you consider apostasy to be a qualifier for notability. If that is the case, I 100% disagree wih you. Otherwise, we open the article for hundreds of comments by "notable followers" and that would be ridiculous. Let's keep some comments for these people that are notable non-related figures only. --ZappaZ 20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Dettmers, Donner and at least Mishler were notable as followers and hence they are now notable as apostates. It was was my proposal in the first place to move the quotes to Wikiquote where they belong but Jossi reverted my edits. The only non-related notable figures are Abbie Hoffman, Tim Gellway and Rennie Davis, so only their comments can stay if we use these criteria. Andries 20:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How can you call these Rectors of universities, members of parliament, etc. to be "related"? I would suggest you go to to bed and leave this article alone for a while. Believe me, it works. Anger is never good fuel for editing (and fgood or nothing, actually...) --ZappaZ

20:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean notable unrelated persons, MP's of local parliaments are not notable. Andries 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will remove that one. --ZappaZ

20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not enough, none of the persons are notable enough to be mentioned. Andries 20:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't make sense, Andries. First you complain of this, then it gets fixed, then you complain of something else. How can you say that main people from top universities and an ex-prime minister to be non-notable? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

There are so many universities and "main people" from unis. I never meant to say that the ex-pm was not notable. Andries 21:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your repetitious NPOV warning and edits as done in "bat faith". Only sense I can make of it is that you want to advocate the POV of a group of people with an blatant agenda of discrediting the work of Prem Rawat, even against ireefutable proof provided in signed affidavits by one of their own. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Andries was banned for 24hts for breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I guess now we can all have (and that includes Andries) the rest of the weekend to enjoy our lifes rather than battle over this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, he will not give up. He is now using an IP address to continue adding the NPOV tag. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

doubtfull. That looks like a stable ip and when I block someone I autoblock the ip.Geni 11:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

His father taught him the techniques of Knowledge at age six

what does this mean? the following section needs a cite btw.Geni 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Geni. Added wiki link to Techniques of Knowledge/ ≈ jossi ≈ 14:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

good now we need a cite for the next section. We need to be able to attibute those claims to someone of some body. Geni 14:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Added wiki link to Hans Ji Maharaj: Succession ≈ jossi ≈ 15:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Note that for personal reasons, and as a consequence of the animosity, personal attacks, escalating expressions of anger and ill-will against me by some editors, etc. I have decided that I will no longer edit the Prem Rawat articles. I will continue editing other Wikipedia articles I have an affinity with, and would be available for consultation about this and related articles if asked. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

My last contribution to this article is quoting from WP:V about "Dubious Sources":

Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.
Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group," "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. Thus, one must assess whether the source is reliable.
In the case of a source of facts: is the source a noted expert in the area? Does the source write blatant errors? Has the source followed journalistic or academic standards of ethical investigation? In the case of a source of opinion: is the source notable? Does it stand for a large group of people?

and from WP:RS

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. (my comment: and neither copies of these posted on a website page as an "interview")
Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case.

≈ jossi ≈ 17:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you except that if the information is from a named person, who subsequently, independently of the bulletin board, confirms their identity and their testimony, then that becomes a reliable source. I also believe I can make a good case here for discounting ALL information using Elan Vital or TPRF as a source as I can prove their bias and unreliability. But at the moment I, like you, have better things to do. I assume, Jossi, that a replacement for you has been trained up? All the best. --John Brauns 18:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck. I'll keep an eye for you :) --ZappaZ

23:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

To whoever is sending me the new material and references, thanks a lot. Keep'm coming! --ZappaZ 06:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

source?

Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, asked Prem Rawat in an interview in 1973: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God" {{ref|Tom_Snyder}

What's the source for this? It lists "Ref:Tom Snyder", but there is no such reference. -Willmcw 06:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that, now added. --ZappaZ

21:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see it. What's the source? Thanks -Willmcw 22:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar, meaning of the name?

