User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4

Proposal 1

I've posted a draft to replace the current intro. Like any article, the lede of a bio should establish the notability of the subject. The rest of the intro should then cover the main points of the subject's life. The conclusion can offer an evaluation.

The current intro does not even mention the subject's main "claim to fame": his leadership of the DLM. At the same time it has too many details. For example, while it's verifiable that the followers in the West in the early 1970s were mostly hippies that's not a detail that needs to be in this intro.

I've omitted the sources for ease of editing, but I don't think there are any assertions that are unciteable. I'm open to fleshing it out a bit more, but I'd urge editors to keep it short and on point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a tight lead, but not at the expense of missing important information. In addition, the proposal contains several factually inaccurate statements. I look forward to other proposals from other editors, I may try my hand at it as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, omitting the sources is not a good idea, as the lead is likely to be a highly contested debate, and we need these to back up the text per WP:LEAD, [it] should be carefully sourced as appropriate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to write my proposal based on some of your text, but I will wait until sources are added before I do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are omitted for ease of writing and can be added later. What inaccuracies are there? What material should be added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the assertion that Rawat's teachings "became more universal", which was carried over from the previous version. That appears to be a value judgment and it isn't in the source. Can anyone suggest a better formulation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is OR.... we could say "More Westernized" or "Lost many of their emphasis on Indian Culture"... something along those lines. Hohohahaha (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, I like the proposal. Tight and neutral. Couldn't see any obvious factual errors (which does not necessarily mean there aren't any, just that I didn't spot them). One, perhaps; according to Melton, he must have had 250,000+ followers in the US, so we could say "hundreds of thousands" rather than "tens of thousands". (Melton says that at the end of the seventies, 80 percent of the membership had left the Mission, which left 50,000+ in the US and 1,000,000+ worldwide.) But then I note Melton's figures don't stack up with the other figures we have in the article. Perhaps he just got it wrong. --Jayen466 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any one say that the DLM more than 100,000 followers in the West. IIRC, the highest figure I've seen is something like 70,000. I think Melton may have meant that the following was reduced 80% from 50,000, down to a presumed 10,000. But since reliable sources give numbers all over the map it seems safest for the intro to stay vague. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The factual inaccuracies are (a) who become prominent as the leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) and the Elan Vital. His prominence was related to his age (he was 13 when he arrived to the West), and that relevant information is missing. Also, he did not played/plays a "leadership" role post DLM. Elan Vital is just a small organization that organizes events he speaks at. (b) Internal conflicts and negative publicity led to a reorganization of the DLM. that seems to be OR; (c) He did not create[d] the Elan Vital as a replacement for the DLM; our sources say that he disbanded the DLM, closed the ashrams, and relinquished control of the organization. (d) He did not dropped titles such as "Lord of the Universe" ; he never called himself that. What he did is to refer to himself as Maharaji, rather than Guru Maharaj Ji, as per our sources, as well as dropping the religious trappings imported from India. (e) was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master"), which source would you use for that statement? Also, who proclaimed that is missing. Also missing is that fact that he founded in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation, which carries his name. So, as I said above, once you add sources to your proposal, I will give it a try and use it for the basis for mine. If you have no intention to do so soon, please let me know and I will start from scratch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A) Every early mention of the subject mentions the Divine Light Mission. It was in his role as guru of that group that he became prominent. I don't recall seeing anyone say that he became prominent simply because he was 13, though his youth and other personal aspects were almost always noted. "Pudgy" and "boy guru" are epithets that frequently appear. However I think the intro is better off without that info. We can include it in the body of the article though. I disagree that the Elan Vital isn't important enough for the intro. IIRC, Rawat is listed as the spiritual head of both the DLM and EV (at least in the U.S. B) There were internal conflicts and there was negative publicity. Following those there was retrenchment and reorganization. We can unpack those more, and mention the 80% loss in following. I'm pretty sure we've got sources that connect the internal conflicts with the split between Indian and Western branches. C) "Relinquished control of the organization"? I don't recall reading that. If he didn't disband the DLM then who did? D) The "Lord of the Universe" is a title often used to refer to Rawat by followers in that era, so it'd help readers to include it. His organization called him that. We could say instead that "he stopped having people call him..." We can also say that he dropped claims of divinity. E) Most accounts don't say exactly who recognized him as Perfect Master. However it'd be correct to say it was done by his followers. F) The TPRF isn't that notable. He didn't establish it himself and he doesn't sit on the board. It's already mentioned in the article but I don't think it's important enough for the intro. I'll prepare a second draft to address some of these issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, sumptuous needs to be replaced. What exact words do the sources use? Hohohahaha (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• That phrase was in the previous version. The sources for it say:
  • Earlier this month, the guru's mother issued a statement in New Delhi saying she had disowned her son because of his pursuit of "a despicable, nonspiritual way of life." [...] Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary.
  • Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers.
• I'd be happy to change "sumptuous" to "opulent, materialistic" to better reflect the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (PS: There are several sources that use the word "opulent". It appears to be a common description.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

@Will Beback. I read your comments and disagree with them in princple. As you seem not to want to add sources to your proposal, I will start a new proposal that would attempt to take the best from all other previous versions. After all, these were in the article in one way or another. Also, I would remind editors that a lead needs to summarize the article, and not, as it seems from the arguments made, create an introduction that does not reflect the contents of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I'm not opposed to adding sources, it's just that they are very cumbersome to work with while drafting. If anyone has a question about sources we can answer them here for the time being. I've posted a new draft that addresses many of your concerns posted above. Of course, everyone is welcome to post other proposals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jossi's point E:

