Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007

Discussion

Thanks for the review about primary sources, Vassyana. I'm aware of the Wikipedia policy concerning them as well as how to use primary sources in the real world. Btw, the great quote I "dropped into the article" concerning Rawat's family kissing his feet is not only from a secondary source, it also happens to be true. The reason I placed it into the article is to balance off the false impression that Momento and others are trying to give in this article of Rawat's denial of his own divinity. For instance, his own mother and brothers kissed his feet and talked about his divinity from early on. Best wishes. Sylviecyn 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In India kIssing or touching someone's feet is not a sign that they are divine but a common sign of respect. Even in the west it is not seen as a sign of divinity, the Pope symbolically washes and kisses the feet of poor people in Holy Week. Including a common Indian custom without context is simply a device to present Rawat as an extremist. As Eugene Taylor, PhD, is Lecturer on Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, said "Some of our problems with gurus are our own: we don't understand the nature of the relationship we're importing, and we respond to it inappropriately at times....the idea of kissing a guru's feet--in India this is common, but in America it gives us a completely different impression". If anyone wants to put an argument about Rawat's divinity or lack of, find a scholar's quote about it; don't play on people's ignorance to push a POV.Momento 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't my point of view, Momento. It's Maharaji's point of view.

Question: "Maharaj Ji, what is devotion?" Answer (Prem Rawat) Devotion is the flow of love from a devotee to his Lord, and darshan is seeing the Lord's physical form." Light Reading" Vol.1 No.1 Spring 1978

So while it's true that touching feet may be a cultural practice in some countries, it's not quite the same thing as a darshan line, or Rawat's mother/brothers and later his wife, doing pranam on stage. Indeed, in Prem Rawat's religion, organized darshan lines where premies line up to kiss his feet or bow down to Maharaji, have always taken place. I've never heard of Maharaji reciprocating by kissing someone else's feet such as his mother's, bothers' or wife's feet, have you? Darshan lines are organized by him so that premies can pass by Rawat and kiss his feet and that practice has occurred in western countries, like the U.S., Europe, Australia, UK, etc. Frankly, when I was a practicing premie, I never tried to hide that I kissed his feet, nor was I ashamed of it, as current students seem to be. Moreover, I wish you'd stop accusing me of POV pushing as if you don't have one and are a completely neutral human! So, folks, guess who's doing the POV spinning around here. I'm just interested in the facts and the truth. Sylviecyn 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank God you're here. Cynthia just dropped in a great quote about "kissing feet" (yuk :-( ) from a terrific 1975 Time magazine article called "Junior Guru" and before I knew it I added five more, including a great one about the young married couple not letting the mother in law into "the mansion".Then I had a flash of conscience or consciousness ( not sure which ) and I thought it might all be very juvenile so I deleted all the changes until we discussed it.Momento 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being "juvenile" Momento. I believe writing good prose includes a combination of quotes from a source (in this case the Time article) as well as well-written prose. I also don't appreciate your taunt "Stop me!" in your edit comments. I don't see how you and Jossi can complain about Pat and myself not making article edits and contributions, when you are so quick to remove or change them. Btw, this is nothing new, Vassyana. Jossi has changed or removed every single edit I've ever made on this Prem Rawat series of articles, and usually within one hour of my making them, as Momento did today. This isn't fair, it's a big problem on this particular article, and doesn't add to the atmosphere of cooperation and "lightening up." Sylviecyn 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Cynthia's chronologically incorrect inclusion of family's attitudes to Rawat, improved over all chronology and added more material about family's attitude to Rawat.Momento 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All material that is added to articles can be mercilessly edited, as written below the edit box. If I deleted anything and it was not re-added, then so be it. Also note that since my disclosure back in October last year I have hardly edited this article. Interestingly it seems that all you do here is to try to polarize. Stop making disparaging comments about other editors, stop badmouthing this project, and then maybe,j ust maybe, we can accept your interventions here in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to polarize or doing anything of the sort. That's your perspective. Furthermore, you're the major reason nobody but premies are willing to work on this article. Why? Because you've been successful at being so difficult to work with and running people off, that no one is willint to work with you anymore. And I beg to differ. You make edits on the talk pages here every single day, and the effect of that is intimidation. And there is a pattern of premies changing my edits beyond the "merciless" statement that I'm well aware of -- that's not what I'm talking about. Two different things, Jossi and you know it. So don't go thinking you're some good-will diplomat around here, fostering cooperation around this website, and definitely not on this article, becasue it couldn't be further from the truth. Sylviecyn 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The good thing, Syviecyn, is that in Wikipedia, every word with write is kept forever. Let these word speak for themselves shall we? Anyone can look into our contribs list, everything is there for all to see. Enough said. Now, back to working to improve this article, if we could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! My permanent record! I haven't heard that since grammar school. I know that what I write is kept in the archives. Are you trying to intimidate me again? I'm sure you are, as your NRM has been doing for years, keeping a big fat file on me. It doesn't worry me one bit. But, getting back to the article, the really good thing about public people like Prem Rawat is that so much of what he has said is still available in print and on video on the internet and in libraries -- and not vaulted away in the Visions International archives (an Elan Vital corporation) where no one can use them. Sylviecyn 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Before we start adding to this article, could Vassanya have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal and see if the slimmed down version is closer to GA than this article.Momento 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Vassanya, are you there? Rumiton 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good that Vassanya could review the draft, but part of making a good article is making it stable, so don't you think it's a bit premature to ask for pre-approval?  :-) Best wishes Sylviecyn 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, I want to be absolutely clear about your proposed guidelines. (I think I am clear about all the other points re 'avoid' etc). Am I correct that you mean that Primary sources from the subject, or the subject's organizations must be easily available from at least one of the following but not necessarily two?:
1. An official site
2. An academic site
3. Public libraries
I ask you to confirm this because most DLM publications are more or less, for our purposes only available from public libraries.
Also, Jossi is questioning the 'ease' of availability (since some hunting is involved in libraries). I personally think that to argue against using 'rare' books is nit-picking too far. In fact my scholarly friend goes as far as to say that this is nonsense. I would like to share some comments from a conversation today with him. He is a PHD Doctor, author and scholar who himself has contributed to the voluminous Encyclopedia of Religions (Gale, Thompson, Macmillan 2005). Obviously his comments are not entirely applicable to Wikipedia since not only scholars edit here, but I think it's worth reminding ourselves that :
1) All proper academic work is almost by definition, corroborated from Primary Sources. Secondary sources are considered more unreliable as they are derivative.
2) The rarity of the primary source is irrelevant.
3) Secondary sources are just as prone to abuse as Primary Sources (as we can see here from the fact that Momento excluded (accidently or otherwise) important qualifying parts of a quotation from a secondary source (Downton) (see discussion above) thereby informing only that Prem Rawat closed ashrams in 1976 but not that he re-opened them in 1977 with increased emphasis on devotion to him, as Downton indeed went on to describe. PatW 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the three would satisfy the criteria.

Offering an opinion, I believe rare books could potentially be excluded from sources used on Wikipedia. Since information must be verifiable, a reference that is only available for purchase, only available from select (physical) archives or not generally available in libraries is a bit dodgy. I feel that if a reference is not generally available without purchasing the text or engaging in serious travel, it should not be used. Otherwise, how can the material be reasonably verified by other editors? Of course, that's just my opinion. You are free to take it with a few grains of salt.

On the source sobservations, I would simply point out that building a tertiary source is quite differant than creating a secondary source. Be well!! Vassyana 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take your points as to other rare material that falls into those categories you mention. But I'm focussing specifically on this DLM material which I've attempted to proveis available in libraries and for normal fees. I mijght add that to get one's hands on most of the reference books used here one probably has to pay for the book or a library fee.PatW 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pat. I left a note on your talk page about getting together for a private chat. Do you have an e-mail address I could get to you on? Rumiton 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, I've mailed you my email address. Hope you got it.PatW 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pat. please read WP:ATT#Reliable sources and WP:ATTFAQ where the definitions of primary sources, secondary sources and their use is clearly explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I would appreciate that you do not remind me to read these pages ever again. I have now read them entirely thank you. If you want to quote from these pages to make a specific point then do so, but kindly refrain from patronisingly telling me to re-read these pages for no apparent reason.PatW 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if that is your impression as it is certainly not my intention to be patronizing. But in reading your points above, seems that if you have not read (or understood) what these pages say about primary and secondary sources. This is what these pages say:

• Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
• Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
• What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand: Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses; Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets; Books written by widely published authors; Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;
• Another aspect is related to the use of self-published sources, that basically says that: Material from self-published sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific. What exactly have I written that is contrary to this? I explained that the policy for 'normal' encyclopaedias (ie proper academic work) can differ from Wikipedia, and I thought it worth remembering that (for one example) rarity of a source is not an issue. I'm trying to stress that material that may require some hunting down in libraries does not fail to fulfil the Wikipedia requirement of being 'easily available'. It would seem so far that at least Vassayana agrees.PatW 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You said: All proper academic work is almost by definition, corroborated from Primary Sources. Secondary sources are considered more unreliable as they are derivative. In Wikipedia, the opposite concept is used. We do not rely on primary sources, we rely on the synthesis of these primary sources as available in secondary sources.. You also said: The rarity of the primary source is irrelevant. . In Wikipedia and as reported in recent ArbCom cases, material that is very rare and that is not available in public libraries, and most specifically primary sources, is not to be used. You also said: Secondary sources are just as prone to abuse as Primary Sources . That may be the case, but nevertheless, that is the Wikipedia way: we report mainly what secondary, published sources say about a subject, and attribute these opinions to those that hold them rather than asserting these opinions as fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said all of that, I refer you to my earlier response: Bring the material you want to use, and the source from that material and we can discuss the appropriateness of that material in the context of the edit you propose, exactly as we have doen with all other material. These "in principle" conversations are interesting, but are not really useful to move us forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Vassayana took the trouble to attempt to set out some fair guidelines to help us come to some agreed principles. He also invited further thoughts (see above).Assuming he was inviting thoughts vaguely relating to what he'd said, I've essentially expressed my agreement -in the spirit of trying to understand the principles involved in deciding what we can use. ie. DLM material from libraries. You are chastising me for trying to arrive at a general consensus of principles. I beg to differ with you. I think that when these principles are agreed then is the time to go get the material. Just because you think you 'know-it-all' already doesn't mean that others do or that their discussions about the principles are not helping them to move the article forward. So far I am the only one who has actually expressly agreed to what Vassayana proposed as far as I can see.PatW 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please

I'd like to ask everyone to stop with the back and forth about sources. It is not serving any productive end. Focus on building the article. Moving forward, does anyone object to the primary source standards I proposed above? Does everyone agree they are fair and provide good guidelines for the use of those sources? If the editors agree on the proposed standards, let's note that and then address specific references as they come up. I would also suggest that primary sources be proposed on the talk page first, with some explanation of how they fit the standard, if it is accepted. Vassyana 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. As with all material that has been brought to this article, whatever material Pat wants to bring, it will be evaluated in the content of the proposed edit. There has never been an a priori acceptance of material on the basis of specific principles. We always discuss them in talk. So, his persistence in trying to get an agreement on material that he has yet not produced, to support an edit that he has not yet made, is not going to do it, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As they say: "Show me the money"... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For heavens sake Jossi! I am trying to get agreement on the PRINCIPLE of using primary source material from libraries, I NEVER disputed that we examine each case here. Now, as I once said to a palmist "Will you let go" ? :-) PatW 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to shout, Pat. There is no need to get such an agreement, as policies and guidelines are very clear on the subject. So, bring your source, bring the edit you want to make and it can be discussed as we have done with any other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In short: Nobody is stopping you from producing a source and suggesting an edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. However Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.Momento 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassanya, could you please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal and give us your opinion.Momento 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First round of comments provided. Vassyana 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now nearly threee weeks since I responded to the GA advice and greatly reduced most sections of this article. Despite several requests for help on the proposed changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal, the main effort seems to be on determing "how to" or actually adding more material to this already bloated article. We have been advised that "The article needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing". I would like editors interested in getting this article to GA status to go to the proposal page and remove any unnecessary or POV material ASAP.Momento 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had another look and changed a few small things. I think there is an issue with NPOV in the section around "behaving like a child" but it is too late right now. See you tomorrow. Rumiton 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Its from J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145. Copyright 1986.. I think it shows the level of criticism and also that Rawat was a teenager during this time.Momento 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just did a word count. This article, up to but not including "Techniques", is about 3400, the proposed bio uses 1700 to cover the same material.Momento 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1699. I just took out "lotus." Don't think most people would know what a "lotus foot" is, I'm not sure myself. Also probably need to explain terms like Mahatma. Manyana. Rumiton 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a children's Encyclopaedias Ruminton. Neither was Time magazine apparently worried that their readership didn't know what a lotus meant. Time magazine also understood that it is such terms of phrase that make an article intriguing. You don't want that? As you know this was very much the language of the time. Do you really not know what was meant by 'lotus feet'? We were told often enough. I find that hard to believe. PatW 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Pat. Also, it's not proper prose writing to alter a quote from a magazine article, especially one as prominant as Time Magazine. To resolve the dispute, I suggest reverting to my version which includes the actual quote from the article. It's important to trust the readers' ability to understand what's writtten, and no one can predict what anyone's interpretation might be of "lotus feet." It's not confusing. Sylviecyn

PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE

I've had a go at editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal
I've changed
'he sent one of his closest students, known as mahatmas,'
to:
'he sent one of his closest students, known as, a mahatma, to London'.
I've added ' Rawat denied the claim when asked, but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation. '

This may or may not be the best way to balance the general impression given that it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. PR allowed people to treat him and address him as 'Lord', and called God 'Maharaj Ji' in his speeches (which happened to be his own generally used name and title as well.) We can easily show that at the very least he had some reponsibility in followers perception of him as a divine incarnation. For example he would cite prayers to 'Maharaji' in his speeches. We can find some examples of this if this is disputed.

Changed:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, devotion was encouraged and many people returned to Ashram life.'
to:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life.'

Others were simply responding to the change of emphasis in his teachings.

Changed:
'Although Rawat teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat claims that "Knowledge is a way..'
to:
'Although Rawat now teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is claimed to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat asserts that "Knowledge is a way.."

He once did teach ethical practices as per ashram lifestyle. "claimed' inserted for NPOVPatW 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of wanting to reduce the word count I would like to attempt some precis of the proposed article. Re-reading it I think that there is much that could be said more briefly without changing any points or emphasis. I would like to do some more grammatical snipping.PatW 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your addition "but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as not all followers believed he was a divine incarnation as Colliers following quotes indicates. Following your addition of "he" to "he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life", I have changed the style in the previous paragraph to match so "Rawat encouraged people to leave the ashram, discard Indian terminology and customs and reduced staff at DLM HQ from 250 to 80".Momento 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. Rawat didn't start this thing, he stepped into a pre-exisitng position vacated by his father. The idea of the Guru being divine and the role of the devotee existed for hundreds of years before Rawat was born.Momento 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely untrue, Momento. I can provide plenty (hundreds) of Prem Rawat quotes that contradict your theory that it was only "teachings of others" that taught that Guru Maharaj Ji is divine, God, just like Jesus, Buddha, Mohamad, etc. One simple example of how wrong you are is Maharaji's own ashram manual (which he wrote) which dictates that ashram premies sing "Arti" twice per day. Another is that "Arti" was sung to Maharaji directly as he sat on his throne on the stage at every festival/program he held in the years late 1976 (Atlantic City, New Jersey program -- I was there) through 1981 at least. Heck, "Arti" was sung after nightly satsang meetings. "Arti" was the main devotional song sung by followers of Rawat. Please don't rewrite factual history, Momento. Rawat made plenty of claims to be God manifest in human form. Sylviecyn 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish Momento. I'm not suggesting for a minute he started that idea. I am pointing out that he continued that teaching. I have simply changed that sentence to more correctly read "but accepted the veneration of those followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" (I did that even before I read you'd removed it but there was an 'edit conflict') Why don't you leave my edits alone until others have commented? I've reduced the word count quite a bit throughout the article.PatW 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "veneration" addition is unbalanced. Of the year we're talking about, 1973, Collier says ""Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with." So he not only accepted the "veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as you say, he also accepted the acclamation of those that saw him as "more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life". Your addition promotes only one side of the story. In the past this would result in an editor adding the second half of Collier's quote. But since we are, at last, going towards brevity, I suggest you remove your one sided commentary, so I don't have to add the other side.Momento 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, please go ahead and include the rest of the Collier quote it's necessary for balance. For goodness sake Momento you're the one who's advocating one-sidedness for the sake of brevity. I completely object to that. PatW 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be really grateful if Momento (and others) would at least discuss the changes I've made sensibly so as people like Vassayana can observe and make judgements. This is not set in stone yet - it is a sandbox page. Before I'd even finished making the changes Momento had deleted the bit I added and she has not even heard others opinions. It's not very encouraging at all to be jumped on so instantaneously.PatW 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PatW, you feel entitled to remove other people's edits without discussion. Including edits that have been stable for weeks. But when I remove one of your many edits (which you admitted was incorrect) you start complaining? It's not very encouraging.Momento 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You yourself invited 'merciless editing' or some such words. This whole thread is my invitation to discuss the edits I've made as a response to that. Please show me some good faith.PatW 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento I don't think there's any justification in 'matching' anything. You say:
"Following your addition of "he" to "he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life", I have changed the style in the previous paragraph to match so "Rawat encouraged people to leave the ashram, discard Indian terminology and customs and reduced staff at DLM HQ from 250 to 80"
In 1977 he personally did take back control from DLM, encouraging people to do those things but prior to that, in the period referred to ie early 1976 it would be more correct to report (as I think Downton says) that he was very much influenced by his staff - people like Dettmers? etc. who advised him to close ashrams etc. So I thought it more accuarte to say that 'People were encouraged to.. etc' because essentially there is some evidence that Rawat felt co-erced by DLM and his staff to remove emphasis from devotion etc. I am trying to introduce the distinction that it wasn't only Rawat who wanted to de-Indianise in 1976 but it most definitely was him personally who wrested back control later that year and encouraged a return to devotion etc. PatW 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Downton disagrees with you. He says that "After the festival (Millenium 1973), there was a decided change in the guru's attitude about his role in the Mission. Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable. The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission". And, "unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture". Downton continues "After shuffling the top leadership of the Mission, Guru Maharaj Ji began to decentralize organizational initiative and power by turning some of the decision-making over to local premie communities, while he maintained his status as the ultimate authority over spiritual and secular matters. This move stimulated another change in the movement by encouraging independent action on the part of premies. For example, the guru had inspired greater autonomy by saying in January 1976: "Don't expect that all these premies who are in the ashram right now are going to stay in the ashram. I hope they don't". Downton is clear, Rawat was in charge and Rawat encouraged people to leave the Ashram. So I'll amend your edit.Momento 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I made it about 72 words less... for what that little exercise was worth.PatW 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather more now. I would invite people to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&action=history to check the edits I've made to the proposed article. There's too many to go into too much detail about here. I don't think many will be controversial as they obviously increase NPOV, or just precis - but I expect some will want to discuss further. PatW 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maharaji

A large thrust of the article appears to be the assertion that Rawat removed "Indian trappings." But, Rawat retains the name "Maharaji," which is a term from India. I think that since most people don't know the Sanskrit or Hindi definition of the word "Maharaja or Maharaji," it's handy that wikipedia already has an article that explains its meaning as "great king," which is how it's always been defined by DLM and premies. See Maharaja. Let's discuss. Sylviecyn 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right of course, Sylvie, that is how we thought of him, and many still do, but Maharaja is also a common name and surname in India. Google gives 2 million hits, and apart from all the Indian restaurants, most seem to be personal websites under that name. I'm sure you've noticed that nearly everyone in India seems to have a name of enormous consequence, they don't seem to have many Bill Smiths or John Carpenters. Personally, I don't think this means anything. Rumiton 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't mean anything, I would assert Maharaji would have dropped the entire Indian title. But, it isn't a matter of what you or I think of him based on his name. Rawat is the surname that's very common in India, but "Maharaji" isn't a surname, rather, it's a title that means "Great King." It isn't derivitative of the English language and since this is the English language Wikipedia, it seems to me we ought to enlighten readers as to the meaning of the word, and since the "Maharaja" article explains it quite well, there's no point omitting that in an English encyclopedic article about someone who is "commonly known as, or affectionately known as Maharaji" by his followers. Either way -- name or title -- it's still a sanskrit/hindi word that can and should be defined for the benefit of readers. Sylviecyn 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not much ado about nothing. The fact that Rawat kept an Indian title/name is quite significant, given the many assertions in the article that he pushed to remove all "Indian trappings." I think it's pertinant for readers to know what the word "maharaji" means. Sylviecyn 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) I have not seen any scholars making a big deal of his name; (b) In India people call others "Maharaj" as sign of respect to saints, yogis, religious scholars and high officials, and "Ji" means "Sir" (there are about 2,000,000 google hits for Maharaj!). Other similar ways to address such people used India are swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others. So yes, he removed the Indian trappings that were not useful in the West. But he has not removed his origins... he still wears a kurta while in India, and he still draws from that tradition in many ways. So this issue about the name is indeed much of a do about nothing and not at all "pertinant (sic) for readers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a definition of the word "maharaji." It's not original research, Jossi. People on Wikipedia define foreign terms all of the time, especially if there's an article about it here, and the word "Satguru" was linked until the recent mass rewrite. If Rawat was also known as "swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others," I would recommend any of those be defined as they are foreign words in an English-language encyclopedia. Moreover, Rawat is known as "maharaji" throughout the world, not just in India, so you lose that argument. I'm not suggesting writing anything about it, my suggestion is to simply link the word "maharaji" to the maharaja article. That's all. Unless Rawat has trademarked the word "maharaji," I'm right on this. Thou dost protest too much. :-) Sylviecyn 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Jossi, I'm not the one making a big deal out of this. You haven't disallowed the linking of the word "satguru" so I'm puzzled by your reaction. Sylviecyn 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no.... there is no need to link to maharaja because PR is not a maharaja. There is an article on maharaj that may be closer, but linking a name to generic definition is not appropriate, neither is standard. We could add a link in the see also section, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I just wanted to check. I guess readers can look up the meaning of the word if they're interested. Thanks. Sylviecyn 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Ruminton's asseertion that Rawat's use of Maharaji as both a name and synonym for God was meaningless. Quite the opposite actually. Neither Rawat nor premeis were singing hymns of praise and praying to Maharaji 'the Indian Restaurant' or 'bloke from the deli'! The intended meaning was plainly very much the original Hindu version. The significant point is that Rawat refered to God as 'Maharaj Ji' in his teachings. As I say, there are plenty of examples of him praying to 'Maharaj Ji'. Time and time again he spoke of 'Maharaji' in the third person and the implication was that this third person was 'a' (maybe 'the') divine being. He talked about Maharaji's Grace, Maharaji's blessings etc. He voiced prayers to Maharaji as 'Lord'. Rawat used 'Maharaj Ji' as a synonym for God. There is no escaping that. The fact that he was also known almost universally as Maharaj Ji was no co-incidence. It was an honorary title. The perception and teaching was that there was a link and that link was that Guru Maharaji (the man) was the 'chosen one' the 'Perfect Master' come to show people 'Guru Maharaj Ji' (the God). I see it as unscrupulous to suggest that Maharaji was not widely perceived as a Divine authority largely because of stuff like this. PatW 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this answers the question. At a conference in January 1976, a premie asked him what he meant when he used the term "Guru Maharaj Ji." Question: "It confuses me when you speak of Guru Maharaj Ji and yourself as different-that Maharaj Ji has taught you or Maharaj Ji teaches or leads you-when you're Maharaj Ji." Answer: "Guru Maharaj Ji that gave me this Knowledge is my guru and that's whom I am referring to. Of course it's not physical. What I am actually referring to is that omnipotent power." Question: "You mean God?" Answer: "Well, we can't really harness Him down into words. It would be kind of hard."Momento 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind editors not to use this page to express personal opinions. This is not a forum to discuss our personal interpretations of titles, names, etc. I will not express my opinion on the matter and I encourage others to do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast Jossi :-) this is a friendly and most valid discussion. We are not discussing 'our personal interpretations of titles, names, etc. We are clarifying from Rawat's own words what he meant by referring to Maharaj Ji in the 3rd person in his speeches. It's important to clarify why some people 'saw him as the Lord of Creation'. Which is stated in the article. Don't you think readers have a right to know why? Why did they think that? Ask yourself? What Momento recounts is really good. Was this from a valid resource by the way? Because I agree it's very useful for people to know exactly what Rawat meant. What Rawat is saying is that he is definitely referring to "that omnipotent power" and "Guru Maharaj Ji that gave me this Knowledge (who) is my guru". In other words he saw his guru, albeit not in physical form, as 'that omnipotent power'. PatW 09:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Sylvnc above related to the meaning of the title Maharaj. As for what you say above, it may be a great conversation piece, but again not relevant as it pertains to the article. Remember that we are just reporting what reliable published sources say about a subject and not to "clarify Rawat's own words" to the readers. That will have to be left to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from Downton. Momento 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the proposed article I feel that there is a slightly excessive use of numbers of programs 'more than 40 events etc.' I'm not sure this may amount to a rather advertorial tone. Maybe there is no need to describe the cities he visited at quite such length. I purposely did not edit these bits because I feel that should come from those who put them there and of course, it might appear I am trying to minimise his achievements which I really am not.PatW 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal in the Leaving India section it said:

During these years, claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers, causing Abbie Hoffman, another Chicago Seven member, to comment: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves". Rawat denied the claim. In her autobiographical book, early follower Sophia Collier wrote, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life."