With regard to the meaning of "Balyogeshware", I thought that Bal=child yogesh= yogi and Ishwar means Lord, so this means child-Lord of the yogis. Andries 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

BAla is child in Sanskrit, but I am not sure about your interpretation. Let me check with some of my colleagues with a better command of Sanskrit. --ZappaZ

21:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit: Bal child under the age of five, yogeshvara a master of yoga; also a name of Krishna. The translation should be "child master of yoga" or "child master of yogis". In Hindi the ending "a" is dropped. --ZappaZ

02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Denial

Zappaz you might find it helpfull that Rawat also denied to be a leader. Here is a quotation: Quite a few people wanted to see me as a figurehead. I didn't want to be one and I am not one. A few others saw me as a leader, and I didn't want to be one and I am not one.

Prem Rawat, 2003 from [14], hm this site looks like a typo3-thing. Klaus M., a premie from germany is an expert in typo3, who knows? Maybe the fronts are melting.Thomas h 14:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no date or location, or ref for that cite --ZappaZ

16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you're right. John Brauns can you help out, please?Thomas h 16:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I didn't author PRMI, but that quote is from the first version of www.maharaji.org, published in 1999 I believe, the one with the green flushing toilet on the home page. --John Brauns 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I received this from my source (thanks!). Within the context of the text surronding that portion, it makes more sense. I always agreed with the statement that context is everything... --ZappaZ

21:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

First published in 1999 @ www.maharaji.org:

One thing that has always been very clear to me is that you can't sell Knowledge. After all, this is a very personal experience, something that can only be justified or verified by each individual. Not everyone shared the same feeling. Quite a few people wanted to see me as a figurehead. I didn't want to be one and I am not one. A few others saw me as a leader, and I didn't want to be one and I am not one. God gave me the ability to speak from my heart, and that is what I wanted to do—speak to those who wanted to hear me, impart Knowledge to those who sought it. "If you like what is given, practice it; if not, leave it." This statement, to me, is simple, yet profound and has been echoed since the time of my father.

Just curious, Zappaz, why do you think the larger context in any way changes the meaning of the quotation? The guy said he didn't want to be a leader. Period.

Maybe you guys are too close to the fire to see the difference. When I read the quote, it did not make sense. I did not know why he does not want to be a leader. And if he is not a leader, what is he? The rest of the text gives it context as it not only declares what he is not and why, but also declares what he is/does. --ZappaZ

22:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, perhaps we're too close to the fire to see the difference but if you see it, you haven't articulated it. In fact, you haven't explained yourself at all. Care to try again? :)

So he is not a leader, or doesn't want to be one? Didn't he give an interview in the leader magazine once? Why if he is not a leader? Strange that is. Didn't we fight for the meaning of guru? Darkness and Light, the one that leads you from darkness to light, like he himself proclaimed? Or did he drop his leadership with the title? But why is it, that it is ALL about him. Masses, that adore him. Even tha article is full of pictures of him. I don't know how much twisting in a brain is neccessary NOT to recognize that leader's position, even if he says he is none, he might change his mind the next week, as he did before (Peace Bomb for example). Thomas h 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I may agree with you that he can be seen as a leader, but let's keep the polemics out of this page. You can have these in your chatroom. Thanks. --ZappaZ

22:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it obviously looks very much like he is a leader, though his denial appears to me the western style of the guru - devotee relationship, where, you know it, i have read something like this from your hand, the guru just hints but almost never states who he is but the adherents are the one who "recognize" him as that and pronounce him as that. This is a comfortable position because it lifts the urge of responsibility. This is of course common within many groups. It is in fact a tactic widely spread in politics.(e.g. Caesar, after rejecting the offer of dictatorship he finally and humbly gave in). Similar is the tactics with invitations as you could read in the sitaram interview. To Mata Ji it was self-evident that this is the way things work. Thomas h 06:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct, the ancient tradition of guru-disciple, states that is the discpiple that seeks for the guru. The burden of recognition and acceptance, is first the disciple's. If you want, we can polemize about this on my talk page. --ZappaZ