• Guru Maharaj Ji taught very similar ideas and practices to his Western followers. He was Satguru, or "Perfect Master;" only his power could initiate one into Knowledge, which alone among spiritual methods could reveal God. DuPertuis 1986, p. 116
• Among the most common titles given to the leader of the Divine Light Mission are those of guru, satguru, and Perfect Master. Saliba 1980, p.71
• Guru Maharaj Ji himself talks about a succession of perfect masters preceding and following him.13 Since there can be only one Perfect Master living at one particular time, it follows that Maharaj Ji is the satguru of our times. Saliba 1980, p.73
• He admits bluntly he is the Perfect Master, that most supreme energy, which can refer to nothing else but to God. Saliba 1980, p.75
• Guru Maharaj Ji became the Perfect Master when he was eight years old...He became Guru when liis father died. Waterloo Daily Courier, Waterloo, Iowa July 21, 1972
• He is termed a "perfect Master — one who teaches perfect truth — a title inherited at the age of eight from his late father who had founded the movement in 1960 in India. GEORGE W. CORNELL AP Religion Writer

Melton and Edwards make the point that, in some respects at least, Rawat assumed for himself the title of Perfect Master:

• Rawat...who was but eight when he was recognized as the new "Perfect Master" and assumed the title Maharaj Ji...He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father's funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered,"Dear Children of God, why are you weeping? Haven't you learned the lesson that your Master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharah Ji is here, amongst you now. Recognize Him, obey Him, worship Him." Melton 1992 p.218
• ...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. He assumed the title of Maharaj Ji. Edwards 2001, p. 278

So maybe instead of saying that he "was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master")", we should say, something more like "he assumed the role of "satguru" ("Perfect Master"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two more sources along the same lines:

• Following his father's death, Maharaji announced himself as the new guru... Chryssides 2001, p. 210
• When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself the new master and started ihs own teaching. Hunt, 2003, p.115

So maybe attributing the recognition to him would be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready?

It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object.Momento (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you state why you object please, and add an alternate proposal? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it Proposal 1 you want to add? Bad idea. It says "Internal conflicts and negative publicity led to a reorganization of the DLM." Who says so? and "In the late 1970s and early '80s he closed the ashrams, dropped titles such as "Lord of the Universe" and "Guru"." Very wrong, he never picked up the Lord title in the first place, he could not drop it. I support Proposal 6. It is short and to the point and says what needs to be said. We are surely not writing a book here. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• What's the difference betwen Prop4 and Prop6? They appear to be identical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several grammatical and word changes. I think 6 is superior to 4.Momento (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the benefits of Prop. 4/6 over Prop. 5. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prop.5

I've posted User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4#Proposal 5, which builds on Prop.2, incorporates Prop.3, and adds sources. Comments? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not good either. How do we know that tens of thousand of people called him Lord of the Universe? Bad writing and bad encyclopedia making. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Also I see "...with Rawat retaining control of the DLM in the West, which lost most of its members." Clearly implying that his taking over control was the reason for the loss of members. No good at all. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not good, Will. Not good. As I said previously, the lead will be probably the most contentious of all proposals. I would suggest to complete the other areas of discussion and leaving this discussion to be the last project in the mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• If editors have specific complaints they can be addressed. There's no reason so leave a lousy intro, which we have now, up for months while we negotiate over details elsewhere. I've made two edits to address Rumitons concerns. See [1]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. The lead should be left until the article is stable.Momento (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If editors don't want to participate in editing this article then that's their right. But I don't see any good reason for saying that certain parts are off-limits for the forseeable future. This article has never been stable, and saying that some edits should wait until it's stable is another way of saying they should never be made. There is a proposal, Prop.5, being proposed. Specific objections that can be addressed are welcome. Assertions that some edits should wait are not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic". Since the article is in flux, it makes sense to wait until the article is finished before attempting the lead. In addition, since the proposals we are discussing were randomly chosen, there is already a great deal of the article that are "off-limits" to editing.Momento (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is no more in flux now than it has ever been. Again, if you don't want to participate then you're welcome to watch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Making suggestions as to how to proceed is part of the discussion process and consensus. That two involved editors have a different opinion to yours shouldn't be dismissed as a failure to participate.Momento (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated characterization of my opinion, that the lead proposal should wait, as that I "don't want to participate in editing this article" and if I "don't want to participate then you're welcome to watch" is a fabrication of my position and "personally-targeted, belligerent behavior".Momento (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if you were offended. Now let's get back to improving the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I might further elaborate prop.3, which I'd base on prop.5. The issues I'd try to solve are these (non-limitative, just the the ones that immediately drew my attention):

• "[In the late 1970s and early '80s Rawat] ... disbanded the DLM." - "disbanding" DLM is at least factually incorrect, technically it was renamed (to Elan Vital), and then technically, at the time there was still a DLM in India, where nothing was "disbanded" by Rawat (how could *Rawat* have disbanded Indian DLM?). Western DLM and Elan Vital related ashrams were probably "disbanded", although also there reformation into Elan Vital centres would probably be more correct. As far as I understand primarily the *community life* aspect of the Mission-related houses was disbanded. For all the other aspects "disbanding" seems an overstatement to me (although there are of course sources - notably Geaves 2006 - that make that overstatement). I'm not saying all this needs to be elaborated in the lead section, but a summary "... disbanded the DLM" is too far off the mark as a lead section summary imho. I'd try to find a phrasing that gives the facts, without adding interpretation that is only shared by a limited part of the sources.
• "In June 1971, he left India for the West. There he became the subject of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of devotees. Followers called him the "Lord of the Universe". He made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching worldwide." - something about the time sequence: as far as I understand Rawat "began touring and teaching worldwide" from June 1971, why is it stated that he only *began* touring & teaching worldwide after he had made his home in the U.S.? (or said otherwise: as it is written currently it seems to suggest that between June 1971, when Rawat went to the UK, and a few weeks later, when he made his home in the U.S., he would have been doing something else than touring & teaching)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Most of this seems to me unnecessary detail for the lead, though I agree nothing misleading should be there. Maybe when we get to it in the body of the article it should be stated that he "greatly reduced the size of the western DLM, then changed its name to Elan Vital." I think that agrees with most sources. The "touring and teaching" stuff can be easily sorted out. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of any source that says Rawat "greatly reduced the size of he Wester DLM". That implies it was intentional. What would be a source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• It certainly was intentional. I will leave it to others to source that. Rumiton (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal4#Proposal_7

