User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat

←Backlink to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission‎
←Backlink to Talk:Prem Rawat‎ User:Steve Crossin/medstatus

Please do not edit war in this userspace.

• It has a very specific purpose, and edit warring on this page is unacceptable. Please cease doing so. While this is a place to discuss the mediation, it still is in my userpace, and the standard guidelines I have on my user talk page, such as civility, no personal attacks, and observing the three revert rule, still apply. Please respect these guidelines. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Issues to be mediated

Use of sources: Cagan Collier Geaves New York Times Randi Time Watts Wim Haan Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) What needs to be mediated here? Context- what additional material needs to be added about: Ted Patrick as it relates to criminal activities related to the kidnapping mention van Driel/Richardson, regarding his study of terminology in U.S. print media Context for religious persecution by the totalitarian military regimes in South America Membership numbers. Incomplete presentation of available estimates from a variety of sources Merging/splitting of related articles Use of a souce that is not a reliable source and that it is self-published (Manav Dharam and TPRF) website, to make self-serving claims, and claims about third parties. DLM in India section Exceptional claims Celibacy issue

Issue/Discussion topic A

OK, leaping in joyfully here...in the article's "Following" section, the sentence "Outside the U.S., Paul Schnabel indicates a decreasing number of 150 DLM adherents, 15 of which living in a community setting, for Netherlands in 1980" is gibberish, but apparently informs us that there are only 150 adherents in the non-US world. If Schnabel is a reputable source (a pretty big "if") we need to know reliably what he wrote so he can be properly quoted. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel p. 53:

... de voor Nederland relevante cijfers ... begin 1981 ...		... numbers relevant for the Netherlands ... early 1981 ...
1.	Divine Light Mission - naar schatting hoogstens nog 150 aanhangers in Nederland, waarvan in 1980 ongeveer 15 in communaal verband leven. De beweging lijkt op zijn retour.	1.	Divine Light Mission - estimated at most 150 adherents remaining for the Netherlands, of which in 1980 approximately 15 lived in a community setting. The movement appears to be over the hill.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. This is rather different to what the article currently says. Are we to change the sandbox version here? Steve? It's getting a bit confusing. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, change this sandbox version, as it's not protected. Just look at the banner at the top first. :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic B: buzzwords

A few terms and policies are being tossed around in these discusions without clear applicability.

The terms "tabloid" and "editorializing" are used in without clearly definitions. Recently, "tabloid" was used to both argue for adding material and for deleting it. It appears that any fact which editors want to suppress is tabloidism, and having too many, or too few, facts is "tabloidesque". "Editorializing" has been used to condemn the addition of unchallenged facts. These vague, undefined or misapplied terms are not helpful to the discussions. Rather than using buzzwords editors should explain their arguments clearly.

I'm also concerned about the frequent use of two policy links: WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are used with little or no rationale. If an editor feels the need to resort to either of these policies I'd ask them to please give a full explanation of their reasoning, rather than just citing the link or posting the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Rationale for WP:REDFLAG are provided in policy, in particular: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;. This would apply, for example, to a controversial claim made by a person that first describes a living person as being an incarnation of God, only to reverse himself/herself after a dispute, by making another controversial claim such as being "materialistic and despicable" about the same person (!!!!).
2. "Editorializing" is the device used by some editors to reduce encyclopedic content to something more appropriate for an op-ed or a hatched job. This has been pervasive behavior by some editors.
3. WP:UNDUE has been used by all parties of the dispute. That has been an issue all along and that is why we are engaged in mediation: to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see unclarity in these Wikipedia policies. They are well-written and extremely clear in their applicability. "Tabloidism" may be harder to define, but it is easy to recognise. "Encyclopedic" is similar. Read a British afternoon paper (just about any one) then go read the Brittanica. Et voila! Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "editorializing" as:

• 1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
• 2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.

Jossi's definition appears to be his own. Reporting actual facts is not editorializing.

As for "tabloidism", if you can't define it then don't use it as an argument.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, if someone is claiming undue weight they should be able to explain why it applies and what "due weight" woulfd be. It doesn't bring us any closer to agreement for an editor to shout "WP:UNDUE!" without explanation.

Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG appears incorrect to me. It's intended to prevent editors from inserting fringe claims. Events and comments that are widely-reported no longer trigger that policy. For example, if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch, and of both of these comments are widely-reported, then it's not an extraordinary claim even though he is contradicting himself. The second point about REDFLAG is that even if a claim is extraordinary, if it has highly-reliable sources then it is still acceptable. News reports by major news organizations are not fringe claims.

Again, the problem with each of these four is when editors use them as buzzwords without taking the time or energy to explain precisely what they're complaing about and how to fix it. I suggest we entirely stop using "editorializing" and "tabloid" as arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that good philosophic points can degenerate into slogans, and we all need to work to prevent this happening. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing: To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report Exactly my point.

WP:REDFLAG is quite unambiguous about what it means and it is not only about fringe claims. In BLPs, WP:REDFLAG applies even more stringently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch: Wikipedia is not a tabloid, Will, and in a BLP we will not reproduce such stuff whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it wouldn't be an exceptional claim. To use a different example there could be a spokesman for a product who says it's great, but then later decides the product doesn't work and denounces it. If the facts are well-established then it isn't an exceptinal claim. That covers matters where someone is using poor sources to assert something that is otherwise contradictory to previously-known positions. That's not the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about a "product", it is about a living person. And as such, any sources that are proposed to be used need to clearly demonstrate its relevance to the person's notability. "She was a bitch" ain't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None of that has to do with WP:REDFLAG. Notability or relevance are not the issues, "exceptional claims" is the issue. The simple fact that someone changes their mind and adopts a position opposite to an earlier one is a common occurence. David Horowitz was once a liberal and now he's a conservative. That doesn't mean that reporting reporting on his conservative actions or writings is making claims that are exceptional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a common occurrence that sources reduce their credibility by reversing their previous opinions. We have to ask, "Will he do this again?" Nothing to do with exceptionality, everything to do with reliability. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would agree with you if a source flip-flopped on issues, but if, after time, a source changed his opinion, I think it is quite reasonable to accept the fact that time and further reflection could change one's opinion. People who don't change their minds despite everything going on around them are usually called extremists. In that light, it is probably more reliable to have a source that has changed his mind on issues. Of course, each source would have to be examined individually. We don't want someone who simply has a sudden obvious grudge against the subject being used. If George Bush comes out 10 years from now and says "We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, the reasons we had were insufficient", would you label him less reliable now (now being 10 years from now), or less reliable now? I think, obviously, you'd say he was more reliable now. Granted, George Bush is never going to be a reliable source for anything, it's just a hypothetical. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As interesting this debate is becoming, we are simply going off-topic. We are speaking here of an exceptional claim of a person X that one year describe third party Z as an incarnation of God which he/she venerated profusely, only to later on describe person Z as a spiritually despicable, and worse. That is a massive WP:REDFLAG that has to be acknowledged when editing the article of person Z, in particular when person Z is a living person. If the article was about person X, and the person changed his mind on a topic, that would be a very different story. For example, a politician's article can present prior and newer/competing viwepoints of the politician, and that would be perfectly OK. This is clearly not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<< If it were clear we wouldn't be having this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Care to explain what do you mean by that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I contend you are making your own idiosyncratic definition of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this and act on it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted a request for clarification, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Exceptional claims: Is a change of heart exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The initial response, from Brimba, confirms my interpretation of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it does not, as you have missed to explain the exact circumstances and the context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see how I left out anything important. You're welcome to go there and add whatever circumstances and context you think will give a different answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the important thing that was left out is the question of the testimony of NRM apostates. This is not just a "change of heart" it is a radical reversal of things they previously held dearest, a total emotional flip-flop which brings their intellectual stability into question. This [[1]] is pretty interesting on the subject. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess this is now long disposed of but it's worth noting that Rumiton's link is to a text first published in Scientology's Freedom Magazine in an article titled Fuel for Injustice - an interesting source, but perhaps not helpful on NPOV terms.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Leaving a new religious movement does not make one mentally unstable. But I can see why current followers would like to believe that. Zappaz even wrote the bio of Kliever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely offensive, Will. Extremely! And a strawman argument, nobody said anything of the kind. If you can't have a neutral point of view, at least pretend to. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• So it appears that the view on the WT:V thread is that Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG is incorrect. Moving forward, let's avoid using that interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle

Further discussion

• After reading this discussion, it seems clear there is an impasse here. Parties have shown that they are unlikely to budge on their position, and thinking about it, it seems clear that the current dispute is actually not regarding the wording of the final sentence of the lead section, it's a dispute over which sources should or should not be used. I can see no outcome that would end well here, and in my judgment, I think the best course of action is to continue on with the current proposal, and to discuss the sources used when proposals are written. I feel that's the best course of action here. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, I disagree. I'm not sure which "current proposal" you're talking about. This discusion wasn't about any particular proposal. The next issue to address here is how and where to handle the issue of the subject's lifestyle. It's better to discuss and get a general consensus on that before making a specific proposal about the exact text to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, this was related to the discussion on Proposal 4, specifically, Proponents of Rawat have credited him with helping them find inner peace while criticisms have referred to a lack of intellectual depth in his teachings[64] and an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.[56]. Observing this discussion, I see the best way forward for proposals to be written, and then discussed depending on the sources, and the context that they are used in. Watching this discussion, which there has been a lot of, I haven't seen any room for compromise here, Jossi has made their viewpoint clear, as have you and other editors made your points clear. This is based on my observations of this discussion, and I feel that the best way forward, would indeed be to continue weorking on Proposal 4, as the section header says, this Issue/Discussion topic is on "Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle", clearly related to Proposal 4. So continue to work on the proposals, as they have proved to be successful so far, and we can go from there. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that was a part of the discussion. But we never had the chance to et to the meat of the discussion, which is: how shall we address the issues of Rawat's lifestyle and possessions in the body of the article. The main issue there, which can't be easily resolved in the proposal process, is whether to handle it chronologically (presumably when the criticims are made), in the reception section, or in a third place. We don't have an answer for that, and until we do it's not practical to make a proposal of specific text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, unfortunately you just created a major problem when you wrote "Jossi has made their viewpoint clear". There is only one viewpoint that Jossi can make clear, and that is Jossi's. I have disagreed with him on many occasions, large and small, and 3 other so-called "pro-Rawat" editors I have asked to go away until they learn to edit properly. Your statement, if it truly represents your opinion, suggests a degree of bias that would make it impossible for you to continue as mediator of this article. "Tell me it ain't true." Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, perhaps that statement was unclear, so let me clarify it. Editors here are divided on this issue, and editors have made their viewpoints very clear. Jossi, as well as other editors, have made their view clear. My statement was not intended to give the view that I agree with, or hold Jossi's opinion, above others, or whether I favour any opinion of one party over another. This was merely an observation, and I admit I could have worded it better. I don't favour any parties view here, I really just want the progress with the proposals to continue, I think we can agree that they have helped progress the mediation so far. Apologies if it looked like I was favouring a viewpoint of one editor over another, this isn't the case. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I see how it happened. The peculiar English usage of the personal pronoun in the plural to indicate politeness. We will speak of it no more. Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Great, I'm glad that issue is settled. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Regarding the issues of personal wealth, I think the vital thing is context. The jeering quotes from the 70s press do not provide it, (they were talking to the lowest common denominator, which in those days was very low indeed) but with hindsight, we can. First, there is the Sant Mat tradition of treating the guru as an embodiment of the divine, including an elevated level of personal wealth. Second, there is the fact that renunciation was never a requirement for receiving Knowledge (though it was for those who chose to live in an ashram.) There are plenty of quotes to pick from Prem Rawat to the effect that he believes neither wealth nor poverty affect inner experience. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now we're getting somewhere. OK, we do have sources about the tradition of keeping a guru in luxury, as well as sources that say Rawat's father was wealthy. We hav a variety of quotes, and can find more, from Rawat addressing the issues of his own wealth and possessions, as well as less relevant quotes on wealth in general. We have scholarly and journalistic sources that describe, circa mid-1970s, some of the possessions that Rawat had accumulated. Finally, we have the direct condemnations of the wealth. Based on the number and volume of sources discussing the issue, it clearly deserve substantial weight in the article. I'd guess it would be one long paragraph. Where to put it? Since most of the attention Rawar received was from about 1972 to 1982, and since virtually every source is from that period, it makes some sense to put it in the chronological section of the bio. The jets were acquired later, so they may require a line in a subsequent section if we can find good sources for them. Any objections to that plan? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Objections? Sure. (a) I do not see this to need "substantial weight in the article"; (b) Quotes from primary sources should not be used; (c) many of the journalistic sources that have been provided are dubious in their appropriateness for this article; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A) The matter has received substantial attention. The list of sources covering it compiled below isn't even exhaustive. "A long paragraph" was just an estimate for what it will take to summarize the sources , it could be more or less than that.

B) None of the sources listed are primary sources. Newspapers are secondary sources.

C) There many be some sources that are worse than others. Jossi has already said that we shouldn't get into discussing sources until we have text and can see how the sources are used. None of the sources are off the table.

D) Does anyone object to putting this into the 1970s chronology, rather than the "reception" section or elsewhere? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this material should go in the "Reception" section under criticism from Christian clergy. And we can't ignore the criticism about his diet, weight, skin, voice, childish games etc - all of which are well reported.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Momento, what does this material have to do with criticism from Christian clergy? As for your second comment are your serious or are you being facetious? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilarzyk (1978) indicates "youth culture [mostly] from a decidedly leftist political ideology" as a source for these types of criticism. Precisely why the list of sources below is useful. Debunks unfounded POV-pushing à la "should go [...] under criticism from Christian clergy."

If you want to make contributions to the content of the "Reception" section /Proposal6 would be the appropriate place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. I didn't even know there was a Proposal 6, I've put it on my watchlist. Good point about the leftists, the comments should be attributed to them.Momento (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think Francis is misreading Pilarzyk, who says: The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past politicalactivists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973).
• It appears to me he's saying that among the youth culture's responses the overtly negative ones came from a leftist ideology, not that all criticisms of this type came from youth culture. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

-> Neither did I imply that. I'm careful with my words: I said [Pilarzyk indicates youth culture mostly from etc] as "a" source (and that's what he does...). Momento's novelty of switching the "exclusive Catholic clergy origin" POV he's been proclaiming for as long as I can tell without a blink of an eye to exclusively "leftists" as those whom it should *all* be attributed to shows his methods, not mine.