16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Polemizing? Do we have to? I'd rather talk to you about that kind of matter. Could be very speculative. But isn't that a way to discover unnown land. Skype would be an easy to use toolThomas h 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Including libelous personal accusations against a person by an ex-employee, diminishes the quality of this article. What may be good for a tabloid is not necessarily good enough for an encyclopedia. --Janice Rowe 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Janice, how do you know that this libellous? It may be truth. Several others made the same accusations, Sophia Collier, Michael Dettmers, Mike Donner. The personal life style of a guru is relevant for his authenticity. I would agree that including this information were quite irrelevant if he were a businessman but he is meditation leader who claims to be necessary, in some mysterious way, for the meditation success of his students, but not by correcting their meditation techniques. Why exclude certain aspects of Mishler's testimony and include other? That would be inconsistent and against NPOV guidelines, I think. The biography of George W. Bush als contains accusations of drug abuse and alcoholism. Andries 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Because this is a biographical article. This person's radio interview in a local station, can be used to extract biographical information if that information is not available from more solid sources. I looked at the George W. Bush article and only found a vague "it has been alleged that he failed a drug test". In that case there is (or may be) proof of that failed drug test. We do not have that here. We have here is just a person's opinion only (and one made by a person that evidently had reason for disparraging his former employer, if one is to judge by the hostility expressed in the linked interview.) I also read many inconsistencies in that interview. In one hand he says that he was not close to the guru and in other he says he lived with him. In one had he speaks about followers as the "finests of people" and other hand he calls the "the most gullible". His account of the succession should not be used as a source either. By is own admission he was not there. --Janice Rowe

Janice, there is solid biographical information available incl. corroboration of heavey drinking, I believe, on the ex-premie.org and prem-rawat-maharaji.info websites, but other editors of this article believe that the information there is unreliable and oppose to use it for the article, though the university of Virginia article on Elan Vital/DLM uses it extensively. Apart from these website, we only have very little solid information. We have Mishler's radio-interview and Maharaji's own words. Mishler's interview is even mentioned in J. Gordon Melton's short article on the DLM in his 1986 "Encyclopedia of cults". Melton is known for his leniency on new religions and his tendency to belittle almost every criticism of new religions as anti-cult propgaganda. With regards to the apperant contradiction in Mishler's interview between "finest of people" and "the most gullible", I know unfortunately from personal experience that there is no contradiction when I followed another guru. I admit that the inclusion of a Mishler's different view of the succession is doubtful becaus he was not there. Andries 20:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Although The New Religious Movements @ Virginia.edu article on Elan Vital, does mention the radio interview, it does so for the purpose of illustrating changes in the movement (e.g. refering to Rawat as a humanitarian leader), but does not mention it to forward Mishler's allegations. I think that's the point Janice is trying to make. As for the succession, we are already stating that it was secondhand, so it is NPOV ... although IMO we ought to make a stronger point: "he was not there". --ZappaZ

21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Uva article accepts Mishler's testimony as fact when writing that when Rawat stopped claiming to be God then the money stopped coming in and hence the DLM turned back to the old ways. The difference between this article and the Uva article is that this article is about Rawat, not about the DLM so Mishler's testimony with regards to Rawat should be treated extensively here. Andries 21:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

First you say that it should be here because it has the backing of the Virginia.edu. Then when your are challenged on that, you go back to a different argument. The fact is Andries, that this "interview" is a very poor source of material to backup a biographical article, as it consist of either secondhand accounts that Mishler may have heard and a long list of allegations against the character of Rawat. Neither of these make for a good source and there is nothing we can do about it, I am afraid. And BTW, the article in Virginia.edu does not make use of Mishler's interview on the aspects you discuss. --ZappaZ

21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the main problem with this article is the lack of good sources (and the widely divergent views of the we, editors have about good sources) and I agree that there is nothing we can do about it. I sent an email to Rawat with a request to give his version of the events as described by Mishler, Dettmers, and Donner but I received no reply. (I didn't expect one, but at least I tried). No you are right, I have to admit that the UVa article does not use Mishler's interview as a direct reference, but instead refers to the ex-premie website (see note nr.19 [15] that referes to [16]) that uses Mishler as a reference. Andries 22:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Again I want to protest about the exclusion of ex-premie.org as a reference. The UVa aricle has 13 of 61 references from ex-premie. This article has none, mainly because Zappaz hold beliefs about the complete lack of reliability of apostates far outside the mainstream, e.g. more more extreme than David G. Bromley who is know to have a low regards of the reliability of apostates. Andries 22:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No Andries, that is not the reason. The reasons are different:

Biographical info in that website is either secondhand (i.e. hearsay), or copied from moderated chatroom exchanges. Hardly a good source of reliable information for an encyclopedic article.
A biographical article on person X cannot be based on the website of the critics of X, for obvious reasons;
A minority position (they say themselves that they are just a few internationally dispersed individuals), needs a miority representation;
As a minority position, their POV is already represented in this article (criticism section) and in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article;
Recent filed affidavits (meaning that were signed under oath) diminishes greately their reliability by challenging their credibility/motives, etc. quite directly;
The fact that several of the critics' websites are indeed managed by the same person, shows the circular reference problem with the material on these sites (A cites B, B cites C, that in turn cites A);
Entire sections of that site are copyvio. OK, from a fair use perspective, but useless for WP;
If they mention a specific newspaper article, for example, it is better to provide the direct ref rather than their copy.

This article has one reference to ex-premie.org, that is a link to a transcription of an interview with Bob Mishler. On the other hand there are more than 40 references to expremie websites in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. My take is that good sources are out there, we just need to find them. Last few days work and submissions I received attest to that. I have received another bunch of these that I still need to verify before I add them (it may take some time, though, as I will need to do a roundtrip to the library to check them). --ZappaZ

23:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

An allegation by an former employee is not a biographical fact. That is what is called a "smear campaign" or "mud-slinging". Read the article in Wikipedia: Smear_campaign. --Janice Rowe

Janice, the whole testimony by Mishler are allegations by a former employee, but we cannot exclude Mishler's testimony because there are no other good sources available. Andries 01:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Andries, a testimony on an historical event that is not disputed, is not the same than an allegation against the character of a person (in particular when there is controversy and polarized views). Can you imagine politician's articles if that was common practice?. You are saying that there are no other sources, but ZappaZ is saying that there are. (OT: how do you indent comments?) --Janice Rowe

Janice, the problem regarding sources for information regarding prem Rawat is that there are two groups actively trying to publicise information about him, that is he himself and his organisations, and former followers (some of whom are former employees), and pretty much no one else. It can be argued that neither of these groups are satisfactory sources for a biographical article. For instance, most of the biographical information in this article comes from the organisations that promote Rawat. They are going to paint the best picture they can. Whereas I accept that suitable caution must be used regarding using former followers as sources, the same, or more, caution should be used when using current followers as sources. Trusting Elan Vital or TPRF for information on Prem Rawat, for instance, is like trusting Phillip Morris to write an article on tobacco. The problem for this article is that Prem Rawat is too obscure a figure, and there simply are no independent sources who have properly studied him. --John Brauns 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Janice, I repeat that Rawat is not a politician, but a religious leader whose belief system hinges around his reliability, hence his private life is important too. There are only very few sources for his private life, one of the most important is Mishler. The article also contains other allegations made by Mishler uncorroborated by other testimonies, i.e. his hesitation to retract his claim to be God, because that would mean less control and hence less income from his followers. (OT): Use ":" before your paragraph to make an indent. Andries 08:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your mistake Andries, that you keep repeating, is that you see WP as a place for advocacy. This article is not about the reliability of lack of reliability of gurus or religious leaders. --ZappaZ

01:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Biographical articles in Wikipedia should contain information related to the claims a person makes or the social function s/he has (had) in society. Clearly, information that helps the reader to assess the authenticity and reliability of charismatic religious leaders is related to their social function and hence relevant for their biographies. In most cases, unlike political leaders, assessing the authenticity of charismatic religious leaders includes their private lives. Yes, unsavory, I agree, but important nonetheless. Andries 12:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Says Who? Biographical articles about any notable person, being an artist, a politician, a religious leader etc, are not to assess anything. And that has nothing to do with savory or unsavory. Your intention is one of advocacy and as such contrary to WP guidelines. Read: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --ZappaZ

13:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But this is common sense, I believe. For example, an article about a person who is famous as a (has the social function of) songwriter should mention allegations of plagiarism. An article about a religious leader who claimed to be celibate and told his followers to be celibate should mention allegations about having affairs. An article about a guru who said that "guru is greater than God", who was seen as the Lord, and claimed to be so, according to religious scholars, who was seen as a Perfect Master and forbade his followers to drink alcohol should mention allegations about heavy drinking. Of course, this should only be done if the allegations have a certain minimum of credibility. Andries 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