Apologies Steve - I lost the background colour. I've attempted to deal with the chronology issues which I agree with Francis are a significant problem. The residual footnote numbering is from Proposal 5, I think all those should cover the material but I've concentrated on getting an historically consistent wording, so some of the references may be out of line. I've rejected the Proposal 3. construction of "associated with organizations" which has too many possible interpretations to be helpful. I disagree with those who want to leave the lede in abeyance until some notional time in the future, the lede should stand as an identification of what is important in the article and even at the level of a work in progress it should be possible to achieve some consensus on what is important enough to be in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, Nik, but I doubt it. As the article progresses, the nature of the new material will be dictated by what is already there. That's in the nature of most writing, let alone a group effort like this. You don't really know how the thing will end up until you get there. I think Proposal 6 works as a skeletal structure. If we accept that, we can agree to modify it if later edits make that desirable. Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• We can rewrite the intro again later as needed. Prop 6 has many problems. If you'd like to start a discussion on its advantages you're welcome to do so. As for prop 7, it looks OK to me. I can fix the references if that's agreeable to Nik. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• A minor quibble: "Organisations which have considered Rawat as variously their leader or inspiration include Divine Light Mission ..." seems unnecessarily wordy. How about "Rawat's organisations have included Divine Light Mission..."? They're undoubtedly his organisations, though the exact relationship is often vague or indirect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Will, yes, please do feel free to fix the references and I'm entirely happy with the amended construction you suggest. Do you want to go ahead and create a new Prop. with that amendment and fixed refs ? Or is there a better way forward ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Prop 7 contains phrases like, "Rawat attracted tens of thousands of devotees who called him the "Lord of the Universe",and "although he sought to take a more active role in guiding the by then international Divine Light Mission movement,[62] the movement was split by conflicts within the Rawat family." And this "looks OK to you"? I can't believe you are not joking. This is a million miles from neutrality, and you are not going to get a consensus on it. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prop. 5 used slightly different language, which was intended to adress your concerns. There he became the subject of substantial media attention and attracted tens of thousands of devotees. Followers called him the "Lord of the Universe".[61] He made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching worldwide. When he turned 16 in 1974, Rawat married and took a more active role in guiding the movement.[62] Family conflicts split the movement with Rawat retaining control of the DLM in the West. The DLM lost most of its members after the mid-1970s.[63] Would using that text instead be sufficient? If not, what exact changes do you want? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• It's getting better, but is still not right. "An Indian-American" seems like a racial characterisation to me. The article states that he was born in India and now lives in the US. This is neutral and OK. I don't have time tonight for any more. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, Rumiton, I think Indian American is neutral. It's along the lines of "Asian American," "Native American," "Polish American," etc. It's how people are described (and describe themselves) after they become citizens of the U.S. having been born elsewhere. There's no slant of any kind by using the term. The hyphen between Indian and American isn't necessary, however. Give it some thought.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be too sensitive. In Australia we would not say Indian-Australian, it would be insulting. We are all Australians, which is a multi culture. We may be too sensitive. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This proposal has so many problems that it is simply not worthy of addressing. It is a mishmash that does not represent a summary of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rawat is an Indian American. That's how we'd refer to any similarly bornand emigrated individual. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, he is not. He was born in India and naturalized as a US citizen. Indian American's are those of Indian ancestry, usually referring to second generations of Indian nationals. Not a big deal, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Indian Americans are Americans who are of Indian ancestry. " He is an American of Indian ancestry. It is standard in WP bios to list the nationality/ethnicity of subjects in the first line. It's also standard to describe their chief claim to notability. The current intro does neither and that's why it need to be changed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• What is the source for "critics have referred to [...] an opulent, materialistic lifestyle"? If that is the mother, you cannot say "critics", you have to attribute it to her. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 0

So far, I see no proposals that improve on Proposal #0, which is the most neutral and factually accurate than all new attempts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think you've made your opinion on this point clear. However other editors disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 8

Not perfect, but a good neutral summary of an encyclopedic article on the subject. It needs polishing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's closer than P6, but it has substantial problems and isn't neutral

A) "His "Knowledge" consists of techniques described as capable to obtain stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual. Source? Why do we say this Knowledge is "his"? Wouldn't we just say "His teachings include techniques that he says bring stillness, peace, and contentment?"

B) In 1966 at the age of eight, after his father death, Rawat succeeded him as the spiritual head of the movement India, when he was proclaimed "satguru" ("Perfect Master") by his followers. That appears clumsier than In 1966 at the age of eight, Rawat succeeded his father as spiritual head of the DLM in India, when he was proclaimed the "satguru" ("Perfect Master"). Why the change?

C) ...where he became the subject of substantial media attention due to his youth and the exuberant claims of his followers. Source?

D) ...his teachings became more universal... Source?

E) In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation to contribute to global humanitarian efforts and to promote his message, which is now available world-wide via print, TV, cable and satellite. Too much attention to a very minor and barely notable vanity foundation. OTOH, the DLM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, as it's the organization that brought Rawat to fame.

F) why sumptuous unstead of opulent, materialistic?

Overall, I don't see this as an improvement over P7. It contains too many non-neutral assertions and poor emphasis. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A- OK with your wording

B- Because it is accurate as per sources. He was proclaimed satguru by his followers.

C- Do you dispute this? It is factually accurate: he was 13 years of age(!) when he arrived to the West. There are multiple sources that attest to this

D- I will change that. My proposal does not have that text. (?)

E- A foundation that he founded lending his name is not significant? Of course it is. Your opinion of being a "vanity" foundation, is your opinion alone.

F- Why "opulent, materialistic"? "Sumptuous" is as good as the other adjectives. Per Merriam-Webster: extremely costly, rich, luxurious, or magnificent.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the source attributed to "critics" for opulent, materialistic is Mata Ji, after the family rift, a massive WP:REDFLAG. This, from a person that before the rift described her son as divine... Do you have other sources from "critics" that assert that opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

<< Any and all sources that describe the subject from a biographical point of view (which in case anybody has forgotten is the subject of this article) refer to the PR's age when arriving to the West as one of the most notable aspects of this person's life.