There's a broad base for the contention regarding Rawat's all but frugal lifestyle, ranging from Dutch sociologists teaching at a Catholic university, to US leftist underground press throwing pies. And the mainstream US press (NYT, TIME, Newsweek, NYRB,...). And Dutch somewhat leftist theology students (Haan, not even listed below), and 21st century secondary and tertiary sources in English, and whatnot. And secondary sources covering press reports about the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru. More than enough coverage from a variety of sources including a "truckload" reliable ones, to consider comments on Rawat's broad lifestyle a viable topic for the lead section of the article, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We are already including a sentence about the descriptions of "materialistic" in the lead. We are also considering including aspects related to his youth. What else is needed in the lead? Descriptions from pornographic, glamour magazines that called him "fat" (or worse(? Forget it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Momento is the one who's proposing adding material on Rawat's physical condition, etc. I think that simply referring to criticism of the "luxurious" lifestyle is sufficient for the intro. The current question is what to include in the body of the article, and where to put it. I propose we put it in the currently-titled "Coming of age" section, where we already discuss the Malibu house. Momento seems to want it somewhere in the "Reception" section, but it isn't just about the criticism of his wealth, it's about the facts of his wealth. I'd rather keep the critical viewpoints to a minimum and stick to the simple facts as much as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding physical condition in derogatory way, of a living person is certainly not a wiki way. I agree with jossi --Taxed123 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I think I can see what Momento is getting at. If you look at criticism aimed at western spiritual leaders, eg recent Catholic Popes, you see things like "They didn't meet with the Dalai Lama," "They failed to acknowledge the claims of the Eastern Church," "They tried to ignore the clergy abuse crisis." Intelligent and valid stuff with two sides to it, nothing about "They wore silk robes," "They lived in palaces," "They travelled by personal jet," "They were overweight." This is the stuff that passes for criticism of Prem Rawat. The issues are rightly classed as insults, and rather petty ones. If any one of them (wealth) is significant, maybe they all are. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not. If anyone thinks the Catholic Church has never been criticized for the opulent style that its top clergy indulge in then its obvious they've never studied its history. This is widely reported material, discussed by both journalists and scholars. It'd be a failure of NPOV to omit it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where this is present on Pope ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The closer analogy is OSHO. See OSHO#Rich man's guru. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Pope Benedict XVI#Attire. But let's focus on this topic, shall we? Based on the lack of any reasoned arguments to the contrary, the "Coming of age" section appears to be the best place to cover this issue. I'll draft a proposal for a paragraph to be placed there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attire section you allude to above is almost entirely praising, and the small hints of criticism are refuted at length by pro-papal sources. The effect is vastly different from the one you constantly try to create here. And if you really believe that "It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not" then all the criticisms should go in; youth, appearance, wealth, weight and so on. I shall add them to a new section. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you once in the last 24 hours to stop making uncivil remarks, and now you're coming close to making another. Comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not see any such personal attack in that comment. It may be challenging your editing pattern, and that is entirely appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I said the assertion is close to being uncivil. Your opinion is noted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we should list all the car models Rawat owned? We don't even do that for rap stars, reliable sources attesting to Ferraris etc. notwithstanding. And we do mention that donations enabled him to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. He is not notable for being a car collector. Jayen466 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Could you please join the discussion at User Talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rawat is indeed notable for being a car owner, based on a review of the coverage of him and his cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. PR is not notable for that, sure, some newspaper a porno magazine and a glamour magazine wrote about it, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How many newspaper and magazine articles about him from the 1970s omit mention of the cars? Very, very few, by my reckoning. It is an element of his notability and his public image - the boy guru with the Rolls Royces. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If he were not notable for his insight into personal peace, nobody would take any interest in the car collection he once apparently had. That is the subject this article needs to be centered on, everything else is entirely peripheral. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject is not notable for his "insight into personal peace". He's notable for having a following that believes in his "insight into personal peace". A following that, among other things, indulges his taste in expensive cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from article talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will, just to review the existing mentions of his luxurious lifestyle, we have:
  1. "sumptuous lifestyle" in the lede,
  2. "jewelry and wristwatches worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000"
  3. "contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire"
  4. "the property,[63] which by 1998 was valued at $15 million"
  5. "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers"
  6. "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling"
  7. "money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use"
• Many if not all of these have been implemented with consensus. I appreciate that there may be a POV that basically assumes that Rawat has defrauded people by making false promises, and that he has lined his own pockets with their money. However, I would not like to see this POV – and that is what it is – take over this article. The fact is that many people have had an experience through contact with his teachings that they feel grateful for, and that they feel adequately recompensed by their meditative experience which has changed the quality of their lives in a way that they feel is profound. Now, I quite like P. Diddy, though I have never bought one of his records. But if millions of people do, and feel enriched by his music, and he is worth half a billion dollars as a result, that is fine and dandy by me. I don't expect his Wikipedia article to inform me as to what model toilet he has installed in his home, based on his ill-gotten gains from music that serves to corrupt our youth, that he refused to eat from polystyrene plates at the BBC, or that the Daily Mirror reported that Veuve Cliquot isn't good enough for him. If I thought he was a shallow, immoral gangster, and my objective was to characterise him as a despicable human being, I could gather all this sort of tabloid ad-hominem gossip together and put it under "Criticism" in his article, arguing that it has all been reported by "reliable sources", and forget all about the fact that he is an artist. The same with this dude here – AFAICS, he is first and foremost a teacher of meditation. Not everyone's bag, doesn't have to be, just like P. Diddy's music, but both arguably have enriched a lot of people's lives. I would like to see a fair article for this subject. Jayen466 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The topic is discussed in various aspects because various aspects are notable. We're just reflecting the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. There is an enormous difference between the P. Diddy of the 2000s and the Guru Maharaj Ji of the 1970s so the comparisons don't really hold. Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. The biography isn't about his teachings, his following, or his organizations - it's about the person. The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. The person accumulated several of the most expensive cars on the market while still a teenager. The person had a stroing of expensive private ariplanes. The person had expensive homes in several cities. These are among the details reported about the person. As for criticism, editors here have been of different minds. Some editors have said that listing the expensive assets isn't a criticism, it's just a description, and I tend to agree. They are unusual, and worthy of note, just like we note that the Pope is the ruler of a country and inhabits an ornate palace. There is nothing unfair about summarizing the most commonly reported facts about a subject. It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. Fair treatment is afforded by following NPOV, and by including all significant points of view. NPOV, and fair treatment, require that we summarize the material so frequently mentioned in newspapers, magazines and books, the same media that made the subject notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I must add further differences between P. Diddy and the subject. Sean Combs makes the bulk of his income from selling tangible goods, CDs or clothes. People don't look to him as their lord, and he doesn't ask for complete obedience. Sean Combs never asked people to turn over their fortunes to live in houses devoted to obeying his teachings. The relationship between guru and follower, and between rock star and fan, are significantly different. It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So, that is the issue? Finally I and others can get to understand where you are coming from. I can now appreciate that you may have a certain bias as it relates to the Guru-shishya tradition, and while you are entitled to your biases and opinions (as we all do), our arguments should not be based on these biases and or opinions. (FYI, PR never asked anyone to turn "their fortunes"). In reading Jaen's comments about what we have in the article already, I see no need to add anything more, that material covers the substance of what is needed in an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So that's the issue? Finally, I and others can understand where you are coming from. You think there is no difference between PR and a rockstar? I agree with Will, that is an offensive comparison. After all this time, if you are only now coming to grips with the problems many people have with Prem Rawat's ideas, well, it certainly explains why there's been so much time wasted before now editing these articles, you simply didn't understand the issues. Hopefully, this has cleared things up and we can look forward to great progress in the near future. As for your suggestion that Prem Rawat never asked anyone to turn their fortunes, that's just wrong. Downton, p. 170 "people were encouraged to invest and sacrifice...and to give in any way they could...it was common in 1971-72 for Mahatmas to encourage personal offerings, by way of donations of money and valuables". Please don't waste our time with the "Mahatmas said it, not PR" argument again, unless that's really the best you can do. Can you honestly sit there and tell people that PR expected complete obedience and encouraged donations of all they could, but didn't think people would give up "their fortunes"?? You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you'd like to. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hello Maelefique and welcome back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi and thanks, but I never left, my job isn't to sit here and do PR for PR. I've been paying attention, but time constraints have been limiting my time spent on this project and I didn't feel the need to say anything until your <insert your own word/s here> comments above. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know what Joosi means by a "certain bias". I'd like him to explain what this purported bias is. As for turning over fortunes, there are numerous sources that talk of people turning in their trust funds and inheritances. More to the point the application to join an ashram was apparently four pages long - two of the pages devoted to disclosing financial information. Once disclosed, would-be members were pressured to turn over their assets before they could join. Members were pressured to take out personal loans in order to turn the money over to the movement. As for Jossi seeing no need to add anything more to the article, he's been saying that since 2004 so I don't think he's a good judge of the quality of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • How many people who accepted PR as their teacher joined ashrams and how many did not? Was joining an ashram compulsory, or voluntary? What are these "numerous sources"? Answer these questions and you will understand the lack of grounding for your argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And I have not been saying "since 2004 not to add anything more to the article". That is just undeserving of a counter argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Do you really want answers to those questions? Do you really not know already? (seems to me they are/were in the articles already, you should read them!) And do you really think that compulsory or voluntary is a non-biased question? Cults and NRM's often exert a force of will on their members, which is later used to deny the actions of the group as completely voluntary from their members, this is grade 8 stuff, come on. Or did you want to deny PR had any charisma as well, and ask what are "numerous sources" for that too? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • yes, sure, brainwashing, coercion, blah blah blah. Read DIMPAC and read whhat scientists say about these theories. You can also read this excellent book: The Politics of Religious Apostasy≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram — typically a big old house with sparkling windows, picnic benches in the dining room, a "satsang" room, shared chores and crowded bedrooms. The devotee fills out an application for "personnel" with much more detail than the usual employment application. Besides questions about skills, education and arrests, two of the application's four pages ask for minute financial information, such as conditions attached to any trust funds, obligations on cash value of insurance policies, assets and mortgages.
  • "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73
• I don't recall ever reading about P.Diddy setting up ashrams and requesting detailed financial information from his fans. Perhaps someone can find a source for that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Garson said one method used to balance the budget is asking rich premies — those who have recently become devotees — for donations preferably their entire savings. He said one woman, Darby McNeal of Canada and her $400,000 trust fund, is a good example of that. "Bob Mishler, the mission's executive director, talked Darby into signing over power of attorney shortly after she joined," said Garson, who says he was instructed to collect the money for the mission. According to Garson, the mission has been given several trust funds and several families, ineluding Miss McNeal's, are contesting the action.
  • "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, Denver (UPI) 3/23/75
• Does anyone have a source for P.Diddy's manager talking fans into signing their trust funds over to the singer? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• But there are only a handful here today, largely because a memo has been circulated directing all premies to look for jobs during the Christmas season in order to make up the organization's considerable debt. In normal times the DLM's $250,000 monthly operating budget is met through gifts from wealthy premies (at least one premie has donated a trust fund of over $100,000), the income from ten Divine Sales rummage stores across the country and several other small businesses ("Happy People Make Good Workers," reads the advertising handout for Divine Painters, Inc.) and the salaries of the 1200 premies who live in ashrams, most of whom hold outside jobs and must hand over their paychecks to the Mission. However, the expense of putting on Millennium has left the Divine Light Mission several hundred thousand dollars in the hole (aside from the $75,000 Astrodome rental fee, DLM officials refuse to divulge the costs of the event), necessitating the emergency measure.
  • "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston", Rolling Stone, March 14, 1974
• Does P. Diddy ask his fans to take on extra jobs when he's short on cash? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• So what? Some people joined the ashrams in the US. So what? some people gave large donations. So what? Nonsensical bias. Diddy sales CDs. PR sells nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will wrote, Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. These are, as I understand it, break-out articles created to treat these topics in further depth, and from additional angles. But, as the source of Rawat's notability, they should still feature prominently in the article on Rawat himself, with a {{main|}} template referring the reader to the more detailed articles.
• The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. It is excusable for a newspaper to report this, and not to report that he was subsequently cleared, and an apology issued to him by the Indian government. As Wikipedia editors, however, I believe we should not mention the former without the latter.
• It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. I think the cases are slightly different. First, Osho's was a world record-breaking collection, unlike Rawat's, which was pretty standard for an American celebrity. Secondly, Osho made a point of having publicity pictures of his absurdly large fleet of Rolls Royces sent out to the press; he claimed, on the record, that he deliberately used them to get a rise out of people. Hence you'll find references to them in practically all scholarly accounts. As for Rawat, I believe he had no interest in talking about his cars and did not ascribe any role to them in his teachings; it was the press that was interested in his private wealth, scholars rather less so. I don't mind the article saying somewhere that there was considerable media interest in his wealth, and his collection of luxury vehicles. Perhaps some scholarly source can be found that has mentioned it. But there is a difference between summarising the press POV and writing our article from that POV.
• Now, as for P. Diddy, the link posted above, based on a Daily Mirror story IIRC, states:

  P Diddy shocked nightclub bosses by demanding £500,000 of freebies for his party.
  
  The music mogul, who is touring the UK this week, reportedly insisted London's The Collection Club provided luxury cars and £150,000 in expenses.
  
  The Collection Club, who offered to host Diddy's after-show party for free tomorrow (27.03.07), were stunned by the request for a £77,000 chauffeur-driven Masarati Quattroporte, £240,000 Rolls-Royce, £287,000 Mercedes Maybach and three black SUV vehicles.
  
  Diddy was offered a £3,000-a-night six-star Knightsbridge hotel suite, but his staff insisted on seeing photographs of the three bedroom apartment before checking in.
  
  The club planned to serve Veuve Cliquot champagne to 200 guests when they arrived and Cristal champagne to the VIP area all night - at a cost of £100,000.
  
  However, Diddy demanded £300,000 worth of Krug champagne.

  Now, $500,000 and $150,000 “expenses” for attending one’s own party, all of which is paid for by someone else, ain’t bad for one night either, is it?
• It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. No offence intended. In my view, both have a lifestyle product that people are free to "buy", or not. We are not here to condemn either of them, just write an encyclopedia.
• Most religious movements, and their leaders, live off members’ contributions of one sort or another. Scientology charges people hundreds of thousands of pounds to progress up the bridge to freedom. It is still recognised as a religion in a great many countries, including the U.S., who castigate dissenting nations in the name of religious freedom if they dare imply that it is just an abusive business. The reason is respect for Scientologists’ religious beliefs, and the guarantee of the freedom to espouse religious beliefs that other people may find silly. These are freedoms that have not come easily. Lest we forget, the Catholic Church, for centuries, levied a lifelong tithe from each member of the population, without any element of choice; as a citizen of a Christian country, you had to pay whether you were a Christian or not, and if you were a heretic, you risked being burned at the stake. In some muslim countries apostasy is still punishable by death. I believe religious freedom, and the freedom to not believe, are preferable to those scenarios.
• Lastly, the cite to The Guru Who Minds His Mother appears wrong; I’ve read the article and cannot find that passage in it. The article quoting Garson also quotes him as saying that

  "Most of [the premies] cannot hold a job that pays more than $2 an hour and then there are those in the Ashrams - those who work for the guru alone - who total 572 and are totally supported by the mission," he said."