I've changed it to:
During these years, claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers, causing Abbie Hoffman, another Chicago Seven member, to comment: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves". In her autobiographical book, early follower Sophia Collier wrote, "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with...There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life."

I used the replacement quote (in bold)
a) because it is shorter than the Question/Answer Rawat quote discussed just above - although that's very explanatory it's necessarily longer. b) Just saying 'Rawat denied the claim' is one-sided. The impression being rather opposite to what Collier actually says. So in balance I think it best to quote Collier more fully on this point. Although I would argue that, to lose space, it would be more appropriate to lose the second lengthier part of the Collier quote (There are those who..etc) which does not relate to Rawat's response at all. It merely reinforces the existing statement (claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers). PatW 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no one suggested using the Q & A quote (I posted it for your info), so your "replacement" is not shortening the article, it's adding to it. So strike out reason a). Secondly, removing all evidence of Rawat's unambiguous and oft quoted denials of being God (as per the Hoffman "God" quote) and replacing it with Collier's opinion of Rawat's opinion of his divinity is disgraceful editing. And thirdly, your suggestion to remove Collier's long included quote describing the variety of opinion about Rawat (to make way for your "replacement") because you claim it "does not relate to Rawat's response at all" is outgaeous because you have single handedly removed Rawat's response entirely. This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.Reverted.Momento 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally refute that I am POV pushing at all. Let's see what others think. As Vassayana is the only impartial person around here perhaps he could comment. You there Vassayana?

From an Interview with John Wood of the Boston Globe with Guru Maharaj Ji in Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973, re-published in And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2. and re-published in "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc.

Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God

Here is an unambiguous, well sourced denial given to a reporter and published three times in 1973. Removing this important info from an important discussion is blatant censorship. You removed it from the article because it contradicts your POV and you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth.Momento 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh! If you don't want to look any more dumb than you already do I suggest you stop ranting at me and hear me out. Yes we've all heard that one. Rawat just saying he's 'not God' by the way doesn't mean that he doesn't believe he's divine. There are plenty of Guru's who wouldn't dare say they are God but sure go on about their divine status. Just like we've shown you time and time again that Prem Rawat did! Why the hell do you think he called himself Guru Maharaji. That was a pretty divine title wasn't it? Even the Pope believes that he was divinely appointed and he doesn't go around telling people he can show them God! Next thing you'll say Jesus wasn't divine. He said I and my father are one and probably denied being God toofor all I know. That was pretty much Maharaji's tone too. I think that was exactly the point Collier was making. Collier reports, that "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with". That is a really perfectly accurate, cool, balanced statement actually. Clearly Collier did not think Rawat had made any definitive denial about his divinity otherwise she wouldn't have said exactly that. Yes Rawat denied being God AND encouraged people in their views of him as divine or not divine. It's that simple. I totally refute that I am POV pushing at all. Let's see what others think before I put it back in. By the way, if you think Collier was wrong about that why do you use selective quotes from her book at all? Maybe she was wrong about those too. Could it be that you are POV pushing? You're too much.PatW 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, PatW: no personal attacks. I have placed a 2nd warning in your talk page. There is no need to verbally attack fellow editors, even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article includes Hoffman making the comment "If this guy's God etc", infomation about Rawat's view about the claim of being God is of utmost importance. You removed it. Collier is irrelevant. End of story.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Momento where it says 'Rawat denied the claim' I don't see any supporting reference, so your blubbing about my 'blatant censorship' etc is way over-emotional. Of course I want Wiki readers to know the truth! I'd remind you I'm accountable here for my words - I've given my name and email..(and I'm getting emails of support from quite a few people)...you on the other hand are anonymous. Here's what someone just emailed me about that telling the truth bit:
"I have been following your posts on Wikipedia...Most of my adult life has been as a premie...but I feel the revisionism that is going on is outrageous. I was very much around in those years that are being revised and my memories are so different. It was a brilliant time and I loved it and can see no reason to cover it up....this was a big chunk of my life that is being told in untrue way"
PatW 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I previously noted on the bio/proposal page, I left out the all the sources and cites while I wrote to easy the writing. I've provided you with one quote on the subject and there are many more. Read more research and less fan mail.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're not going to attempt any sensible rebuttal to my reasoning. Good.. Then you lose the argument. Note. I actually have no objection to including the denial quote but not in isolation as you have presented it. I'll put the qualifying quote back then when we've heard from Vassayana and others.PatW 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Protest from editor PatW. Vassyana please comment on Jossi's warning

If anyone wants to get the complete gist of the arguments leading to this situation please read from PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE abovePatW 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi just gave me a 2nd warning on my user page not to attack Momento. I don't see any such warning on Momento's page who plainly attacked me first with a whole bunch of over-the-top accusations. As a protest I am quitting editing here altogether until I see some fair play. By that I mean Jossi retracting that warning. PatW 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pat, I did not see Momento using uncivil remarks about you such as Duh! If you don't want to look any more dumb than you already do.... If he did, and I missed it, please show me were and I will place a warning on his page as well. I have asked Vassyana to take a look and help cool off the atmosphere here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about 'disgraceful editing' 'This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.' ' blatant censorship'. 'you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth' . Does that constitute 'Good Faith'? Seriously I took considerable trouble to take Momento up in good faith on the request to do some editing on the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&action=history if you can be bothered to go and look you'll maybe agree that I made useful edits and I was treading on eggshells not to be pushing any POV. Momento has just attacked me mercilessly and I think very unreasonably, over wanting to include more of Coliers quote. I really think my points are valid. If my efforts are so consistently seen as suspicious, as if I want to lie about Rawat then I reckon I should leave this article to others. And as for being treated like a scoolboy, punished by an unfair prefect that is really a game I am not playing with you any more. Being treated with so much mistrust and avoidance of arguing perfectly sensible points is incredibly tiresome. I think me calling Momento dumb for attacking me AND reverting my edits twice without discussing my reasons was much less rude than his demonstrative expressions of lack of good faith.PatW 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me, PatW My comments above were not about you adding more Collier, but removing Rawat's comment re Hoffman's God comment.Momento 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

** REFACTORED PERSONAL ATTACK**! You've removed more comments in your time than I've had hot dinners probably! Why can't I remove a quote too? Especially seeing it was on a 'proposal page' and I put what I consider to be a more explanatory quote there AND invited discussion on the matter.PatW 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored your personal attack, Pat. This is not acceptable, sorry. A third warning is in on your page. Your personals attack have been reported at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record..I want it preserved that the singular word you 'refactored' was 'Hypocrite'. Give readers a fair impression..There are plenty of much nastier things they might imagine I was calling Momento. Be fair Jossi.PatW 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has said you can't remove a quote. I was correcting your misinformation.Momento 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my warning, but I will let Vassyana comment on this, as probably you will be more open to listen to him than to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have amended your original comment. If you feel attacked, that does not give you the right to attack back. The responsibility to keep an atmosphere conducive to editing is the responsibility of each editor. Yes, Momento should not criticize your edits in strong language, but calling an editor "dumb" is crossing a line that you should have not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The only comment I amended Jossi was to add "I think me calling Momento dumb for attacking me AND reverting my edits twice without discussing my reasons was much less rude than his demonstrative expressions of lack of good faith." Be clear I have NOT amended any comments I made previously. Also I understand that there is some room in Wikipedia to not suffer fools gladly ad infinitum. And what better word can you find to describe someone who demonstrably lacks enough intelligence to argue properly? Or who is mute when you ask them a question?PatW 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that I reverted your edits twice is completely false.Momento 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arggg! OK you reverted two of my edits you bright spark you. I see this is kind of a conspiracy to divert attention away from what I was actually saying to this STUPID argument about me calling you dumb. As if it was some kind of dreadful line I've crossed. PatW 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No PatW, I didn't revert two of your edits.Momento 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=119813007&oldid=119784563
and this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=119593047&oldid=119592799
How exciting I see you've asked Rawat to respond in person.PatW 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the one edit we're discussing once. It is your edit of 19:15, 2 April 2007 when you removed the sentence "Rawat denied the claim".Momento 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the paragraph to read as you edited it Pat. It more clearly reflects Collier's statement in her book and the actual truth about Rawat's non-denial-denials over the years about his own divinity. It's a secondary source that actually reflects the truth. Sylviecyn 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please

I will comment on this particular content dispute tomorrow. However, I will ask that you all drop it for now. This back and forth is not serving any useful purpose except to keep the dispute at a high temperature. Let's come back to this later, when we can discuss the content instead of other editors. I am asking that you please do this to allow the atmosphere to cool down. Vassyana 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool down

Everyone needs to take a step back, take a breath and relax. This is just an internet article. I understand that emotions run high and strong for both Rawat's supporters and detractors. However, everyone should try and relax, and possibly focus on something else for a bit. This is not the place to show the world how great Prem Rawat, and neither is it the place to expose his evils. We should only report what reliable sources have said about him in verifiable references, good, bad and neutral.

Regardless of how rude other editors may become, you should not stoop to their level or escalate the situation. If you type a message and you're about to hit save, but it contains a rude message or personal attack, do not hit save. In fact, close that window. Come back later in the day, or even the next day, to post your reply with a cooler head. That counts for edit summaries too. If someone else is doing it, it's all the more reason not to do it. Retaliating will only further escalate the situation and move the focus away from productively working to improve the article.

I also understand when people are being rude it can be frustrating. However, while personal attacks are against the rules, being a "donkey"-"pit" is not, though it is discouraged. If someone is just being blunt or rude, it's unlikely to draw warnings, while personal attacks will almost always draw warnings and blocks. It's just the nature of the rules. However, this should not be an excuse used to game the rules and bait others. Editors who continually engage in that behaviour (baiting) can expect to be brought under scrutiny, brought before arbitration or in extreme and repeated cases even banned from the community. While being a "donkeypit" is not against the rules on its own, disruptive behaviour is against the rules.

If you're really in a wiki state of mind, Dharmic religion could use a few more eyes and voices. Vedanta could use some attention to its citations and sources. Guru and the many articles related to it could use some attention and improvement as well. So, if you're really up for wiki-editing, but your emotions are running high here, there are other places for you to put your energy while letting your frustration settle down. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I scrolled here to the bottom first, and have not yet read the thread above, but I have to agree here with everything said above by Vassyana. Especially with regard to the warnings about Personal attacks. Everyone should cool off, and try to focus on working on one issue at a time, and when it is not possible to find consensus on each single issue as they come up, seek out different opinions from uninvolved third parties, via standard channels. Smee 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Truce

This is an proposed truce.

1. Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article.
2. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.
3. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.
4. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
5. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
6. Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.

Agree

• Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline

Headline text

Comments

The above is a proposed truce for those involved in this article. It is fairly self explanatory. If anyone has any comments or concerns about this proposed truce, please bring them up and I will try to rework it towards everyone's satisfaction. Please do not decline to participate in the truce if you feel it can be reworked to accomodate your concerns. Instead, please post your concerns here, so they can be addressed. This is simply a proposal that can easily be modified to suit the situation and involved editors. Vassyana 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now Jossi has given me a third warning for calling Momento a hypocrite. I notice no-one yet has properly read and commented on the arguments leading up to this argument. I won't accept any truce unless Jossi removes both those warnings and others have sensibly commented on my edits as from .PatW Edits on Proposed Page heading all the way down to here. And I stand by my protest which is that I will also no longer edit here otherwise. PatW 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you addressed other editors, the flaming, the escalation that ensued, and your dismissive attitude towards repeated requests to cool off, and not address other editors disrespectfully, was simply not acceptable, Pat, sorry. Editors are held accountable for their behavior in Wikipedia. Those warnings stand. Now, there is a proposal on the table for looking ahead rather than looking back on the basis of a tabula rassa". That is very a generous offer that puts your past behavior and the warnings behind. If you do not to wish to take that offer, well, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's unfair here. Kind of like you and Momento are 'filibustering' ie playing for time... creating a disturbance to draw attention away from my points and concentrate on irritating me with 'straw man' arguments to the point of me committing the deadly crime of being mildly rude. If no-one can be bothered to more intelligently address my arguments then I consider I'm wasting my time. Whatsmore your perpetual officious, humourless reprimands amount to plenty of bad faith and baiting from your direction. That's the way it feels and would like to know whether that's the way it looks to more impartial people. So far nobody has read the dialogue that escalated into my rude comment. Isn't it a little premature to accuse me of being the only culprit in this matter? Also as I said I am waiting to see how you guys resolve the issue of the Collier quote. If I think there is any more 'filibustering' I'm giving up on this article. That is my last word.PatW 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Collier quote isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is that you removed "Rawat denied the claim" (that has at least four supporting cites) that followed Abbie Hoffman's quote "If this guy is God etc" and replaced it with an obvious and provably incorrect Collier quote.Momento 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fine to quote more of Collier even if you think that she is provably wrong. Remember WP:ATT states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true [..]". Andries 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find my requests to cool off and being civil towards other editors, to be "officious and humorless", let me remind you that civility and no personal attacks are official policy and two of the few requirements from editors contributing to this project. If you do not want to abide by these, you can stop contributing right now. Not abiding by these is not an option that can be negotiated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, let me try a little. You wrote, quoting Collier, "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity..." Is it the problem that other editors have quoted sources where Prem Rawat specifically denies divinity? Is that the contentious part? Rumiton 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruminton, thank you for chiming in..I really appreciate your trying to address my point, but I really think I should leave this discussion for you and Vassayana and others to clarify right now. ThanksPatW 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I notice some other Wiki biographies use a format where paragraphs with headers can stand alone, that is, the text does not flow smoothly around them. The result is repetition. Personally, I feel the text should flow. Comments? Rumiton 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand. Can you link to some examples.Momento 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking around Wiki, I think I answered my own question. This thing mostly happens when editors want something mentioned, so they put it in several sections in the hope that anyone who reads that paragraph only will get their message. We had a bit of that here for a while, when I think the Sant tradition was mentioned in the India section, and also in Teachings, and there were a couple of other repeated issues as well. I can see it is better for the text to flow logically, and for the headers just to give a hint as to the paragraph content. Which is what we have now. As you were! Rumiton 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Teachings

I have just done some more editing here, mainly taking words out that didn't seem to be earning their keep. Have a look. Rumiton 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. I'm concerned that quotes from reliable sources are being tweaked to the extent that the prose (while may be fine) is changing the meaning of the source material and the authors' intent. Could you please provide the sources for those edits?? Thanks. Sylviecyn 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sylvie, Yes I do see the problem. I hope I have only sub-edited lines that are paraphrased from researchers such as George D. Chryssides, that is to say, not precise quotes given in quote marks. There was no intention to change the meaning. It is tricky when something needs to be smoothed or made denser to improve the article, but the original source is not at hand. And I see the need for further work of this nature. Can anyone help out with this? Rumiton 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ella2, please ensure that your edits are faithful to the quoted source. Example - you added "the work" to the following sentence "and finance the work and travel of his staff and mahatmas around the world" but the quoted source doesn't mention "work"; just "In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals". You need to find a reliable source, otherwise your addition of "work" is original research and not allowed. In fact, this article is being reduced in size according to Good Article recommendations. The proposed article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal Momento 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did some more work on the draft proposal, taking out some more repetitive stuff and switching around the sections. Rumiton 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think your edits are fine, although I may remove some of your your commas -- it's really a matter of personal taste, I think. :>) One thing I've noticed in the article, however. I don't know if there's a standard in Wikipedia for how dates are written, but within one article they ought to be consistent, imo. For example, "17 June 1971," as opposed the the American style of "June 17, 1971." I don't care either way -- both are correct -- as long as there's consistency through-out. What do you think, Rumiton? Also, for everyone's information, when using quotes, the punctuation is always placed within the quotes, i.e., "Punctuation within quote." Hope you're well. Sylviecyn 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you use June 19, 1973 (written as [June 19]], [[1973]], the wiki software will localize the display of the date according to the preferences for dates that you have set in "Preferences". So those users who have set the American date standard will see June 19, 1973 and those using British standards will see 17 June, 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning punctuation within quotes, periods and commas always go inside quotation marks. The placement of question marks with quotes follows this logic: If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks, and there is no need to add a period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know about that? I cannot say that I am an expert, but I thought that the periods go beyond the quotation mark if it is the ending of the quoted sentence. (I have not followed this rule myself). Andries 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I normally do that thing with the quote marks. Just a mistake if I didn't somewhere. And I know I use a lot of commas. I feel that they do more good than harm, and confusion is more often caused by their omission than their inclusion. But if they get up your nose, then they probably will for someone else, too, so delete some of them. Thanks. Has anyone thought yet of the kosher way to go about tweaking paraphrases when the original is not at hand? Rumiton 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not contentious, don't look for hidden eggs. I have made a few edits to the proposal, see editor talk.Momento 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of discussion on bio/proposal

I'm concerned that the bio/proposal is being cut down too much, is being editing without discussion (saying you made edits, take a look, isn't discussion) or cites for sources, and material is being removed for the sole purpose of keeping the article short, rather than endeavoring to make it a quality piece.

• The disputed paragraph containing Collier's quote has been edited again without discussion. That's a contentious paragraph. Momento, so please explain why you think the removed portion of Collier's quote is incorrect. It's what Collier said in her book, therefore, it's not incorrect as a quote from that source. Also, while Rawat denies being God in the Wood (Boston Globe) article, he does compare himself to Jesus, who is most certainly considered divine by Christians. The controversy about what Rawat has said about himself is about his divinity, not whether or not he ever stated he is God, which he has also said, e.g., "Guru is greater than God."
• If the new lead is only two sentences in length as shown on the proposal, then it doesn't comply with the guideline WP:LEAD which requires that the lead review the contents of the article. As it stands on the draft, it only is two sentences long and only states information about Rawt's childhood, in which case, would warrant removal of any info on his life after age 13.
• I don't agree with your proposal about sources, Momento. Everything that comes from a source must be referenced as such, Otherwise it may be considered original research and original prose.
• I'm going to start editing the main article because I cannot agree to the proposed draft as it stands and there's no way to make comparisons between the two. While I appreciate your efforts, this has become very confusing to follow.

Concensus has not been reached on the draft, and it's not ready to be transferred to the main page. Let's discuss. Thank you Sylviecyn 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the bio proposal is a sandbox page and I understand that is a work-in-progress and a convenient place to explore alternatives without too much contention. Just note that as there may be no consensus for the bio proposal, any major edits to the current article should also be discussed with the intention to seek consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that other editors have been making quite a number of edits to the article, mainly copyediting for better flow and that will be lost if major portions are transferred from drafts pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has been in existence for a month since the article failed the GA and there have been over 300 edits in PRTalk about it since then, hardly a lack of discussion. A major point was to reduce the size of an article that was described as "bloated, or simply too long". If you think something is important to include, propose it.

• The Collier quote was inserted without discussion by PatW. Since the sentence in question directly follows Hoffman's famous quote about Rawat being God, Rawat's answer to the question "Are you God", is far more appropriate and important than Collier's quote about divinity. The view that "Guru is greater than God" is discussed in the article in "teachings"."Divine" means "of, from or like God or a god", not "God", any priest, imam, or monk can make that claim. The issue of Rawat's divinity relates to the fact the Rawat's teachings prior to the early 80's were couched in Hindu religious terms. Since 83 he has dropped relgious imagery from his messaage. That is what the scholars refer to when they talk about Rawat or his message being "divine".
• The lede may be too short but if you believe that Rawat is only notable for being a "speaker and teacher" from an early age, it does cover the contents of the article.
• I have always maintained material should be reliably sourced and cited. What I suggested was to try and use one source for each paragraph rather than citing many sources that say same the same thing. Take a look at the Abbie Hoffman article, large parts of it are freely written and mention only one source.

Momento 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Collier quote is important as it clarifies the issue of Rawat's behavior when addressed as someone divine by his followers. That's especially important since the controversy is that Rawat denied being God all the time, while didn't disabuse his followers from thinking that he was "greater than God," divine, like Jesus, etc. That's the crux of the issue, not just Indian trappings. But the issue of Rawat's claims or denial of divinity is not just based upon the Hindu religious aspects and influence in the NRM, nor if he was considered "God," by followers. It's about how he taught his followers about that issue. Evidence of that are the words that Rawat himself uses in the Wood Boston Globe article. Rawat explains himself and his divinity (or perceived divinity) and Knowledge using mostly Chrisitan terms and comparisons from the Bible, which has nothing to do with India or Hinduism. collier's quote backs this up. These two sources offer a balance to the "Indian trappings" concept. Rawat's statments also reflect the style of teachings going on at that time in the NRM (early 70s) i.e., a lot of comparison of Rawat to Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc., along with quoting from the Bible and other scriptures not Indian. I think the Collier quote should go back in because it reflects her complete thought process on the matter, otherwise the intent of her meaning is lost, as well as taken out of context.
• Also, PatW inserted the quote without discussion here, but you reverted it without discussion. I want the complete Collier quote but don't want to engage in edit warring. I've become gun-shy about making any edits to these articles. I've done a lot of research, but I'm afraid to be bold when editing, based on my prior experience.
• Regarding the lead. It's not what I believe that matters. I was surprised that Rumiton reduced it to two sentences and you approved of that enthusiastically, given what the lead guidelines require. The article is about Rawat's whole life, not just childhood. The lead must reflect the content of the article.
• Hoffman isn't alive and there is far more material published about him than about Rawat. I think that the standard is probably different for Hoffman versus Rawat given that Hoffman is dead, and Hoffman was far more famous than Rawat ever was and now is. He was a generational icon. The majority of Rawat's life has gone by with little press coverage, except for the 70s when he first brought his NRM to the west, i.e., he's not known to the general public. Rawat's been an adult far longer than he was a child. Thanks for responding Momento and Jossi... Sylviecyn 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs three paragraphs, not just one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of "mind"

The definition of the mind by Haan is missing. Haan's definition differs from that of Derks and Van der Lans. I will edit in. Btw, Haan is not so much talking about Rawat's teachings, but more about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. Andries 13:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If we include that, we need to include other material from scholars about that subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why and what material by what scholars about the mind should be included? Haan's comments are somewhat out of context unless his description of the mind as used in the DLM is included. Andries 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Truce

This is an proposed truce.

1. Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article.
2. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.
3. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.
4. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
5. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
6. Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.

Agree

• Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreement

I invite all editors involved to sign their names below and agree to these terms of engagement in addition to Vassayna:

1. Zero tolerance on WP:NPA violations
2. Abiding by 1RR (only one revert per day)
3. Anyone breaking these rules will agree to take a 48 break from editing the article and making comments on talk.

• Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, except reverting Ella2's edits which verge on vandalism.Momento 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I ask that you have wait on the truce/agreement while Vassyana gets his computer problems straightened out and gets back online. There's abolutely no reason to rush into this agreement --this article has been online for years now and another week or two won't make or break it. I haven't been ignoring the "truce," btw, but I've been waiting for Vassyana to be available so I can ask him some specific questions that I have concerning this truce/agreement. I think it's best to leave this matter to an impartial, neutral third party. Thanks for your patience, Jossi, and best wishes... Sylviecyn 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. If my warnings and then this 'truce' thing result in my arguments about the Collier quote being ignored, (that led up to the warnings/agreement etc.) I cannot agree. Since it would seem that Vassayana and Smee had not read this before the proposed 'agreement' I will wait and see whether they do or not. In the meantime I won't be editing here but if anyone wants to join in the continuing argument on my user page feel free. I suggest you take a look. I have found the original Collier quotes and more.PatW 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Take your time to understand what agreeing to this will mean. No rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ella2

Please discuss any future edits here before making them. Your latest edit has many errors and I have reverted it.Momento 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento, take some time and engage Ella2 to explain how we collaborate in WP. Seems that Ella2 is a new editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you say the lede should be three paragraphs. I was working from the Wiki "News Article" which says: "The lede is usually the first sentence, or in some cases the first two sentences, and is ideally 20-25 words in length."