• Hunt: The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's

• Barret: "The Guru Maharaj Ji was only 13 when he sprang to prominence as leader of the Divine Light Mission

• Melton: The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.

• Messer: Guru Maharaj Ji is most easily described as a boy guru, successor to his father's disciples, who was persuaded to bring his movement to the West by a handful of Western devotees who had discovered him in India. Since August 9, 1971, more than eighty thousand Americans have become his devotees. East and West, the movement itself is called the Divine Light Mission.

I can add more if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not his age, the issue here is saying that his fame was due to his age. None of these sources say that he "he became the subject of substantial media attention due to his youth". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for "he became the subject of substantial media attention"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for "sumptuous" that was discussed earlier on this page and another editor specifically asked us to find something better. Mata Ji's comments are undoubtedly criticisms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The text in your proposal speak of "critics", when it is actually the mother, not "critics". Such criticism needs to be attributed, and if found to be just the mother, I will remove from the lead per WP:REDFLAG. If there are any other "critics" that talk about an "opulent, materialistic" lifestyle, please provide sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for point B, what is your source? We have several sources that say he proclaimed himself guru. We already discussed this above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say otherwise. We will need to find wording that accommodates the competing viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the organizations, there's no question that the DLM (which had over six million members) is more important to the notabilty of the subeject that the TPRF (which has no members and only gets the publicity that it pays for). If you have a conflict of interstest over this organization I don't think you should be promoting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you for the second time to keep your opinions to yourself which have no bearings in this discussion. You want to hold the opinion that TPRF is a "vanity" foundation, that "pays for publicity", please keep it to yourself! The Foundation is a pubic charity and there are plenty of verifiable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one thing we can all agree on is that "he arrived to the West as a boy guru" is awful. Let's change it to "he arrived to the West as a 13 year old with millions of followers". Being a 13 year old is normal, being a 13 year old with millions of followers is something to write about. "Sumptuous" is archaic, the usual expression is a "materialistic lifestyle".Momento (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He arrived as a boy guru and he was referred as such. I see no problem with this, although as said before the text needs polishing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The millions of followers didn't accompany him to the West. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. But nor was he born or became a guru in the west. If he'd had ten followers no one would have cared but he was a phenomena.Momento (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest finding a source that backs up what you are saying, it would probably help your viewpoint. Steve Crossin (talk)(email)

[E/C] I think P8 isn't worth spending a lot of time fixing. It's got so many problems, some of which are outlined above. I again ask for improvements to P5, which has a better basis and avoids making POV claims or using language like "boy guru". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. P5, as expressed above has no chance whatsoever as it stands. I will continue working on this version and accommodate the feedback given. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Objections to P5 have been addressed as they've been raised. Let's keep working on it. Despite your claim, your P9 does not accomodate the feedback you've received. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have accommodated all your requests that were feasible, and challenged others, which you have not responded to ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #9

This proposal, based on Proposal #8 includes fixes requests made above by several editors. I have withdrawn proposal #8 and will continue working on the basis of this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I can't see the differences without closely examining the sections. Not being lazy, but could someone point them out? I noticed the change from sumptuous to materialistic, were there others? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• It appears to repeat text that I complained about above. How is this progress? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It has accommodated most, if not all of your requests. If there is anything else that you don't like, please say so with a substantive argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how it accomodates the requests? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to put all a Rawat's names in the lead? It doesn't read well and can be handled in the text, anyone searching with those names will be redirected anyway. And a following in "many countries" seems a bit vague, with materials available in more the 80 countries, it is either "world wide" or "in more than 80 countries". Momento (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Names are usually placed in th lead, Momento. As per "many countries" or 80 countries, I have no particular preference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, there is no specific policy to list all names of a person in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article". Having all those names reads very badly and aren't necessary. Imagine G.W.Bush was (also called Mr. President, Commander in Chief, G.W., 43, Dubya)? Balyogeshwar (India only) and Sant Ji (35 years old) should be handled in the text. Anyone searching using those names get re-directed anyway. Likewise with the organizations, they're not important enough for the lead. If we want this lead to be "clear and accessible", we need to edit it with that as the criteria.Momento (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Alternate names belong in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this is the Indian Wikipedia too. Far more people speak English in India than in Australia and the U.K. combined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate names may belong in the intro but Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji are neither alternates nor names. They are given titles that haven't been used in years. Maharaji and formerly Guru Maharaj Ji are also titles but Rawat has chosen to use them as pseudonyms, one current and one former, which should appear after his legal name.Momento (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are the names and titles that he's been called. It doesn't matter when they were used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sant Ji" and "Bolyogeshwar" were names Prem Rawat was also known as, (a/k/a) in the western countries, including the U.S. Rawat signed letters and DLM published magazines as "Sant Ji Maharaji," even after he was an emancipated minor and married. We've already had this discussion many, many times in the past, please let's not delay the progress here by making believe we haven't discussed it. All the names Rawat's been known as should be included. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, did the source say "sumptuous" or "materialistic?" Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< WP:MOSBIO does not force us to use all nicknames, aliases, honorary titles, etc. in the lead. We can simply list the legal name, followed by the most notable names (Maharaji and Guru Maharaj Ji). All others can go in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or we can leave out self-given titles entirely and just list his legal name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That could work. The other names can be introduced in the chronology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rawat has referred innumerable times to Guru Maharaji and Maharaji, never to Balyogeshwar and not in 30 years to Sant Ji. He still calls himself Maharaji as per his website therefore Maharaji should be included in the lead as his current alternate name and Guru Maharaj Ji as his former.Momento (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also "Over the years, several organizations have considered Rawat as their leader or inspiration" is not suitable for the lead. One, who cares what these organizations think? And two, they get a minor mention in the article. And " In 1966 at the age of eight, Rawat's father died" is ambiguous. It can read that Rawat's father died "in 1966 at the age of eight". I'm happy to make these changes.Momento (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And finally, as per Will's reminder that there are more English speakers in India than the UK, the lead is too western. Rawat didn't become "prominent in the 1970s when he arrived in the West as a 13 year-old guru", he became prominent when he became a guru to five million followers in India at the age of 8.Momento (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to imply his father was eight. And those organizations are the source/context of his notability. Leaving them out of the lede would be like not mentioning Standard Oil in the lede of Rockefeller's bio. Good point about India. I'll work on that in the next draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems overwordy, but if all these factors need to be included in the lead (clearly I don't think they do) it needs even more information. We need to be told who his father was, and how he started the Indian DLM and had x million followers, otherwise the significance of his death is unclear. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton: you can copy/paste this proposal and create a new proposal in which you can present your ideas for these fixes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 10