New neutrality disputed warning: selective use of Mishler's testimony

I gave the article a neutrality because of selective use of Mishler's testimony that I consider intellectually dishonest. Andries

You are ignoring the arguments made on this page by several editors. Previous behavior earned you a block.--ZappaZ

01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added some information about the marriage and family rift, which does add to the perspective taken by Mishler at the time. The point that he makes is a good one, and is verifiable. **Armeisen 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Long quotations from third parties should be summarized rather than quoted extensively. I have done so with yourt addition. --ZappaZ

00:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Charismatic Religious Leader

Rawat is charismatic and Elan Vital is a church in the US. Churches are for religions. Elan Vital is listed as a New RELIGIOUS Movement at Wikipedia. So why should it not be religious? The twisting can only go that far. 15:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the categorization of "Charismatic religious leader". My argument is that there is ony one person (Schnabel) that has categorized Prem Rawat as such. One scholar stating his opinion that Prem Rawat is a "charismatic religious leader" is not sufficient to include him in this category. Stating that Schnabel carries that opinion, as we have done already in the article, is compatible with NPOV, but categorizing him as such because of the opinion of one person, and without the possibity of presenting a rebuttal to his opinion, is not NPOV. For example, if I create a category Category:People that sing off key and add Britney Spears to that category on the basis that one music critic says that she sings off-key. That would be ridiculous. Based upon this argument I propose to remove that category from this article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

i am simply counting on logic. If you agree that he is charismatic and he lives in a context of a NEw RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, like i think you and Zappaz have stated that themselves, he is a charismatic religious leader. Otherwise you should scratch the NRM thing in terms of Rawat and end the status of Elan Vital as a church in the US, or do you want to tell us that you are only cheating with such labels for PR and monetarian reasons?You can add that as a complaint about rawat by critics right away in the criticism article then ;-).BTW, congrats to your successful adminship election Thomas h 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that this is not about what you or I think. (For example, I think that Prem Rawat is very charismatic, but I do not see him fulfilling a role of a leader in the traditional meaning of the word, and by reading his comments about this subject neither does he). This is about an encyclopedia with an non-negotiable principle of NPOV that calls for providing references and attributions of assertions made in its articles, (and that includes lists and categories, of course). I would further argue that Schnabel describes him as an example of "charismatic authority" and not as a ";charismatic religious leader", so unless we can show that there is an overwhelming claim that he is one by notable sources, we cannot not include him in this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

i didn't know there is a traditional meaning of the word leader, is there? And in comparison something that might be a leader but not one to be categorised as such. Come on, that is rather getting philosophical and i promise you that all the other people listed in category charismatic religious leaders have their own special way how they are leaders and how they see themselves as being special. Why do you want an extra way, is it so hard then to be distinguished from others? You didn't answer to the circumstances Elan Vital/Church and NRM that have Rawat as their centerpoint also. The way he leads may be special, nonetheless he falls into that category. He described himself as a leader in the past and relativated it later, and on closed meeting reinstalls his claims as a leader to relativate it later...... So he has expressed both and the good apprentice choses what pleases the master. Yes a special way of leading, i agree. So he is a charismatic religious centerpoint with a special way of leadership that shall not be categorised? Pfffffff. For the Category Charismatic religious leadership is a summary term of a phenomena that we have in our times 'cause there are so many, i don't think sources are necessary that describe him exactly as such, word by word, but rather attributes that fit to this category are what counts. And if we look at rawat's life, leadership is definitely something he is to be categorised. All the changes that you were so proud of presenting that Rawat has done in the last 20 years are not possible and thinkable without leadership. So we have sources that he is charismatic and sources that he is a leader, the religious aspect for example is done by himself and yourself see NRMs and Elan Vital. Thomas h 17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat my argument again: This is not about what you or I think about Prem Rawat being or not being a "religious charismatic leader". This is about: Are there notable sources that characterizes Prem Rawat as a "charismatic religious leader"? If there are, the categortization applies. If there aren't the categorization does not as it will fall within the policy of original research. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, i think you are wrong, let me correct you. Even Zappaz has stated on the talkpage charismatic religious leaders that he considers a) religious b) charismatic and c) leaders are those that fit into that category.Remember, he tried to remove Rawat from that Page but he was refused to do so, secondly he tried to delete the corresponding entry from the Prem Rawat Page then, which you are about to follow. There is no word that is has to be from one source all together. I got your argument and answered it with mine. This has nothing to do with what i think about it, but are facts that you react upon by ignoring. I don't think we will come to a solution with this and i will transfer the discussion where it belongs to category_talk:charismatic religious leaders Thomas h 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