I thought I did pretty good. Rumiton 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "lede" in a news article is not the same as a "lead section" in a Wiki article. I've split it down the middle, see bio/propposal.Momento 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mystery solved. On March 12, IsabellaW (Talk | contribs) inserted her own Marta Robles sentence into Barret's 2001 quote. Ella2 has used the fraudulent quote believing it to be genuine. It is not. I have repaired the quote.Momento 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IsabellaW is also a newbie and probably made a mistake, being not familiar with the ref format. The quote from Marta Robles is in the book "Peace is Possible", and could be restored on its own, if needed be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:SYN

I am following the discussions on several pages regarding the use of quotes from PR's addresses, and would like to remind editors of the principles behind WP:NOR and WP:SYN: In Wikipedia we are not to make our own analysis of subjects, rather we report the analysis made and published by others. So, these discussions may be interesting as a discussion of editors opinions, but has not relevance and/or bearing for the article. Note that a substantial collection of quotes is available at Wikiquote to which we are linking from this article. That collection is available to readers for them to make their own conclusions. I will oppose any selective use of quotes to assert a specific viewpoint, regardless of what viewpoint is that, on the basis of violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR. An edit counts as original research if:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're discussing the quotes is so we can reach a consensus on what would not be a 'selective use of quotes to assert a specific viewpoint' ? Is it showing good faith to adopt an initially aggressive and suspicious stance towards us like this? PatW 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep using an argument of "good faith" as a way to dismiss my concerns. Well, what about taking my comments in good faith, for once Pat? My position is that we should not use quotes at all, as any compilation of quotes that has not been published as such will be a violation of WP:NOR. That is why you will not find quotes from primary sources in biographical articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not really what you said. You sounded like you considered our discussions about quotes valueless. In fact now you've explained I'm all ears. I'm mystified as to how we arrive at an article without using quotes and without expressing a POV. Do elaborate.PatW 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very easy: we simply report what secondary sources say about a subject. We can use primary sources, with caution, in particular about subjects about which there are disputes, as it is way to easy to quote out of context or selectively quote to assert a certain viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that all? I get that. Jossi I'm sorry but that is no news old chap. Of course it's also easy for people to selectively quote what secondary sources say about a subject to assert a viewpoint. (which is precisely what I've criticised Momento for). And that is why it's well worth establishing through discussion what viewpoints merit asserting. After all, by reproducing a secondary source we are effecively asserting the viewpoint of it's author too. Right? My point is that there's no getting away from having to assert somebody's viewpoint...the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly.PatW 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but your discussion was entering into territory that was beyond that, and I just though it appropriate it to address it. Just note that when we describe the viewpoint of a secondary source, we are actually describing the opinion of the author and not asserting that viewpoint as a fact (and we clearly say that in articles: "according to XYZ, this and that".) When we use primary sources, it is a completely different situation: we cannot selectively quote PR from primary sources (i.e. public addresses) to assert the viewpoint of PR on different subjects, as that will be in violation of WP:SYN, unless of course that selection of primary sources was put together and published by a secondary source... It is not that difficult, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Momento just personally attacked Pat and myself on Pat's talk page. Momento broke the truce which he signed. But, I wanted to also say that it's not fair for Momento to unilaterally replace the entire article without concensus and also an independent review by Vassyana. So, I object to that. Also, I don't think it's encyclopedic to try to stifle someone's open discussion on someone's talk page about the contents of any article, especially when the heading of the section is entitled "Arguments about..." I haven't edited the article or the draft, I was only hashing out some thoughts with Pat and plan to continue to do so. Jossi, you and Momento are the ones that have chosen most of the quotes on Wikimedia that are now prominately linked to the Rawat article, and you've over-ruled others over there, too. You even have quotes by several people on Wikiquote who are not Prem Rawat -- people who have no viable connection to him or his quotes. You also chose the quote that's currently at the bottom of the Rawat article today, and you have also linked to several others that are on the Voice of Maharaji, Eurocommunications, and other primary source websites. All of that is original research and/or primary sources. Finally, what gives one editor, in this case Momento, the right to over-rule everybody else who has an interest in an article? I can't find that in the guidelines, perhaps you could help me find it. Sylviecyn 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, (a) The quotes in Wikiquote were added by user:Andries, myself, and others; (b) External links are appropriate as per WP:EL; (c) the section in Wikiquote "About Prem Rawat" is in accordance to guidelines there; (d) Primary sources such as related website can be used in articles with som exceptions (see: WP:SELFPUB); (e) Momento has neither more rights nor less rights than any other editor in Wikipedia.; (f) If Momento has violated WP:NPA, please show me where, I may have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article and could not find any links to Eur communications, or Voice of Maharaji. There is a source taken from a no longer available website (voiceforpeace) that could be easily replaced. I will look for a replacement source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The day is coming soon

I am going to find sources for all the bio/proposal material and when that's done I'm going to propose we replace this article with the one that has been written according to Wiki:Lead and GA standards.Momento 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Vassyana to review it before that? That could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish it up first, even put in photos and invite him to review it.Momento 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize Momento, for misreading your statement above and then complaining about it. That was wrong of me. I was skimming instead of reading. So please accept my apology for that. Also, do you or Jossi know when Vassyana will be back? I understand he's having computer troubles. I value his input and think he has been reviewing the article fairly. Thanks. Sylviecyn 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will email him to find out what's up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the comments from Kranenborg and Melton had been removed. Please do not remove or freely interpret them. I have stated this many many times and I will simply revert without warning or further explanation. Andries 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed from where? I still see these in the article. As for threats to "revert without warning" I would argue that it would be unacceptable behavior by anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed from the bio-proposal. I have stated my opinion so many times that removal of scholarly summaries of Rawat's teachings is unacceptable. Andries 07:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that I do not have to repeat my warnings over and over again. Andries 09:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, there are hundreds of pages of well sourced and verifiable material on Rawat and we can't put it all in. Kranenborg and Melton are well represented and one way to include them, and many others, is to paraphrase their main points which is what I have done. If you made a judgement on the amount and value of scholastic material written about Rawat, Downton should have 100 times more material in any Rawat article than Kranenborg or Melton.Momento 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are misparaphrasing Melton and Kraneborg. Please do not do that. Andries 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I learnt from editing this and other Wikipedia articles is that one way to evade disputes about interpretations of sources and (mis-)paraphrasing is to quote them. You have repeatedly and heavily accused me of misparaphrasing and I think that your bio-proposal is worse than what I ever did in this article. Andries 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, this article cannot possibly quote all the material available. Melton and Krannenborg are already over represented. What important thing did they say that aren't included?Momento 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The explicit claims of Divinity that Rawat made according to Kranenborg and Melton are missing in the bioproposal. I will revert removal of this. Andries 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the request according to Kranenborg to surrender to the guru. And the discussion of the mind by Derks and Van der Lans. I find it very difficult to assume your good faith when you have removed all well-sourced scholarly summaries from your bio proposal that may be construed as negative. Andries 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May be the day is coming soon that I will request formal mediation or arbitration. Andries 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Vassanya's excellent critique of this article (GA Review (Failed)) Particularly the section where he says this articloe is "bloated" and "too long" and "needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing". Removing some of the well-sourced scholarly summaries is necessary. Kranenborg's comment about "surrender to the guru" is adequately covered in the teachings section with - Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Derks and Van der Lans comment about "all evil should be attributed to the mind," doesn't make sense without including DLM’s concept of mind which refers primarily to "a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust." and "indicate the same obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds". Which is all too long. And is better containedMomento 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is not adequately covered in the bio-proposal. You have copied a lot of text from the entry Sant Mat to your bio-proposal while removing scholarly summaries that treat Prem Rawat. Possible out-of-context quoting of Derks and Van der Lans can be corrected with a few words and this is no good reason to remove what they wrote. I suggest that you remove other quotes if you think the entry is too long. Andries 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this is where we're going to have to agree to differ. Downton's 220 page book on premies is of far more value to this subject that Derks & van der Lans article in a journal. Just because Kronnenborg and Derks and van der Lans are Dutch doesn't mean they get special treatment.Momento 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Both Reender Kranenborg and Jan van der Lans were or are well-respected, except by strong anti-cultists. They are not anti-cult or countercult writers. Derks and Van der Lans or their associates interviewed premies. They also published a comment on Downton's book in a book edited by Barker. i.e. . "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton" in The book Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. edited by Eileen Barker Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. (1983) pp. 303-307. You can read the complete article on the ex-premie forum, post nr. 6263 with subject "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission", posted on 05/22/2006 by Ocker. Andries 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for comment on a discussion which pertains to this article

I particularly want to invite Vassayana, Smee, and anyone who is neither a student of Rawat or an ex-student, to add their comment in the concluding section to a discussion we have had on my user page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity
The reason being that I believe that this discussion perfectly clarifies (in not too many words) why, in this article, it should be made clearer that even without the agency of students calling Rawat Lord etc. his words and those of his father completely suffice to explain why past students worshipped him as such and entertained many Hindu concepts. I contend that in the current article, others are disproportionately made to appear responsible for the perception he was 'the' or 'a' Lord of the Universe /Saviour-type figure and so, this article should fail a Good Article review simply on this account.PatW 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You can continue the discussions on your opinions on the subject on your talk page, or somewhere else, but these personal opinions have no bearing on this article. As said many times before, in Wikipedia articles we only describe the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources, and not our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that good article status only means that the article is well sourced, well written, compliant with the core content policies of the project, stable, and nothing more. Currently,only 2,105 out of 1,738,169 articles have achieved this status.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1) I think that Vassayana's comments about 'honesty' in his review above suggest that a discussion such as ours is most pertinent. In our discussion we never propose to use unreliabe sources and we discuss which reliable sources would be the most honest to use. And we do that by considering the picture painted by a number of primary and secondary sources which are discussed with considerable success in my opinion.

2) Describing 'our' opinions is not the intended outcome of our discussion. That is misleading of you to suggest that. Moreover, our opinions are provenly not invalid since, as I pointed out (and you agreed) there's no getting away from having to assert somebody's opinion...the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly. That involves the opinions of editors. And that in itself also necessarily involves discussion amongst editors, with the clear aim to reach agreement on how and which reliable sources to include, and how we present them. My hope is that neutral parties will look at our arguments and help us agree which choices paint an honest picture. I don't see how you can possibly have a problem with that.PatW 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You say the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly and that is correct, when we discuss published opinions that is, and not our opinions. Many people confuse NPOV and think that a fair balance, is the fair balance of editor's opinions, but that is not correct. The good judgment of editors is needed to summarize these published opinions, but that's all, otherwise we cross into original research, that is not acceptable. As for Vassyana's comments about honesty, I invite you to re-read his comments. His opinion was that some of the sources used were not well summarized and that do not honestly represent what these sources say. As he did not give specific details on which sources he was referring to, what was implied is to revise all sources used and stay as close as possible to them when summarizing them. That is what editors should do: discuss these sources and agree on how to best summarize them and describe them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've understood and our discussion perfectly falls in line with your last sentence as per what editors should do. You seem to be worrying about nothing.PatW 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite: that you are worrying about nothing. The current article has plenty of sources describing these aspects: Kranenborg, Downton, Collier, van der Lans, Hunt, Barret, and others. Can the summary of these viewpoints be improved upon? Sure. But I have not seen any proposals that do that, rather, I have witnessed long discussions about editors experiences and opinions that IMO, are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another issue, is that not all involved editors have accepted the terms of engagement proposed by Vassyana (and the more stringent ones proposed by me). That leaves me wondering if there is no intention to agree and abide by these. Not that there is an obligation for editors to accept these terms, but would surely be useful if and when the editing gets hot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I will agree when Vassayan has shown me that his comment is not as flippant as I took it, by his/her acknowledging having read the discussions and arguments that led up to me being baited and even myself since attacked. I have emailed Vassayana voicing my concern that if I agree to 'bury the past' all my arguments will be also buried. I really want some comment from others on the arguments and not just on the terms of engagement. That's just my personal request. You may have noticed that our discussions have actually cooled down quite well on my user page. Maybe that is a good sign.PatW 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery as to why people worshipped Rawat. It's all clearly spelled out in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal. But to save any confusion, here it is - Scholars have claimed that Rawat's teaching springs from the Indian Sant tradition, as embodied in the Sant Mat, Advait Mat and Radhasoami schools. Sant teachings are distinguished theologically by a loving devotion to a divine principle, universalism, equality, direct experience, rejection of ritual and dogma, and by attempts to reconcile conflicting doctrines (syncretism). Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Could it be any clearer.Momento 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The subtle innuendo here apparently knows no bounds and is literally endless. That bit is not presented as an explanation as to why people worshipped Rawat. It seems tacked on very reluctantly after a load of insidious insinuation selected largely to imply Rawat was primarily concerned with getting rid of all those 'He is God' concepts and others were to blame. Someone has completely reverted that Collier quote to reflect their POV so many times it's clear they won't give an inch. Someone is sitting on this article- suppressing everything that is not to their liking. It's all them - them -them. They seem to be gloating as if delighted to be nsulting others intelligence with puerile taunts and revertions. And where do these 'scholarly links' lead us? To current student and completely un-biased Ron Geaves of course, (maybe that's where they've slipped in the 'rejection of ritual and dogma' bit) - and then to Wiki articles on Sant Mat where whose been editing? ...JossiPatW 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone but are you really saying that Lipner, Julius J. (Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices), Kabir, Melton, David Lane, Kranenborg etc. are all conspiring to provide a fictitious history for Rawat and his father? As for the "He is God" concept, others were 100% to blame.Momento 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The bio-proposal freely interprets Melton and Kranenborg due to your POV described hereabove. You committed WP:SYN. Please do not remove the quotes by them. Andries 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I researched and wrote most of the content of the Sant Mat article, a fascinating subject indeed. That article stands by the sources I researched, and if you have any additional material that would be wonderful. But to imply that I edited the article to make a point, well... the material there is meticulously sourced and footnoted. Could it be that some people prefer to complain about the work of others and insist in discussing their opinions rather than endeavor in research and editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "it should be made clearer that even without the agency of students calling Rawat Lord etc. his words and those of his father completely suffice to explain why past students worshipped him as such and entertained many Hindu concepts". The whole raison d'etre of a guru is his devotee. Rawat told stories from the Bhagava Gita and poems from Kabir that expressed unbounded devotion to the guru. Rawat made it very clear that like Kabir, he bows to the guru not God. So it's hardly surprising that people in the west reflected this. Some of Rawat's student called him "Lord", some called him "Maharaji" but whatever the name, to have a guru and worship him was the happiest kingdom of them all.Momento 06:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The dispute about this entry will never stop as long as you try to push the here above described POV. Andries 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What entry? What dispute? What are you talking about?Momento 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the set of entries related to Prem Rawat and the continous disputes about them, especially related to the claims of divinity. Andries 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is entirely full of entries related to Prem Rawat, which ones do you mean. And what is the dispute about divinity that you are refering to.Momento 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be my English. With "entry" I mean "lemma" i.e. Wikipedia article. Andries 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Half of this talk page is filled with disputes about claims of divinity and I have also posted on your talk page about it and you reacted to it. Did somebody else log in under Momento's name? Andries 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a"lemma"? And what do you mean about "somebody else log in under Momento's name"? You posted something about "divinty" twelve months ago, is that what you mean?Momento 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemma is an encyclopedia article such as this one. I found it so difficult to believe that you do not know or remember what I meant that I started to believe that somebody else logged in under your name. Andries 10:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reinhart Hummel about the DLM 1980

From Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3170056093 page 79

German original:"In einem 1975 in Orlando/Florida, gehaltenen Satsang spricht er in eine ähnliche Sprache wie amerikanische Evangelisationsfeldzüge: >>The Lord himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him … Because we have got a stupid ego .. we have got our stupid mind ..<< >>Have we got a contract between us and God that He is not going to flood the world in 1975? … So when Lord comes to us, accept him. And Lord is here …. He might just decide not to go around and around looking for you. And if he does, you have had it. That’s it. It’s called >finito<…. So now is the chance.” ²³⁹

Das ist nicht die übliche Sprache hinduistischer Satsangs, sondern die Glaubensforderung eines Heilbringers, der sich als Wiederverkörperung des ewigen >>Guru Maharaj Ji<< versteht und mit Hilfe der biblischer Sintflutreminszenzen – wahrscheinlich aus seiner Schulzeit in der St. Joseph’s Academy in Dehra Dun – und amerikanischen Evangelisationsmethoden zur Entscheidung ruft."

English transl.:"In a Satsang in 1975 in Orlando/Florida, he speaks a similar language as American evangelization campaaigns: "The Lord himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him … Because we have got a stupid ego .. we have got our stupid mind ..<< >>Have we got a contract between us and God that He is not going to flood the world in 1975? … So when Lord comes to us, accept him. And Lord is here …. He might just decide not to go around and around looking for you. And if he does, you have had it. That’s it. It’s called finito. So now is the chance." ²³⁹

Thisis not the usual language of Hindu Satsangs, but the demand for faith by a bringer of salvation, who seems himself as the Reincarnation of the eternal "Guru Maharaj Ji" and with the help of biblical reminders of the great flood probably from his time as a student of the Saint Josheph academy in Dehra Dun and American Evangalization methods and who call for a decision."

Anmerkungen/Notes:

239 Premies Nr. 45 Dezember 1975 Seite 8

Andries 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel and Kranenborg both describe PR's speeches as being similar to eevangelization campaigns. Kraneborg's viewpoint we already have in the article (See section 1980), we could also cite Hummel if needed, but as both are making the same point we may not need to:

Kranenborg wrote in a 1982 article that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself."[61] While the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote in 1986 that, "[..]Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."[62]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded that section. with the source provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I still had to check the translation for accuracy. Andries 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned when limited sections of non-English material are translated by editors. English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.I think Rumiton is a German speaker. Perhaps he can help.Momento 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that will be good. Also check the recent edit at Divine Light Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I cannot post more than limited sections otherwise I would break copyright. Andries 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem. But selecting only some sections to translate leaves editors open to suggestions of bias, undue weight and original research. That's why it is best to avoid foreign language sources when (in this case) there is so much scholastic material in English.Momento 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We could get access to that source and check for that. Regardless of that, we should add some context on Hummel, in partiular that he was a theologian and leader of the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen (Evangelical Centre for Questions on World Views). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems quite irrelevant here, because the quoted work gave him the right to lecture at the university of of Heidelberg and probably had little to do with his work for the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. Andries 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that bas we give context to other scholars here, we need to give context to Hummel as well. No harm in that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The most relevant context regarding the quoted book is that it yielded Hummel the right to lecture at the uni. Andries 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you guys to it. I need to spend more time sourcing the proposal article. Whatever gets summarised here, I can ad to the bio/teaching section or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings which is the logical place for all of this.Momento 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, could you put any scholarly material on Rawat into this talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings

I'm trying to accumulate everything we have and then I'll put it into some sort of order.Momento 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted article by Reinhart Hummel is not well translated, the word choice is poor and slanted, the last paragraph makes little sense. But the original isn't much better. I just spent an irritating half hour looking up German language writings by Hummel. He was an Evangelical pastor who took it upon himself to "explain" to his congregation every 1970s spiritual group that set up in Europe in what he saw as opposition to the Christian church. Tellingly, the only group I could find that earned his approval was that of Sai Baba, and I understand they have lately been thoroughly debunked. I also cannot agree with you, Andries, that the example given has nothing to do with his work as the leader of the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. Hummel was a German who grew up in an age of euphemism, and Weltanschauungen (literally philosophies of life) is a euphemism for Eastern religions. The Evangelical German reader knows very well that Weltanschauungsfragen really means "The question of people who hold different views of life (from us.)" You are welcome to compare his use of Fragen with Heinrich Himmler's Die Judenfragen (the Jewish Question.)

A lot of people get invited to speak at Universities. I don't think that, outside of his own church, this guy has any relevance or credibility at all, and it would be a waste of time to give a better translation of his work here. Rumiton 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He was not just invited to speak at the uni, but he lectured there, because of his research that yielded the quoted book. He is often cited by Dutch scholars. He was, at least in the quoted book, not a countercult writer. The quoted book is far above the threshold of a reliable source. Andries 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel's research reg. Sathya Sai Baba was excellent. Andries 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is asserting that he writes from the counter-cult viewpoint. Only that as the leader of an evangelical organization, he may have a certain perspective. There is no harm whatsoever in stating his background. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "evangelical" is a good translation of the german word "Evangelisch". He became a leader of the EZW in 1981 after the quoted book was published in 1980. Andries 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the translation of Evangelisch? My dictionary says: evangelic -- evangelisch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper translation of "evangelisch" should be "Protestant".--Rainer P. 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it. It's Hummel's words that some object to, then his credibility is attacked or he is rejected for writing in German. I'm not sure about that. If Hummel was praising Rawat he'd be in the article like a shot. Ron Geaves is oft quoted as a reliable source - and he's a current student. Is his credibility greater? Does his obvious bias even matter? Is context given about him? PatW 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with Hummel's material. As we are stating the Geaves is a student of PR for context, we need to describe Hummel's context as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Momento. It's clear by what you wrote that you don't understand the definition of Wikipedia: Conflict of interest in Wikipedia, or in the real world at all, see Conflict of Interest. For purposes of the Prem Rawat article, as well as in academia, Geaves has a clear conflict of interest and a bias because he's a long-term student of Prem Rawat, and the subject of his scholarly paper cited here is his teacher/master/lord. He also didn't disclose that fact even to his academic peers, which calls his bias into question -- a lot! Therefore it must be mentioned that he's a long-term premie/student. Hummel isn't a student of the subject, which is Prem Rawat, so whether he's a Christian priest or a member of any other religion is immaterial. For instance, Gordon Melton is a Christian reverend and that's not mentioned in the article because it isn't material, there's no apparent bias, nor is there a conflict of interest. Melton is also a dracula buff, along with Massimo Introvigne, and I don't think that that information would be appropriate to mention either. To summarize: Geaves is a long-term student of the subject of this article, therefore he has a bias and a conflict of interest writing a scholarly article about Rawat so it must be mentioned. The other scholars are not long-term Rawat students, therefore, they have no particular conflict, and their bias isn't apparent or material to this article. Besides, we've had this discussion a long time ago, it was agreed that Geaves association with Rawat should be mentioned but not the religions other scholars. Doing that would be most inappropriate. Sylviecyn 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

SylvieCyn, please re-read what I wrote (the paragraph below). As we can all see, I didn't say anything about "Conflict of Interest" regarding Hummel or anyone else. In fact, I said "I don't have a problem with Hummel's German words". Nor did I suggest Hummel's religion should be mentioned and Geaves not. I said "A quoted person's religion is probably not a factor in most articles but when the quoted person is a paid, employee of an organisation critical of the subject, that context should be provided". COI is not just positively promoting your views, it is also denigrating your opposition.Momento 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Hummel's German words. I have a problem with how Andries translates them into English. Have a look at DLM talk where Andries replaces Hummel's clearly phrased "conceptual thinking" with "mind", as if they mean the same thing. And Hummel is not just a student of Christ, he's a fully fledged pastor unlike Greaves who is merely a student. A quoted person's religion is probably not a factor in most articles but when the quoted person is a paid, employee of an organisation critical of the subject, that context should be provided. And thought should be given to whether their bias makes their opinion suitable all. Certainly extreme or dismissive opinion should be avoided.Momento 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "conceptual thinking" and "mind" mean the same thing in the DLM according to Hummel. Nevertheless, I admit that I sh should have stated that they have the same meaning. Andries 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And Hummel is not just a student of Christ, he's a fully fledged pastor unlike Greaves who is merely a student. Merely a student! How thinly disguised is your absurd under-emphasis! Very funny! Geaves is a fully-fledged religious professor, happily fluttering his little wings and using his new-found skills to serve his longtime Master. PatW 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And an update on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal .With "merciless editing" this "bloated" and "too long" article of 89 kilobytes has been reduced to 33 kilobytes. I have found most of the references and included some of the recent additions to this article in it. Please give it the once over and leave comments in the editors' section. I am still focused on producing a "Good Article" as per Vassanya's helpful advice. Aiming for the end of the month.Momento 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And what do you do for a proper job? Just curious since this seems a full-time commitment.PatW 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel (continuation)