I have tried to answer Rumiton's concerns and my own. Mainly removing Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji that aren't "alternate names" or pseudonyms. Reducing and tidying the text. Bringing forward his claim to notability to being a guru at 8, including the millions of followers and removing the ambiguity of his father's death. I have removed the organization as per Rockefeller - John Davison Rockefeller's article mentions Standard oil in the lead, JDR II's article mentions SO in the lead only as "the son of JDR the founder of Standard Oil" and JDR III doesn't mention it at all in the lead despite their obvious involvement. DUO, RVK and EV are only briefly mentioned and shouldn't be in the lead.Momento (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please break these into sentences? Adding the sources would also help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It will need some work still, but it's not horrible. You mention him being 13 twice, I don't think that's necessary in the lead (well, unless he was 13 twice! :) ). I have not found any major article or book on PR that does not reference EV or DLM, and they are a very strong part of what helped make him a notable figure. I think those need to be in the lead. The sentence about TPRW sounds a whole lot like a press release. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not horrible? I'm flattered. I've removed the redundant 13 and worked in DLM and EV. I was hoping that as this is the lead, we could leave the citeing to the main body. But I've put them back in.Momento (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like Prop. 10. I don't think it's worth working on because it's not an accurate depiction of Prem Rawat's life at all. It removes all mention of his association with DLM/EV (which is a new religious movement) and introduces him as a "speaker" rather than a "guru." Prem Rawat didn't only suceed his father, he also inherited all of the support of DLM-India at the time, then DLM in the U.S. and all of the financial support that included. He didn't operate in a vacuum as a "speaker on peace." While his age got him attention, it wasn't because he's a speaker about peace; (!!) it was becasue he was a boy guru about whom a lot of fantastic claims were made about his divinity. That's what was what caught the attention of scholars and the media. He was called "Guru Maharaj Ji" don't forget. It seems like this effort is going backwards now. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Prop 11, Sylvie. It might address some of your concerns.

Prop 11

Rumiton, could you please break the text block into sentences? It will make for better reading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Jossi. I count 13 separate sentences in Prop 11. Or did you mean something else? Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, did you mean paragraphs? I agree they are needed. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Paragraphing added. Rumiton (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good.Momento (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the research by Galanter and Downton that Knowledge improves the feeling of well being of its practicers will be an important section of the article. And it should be in the lead as per - Rawat's students and independent scholars have credited him with helping people find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and a materialistic lifestyle.[95]

• I don't see how P4.11 addresses the concerns already raised. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Which concerns? This version, while not perfect, is viable as a neutral summary of the article (as it stands in regards of current content). As for the other proposals, I do not see any one there that comes close to a neutral presentation, besides Proposal #9. Some of these proposals, such as Proposals #2 and #5 contain OR such as "inspirational speaker" assertions and others that are not sourced, amongst other problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The concerns expressed on this talk page. For example, the over-emphasis on TPRF and the underemphasis of the DLM, the incomplete list of names, the lack of ethnic/national identitification, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What over-emphasis? I see none. The ethnic identification is not a big deal.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The overemphasis comes from having a TRPF description that's much longer than the DLM/EV mentions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P4.12

I've posted a comproimise version that incorporates material from P4.11 while addressing the concerns expressed above. It's not exactly what I think is best, but I hope that is good enough to meet everyone's needs. If there are any objections please explain them explicity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable changes. Prefer 11.Momento (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please specify which changes are unacceptable. That's the only way we can reach consensus - describing our differences so we can bridge them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All the changes you made to prop 11 are for the worse. The old titles for Rawat, "Indian-American", "opulent, materialistic" and the structural changes.Momento (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of it's the same as P1.11. Let's go over these items one by one.:

1. "Old titles" -it's standard to include names/titles in the lede. That is how we have it in the current version. I don't see any strong argument for deleting them from the intro.

2. "Indian-American" -I'm flexible. Should we say just "Indian", or just "American"? How else would he be described?

3. "Opulent" is a sourced term, made as part of a notable criticism of the subject. What reason is there to delete it?

4. "Structural changes" -That's mysterious. I guess it means moving the list of organizations to the first paragraph. The subject is very closely associated with each of those organizations and his initial prominence was entirely connected to the DLM. On the other hand, the TPRF is not a source of notability for the subject.

Let's work through these differences and find a consensus version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK.

1. I have a problem with including Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji in the lead. There were affectionate childhood nicknames that have not been used for 30+ years, and putting them in the lead breaches neutrality. I heard today of a murder suspect who was described as having "more than 30 aliases." Listing a bunch of AKAs without explaining the Indian custom of giving children different names at different ages creates a sense of suspicion. Explaining it blows the lead out. Leaving them out solves the problem.

2. Indian-American. Sylvie has convinced me it is a neutral term, though to my Australian ears it doesn't sound so. But it is just unnecessary. We say he was born in India and that he travelled to the US and took out US citizenship. Does that not cover it?

3. Opulent is a word that critics have apparently used. It is negatively loaded and has no place in the neutral voice of Wikipedia, which the lead should consist of.

4. I don't care much about the order, though why on earth would TPRF not be a source of notability for the subject? It is the most Googled return for the name Prem Rawat, and has been for several years. Weird, Will. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<< Seem to be mainly cosmetic changes, and as such it should be easy to reach a compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Responding to Rumiton's replies:

1. In an archive of academic papers I get 8 hits for Balyogeshwar, 4 hits for Maharaj Ji, and 1 hit for Maharaji. So "Balyogeshwar" is very much used in print to refer to the subject, as recently as 1986. I don't understand how including the subject's names breaches neutrality. The current article does so - does it breach neutrality on that account? Please explain.