  I seem to remember the fact that the ashrams were operated at a loss to the DLM came up before in our discussions. From that POV, the suggestion that people get jobs to help pay for their own upkeep does not sound all that unreasonable to me. --Jayen466 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OT (I lived in an ashram for several years in Israel, and we hardly had enough $$ to cover our own costs, as many people did not hold any well paying jobs... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

• I don't know why this comparison between Sean Combs and Prem Rawat is being pursued. The financial relationships between a singer and his promoters, agents, and fans, and between a guru and his followers are simply not comparable.
• Different people are notable for different things. Churchill and Eisenhower were both painters, yet less space is devoted to painting in their bios than in the bios of their contemporaries Picasso and Pollack. On the other hand, there is relatively little in the artists' biographies about their political or military activities. Eisenhower is notable as a general and a president, not as a painter. It's not for us to second-guess history and say that his painting is where the article should focus. Rawat is notable because he was noted, and he was noted among other things for having a fleet of the most expensive cars while still a teenager.
• Conflicts over religious asceticism versus opulence go back at least to the Reformation. Obviously the subject was a notable example of the spread of Indian religious traditions into the West in the 1970s. One of those traditions was the luxurious support of the guru. Many westerners thought that a holy man (boy) riding in a luxury limousine was unusual enough to report about. All we can do is summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
• Cars played an important part in the subject's spiritual expressions in the 1970s. Many sources dwell on the way in which he would use automobile-related analogies in his satsangs. It was explained by supporters that he was using the vernacular metaphors of his time, just as Jesus spoke about fishing and nets. So this isn't just about finances, it's also information relevant to his spiritual beliefs.
• The cars are not just "pieces of tin". The period of the mid-1970s saw a burdensome debt on the DLM, the subject's movement in the U.S. At the same time that it was still owing money from the Millennium festival it bought a car for "ceremonial purposes" that cost a $22,000 (over $100,000 in 2007 dollars). The movement thought that buying another luxury car was a priority. It's not an indictment of the subject, it's a description of the history of the man and his movement. That's what biography is all about.
• To recap: the subject was reported in many newspaper articles to have a fleet of luxury cars. The subject was asked about the cars over and over by the press. The subject referred to cars in his own spiritual talks. The purchase and registration of the cars was a subject of investigation by the IRS and State of Colorado. I'd further note that we aren't mentioning lesser indulgences, like gold watches, quadrophonic stereo equipment, clothes, and food. This is focused on only the most significant assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then let us have one strong, solid, unmissable reference to the fact that he was and is wealthy, that he had a Rolls Royce and other luxury vehicles at his disposal, that the media were very interested in that, and be done with it. We could expand the millionaire lifestyle sentence, appending a corresponding mention. Or better still, let's have a "Media" section in Reception and outline the main points of focus of media reporting. But please no listings of half a dozen car makes and models! :-)
• Generally, what an encyclopedic BLP should be about is not primarily determined by what newspapers have reported. Scholarly treatments have a clear priority anchored in policy. Jayen466 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Heresy to some, Jayen, but I for one concur entirely. :-) Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Guru Puja)

• And though my mentioning this has never affected things before, and though it might be hard to understand in 2008, the Indian ashram system was (still is in India) a celebate, renunciate lifestyle of choice. If you wanted to be there, you gave up your money. The money people had on entry, and might have earned while there, went towards keeping the whole system going. And the ashrams on the whole lost money. Rumiton (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rumiton - can you clarify? Are you saying that there are followers of the subject living in ashrams devoted to him in India? Also, you'd earlier said that this material needs context, including mention of a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury. I can't find the source for that, though I recall seeing it before. Can you find the source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There certainly are. The ashram lifestyle remains highly respected in India, for all its unsuitability in the west. I know of at least two very large ashrams, each covering, I think, hundreds of acres. I attended an event held at one of them some years ago, attended by around 250 000 people, and since then there have been larger. The Indian DLM, or RVK, does not go in for public statements in English very much, so I don't know how these figures could be confirmed. I think the article has always been misleading in its implication that the Indian side of things died out when his mother took control of the Indian DLM, though I do not know exactly how things developed there. In Indian history it is considered that the best rulers were kings that were also high devotees or spiritual masters. King Ashok was the model. It is considered the ideal form of government. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • We should find a way of expressing that better in one or another article. Also, do you recall the source that discusses a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury? You mentioned it earlier in this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It comes under Guru Puja, treating the guru as a manifestation of god and making offerings to him/her to sponsor humility and spiritual insight. Offerings are proportional to the amount of wealth the devotee (student) has, so a rich student might well offer a house or luxury car, a poor student perhaps a flower or piece of fruit. And as I said, the idea that spiritual leaders should never be wealthy or powerful is almost purely western; in India wealth in the hands of the enlightened is considered the best place for it to be. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought, but I can't find any source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<<< "GURU PUJA" by Mahatma Umesh Dhar in THE GOLDEN AGE No. 9, July 6 - 27, 1974, p. 4 (this source is however in DLM context - and the URL, well, um, not OK RS-wise but it's all I've got) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, as you say, primary and unacceptable here for a host of reasons, but not unrepresentative. The mahatma is expressing the traditional Indian view regarding sants, here translated with the false cognate saints. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Primary sources are usable, they just require special care and shouldn't be interpreted. However I recall a scholarly paper on the support of gurus, perhaps in the Sant Mat tradition. Do you Have any idea about that, Rumiton? When you mentioned the idea previously, what were you thinking about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will is correct. I don't know why this comparison with a singer is being used. I find it quite odd that when PR was compared to some inspirational speakers there was mild outrage at the comparison, but being compared to a peer of Brittany Spears isn't generating any indignation at all. Will is also correct that PR's use of wealth has been a fairly major issue in his publicity/notoriety and that should be clear in the record. I do not believe that one sentence to the effect of "the media reported he had expensive cars" suffieciently addresses that issue. Especially given the financial woes suffered by many followers, and what seems to be a subsequent lack of help from PR and his organisations. On the other hand, I would agree that we do not need a make and model break-down of cars, unless they are much more exclusive than just Rolls, Bentley, etc. Ie, if Enzo Ferrari had presented him with a unique model, or something like that (I'm not saying that happened). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The draft text is being discussed at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. Regarding Jayen's question about the quote from the Carter AP article, I copied the text straight off the page. I'd be happy to send it to anyone who emails me a request. As for scholars, no scholar has written a biography of the subject. At most they include brief biographic sketches as background for their discussion of whatever aspect of the subject or his movement that they're discussing. The only hiqh quality, 3rd-party biography that I'm aware of is the Current Biography Yearbook, 1974. It's excellent and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. It devoptes more space to the issue then anyone is proposing to do here. As for the particular cars, details are what make biographies interesting. The makes of cars were specifically mentioned in numerous sources, and some particualr makes were mentioend again and again. It's only those most frequnetly mentioend that are in the proposal. The only particular model of note is the Mercedes-Benz 600, an enormous limousine produced in limited numbers and used by heads of state. Simply saying that he owned expensive cars would not properly express the matter. The proposal is not limited to mentioning his cars though. It brings together material already in the article elsewhere, such as the criticism of his lifestyle from his mother and others, his planes and his pilots license. It would be incorrect to put this in a "media" section, because it wasn't just the media who commented on the matter. Please re-read the sources section below, particularly the later citations which are mostly from scholars, and you'll see that this was an issue that reverberated widely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re the Carter article, just to be sure we are talking about the same thing: the title is "The guru who minds his mother", the quote is "ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram ...". I was able to find two copies of an article with that title and attributed to Carter online; neither copy includes that passage, for whatever reason. Jayen466 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The version that I quoted is from Stars and Stripes. Individual newspaper editors typically write their own headlines for wire service articles, and trim the article copy to fit the available space. This version seems to be the longest. I'd be happy to send you a copy. It's one of the longest profiles of the subject, so it's a good resource. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I've mailed a copy to Jayen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Received. The online copies were truncated, so Will's quote was quite correct. Jayen466 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I posted this below, but I'm going to repost it here. Jayen has said, if I understand his point, that this is essentially cruft and that we should be paying attention to what scholats say instead of what journalists say. Here's what two eminent scholars, Bromley and Shupe, have written:
  • As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expsensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expensies. Some premies, according to reports, decided thair guru needed his own private Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Mission's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' sterotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers.
• The assertion that "the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies" is a scholarly one. It's not just some tabloid topic that wasn't important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That material is neutral, scholarly and and a summary of it would be much superior than all the other stuff that you are trying to push through in in Proposal 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Jossi. What you have brought now, Will, is an encyclopedic source. I would encourage you to use it. Jayen466 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good source and I've added it to Proposal 7. However all of the sources are suitable for this encyclopedia, even the newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of Bromley and Shupe's source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. Making proposals isn't the same as "pushing" stuff, and Proposal 7 is neutral. The reference is to Bromely & Shupe, Strange Gods, 1981, Beacon Press, Boston. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposas 7 is not neutral, as it is described in WP:NPOV in the context of the whole article as it stands now, and dismisses the potent arguments made here, about which no counter arguments that have any standing have been made. As per the request to AGF, I think that it has become extremely difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fron "Strange Gods". page 19: Strange Gods demolishes the hysterical anticult position (but not the unhysterical anticult position) which considers all cult leaders to be greedy charlatans who brainwash their subjects to such an extent that they become mindless automatons, obeying robotlike the leader’s every command. That stereotype further maintains that there has been a historically unique explosion of cults in a “conspiratorial plot against Christianity, America, or innocent youth” Context, context, context. An issue that some editors fail consistently to appreciate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• What are you trying to say here? The authors write that the subject comes closest of anyone to fulfilling the stereotypes of anticultists. We could say that Bromley and Shupe think most such stereotypes are inaccurate except when it comes to Prem Rawat, but I don't think we need that much "context". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Apropros of Indians and Rolls Royces, I came across this article that may be of interest even though it doesn't have anything to with the article directly. "Maharajas’ rendezvous with Rolls-Royce" ...[O]n an average each maharaja in India had 3.5 Rolls-Royce automobiles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and previous discussion