Why are we keep discussing Hummel? We are citing him in the article alongside other theologians and scholars, and we are providing context for these scholars by describing their allegiances. Let's keep it at that and move one, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Jossi, as long as the organisation he led and that paid him is adequately described for the reader. Even though Hummel's expressed views seem quite bland and uncontroversial, I don't feel he has intellectual credibility. It's like asking Billy Graham for his opinion on Islam. Or asking George Bush any hard question. (Off topic. Yes.) Rumiton 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We should not be assessing bias or lack of bias of scholars. Let's provide the information, alongside the scholar allegiances and that would be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Rumiton's highly misguided comments show the real problem with using non-English sources i.e. that assessing their reliability is very difficult for non-English speakers. Again, the quoted 1980 book was Hummel's research commission by the Heidelberg uni which gave him the right to lecture there. It was not financed by the EZW of which Hummel only became its leader in 1981. His opposition against the German word "sekte" and "Jugendreligion"/youth religion strongly indicates that he was neither a counter cult activist but that he had anti-anti-cult views. Andries 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel was a Lutheran pastor at the time of writing and that should be sufficient.We don't have the space to give his other positions. Be aware that Vassanya's GA recommendations are for a much smaller article as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal Perhaps time would be better spent looking at that article.Momento 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal is looking very good. With "merciless editing" this "bloated" and "too long" article of 89 kilobytes has been reduced to 33 kilobytes as per Vassanya's helpful advice. Aiming for the end of the month. Please give opinions in editor's section.Momento 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Current state of things

Sorry I have been gone so long. My motherboard decided to breathe its last. I acquired a new one and went from dial up to broadband, so I should be around often again. :) What's the current state of things? Vassyana 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal We're trying to keep to a 2400 word count to ensure that the new article doesn't become bloated and encouraging editors to consider what should be removed to make way for more material rather than just adding material at whim. The exercise in brevity seems to be producing a concise, factual article without too much waffle. It also has the advantage of keeping the same "tone" throughout which imnproves readability. Welcome backMomento 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, (and not wanting to divert the effort from the discussion about content, as per above comment by Momento) what is needed is that these editors that have not agreed to the ground rules you proposed, do so. I have expanded these ground rules to be more stringent, given the circumstances, so that we can have safe and civil environment to pursue the bettering of the article . See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Truce_2. Editors that have yet to agree are user:Rumiton, user:Sylviecyn, and user:PatW. Sylviecyn and PatW have questions for you that they have not expressed. Your help with this would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, have you stopped to consider what it's like for us, who are a minority on one side of the argument, being faced with a concensus of staunch followers of Prem Rawat who propose further stringent rules for this article !? Worse, can you imagine what it's like that these opponents have their own Prem Rawat follower who is a Wiki-administrator acting as some kind of permanent vigilante, policing us and warning us to an extremely irritating degree? Have you considered that Vassayana? Is it any wonder that we are suspicious of their motives? As far as we're concerned Jossi is far too quick to use his administrative powers to accuse people who are not followers, and yet reluctant to 'warn' followers. That's simply not news. It is simply a historic criticism of him here. The followers backing this more stringent rule idea simply want to use this against us. Why should I or anyone agree to that? It's just setting ourselved up for more hassle. Besides, we are under no obligations to agree to anything of the sort as far as I can see.PatW 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to Vassyana's Truce proposal. Rumiton 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? Exactly what will that change? Nothing.PatW 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that this truce proposal had some initial good intent it seems to have become a rather childish distraction. As you may know I consider that any person who comes here, like Vassayana, to enjoin or comment (however authoritative or impartial they may be) has some obligation to actually read and comment on the arguments first. I felt that to just say we have to 'agree to make up' and 'forget the past' is condescending. I have made some considerable efforts to argue, mainly with Momento, about the use of quotes such as the Collier material. During these arguments there has been quite a lot of frustration and some rudeness but to focus just on that and ignore the substance is simply flippant. Vassayana please read this thread above 'Invitation for comment on a discussion which pertains to this article' if you want to get the gist of the argument between Momento and myself and Sylviecyn. The argument continued on my talk page. I would recommend reading this argument about the most honest use of quotes. You may have noticed that only Rawat's supporters have agreed with your truce so far. You might want to think about why that is the case. The answer will become clear if you take the time to read the arguments and frankly not otherwise.PatW 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm still wanted around the place. :P I hope everyone has been well. Sylvie, Pat, what concerns and questions do you have? Vassyana 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana. I'm glad you're back. I don't like the truce (or even the idea of it) and don't plan to sign it. I think that the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and policies all serve any of the needs of the current editors, including arguments between editors, etc. The only situation under which I would consider signing such a stringent set of rules would be if someone, such as yourself, is the only person to administer them when disputes arise -- not any of us current editors. I believe that is a fair condition, albeit not so feasible. I think your time would be better apent assessing the article itself, rather than managing editors' behavior. The dispute between Momento and PatW that precipitated the truce wasn't dealt with fairly, imo, and I'd like to see more flexibility by the adherent's side when anyone besides adherents do any editing, especially on the draft. The Collier quote is a good example of too much rigidity, but even when Patw, Momento, and I had a discussion about it on Pat's user talk page, not much was accomplished in the way of coming to a concensus. I don't think the truce would remedy that. Thanks. Sylviecyn 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the acceptance of the ground rules is imperative. I do not see the reasons to disagree with these, and I do not know why Rumiton, Momento and myself have accepted them, and PatW and Sylvie have not. Hope this can be clarified with Vassyana's help, and the ground rules accepted by all so that we can leave that behind and concentrate in working on the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, my concern is that quotes about Rawat's denials of 'divinity' are being dishonestly used especially as per within Momento's 'proposed article' (which I assume you have seen). I would be most grateful if you would please very carefully read my entire argument with Momento on this subject and add some comment from your perspective. Here is the link to our discussion which I trust you will find enlightening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity
As you will see, I confront Momento on what I and many others have objected to and which I felt he had not yet properly discussed, ie this:
The article seems to be contrived to give the overall impression that Rawat was not responsible for encouraging followers to worship him as divine and that others (ie Mahatmas, his family, followers) were more or less entirely responsible for that. Of course the latter played a part, but it's not really clear from the quotes selected how much Rawat (Maharaji) himself believed it himself or encouraged it. That is deliberately played down in my opinion and many people think it's unneccessary and dishonest. Vassayana it is a very important point to a lot of people who feel this article is becoming just an extension of an existing PR campaign to draw attention away from Rawat's responsibility for encouraging followers to believe he was Divine.PatW 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PatW that quoting Collier very selectively is not fair and there is nothing in Wikipedia policies that supports this. Andries 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(If that is your viewpoint, Andries, why did you selectively quoted Hummel? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

I quoted from Hummel what I believed what was important. I did not revert more quoting of Hummel that others considered important. In contrast, Momemento reverted more quotes of Collier that PatW considered important. Andries 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had not been selective in quoting/summarizing Hummel then this entry and the entry Divine Light Mission would both have become very bloated and verbose. Andries 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such removal from this article. Care to point it out? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in this entry, but in the bio-proposal. Momento reverted PatW's edit back to selective quoting of Collier in the Bio-Proposal [1][2]Andries 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Bio Proposal" is a sandbox, and not this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It will remain a sandbox forever if PatW's and my concerns that I expressed here are not taken into account. Andries 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have a disinterested party here (Vassyana) that can provide objective feedback to the proposal that Momento, Rumiton and Slivync are working on. Momento is attempting to address the concerns raised in the GA review, and not your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bio proposal is until now a flawed attempt to make the article GA status. The bio proposal is far worse than this entry. Andries 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be flawed, but it is an honest attempt by those editing that proposal, to address to the points raised by the reviewer. Hence, my interests in the reviewer's comments. Hopefully Vassyana will oblige and do a review of the bio proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When citing, best is to stay close to the source, and provide context if necessary. If there is selective quoting going on, that can be adressed on specific edits (as an example, see the discussion at Talk:Divine Light Mission, in which we are discussing Hummel.) As per Pat's accusations of vigilantism, I would argue that these are unfounded. I have welcomed each and every user that wanted to edit constructively, and I have wared editors both pro and con, when I saw it necessary. It is all in my edit history for anyone that wants to check this. There is also no base to Pat's argument that he is in a "minority". As far as I can see each editor is very much his/her own person, and there are discrepancy of opinions within each camp. Lastly, and for the nth time, I am not contributing to this article as an a administrator, but as an editor, and I have never used my admin privileges for anything related to this article. I voice my discontent, yet again, at editors that rather than engage constructively, chose to continue with baseless accusations and disregard a request by a disinterested party to abide by basic rules of civility, extended to encompass past behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I'd like to give one specific example that illustrates a typical problem with this article: Rawat had told his followers (in a personal letter addressed to all premies and published in the Divine Times, Special Millenium '73 Edition, p2) that the Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome was to be "the most holy and significant event in human history". The book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (launched at the same time - Nov '73 - by Bantam Press) asked, on its back cover: "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?"

However, in the Wiki article, Rawat's claims to divinity such as these (which he himself actively promoted at that time) are dismissed with the words "During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media. Rawat denied these claims in several interviews given to the press and on television ..."

Such blatant revisionism continues - though often challenged by the efforts of a few who still care about the accurate portrayal of historical events. Their efforts, however, are being undermined by a few current followers of Rawat who appear to be exercising a wholly disproportionate influence over the balance of the article, which is, I have to say, actively damaging Wikipedia's credibility. Revera 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting your sudden interest on Wikipedia's credibility, nevertheless, as for your assertions above, these are substantiated by the secondary sources that were used in the article. Efforts are being made by involved editors, to add new sources and make this article better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are other sources that describe divinity aspects in the article, such as Hummel, Van der Lans, Kraneborg, Melton, Dowton and others. Maybe you missed reading these? (see Prem_Rawat#The_1980s_and_1990s ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel also treats the Peace Bomb Satsang more extensively. The current version states that the Peace Bomb Satsang is very important but omits to state what Rawat said or link to it which is uninformative. Andries 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The point you conveniently manage to avoid, Jossi, is this - that transcripts of what Rawat said to his own followers during that decade (and it's the 1970s I'm referring to), reveal that, for all his denials to the press, the message he was giving to his followers at that time was - shall we say - a horse of a very different colour.

While it may be true that, on the rare occasions when he talked to the press, Rawat did indeed play down - even sometimes deny - his claims to divinity, it was a very different scenario when he was addressing his premies - or students as they are called nowadays. The whole weight of his 'mission' was designed to associate himself, his so-called "Holy Family", and the meditation techniques with the divine. He described himself as the "Spiritual Head of Divine Light Mission" for God's sake!

The paragraph on the 1970s in the article really should reflect this, and not just the disinformational denials he fed the press.

Incidentally, the references to Hummel, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Melton, Downton that you mention do very little to explain WHY he was thought of as divine by his followers, and that needs addressing. To avoid doing so does Wikipedia a disservice (and Wiki's credibility - and lack of it - should concern all of us who use and contribute to it). Revera 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The "why" can only be described by reporting what reliable sources said about it. Downton, for example, addresses this quite eloquently. You may want to read WP:SYN, that explain the subject why articles cannot include editor's opinions, interpretations, an/or syntheses of primary sources that have not been published as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I never seen an address by PR in which he referred to his family as the "Holy family". From what I have read, I gather that that was very much something her mother and the elder brother were into. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with understanding the word "divine". "Divine" means "of, from or like God", not God itself. Rawat has made it clear that he believes God is "pure and perfect energy" and that no human can be God. He has also made it clear that God resides in the heart of every human being and that every human being can enjoy that "Divine" experience. When Rawat came to the west, he presented Knowledge in "Divine" terms with divine analogies from divine books. Knowledge was "Knowledge of God", technique one was "Divine Light", Elan Vital was DLM. He was, after all, an Indian Guru. But as time passed he became more secular and in the '80s he dropped the "divine" connection entirely and presented Knowldge in non-divine terms. The "Guru" became a "teacher", "God" became "peace" etc. He has never denied being "divine", he did deny some of the claims made about him, he always denied being God and he encouraged his followers to see themselves as divine.Momento 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge."

Leaving aside the "chicken and egg" limitations of this concept, it is tempting to interpret "manifest himself in human form" and "come to this planet Earth" as being "divinely born". But the above comment must apply to Rawat's father (and the Gurus who preceeded him), a man who slept on railway platforms and didn't become a Guru until he was 36. So the Lord of Creation is not being "born" onto Planet Earth. Rather the Lord of Creation manifests in a previously ordinary human who is then inspired to "do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge". It is therefore a consequence of understanding or revelation not birth. So, more prosaically, Rawat is saying - for all practical purposes there is never a time when God doesn't inspire some person to spread this Knowledge. A fair conclusion considering the workings of Guru succession.Momento 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these are telling and important points. I would love to see this article keep everyone more or less happy, I don't think more is achievable, but we keep on stumbling over semantics. Given the glare of enough attention, ALL words turn toxic or meaningless. But with a few moments sincere contemplation, I feel the above comment cuts through the hard stuff better than anything else I have seen hereabouts. Rumiton 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Momento and Rumiton! You've gotta be joking. Tell me you're making a joke. These last two posts of yours are obvious attempts at apologism and illogical rationalization. Rawat's words have to be taken at face value, don't need interpretation, and the fact is that he claimed divinity all of the time to followers while he denied it to the press. This has been going on since Rawat began his career as a guru. Then sometime in the 70s, he stopped talking to the press completely, while he emphasized even more to premies just how much greater than God he considered himself to be, and how much dust we premies were under his lotus feet. This took place in the U.S., not India. I've shown before that in the Wood Boston Globe article that when asked by Wood, Rawat denied he is "God," but then also compared himself to Jesus Christ by saying that he reveals the same Knowledge that Jesus revealed (as explained in the Bible). And Rawat was not confused about the divinity status of Jesus because he went to a Catholic school. He was talking to a Boston, Mass. journalist whose audience was American people. That's proof positive of the fact that Rawat considers(ed) himself at the very least, the same as Jesus Christ, who is believed predominately by Christians to be the messiah. That's divinity by any definition of the word (and Momento, you're even cherry-picking the definition of divinity). Read the following and then try to tell me with a straight face that Rawat was only talking about his father, his Guru Maharaj Ji The following quote is from Who is Guru Maharaj Ji, btw, a widely published book. You can claim Rawat's denial of divinity until the cows come home and beyond, but the fact of his own published statements dispute your arguments. Momento's continuous assertions that Rawat was referring to his father are implausible and false, based on Rawat's own doctrine that one needs a living master to receive Knowledge.

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ...... When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith. Excerpts from Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? First paragraph Prem Rawat, second section following words "Why be shy?" Mataji. All pending verificiation. Do not edit this post again!!! Sylviecyn 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above quote is most likely by Rawat, given the speaker talks in the first person. I'm looking to verify this. Daniella offers no positive proof of her dispute of the quote source. Sylviecyn 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

She does. ( "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" page 294 to 298). Satsang by Mataji, Newchatel Switzerland March 1972. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote is an excellent example of a pamphlet trying to assert a certain point of view by mis-attributing and mixing quotes from different protagonists. There are several quotes intermixed. According to Daniella, a large portion of it is from Mataji's satsang in these pages, and I have verified these pages: is the last four pages of that book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a quote by Rawat. The text in bold was spoken by Mata Ji (WIGM page 294-6) the other part appears to be an amalgamation of bits from various satsangs, possibly 1966 at father's funeral.Momento 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not from Prem Rawat, but from his mother Mata Ji and others. She was probably paraphrasing a commonly used theme in India, for example, Adi Shankara, widely considered one of the most important figures of Indian intellectual history, begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that is a widely sung Bhajan:

Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha
Guru is creator Brahma; Guru is preserver Vishnu; Guru is also the destroyer Siva and he is the source of the Absolute. I offer all my salutations to the Guru.

The misattribution of that quote to Prem Rawat by critics was discovered by an editor named Daniella last year. See this:

You have been mislead. Maharaji did not wrote the above, as you say... This is a good example of the strenuous efforts made by the publisher of that website to attempt to prove that point. What you quote above is not one continuous excerpt from Prem Rawat from that book, but a potpourri of quotes strung together, some of which are not from Prem Rawat at all. Some portions are from a sat-sang by his mother, some others by the editor of the book, some others from Brahmananda, and some others by Prem Rawat.

So, please let us leave these fascinating discussions for our blogs and forums, and concentrate here in working on the articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniella's interpretation is interesting. She is perplexed by Rawat's own frequent contradictions about himself (something I've demonstrated before somewhere around here). But, I can tentatively concede that the second half of the excerpt is Mataji's (all words after "why be shy?), but clearly the first part had to be Rawat because he speaks in the first person about GMJ, and clearly not about Shri Maharaji. Btw, John Brauns has consistently asked for anyone to make corrections to EPO, so Daniella's claims of ex-premies misleading people is really naive, without basis, and quite arrogant. In fairness, the attribution of those quotes do say "except," not "GMJ" on the EPO page. But, I'll ask for that to be clarified. Doesn't make much difference considering that Mataji was his own mother, kissing his feet and promoting him as the Supreme Lord of the Universe! That quote obviously was before the family split. However I took your sarcastic advice Jossi and asked on the forum and some folks are going to try to verify who said what in the above quote. So it remains pending verification. Do not revert it again!!!!!! :( Sylviecyn 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento you say "It's tempting to interpret..etc." as if your personal interpretation is somehow definitive or more sensible. ie as if there actually exists some real meaning in that statement which is relevant to the real world. You don't seem to included the obvious possibility that a) Rawat didn't know what he was talking about and was just parrotting some doctrine he'd heard and believed at that time. b) he actually meant what he said about being born to the task. Anyway, since you're understanding of Rawat's meaning is apparently so incisive, perhaps you'd like to share your interpretation this quote too:

I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ....

Here Rawat talks about the Supreme Lord taking a body and coming on this earth. Why should anyone hearing this (in context) reach your conclusion that he meant "the Lord of Creation is not being "born" onto Planet Earth"? Sure anyone who takes a look at the prosaic working of Guru Succession can see that there are loads of inconsistencies and contradictions. The point is that when Rawat said these things he was not familiar with the prosaic workings of Guru succession. Far from it, he was caught up in the belief system and actually belived this stuff. The fact that he was so young and impressionable at the time makes all this so much more blatantly obvious. I don't agree with Ruminton that your comment cuts through anything. All you are doing is tring to superimpose your take on what Rawat should have said 'more prosaically' . In short you're putting your words into Rawat's mouth as usual.PatW 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed by previous comment, that quote is not Rawat's but a collection of quotes strung together by critics in an attempt top prove their point. Please read the analysis of that potpourri of quotes made by Daniella, here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to separate the different quotes, attribute them to their individual authors, and address each quotation on its own merits, rather than dismiss them all. Any objection?

In the meantime, I have a question to ask all contributors here. In the 'Special Millennium Program' edition of the magazine called 'And It Is Divine', November 1973, the preface, written by Maharaj Ji and signed by him as "Sant Ji Maharaj" has the following:

"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge".

This was in 1973, seven years after his father had died. Do you think that he was speaking about himself? If not, then ... who?

Momento thinks the quote "...must apply to Rawat's father (and the Gurus who preceeded him)". How strange to suggest it stopped there. Rawat WAS speaking about himself - the successor to the lineage of the "Perfect Master", wasn't he?

Revera 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point Revera. I didn't suggest that Rawat wasn't talking about himself, I was making it clear that he wasn't saying he, his father or previous gurus were "born divine" as PatW incorrectly asserts.User:Momento|Momento]] 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can confirm that the long quote SylvieCyn attributes to Rawat is a forgery posted on the anti-Rawat site.Momento 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't suggest it? Oh really? You said the quote "must apply to Rawat's father and the gurus who preceded him" Why leave out the living 'Lord of Creation' as he liked to refer to himself? Really, Momento, your ... deviousness (if that's the wrong word, I'd like to know what a more accurate one is) speaks volumes.

Revera 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rawat's quote makes it obvious that he was refering to himself but I was reminding readers that his quote must also apply to his father and preceeding Gurus. And using his father as an example, the Lord of Creation didn't manifest in Shri Hans until he was 36, so contrary to PatW's assertion and many others, Rawat is not saying he or his father were born divine. PS Just Gooogled "Lord of Creation", didn't find any references to Rawat calling himself that. Good bye.Momento 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A few paragraphs above, Jossi admits that he's never heard Rawat refer to his family members as the "Holy Family". OK, as an admission it goes so far - but should Wikipedia's readers take Jossi's ignorance as a definitive statement of denial that Rawat ever did this? I don't think so.

Here's a link to picture of the so-called "Holy Family" published in the Special Millennium edition of the magazine "And It Is Divine" - http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/and_it_is_divine/millennium/thumbs/page26_Holy_Family_photo.shtml How did that picture, and the description accompanying it get there? Why not ask the "Editor in Chief" - http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/and_it_is_divine/millennium/thumbs/page03_Invitation.shtml

Who he? Guess. Revera 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Dismissing the misleading quotation does not serve you well. Mata Ji and elder brother were the ones that referred to themselves as "holy family". PR did not. I remember a quote of Mataji in which she claimed to be the "holy mother". As for your attribution of that to PR because it was published by the DLM in 1973, it is just your opinion and not a fact. I would encourage all editors to stop with the speculative comments and discussions on this page. This is not a discussion forum. If you have something you want to discuss about the article, please do so. Otherwise take these discussions to your personal take pages, or better, off-wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you say "Dismissing the misleading quotation does not serve you well." Please explain which quotation you're referring to, and what on earth you mean.

As for the magazine "And it it Divine" being published by DLM, - well, actually it was published by Shri Hans Productions, although the copyright was held by Divine Light Mission - but that diminishes my point not one jot. Its EDITOR-IN-CHIEF was RAWAT/Maharaj for crying out loud! As such, he takes ultimate responsibility for publishing the picture of his familiy with the description "The Holy Family" beneath it.

This is not mere speculation. It is FACT! As is the fact that the same magazine - HIS magazine - quoted him as saying the following:

"The great leaders think that I have come to rule and yes, they are right! I will rule the world, and just watch how I will do it! Even the lion and sheep will embrace each other. Has there been such a king before? Krishna was not such a king. Rama also was not such a king. There were lesser powers in Ram, there were lesser powers in Krishna, but I have come to the world with full powers. Accept my words, accept me. I will give you Knowledge. If you mistake my meaning, if you mistake a single word of what I am saying, I will not forgive you". Guru Maharaj Ji, excerpt from "The Peace Bomb" satsang held at India Gate, Delhi, November 8 1970 and printed in the magazine "And It Is Divine", Volume 1 Issue 10 p.17, August 1973.