2. How would "Indian-American" be a non-neutral term? An Indian American was recently elected governor of Louisiana, and he's constantly referred to as "Indian American".

3. Criticisms aren't neutral but we can use the neutral voice to report them. The sentence in question is describing the most noteworthy criticisms of the subject. That particualr criticism was very notable, coming from the subject's own mother and widely reported. Also, "opulent" was added specifically due to a complaint about the word "sumptuous".

4. I don't know how we'd know how many people Google TPRF, but Wikipedia is not driven by Google hits. The vast majority of academic and popular media about the subject don't mention TPRF at all. Virtually every mention of him is in connection to one of the other organizations, particularly the DLM. As head of the DLM he had 6 million followers. As sponsor (?) of the TPRF he oversees (?) a small budget of charitable giving. We're not even really sure what his role is in TPRF. But it's certainly not the source of his notability, while the DLM clearly is.

Weird? That's an odd way to describe these edits. There's nothing weird about them that I see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "As recently as 1986" makes my point. Remember that PR was 28 that year, and those childhood names had long disappeared from use, and almost vanished from academic comment. They might be worth including in a section, but not in the lead.

2. Please read more carefully. My objection was that Indian-American was covered by describing his Indian birthplace and his adoption of US citizenship, not to its possibly being POV. It is just redundant.

3. You are using the term "noteworthy" loosely again. Here you seem to want it to mean something like "fascinatingly derogatory." Loaded words should not appear in the Wiki voice.

3. I am sure you know that the "vast majority" of available sources were writing before the TPRF came into existence, so they could not mention it. The TPRF website describes his role as Founder. It's clear. Stop trying to create those clouds of innuendo. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say "critics say he leads an opulent lifestyle" without attributing it to the mother. She was not a "critic" but a mother that was upset with his son's independence. Stating that critics referred to a "materialistic lifestyle" is accurate and neutral. As for the names, I don't see why we could not get to a compromise about what to list on the lead and what to list in the article's body text. As for TPRF, it seems to be the main vehicle for the transmission of his message today, which he founded, and hence encyclopedic. The "small budget" is a specious comment: Boeing gave $100,000 to Myanmar relief effort, as so did TPRF.. The Caterpillar Foundation gave $50,000.[2] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored the earlier formulation to address Jossi's point about "critics". It now reads "criticims have referred to", which doesn't imply that the speakers are critics. Regarding the TPRF, the Elan Vital seems to be the main organization, though Geaves said it was replaced by TPRF. I don't mind giving them equal billing, a P4.12 does. I object to giving it more space, especially if that space is devoted to promotional-sounding material. If any active editor here has a COI related to the TPRF they should say so and should avoid any actions here or in the article that promote it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "criticisms have referred to" does not make sense gramatically. I do not have COI related to TPRF, and you should know better than to keep pressing for more private/privileged information about editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Criticisms have referred to" does make sense grammatically, if I'm not mistaken. We could say "have included assertions that...", which sounds a little better initially but which is clumsier overall. Thanks for clarifying your relation to TPRF - as with Rawat himself it's not clear who does what there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi that "criticisms have referred to" is grammatically incorrect. A criticism is an object, and as such cannot refer to anything by itself. An object requires a subject, and I understand that Rawat is the subject of the criticism. If you mean to refer to the source of the criticism and not the subject, then you must use 'critics'. Given the context of the sentence used, I suggest "Rawat's proponents have credited him with helping them find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teaching". In this context, 'critics' is in the same voice as 'proponents' as a counterpoint. That seems fair. There are multiple sources of criticism, so 'critics' is correct.

Again I must disagree with Rumiton's objection to the use of opulent, sumptuous, or similar words to describe Rawat's lifestyle. As described recently on the main article discussion page, it is self-evident, and notable. 'Materialistic' does not go far enough. You or I can be be materialistic in our day to day life, but we don't have gold plated bathroom accessories on our private jets. I don't buy the 'not encyclopedic' argument either, as this qualifies on the grounds of notability and is not exploitative in this case. 'Opulent' is a very strong word, but this is case of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary evidence is there.

I do agree that we need high quality sources and context to tie together the criticism and opulence, as opulence by itself isn't necessarily worthy of criticism. However, this detailed discussion belongs with Proposal 6, not the article lead. Savlonn (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding opulent and sumptuous, I think you may have become a victim of some clever posturing. Gold plating on bathroom facilities is not rare at all, my local plumbing supply house in backwoods Australia features them, describing them as "adding a surprisingly inexpensive sparkle to your most private room" and as never needing polishing. The plating is only a micron or two thick, and the actual amount of gold used is tiny. Here [[3]] is a site where you can order your own. Also "private jet" is misleading. The aircraft are/were used for his travel to address audiences. This is his work, whether some like it or not, it is what he does, not pleasure travel. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No wukking furries mate - the gold plating keeps the redbacks sliding off the dunny! I think we are both a bit guilty of attempting original research here. I will stick to referencing the sourced material. Savlonn (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I was trying to avoid calling those who've made criticisms "critics", since that pigeonholes folks who aren't primarily critics (his mother, for instance). It may be too hard to cover the praise and criticism in one sentence with a parallel structure. How about this:

• Rawat has been praised by followers for helping them find inner peace. He has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.

I agree that "materialistic" and "opulent" aren't redundant. While we may not think that opulence is worth criticism, significant people in Rawat's life (his mother, for instance) have made that criticism. We're just here to summarize significant viewpoints using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just pull those together and say "Rawat has been praised (or credited) by followers for helping them find inner peace, however has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.?