Sources and previous discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See also: Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle Sources Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces. Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second....People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has. (see quote #14 below) Quick reference using quotes available elsewhere in Wikipedia (see Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars and/or footnotes in Prem Rawat for context): "Opulent" - Hunt 2003 "Materialistic" - Schnabel 1982; Mata Ji (quoted in a 1975 English-language newspaper); "Pampered" - Schnabel 1982; "Luxurious living/lifestyle" - Foss&Larkin 1978; Galanter "Lavish material luxury" - Foss&Larkin 1978; "Lived in luxury" (before his father's death) - Galanter "Life of luxury" - Barett 2003 --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Quotes Colorado Satsang, Prem Rawat 9/17/71 What is materialism? To have a beautiful car, to have so many things around you, this is materialism. Sometimes the car breaks down, then you pay money for it to be repaired. It is a fine. Sometimes a television breaks down and you pay money for it to be repaired. It is also a fine. Really it is a fine. You are being fined. So why do you have things for which you will be fined? "Gifts for a Guru" AP, printed in Stars and Stripes November 15, 1972. But he said the government is concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad, especially in the United States, where the American devotees recently purchased two small air planes for the guru's use. Brigham, however, said all money received by the mission has come from private donations and all purchases are made with a logical purpose. Defending the purchase of the two planes, Brigham said: "There are so many hijackings of commercial planes. This is why he needs his own planes. Guru Maharaj Ji's life is supremely valuable." "Junior Guru", Time Nov. 27, 1972: The grateful faithful have also laden their lord with gifts, including a Rolls-Royce, a Mercedes and two private planes. "Through a 'Third Eye' Comes The Divine Light", By PHIL HASLANGER (Of The Capital Times Staff), Capital times, 2/16/73 If suffering is not a problem, neither is wealth. "If you are perfect," Mahatma Ji [Mahatma Ji Parlokahand] maintained, "material things are good so long as tkey do not poison you." The Guru himself reportedly is personally wealthy. The Mahatma explained, "People love him, so they purchase for him an airplane, a car (a Rolls-Royce), all these things. He doesn't want all these things but their love is so strong." "What Is He—a Lord or an Incredible Fraud?", Nicholas Von Hoffman, The Capital Times April 27, 1973 The Yippie God-King is also into expensive motor cars and electric trains. If that sounds preposterous, all religions do to non-believers...It makes good sense if you believe, and none if you don't. San Francisco Examiner, 7/21/73, as quoted in "What's Behind the 15-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji?" Gail Winder and Carol Horowitz, The Realist 12/73 The boy guru, 'the perfect master,' picked up his $50,000 car yesterday, along with his 45 strong-arm 'disciples.' As the guru, looking like an overweight schoolboy, inspected the Mercedes 600 - with cocktail bar, fridge, intercom and TV - his guards repeated 'The prince does not wish to talk about his car . . . Go away . . .' The guru, who came to Britain to spread his word, has three planes, based in the United States, TV and radio stations, and an IBM computer. His temporary home is a $125,000 'divine residence' in Highgate, London, with his mother and two brothers. When asked why he doesn't distribute his money to the poor, he replies: 'I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things - I give peace.' "Bliss and a Regular Coffee", New Yorker, 10/1/73 ...it is being operated by deotees of Guru Maharaj Ji, the chubby fifteen-year-old "perfect master" and Rolls Royce fancier who may or may not be God. p.32 "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes He likes gimmicks and wears an electronic digital watch, flies an airplane and fiddles with quadrophonic stereo equipment to hear Hugo Montenegro or Ray Conniff. Members of the public relations staff, which numbers more than 50, met recently to talk about the guru's image, concluding he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling." ... He has a sprawling $80,000 split-level house here, plus homes in Los Angeles and India. There are two Mercedes- Benz automobiles for use in the U.S. and two airplanes. In London, his followers have given him a Rolls-Royce. Queried about this opulence, he asks whether he is supposed lo throw away gifts the mission accepts in his name. However, he once said: "We haven't to touch this materialistic world, because as soon as we start touching it, the vibrations of imperfection start touching us, and make us imperfect." ...It's a far cry from the headquarters of only last April, when the mission was paying $200 a month for a building that also housed the staff, the guru and his family. Today the rent is $3,500 monthly, and 120 disciples work there. Where does the mission get this kind of wealth? Donations, the executive disciples answer, refusing to detail them. The mission is a tax-exempt religious organization with a host of subsidiary corporations In the most recent tax return available, it declared only $5,646 in total assets at the end of 1971. The growth since then has been clearly a wonder. For example, the mission keeps track of devotees with an IBM computer it leases for $2,400 a month. It has just bought a $69,000 printing press and expends about $70,000 monthly on publications, films and recordings. It owns about 100 automobiles and a half-dozen trucks. ... ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram — typically a big old house with sparkling windows, picnic benches in the dining room, a "satsang" room, shared chores and crowded bedrooms. The devotee fills out an application for "personnel" with much more detail than the usual employment application. Besides questions about skills, education and arrests, two of the application's four pages ask for minute financial information, such as conditions attached to any trust funds, obligations on cash value of insurance policies, assets and mortgages....And the 29-year-old publications director from Tallahassee, Fla., Mac Avery, likens the mission to a family enterprise: "His father gave up the business, but it was up to him to do something about it." "'You're a Perfect Master'", Newsweek November 19, 1973 Such ascetism forms a provocative contrast to the guru's own life-style. In London, Rolls-Royces, Jaguars and a $100,000 town house permanently staffed with two cooks await the Perfect Master's visit. In Denver, a chauffered Mercedes limousine and an opulent split-level mansion stand ready, and he has two estates elsewhere in the U.S. All these trappings are said to be gifts from disciples, whose offerings include two airlpanes, the Perfect Master's digit wristwatch, his quadrophonic stereo equipment and his motorcycle. ... The luxuries that such lolly can supply are scarcely distateful to the youthful religious leader or to his three older brothers who, with their mother, compose the "holy family" that makes them the Rothschilds of the guru busiiness. Yet followers see no conflict between the worldly and spiritual riches. "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," explains spokesman Richard Profump. "He isn't saying, abandon the material world. He's saying it our attachment to it that is wrong." "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, NYT 12/9/1973 Q. Why don't you sell your Rolls-Royce and buy food for the people? A. What good would it do? I could sell it and people would still be hungry. I only have one Rolls-Royce. In the lobby of Houston's Warwick Hotel, on the first day of Millennium '73, two lange men with Texas drawls were talking. "What's this here guru preachin' about, conservation?" the first one asked. "Naw" said the other, "it's the who am I to refuse gifts from my followers kind of thing" The question of his emerald green Rolls-Royce, his Mercedes 600, his houses in London, New York, Los Angeles and Denver, and his private wealth and jewelry keeps coming up. "What do you expect him to do," a premie said, "travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey? Christ came on humble; well Guru Maharaj ji comes on like a king, we want him to have the best." In Houston, the best was the Astroworld's six-bedroom Celestial Suite, with its P.t Barnum Circus room, its Tarzan Adventure room, and its Sadie Thompson room, with real mosquito netting over the bed. It goes for $2,500 a day, but the guru got a special rate. To come here from India, he had to post a bond to recover his confiscated passport while his assets are being investigated following the seizure at customs of cash and gold watches worth $65,000. More than half of it was later confiscated. "If he really was a smuggler," a premie said, "all he had to do was give each premie going to India a gold watch to put on his wrist." "BLISSING OUT IN HOUSTON", Francine du Plessix Gray, New York Review of Books December 13, 1973 By the hangar of the Hobby airport premies weave garlands of carnations and snapdragons, and complete the festooning of the emerald-green Rolls Royce which will carry Perfect Master back to the city. Reporter: 'What about your Rolls Royce?' Maharaj Ji: 'If you're going to feed a child this morning he's going to be hungry again this afternoon…all a Rolls Royce is is a piece of tin. If I gave poor people my Rolls Royce they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls Royce to give them.' "The New Messiahs attract youthful converts" By VICTORIA GRAHAM Associated Press Writer, Dec. 22, 1973 The Divine Light Mission is an Indian sect led by Guru Maharaj Ji, a plump, high-living 17-year-old compared by his followers with Jesus, Buddha and Krishna.... Maharaj Ji lives with his wife and child in a Malibu, Calif., mansion and has two airplanes, a Rolls Royce and three Mercedes Benz autos. "Guru's Followers Meet Here Nightly" By SUSAN LANDON, ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL , January 12, 1974 Dave Miller noted that the guru had been criticized because he drives a Rolls Royce. "IF GURU sold,his car, the money he received would only feed poor people for a couple of days," Miller said. "It's more important to feed people spiritually than to feed them physically." "Guru Maharaj Ji: Over the Hill at 16?" Ken Kelley, Ramparts February 1974 Cars, particularly, dominate the divine homily-not surprising, since at last count he owns six-mostly Rolls Royces and Lincoln Continentals. "Guru," the woman from a Houston radio station drawls, "if you're so concerned about the poor, why don't you sell one of your Rolls Royces and buy them some food?" He answers, "if I gave them a Rolls Royce, they'd just come back in the afternoon and ask for another one, and I don't have another one to give them." "Jet Set God" By Kathleen Jeremy, Pageant February, 1974 The adolescent god lives in considerable luxury, traveling around the world in Rolls-Royces and private planes. He has a personal cook who prepares his vegetarian diet and is on duty 24-hours a day - in case his plump, young master should require sustenance in the middle of the night. The guru's "Divine Residence" in London is worth $125,000 and is only one of his many homes around the world. Time, Feb. 11, 1974 [2] A.C. Bhakivedanta, Swami of the Hare Krishna movement, at a news conference in Hong Kong last week denounced a rival guru: self-styled divinity Maharaj Ji, 16, now counseling his disciples in California. The ascetic swami, whose followers constitute a kind of saffron-robed Hindu version of the Salvation Army, began by saying, "You've got to decide whether he is God, or a dog." Noting the young leader's luxurious life style, the swami declared rather ominously, "He is cheating people, but he will be cheated in a bigger way. When God meets cheats, he can be a better cheat than they." "Godhead Hi-Jinx" Richard Elman, Creem, March 1974 Among the non-profits the guru has amassed are a $12,000 Mercedes Benz, a $26,000 Rolls Royce Silver Cloud, a $30,000 Cessna Cardinal single engine plane and a $190,000 twin-engine job, as well as enough motorcycles to fill your average aircraft hanger. "An East Indian Teen-Ager Say He Is God", Ken Kelley, Vogue March 1974 Shunning the austere, simple life of traditional godheads, he has decided to make the best of his self-proclaimed divinity. At last count he owns six cars (all in the $15,000 to $30,000 range), two airplanes, a string of mansions from Los Angeles to Long Island, and real estate running into the millions of dollars. "Last time around the Messiah came as a beggar," says Rennie Davis. "This time he's come as a King!" ... Guru Mahraraj Ji lives a life of royalty on a sale with King Farouk, whose younger pictures he more than slightly resembles. Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50: To the side, a group of girls is decorating the hood of the Guru's emerald-green Rolls Royce with a heartshaped floral arrangement of red and white carnations. It is the most blissful of devotional services, and they are singing, "Maharaj Ji, Maharaj Ji/ We love you, we love you/ Satguru, Satguru . . ." to the tune of "Frere Jacques." The car's California license plate spells HANSA, which is, according to one of the girls, the Hindi word for "swan," the symbol of the Holy Family. Inside the Holy Limo one secretly glimpses a telephone, a framed picture of the Guru on the dashboard and a stereophonic tape deck loaded with a cassette recording of Your Saving Grace by the Steve Miller Band. Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces. Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second.... People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has. Reporter: Why don't you sell it and give food to people? Maharaj Ji: What good would it do. All that's gonna happen is they will need more and I don't have other Rolls Royces. I will sell everything and I'll walk and still they will be hungry. But there are only a handful here today, largely because a memo has been circulated directing all premies to look for jobs during the Christmas season in order to make up the organization's considerable debt. In normal times the DLM's $250,000 monthly operating budget is met through gifts from wealthy premies (at least one premie has donated a trust fund of over $100,000), the income from ten Divine Sales rummage stores across the country and several other small businesses ("Happy People Make Good Workers," reads the advertising handout for Divine Painters, Inc.) and the salaries of the 1200 premies who live in ashrams, most of whom hold outside jobs and must hand over their paychecks to the Mission. However, the expense of putting on Millennium has left the Divine Light Mission several hundred thousand dollars in the hole (aside from the $75,000 Astrodome rental fee, DLM officials refuse to divulge the costs of the event), necessitating the emergency measure. "Who Was Maharaj Ji?" Marjoe Gortner, OUI, May 1974 And cars. . . . He talks about cars quite a lot in his parables. Probably because he loves them and has so many: Rolls-Royces and Mercedes, motorcycles, and that sort of thing-all gifts. Current Biography Yearbook 1974 The mission is supported by members (many of whome turn over all their worldly goods to it) and by thrift shops and various other Divine Light business enterprises p. 254 But he is no "ripoff", according to Khalid Shah, a correspondent for the Illustrated Weekly of India: "In India there is a guru on every corner, and every guru has a guru; the competition is very fierce. But I do not think guru Mharaj Ji came here for the money. He is a member of the highest of the high Brahmin caste. His family is quite wealthy. p.255 At a press conference given during Millennium '73 a reporter asked GUru Mahraj Ji about his much publicized (and much criticized) Rolls Royce. "If you're going to feed a child this morning he's going to be hungry again this afternoon..." he replied. "All a Rolls Royce is, a piece of tin. If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them." p.255 [Premies] are also encouraged to turn over their fortunes and incomes to the Mission. Complete devotees are provided with all necessities of life, but receive no salry, unless they bring in one from a job outside the ashram. There are approximately fifty ashrams in the United States, in addition to the stores and other enterprises run by the Mission. p.257 In Denver, state and city sales tax agents have been investigating the legality of some of the tax-exempt purchases made by the Guru and his followers. But it is unlikely that the tax-exempt status of the Divine Light Mission can be successfully challenged, so wrapped is it in constituional protections. Tax experts cite a March 1, 1974 ruling in which a federal judge in California declared, "Neither this court nor any branch of this government will consider the merits or fallacies of any religion." p.257 The site of the wedding was the $80,000 home that the Divine Light Mission maintains for Maharaj Ji on Dahlia Street in the Colorado capital. The DLM also provides him with expensive residences in London, Los Angeles, Old Westbury (New York), and several Indian cities. In addition to his automobiles (A Rolls-Royce in Los Angeles and Mercedes-Benzes in Denver and New York), the Maharaj Ji has received among other gifts from his followers, two Cessna airplanes (which he can pilot), a cabin cruiser, a motorcycle, and gold digital watches. p.257 "Investigation under way into Guru's business activities" AP Jun 24, 1974 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE The mission reportedly has used its sales tax exemption in purchasing each of its 56 cars about $5,000 in sales taxes when and trucks and one motorcycle. Included in that fleet are a Maserati, Rolls Royce and three Mercedes-Benzes which are reserved for the personal use of the guru and his immediate family. The five cars are worth more than $80,000, meaning the mission managed to avoid paying about $6,000 when it bought them. Moreover, its exemption from specific ownership taxes saves the mission more than $1,000 a year on those five cars alone. Other items purchased without paying the sales lax include dresses, suits, formal wear, luggage, socks, underwear, wristwatches, patio furniture and a 22-foot ocean-going power boat. Many of the items have been purchased in leading Denver department stores. One of the mission's favorites is Joseph Magnln, which sports a higher priced line of men's and women's fashions. "Guru Maharaj Ji--mystic and business mogul", Patsy Sims, Chicago Tribune, 7/14/74 [The operation is] One that owns at least 56 cars and trucks, plus another $80,000 worth of Maseratis and Rolls Royces reserved solely for the guru and his family...Is the guru a savior, a Christ reincarnated as his followers claim? Or is he just an expert fuind raiser, or even a dictator whose followers follo without question? "Teen guru--God to some, a 'bunch of bunk' to others" Patsy Sims, Chicago Tribune 7/15/74 A movement whose leader lives luxuriously with three houses (at least one of them with a swimming pool)$80,000 worth of Maseratis and Rolls-Royces, and two Cessnas, while his followers turn over to him their salaries and their possessions in return for a place to sleep (usually on a thin rubber pad or a sleeping bag), $1-a-day in vegetables, and whatever clothes the mission decides they need. A movement that, after talking those salaries sometimes forces followers to seek extra jobs or to turn to parents for additional money to pay fopr services at clinics and schools set up with their incomes. A movement which has at times encouraged its followers to try to talk parents into signing over inheritances sometimes amounting to millions of dollars....With one exception, the mission's far-flung use of its tax-exempt status has not been challenged. That exception os a current investigation by the Colorado Sales Tax Division into the tax free shopping sprees by the guru and his followers. The likelihood of any serious repercussions, however, seem doubtful. One attorney interviewed by the Denver paper said the guru's personal use of several fancy automobiles and the tax exempt purchase of luxury items vilated "standards of reasonableness"... In Houston, Arthur Lord, Houston bureau cheif for the National Broadcasting Corp., said that the mission left about $150,000 in unpaid bills after last November's Millennium. Some of the businesses have received all or partial payment, but at least 25 have received no money at all. Cliff Bowden insists he and fellow followers bestow the expenisve cars, houses, and boats on their leader "because we JUST love him so much." Besdies, Bowdon says "to me Guru Maharaj Ji is not living a luxurious lifestyle." Luxurious or not, even a disenchangted follower agreed the areiches are not contrary to what a "spiritual" leader should be. "It would" the former premie shrugged, "be equally silly for a guy who's trying to be God to ride around on a camel or in a Volkswagen." "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, Denver (UPI) 3/23/75 Garson said one method used to balance the budget is asking rich premies — those who have recently become devotees — for donations preferably their entire savings. He said one woman, Darby McNeal of Canada and her $400,000 trust fund, is a good example of that. "Bob Mishler, the mission's executive director, talked Darby into signing over power of attorney shortly after she joined," said Garson, who says he was instructed to collect the money for the mission. According to Garson, the mission has been given several trust funds and several families, ineluding Miss McNeal's, are contesting the action. "Newsmakers" Los Angeles Times; Mar 23, 1975; pg. 2 Beneath the spiritual bliss of the Guru' Maharaj Ji's Denver-based Divine Light Mission lie more than $300,00 in unpaid bills and a never-ending fund drive, according to the mission's former financial director, Micael D. Garson. Garson quit his job in February "because I could not tolerate the contradictions." He said there was a continuing $300,000 deb caused by declining revenues and the demands of the recently married 17-year-old guru. "Whn the guru wants something, be it a $30,000 car or a new house, he gets it," Garson said. Meanwhile, other mission bills go unpaid. For example, Millennium '73, the mission's huge festival at the Houston Astrodome, was paid for only after mission equipment and property had been repossessed. Many of the problems are caused by a lack of business understanding that stems for the mission's contention that it is a spiritual not a business organization, Garson said. "There are some people that are trying to get the mission on the right track," he said. "But it takes a lot of money to keep a guru." "THE NATION" Los Angeles Times Mar 25, 1975 pg. A2 A spokesman denied claims by a former aide that the Divine Light Mission was in serious financial trouble as a result of expensive tastes of its leaders, teenaged Guru Maharaj Ji. "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" in Los Angeles Times. Wednesday April 2, 1975, PART II, p. 6A [Abstract: "The mother of Guru Maharaji Ji, the 17-year-old Indian religous lea[d]er now-living in Malibu, Calif, with an American wife, renounced her son Tuesday and accused him of being a playboy instead of a holy man."] [Susan Butcher, speaking on behalf of Shri Mataji (Rawat's mother), said,] "He has not been practicing what he has been preaching....He has always preached and recommended to his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy, and abstention from alcohol, and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations, and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life. He's being a playboy." BELKIND, MYRON L. "Guru's mother rejects him as religion chief" in INDEPENDENT (AM); PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM). Long Beach, California, Wednesday, April 2, 1975 - 9: KNOWN as Shri Mataji, or holy mother, she said her son, "under the instigation of certain bad elements in the United States Divine Light Mission, has continuously disrespected my will by adopting a despicable, nonspiritual way of life." Susan Butcher, a. 30 year-old Canadian devotee of the Divine Light Movement, said the Guru's relatives in India were upset with the way Maharaj Ji was living in the United States. "He has not been practicing what he has been preaching," said Miss Butcher, who became a devotee of the Guru when he visited Toronto in 1971. Speaking in behalf of the Guru's mother, Miss Butcher said, "He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy." "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975: 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. Time Apr. 07, 1975 [3] Even Guru Maharaj Ji, 17, Perfect Master of the Divine Light Mission and well-known lover of sports cars, cabin cruisers and good living, may soon face some economic problems. At least he will if a British Columbia court believes Michael Garson, 35, the guru's former financial analyst. Garson claims that the mission has been more than $240,000 in debt for over a year and its donations declining. He testified as a witness in a case seeking to prevent U.S. Heiress Darby McNeal, 31, now a British Columbia resident, from signing over an estimated $400,000 inheritance to the Divine Light Mission. Each week about $35,000 in donations and income flow into the mission's Denver headquarters, said Garson, and "approximately 60% of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the life-style of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him. So far as I could see, the whole function of the organization was to provide an opulent existence for the Maharaj Ji." Greenfield 1975 In one or another of its corporate incarnations, Divine Light Mission owned Csssna airplnes, Rolls-Royces and Mercedes automobiles, and palatial "divine" residences in Denver and Los Angeles. Its total real worth was prbably somewhere around the million-dallr mark. p.14 In interviews, speeches, and public appearances it had fallen to Rennie Davis to convince both the youth of America and their parents that Guru Maharaj Ji was not a smuggler, an ulcer-ridden puppet who drove a Rolls Royce while thousands starved in his native India, or the boss who had ordered a Detroit reported beaten unconscious. It was a task no sane Madison Avenue public relations firm would have attempted. For once those issues were dealt with, the questins of where allof the guru's money came from had to be answered. And, like any true nightmare, that question occurred again and again. p. 35 At a post-Millennium meeting in Denver, Guru Maharaj-ji sugested to his disiples that they go to work to help pay off the organization's debts. Quickly, save for an occasional joke in some gossip column or natural news like the guru marrying his twenty-four-year old secretary (after having obtained permission from a judge because he was underage, with wedding gifts which included a silver Maserati), or an advisor being indicted in a stck swindle, the activities of the Divine Light Mission have passed from the pages of newspapers and magazines and now are of interest to disciples only. p.275 "Young Guru's Mother Replaces Him" Los Angeles TimesApr 12, 1975; pg. A2 Interviewed Friday in the Mission's headquarters in New Delhi with her new guru sitting beside her, the 49-year-old mother blamed the downfall of her youngest sone on a handful of American associates, including his 26-year-old secretary, whom he married last year. "They have spoiled him," she said, speaking in Hindi. "These people, because of getting so many donations, have corrupted themselves and Maharaj Ji. They are using him like a hen that lays golden eggs, as a tool to get more and more money and gifts for a few American followers who live in a high style." Shri Mataji angrily denied she had renounced Mahraj Ji because she and Bhagwan Ji wanted a share of the funds collected in America. "There is no jealousy about this," she said. "No guru or holy person should want money." "One Lord Too Many", Time Apr. 28, 1975 Nowhere is the boy guru's universe better furnished than in the U.S., to which he brought his movement in 1971: a string of 45 ashrams (retreat houses) and information centers in 110 cities across the country tend to the spiritual needs of the Divine Light flock, whose tax-exempt offerings have furnished the teen-age Lord with, among other things, an $80,000 pad in Denver, a $400,000 estate in Malibu and an armada of limousines and racing cars.... Taxmen have been picking over the Divine Light Mission's finances. Even as contributions have been rising, the guru's bookkeepers have been busy juggling some $206,000 in debts; only recently they paid off the Houston Astrodome for a 1973 rally proclaimed "the most significant event in the history of humanity." "Seventeen-year-old guru likes pizza and sports cars", DEBORAH FRAZIER UPI Santa Fe, July 13,1975 THE NEW MEXICAN. The guru Maharaj Ji is 17 years old, likes pizza, drives a Masarati, sports a mustache and is Master of the Universe to millions of followers. Groomed to lead since birth, Pralap Singh Rawat Balygeshwar Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji picked up his taste for sports cars and gold watches since bringing the Divine Light Mission to the United Stales in 1971. "A wealthy Boston premie (a term for the guru's followers) gave Maharaj Ji the Masarati for his wedding, just as you or I would give an apple," said Joe Anctil, a former Houston, Tex public relations man who now is the guru's press secretary. Anctil said he was hired after reporters asked the guru about his sex life. "It does take a lot of money to keep a guru and he does live well, but what he teaches I will believe in for the rest of my life," said Michael Garson, the guru's former financial analyst who left the Mission because of management disputes. In his first three years in the United States, new converts were common and their contributions led to the Maharaj Ji's homes in three states, a fleet of cars, a wardrobe of flashy clothes and two airplanes. Followers are encouraged to live in ashrams, communal houses where the virlures of celibacy, poverty and meditation are practiced. "If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce, they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them," the guru once said in defense of his worldly goods.The guru has had money problems. By 1973 the mission was $682,000 in debt, disorganization was thinning the ranks of the faithful and worldwide criticism was beginning to sting. "LEADER OWNS LUXURY CARS: Teen-Age Gurus Sect Grosses $3.78 Million" in Los Angeles Times April 10, 1976, pg. A27 DENVER UPI–The Divine Light Mission, a religious sect headed by Guru Maharaj Ji, 18, has an annual income of $3.78 million from gifts, tithes and earnings, a spokesman says. Joe Anctil confirmed a published report that the mission, headquartered in Denver, takes in about $315,000 a month, and spent $200,000 last year supporting the life-style and spiritual and business activities of its leader. The mission owns property in Malibu valued at $554,000 and a home in Denver worth $86,000 which the guru uses when here, Anctil said. He also revealed for the first time the guru's private ownership of two cars, a Lotus and a Mercedes-Benz, as well as two Honda motorcycles. In addition, Anctil said the mission owns a Jensen, a car valued at $22,800 and used for ceremonial purposes only, as well as a Maserati, two Mercedes-Benzes and a mobile van. (The Divine Light Mission does not consider itself a religion except for tax purposes, says Bob Mischler, the guru's executive director, according to United Press International.) Anctil said 60% of the mission's monthly income goes to support the international headquarters, the 20 homes it owns where a 250-member staff lives, and the guru. Although the sect's leader pays for his own clothes and those of his family from a personal account, Anctil said the mission makes mortgage payments on the two pieces of real estate, provides him with insurance and pays for his travel. Despite its income, Anctil said the mission is still faced with a debt, although it has been considerably reduced in recent years. A deficit of $650,000 three years ago has been cut to $80,000, he said. The Divine Light Mission says it has initiated 50,000 persons into its ranks in the United States since 1971 but now claims only 15,000 regular financial contributors. p.143 Enroth, Ronald. Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults Zondervan 1977 If nothing else, the movement has clerly furthered the financial status of its teen-age leader. The guru smiles all the way to the bank in his $50,000 refrigerator-equipped Rolls Royce... His affluent life style, which hardly befits the ideal of traditional Indian gurus, caused a family feud when his mother, charging that Maharaj Ji had become a playboy, named her oldest son to replace his brother as new guru of the Divine Light Mission. All God's Children - 1977; THE CULT EXPERIENCE: SALVATION OR SLAVERY? CARROL STONER AND JO ANNE PARKE 36 The New Religions ... Why Now? The guru began leading a life that was not in keeping with his image as a holy man, and his mother fumed. He countered by saying that the "souls" in the United States were "poor in spirit but not in body," which by implication says one must live frugally only when trying to evangelize among the poor, and not the affluent. Foss & Larkin 1978 For instance, Guru Maharaj Ji's enjoyment of lavish material luxury (when celibacy and poverty were enjoined upon ashram residents) has from time to time been taken for an enormous lila. It is not that the premies necessarily find anything the least strange in his collection of cars, planes, Divine Residences, tape machines, and other baubles. After all, why should they begrudge him a white Mercedes if they would not have felt the same about Janis ("Lord, won'tcha buy me a Mercedes Benz") Joplin? Nevertheless, the flaunting of conspicuous wealth by religious dignitaries is alien to the religious traditions of the middle class from which most premies derive (though not to the religious traditions of the Fundamentalist lower classes, both black and white) and is the object of the contempt and derision of the media, middle-class parents, and rival sects; so the subject kept cropping up in satsang, especially with non-premies around. The premies retorted that it is all lila, a gigantic joke played upon a money-crazed and contraption-collecting society in which Guru Maharaj Ji holds up a mirror to a debased consumer culture. This is proof that he is Perfect Master of this Age. Pilarzyk, Thomas. "The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory" in Review of Religious Research. Autumn 1978, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23-43: The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past political activists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973). Premie and former political leftist Rene Davis became a popular target of such publications (see Davis, 1974). In general, most accounts have been quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's point of view. However, it should be noted that the movement has received positive comments from such youth culture "folk heroes" as anti-war activist Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. Typical reactions by DLM converts to the negative reports varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. [...] At the local ashrams, dissension among premies emerged over the reported leadership conflicts, the guru's physical image and his increasingly materialistic lifestyle. His marriage also held important implications for membership disintegration. For example, reactions to their spiritual leader's marriage included the departure of an estimated 40 to 80 percent of ashram premies nationwide as members redefined their own lives regarding celibacy and marriage. Stories of spontaneously-planned marriages between some ashram premies circulated between local centers. At one commune, the ashram membership dwindled to 9. A New York ashram also was reduced drastically in size from 48 to 28 full-time members. Therefore, the marriage of the movement's symbolic leader led tot a critical re-examination of premie life and to a subsequent mass exodus of ashram premies across the country. This decline in ashram residency had profound effects on the whole movement. Foss and Larkin (1975) note that conversions declined in 1974 to less than 6,000 nationwide. 2 For example, one can compare reports by establishment mass media with youth movement sources. For the former, see Newsweek (August 2, 1971), Pfarrer (1973), Morean (1973), de Plessix Gray (1973) and Baxter (1974). For the latter, see Jacobi' (1972), Reed (1973), Kelley (1974), Davis (1974) and Levine (1974). Downton 1979 Luxury and service were his birthright and later became his peronal life-style when he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight. (p.2) Reports in the media were unfavorable, repeating often that he seemed to live more like a king than a Messiah (p.5) Then, of course, there were the numerous newspaper accounts of the guru's life-style, which pictured him as more interested in accumulating wealth and power than in changing the world.(p.188) Rudin & Rudin 1980 The Mission incorporated in Colorado as a tax-exempt church and grew into a multi-million-dollar a year business enterprise. According to <Michael Bergman, he group's Executive Finance Director, between January and June, 1973, its business concerns grew 800 percent. They invested in real estate, operated prinintg businesses, a band, and restaurants. Income came also from large gifts, tithing of all members, and from the assets turned over by premies whol lived in the ashrams. Maharaj Ji rode in a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, and on several motorcycles. The group owned houses in London, New York, and Denver. In 1974 the Mission purchased the four-acre Anacapa View estate in Malibu, California, for Maharaj Ji and his new bride. The mansion on the ocean with swimming pool and tennis court costs a half a million dollars. p.63 The guru's mother was so upset over the marriage and her son's opulent lifestyle that she disowned him... p.65 Bromley and Shupe 1982 That marriage also brought to a climax the rift between Ji and his mother in India. In his years in the United States, Ji had begun to dundergo changes she did not approve, including a fashionable hairstyle, Western clothes, a luxurious lifestyle complete with mansion and limousines, and hippie vocabulary. p. 45 As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expsensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expensies. Some premies, according to reports, decided thair guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversry and even defections among rpremies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious fincancial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' sterotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers. p.137 (In Dutch:) Schnabel, Paul. Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid ("Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health"). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Ph.D. thesis, 1982. Deventer, Van Loghum Slaterus, ISBN 90-6001-746-3. On-line version (2007): http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/schn016tuss01_01/index.htm in Digital library for Dutch literature- Chapter II, page 33, Chapter IV page 99, page 101-102, Chapter V, page 142 The intelligent, ever-changing Bhagwan who gives daily performances is not more a charismatic leader than the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji. p. 207 Larson 1982 The Astrodome gathering rang up huge debts, and questions were raised about the Guru's true age and materialistic preoccupations...Maharaj Ji's passion for automobiles extended to a Jensen, Mercedes-Benz, Maserati, Lotus, and a mobile van. Melton J. Gordon Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York/London: Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5, pp. 141-145: [Around May 1974] Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved. Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably. Accusing her son of breaking his spiritual disciplines, Mataji took control of the Mission in India and replaced him with his eldest brother. Galanter 1989 He began dressing in western clothes and adoped a luxurious lifestyle that incluided setting up residence in a mansion and being ferried about in a limousine. p.24 In 1984 Maharaj Ji moved again, with his wife, four children, and considerable assets. This time he went to the affluent beach community of Malibu in West Los Angeles but did not ask his followers to join him. p.25 p.105 Levine 1989 ...true believership is in by far the majority of instances a temporary phenomenon. It is followed...by a stage I call "seeds of doubt." This is typifeid by the member seemingly suddenly being aware of two major issues which had for many months (usually) or year been buried. The first is the apparent inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the group itself: for example, living at subsistence level in the Divine Light Mission while the Maharaj Ji lived in ostentatious opulence. Messer 1989 But we share the habit of expecting holy men to have renounced material pleasures--witness what we pay our preachers--and to be aged and erudite. This leader of sime five million devotees is really a child and a lover of machine-age toys: cars, airplanes, stereos, rock band equipment, even computers, which fasinate him. p.52 Divine Light Mission operates almost entirely without capital, and this is the source of great numbers of "grace" stories. In 1972, for example, the Mission wanted to buy a small plane to transport Guru Maharaj Ji and his family around the United States. They had negotiated a price and secured a lon from the bank. The down payment was nearly $18,000, with no serious chance of generating it even in donations. The owner of the plane eventually put up the money himself, to satisfy the bank, because he "liked Guru Maharaj Ji." p.66 p.117 Hunt 2003 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 sported largely by the donations of his followers. p.101 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions. Zondervan 2006 Though his following continued for some months, gradually the numbers lessened because of the extravagent lifestyle that many observed the "incarnate" youthful god to be living in the United States. A passion for automobiles, real estate, and the best of foods convinced many that hey had been duped. Barrett, David V., The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions (2003), Cassel, ISBN 1-84403-040-7 The Divine Light movement used to be criticized for the devotion given to Maharaji, who was thought to live a life of luxury on the donations of his followers; Whittaker, clearly conscious of past criticism, is emphatic that Maharaji has never earned anything from Elan Vital or any other movement promoting his teachings. p.219 Cagan 2007 [Describes his lifestyle as] affluent [and] privileged. edit-corrected and sorted chronologically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Numbered for ease of reference --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC) More source. Also, I moved material from out of the discussion to make for a more cogent thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Ramparts magazine, Pageant Magazine, OUI Magazine, Creem? Are you just having fun, or are you seriously considering these as sources for this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) This section is just for posting sources - discussion is below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Discussion I'm hoping that editors will attempt to reach some consensus on this point here, rather than in the Lead section proposal. Savlonn (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I thought of using Section 6 'Reception' discussion page for this debate, but the question of referring to Rawat's lifestyle is a big sticking point that I feel it should belong here. Firstly, there is a question of sources. Jossi recently questioned a source for the word 'opulent'. If I'm not mistaken the word 'sumptuous' has been sourced and was used, but this was changed to 'opulent' in attempt at compromise after complaint. So, can we agree ground rules here? Can we only used verbatim term or word used by a source, (is there a source for 'materialistic'?) even if that term is considered by some to be too 'strong' than another 'compromise' word that is not sourced? Savlonn (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I'd be willing to go back to "sumptuous", but I can't find a source for it. There are sources for "opulent". "Materialistic/materialism" also has at least two sources. "Life of luxury" has at least one source, plus this exchange at the press conference: Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces. Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second....People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has. I'll keep looking to see what other terms have been used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Many thanks, Will. If we have references to actual source material, then at least we can close off the debate about what was and wasn't written by sources. p.s. - sorry for my crappy English above - I must have been in a real hurry! Savlonn (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC) That's an interesting point Francis, that Rawat lived in luxury before his father's death. That must somehow be included otherwise people might think he became a guru and THEN started living in luxury.Momento (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I've been meaning to propose an addition tothe bio to include the subject's caste and his father's wealth, partly for the reason that Momento mentions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) <<<I do not think that there is a dispute about the fact that PR lives the life-style of a high-worth individual. What is being discussed is how is this presented in the article, and how it can be summarized in the lead. In the article we have currently this: Rawat had by then become financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire.[56][49] After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property,[63] which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.[64] In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho but no less charismatic. And other bits and pieces. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) If we can agree on how to summarize these sources then we can add a short version to the intro and a longer version to the body of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) No. There is no need to add a "short version" to the intro. The intro, which is 4 paragraphs and 237 words long, should summarize the article that is 3,700 words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) We already have a short verion in the intro. It says "Rawat has been criticized...for leading a sumptuous lifestyle." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I'm wondering if most of these comments are, in fact, criticisms. Enjoying a luxurious or opulent lifestyle isn't a criticism and is only notable because many spiritual leaders don't, just like saying a successful basketball player is short. It's not a criticism it's just unusual. The only criticism I can see it that he is "materialistic" which is obviously absurd.Momento (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Gee, I'd say this is a report of a criticism: Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is sported largely by the donations of his followers. How can that not be considered a criticism? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Actually Will, it says "critics have focused", which is hardly surprising since they criticized his height, weight, skin, diet, voice, teachings etc. Critics, criticize what they can even if it is normal.Momento (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) That is from Hunt, and it is an accurate summary of this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) It looks like we're getting somewhere. Can we keep the lead pretty much as is with a short reference to criticism of his 'opulent lifestyle', then include Hunt's quote and add a counterpoint that he was born into a family of wealth? This would make a good start, but we need to consider fair weight. My feeling is that given the notability of his lifestyle, this deserves more than just a couple of sentences. Let's consider the main points of discussion for consideration of inclusion: 1. Much of his wealth was derived from devotees' donations 2. His lifestyle being perceived as responsible for disillusionment and loss of followers 3. His Mother's criticism of his lifestyle (assuming separate 'Redflag' issue resolved - please don't repeat here) 4. Specific, notable icons of Rawat's wealth a) Rolls Royces. b) House in Malibu. Owned by Seva Corp and discussion done to death in March, but it will come up again so let's get it on the table now. 5. Was born into and had always experienced wealthy lifestyle Maybe including all these points is too much weighting, but we need to find some middle ground. Points 2,3 and 5 have specific timeframes of reference. If we agree to their inclusion, should these be blended into the Chronological sections, or placed in 'Reception'? Savlonn (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I broadly agree with Savlonn. I don't think we have good sources for #1, and even #2 may be hard to support. But 3, 4, and 5 are certainly important to include. Much the attention the subject received was connected to his material possessions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) It will all boild down on the sources wanted to be used for these assertions, where these assertions will be made in the article, and how much weight it will be given in the context of the whole article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, he does not own "Roll Royces". See the mess that The Guardian got into by confusing PR with another person: Wheen, Francis (July 14, 1999). "Wheen's world: The Mail man, the Maharaji and the exploding love-bomb: Francis Wheen on: Divine intervention at the Daily Mail". The Guardian. pp. Page 5. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) The object of Cainer's veneration is the Guru Maharaj Ji, who came to the west as a tubby 13-year-old in the early 1970s and persuaded thousands of ex-hippies to join his Divine Light Mission. Such was his appeal that by the end of the decade he owned 93 Rolls-Royces and had run up a $4m bill for back-taxes. In those days the guru described himself as the Lord of the Universe and the Exploding Love-Bomb. The Guardian, Corrections and Clarifications section, July 22, 1999 In an item headed The Mail man, the Maharaji and the exploding love bomb, page 5, G2, July 14, we said Guru Maharaj Ji (or Maharaji) once owned 93 Rolls Royces and had run up a bill in unpaid tax of $4m. Those statements were incorrect and referred to a different guru, unconnected with Maharaji. We were also wrong to say Maharaji had described himself as the Exploding Love Bomb. The photograph used to illustrate the piece showed the wrong person, again unconnected with Maharaji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) When asked about his Rolls Royces during a press conference during the Millennium event, he did not deny owning them, instead he talked about how they build these cars by hand, and how beautiful they are, but they are still just a piece of tin, and then went on about if someone else had all his money he would blow himself up into a million pieces. -- Maelefique (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think it was in the plural and my take was he was talking about the responsibilities of being a master, rather than those of having wealth. That was the point of his saying that Rollers were just material things, inner things have a more certain reality. Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I don't recall if there was more than one Rolls Royce, but some of the other vehicles were almost as expensive if not more so. The Mercedes-Benz 600, for example. As for Rawat's quotations, we can't interpret them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I have the tape, I will watch the interview section again tomorrow night and get an exact quote, and whether it was plural or not in the question. The question was not about the responsibilities of being a master or anything else, it had to do with material possessions, it was a pretty straight-forward question. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, but saying he then "went on about if someone else had all his money" is pretty serious misquoting. What the quote appears to say is "if someone else had my life..." That seems to me to refer to the whole package, including the responsibilty for encouraging a lot of people's spiritual growth, not just the material wealth. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I already quoted one transcription above, repeated here: Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces. Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second....People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has. While that reporter uses the plural in her question, I'm not sure that we can treat that as authoritative for the existece of multiple Rolls. There are other sources that cover the autos in more detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) There are descriptions of the auto fleet, the subject's responses to questions about it, and even some follower's comments. The planes and homes also come up. In my opinion, giving the exact details of the items are less important than noting that it was a commonly-raised issue by the press and that it affected DLM finances. In 1974 the DLM was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, yet it bought a new Jensen Motors convertible for "ceremonial" purposes for $22,000 (over $100,000 in 2003 dollars[4])(Probably this exact car [5].) Earlier that same year a Maserati was given as a wedding present. (Another wedding present was a 35-foot cabin cruiser but it was repossessed when followers couldn't pay for it.) I recall seeing a mention of a 53-car fleet, but I get the impression that most of those were used by ashrams or HQ officials rather than reserved for the subject's use. Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Come to think of it, there must have been at least two Rolls, because he had one in the U.K. and he's described as having one in Houston at the festival. The Houston car could have been a rental or it could have been shipped over, though I've never seen any mention of those. It is described as having a refrigerator, indicating it was a limo. The Mercedes 600 limo is described in connection to Malibu. I don't recall seeing any mention of a car in reference to the Miami period. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I though we were writing a biography in an encyclopedic tone and content. It seems that the intent now is to have a piece suitable for People Magazine ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC) This is background - the assembling of sources. The opulent life-style is a topic often raised regarding the subject, and even the most sober scolars mention it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) As I said above, leading a luxurious lifestyle is not a criticism, it is a comment on another unusual aspect of Rawat along with his age and his behavior. And the lead should include that "Independent research has shown that Rawat's teaching was beneficial to those who practiced it" as per Galanter and Downton.Momento (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) This discussion is about Rawat's opulent lifestyle. Comments about it don't have to be criticisms to include in the article, but some of the commentary has been described as criticism. Please re-read the quotaiton from Hunt. As for the teaching of Rawat, that's a different topic and a different article. Make a proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Quite right, "Comments about it don't have to be criticisms to include in the article" but we shouldn't label them criticisms if they are only observations. And as Hunt says, "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle", not scholars, critics. And it isn't his "opulent lifestyle" that critics have focused on but what "appears to be his opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) If Hunt were the only one drawing attention to the suject's opulent lifestyle then that quibble would have a point. But most other sources simply speak of an opulent or luxurious lifestyle, without the equivocation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) His "what appears to be an opulent lifestyle" is undisputed. But who has criticized him for it? Only his critics as far as I can see.Momento (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Who are his critics and what makes them critics? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Pardon my sense of humor cutting into such a serious debate, but I did LOL when reading Momento's comment above, due to its perceived tautological nature. I think what he meant was an opinion that only sources with a negatively biased view of Rawat criticized his lifestyle, but that isn't is how quite how how it came out! In this case, Momento's logic is correct; Hunt does not directly criticize Rawat's lifestyle, but refers to 'Critics' who have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle. However, this 3rd party voice is typical of Academic material; you are not going find too many Academics directly criticizing Rawat's lifestyle, as that would color their work with their own opinions, which would be as unacceptable as us placing original Research or trying to present our own opinions as fact in the Wikipedia article. However, if you look at the broader selection of reliable, sourced material, you see a lot of criticism of Rawat for his opulent lifestyle apart from 'critics' (people opposed to or biased against Rawat). On the basis of the overwhelming, reliably sourced evidence provided, it should be stated that Rawat has been criticized for his opulent lifestyle.Savlonn (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The "broader selection" includes gems such as Creem, OUI, Ramparts, Pageant, and such others.... lol! Please, lets stick to mainstream sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Is the information disputed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) "Information"? Some of the stuff you provided under the name of "sources" is not "information". And I was thinking about why would you be bothered to present such "information" when you know that these sources are totally useless for the purpose of this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I'm just compiling information. We haven't yet made a determinaiton that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC) If you are compiling information, please use a sandbox instead of adding it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Another editor asked for what terms are used in sources, and what sources we have for aspects of the "luxurious lifestyle". We can put a copy in to the citations arrchives too, but for our discussion of how to summarize this material it's handier to have it on this page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) No, it is a distraction. This is a wiki, and a wikilink to as sandbox is as suitable for "handy". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Getting back to the topic at hand, can we all agree that criticisms of the subject have included an "opulent lifestyle"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, people have criticized him for leading "an opulent lifestyle". Most often the same people who have criticized him for being fat, young and childish. Those critics are not suitable for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (ec) Yes, one of the main criticisms of Rawat is that he's led an opulent lifestyle (and continues to do so), esp. in light of the fact that followers were encouraged to donate all their possessions/life savings/children's college funds to the DLM, which then closed its ashrams, leaving them semi-destitute. I can find no reference that Rawat personally suffered any monetary hardships from these decisions, only large financial benefits. -- Maelefique (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Why is a widely-repeated criticism, made by the subject's close associates and family, unsuitable for an encyclopedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC) It isn't. -- Maelefique (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Because the context is missing: Why don't you propose other such "criticism" such as being called "fat", "pudgy", etc? That is what most of these sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC) What context does Jossi think is necessary to mention that the subject has been criticized for leading an opulent or luxurious lifestyle? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Read your "sources". Their tone, content, and provenance says more about context than I can ever argue in a comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If we just take the only usable sources, Newsweek and Time Magazine above, for example, a summary of these can be quite different than "the subject has been criticized for leading an opulent or luxurious lifestyle". That's my point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree with your contention that TIME and Newsweek are the only reliable sources above. Please explain why the other sources are unreliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I already did. Please explain how/why. Creem, OUI, Ramparts, and other such should be even considered. WP:BLP asks as for the high-quality sources, not just any source, and also advises us to avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I addressed this point a couple of weeks ago on the main article discussion page. NPOV trumps insisting only on academic sources. Where academic sources aren't available, then we select the best of the sources that are available; i.e. meeting the criterion of 'reliable source' and other policy criteria. I can see that we may need a debate/challenge for each source. If you think a source isn't reliable, 'high quality' or doesn't meet other policy criteria, then there is a process to request an uninvolved admin to establish whether the source is reliable. Maybe we should go back to the sandbox in Proposal 6 for that process if required. As far this debate is concerned, have we now reached consensus to include the term 'opulent lifestyle' in the article (including lead)?Savlonn (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The New York Review of Books is a highly respected publication. To claim that it is not a reliable source is tendentious. The broad spectrum of source that mention the subect's opulent lifestyle to mention it briefly in the intro and at greater length in the main body of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Did I refer to the The New York Review of Books? Did I? I was referring to the other sources that you supplied for reasons that you have to yet to explain. The Review of books does not speak of an "opulent lifestyle". @Savlonn: Administrators are not judges that we go to and ask for a ruling of the reliability of sources. Such discussions are handled by anyone that wants to participate in them, with an interest in seeking consensus about specific material and sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I thought you were saying the TIME and Newsweek were the only reliable source. Please indicate exactly which sources you're disputing and why. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I said that Time and Newsweek are high quality sources, and in stark contrast with other sources you listed here en masse, about which you have yet to explain your reasoning for presenting them while knowing that many of these are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Which ones aren't acceptable, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I think you are experienced enough to answer that question yourself, and that it is why I am asking you this question several times already. Answering a question with another does not provide any relief. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) OK, now that we've wasted time on that.... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not as experienced as Will, I would like an answer to the question as well please, specifically, which sources are you objecting to ,and why? There's no point in dragging things out later when we can deal with them right now. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) So, getting back to the task at hand is there any opposition to saying that the subject has been criticized for an "opulent lifestyle" in the intro, and expanding on that in the article? If so, why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, my previous objections have not been addressed. Materialistic and even luxurious are neutral words, OK for the voice of an encyclopedia. Opulent goes too far, and in the lead would compromise the encyclopedia's neutral voice. OK to say "source XYZ described PR's lifestyle as opulent" in the main article body. The lead should be strictly neutral. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Aye, Aye, Aye. I fail to understand how this simple point gets lost again and again. I have argued consistently for the need to attribute opinions, and separate such from facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Problem is that "materialistic" isn't a synonym of opulent, luxurious, or sumptuous. However, opulent, sumptuous, and luxurious are synonyms of each other. None are neutral terms, they are descriptive terms. Adjectives. "Materialistic" means something quite different, i.e., it would characterize the opulence, luxury, and sumptuousness. Synonyms of "materialistic" are "greedy," "possessive," "unspiritual," and "worldly." It is a fact that Maharaji has been criticized for leading a sumptuous, luxurious, and sumptuous lifestyle, so it should not be left out of the lede, if it's going to be written about in the article body. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I do not have a problem with the term "luxurious". I have a problem with the unattributed assertion that "he has been criticized", unless we use a a source such as Hunt's that summarizes the issue quite well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If folks agree to saying in the intro that the subject has been criticized for a "luxurious, materialistic lifestyle", then that's close enough for me. I'll go add that to the Intro proposal. (See P4.15). We can next address what to put in the body, and where to put it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) You have missed my point. Please re-read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) And it is the wrong process. We first add content to an article, and then we write a lead, per WP:LEAD, not the other way around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Don't get caught up in process, Jossi. We're working on many aspects of the article at once. I'll start a new section below to discuss how to cover it in the body of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) <<< Process is sometimes useful. And this is one of these cases: A lead summarizes the article. Have article first, then summarize. Duh. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) "Duh" yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Section Break Alright, time for one of these (points up). I've been watching the discussion. I would like to ask, in the interest of the mediation, that, to Jossi, the sources that you object their use to, please list them and please do state your objections to them. This case has been going on for 2 months now, and while I knew this would be a long case, we should try to be as to the point as possible. So, carry on the discussion, but try to be more concise. I have one other request. Can we try to use less of :::::: these, please?. I normally wouldn't ask, but it makes a page extremely hard to read on a cellphone (and I edit Wikipedia a little on my cellphone), so it would help me too :). Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (a) Many of the "sources" provided by Will Beback above are useless, and the reasons are obvious: Creem, OUI, Pageant and others , are not reliable sources for an encyclopedic article, and in particular for a BLP. (b) Other sources describe gifts given to Rawat by his followers (c) Other sources make references of reporters asking about a perceived contradiction for living a "luxurious life" while being a "guru" (d) Other sources, such as Newsweek describe a "provocative contrast" by having access to a $100,000 town house and other services, again reporting that these are gifts from devotees My argument is then very simple: Based on the sources that are reputable, we cannot speak of "he has been criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle", as these are not criticisms, but observations. The closest we have to a neutral presentation is Hunt: Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, 1) which sources are the "and others" that you refer to? 2) Why are Creem, Pageant and Oui unacceptable sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I think I can see where this discussion is going... Steve, may I suggest that you create some type of sandbox framework to work through the sources in a structured way, such as with columns for name of source, specific compliant criteria, etc, or whatever else you feel is appropriate? Savlonn (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary, and the wrong process. Just move the sources to a page such as we have done at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, provide citations, reference, and page numbers. Then propose an edit based on one or more of these sources. Doing a truck-dump of sources does not work for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The sources at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars aren't in dispute as reliable sources, or other criteria; the sources provided by Francis and Will on this page are. Creating an edit based on a source isn't useful until the source itself has been agreed as acceptable for inclusion. The request has been for specific complaints about specific sources to be articulated so that consensus is reached as to whether each contentious source is acceptable or not. As this specific articulation has not occurred, I am a suggesting that a structure be created to enable a mapping of complaint against each contentious source. Once consensus has been reached on acceptable sources, then they can be used for edits to be created in the relevant sandbox section for discussion and hopefully agreement, without any further debate there about the acceptability of the source. I was not suggesting to move the source material from this page. Savlonn (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The reliability of a source cannot be assessed in a vacuum; it needs to be assessed in the context of the edit. There is no such a thing as an "absolute" in regard what WP:RS advises as as a guideline. The overriding policies are NPOV, V, NOR and BLP: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Given this context, please say which sources you think are unacceptable and why. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Propose an edit (text and sources), and I will tell you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, you've dumped truck loads of sources onto talk pages before.[6] Having source text on the same page where we're discussing edits based on them is reasonable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Five scholarly sources is not a truck dump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC) How about six?[7] Or seven?[8] Clearly you've "dumped" excerpts from sources onto talk pages before. It wasn't disruptive then and it isn't disruptive now. If you have a complaint about using any of these sources please explain it. I've asked you several times and you've never answered. Unless there's an explanation it's just an "I don't like it" complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Propose an edit (text and sources), and I will tell you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Above you wrote: Many of the "sources" provided by Will Beback above are useless, and the reasons are obvious: Creem, OUI, Pageant and others , are not reliable sources for an encyclopedic article, and in particular for a BLP. You didn't say, "depending on the edit". You made a sweeping statement that some of the sources listed here are "useless", and are not reliable sources. Which sources were you referring to and why aren't they reliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) These threee are obvious: Read: Oui (magazine) a pornographic magazine, Pageant (magazine) a glamour magazine, Creem a rock-and-roll magazine, are obviously not quality sources to be used in the BLP of a person that is not related to these subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Playboy is also pornographic magazine, and it has a reputation for high-quality journalism. The writer of the Oui piece is Marjoe Gortner, who is a notable figure and well-qualified to write about young preachers. Rolling Stone is also a rock-and-roll magazine, and like Creem it has a good reputation. Pageant was a competitor to Reader's Digest. Those don't appear to be substantive arguments. And what are the other sources that you say are also unacceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Still, does not work, Will. An article in Creeem that refers to this person as a "plump little porkshop" and other such banter, is not a quality source, whatever you say, and whatever reputation you want to ascribe to it. Same applies to a hard core porno magazine that refers to this person as " The world's most overweight midget." Forget it, Will, not a happening thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) So you judge whether a source is reliable by whether or not they make flippant remarks? If we were using those remarks might be an issue, but that's not what we're talking about here. The source material listed above concerns Rawat "luxurious lifestyle". Creem carried articles on hundreds of prominent young people who had lots of money, so I think they are well-qualified to talk about Rawat's possessions. The writer of that piece is Richard Elman, a respectable journalist.[9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) No, Will, no. A hard-core porno magazine is not a usable source for an article of a BLP. A journalist may be a "respectable",. but when he/she writes for a porno magazine, he/she abides by the editorial guidelines of such magazine (fact checking, anyone?) and writes for the audience of that magazine. Not a usable source for a BLP, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Are those the only three you object to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) As for Marjoe, he is noteworthy enough for us to add his views of Rawat as a notable commentator. In this context, the only relevant material from him is this: And cars. . . . He talks about cars quite a lot in his parables. Probably because he loves them and has so many: Rolls-Royces and Mercedes, motorcycles, and that sort of thing-all gifts. That text isn't controversial and doesn't make any extraordinary claims. I doubt we'd use it as a source simply because we have so many other sources that say the same thing. In other contexts, we might use Marjoe's commentary with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, Steve asked you to "please list them and please do state your objections to them." You clearly have objections. Please say what they are rather than keeping us guessing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I will not. Propose an edit (text and sources) and we can discuss. I will not accept to be forced make sweeping blanket assessments of sources without the context of a specific text and a specific source or sources to support that text. (Sorry, Steve). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) You already made sweeping, blanket statements about these sources. We're just trying to get you to explain yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Who is this "we" of which you speak? Sounds very divisive to me. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Will keep making the same mistake of addressing some editors as being a clique. I have already asked him to not to do this, as it is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC) "We" in this case means Steve and I, the peope who asked Jossi to eplxain himself. Please don't assume bad faith. I routinely use "we" to refer to the editing community or Wikipedia itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC) You simply cannot assert yourself as "the voice of the editing community". Does not work, Will, and not a good practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) Thanks for your advice, but I'll continue doing as I've done before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Getting back to these sources, I don't see any legitimate reason to exclude Pageant or Creem. The Marjoe piece in Oui is suitable as a source for Marjoe's views, which are themselves noteworthy and should be attributed if used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC) No, these are suitable as per arguments presented. A rock-and-roll magazine and a hard-core pron magazine, and other such, are not suitable sources' for a BLP, regardless of the author (unless he/she is an authority). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (from WP:RS. Also from WP:BLP, which is the case here: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. I am exercising that policy and will continue to be very firm for the use of high-quality sources, which many of these are not.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Why is an article by a respected journalist in rock-and-roll magazine an unsuitable source for a biography? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Read the article, and your question will be answered. And if after reading that article, you still believe that it is a high-quality source for a BLP in Wikipedia, you will have to take a hard look at your early claims that you consider yourself a "neutral and uninvolved editor". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Oui, Creeme and Pageant, as per Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations are not mainstream news organizations, are they? I would argue that these are questionable sources in the context of a biography of a living person, such as this. As abundantly made clear in that policy ::page, we should insist on high-quality sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) The writer of the Creem article is a well-respected journalist. I'd say that Creem and Pageant are both mainstream magazines. They're not fringe publications. What makes you think that they are fringe sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC) What makes you think that these are mainstream press sources? You may want to carefully re-read the policies and guidelines I have cited above. I do not see the need to repeat myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I get the impression from reading the Wikipedia articles about them. Crrem was a competitor to Rolling Stone, and very much in the same league. Likewise, Pageant was a competitor to Readers Digest, and of similar quality. They are mainstream publications because they appealed to mainstream audiences. If you insist that they are unsuitable for biographies then we can take this to WP:RSN to get other input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (tabbing out a bit as per Steve's request) As alluded to previously, I was thinking along similar lines (WP:RSN) in terms of resolving the reliable sources debate where we can't get agreement here. However,a specific list of disputed sources is first required, with a brief rationale for each objection to a source e.g. Is the objection to an Author, Title of publication (or both) etc. So far, we have three. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Previously in reading discussions about this article, I kept seeing progress being held up by circular disputes, where there is a long discussion about an objection to a source based on one criterion, then if consenses is finally reached a new source objection criterion is raised and the debate starts again. I think we all agree that sweeping statements of objection serve no purpose. Steve has asked that specific objections be made in order to continue the mediation process. To me, the only way of short-circuiting the endless debate loops is to unambiguously state the specific complaints, then either gain agreement on the source here or at WP:RSN. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I understand and agree the need for contextual agreement on the use of a source with respect to a specific edit, but this can occur once the source has been agreed as reliable, without holding up the discussion of specific edits. This is no different from (say) debating an edit referencing Hunt. We can debate the weighting and appropriateness for the specific edit within the context of the article, but without having to debate whether he is a reliable source.Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) So, in summary, the sooner we have our 'bucket' of agreed reliable sources based on those at the top of this page, to compliment the existing list of accepted sources, the sooner we can finish the debate about sources and focus on improving the article. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) That would not work, Savlonn: I repeat my previous argument: Per the lead of WP:RS, How reliable a source is depends on context. The process should be to propose an edit, and provide the sources to substantiate the edit. At that point the reliabilty of these sources could be assessed in the context they are used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your goodwill, Savlonn, but I have to agree with Jossi. To illustrate the problem, the magician, writer and "professional sceptic" James Randi was approved as a reliable source for "spiritual" articles, then a great battle ensued when an editor wanted to put Randi's hostile description of one of the Knowledge techniques (which are respected Indian yoga practices) into these articles, a description that showed conclusively that he had never heard of them before. In the context of that technique, he was an ignoramus. We need to go straight to the individual issues, no matter how tedious the process. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Rumiton, you are mis-characterizing that discussion. It was never shown that Randi is an "ignoramus". His description of the techniques is consistent with other descriptions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Will, that is entirely incorrect. Khecari mudra quotes Indian spiritual sources that treat that technique will great respect, noting that it has been taught by revered masters over a long period. Randi's description was the knee-jerk response of someone hearing about it for the first time. The word ignoramus is mine and I repeat it: that is what he was. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC) That maybe so, but it certainly wasn't something that we all agreed upon, as you appeared to assert. The subject of Randi is on the list of items to be mediated, and is not yet decided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Negotiation? After watching the discussion here for a few days, it seems that there's no progress, if you look at the large picture. Obviously, a compromise needs to be formed. A balance between the current suggestions. Thoughts, anyone? Steve Crossin (contact) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) The point of this topic is to discuss how to cover Rawat's wealth and lifestyle. Tha dispute over sources is just a side issue distracting us from moving forward on that front. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Requesting blanket statements about reliability of a sources, when WP:RS advises us that How reliable a source is depends on context, is the issue that is distracting us from moving forward. Propose an edit and we can discuss the sources for that edit. That is the best way to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps if Jossi didn't make blanket statements then other editors wouldn't keep asking him to explain them. I suggest that, in order to move foprward, we consider any published material posted above to be reliable unless an editor makes a case against them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Great recipe for perpetual warfare. We need to do way better than that. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I don't see what is the issue with proposing an edit supported by sources as we have been doing all along since the start of this mediation effort. So far, it has produced some results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC) So long as nobody is making blanket statements that some apparenty reliable sources are unaccaptable, then there's no reason we can't move forward. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Parties, please have a quick look at this (for those that haven't seen it. Though I don't want to start a fuss over this, I think it's necessary that it's clear on the reasons behind my recent actions. Steve Crossin (contact) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Steve, I think we're all grateful that you're staying around to help with this mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Aye. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Agreed.Momento (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem...