Link to scan here: http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/golden_age/number_49/thumbs/page17_maharaji_peace_bomb.shtml

Revera 11:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniella's Deconstruction

This was Daniella's analysis of that and other "quotes": Diff [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really a good thing that Daniella found the discrepency of the two quotes that are posted on EPO, because now they can be corrected and clarified, but that doesn't prove anything for anyone wanting to assert that Rawat never made claims of divinity. The fact is that he did it all of the time. On the EPO Who is Guru Maharaj Ji page it says "excerpt," and doesn't attribute the quotes specifically. I'll ask for that to be clarified. On the Gallery page of EPO, the satsangs are set forth more clearly, and the second part of the quote (bolded above) is definitely Mataji. The first part is Maharaji. But I don't take the word of an anonymous wiki editor like Daniella who states exes are misleading people. What's her agenda or authority to be making an assertion like that? Who the heck is she? She doesn't know what she's talking about obviously, yet freely spews her uninformed opinion which you attached yourself to, Jossi, and you seem so eager to repeat "misleading" over and over. Throughout the history of the EPO website, the webmasters have asked premies (or anyone) over and over again to correct any mistakes, errors, or omissions that they might find. This was usually done in response to unfounded criticism by premies on the various fora. No one has made an attempt to do that, but they sure are fond of dishing out libel about us exes without any foundation. A mistake or error is not deliberate attempt to mislead, which is Daniella's accusation that I obviously reject. So I kindly ask you to refrain from repeating falsehoods about me and other ex-premies here, or I'll start editing your posts that disparage my character by association. Have a good day. Sylviecyn 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) I have not disparaged any editor. If I have, show me where. (b) We do not ask "who the heck are you" to fellow editors, we look at their comments at face value; (b) if you have anything to say to that editor, say it in that editors' page; (c) The analysis by Daniella is excellent in my opinion and very accurate as well, and far from a "falsehood". She uncovered a mistake that was being perpetuated regardless of if it was deliberately or not, and a good example of that was your posting. You were mislead by these quotes and you attributed them to PR based on mistaken information found on a critic's site. Her analysis of the peace bomb satsang is excellent as well. I have being studying textual criticism (an article I took to GA status, now working on Feature Article status) and applied that science to the analysis of early satsangs that were translated from Hindi, and I concur with her analysis (and have some more theories that I will not bore you with). So accept that you were mislead and move on, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You could be shown word for word, a personal attack, innuendo, and sarcasm and you'd come back and deny it. You do that all the time and it's so disrepectful. Some good faith! Sure, I can move on to including a quote in the article to show that Rawat indeed made blantant claims of his own divinity in a published book, WIGMJ? and other DLM publications printed and sold, in English, in the United States, in other words, the west. All of the time. Even as recently as the 90s. I don't need to use a Hindi-to-English quote, although that was DLM promoted during the time Rawat was editor-in-chief, and the legal minister of DLM. I disagree about your assessment of Daniella's interpretation of Rawat's satsangs. I agree that they fit into your need for revisionism of Prem Rawat's life quite well enough, no doubt about that, but that's about all. Concerning my being misled, I also disagree. No one lead me anywhere at all. I'm quite happy that particular excerpt got straightened out. But, a mistake is far different than someone misleading someone which implies intent. That's the insult you fail to see you and Daniella make about ex-premies, and you and other premies here make these kinds of postings all of the time, and manage to get away with it as if you have some special privileges. That's the problem with the main thrust of this article, actually -- Prem Rawat ever accepts responsibility for his mistakes and neither do his adherents and you spin on and on and on. Funny, that.Sylviecyn 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Look: you were the one that posted a comment here stating that these were PR's words, not me. I just went back and found a comment by an other editor that analyzed that and other quotes in a scholarly manner, and linked to it for everybody's benefit,. The fact that you do not like that analysis does not mean that (a) it is incorrect; and (b) that it is a personal attack on an editor here. I would appreciate it, if you stop making baseless accusations of personal attacks, when there are none. This is not the first time you have made these claims, and it is becoming disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if someone tells you that you're offending them, it's only respectful to at least listen. Nevermind. I found out the first part of the quote is from page 13 of WIGMJ and by Rawat. It's published material, so it can go in. Apparently, it's there's a section in book that puts the two quotes together in a montage of quotes on the pages Daniella looked at, but on page 13, it's clear it's Rawat. Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?" Prem Rawat, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? Sylviecyn 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Page 13 contains also this quote: I have not come to establish a new religion. I have come to reveal the truth, knowing which will set you free. If you come to me with a guileless heart and sincere desire, I will give you eternal peace. Then there are some selected excerpts of the peacebomb satsang. As said before, we can get into "quote war" and end nowehere. There is also this quote from that satsang: "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. How shall I sing of Him? How shall I express the love He has for you? He has deep love for humanity. I cannot express the great love He has for you. I do not have sufficient words to express how much Guru Maharaj Ji loves you." [...] I only need the opportunity. If I have the time, dear premies, what will I not do! I have so much faith in Guru Maharaj Ji and I pray to Him, "O Guru Maharaj Ji! Increase my faith twofold; and increase it threefold in those who do not love you. Increase it for them fivefold so that they too are blessed.

In addition, there are at least two or three versions of that satsang published, as per Daniella's research, such as Now Guru Maharaj Ji has come. Whenever He came before, you did not accept Him. Now I have come again to reveal the Knowledge, and still you do not understand me. Why don't you realize? . Given all these discrepancies in translation, it is more appropriate to cite secondary sources rather than primary sources in this regard. (Please use italics to for cited text, thanks.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What "discrepancies in translation" are you referring to? And where's your evidence? What's more, the quotes were published in a secondary source - "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?", edited by Charles Cameron. published by Bantam. And I don't think your suggestion of discounting any primary source simply because it's been translated from Hindi is one that should be automatically taken as policy. ::::Revera 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, Daniella found that somebody "tweaked" the translation to say "saviour of humanity has come" instead of "Guru Mahara Ji has come". The latter was on a version published in 1972 and the former on Cameron's book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not like the translation Jossi, but it was published in the magazine "And it is Divine" Volume 1 Issue 10, August 1973 - two months before Charles Cameron's book hit the shelves. Since he goes on to talk about how people are 'saved' by him, your quibble about the translation means very little - other than you don't like the implications of what Maharaji allowed his own organisation to attribute to him back then. Nonetheless it WAS proclaimed - IN HIS NAME.

http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/golden_age/number_49/thumbs/page15_maharaji_peace_bomb.shtml

Revera 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

... that is your unsubstantiated personal opinion'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Vassayana ever going to address our questions?

For weeks now we have been asking Vassayana to address specific concerns and it seems that he may not have time to answer or is unable due to technical difficulties. The problem is that these questions rapidly get buried by further discussion, we repeat them and they get buried again etc. It's becoming quite tiresome for me now. Should we invite other people...if so how? And what should their qualifications be, to have their opinions respected as apparently Vassayana's are? Is it just that they should be impartial and a Wikipedia administrator or what? Is there some sort of official mediatator we can call upon?PatW 07:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana is back since a coup,e of days ago, and left you messages in your talk page. The review of the bio proposal Vassayana submitted yesterday is here. Vassayana is acting as an informal mediator, and I understand that this has been accepeted de facto by participants, and respected in that capacity for his disinterested and objective evaluation of articles and proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for "official" mediation, I would argue that we are quite well good with Vassyana's help. For more information about WP's dispute resolution process beyond informal mediation (which is part of the dispute resolution process), see WP:DR.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat/Bio proposal - New Edits- Vassayana please comment

Hi, regarding this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal
(please see edit history - 27 April 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=126346446&oldid=126272899)
I have today removed the phrase that stressed that Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' without mentioning his own claims of Divinity. I also added the second part of the Collier quote which Momento omitted and which created unbalance. That is:
Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.'
I hope you agree with my editorial decision. Momento has threatened on my Talk Page to revert such an edit. I think that the Collier full quote makes both the crucial points that a) Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' and importantly that b) he also was personally responsible for that perception. The latter is the contentious point that was conspicuously missing in many people's opinion. Can you help us settle this once and for all? What do you think? Is it not fair to make both these points quite clear? Is it not undesirable to omit the information that Rawat spoke of himself publicly as 'the source of peace in this world' and as one who could offer 'Salvation'? PatW 08:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote wars will get us nowhere. And quotes need to be summarized. So rather than editwar about that in the proposal, you can find a way to summarize Collier's statement into one sentence, without adding "slants" to it. Vassyana surely can provide some help on that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late. Momento already reverted my edit to his paraphrase 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' . So since Momento wants us to carefully preserve the original meaning of quotes in our paraphrasing, I have added Rawat's significant Peace Bomb Satsang words as Collier uses, to reflect her original meaning. (ie. that Rawat was indeed responsible in part, for the perception of him as a Messianic figure.) So this is my edit:

Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with" whilst some of his public declarations such as "I am the source of peace in this world...surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation." inspired people to see him in a Messianic role.

Now if I were to follow Jossi's idea to summarise this, I would say something like:

Rawat's views about himself were open to interpretation. Whilst he generally encouraged whatever views people held around him, the tone of his speeches inspired many to see him in a Messianic role.
What do you think?PatW 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So Jossi I see you over on the proposal page you have 'tagged' this as 'unverifiable material' when it is actually straight from Collier. What's up? I fail to see how Colliers quote is less verifiable than any of the others used. Please explain.PatW 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean that I have not succeeded in a decent paraphrase. Apologies. It was not my intention to alter Colliers meaning. What I actually get from the quote is that Rawat was encouraging people to see him as a Messianic figure because that was kind of their religious background anyway. However I feel we still need to make the point that he spoke this way to western audiences as well and may people were encouraged by his words to see him in a Messianic role. Not everyone neccessarily was predisposed to see him that way. I think that even this quote is somewhat ambiguous about Rawat's ambiguity! PatW 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The text "Whilst he generally encouraged whatever views people held around him, the tone of his speeches inspired many to see him in a Messianic role" is what WP:SYN warns us about. We can cite Collier and others, but we cannot create that synthesis or provide that conclusion. The summary can surely be written without violating WP:SYN, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. I admit, I am over-tired and I think it best to leave it for others to have a go right now.PatW 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the talk page on the proposed article has moved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal/talk and yet again Momento has instantly reverted my edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=126753862&oldid=126752170 )which was exactly what Vassayana asked for...namely to state that Rawat made both claims and denials about his Godhood/divinity. I'm now virtually despairing of Vassayana actually mediating on this, so for the last time, if you're there Vassayana, please please help.PatW 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that with a little bit of patience from all sides we can arrive to an agreeable compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to the new article. Good bye.Momento 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You've either forgotten about (or deliberately avoided - for the fourth time) the question you said you were going to answer, Momento, namely:

The book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (published by Bantam Press) asked, on its back cover: "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?". We're all waiting. Revera 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are many things said about him over the years. There is a collection of these at Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was for Momento who said he would answer, and still has an obligation to.

Til then, I'd like to know why you're so averse to letting that claim - notable enough by any criteria - be included in the article?

How many people have had such a claim made about them? Very few. Yet you see fit to actively prevent any mention being made about the fact that so many were claiming him to be "the greatest incarnation of God ..." etc?

Why so reluctant Jossi? Why don't you want this extremely notable and well-sourced claim mentioned in this so-called 'encyclopedia'?

Revera 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rawat. When a reporter asked him at Millenium "Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?" Rawat said "Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?" Exactly.Momento 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not disputed that Prem Rawat at least encouraged his followers to acknowledge his divinity/divine role at various times and in various ways.
2. It is not disputed that he has denied such appellations at various times and in various ways.
3. It is not disputed that Prem Rawat's family and organization(s) have acknowledged and promoted various views regarding the divinity/divine nature of the guru.
4. Numerous sources, including some already used in the article, discuss this topic.
5. Direct quotes from sources should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Report what a variety of sources have said, instead of repeating what individual sources have said.
6. Criticisms and apologetics should be avoided at all costs, unless the editors intend to expand the issue into a distinct section.

That about sums up my own view of this debate. To be honest, it feels like the critics want to put undue weight on the interpretation he claimed to be G-d and the supporters want to put undue weight on the interpretation that such views were imposed on Prem Rawat by others. I think both positions result in undue weight without addressing the issue in a quality fashion for an outside reader. Some food for thought. As always, you're quite welcome to my opinion with some grains of salt. Vassyana 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. I agree with all points, with some caveats. I do not think that there any sources that will warrant an apologetics section. The closest we have is Downton's book in this regard, in which the author analyzed and discussed the subject quite extensively. Most of the dispute lies in editor's interpretation of quotes, and editor's interpretation of "G-o-d", divine, divinity, etc., an issue that has been warned about consistently during these discussions. If we stick to the numerous sources we have on the subject, we will do OK, I believe. (See for example this attempt ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vassyana, I believe you have it right. But "...addressing the issue in a quality fashion for an outside reader" you said a big one there. Let's try some more. Rumiton 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit comes close to a good overview of the topic. To avoid editor conflict and reader misunderstandings, it may be better to replace "God" with "divine nature". I believe the latter better encompasses the wide variety of beliefs regarding this particular issue. Otherwise, I think that particular version covers the topic at hand well, based upon my understanding of available sources. I do not know, nor care, whether or not it is a "true" depiction. What I do know, and care about, is that it is an accurate representation of the sources. Cheers! Vassyana 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't about a "wide variety of beliefs" Vassyana, this is about a new religious movement that has a particular belief system, lead by Prem Rawat. It has to do with the words Rawat has spoken because that's how he makes his living. The words he has used are very important and to dilute them to avoid conflict is just the strangest thing, silly, really. That's the most outrageous thing you've come up with yet. I don't think you're in a position to make an adequate judgement of this article at all. For you to say you don't care if the article is a true depiction is another outrage. This is an encyclopedia and btw, the source material was selectively chosen to favor the subject, when in fact, the only reason he is notable is his notoriety. In other words, he wouldn't have gotten any attention from scholars or the press if he wasn't considered a cult leader. It's simply unacceptable for you to put yourself in the position of neutral judge and say I'm trying to put undue weight on criticism, when, within the last six months adherents have 1) completely deleted an entire article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat; 2) deleted all the material that was in the "Criticism" section, and transferred to this article, including the actual section "Criticism;" and 3) you've ignored the fact that all the adherents have essentially hijacked the article and disallowed anyone but premies from making substantive edits, without these long, useless conversations about those redacted edits. Sylviecyn 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I take a serious exception on your comments, as these are not only misleading, but also factually incorrect.

1. The criticism article was merged into this one by the request of a non-involved editors (not by "proponents" as you claim), and no text was lost in the merge;
2. The obviously abundant sources were not "chosen", but researched thoroughly by many editors, including proponents, opponents and others;
3. Vassyana is a disinterested party that is offering assistance in this dispute, after challenging editors via a scathing GA review, which all involved editors accepted;
4. There is absolutely no possibility in Wikipedia to "hijack" an article, despite your recurrent comments about that. You are welcome to edit this article like any other editor, and your edits will be assessed on their merit, same as any other editor;
5. Vassyana has not put himself in the role of "neutral judge". It is editors in this pages that have requested of him to give some neutral comments and provide his opinion on disputed edits.
6. His comment about the text being "an accurate representation of the sources" and not a "true depiction" is 100% compatible with the policies on this encyclopedia. You may need to refresh your memory of what WP:Verifiability means.
7. Your lack of WP:AGF in your comments, just because you do not like what a disinterested editor had to say, is most concerning.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never was in favor of merging the criticism article, but was ignored. It's absolutely possible for people to hijack an article and this one is proof. Adherents spend a lot of time obsfucating issues to get their way and pov through -- all of the time -- no matter what you say and how many times you deny it. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so, Jossi. Not all of the editors "asked" Vassyana anything, you asked him to judge the article for GA status. I was never asked about that process. I don't need to refresh my memory of what verifiability means, you condescend once again, Jossi. It's unacceptable scholarship that anyone writing on an encyclopedia (or anywhere) would be content with an article that's not accurate and true especially when there are adequate sources to provide material to do so but they are omitted or paraphrased in such a way that spins this hagiography. Because I think this way isn't a show of bad faith, Jossi; wanting something to as truthful as possible isn't showing bad faith. I have a right to my opinions about Vassyana's assessment without being disparaged by you. Sylviecyn 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "disparage" you, as you said. You have all rights to have an opinion about anyone here, so do I. You have the right to make suggestions, engage in discussions and edit this and any other article: this is Wikipedia. In this project, when there are disputes, we ask third opinions, which we did. If you do not like that process, then you may need to reconsider your participation, because these are the rules here. This article (an the new proposal) is not a hagiography whatsoever. You may need to sharpen your understanding of that term. All sources in this and related articles are sound, and if you have a concern about a specific citation, bring it to the attention of editors, make proposals for fixing it, etc. Complaints do not an article make. Hard work, sound research, engaging other involved editors constructively, and asking for third opinions when stuck, does.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of scholarstic material showing Rawat was consistant and stated clearly- I am not God, I am not the Christian Messiah, I am a Guru/Perfect Master (who are seen as divine), I am greater than God (because Guru's reveal God), we are all divine (to or from God). There are several contradictions here IF you want to interpret Rawat's comments through a Christian filter. If you accept the Indian basis for his teachings, there are no contradictions. No scholar suggests Rawat was "contradictory". To paraphrase the entire topic - Rawat's Hindu based theology caused confusion amongst some westerners who tried to interpret his ideas according to Christian theology.--Momento 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now look towards me. Suppose this book is God. I may keep it in my pocket or in my bag, as I like. There is no trouble. But when I keep the living God in a bag, in my pocket, God will begin crying. Now the living God will need meals two times a day, tea, butter, cheese, milk, ghee. In addition to all these things for His feeding, so many things will be needed for His worship. He will need one room for which there will be a very good cot with a very good bed; and at night there should be someone to serve Him there also. But there is no trouble with a God who is in a book. I may keep that God there easily. That is why people worship God in a book, a God who is formless. But one who is devoted to God in form and person gets the fruits in form and in person. One who puts his devotion to the Lord in body gets the real fruits in form, and one who puts his devotion to the formless Lord, to the formless God, gets fruits in no form.

One who is devoted to his Lord in body can see all the real virtue in form, and get the real fruits. Devotion towards the formless God is completely useless, because the object which the devotion is done for has neither horns, nor tail, nor legs, nothing. Therefore, my dear brothers, it is said that the whole universe is blind.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.30.176 (talk • contribs) '

I have attempted to incorporate Vassyana's suggestion in the proposal, just to see how that would read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, your new sentence suggesting Rawat denied a "divine nature in interviews and talks" is not right. He has one and so do we. A large part of Rawat's teachings are concerned with redicovering our "divine nature". We're not there yet. Momento 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are not there yet, but maybe getting close to find the correct wording to describe that specific aspect. Let's keep trying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this conversation to the proposal talk.--Momento 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie and Momento: There are a wide variety of views, as well-evidenced on this talk page and available sources. Premies, ex-premies and outside writers have expressed a breadth of views on this particular topic. You are both exhibiting a strong preference for your own interpretation of various quotes and statements. It's perfectly fine for you to have your own opinion. We all have our opinions. Also, I wished to comment that I have read numerous sources outside of those included in the article due to my interest in the topic and my involvement in these discussions. Below is an example of a source that addresses the issue that is fairly typical of most neutral sources that discuss the matter. Vassyana 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, the futility and miserable waste of time of all these discussions that you describe as "opinions" have primarily been an argument about the Sophia Collier quote, that Patw and I wanted included in the text of the article. It's now been entirely moved from the article text to the footnote section. People generally don't read footnotes, so Pat and I lost the argument while you've been doing nothing to address the specific issue. That's what all these weeks of arguing have been about. The Collier quote is probably the most valuable concerning Rawat's claims of divinity -- even more so than that of scholars -- because she writes as a former or ex-premie who worked in Divine Light Mission headquarters in Denver, Colorado, and what she says reflects very well how things were then in the mission. She writes from a unique, close vantage point unlike the scholars. Better yet, she's also a published secondary source! Please address this specific issue.

Btw, Rawat didn't suddenly renounce or disavow his divine status and start discussing the divine nature of all human beings instead. He always taught about the divine internal nature of human beings, as well as his own divinity. Momento agrees with that. Rawat did both at the same time. Those are his teachings. Moreover, he also taught that Guru Maharaj Ji is within people, too, "Guru Maharaj Ji is Knowledge." It's a sort of trinitarianism of beliefs with a bit of Hindu and Christian symbolism thrown in the mix during the earlier years. He most certainly has compared himself to Krishna, Ram and Jesus (all the big religious avatars) and at the very least has has said that he reveals the same Knowledge as they did, as what is described the Bible, Gita, etc. I can assure you that I'm not viewing this from a Christian perspective, as I've been an atheist for many years.

Vassyana, please don't assume that I don't know the difference between my opinion and my objective observations. I have the ability to state both well. I disagree with you about not quoting sources. That's how good scholarship is practiced all over the world, except I suppose, in Wikipedia. Good writers are able to write prose with quoted material. One must trust the reader to make their own interpretation of what a quoted source has said or written. When editors attempt to interpret what a scholar/writer/theologian has written, by paraphrasing it into prose, is when an editor's opinion gets inserted into an article such as this. That is the slippery slope to writing opinions and/or POV, and why Pat and I argued so strongly to include the exact quote from Collier and the Time article quotes about Rawat's family. I also object to how the sources are placed at the end of each paragraph in the draft/bio. It's a show of poor and lazy writing, imo, to have two- and three-sentence paragraphs with many footnotes at the end of each paragraph and also is unacceptable writing. This has been discussed over the years (in archives) when it happened before in this article. Finally, the majority of sources cited have corresponding quoted material in the footnotes, with the exception of cites from Andrea Cagan's Peace is Possible. I would think that all sources should be treated consistently, and ask that the Cagan passages corresponding to the prose in the article, other than the book page numbers, be added. Thank you. Sylviecyn 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this: The ref numbers at the end of sentences is a temporary measure (I raised the same concern about it, and that is what Momento said) Once the text is agreed, the refs should be placed on the appropriate spots in the sentences. You are mistaken about the quotes, Most sources listed have quotations in the footnote section. If any of these are missing please point them out and will find and re-add. I misunderstood what you said. I will add quoted text to all of Cagan's refs. May take a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Collier quote was removed at Vassanya's suggestion in accordance with Wiki policy to avoid "quote for quote" mining. The only direct quotes in the article are Hoffman's because it is his quote that is famous and Rawat's four word reply and Kabir's. All the rest is a summation of many sourced quotes from many scholars. Here's another Collier quote that isn't included - "Premies who believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord have at least some actual basis for their belief. Through the Knowledge, most premies were experiencing an unusually great degree of happiness and peace of mind. Given my own experiences in Knowledge, if I were a religious person, I might easily have thought Guru Maharaj Ji was the Lord. After all, through the Knowledge he had taught me to do something I had wanted to do all my life and had never been able to. He taught me to consciously unlock the kingdom of energy, power, and love inside myself, to get back inside of the East Hampton wave on a permanent basis. Now from all signs, that deepest want in me was satisfied. At any time I wanted to, I could meditate and be right there. For a religious person this could easily seem like adequate proof for identifying a divinity".

PS. As I wrote on 30th April "I much prefer to group the references at the end of the paragraph to which they refer. Because the ref numbers are bigger than the text, inserting them in the text makes the line spacing vary which looks untidy. Wiki guidelines say - Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. Can we agreee to place cites at the "end of the paragraph to which the note refers"--Momento 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not wok. Mommento, as the refs are there to comply by WP:V. Readers need to be able to know what ref is used to assert each opinion or fact. That is common practice in Wikipedia, and there is no way around it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll start inserting. If you can find any sources that combine material, that would be great.--Momento 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside neutral source about the guru's divinity

A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements By Linda Edwards ISBN 0664222595.

He [Shri Hans Maharaj Ji] died in 1966 and was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pal Singh Rawat who is reported to have said at his funeral: "You have been deceived by maya (illusion); Maharaj Ji is here in your midst, recognize him, worship him and obey him." Maharaj Ji had already become a spiritual adept by the age of six, and at age nine he gave himself the title of Perfect Master at his father's funeral. He was two years later recognized as the new "Perfect Master," an embodiment of God on earth and therefore worthy of veneration. (Page 277-278)

In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji ordered all the ashrams disbanded and renounced his almost divine status. (Page 278)

In the [later] Divine Light mission the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. (Page 278)

This is generally the pattern outside sources seem to take. They note that Prem Rawat was venerated as an avatar/embodiment of G-d. They note he renounced his Godhood/divinity/almost divine nature when he reformed the movement. They report he later taught that all people/humanity is divine. Some sources put forward that he simply conformed to the expectations of those around him. Others strongly push the Godhood/G-d angle. Some of them report how this reverence for his divine nature was encouraged by him, his org, his family and his supporters. Other sources note that it was imposed on him, or a misunderstanding. It is not so black and white an issue in the sources as either side would make it out to be. Vassyana 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Linda Edwards has two errors in three sentences. Rawat became the Perfect Master at eight not nine and was recognized as the new "Perfect Master" at the same time, not two years later. But everything else you have presented is accurately contained in the new article from verifiable and quoted sources. Chronologically it has Rawat declaring himself to be a Guru and Perfect Master ( defined in the article as "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration"), it has Hoffman addressing the issue of Rawat being God and Rawat saying he isn't but his knowledge is. It has Rawat saying he's not Jesus but that "pre-existing millennial beliefs were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord". It has a report that Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with". It has Rawat becoming more secular after his split from his family. It has Rawat appearing in Indian dress in 1976 and the shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs. And it has his final abandonement of Indian methods and practices in the early 80s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal/talk for more on this.Momento 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good find Vassyana. I would say that if we disregard the mistake made by Edwards about the chronology, and other minutiae, her assertions are quite accurate and I believe that are reflected in the current bio proposal. We could add this new source as well, as it re-affirms what other scholars have reported on the subject. Nothing better than consensus of sources to solidify an edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

There are more interesting viewpoints in Edwards book: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maharaj Ji now teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies the criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but he sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life. [...] The emphasis is on seeking what is already within. (pp.279)

Edwards has some errors, but her book is well-written and contains a plethora of interesting information. On the errors, having read the book it seems no more or less reliable than other general overviews of religion and comparable to the reliability of general encyclopedias regarding religion. I would recommend it as a good read and general source. Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson (ISBN 084236417X) is another good source in a similar vein. They are both good for verifying general information and getting an overview of a subject. Vassyana 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree about Edwards, but I am not sure about Larson's. His book is slanted toward a criticism of any faith that is not Christian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Sylvie is quite welcome to criticize my given opinions. I do not think she is engaging in personal attacks, and I certainly have not been offended by her comments. However, I would like to hear constructive suggestions about what could be done to improve the article. If some editors find my outside opinion to be insufficient or biased, someone could easily file a request for comment on the article to solicit more of them.