I'm with you on the sources for criticism of opulance, but didn't want to get into the debate here, but in Proposal 6. I'm expecting sources discussing the change from promoting the Ashram culture of the early movement to be used as grounds for criticism of opulence. Savlonn (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Praised by followers is bad. Followers itself is bad enough. Using the two together creates an image of accolytes in ceremonial robes chanting hymns. He has also been praised by a lot of government officials in several countries, and by the United Nations Association, among others. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That version is fine with me. I'll add it to the proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of however should be avoided per WP:AVOID ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I laready changed it to "and". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We're just here to summarize significant viewpoints using the neutral point of view. Yes, but you cannot avoid attributing these comments and providing the necessary context. Otherwise you are asserting an opinion as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The context comes in the body of the article. We certainly aren't asserting the criticisms are facts, though it's a fact that they were made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV violation of that sentence is so obvious that it hurts. You say that he has been praised by followers but fail to say who are these that criticize them, by simply using the term "critics". Not right.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't use the word "critics". We say he "has been criticized". That's perfectly neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more accurate, and more neutral and avoids the problem of attribution: Rawat's proponents have credited him with helping them find inner peace, while critics have referred to a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and a materialistic lifestyle.[111] Per proposal 13. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That has the problem of labelling anyone who makes a negative comment about the subject as a "critic". If that's mnecessary then we should change "students" to "admirers" to give them equal footing. It also omits "opulent", a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 13 speaks of "proponents", and the source for "opulent", which one is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of sources for comments about the "opulent". For example, "Riches Called Goal Of 'Divine Light'", WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975., "There ore many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji", MALCOLM N. CARTER, Associated Press Writer, Wed., Sept. 26, 1973 GREELEY TRIBUNE . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such material in the article, and thus to cannot be used in the lead which is is but a summary of the article. And if you use that material in the article at all, it cannot be left unattributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P4 13

I have attempted to integrate wording from Prop 11 and 12, as well as addressing concerns expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What concerns are addressed? That draft does not address the concern about the excess weight on the TPRF. It omits "opulent", leaving only "materialistic", and so it overlooks a significant viewpoint. It fails to mention the organizations that the subject is connected with until towards the end. We have no source for the "Raj Vidya Kender" or "DUO", the latter apparently a minor offshoot of the DLM. It restores Cagan as a source, which is controversial. etc. Please explain how you think this addresses any of the concerns already raised. If anything this version looks worse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the material about TPRF. We have sources for DUO and Raj Vidya Kender. Cagan is not used for a contentious claim. What is the source for "opulent"? The placement of the connection to the organizations is in the lead, so I do not see what is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we ned to use Cagan at all? We're just using her to say that the techniques are called "Knowledge" and there are plenty of better sources for that. The TPRF material is barely shorter than before and is much longer than the material on the DLM. If we're going to mention DUO and RVK why not mention the Divine Cleaning Service and all of the other businesses? They all seem minor. I don't see how this version really comes closer to consensus. It seems to go the opposite direction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what's our source s for this assertion: In June 1971, age 13, Rawat traveled to Britain and the US, where he became prominent due to his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. The footnote says pp141-145 of Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook, but those are the wrong page numbers and there's nothing like that in the section on the pp217 et seq. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DIVINE LIGHT MISSION: The arrival in the United States in 1971 of a 13 year old religious leader from India was met with some ridicule but, more importantly, an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults who were willing to seriously examine his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of God. From that initial support, Guru Maharaj Ji was able to establish a flourishing American branch of the Divine Light Mission.' is from the 1986 edition. The 1992 edition is very similar, only that it speaks of his claims of being able to impart direct knowledge of the Divine, page 217, chapter opener. As for Cagan, I see no reason not to use that source for a non-contentious claim≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a correct summary of the material. It's fine to say that young adults were extraordinarily interested in his claims. It isn't correct to say that hie gained prominence due to his claims. This whole bit seems reptetitive, since your draft already discusses his prominence in the lead. As for Cagan, that source is highly disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask Will Beback to stop making insistent and recurring negative comments about The Prem Rawat Foundation. He can keep his opinion of this charitable organization to himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop promoting TPRF and I'll stop discussing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat? Is that the new game in town? This is unacceptable, Will. And I am not promoting TPRF. You are welcome to discuss TPRF or any other subject, but you can keep your negative opinions of the subject to yourself.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not retaliation. You're the one who keeps bringing up the topic by promoting TPRF. If it weren't for you, it wouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you, please refrain from personal attacks and/or uncivil comments. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 05:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Other issues aside, opulent is way too loaded for the lead, and opulent, materialistic makes it worse. Materialistic does the job. More detail can be provided in the body of the article. IMO. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move this debate here [4] instead of swamping the lead section discussion? Having this debate here is exactly what I feared would happen by attempting to create the lead before the sub-sections are completed. I think it would be better if we could agree to leave the lead section to last, as it should be a summary of all the sub-sections. Savlonn (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• We'll probably re-write the lead again. But it has major problems which should be addressed as soon as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P4 14

Have a look. Tried to make it neutral and balanced. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

P4.15

I've posted a new draft. It is almost identical to P4.14. The only significant changes are moving the organizations to the first paragraph, trimming the TPRF sentence, and adding the term "luxurious", per the discusion at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat. I think that there are other items that should be included or changed, but we're working towards consensus and I'm willing to accept the imperfections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Close, but still does not work for me, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• In what way does it not work for you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not work: Rawat has been praised for bringing inner peace to his followers and criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[56] and for a luxurious, materialistic lifestyle.[129]. Unattributed opinions for the last portion; use of "followers" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Has Rawat brought inner peace to those who haven't learned the techniques of knowledge? We've never had a source for this clause, so maybe we'd better just omit it. I'll add some sources for "luxurious". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed the part about the inner peace, but I'd be happy to restore it if we find a source. I added a source talking about the "luxurious lifestyle", many others are also available. I split the sentence into two. I hope that edit addresses Jossi's concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! You have got to be kidding if you think that that edit addresses my concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment above: "Unattributed opinions for the last portion"; use of "followers". And what do you do? remove the "followers" AND the first portion, and not only that, you keep two unattributed opinions instead of the original one. Sourcing the first portion is not difficult. I do not know if you are doing this in purpose, of what, but its becoming exceedingly difficult to assume the good faith of your proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let's find a source for the views of the followers. It's hard to summarize a source we don't have. The other views are so widely held that that the attribution would also be broad. I suppose we could say something like: "Scholars and journalsists written about Rawat's luxurious lifestyle and about the lack of intellectual content in his teachings." Is that what you're looking for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Standby, I am working on a version that present this is a better way, and inline with Savlonn's idea of point/counterpoint for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