May be one notable source (Schnabel) is a bit meagre for such a categorization. Schnabel's dissertation is very thorough (more thorough than most English language sources) and it is certainly a notable source and it has been and is still cited in the discussions about NRMs in the Netherlands. If it had been flimsy then he would never had acquired such a prestigious job (head of the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands [17][18]). Schnabel implicitly considered Rawat religious, but he may not have stated this explicitly because this was so obvious. Schnabel treated the DLM in chapter II that has the title Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/New religious movements in the Netherlands Andries 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

in his book, "Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen", Reinhart Hummel says about Rawat's Charisma: the charisma of the child enhanced to messianic relevance has played the same role as the acceptance by the youth subculture. The young Guru Maharaj Ji is a notedly example how Guru adoration is easyly combined with public relation-technics, starcult and charisma, but also an example how much it can get disfigured Thomas h 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thomas and others, two notable sources justify the categorization, I think. I cannot think of a better scholarly source in German than Hummel. Can you please also cite the German original to avoid translation mistakes? This is also necessary because of Wikipedia:verifiability. Thanks Andries 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

in the same book Hans is described as a "popular charismatic" who could assemble a growing discipleship around him. This is a book about indian religious groups that extended to the west. ISBN: 3170056093 , well there is much more to cite. Thomas h 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, here the German version:

1st quote: Das Charisma des Kindes gesteigert zur messianischan Relevanz (C.Colpe), hat dabei eine ebenso große Rolle gespielt wie die enorme Publizität und die Aufnahmebereitschaft der jugendlichen Subkultur . Der junge Guru Maharaj Ji ist das deutlichste Beispiel dafür, wie leicht sich Guruverehrung mit Starkult und Charisma mit Public Relations-Techniken verbinden, aber auch von ihnen entstellt werden können.
2nd quote: Als volktümlicher Charismatiker konnte er eine wachsende Anhängerschaft um sich sammeln...........

Thomas h 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but you are mistaken. I do not disagree with the fact that there are sources that considered Prem Rawat charismatic. That is already stated in the article. But there are no sources that categorize him as a "charismatic religious leader". Find sources that categorize him as a "Charismatic religious leader" and there will not a be a discussion. Note that if the category would have been Category:Charismatic people we would not have any discussiona either. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying. Schnable considers him a charismatic religious leader, as I thought I had explained. Andries 20:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

jossi wants it word by word. So if the book is about religious leaders only, it doesn't matter to him, because the term "charismatic religious leader" doesn't appear word by word, as if is horizon is too limited. So i know this is not the case, i consider it as a tactic to prevent that categorisation for Rawat. As long as Rawat is listed in charismatic religious leaders it should stay on the Prem Rawat article anyway. And as far Jossi's tactics are concerned it should be brought to a bigger audience. Maybe Jossi should learn what the word category means in this case. If a person has such and such attributes he belongs to such and such category. There is no need that the sources of those different attributes have to be listed in one place. Jossi should proof to us that an affiliation to a category is only given when the attributes of the subjects are listed in one place and that they have to have a specific order, which he will not be able unless he creates his own article about "Category" at Wikipedia where he will exactly state that. Thomas h 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that Jossi will realize that he is wrong in this respect. Schnabel mentions in his dissertation "New religious movements and mental health" in the chapter "New religous movements in the Netherlands" that Rawat is a charismatic leader. Then it is of course clear that Schnabel means that Rawat is a charismatic religious leader. (He wrote that the Divine United Organisation is the defunct business branch and that the DLM is the religous branch consisting of Maharaji and intitators.) Andries 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if we go to the extent of "assuming" that Schnabel referred to Prem Rawat as a charismatic religious leader (an assumption to which I obviously object), one source is not enough for such characterization. The cite from Hummel does not refer to leadership, but to charisma. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the judge who sentenced MacGregor stated that Rawat is the "Cult leader". So this is a neutral source. Together with the attributes of other scholar researchers we can easily state the "charismatic religious leader" Thomas h 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

here from the University of Virginia After Shri Han Ji Maharaj's death his youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji, took over his father's position as spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission at the youthful age of eight [19]Thomas h 07:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You can create a category Category:Spiritual leaders and add this article to that category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Using categories to bypass NPOV