Criticism is best included into the main body of an article, rather than having its own section. Some editors will complain when such text is folded into articles. However, it is entirely appropriate to raise those criticisms at an appropriate point in the article, rather than draw attention to them by segegrating the information into its own titled section. Certainly, I'd imagine those who object to the integration of that information into the rest of the article would object very strongly to an "acheivements" or "praise received" section.

The Collier material is a good example of the perils of quote mining. As demonstrated on this talk page, one can mine a quote to support the position the guru claimed to be (or at least well-encouraged) G-d/divinity incarnate. On the other hand, one can mine a quote that seems to indicate it was only a perception of premies based on the benefits they felt from the Techniques. We should not be cherrypicking quotes. We should be reporting an overview of what reliable sources state about the subject.

Finally, for those objecting to the direction of the current working draft, what is missing from the draft? How is it inaccurate? What could be done to improve it? What sources support your position? If the current set of references is a biased sample, as has been claimed, why not provide additional verifiable references? Vassyana 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the Collier material. That was inserted by an adherent, if I'm not mistaken, but cherry-picked to reflect the adherent pov. Therefore, because a large part of the quote was missing, that indeed completed Collier's thought and meaning, Pat and I were merely trying to gain some accuracy in the paragraph to correctly reflect what Collier was actually saying. I don't know how many ways and how many times I have to explain this to you, but it wasn't cherry picking on the part of ex-premies here, and it certainly wasn't quote mining, because it's not even a quote by Rawat. And it's beyond my comprehension why quoting Rawat is unacceptable in an article about him, when he has made his living on speaking for 40 years! Yes, yes, I know about Wikiquote.

But, to answer your question. The article's lead doesn't mention the negative press coverage young Rawat received during his first years in the west. The article doesn't mention the controversy in the press and within the group during the family split (there was a lot of coverage) and it's not mentioned when Rawat was pied in Detroit by Pat Halley, and how Halley was was attacked by Rawat's follwers and left for dead. No one was charged with the crime. It was all over the press at the time. The criticism of Rawat by the media is further obfuscated by the third paragraph which gives the implication that young Maharaji's only goal was "the desire to manifest his vision," when in fact, there are other sources that say differently. It minimizes his marriage to Durga Ji (Marolyn) as if that was an after-thought on his part, instead his defiancce of his mother as a 16 year old marrying woman 8 years his senior, as well as the controversy that caused. All in all, the article glosses over the entire reason that Rawat had any fame or reason to warrant this article to begin with, but becasue the Elan Vital revisionism is so ingrained in the article already, I don't hold out much hope for improvement, and I don't have the time to be discussing each issue on talk pages for a month at a time, without any resolutions. Frankly, I think you're tring to be so very "neutral" that you've begun siding with the adherents. Thanks! Sylviecyn 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide sources about the broad press controversy? Can you provide sources for the Detroit/Pat Halley incident? Regarding the marriage, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. What is missing from the section? Does the focus of it need to be more balanced? What is the article missing in order to fully report Rawat's fame and notibility? Vassyana 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "pie" incident was in the article a couple of years a year ago, but was removed as it was deemed to be non notable in a biographical article. I will look for the diff, and post it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

In 1973 after a reporter at a public event in Detroit hit Rawat in the face with a shaving cream pie, the reporter was attacked with a hammer and injured by two angry students. In an article published in Penthouse magazine in July 1974, it was reported that the DLM issued a press release informing that the pair were in fact students, and that they were held in custody at the Chicago ashram. They also promised a full investigation. The Detroit police did not pursue the matter. Diff

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The pie incident was removed by Momento, because he thought it was not relevant to Prem Rawat. I finally put this highly notable event at Divine Light Mission because Momento kept reverting me when I re-inserted it. Andries 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the incident is reported in the Divine Light Mission article as per above wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As the source used in that article was an op-ed published in Penthouse Magazine which are not considered reliable sources, I have replaced the source and expanded the text about that incident at the Divine Light Mission article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassayana, apologies for not being more involved at this stage. It is not possible for me to devote so much time at present. Answering your questions: we have provided better reliable sources, verifiable references etc. in the past and they were deleted. It's as simple as that. We are all getting tired of this little game now.
I am puzzled why the Collier quote(s) should be any more an 'example of the perils of quote mining' than any other quote. My input on this article in it's various incarnations has been mainly to argue about the misuse of quotes by premies to accentuate their POV. I personally have not actually been successful in introducing any quotes into the articles although I have suggested many. I have simply extended the existing ones (ie. the Collier quote) as I strongly objected to the omission of the latter part. Whilst I have been arguing extensively on my Talk Page and here on all these issues, Momento is the champion editor here and virtually all the 'quote mining' has been done by him as far as I can see. No doubt he will be quick to assert that is not the case but critics have not really edited this article (or the 'proposed article') at all. It is by and large all Momento's work with encouragemnt from Jossi.
You may also imagine that so-called critics are as dedicated to (or as successful in) criticising this article as premies are to create it. That is not the case, which is why the article is slanted. I can reliably tell you that almost all the ex-premies (again 'so-called') have either given up the impossible task or restrict their involvement to occasional comments. I am one of the few who have lately tried to reason ad nauseam with Momento and Jossi over how to constructively improve the article. Frankly I don't think it's possible to reason with the current editors who are determined to 'do the job' themselves. My opinion remains, as it was when I started here, that this article will only be neutral when it is made by neutral editors ie. non-premies and non ex-premies. I like to think I am a whole lot more neutral than I was as a follower, so I also am mildly suprised that you apparently consider that ex-premies are not more neutral than the premies who edit here (who I think are doing this for Rawat's organisation). It seems obvious that neither you or I can make this article more balanced until it ceases to be primarily the work of one or two men who represent Rawat's organisation. So I agree maybe something more could be done to attract more truly impartial editors. I've done that in the past and no-one was interested.PatW 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What information is missing from the article? Can you point me to the sources you're referring to? What does the article overemphasize? What changes would you make first? Vassyana 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat, you will hardly find an article about which there are conflicting and strong opposing views being edited by "neutral editors". Examples of such abound ( e.g. Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Dominionism as two examples amongst thousand others). Is it difficult to arrive to a neutral and factually accurate article in these cases? Sure it is. But that does not mean that is not possible. It requires a lot of patience and perseverance, but it is possible. We had an article that I though was excellent, and I posted a request to have it reviewed for GA status, after two peer reviews that I initiated to seek independent editors' feedback. The GA review by Vassyana, was scathing, but nonetheless efforts were immediately made to address the concerns raised. First, the current article was improved substantially based on the input given, and later on a separate effort by other editors (to which I have hardly contributed, just making some format corrections here and there and adding a couple of sources) took shape as a proposal to replace the current article. That is the process in WP: seek third party opinions, validate your assumptions about the quality of an article by seeking peer reviews, endeavor to promote an article to GA status and then to FA status. I have done this on several articles and it always resulted in better articles. I see no reason why it should nor work here. Sure, it is not easy, and it requires a lot of patience, and efforts to research and provide good secondary sources. But not impossible. That has been my experience in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Dominionism article Jossi referred to. I was able to follow the article in much the same way I have been following the current "Evolution vs Intelligent Design" debate, i.e. as a bizarre twist of US culture (for which I forgive them, for did they not also give us The Simpsons? Not to mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster?) But the Discussion Page was incomprehensible to me. I know nothing about the subject and care less, and could no more contribute intelligently than walk to the moon. I could be NPOV, to be sure, but I could not help with the article. You have to care to be able to do that. I think this is the point Jossi is making. We are stuck with each other. Rumiton 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Rumiton 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, so I'm stuck with the guy who would have me believe the guru speaks in the spirit of a noodled monstrosity!! I know he is the incarnation of an unseen Pink holiness! Why else would he speak of the maya of mosquitoes? :) Vassyana 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Beware, O Vassyana, lest your secret affiliations be shouted in the marketplace! How would your benevolent work as a neutral Wiki assistant be affected if your status as an adherent (note my neutral word choice…I could have chosen another!) of a mysterious, possibly Eastern, cult were revealed? And your occasional absences shown up for what they are…the fulfillment of your votive duties in worship of the unspeakable hooved ones!

The time is near when the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reveal the Truth!  :-)

(All right, before Jossi gets all stern with us, this is rather silly. But so is most of this discussion page. I’m not giving up, but I strongly suggest that anyone interested in Prem Rawat, rather than the opinions of these tediously respectable academics and antsy premies and exes, Google “The Keys by Maharaji,” download a video from the site and watch it. Enjoy!)

And now back to the REAL silliness... Rumiton 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana it may be an idea for you to peruse some of the original article versions to see what valid material has been omitted, and to gain your own impression of what is now overemphasised or lacking. I've already made it clear that I think that 'Rawat generally encouraged people to view him as they wanted' is overemphasized in the face of all the evidence that he personally encouraged people to see him as divine. I haven't had time to focus on any other points hence my suggestion that you do your own investigation.
Jossi and Ruminton: I think you're both right, however it's evident that few people 'care enough' to devote much time here. As you may have noticed, I do care. I just regret that I simply don't have the neccessary time to do the job properly. Besides there is nothing harder than trying to reason with people with religious beliefs. I don't mean to be insulting but you guys have a very particular religious belief that makes you care to present Rawat in the most favourable light. The Spaghetti Monster God is a good example of how the most ludicrous position can be supported. As we know, that was conceived as a parody to mock the absurdity of 'creationism' being taught in schools. All the arguments we've had about Rawat and 'aspects of his divinity' seem to me to illustrate how sensitive you current premies still are around the subject of some of the more ludicrous beliefs that both Rawat and past premies have entertained. Don't you think it's time that Rawat and premies grew up a bit and stopped demonstrating this historic 'ambiguity' and 'shyness' about all that? Obviously a lot of premies havegrown up and now consider this 'shyness' and 'ambiguity' blatant dishonesty. Please bear that in mind. PatW 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of overemphasis is where the proposed article says Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord.' The implicit suggestion that he did not also cast himself in that role is both intentional and dishonest. As we have argued on my user page the is tons of evidence that he actively encouraged that perception both by his words and actions and as the head of the organisation.PatW.

James V. Downton PhD., is a professor at Sacramento State College and professor emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is, by far, the most knowledgable and detailed researcher of early 70s DLM. In 1972, he started by getting 18 Boulder premies, 13 premies from Kansas City and 10 from Atlanta to complete questionnaires. He then spent a month living in the Boulder ashram. He conducted taped interviews of the Boulder premies, 13 who lived in the ashram and 5 on the outside. Follow-up interviews were conducted over the next several years with seven premies who seemed representative of the larger group. He maintained contact with all eighteen. In the summer of 1976, an extensive questionnaire was mailed to the remaining fifteen (3 had left), exploring changes which had taken place in their lives and in the movement since they had joined. In 1979 he published "Sacred Journeys" based on that research and presented the following conclusion: "millennial thinking" prior to 1974 was fostered "by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord". Downton is the most credible scholarly source we have on the period. For PatW to claim that such a well credentialed researcher as Downton is "dishonest" is disturbing.Momento 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar interviews were made by Dr. Van der Lans and Derks in the Netherlands. Andries 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The focus of Downton's research were premies and the DLM which is not the subject of this article. Andries 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First point Andries, Dr. Van der Lans and Derks didn't research the early '70s which is the time we're discussing. Second, are you suggesting we should remove what Downton and others say about premies in this article? I don't think you will get much support for that radical suggestion.Momento 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very dubious argument, Andries. If there is material in that book (or any other such book) that is relevant to the divinity aspects and the perceptions of Prem Rawat at that time and in that context, I see no reason why to dismiss it. Or are you arguing for the removal of all scholarly sources from this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wasn't suggesting Downton was dishonest. I actually meant that your use of his work is dishonest. That's clearly much more disturbing. PatW 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Given a choice between presenting Downton's opinion or yours; honesty, and Wiki policy, compel me to choose Downton.Momento 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why and in which manner citing that work is dishonest, Pat? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion does not come into it. Give it up Momento, nobody is remotely amused by your smug jibes. The fact is that there is a wealth of evidence that Rawat did not just let others cast him in the role of Lord. Just for one example, he encouraged people to sing 'Arti' to him (or his picture). We did that routinely at festivals and it was part of the ashram rules. He wrote the rule book of course. As you know that included the words 'You are my all my Lord to me'. I suggest you go find some scholarly sources to describe what actually happened rather than just to support your fanciful ideas. Just to jog your failing memory here are the words to Arti:

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Creator, Preserver, Destroyer Bow their heads and pray to You All bow and pray to You Scriptures sing Your glory Heaveny hosts sing Your praises Your virtues are ever true Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity never bring you knowledge of the soul will never reveal your soul without the grace of satguru without the Knowledge of Satguru rites and rituals never reach the goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Anger, desire, attachments Rob us of eternal life Take away our heavenly life Satguru gives us true Knowledge Satguru is eternal Knowledge The sword that kills our problem life Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Religions harp their own glories Call to follow their own path Welcome me to follow their own way The essence of all was revealed The seed of all was revealed I walk on the true way today Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Nectar from Satguru's feet is Holy and it cleans us of our sins So sacred in cleaning us of sin When he speaks, darkness flies away When he speaks, darkness cannot stay Doubts removed, new life then begins Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Mine, Thine, Wealth, Health Give them to the lotus feet of love Give them to the lotus feet of the Lord Give yourself to Satguru Sacrifice yourself to Satguru Be united with the blissful Truth Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Bible, Gita, the Koran Sing the glory of Your Name They all sing the glory of Your Name Angels sing Your great glory Heavenly hosts sing Your praises They find no end to Your fame Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Desires have robbed me and left me Trapped in the darkness of the night Yes, they've trapped me in the darkness of the night Guru gives holy Name and Light Guru gives Holy Name and Sight Cross the ocean by His Love and Light Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Many past forms you have taken Now we have come in your control Again You have come to save the soul In this time of darkness To lead Your devotees from darkness You have come as Hansa the pure soul Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Come to the shelter of Guru's grace Come with your heart and your soul Bring Him your heart and your soul Cross the worldly ocean Cross it by your devotion And attain the supreme goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev PatW 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested here is where you can read Downtons actual material. Momento provided this link on my user page then for some reason Jossi deleted the link. PatW 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is a copyright violation. Deleted again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I thought that it was not copyright violation to reproduce extracts from a book. The entire book is not there but some very interesting portions. I simply thought Vassayana might be interested to peruse it. Indeed it is an interesting read. He says things like:
With this weakening of eastern influences, premies began to change their attitudes toward Guru Maharaj Ji. Since the Mission was moving in a more secular direction, it was understandable that premies would begin to view the guru in a less cosmic way. Thus, by 1975 the official line was that Guru Maharaj Ji was to be regarded as "humanitarian leader," rather than Lord of the Universe. The word circulated that Guru Maharaj Ji himself had initiated this change, although apparently that was not the case.
You see how easy it is to select quotes to assert a POV? PatW 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add that material if you see that specific point to be important. As for copyvios, a small portion of a book is OK as per WP:FAIR, but that link is not such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As many scholars have written (and faithfully included in the article) Rawat's early teachings were a type of Hinduism of which Arti or Aarti is an aspect. According to Wiki, It "is performed and sung to develop the highest love for God. "Aa" means "towards", and "rati" means "the highest love for God" in Sanskrit. Aarti is generally performed twice or three times daily, and usually at the end of a puja or bhajan session. It is performed during almost all Hindu ceremonies and occasions. Aarti is performed on people of high social or economic status; small children during various ceremonies; on people who are going on or are coming back from a long journey; on a bride and bridegroom when they enter their house for the first time; at harvest; on anything else of importance. It is also performed on newly acquired property, or before an important task".Momento 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Arathi with this text is clearly a worship of a deity. E.g "Satgurudev" from the text means true guru deity. Andries 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Adi Shankara, widely considered one of the most important figures of Indian intellectual history, begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that is a widely sung Bhajan:

Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha
Guru is creator Brahma; Guru is preserver Vishnu; Guru is also the destroyer Siva and he is the source of the Absolute. I offer all my salutations to the Guru.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Early teachings? Here's what Downton says about the habit of singing of Arti to Rawat in 1977 - sounds like sincere encouragement to me - Any thoughts Vassayana?:
With so many premies coming out in support of devotion, there has been a shift away from secular tendencies back to ritual and messianic beliefs and practices. There is more bowing, more pictures of the guru everywhere, more devotional singing, and Indian terms and expressions are making their way back into the language of premies. Encouraged by Guru Maharaj Ji, there is apparently less insistence on blind conformity to the crowd mentality. More tolerance is being shown as premies admit that individual experiences may differ and each should be respected. For example, the devotional song, Arti, is being sung again, but Guru Maharaj Ji is urging those who are not moved to sing it from the heart to simply remain silent. Speaking to a conference of coordinators in Portland in 1977, he said: "This is really beautiful, you know, that everything is starting to happen over again, that premies are really understanding. But one of the things that we have to be sure about is that when premies do Arti, they understand what they're saying and that they mean it. Because there's no point to just sit there and blab about it and not even mean it. You have to really mean it. You have to really understand it. Because its a prayer. And the same thing with really listening to satsang."PatW 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you edit some of that in. What I had read until now on the talk page by Downton was very selective in the sense that it misrepresented his work. Andries 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're joking aren't you? It wouldn't last a minute with Momento around. My strategy here is to try to urge Momento to demonstrate more honesty and neutrality and take these things into account himself. It is virtually his article after all. If the 'dominant one' won't let us edit the article then we should just point out where we think there needs to be improvement it and why. Also we need to communicate to the GA judges our reasoning. Momento should rightly be embarrassed to be seen to be the author of a dishonest article. I don't believe it helps to patch up his article for him, firstly because we won't succeed and secondly because it will merely serve to give the false impression that they have somehow integrated the requests of critics - which of course is far from the truth. And the only reason he would like that impression to be given is so as he can get the article stamped with some accolade. PatW 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see.... That is the reason you are not contributing to improving the article? So that you can continue and complain about not being accurate, and that other editors who do edit it are dishonest? Well, that is not the way this work in WP, Pat. Vassyana has asked you many times to say what you see wrong, so that it can be fixed. And as far as I can see, there is a good response from those people that are editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand PatW does not edit in, because he expects to be instantly reverted by Momemento. I can understand the reasoning behind it, though I think the strategy is wrong. A few reverts are not a big deal. Andries 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What kinds of special powers Momento has that other editors don't? Any editor editwarring will be dinged for 3RR and/or disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All this revertiing PatW? The edit history tells a completely different story. On this article PatW has made less than half a dozen edits in the last year, none of which were reverted. On the new article PatW made a dozen or so edits on March 31, none of which were reverted. April 2 PatW removed Rawat's response to Hoffman and I reverted. April 27 PatW did some OR/SYN editing, to which Jossi and I objected, and PatW conceded "Yes, I agree it's not right yet. Sorry", which I fixed because PatW wouldn't. April 29 I removed this incomplete edit of PatW's "Godhood/divine status, in 197..?". OR/SYN edit reinserted by PatW April 30 and removed by Rumiton. OR/SYN edit resinserted once more by PatW, fixed by Jossi. No edits from PatW since.Momento 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The art of understatement (by Momento)

(Momento's article)
'However, his appearance in Indian dress at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, signaled a resurgence of Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to Ashram life and there was a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices.'
(Downton)
To the surprise of everyone who had come to the Atlantic City program at the close of 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji appeared in his Krishna costume, a majestic looking robe and crown he had not worn since 1975. The sight of him in his ceremonial best brought premies to their feet singing, as nostalgia for the early days caught them up in feelings of devotion once more.... Again, the guru appeared in his Krishna costume and, again, the old devotional songs were sung. The atmosphere was reminiscent of 1972, as Initiators began to spread the word that the time had come for a renewal of dedication and devotion to "their Lord." Acting as the vanguard for the charismatic revival, they were the first to speak again of the guru as "Messiah," a statement premies apparently wanted to hear, for since then one of the key messages at satsang has been that the guru is indeed the Lord, for premies believe he is capable of transmitting his inner light with such power as to awaken the spirit lying dormant in others.

My point is that the replacement of the word 'Krishna costume' with 'Indian Dress' changes the meaning significantly. Why? Because (although the original quote is supplied in the refs below) the immediate impression is that Rawat just came onstage in ordinary Indian clothes. Hardly suggestive that he was the Lord. Of course the truth of the matter is that Rawat perfectly understood the 'ritual' implications of donning the costume of the Hindu Avatar Lord Krishna. If Momento had used the words 'Krishna Costume' millions of Hindus (and other educated readers) would understand that this alone was a statement by Rawat that he considered himself a worthy Krishna-type figure and was encouraging his audience to believe that (or to encourage them in their dormant beliefs about him as that.) Momento chooses to change the meaning to something quite different. Rawat came on in Indian Dress (maybe a dhoti or something?) and all the silly premies decided that he was the Lord. Yes, it's a subtle innuendo, but it's there... and it's another example of how Downton's reports are paraphrased to project a POV that suggests Rawat did not encourage this stuff. Sure he did.
I have to say that, as someone who witnessed all this, even Downton's reports seem to underplay Rawat's part. I think that this is partly due to the fact that his book is conceived as an analysis of the social phenomenon of 'premies' and not so much about Rawat personally. He repeatedly stresses the observation that Rawat was essentially the projection (creation) of premies expectations. That is fair enough. He is generally uncritical of Rawat's part and sees him as fundamentally sincere. (which I also can go along with). He doesn't talk to Rawat and his analysis of him is restricted to what he gleans through interviewing followers. He even admits he does not know Rawat's motives. eg regarding his lifestyle:
While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' need to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe.
In fact Downton , although drawing many conclusions from his study of premies, is consistently at pains to say how unclear Rawat's part is in the picture actually is, beyond being an icon or spiritual guide:
It is unclear even today whether Guru Maharaj Ji sees his followers as his spiritual equals, who need only reach his level of enlightenment, for he has made contradictory statements on the issue. On the one hand, he has said that when his followers reach the point where they have learned A, B, and C, then he will already have gone to a new level of perfection of D, E, and F.16 This puts him forever beyond the reach of his followers, possibly prolonging their dependence on him for guidance and discouraging their ultimate autonomy.
Downton is a good resource on premies from that time but he is not so lucid about Rawat himself. Actually I think Collier is slightly better on that front.PatW 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What efforts made Downton to study Rawat as a person? Did Rawat and Downton talk to each other. Did Downton interview people who were close to Rawat about Rawat? Did Downton study Rawat's speeches? Andries 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I don't know. But even if he did not any of these things, what would that be a reason to dismiss him as a source? Or should we remove all your loved Dutch scholars's sources for the same reason? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If the subject of the research is not this article then we should be very careful. Again, I continue to state my opinion that there is no extensive reliable source for this article. Andries 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. I have heard that baseless argument way too many times to take it seriously. Please read WP:POINT in case you have forgotten about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why baseless? An analogy. If I am a specialized in pressure and a have a peer reviewed physics article about pressure published in a journal about pressure, but I also make some remarks about electromagnetics then there is reason to be cautious about using my remarks about electromagnetics as a reputable source. Andries 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious, Andries? Are you saying that we need to be cautious about all the comments made by all the scholars in this article, or any other biographical article in which such sources are used? If that is the case, you may be in a serious need to brush up on basic Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source is not very reputable if the person who wrote it did not study the subject, because his or her focus of research was something else. To me this sounds very logical and natural. There is no reliable source that has as its main focus Rawat. Andries 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the explicit attributon for a fact?

The entry now states

According to Mick Brown, Rawat called it "the most significant and holy event in the history of mankind".

We can write that down as a fact. See the letter hereunder

http://ex-premie.org/papers/millenium_invit_letter.htm

Here's the text:

A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI

Bonn, Germany

September 31, 1973

Dear premies,

First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need.

In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism.

As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.

I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our borthers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner.

To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe.

I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth.

Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth?