P4.16

A neutral and properly attributed version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not neutral, and it doesn't take previously-expressed concerns into account. For example, it again promotes TPRF excessively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessively? Over the years, several organizations have been formed to assist in spreading his message, including the Divine Light Mission (1960), Elan Vital (1983), and in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation with a dual mission of contributing to humanitarian efforts and promoting his message.[133][76] How can that be called "excessively"? As said above, it is neutral, and fully attributed. I wil be off for the weekend, with little access to the interwebs. Would like to hear from others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see three problems with the last sentence.

1. "Rawat, who does not personally avoid material possessions" is vague. You can’t summarise what he is not notable for; you can only summarise that he is notable for something e.g. being materialistic. The word ‘personally’ is tautological. Finally, you are using the first person for this phrase – thus stating an opinion as fact; something that you claim to strongly object to, whilst use the 3rd person for the rest of the sentence.

2. You changed the tense from “has been” to “was” when referring to descriptions of his lifestyle. “Has been” is correct as it is present tense. The term “was” is past tense and implies that he is no longer described as living a luxurious or materialistic lifestyle. I didn’t see any referenced sources stating that he is no longer described as having a luxurious lifestyle.

3. The Phrase “characterized as materialistic by some religious scholars” is not an accurate summary. He has been characterized as materialistic by much broader reliable sources than just religious scholars.

I'm mostly away for the next 2 weeks. Savlonn (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not more neutral. Watered down, but not neutral. TPRF has its own article, so the link is adequate and the description of it should go. DLM also had humanitarian organizations. It's not necessary to explain TPRF. Agree that religious scholars haven't been the only critics of lifestyle. I prefer P15 to P16. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only "watered down" if you think concentrating on criticism is somehow more "truthful." He has been both strongly praised and strongly criticised, and the lead should refer to both in a neutral way. Can we have some more version blanks please? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I listed the reasons I don't like it. DLM also had "humanitarian" organizations operating as d/b/a's so why not list all of those, too? Also, please don't try to intuit what I think. State what you think only, pls. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@Savlonn:

1. Rawat, who does not personally avoid material possessions is sourced to a scholar, per the cite provided\

a) You haven't resolved my issue: It doesn't say "Scholar(s) have claimed...." it is still in stating this opinion in the first voice as a fact, whilst the rest of the sentence is in the third voice, referencing an opinion.

b) You have selected a very mild/passive assessment. This is not representative of the overall sourced material provided.Savlonn (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Changed back to "has been"
2. The "materialistic" characterization is referenced to the religious scholar cited. If and when other sources are added to the article on this subject, it can be further tweaked

Your justification for this point goes to the very heart of this debate, so let's be crystal clear. My understanding of your above comment is that you are only summarizing the existing published article, based on existing sources in the existing article, and are excluding all sources placed on the sandbox article discussion page. You are also ignoring all sub-sections that have not been completed i.e. Section 6. What is the purpose of this? Surely the new lead section should be a reflection of the agreed new sub-sections, not the existing article? This is why I don't think completing the lead now serves any purpose. Savlonn (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@Sylviecyn

1. How is this is watered down? Counterpoints for NPOV, yes. But that is not watering down. Also note that "I don't like it" is not an argument that can be discussed
2. TPRF has a dual purpose and it is noteworthy, as being a current organization that carries his name. Nevertheless, in the spirit of moving forward I have deleted the additional info. Readers can always follow the wikilink for it.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@John Brauns

1. I do not have the time to debate each proposal, but I would just like to repeat that the lede, and the article, should highlight the only reason for Rawat's notability, and that is that he promised to reveal the Knowledge of God, and that his followers worshipped him as God. Some versions of the lede do include that his followers refered to him as 'Lord of the Universe', but none appear to include that he claimed to reveal 'Knowledge of God'. I'm sure the editors who have researched the available sources can find appropriate quotes and wording, but excluding these two facts is like writing an article on John Lennon and not mentioning he was part of the Beatles. --John Brauns (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am totally shocked at reading this. Nothing that I've read on this subject has even hinted the 'Knowledge' was anything more than practical meditation techniques. Are you referring to the Christian/Judaic God? How does that make sense given the Hindu background of the subject? May I have some references for research pleaese? Savlonn (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the best papers I've seen on the topic is "The Guru: Perceptions of American Devotees of the Divine Light Mission", John A. Saliba, Horizons, 7/1 (1980) 69-81. If you email me I can send you a copy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

the "techniques of knowledge" are meditation techniques. But Rawat has often said that he alone can give knowledge of god by using those techniques. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Melton, he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from young adults in the 70's that where willing to examine his claims to be able to impart a direct experience of the Divine (in a previous edition, he referred to a "direct experience of God"). Hunt writes, quite accurately that "The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence." This issue has been discussed in depth, and yes, it is not the "god" of Abrahamic religions, but closer to the dharmic traditions. See God#Conceptions_of_God ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of sourcs for him being called "lord of the universe", and some of the propsoal include that. I don't recall any specific objection to its inclusion, so perhaps we should restore that. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

We have plenty of sources for many things, and that does not mean that we mention these many things in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an important part of the notability of the subject. The way it was covered in some drafts was that he "dropped claims of divinity". That's sourceable to Joe Anctil. Any objection to adding that back to the sentence about dropping the "guru" title? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it that "secular authors as as stressing emotional experience over intellect,[139] or lacking in intellectual content" is suggested when the surveys by two scholars (Downton and Galanter) that say Knowledge works are not included. Likewise no positive opinions are included. If this lead becomes anymore one sided, it will fall over.Momento (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)