If there is an assertion that it is disputed (as this one clearly is), in an article we have the opportunity to present all POVs and describe the controversy as needed for NPOV. When you place a person in a category, you are indeed bypassing NPOV by not allowing that to take place. In addition, from the dozen or so scholars that wrote about Prem Rawat, no one specifically labeled him a "charismatic religious leader" with the disputed exception of Schnabel. Adding Prem Rawat to that category bypassses NPOV as it presents a minority POV as a majority POV. Both these aspects are against NPOV. Unless we can reach consesnsus about this, I will be initiating an inquiry at the Village pump about this as I see this as an possible attemtp to bypass NPOV by using Categories. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What you call bypassing NPOV is a simple analysis combined from different sources and thus created a category to have that fit in. Analysis and combining sources is explicitely allowed at Wikipedia. If the sources are reliable. If you find the name of the category offensive you should explain why, suggestions were already made to change that. Since different scholars did researches with a different focus, you can expect a variety of wording of course. If for example Hummels book refers to leaders like prabhupada and others that are already listed in this category, it is pretty clear that these persons are leaders. Since you put Rawat and Elan Vital into the NRM category yourself you shouldn't wonder when that label sticks. So if by assembling scholarly resources facts are found that are in common with other subjects of research creating a category that fits them is just creating another view point. If this is used to create a whole another picture and disfigures the subject a discussion should be held and argumenst should count. The mere expecation of the exact wording to allow a subject fit into a category, isn't helpful and probably not even scholarly but maybe sqare headed Thomas h 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but you are not addressing the concerns expresed. I am not discussing leadership or religion or charisma as attributes. I am discussion a very specific situation that "charismastic religious leader" as a category is bypassing the non-negotiable principle of NPOV. We can add that Schnabel considers him that, we can add that he has charisma accoring to XYZ and we can add that he may be a leader according to ABC in this article. That would be OK fron an NPOV perspective if properly attributed and sourced from reliable sources. Adding Prem Rawat (and if fact, many others in that category) to Category:Charismatic religious leaders is not. Read WP:NPOV ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So do you think creating categories are a general failure at Wikipedia? If you translate the topic "Charismatic religious leaders" in "Leaders that have religious and charismatic attributes", would it be be better then? Of course the question may be raised why should there be such a category at all? But i think this is understandable because there a quite a few that fit into this pattern and can be grouped. A disclaming intro could clarify that these persons where chosen just and only because of these attributes, which may be considered as a groce graduation but nonetheless might be helpful to a reader to get an overview of that matter. I don't think Prem Rawat is so special in what he has done and what he does,that he won't fit in. Of course that doesn't mean that he is or should be limited to that. And i want to state the only an outside look can be presented here. From the outside Elan Vital is a religion. Elan Vital has freely chosen to be a church, and you have with the allowance of Elan Vital and even Rawat i guess, chosen to join the label of a NRM. So that is religious, even if from the inside, you represent that this is the essence of all religions, and therefore naming it a religion or religious would miss the point. Thomas h 16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about religious leaders that have charisma. This is about a distinction made by Max Weber about Charismatic authority and the creation of a category based on that distinction. The problem only shows up when you try to add people to this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

i think i see your point. Limiting Rawat's authority on his mere charisma, is that what upsets you? Can you tell me more exactly what are the things that you object to? Thomas h 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to the use of categories to bypass NPOV aspects that are non-negotiable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Categorization of people as it covers most of my concerns. I propose to delete Category:Charismatic religious leaders and add the Category:People_known_in_connection_with_religion_or_philosophy to remain within policy. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case I agree with Jossi. Andries 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

i tend to agree with Jossi as well now, especially because behind this category stands the view of Max Weber which should be stated in the title then. And together with this view categorizing most of the persons in this list is wrong from my point of view also. What i would have liked to know is where exactly Jossi's view is confliciting with Webers category because i want to understand this right and maybe i am a bit curious. Thomas h 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)