Blessings to you all,

[Sant Ji Maharaj]

Andries 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First that is a primary source, and second PR not call the Millenium that. Read your own highlight above. So, in this case attribution of needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The secondary source and primary source are nearly identical, so I think that is enough reason to write down things as fact without explicit attribution. Andries 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly identical, as per the material you brought to this page. As such, it needs attribution, because Mr Brown made an obvious blunder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the blunder. Andries 03:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, which I doubt, I cannot help you see it, Andries. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean confusing "history of mankind" with "human history". That is a minor mistake, not a blunder. It does not change the meaning. Andries 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries: You still have it wrong: Your edit needs attribution. The edit reads: "Rawat called it the most significant and holy event in human history." Well, he did not. He saif "This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America"., Obviously Brown made a mistake, so it is not a fact that PR said that the event was such. You keep saying how other mis-characterize sources, but you do not hesitate to that exact thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What Brown said and Rawat said essentially mean the same thing, except Brown didn't mention maybe the whole universe. lol It can be included as a reference attributed to Brown, with a correction using Rawat's own words. Jossi, you don't seem to have any problem using primary sources when they favor Rawat's image and refer only to the last two decades. The point is that Rawat obviously made some fantastical claims about the Millennium festival. Next issue? Or are we gonna argue about this teeny issue for another month while Momento further butchers the article? Sylviecyn

Sylviecyn: Where exactly are we quoting such primary sources in the new version? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New article

The new article has been written in response to criticism during the GA review. It is by necessity a lot shorter than the "bloated" previous article and it relies on scholars summaries rather than individual quotes. In the past the Rawat article has been destroyed by editors inserting and removing material without regard to BLP, OR, SYN, grammar, context, undue weight, readability etc. As it stands the only independent reviewer, the ever helpful Vassanya, pronounced it "very good" but needing a few changes which have been incorporated. Left alone we can resubmit it for GA status. No doubt some editors may be opposed to this artricle getting GA status and may seek to undermine this article by inserting material as previously. I hope not. I think this is now an article we can all live with.Momento 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the bio proposal does not stay close to the sourcs. Andries 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are too many issues with the bio-proposal to go through. In the current version there are only few issues and few places (if any) where the articles does not stay close to sources. I am not going to throw away all my previous effort to improve a version that is significantly worse than the current version. Andries 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give two examples from the bio proposal lead why I think that the bio-proposal is bad. There are so many issue that I do not think that it makes sense to use the bio-proposal as a basis for further improvement when compared to the current version that has far fewer issues.

"Rawat was frequently criticised by religious scholars on the basis of his age, his behaviour and his teachings.[6][7]"

Unnecessarily vague. Current version is much clearer and more specific and above all mentions the most commonly made and persistent criticisms. It is true that Rawat was criticized for his age but this is clearly not a persistent criticism. [User:Andries|Andries]] 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Rawat's desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family,"

Does not stay close to the sources. The current version stays much closer to the sources Does not represent a NPOV view but only the view of follower Geaves who wrote the entry in the book edited by Melton. Current version does follow NPOV. Andries 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesarily vague?!?! What could be more specific. Your lede doesn't even have a reference for its conclusion. And you say it doesn't stay close to the source?!?! The lede says "'Rawat's desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family". J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge say - As Maharaji began to grow older and establish his teachings worldwide he increasingly desired to manifest his own vision of development and growth. This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage".

No, this was written by follower Geaves, not by Melton and partrigde and it differs significantly from what other more objective observers have written. Andries 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article deserves a NPOV warning for this reason alone. Andries 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's Downton - The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission. And, unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture. The conflict with his mother became more intense when his brother, Raja Ji, married Claudia Littman, a German citizen living in the United States. No longer wishing to be bound by the Indian tradition of marrying within one's own caste, Guru Maharaj Ji approved his brother's marriage, to the very great displeasure of his mother, who was still strongly tied to Indian customs. When Guru Maharaj Ji himself decided to marry outside of his caste, his mother became upset because she had not been asked to approve the marriage and, when it occurred, she was not invited to attend because communication between them had already broken down.Momento 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already written this on the talk page, but you dismissed my comments then. Now because of your bio-proposal, you expect me to re-start the discussion again for this and many, many other issues that have already been solved to a great in extent in the current version. I can make better use of my time. Andries 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You should have contributed months ago. Despite repeated requests for help with a shorter version as recommended by the GA review, you have not made a single suggestion or edit. The old article was described as - "too lengthy" by Smee and "bloated, or simply too long" by Vassyana. Now that all the work is done to create a shorter article that Vassanya says is "very good", you decide to get involved.Momento 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had voiced my objections already before. Andries 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Momento, you've been working on this draft for less than two months. So, your remark to Andries, who, btw has done extensive research and work on the original version, is a bit over-the-top. This article is still a work in progress. You don't get to revert an entire article just to replace it with your personally-written-preferred version, based on what one anonymous editor, Vassyana, says about the old one. What's the rush? Does someone around here need to win a Great Article award or something in a hurry?  :-) Sylviecyn 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When I have to choose between working on a reasonable but somewhat long article and a short but very flawed article then I choose the first. I will continue to do so. Andries 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Look forward to your comments here.Momento 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree of course that there is merit in your aim to write a shorter article, but I object to a short article that is significantly more inaccurate. Andries 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to discuss any errors. If we want GA status we can't have any inaccuracies.Momento 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not prepared to use your bio-proposal as a basis for further improvement for reasons that must be clear by now. Andries 04:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gave two reasons both of which are provably incorrect. Provide a legitimaste reason and we can all discuss it.Momento 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you want to shorten the long, old version. I am unwilling to discuss the many inaccuracies and mistakes and NPOV problems in your bio-proposal. Andries 05:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, please re-consider restoring the previous version, and let Andries make his comments on the proposal, so that these can be addressed. We want a stable article, and not one that can be spuriously challenged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries: Editors have been working to improve the article based on third party opinions. The burden is on you, not on those that worked on the article in response to the reviews made by third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the old version was the result of many years of work and intense debate. Not so with the new version. Andries 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I will request formal mediation, because I do not know how to reach even the beginning of a compromise when we both do not want to discuss each other's highly diverging versions because we both think it is a waste of time to discuss flaws in each other's versions. Andries 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The previous version was not your version, and was shattered by the GA review.
2. Mediation is not an alternative to work hard and collaborate as others have done.
3. Mediation only comes after you make an effort to collaborate, which you have not
4. See WP:POINT, which you continue to bust. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am note defending the bio proposal, or the previous version (I keep my opinion of these two versions to myself). But I would argue that editor's efforts to respond to the GA review should be welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Not shattered. It needed some improvements, but Momento has not done so except in size

2. To say that I did not work hard on this article is utterly untrue and borders on the ridiculous. I am not willing to repeat work that I did in the previous years without good reason.

3. See 2

4 I do not understand this.

I am willing to respond to the GA review, but I am unwilling to use a very flawed version of the article as a basis for improvement when a reasoable version is available. Andries 05:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The GA response by Smee and Vassanya came two months ago. I declared my intention to address all the issues they brought up and asked all editors to help and the main issue was the old article was "bloated" and simply "too long". The slimmed down proposal has been discussed and edited constantly since then. And reviewed several times by Vassanya, who is clearly independent. The fact that Andries waits until now to make his opinion heard is unacceptable and no excuse for delaying this over due overhaul. Read the new article Andries and then suggest improvements. Please note that in order to get GA status the article has to remain clear and concise. If anyone feels some material has to be added, decide what can be removed and discuss it here.Momento 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? You plunged into a rapid, two month rewrite, slashing important and good content in order to reduce the number of words in the article. You ignored the sensibilites of editors like Andries who has put years of work into the article. You assumed that everybody was in agreement with your new draft, and when objections have been raised, you also ignored those, and for all intents and purposes disallowed (through reversion and irrational argument) anyone but yourself and Rumiton from making any substantial edits to the new draft. I told you on more than one occasion that your draft wasn't ready for prime time, meaning it's still a draft. Don't you think that's just a little bit rude? I do. Please revert the article until concensus is reached. You are not the editor-in-chief of this article so stop behaving that way please. Other people around here are not your copy editors! Sylviecyn 10:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This exchange is concerning, as it shows some people here as if they are happy to have an article that they can complain about it ad nauseum, because maybe they have come to realize that there is no possibility within the framework of WP content policies to have an article that is of their liking. As I said before my personal opinions is that I am not 100% sure that this version is better than the previous version, but nonetheless I have to accept to respect the work of others that are attempting to respond to the needs for change established by independent reviewers. Given the original review and the subsequent reviews, it maybe the case that this new version responds to most of the concerns raised in these reviews, so it would make more sense to continue working from this version on, rather that from the old version. Regardless which version is used as a basis, it will require collaboration and people being engaged productively, rather than popping-in once in a while to raise objections and not work to resolve them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did make several objections here to the new bio-proposal but they were ignored and dismissed. Then Momento cannot expect that I have any inclination to use the bio-proposal as a basis for futher improvement. Andries 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana was unable to give an informed opinion of the bio-proposal because Momento blundered with the citation, e.g. confusing the author Melton with the follower Geaves. Andries 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not "complain about it ad nauseum" about the old version. Should I repeat and repeat my objections to the bio-proposal. I had repeatedly warned Momento that implementing the bio-proposal without addressing my main concerns would lead to reverts without any further explanation. Andries 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know very well reverting repeatedly without explanation will result on editors getting dinged for editwarring, or the article being protected. With that understanding, could you please restate your objections so that these can be addressed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

why should I repeat and repeat my objections if they are are ignored and dismissed by Momento? I can make far less and far les serious objections to the old version. What Momento should have done is condensing the old version and nothing more. He should not have made a complete re-write that is far worse than the old version and expect that contributors will do all the effort to improve his flawe re-write. Again, I am unwilling to go through all my objections one by one because that it is too much unnecessary work. Some objections that I had already repeated and repeated but were dismissed and ignored by Momento and that I hereby repeat are removal of scholarly properly attributed quotes by Lans, Derks, Kranenborg and Melton. Andries 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting dizzy. On one hand SylvieCyn complains I did a "rapid rewrite" and yet it took "two months". SylvieCyn claims that I disallowed anyone else to make edits and yet I greeted SylvieCyn edits with "I'm going to give A+ to SylvieCyn". Andries complains that I quote from J. Gordon Melton's New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities and then complains that I omitted Melton. Kranenborg's unique reference to the Peace Bomb remains, his superfulous comments about the split and Rawat going on independtly are better covered by others. And, if I remember, Andries' translation of Lans & Derks was badly flawed and strangely edited. Yes, new material has been added in the new article. Important comments on "millennial beliefs", Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor", "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" in the late 70s, the description of Guru being "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' are just a few of the important facts missing from the old article. I've contributed as much as anyone to the old article and the new article is an appropriate and much needed response to the scathing criticism of the old one by independent reviewers. No one's good work has been lost, the new article uses almost all the sources from the old. Momento 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, rewriting an article as controversial as this one in two months, in the face of years of previous work on the original, is relatively rapid, imo. The edits which you praised me for were only copy edits to improve sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar. I was quite careful not to add or subtract any content that was controversial because you've been known to revert others' edits a lot. It doesn't make for a cooperative and happy writing collaboration. The many edits done on the draft were mostly by yourself and Rumiton. I'm not disputing all of the effort the article took for you to complete. It was a lot of work, but it's not a collaboration of all the editors involved in the Rawat article, and no concensus was reached about the draft article going live on the main page. Sylviecyn 12:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I need some more time to give a reply to your comments that is filled with inaccuracies, and misunderstandings.

1. Momento the entry about Elan Vital in the book "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" was not written by Melton who only wrote the foreword. I have seen the book. The entry was written by follower Geaves as I now write for at least the 3rd time. I had already written to you that you made a mistake in the citation, but instead of correcting the citation, you dismissed or ignored my comments

2. Derks and Van der Lans, there was no bad translation, because the original article by Derks and Van der Lans was in English. Some contents by Van Der Lans (Derks was not a co-author) was translated.

3. Kraneborg's reference to the peace bomb satsang is not unique. Hummel also made a reference to it. (This is probably the first time that I write this down)

4. The statement of Maharaji's claim to be "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' is both present in the old long version and the new re-write, but in the old version it is properly and explicitly attributed to Melton. In the new re-write this is unfortunately not the case and I think the re-write misrepresents Melton's writings, because it omits the fact that Melton wrote that Prem Rawat himself made this claim. This is totally unacceptable taking into account that I repeatedly warned Momento here not to do so and taking into account that an accurate version is already available.

5. The shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" is indeed missing in the old version and present in the re-write. I will add it to the old version. amended. 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)~

6. Further I agree with Sylviecyn that the re-write was hasty, taking into account that the old long version took years of intense and lengthy debate and intense efforts by many editors in sourcing and citation

Andries 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Cagan's book considered a reliable source?

Sorry if this has been discussed before but could someone tell me if Cagan's book 'Peace is Possible' is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? By her own admission she did not interview Rawat, and she has not contacted to my knowledge any of Rawat's critics with first hand knowledge of some of the more unsavoury parts of his life. I ask because much of the text in the new article is sourced to her book without being qualified as 'according to Cagan...'. --John Brauns 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cagan's book is considered a reliable source but it has not been used as a scholarly source rather as a source of dates and personal info not found in scholarly material.Momento 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC was filed in this regard, and Cagan's book was deemed a RS. In any case, Cagan's book has been used as a sources only for these:

• Name of spouse and children
• Attended school in Deradun
• Becoming an emancipated minor
• Moving to Florida with his family
• Use of satellite broadcasts for dissemination of his message
• Pilot ratings

The other uses can be deleted, as there are other sources already listed: Refs 38, 39, 41 can be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are again and again and again distorting the RFC. You make it quite difficult for me to assume your good faith. In the RFC Cagan's book was not considered a non-reputable only because the book was published by a company that has published only one book. Other factors were not considered. Andries 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not. You are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, it will be clear that we are not coming a millimeter closer on this argument in the dispute, but from a practical point of view, you are right in this dispute, the non-reputable source written by Andrea Cagan is used only to source innocent undisputed statements. Andries 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References 38= relates to date of event, 39= moving to Miami and 41= use of 707. Please don't remove.Momento 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now you may understand why it is necessary to have the ref inline with the text that it is supporting, rather than at the end of a sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Unless the text is contentious or completely unexpected, why interrupt the reading and visual flow with a reference number. Most readers exhibit a certain amount of good faith and don't need external verification for an innocuous fact i.e. the Atlantic City event happened on Dec 20th as per Cagan. If they're curious they can check at the end of the sentence or paragraph. When text is included in the reference, it is self explanatory no matter where it appears but when only page numbers are given, the casual reader is none the wiser as to which particular fact is refered to - Atlantic City, December or 20th. Mind you, it's hard to find an article on Wiki that is as heavily referenced as this one.Momento 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference numbers don't interrupt the reading and visual flow. That is how non-fiction is written. It's standard practice. One cannot expect a reader to intuit and interpret which prose is attributable to which source. It's inproper attribution.

Btw, if Cagan lists the Atlantic City program as December 20, 1976, then she's mistaken. The program occurred on December 19, 1976, according to quotes in The Living Master and other sources. December 20, 1976 is the day Rawat held the Coordinator's Conference in Atlantic City. Does Cagan's book provide source material listed in the form of footnotes and/or end notes? Did she interview her subject? Did he or his organization(s) approve the final draft by fact-checking it? If not, then no one, including Cagan, Rawat, EV, nor TPRF can attest to the reliability of event dates or any information assumed to be facts in Peace is Possible. Sylviecyn 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We have used many sources in this article, and we have found what some editors consider mistakes in most of them. We report what these sources say, period. If we find better sources for specific assertion or facts, then we use the better one. If there are significant competing views, we report both. That is the way we write articles in WP. ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cagan's book Peace is Possible, must meet higher standards than any other source material because it was published this year on approval by Prem Rawat. While it's not published as an authorized biography, The Prem Rawat Foundation endorsed the book on its website and via a press release. It's been given rave reviews by Rawat's followers as the truth about Rawat's life, yet, it's obvious it wasn't fact-checked by the publisher or by anyone from Rawat's organizations. It appears there are no citations or end notes in the book that one can check for accuracy. The correct date for the Atlantic City program is in Divine Light Mission's own book of Maharaji's quotes called The Living Master. I'm not nitpicking about the Atlantic City program date, but because of that small mistake, I am seriously questioning the Cagan book as a reliable source and can only wonder if there are other inaccuracies. Because Mighty River Press is owned by a student of Rawat, and Cagan's book is the first book put out by that publishing house, it's makes it even less reliable and more of a primary source than a secondary source, imo. Sylviecyn 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On approval by Prem Rawat? Where did you get that? The Prem Rawat Foundation made a press release about the fact that a biography was published. So what? Rave reviews, great! What that has to do with this article? The book is widely available and listed in the Library of Congress (note that self-published book are not accepted by the LC). A book by a widely published writer is most certainly a reliable sources, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, I am afraid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I took SylvieCyn to be the authority on the Atlantic City event since SylvieCyn wrote - "I changed "Atlanta" to the correct city where the December 20, 1976 program was held which is Atlantic City, New Jersey. I attended that program, and in addition to that program earmarking Maharaji's revival of himself as the Lord of the Universe, dressing in Krishna costum, it also was a sort of a belated birthday party for for him". So the mistake's not Cagan's, it's mine for confusing the event and the conference dates and SylvieCyn for confirming it.Momento 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take me to be the authority on specific dates of Maharaji programs that took place 31 years ago. I repeated the date as stated in the article based on Cagan as the reliable source! I later discovered Cagan's error. What kind of circular reasoning is this then? The subject of the discussion is Cagan as Rawat's authorized or endorsed biographer, and whether her facts can be trusted as reliable. Obviously, not. Sylviecyn 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again SylvieCyn, but don't apoloigise. Cagan didn't say the event was on Dec 20, just that Rawat was in AC on Dec 20, it was you who said you were at the program on Dec 20.Momento 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars accomplish nothing

Revert wars accomplish nothing. Articles in WP are edited by those that want to put the necessary effort and commitment to do so. Not by those that stand on the fence. A review of the previous version (that is the basis for the current version, btw) required a re-write, which some editors took upon themselves to do in response. I see nothing wrong with that and their effort should be supported rather than dismissed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to re-read both articles in their entirety, an I find it curious that Andries thinks that the old version is superior to the new, shortened version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given some examples where I found Momento's re-write completely unacceptable and greatly inferior to the original, but as usual, my comments are dismissed by Momento. This is no collaboration. This is a one-man show pretending to be open for suggestions and improvements. Andries 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo!PatW 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have shown intense effort and commitment by trying to improve the old long version for many years and providing many sources. I have not been sitting on the fence at all. The re-write is worse than the original. Keep it in draft as long as it worse as the original. Momento, I hereby want to thank you for your efforts and I suggest you keep on trying until your rewrite is better than the original. Then we can talk about your using your re-write. I do not accept it that Momento is wasting all my years of effort and commitment. Andries 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making an argument that does not stand the reality of the article's history. The previous version was worked on as hard by Momento and myself for the last two years, and yet neither Momento, nor I are asserting WP:OWN as you are doing. No one expected such a harsh review of the version that we so hard worked on for so long, but that is a reality that we cannot easily dismiss. Does the new version loses some of our collective hard work? Sure it does. Do I like the new version better than the old? I am not sure, but that is not the question. The question is: does this new version responds to the reviews made? And if it does not, are you willing to fix it or not? Dismissing the work of others does not pay off in WP, and you know it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

The question is whether the old long version is better than Momento's re-write is the most important question. I am unwilling to use a bad version as a basis for improvement when a reasonable good version that just needs a little condensing and removals is available at our fingertips. I do not want Momento to dismiss our years of work with his flawed re-write. I read the review and I agreed with it, but Momento's re-write makes things worse, except in length. Andries 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You read the review, agreed with it, and did nothing. At least respect the work of those that care enough to do something about it. Your argument and edit history since the review says it all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please fix it before replacing the old long version. That is the write (right) order. I did something (giving comments here), but all my comments were dismissed by Momento so I stopped doing that. At least some of my comments on the old version were treated seriously and not dismissed with flimsy or erroneous arguments. Andries 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Complains are noted, but complains do not move us forward. Hard work and initiative does. G2G, see you later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked very hard on this article for years and you know it. I do not want my and other people's years of hard work to be wasted with a very flawed re-write. Andries 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be polite to email some former editors to see what they think. Since it's conception this article has obviously benefited from a large number of editors contributions, and it seems extremely unfair to replace it wholesale with largely one man's version, especially since former editors like Andries, myself and Sylviecyn (who just happen to be the ones currently putting some time as of late) are neither happy with the re-write or most particularly, the way our input has been vigorously resisted and denied by Momento. How about the dozens of other editors from the past who simply do not have the time or expectation to have to check all the time to see if their work has been expunged? I don't feel that Momento is showing them much good faith or respect. It just feels offensive the way he disregards others and seems to express delight in doing so. I'm not sure it's constructive to accuse people who you characterise as complainers of not working hard or showing initiative either. It's immensely hard work arguing points with someone as resolute as Momento. We've probably worked just as hard arguing over key issues as Momento has re-writing the article! PatW 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for formal mediation with Andries, Jossi, Momento, Sylviecyn as parties. I will add PatW. Andries 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Please write down there whether you agree with mediation or strike your name there from the mediation. Andries 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which I have dully rejected as premature, and disruptive of the current effort being made. 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have striked you out as a party in the mediation. I do not think it is premature as I see not a trace of a compromise in sight. Andries 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do that.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to be a party, then that is your choice. I put you there as a party and I can also remove you if you do not want to participate in mediation. Andries 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No you cannot. Mediation requires the agreement of all parties involved. Not only those that suit you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If I strike you then you are not a party anymore in the mediation and then I do not need your agreement anymore. Andries 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will let the MedCom address your obviously misunderstanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read the instruction and you are right and I am wrong. All parties in the dispute. Not only all parties in the mediation. I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Andries 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, what happened to Rumiton and Vassanya?Momento 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will inform them too, because they are also involved in the dispute. Andries 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed and informed Vassyana because he is also involved in the dispute. I could not find proof here that Rumiton (talk · contribs) is involved in this particular dispute, so I have not (yet) listed him. If you find such proof then point to it and I will list him as a party for this mediation case. Andries 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I found proof that Rumiton is involved in this disputed so I listed him and informed him. Andries 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Important questions

1. What is wrong with the new version? Be specific and concise.
2. How can those problems be repaired? Be specific and brief.
3. What is missing from the new version? Be specific and brief.
4. What reliable secondary sources report the missing information? Be specific and provide exact references.

If the new version is problematic, please discuss what is wrong with it in a productive manner. Also, for those claiming the new version is inferior, could you please explain why in a brief and specific manner? Cheers! Vassyana 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. See some examples on this talk page hereunder that I copied from elsewhere. I consider it too much work to make an exhaustive list.

2. By reverting to the old version

3. In general, accuracy in citations and attribution of opinions

4. Hummel and Kranenborg, Derks and Van Der Lans. See the old version.

Andries 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana here are the non-exhaustive examples that you requested in point that 1. that I copied from this talk page. Please do read the talk page before asking questions that I already answered several times. Again all my objections can be fixed by reverting to the old version.

1. Momento the entry about Elan Vital in the book "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" was not written by Melton who only wrote the foreword. I have seen the book. The entry was written by follower Geaves as I now write for at least the 3rd time. I had already written to you that you made a mistake in the citation, but instead of correcting the citation, you dismissed or ignored my comments. Using the biased follower Geaves as the only source for the rift in the lead section is a gross violation of NPOV. His view signficantly differs form the point of view of more objective researchers.

2. Derks and Van der Lans, there was no bad translation, because the original article by Derks and Van der Lans was in English. The discussion of the mind by Derks and Van der Lans is missing. Some contents by Van Der Lans (Derks was not a co-author) was translated from Dutch.

3. Kraneborg's reference to the peace bomb satsang is not unique. Hummel also made a reference to it. (This is probably the first time that I write this down)

4. The statement of Maharaji's claim to be "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' is both present in the old long version and the new re-write, but in the old version it is properly and explicitly attributed to Melton. In the new re-write this is unfortunately not the case and I think the re-write misrepresents Melton's writings, because it omits the fact that Melton wrote that Prem Rawat himself made this claim. This is totally unacceptable taking into account that I repeatedly warned Momento here not to do so and taking into account that an accurate version is already available.

5. Further I agree with Sylviecyn that the re-write was hasty, taking into account that the old long version took years of intense and lengthy debate and intense efforts by many editors in sourcing and citation

6. The lead section should mention and specify the most common and persistent criticisms (i.e. lifestyle and lack of substance in Teachings) The old version does this very well. The new version mention is vague and mentions outdated and somewhat uncommon criticisms.

7. Missing in the re-write is Rawat's request surrender to the guru. (source Kranenborg)

Andries 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. These points are easily fixable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Melton's New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. It was edited by Christopher Partridge (Editor), the foreword written by J. Gordon Melton. The section on "Elan Vital" was written by Ron Geaves, who is a scholar of religion and chair of a prestigious university in the UK. The fact that he is a long-time student of PR is not relevant if properly attributed, as it was done in the new version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It was and is not properly cited let alone attributed in the lead section in the re-write and even if it is properly attributed then we should also include the view of others for NPOV. Andries 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Easily fixable, Andries. In invite you to make proposals in the Bio proposal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if they are so easily fixable then please Jossi or Momento fix them all first before replacing the old version. Andries 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing that proposal or this article, only making minor edits here and there, or providing sources. It is you that need to engage others in making the proposed version better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no added value in trying to fix a flawed version when a reasonable version is already available that needs only some removals and condensing. I would fully support replacing the old version with a better re-write, but Momento's bio-prososal has still too many flaws to be considered a better than the old version. I have listed some of the flaws of Momento's rewrite hereabove, and some of them can be fixed quite easily. I am however willing to make a draft re-write myself, based on the old version, but of course this will take me a tremendous amount of time and effort. Andries 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

<<outdent>> Then respond to Vassyana's questions and hopefully other editors will engage in addressing your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did respond to them. Andries 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Until now I am the only one who responded to Vassyana's questions. Andries 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Then give some time to these editors that want to address your concerns, to do so. I am taking a break now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some more comments. Andries 23:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Responding to Andries' points: 1. How is the citation lacking? It does not imply that Melton was the author of the article cited.
2. What facts are missing from the discussion of mind? Is anything misrepresented in the revised version?
3. Can you provide a full reference to the additional material? Does it explain anything new or is it simply an additional source?
4.What does Melton say that differs significantly from the revised version? What makes this point of belief so particular that we must emphasize that Rawat said it? Why for this part of belief but not for every other point?
5.. This is not a helpful criticism.
6. The new version reports the same criticism as the old version, only in considerably more neutral language. A lede is a place to report an overview, not detail specific criticisms, especially not with loaded and subjective language.
7. This can be easily resolved.
What additional specific criticisms did you have? Vassyana 00:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. A citation should mention the author, mentioning the editor of the whole book is optional. E.g. when a newspaper is cited we write down the author of the article not the chief editor of the newspaper. I have seen the book. Melton is not even the editor, but only wrote the foreword. Amazon may however incorrectly mention him as the editor. This is not the first time that I noticed a mistake in Amazon.com The author is the biased follower Geaves, not the relatively impartial Melton. This is essential. This is the 4th or 5th time that I write this. From now on I will revert any version that contains this blunder without further discussion.

ad 2. Again, the discusion of the mind in the DLM by Van der Lans and Derks is missing See the old version. Yes, most of the scholarly quotes (e.g Melton, Kranenborg) are misrepresented in the re-write. See the old version for correct representation

ad 3. Reinhart Hummel Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3, pages 75, 78 Hummel quotes the Peace Bomb Satsang and provides more information than Kranenborg. To be fair to Momento, this probably the first time that I write this down, but Momento's claim that Kranenborg's reference to the Peace Bomb Satsang is unique is untrue and this was originally a reply to Momento's claim.

ad 4. Compare the old version with the new version. This article is about Rawat so its focus should be on what Rawat personally did, said and claimed not what other people around him believed about Rawat. I have always tried to make this clear to the reader wherever the source made this clear.

ad 5. No, I admit, but it helps to explain that and why the re-write is inferior.

ad 6. A lead section is to inform readers quickly It cannot inform readers if it is not a bit specific. Staying unnecessarily vague does not inform.

ad 7. Then solve it. I am waiting.

Again I am unwilling to give an exhaustive list of criticisms because this is a lot of unnecessary work when all my criticicisms can be resolved in 1 second by reverting to the old version.

Andries 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(re 1) The book was edited by Christopher H Partridge. Entries were written by may scholars. Ron Geaves wrote the entry on Elan Vital. I see no problem with this whatsoever, as it can be easily disclosed in the article. Somehow you are under the wrong impression that scholars do not have biases. Of course they do. And that includes your favorite Dutch scholars, Andries. But we still cite them, aren't we?

(re 2) That could be looked into. I thing that the new version does a better job to summarize these viewpoints, but it can esaly be reviewed and fixed, one by one.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(re 3) We can summarize the competing views about that satsang. Not a problem.

(re 4) No, you are wrong. We only report what secondary sources say about the subject. If Downton says that people believe this and that, we report this and that/. If the Times report that his mother did this and that and thought this and that of him, we report that. Are you really that confused about how we write articles in WP?

(re 5) A lead section needs to be neutral.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 4. Then report accurately what sources have stated which includes mentioning who claimed/said/believed/did what. In this case the fact that Melton wrote that Rawat made the claim is missing and as such I think that the re-write misrepresents Melton. It was not only a claim made by his followers, according to Melton. Apart from that, Downton mostly wrote about the DLM, not so much about Rawat, so the summary of his writing should mostly be in that article. Andries 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Andries' points-

1. My citation of - J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421 - in the lede is 100% correct and Downton agrees with it.

2. As I prefaced, "if memory serves me" but it was Hummel you mistranslated to suit your POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Hummel

3. Hummel's reference to the Peace Bomb is not mentioned in the old article, so I cannot have omitted it. Kranenborg's is the only one and remains.

4. You haven't warned me, the old cite doesn't contain the original text and I was using it in a different way.

5. First people complain I'm putting too much work into the new version, then that I haven't put enough. The rewrite contains many new important facts missing from the old article - the comments on "millennial beliefs", Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor", "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" in the late 70s, the fact that Rawat used the 707 etc.

6. Rawat's age, his behaviour and his teachings are the most persistant criticisms as stated in the lede.

Andries, like all other editors, was informed and invited numerous times to contribute to the proposal but didn't make one edit or comment in the talk page. As Andries suggests, doing a rewrite takes "a tremendous amount of time and effort". I was happy to make the changes suggested in the GA review. The new article is vastly better because of it.Momento 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior here is typical. You invite people to contribute and make improvement and if they do so you dismiss all of them. Andries 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, If your intention was to finally get more feedback to your bio-proposal then please consider your mission succeeded by now. Please do not try again to get feedback in such a way. Andries 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. No, erroneous, as I have explained at least four times elsewhere.

ad 2. My translation of Hummel was initially incomplete which I later corrected and for which I apologized. That is not a valid reason now to exclude contents.

ad 3. True, I agree. Momento's claim that Kranenborg reference to the Peace Bomb Satsang is unique is however not true, because Hummel referred to it too.

ad 4. I did warn you not to freely interpret the sources here Talk:Prem_Rawat#The_day_is_coming_soon, but you did not pay heed to my warning

5. I admit that your re-write has some new and good sourced contents. I will add that to the old version. I have already done so for the "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". The rest of the good sourced contents that you mention has now followed. Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor" is sourced to Andrea Cagan's book which I do not consider a reputable source, so I will not copy it from the rewrite. Same for Rawat's usage of the Boeing 707. amended Andries 09:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 6, What do you mean? that he is still criticized for his age? If so where? :Andries 08:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) amended

Cagan's book is most certainly a reliable source for these facts. You keep dismissing the RfC comments and Wikipedia guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting the RFC. Andries 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. You are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana you have invited us to essentially compare the original article point by point with Momento's re-write. I just sat down with the intention of doing that. Immediately I am struck with the daunting enormity of the task, as others have also noted and objected to.
Since the existing article is a work representing the more collaborative work of a greater number of people than the new article (for the reasons we have explained ie. Momento largely resists others input) it occurs to me that rightly the onus is not so much on other former editors to provide an exhaustive analysis of what you ask ie:
1. What is wrong with the new version?
2. How those can problems be repaired?
3. What is missing from the new version?
4. What reliable secondary sources report the missing information?
But the onus surely should be on Momento to do that job in reverse. i.e. he should, at this stage, explain why he has omitted the many missing specific things from the old article , point by point, and also be prepared to discuss those decisions here before we all agree that it is better.
I am not suggesting that his article is entirely an uncollaborative work or entirely worse. I have made a few changes there myself which remain; and I support the idea of a better, more concise improved article. However I strongly feel that, especially in the light of Andries' objections, (which I'm sure would be shared by other past editors) Momento should be the one who owes all parties some exhaustive summary (at this stage) to explain exactly what was wrong with specific things about the old version, what he has exactly omitted from the original version and what existing reliable secondary sources he has chosen to no longer represent and why. As a compromise maybe he could do this. Otherwise we are probably doomed to lengthy nitpicks about various things. This is historically what we have been doing as of late and it really has only resulted in mistrust as Momento seems to use agruments on various Talkpages as an exercise in wasting other peoples time.
If you remain seriously convinced that we should indeed exhaustively compare the articles then you will need patience, because that will take a very long time. Just a quick look now immediately brought up another question for me, relating to my recent reversion of the words 'Indian Dress' (on the new article) to the original 'Krishna Costume'. (see my justification for this reversion under 'The art of understatement (by Momento)' above.) I now notice that in the original, the word 'Krishna' links to a Wiki article on Krishna. Not only did Momento replace Downton's important words 'Krishna costume' to the less meaningful 'indian dress' but he lost that very helpful link too. Every time I look I see more examples of what is wrong. Why should we suddenly be tasked with having to rejustify, at great length, what was presumably once deemed perfectly 'right' like in this example? Can Momento show us where there is some discussion relating to the replacement of the word "Krishna Costume' and it's link? Why should we be burdened with unneccessary hard detective work because of his disregard for the work of others? I would strongly argue that the onus is squarely on Momento to exhaustively explain every little change like this rather than we are given the unenviable job of clearing up his messes. As a result of the mistrust generated by his single-handed opportunism he has brought this task neccesarily upon himself. His decision to actually act and replace the article now, has simply drawn into focus the existing questions that he has long ignored but should have addressed as he went along.PatW 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee PatW, you make it seem as if you haven't had two months of constant encouragement to discuss and contribute to the new article.Momento 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses

(Andries) #

1. I do not see why Geaves cannot be attributed as the author of the specific article.
2. That is a non-answer. General references to the "old version" are insufficient. What is the specific information missing? What are the specific references for that information?
3. Is there a published English translation of this source? What is the additional information this source provides?
4. Please go back and provide a reply to the questions I posed. You responded with a general statement of position, but did not address my specific questions. Again, general references to the "old version" are insufficient.
5. Actually, it does nothing to explain why the rewrite is inferior. The number of active editors and the time it takes to do rewrites will always be variable on Wikipedia. That years and a large number of editors worked on an article does not mean future changes must reflect that time and group size. This is a wiki. A single person can rewrite an article in days that took years and several editors to build, and it's supposed to be that way. Other can always repair any damage by that one editor. Arguments about the time spent by a number of previous editors is fundamentally flawed when discussing a wiki. It's a red herring that has no relevance instead of addressing the specific content at hand.
6. Actually, a lede is to provide a summary of an article. The article itself is expected to inform the reader about the topic. Regardless, using loaded language presented as fact is far outside the bounds of a neutral point of view.
7. {{sofixit}}

On a final note, reverting to the old version fixes nothing. The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written. I utterly fail to see how replacing one flawed version with another version that is as equally flawed, or worse, fixes anything at all. Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version? Thanks again for your replies. Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree. Please fix it I am waiting.

2. I am not prepared to do all the work that proponents of the new version should should do. Here is the old version [4]. Please compare that with the new version [5] and check the differences and you will see that the old version is in nearly all cases, (in presenting the writings by Kranenborg, Haan, Melton, Hummel, Derks, Lans) superior in providing context, accuracy of citations and attribution of opinions. If you disagree then give an exhaustive list of points where the old version is worse than the new version. Please be specific and give full secondary source references and full citations. Please write what should be done to improve the old version to make it better to at least the standard of the re-write. Please also list of contents what is missing in the old version and be specific and provide secondary source.

3. Not yet. Give me some time

4. See 2

6. I do not think that Momento is a skilled writer. Neither am I, but at least what I write in the article here is being corrected and amended by many people

7. Please fix it in the new version I am waiting

Andries 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Flippant answers will not take you anywhere, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First make a start of fixing the specificn practical concerns that I voiced. Otherwise I think that all my efforts of giving detailed comments a waste of my time. Andries 20:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? Give it a go. You may be surprised... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should I do the effort when all I have to do is to revert to the old version to have all the major flaws fixed and my concerns addressed? Andries 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind. I will try to implement some of my many concerns in the re-write myself. Andries 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(PatW) I do not think that an unnecessary burden is being laid upon you by my request. The edit history of the draft is extensive, as is the discussion regarding it. The Krishna costume is a good example of the information I was soliciting. See my comments to Andries above regarding points raised about the work done on the previous version. I pose my question to him about the two versions to you as well. Is the new version really more flawed than the old version, to you? If so, why? I'm not interested in hearing about the process of the rewrite. I'm interested in hearing about the content presented. General statements about the content would be fine. I am just looking to understand why the old version is so preferable to the rewrite. Or is it that it's not preferable, but rather just includes information you feel is lacking from the rewrite? Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Momento) Would it really be a problem to attribute Geaves (the author of the cited article in the book)? Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources? If costume is a problematic word, due to its implications of "putting on" in English, you could use "garb" or "attire". Would it be problematic to reinsert the reference to Rawat's request to "surrender to the guru" per Kranenborg? What do you see, besides the lossless folding of criticisms into the main article, as the main changes from the old version to the revised version? What are the main flaws corrected in the rewrite? What are the main flaws of the revised version? Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems whatsoever with these suggestions, Vassyana, if properly implemented. By that a mean that the prose should be consistent and neutral by including the competing viewpoints and attributing it to these scholars that discussed the subject. It should be relatively easy to add these in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I have never objected to Geaves being cited as author. I objected to Andries saying my citing was wrong when it is in accord with other refs to Encyclopedia's in this article where the author isn't named. PatW's "Krishna" example is untrue in every aspect. I introduced "Indian costume" into the new article in April. Rumiton changed it to "Indian dress" April 7. PatW changed it to "Krishna costume" but without any Wikilink on May 10. Andries took the entire paragraph from the new article and put it in the old and added the Wiki link on May 11. It never had a Wiki link in the new article so I didn't lose it as PatW claims. I originally chose "Indian costume" because it accurately represents the "dress up" aspect but without implying that Rawat painted his skin blue as is necessary when dressing as Krishna. Rawat didn't request to "Surrender to the Guru". It is a poor paraphrase of Kronenborg, who wrote _ "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself. Rawat's famous misquoted "surrender " quote "is surrender your life to me"; what he actually said in India in 1971 was "Subash Chandra Bose (Indian nationalist) used to say, "Give me your blood and I will give you independence." Likewise, I too have a slogan: give me your love and I will give you peace. Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you such peace as will never die. Come to me, and I will give you liberation. Place the reins of your life in my hands, and I will relieve you of your suffering. First, be capable of giving the reins of your life to me, then give them. And if I do not give you peace, I will give them back to you". The role of the Guru is adequately explained in "Teachings" and via the numerous Wiki links provided.

The main flaw in the old version is that at 6600 words it is bloated beyond belief. It is the result of editors expressing their POV without caring about readability. The result is so poorly written it looks like a deliberate attempt to create an unpleasant article. The new article corrects those deficiencies by being 2400 words with a focus on being concise, comprehensive and readable. The old version is full of cherry picked POV quotes, with excessive weight given to quotes from Christian scholars; the new version relies on a more neutral range of scholars summaries. The main flaw of the new article is that it is so tightly written it doesn't make the addition of material easy. And that was point, to be complete, stable, factual and readable.Momento 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I think you are wrong in everything what you write, except that the old version it too long. I do not know whether I should take the time and effort of pointing out where you are wrong in specifics, because you have dismissed and ignored my specific comments that I made in the past. The general mistake in the re-write that you make which you more or less admit yourself is that you omit and distort sources when they make statements that you do not agree with or that you think requires more explanations to the reader. Andries 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to your statement that my "Krishna" example is "untrue in every aspect". It's clearly not since you did change Downtons words. Don't try to blame me for your 'weasel' wording and wriggle out of your part in this. Yesterday Vassayana asked me to look at the existing article to see what's missing and I did. How the hell was I supposed to know at a glance that Andries had put in the Krishna link? So what? What a great idea. Your reasoning is so absurd it's insulting. I guess that's your intention. As usual you are just time-wasting. If Vassayana for one moment thinks your 'Indian Dress' reasoning makes the slightest sense then I swear I will never look at this article again. I am terminally sick of your absurd reasoning and persistent dishonesty and really would love never to have to subject myself to your brazen affrontery again. What utter nonsense you're spouting about the implication being that Rawat had to paint himself blue... He wore the Krishna costume and sometimes played the damn flute and the whole nine yards.. who are you to say that as Downton's reporting that he wore his Krishna Costume implies "that Rawat painted his skin blue as is necessary when dressing as Krishna." Just how stupid do you think we are? When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this kind of vacuous histrionic reasoning. And to think with logic like yours we should for one minute trust your neutrality. You have a good reason to play down Rawat dressing up as Krishna and that is your well-exercised paranoia that people will realise that it is yet another good example of Rawat encouraging people to see him a Hindu Lord. Your neutrality is completely exposed as being non-existant. Vassayana why should we have to deal with this guy's endlessly useless arguments? Why should he be allowed to sit on this article and keep all sensible people at bay with rubbish like this? Come on...doesn't this kind of nonsense try your patience? Could you show us some empathy here? PatW 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat, please try and remain civil. If you are upset, take a break. And if you could, also please do not talk in "we" speak, as I do not understand who these "we" are. Speak for yourself, and that is good enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take more care when expressing yourself. I was replying to Vassyana's question -"Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources?" Why would Vassyana ask that question when "Krishna costume" has already replaced "Indian dress" in both articles. It was because Vassyana relied on your previous post which suggests I have recently removed it. You wrote - "I now notice that in the original, the word 'Krishna' links to a Wiki article on Krishna. Not only did Momento replace Downton's important words 'Krishna costume' to the less meaningful 'indian dress' but he lost that very helpful link too. Can Momento show us where there is some discussion relating to the replacement of the word "Krishna Costume' and it's link?" You are saying that I have recently replaced the 'Krishna costume' and the link that appear in the original article with "Indian dress" and no link in the new article, and did so without discussion. I did not. "Krishna costume" remains untouched in both articles and the reason there is no link is because your never made one.Momento 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You sure like to capitalise on some small confusion or mistake by someone else, to make a totally unfathomable mess and draw attention away from your own errors. And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said you recently replaced anything. I said I now noticed the link and assumed that you'd lost that link when making your new article. Yes I know I was wrong about that, but it's no big deal and a pretty understandable mistake. I was most certainly correct to point out the current differences in the articles. I now learn from you that the attempt to change the embarrassing words 'Krishna Costume' was tackled twice , once by you and then Ruminton. Fine. I also said you'd not discussed these matters which you apparently refute. So where did you discuss your decision to use the words 'Indian Dress' then? You know what? Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with my kids when thery're guilty about something and I've caught them. They just try to change black into white by rapid fire revisionist word-twisting. "You said this and I said that and then she said this and I said that and then you said that and I said...etc" Has it occurred to you that you may just have been caught changing Downtons meaning for no good reason whatsoever?PatW 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana you ask Momento:
Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources? If costume is a problematic word, due to its implications of "putting on" in English, you could use "garb" or "attire".
I have already replaced the word 'Indian Dress' in the proposed article with 'Krishna costume' and so far Momento's not reverted it for once. But I suggest you don't hold your breath. Why are you asking Momento this? It is patently obvious that Downtons choice of words was not casual or innappropriate. Everyone at the time and since (including Rawat I'm sure) referred to that garb as his 'Krishna Costume' - he even had a special box made for the jewel-encrusted crown and flute. Of course the word 'costume' is not problematic to anyone in their right mind. Why are you pandering to Momento and Ruminton like this? The only reason they're so nervous about using the original words are because they want to make it sound more innocuous as I explained above. That's the only reason unless you buy that rubbish about it implying that Rawat also had to paint his face blue - which I sincerely hope you don't. Do you? Can't you see Momento is mocking us and you by saying that? Also the fact is that Rawat did "put on" the costume unless somebody dressed him. Why should we give Momento any choice in this matter? You keep reminding us to stick to the secondary sources closely - OK then - matter settled- use the secondary sources words to preserve their meaning- not Momento or Ruminton's watered-down ones.PatW 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And look how much time and space it takes just to pin the wriggly Momento down to accepting he's been wrong to insert just two measley little weasel words! Perhaps this will help you (Vassayana) understand what we're up against fulfilling your Herculean task of going through the article with a fine-tooth comb.PatW 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist in speaking for others, without saying who are these "we"? It divisive and not helpful, Pat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that 'we' in this instance refers to us whom Vassayana was addressing when he asked those questions?PatW 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions Vassayana:
Is the new version really more flawed than the old version, to you? If so, why?....Or is it that (the old version) is not preferable, but rather just includes information you feel is lacking from the rewrite?
In my opinion the main problem with the new version may be generalised using the example of the 'Krishna Costume' turning into 'Indian Dress'. This is an example of paraphrasing to reflect a particular premie POV. (not a POV, I hasten to add that is shared by all premies) To anyone familiar with Prem Rawat, whether it be through reading a lot about him, seeing his videos or having been a premie, it will be clear that both articles suffer from some polarised POV assertion. The older article is a mishmash and the newer one, very pro Rawat.
We have got hung up for ages on certain key issues like whether the extent to which Rawat encouraged premies to see him as The Lord should be made clearer. Also there is a paucity of reliable scholarly secondary material more recently (post 1977) because 1) Rawat and his organisation deliberately withdrew from overt public activity to avoid negative publicity 2) People lost interest anyway. This means that premies have used Cagan's book as a secondary source despite arguments that it is a vanity press. (a view that I personally take). Also critics would like to resort to primary sources which make the picture very much more clear. So we've had that whole lengthy discussion about using DLM publications that I showed were 'readily accessible' in public libraries. The counter-argument having been that they were only available from unreliable sources like ex-premie websites etc. It suits premies far better to not use primary sources and omit a lot of info about Rawat (that no secondary sources apparently exist to support.) Momento was correct to observe that the former article was bloated and that 'The main flaw of the new article is that it is so tightly written it doesn't make the addition of material easy.
But I think he's incorrect to say: 'The result (old version) is so poorly written it looks like a deliberate attempt to create an unpleasant article.' and '... is full of cherry picked POV quotes, with excessive weight given to quotes from Christian scholars'
In fact I would counter by saying that the new article is a deliberate attempt to create a pro-Rawat article, which is equally as full of cherry-picked quotes albeit shorter. Momento admits that he has had to leave a bunch of stuff out and paraphrase concertedly to get the word count down. It seems to me that we are now slowly discovering just how biased some of the new editing has been. The word-twisting is just more carefully done to fox people without arousing suspicion and to convince you it sounds more neutral. As we have seen with the 'Krishna Costume' weasel words which completely escaped your attention. How much time have you got? We can go on for weeks showing how, what appears to you as so 'more neutral' about the new article, is actually not.PatW 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most western people's experience of a "Krishna costume" are the yellow robed, head shaved Krishnas dancing in the street and they could be forgiven for thinking that's what you mean Rawat dressed as. Or that he painted himself blue, which is Krishna's most significant physical characteristic. The exact description of what Rawat wore is a minor point. The major point is what happened as a result. And that is "a resurgence of Indian influence, Rawat's greater place in the practice of Knowledge, people returning to Ashram life and a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". Downton was happy to use "Krishna costume" because he had 200 pages of book to paint a bigger picture of 71-76. We don't. By rights, if we use "Krishna costume" we should also include the fact that "Krishna costumes" had been worn previously in 75 to illustrate that it wasn't something new. And then perhaps an explanation that his father had worn one and Rawat had as a child, that it is a common Guru thing and its significance in Indian culture. But rather than supply several paragraph's of context, I chose "Indian costume" because if he had appeared in any "Indian costume", the effect is still the same - "a resurgence of Indian influence, Rawat's greater place in the practice of Knowledge, people returning to Ashram life and a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". Describing it as a "Krishna costume" may be clear to people familar with early Rawat but it is ambiguous to a lay person and potentially misleading. "Indian costume" is not and if readers want more info they have Downton's ref.Momento 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you should stay close to the sources, no matter what. I understand why the re-write is in this respect and in many place so much worse than the old version when I read your flawed way of reasoning here above. Going from accurate wording and citations in the old version to many distortions in the re-write is unacceptable for me. Andries 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)