Can we please not edit war in my userspace?. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan

This thread is for discussion of the use of Andrea Cagan's book, Peace is Possible as a source for Wikipedia biographis of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We already agreed to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, there is no point on this thread. Please discuss at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7#Mediator_Comments ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cagan is used in various contexts, and its use is not dependent on the context. This is a long-term dispute and one that led to this mediation. The mediator added a list of topic to mediate at the top of this page. Let's discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what are the problems you have with this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, though it'll be a few hours before I can sit down to compose a full account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Main thread (there have also been many short discussions on the same pages) Please add any important discussions that I've missed.:

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#RFC Summary 23 February 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Why not accept Mighty River Press/Andrea Cagan's new book as being reliable? Then again, why? 26 February 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Clarifications 1 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Cagan's book as a source 2 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Further discussion 9 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24#Is Cagan's book considered a reliable source? 10 May 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible” 18 February 2008
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30#Westernization Section 19 February 2008
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#No Consensus 20 February 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 3#Cagan 29 April 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4#Founding and early years 8 May 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4#Cagan on the DLM 12 May 2008

There are several problems with Cagan's Peace is Possible that are sufficient in my opinion to discount its use as a reliable, secondary source. (Note: I have read the book but I don't have a copy at hand.)

1. The most glaring problem is the total omission of the Divine Light Mission. The DLM was founded by the subject's father. The subject became the spiritual leader of the DLM as a child and retained that position until the missoin was disbanded starting in 1982. When he travelled to the U.K. and U.S. branches of the DLM were founded there. The DLM claimed to have millions of members in the 1970s. The DLM setup ashrams to house devoted followers of the subject and organized festivals in his honor. It bought him homes for which it paid the mortgages, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of planes and cars using their tax-exempt status. Virtually every single reference to the subject written before 1990 also mentions the DLM. Yet what does Cagan have to say about the DLM? Nothing. Not a word. There's not even a single entry for the organization in the index. This omission is so significant that it amounts to a major error, and brings the reliability of the entire book into question. It is the equivalent of a biography of John D. Rockefeller failing to mention Standard Oil, or a biography of Charles V leaving out the Holy Roman Empire.
2. The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing. If I recall correctly, the book contains verbatim transcripts of conversations that occured years or even decades ago. Yet the author explicitly says she never interviewed the subject. She also, apparently, failed to interview any ex-followers, even those in prominent positions like Dettmer. I've read several reviews of biographies in which the authors are castigated for giving verbatim dioalog without a source. It's poor writing and it raises further questions about reliability.
3. There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation. For example, she claims that the subject's doctor never diagnosed him with an ulcer, despite numerous printed reports quoting the doctor discussing his diagnosis. For another example, we have multiple sources that say the subject's passport was confiscated in 1973 and not returned until mid 1974 after the posting of a large bond. But Cagan says that it was returned immediately, and claims that published sources are mistaken about other details as well, all without giving any indication of how she would know better.
4. To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. Like an autobiography, special effort seems to go into "settling old scores" and "setting the record straight". While it's hard to quantify bias, it's obvious enough to make the book unreliable except as a primary source for the opinions of Cagan.
5. The fact that it was published by a single-book publisher that was established by leading followers of the subject means that there was no 3rd-party editorial oversight, a necessity for a reliable source. WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers and the editing process. This book counts as close to zero in both respects.

   In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

In summary, the book is not just error-filled. It has an unexplained omission so large that it makes the rest of the book worthless as a reliable source. It contradicts published, reliable sources on factual matters. There are no references to make it appear reliable. It was published by a one-book company with no reputation for reliability. It is obviously biased in favor of the subject and against those who may be perceived as his opponents, including his family. For these reasons it is suitable only as a primary source for the author's opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• That seems like an excellent summary of the problems Will, oh, uhm but then again, I've done zero research, and made no useful proposals or comments so far, so I guess take my kudos for what you think they're worth.  :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1) There are numerous references to the organization Shri Hans started. And numerous references to the organizations that helped Rawat. It makes sense to be general since in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.

2) Numerous sources are quoted in the text, most of them eye witnesses.

3) Cagan's contradiction of media sources is to her credit. She spoke to dozens of people who were there, not a reporter relying on second and third hand reports.

4) No surprise that Rawat and the people around him have a different view from Christian clergyman or a newspaper reporter. That's why the book is so valuable, it's a story told by people who were there. Not by people reading about it in the paper.

5) As pointed out, PIP has been published by several established and independent publishing houses.

6) As per 5.

In summary, PIP is a valuable resource written by an independent and respected biographer and published by several established and independent publishing houses. We don't exclude sources because of their obvious negative bias, why would we want to exclude a source because some people think it has a positive bias. This is a storm in a teacup.Momento (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only eyewitnesses, but witnesses that went on the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time and respond to each one of these personal opinions of Will Beback about this book. For now, I will copy here the links we found today in which three other publishers (which may be better informed that Will BeBack) have published this book in other countries than the US:

• Editorial Dilema [10], and [11]
• Alles Kultur [12], also featured here [13]
• Editorial Magnolia [14], and here [15]

These three publishers renders the supposed self-published status of this book moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unless those publishers had editorial review over the books they would appear to count more as printers and distributors than as publishers in the sense meant by WP:V. If it's just a straight translation then I don't think that the book's reliability is improved along the way. Do the translations have forewords that say the facts have been checked by the new publishers? Did they change or correct any facts in the book? Do the translations mention the Divine Light Mission? If not then they haven't been corrected and the reliability of the book is the same as before it was translated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You do not know, and you are speculating, crossing into WP:OR yet gain. I do not think that you can speculate about the inner workings and decision making of publishers. A publisher, as far as I know, assess a book before they take it on to put it in their catalog. And they may have made corrections, or not, depending if they had the need to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And you do not know that they exerted any editorial oversight of the work, which is an element of the evaluation that WP:V calls for us to do. It's still a zero. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • • And you don't know if they exerted editorial oversight, and cannot claim that they haven't, same as I cannot claim that they have. I can only speculate alongside you, but speculation will not win this argument for any of us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan has written several biographies, so she's in the clear. And PIP has been published by several independent and established publishes, so no cause for complaint there. This issue is finally and absolutely resolved.Momento (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• You do not know either, and you are also speculating, or do you have longstanding relationship with a few publishing firms (other than A Mighty River Press) to back up that claim? A publisher, as far as I know, does not assess a book if it is merely a translation, they translate it and reprint it, hardly a stamp of approval."And they may have made corrections or not", really? they may have done something, or might not have?? Isn't that the only 2 choices there are??! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are speculating, I am speculating, Will is speculating. As said above, we will need to do a lot better to win this argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How am I speculating? I just pointed out that unless you know a few publishing firms, your claims are just guesses. Do you know a few publishing firms? Particularly, how they operate in the field of republishing books, especially in foreign languages? I am not claiming to have such a relationship, or to be an expert, but I have had some experience with publishers and translations, and I cannot recall any instance where the publisher changed any meanings from the original text. Now that I think about it, how could they? It is not their book. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Will Beback personal opinions on this book, point by point:

1. DLM - The book focuses on Rawat's life on his message, and does not mention the DLM, or Elan Vital, maybe because these were organizations not founded by him. It mentions The Prem Rawat Foundation, because as Cagan writes: In November 2001, Maharaji established The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), an idea he conceived during a conversation with Linda Pascotto, an active philanthropist and one of his long-time students. Maharaji was attracted to the idea of having his own foundation through which to further his message of peace and to provide humanitarian aid to people the world over.
2. The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing - Will BeBack can be as perplexed as he wants to be. We have used several books as sources in this article that have no references or citations. As for sources, the author states that: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. - Authors chose who to interview and who not to interview. The fact that she did not interview some ex-followers does not mean that she does not have an opinion on them, as she writes about them in her book.
3. There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation - We have found through the many sources that we have amassed that there are often competing and contradictory statements made by poor journalism, hostile studies and what not. Cagan writes what she writes and we can attribute any such statements to her as we have done with other authors; About the passport, Cagan writes At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, which is different than what Will Beback claims. Cagan never says that it was returned immediately. Same about the ulcer. Will Beback interpretation of these issues is incorrect.
4. To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. To this I will respond: To someone familiar with the 1970's, it is apparent that the negative press he received was related to the cultural context of these years. And yet, we abundantly use such sources. Granted, the book is sympathetic to Prem Rawat, but that does not make a source not reliable, as we can always attribute statements to authors, as we have always done in similar situations.
5. it was published by a single-book publisher - See previous comment about other publishers. The RfC on this was very useful: [16]. Also note that the book has been published by three additional publishing houses: Editorial Dilema [17], and [18], Alles Kultur [19], and [Editorial Magnolia [20]

In summary, the book is not error-filed as Will attempts to frame it, but a very detailed book on the life of Prem Rawat, from his birth and until today, with numerous accounts from individuals that had a direct contact with Rawat. As with many other biographies, it is written from a sympathetic point of view, which is neither a crime nor carries stigma of unreliability, and has been published and translated by four different publishing houses. A most suitable source for a Wikipedia article on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. But even the defense doesn't amount to more than asking to consider the content of the Cagan book at the same level as an op-ed. I think we can all live with that. What fired off this renewed discussion of Cagan (prop7) was whether on the wealth issue all material sourced to 70s newpapers could be replaced by Cagan material. There's certainly no improved reliability of the 21st century op-ed over contemporary material of the 70s (and later), where at least most often the sources are quoted (AP, UPI, Reuters,...), investigative journalism implied that all sides were asked to give their response, and errors were put straight the next day.
  In any case, Cagan is no match for scholarly sources, nor for mainstream newspapers (not that anyone was defending that stance, just making things clear), and thus has no place in what Wikipedians consider the category of sources of the highest reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not argued for Cagan to be used as a replacement for any source. All I have argued that this book is a suitable source alongside all other sources. As for the op-ed argument above, I am not sure that this type of argument is grounded: I have yet to see that biographies are considered op-eds. Granted, biographies of living people are in many cases written as opinionated pieces, but that is not new or special. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And before you assume that your opinion of this book is accepted, I would say that you are mistaken. I will continue to make proposals in which her book is used, as I am doing with other material I am researching. This discussion is not about specific edits, but a generic discussion about the book. Again: this book is a suitable source for material about the life of Prem Rawat, per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also to be noted that the edition I have has a page count of 349 pages, and I would be interested on what other "errors" Will Beback has found beside the two he claims to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that one of the RfC respondents bnack in 2007 said that if any evidence of inaccuracy in this book is presented, we can look on books published by this press with some suspicion. There is evidence of inaccuracy, even aside from the glaring omission. I don't have the book in front of me, but other editors may know of additional errors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The glaring omission is only your personal opinion, which differs from mine. My opinion is that it is not an omission but maybe, a deliberate act: Rawat did not found the DLM or Elan Vital, and as per scholarly sources never keen on organizations. So, the author may have wanted to simply describe PR's life from that perspective. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the author wants to write a distorted biography that fails to mention the organization that bought his homes, cars, and planes, that organized his followers, his ashrams, and his festivals, that produced films, printed magazines, and newspapers to honor him, that was the "family business" his father created, then that author is welcome to write that story. But it'd be inappropriate for serious encyclopedia writers to take such an eccentric book and use it as a reliable secondary source for facts about living persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep making your opinions sound like facts. This is not a distorted biography. It is a biography that is not written from a hostile press viewpoint, which I could argue is as distorted as it can get. Again, your opinions are just that, and have no merit unless you can present evidence that there are errors in Cagans facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a fact that the book omits any mention of the DLM. It is a fact that the DLM was the organization of Rawat's followers, that it paid his bills for decades, and that it is intimately tied to his fame and prominence. The existence of the DLM was not imagined by a hostile press. The DLM is mentioned by the scholars and other writers just as often as by the journalists. Even Geaves mentions it. Is he the "hostile press"? The omission of the DLM is itself an enormous error that leaves the book so skewed and incomplete as to be utterly unreliable for the unsourced facts it does include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've realized what the problem is. The U.S. in the 70s was still essentially a racist, xenophobic country. It was only in 1970 that support for formal legal segregation finally dissolved and the Ohio national guard still felt it appropriate to murder four anti-war protestors at Kent State University. So the criticism of an Indian foreigner like Rawat a few years later was common and accepted by many. The sort of gratuitous insults repeated regularly in the press about Rawat's looks, diet, speaking style, religious concepts and traditions would never happen in a reputable newspaper now. Even Time magazine made fun of his vegetarian diet. Especially galling to the narrow minded establishment was fact that tens of thousands of America's best and brightest preferred Rawat to them and enabled him to live like a millionaire. Even in 1980 this xenophobia was alive and well in some areas - A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee was urged to investigate religious cults in the state and told that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission (amongst other groups) was a cult that employ manipulative techniques and turned children against their parents." Committee members Del. Robin Ficker (R-Montgomery) likened such a probe to the Spanish Inquisition and Del. Luiz Simmons, another Montgomery Republican, compared it to the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. Obviously we've all moved on since then.Momento (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken receipt of the US version of "Peace is Possible" now, and one of the foreign-language versions is conveniently searchable in amazon. It's not quite correct to say that the book does not mention the "organization", it does mention it many times and always refers to it just as such ("organization"). It refers (at least once) to "premies". It mentions Millennium '73, as well as Mishler (several times). It does not claim that Rawat did not have an ulcer, merely that journalists made a big deal about it before there even had been an official announcement. (In fact I am puzzled that a doctor should have spoken to the press without the patient's consent, I thought that would be a breach of medical confidentiality, but whatever.) Cagan does not claim that Rawat's passport was returned immediately, she says it was "temporarily taken from him" and mentions that Rawat was eager to leave India and couldn't. Generally, the book looks like a typical "authorised" celebrity biography to me, from what I've seen so far. Jayen466 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree on all counts. I do not believe Rawat's doctor discussed Rawat's condition with the press. No normal doctor would do it, and Rawat's doctor certainly would not.Momento (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking again, there is some apparent discrepancy with regard to the ulcer. Cagan says, 'Although there was never an official diagnosis of his illness, the press had a field day, proclaiming, "The guru has an ulcer."' Press reports of the time, however, quote Dr Horton, his personal physician (and a premie), stating that he had a mild ulcer. (There is also a very slight discrepancy between the German and English versions of the book which led to my misquoting Cagan above; the German says "no official announcement" ("keine offizielle Verlautbarung"), while the English says "no official diagnosis".) Jayen466 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

• I did a bit of searching and came upon the website of Carrie Andrews who is a professional proofreader, fact-checker, and copyeditor. She lists as her clients under Non-Fiction: Copyedit: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, Peace Is Possible. 10/06. See Carrie Andrews, under "non-fiction." If this professional proofreader and copyeditor claims to have provided services for her clients: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, it logically follows that PIP is a self-published, vanity press book for TPRF, which contracted Andrea Cagan to write the book about Prem Rawat. While Andrews claims to also do fact-checking, she doesn't state she did any fact-checking on Cagan's book about Prem Rawat. PIP, therefore, is a vanity piece paid for and promoted by The Prem Rawat Foundation. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hadn't folks already discovered that the two men who founded MightyRiver Press were on the board of the PRF? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? "folks"? "discovered"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And who might these "folks" be? Well, at least Will isn't pretending to be neutral any more. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I am sorry, I should have referred to Will's eagerness to adopt any source that is critical of Prem Rawat in a more neutral way. Won't happen again. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ms Andrews copyedited Cagan's book. If you care to look what Ms Andrews says her copyediting services comprise, you will see that it includes fact checking. So the argument is now that because the author demonstrably used an independent fact checker, the book is not fact-checked. We all know that the publishers of the book have close links to Rawat. The same is true, however, for any other authorised biography, and I am not aware that authorised biographies are generally disallowed as sources, however fawning some of them may be. Jayen466 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The point is that Ms. Andrews's client is "Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation." Not Andrea Cagan and the Mighty River Press, the publisher, which is standard practice in the publishing field when a publisher doesn't have the human resources to conduct its own copy editing. If, as you contend, Ms Andrews did fact checking, then she did a horrible job because in her book there are so many big errors, and huge errors of omissions (which are in fact lies) in the book -- it's difficult to begin to list them them all. But, rest assured, I've contacted Ms. Andrews to ascertain whether she indeed did do fact-checking (which if she say she did, will make me want to give her a big fat grade F on her services) along with copy editing because the two are quite different things. Btw, PIP is not a bona fide "authorized biography." Show me where the book says that it's an authorized biography. It's a bought and paid for vanity piece by TPRF that bought and paid a devotee, Levine, who formed the publishing company, Mighty River Press for the sole purpose of publishing a book paid for by TPRF, or Prem Rawat. Andrea Cagan is a sort-of ghost writer who gets credit for her work on other biographies, such as Grace Slick's, but they are not academic biographies with bona fide sources, footnotes and end notes on sources. Frankly, Jayen, your naivete on the subject of NRMs is surprising, and if you are so naive, that tells me you are unable to write NPOV, so I suggest you find another uncontroversial topic on Wiki about which to write, or seriously consider reading about the subject of cognitive dissonance. You're not helping on this project, Jayen, you're hindering in a big way because you obviously don't know how to research and report on subjects using rational and critical thinking, nor are you able to make critical assessments about the same. But, I'm sure you are willing to learn so go and learn. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, people see ghosts where they want to see them. If you read carefully the author's note, Cagan says "and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity", so it could have been that Cagan and the fact checker worked with the Foundation to obtain archival material for the book. I think that people here should stop with the speculation and rather that pursue their pet theories, provide evidence of the factual errors that they are claiming the book has. I have not found any such errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, for one, the book is described as an authorised biography on several websites critical of Rawat. I think it's safe to say that it shares some characteristics of all authorised biographies, notably those of glossing over controversy and presenting its subject in the way they would like to be seen. However, while it may be biased, it is not more so than some of the other sources (in the opposite direction) that we use and cite. Having been published in four or five languages, I see no reason to categorically say it must not be used as a source here. In fact, for some details, such as family circumstances etc., it is probably indispensable. My stance is, it can be used, with attribution where contentious. Jayen466 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, elsewhere you seem to be saying that it's more reliable than mainstream newspapers. That's the opposite of what WP:V says. If we're going to use it at all, we need to establish how reliable it is. Based on the criteria in WP:V, it appears to be the least reliable source possible. That doens't mean it can't be used ever, but it means that there is no reason to think it is more reliable than sources that do meet the WP:V criteria. I think that "where contentious" it shouldn't be used at all, any more than we'd use a follower's blog. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that it was more reliable than mainstream newspapers. I proposed including both versions, or dropping any reference to the disputed fact altogether, given that it was minor. And there are cases where I would consider Cagan the more reliable source. Don't you remember, e.g., the Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article in the LA Times (12 Jan. 1979) states that the Malibu estate was bought in 1974 for "Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children." Cagan is clearly the more accurate and reliable source here, stating the exact birthdays of all four children, with the first two being born in March 1975 and September 1976 – the Rawats didn't have children in 1974. (And just for good measure, their third child was born in June 1978, so they had three, not two, children by the time the article in the LA Times appeared.) The judgment depends on the context. Jayen466 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the other day we were speculating on the Proposal 7 talk page when Rawat might first have taken flying lessons, what the minimum age for taking flying lessons might be, etc. Cagan clearly dates his first flying lessons to 1972 (in England, following a trip to South Africa where he flew with an instructor). I see no reason to doubt her veracity on such matters, or that Rawat once had a boating accident by being stupid and nearly ended up drowning etc. Jayen466 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not disagree more (with Will). Please do not mis-use personal opinions or personal judgments to assert reliability of a source. I am still awaiting to see what "errors" are in Cagan's book, because have not found any. I have read the book and it includes a large number of personal accounts of people that had contact with Prem Rawat, which went on the record. An excellent piece of research, IMO. As Jaen said, granted it is a sympathetic account of PRs life, but it is not less researched than some of the pieces that we are using as sources, some of which re conradictory with other such sources, of that have been characterized as biased (as Kemmeny vs Foss & Larkin). For facts that are not disputed in other sources, Cagan can be used without attribution, and for facts that are contradicted in other sources or for opinions, we always have attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See for example Meher Baba, which I have been working on with other GA reviewers. Most of the material for that article is sourced to sympathetic sources, and there is no problem whatsoever if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whose personal accounts does Cagan's book include? Do we know their names or are they anonymous? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I though you said that you have read the book. Have you? If you have, you would remember that there are many, many people interviewed and their names clearly stated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the book and there are many, many people's full names that comment throughout the article about the happenings they were involved in through PR's life. Some examples Carol Hurst, Sandy Collier, David Lovejoy (an Oxford graduate and international-class chess player according to Cagan), Sue Ratcliffe ... and these in just two pages 145-146. I will have to go trough the index and count them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't have the book in front of me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, may I ask what are you asking for? A list of names? Do not see what would be the purpose of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was whether we knew the names of the people who gave personal accounts and you answered yes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cagan couldn't have done any real fact-checking on chapter subjects that concern former followers, other than to gain the opinions and personal accounts about them from current adherents (who are clearly biased). She never contacted any of those ex-premies or former followers to give them an opportunity to confirm or deny her accounts of them, so that's a specific reason to limit PIP to only matters about uncontroversial things, such as dates, places of birth, etc. Also, there certainly are errors of omission, which are bona fide errors, by the way, i.e., Cagan didn't interview Mahatma Saphlanand (the first western Mahatma) yet writes about him, Mike Finch was entirely written out of the history of Rawat's life and he played a key role in arranging Maharaji's travel to the UK, as well as others, who are no longer followers of Maharaji, but happen to be vocally critical. Did she contact John MacGregor? These a legitimate questions that make the book so hagiographic rather than biographical. And reason to question the "facts" in the book. In her other "biograhies," Cagan co-wrote them with the subject, such as with Grace Slick, but in PIP, she didn't even interview Prem Rawat. Moreover, any fact-checking that may have been done by the copyeditor, according to Jossi above, was conducted through TPRF by obtaining and checking archival material from TPRF, yet the copyeditor lists TPRF as her client, not Visions International which is the d/b/a of Elan Vital that maintains all of Prem Rawat's biographical archival material. How can someone fact-check in the real spirit of literary editorial fact-checking, when they limit their own sources of such fact-checking to only Pro-Rawat individuals and his organizations, yet also include in her book account about others (former followers) when they are not contacted to fact-check her accounts of them? That's a glaring error right there. It was agreed in previous discussions that PIP would be used only for non-controversial issues. Why has that now changed? I'm not imagining ghosts, and if I'm going to reprimanded for characterizing other editors, I'd appreciate if editors refrain from doing the same.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More speculation? When will this end? How do you know who maintains biographical archival material? It seems that you have not read the book. Cagan interviewed dozens of former mahatmas and bai ji's. Sure, she did not interviewed some apostates, but I would not blame her for it. After all this is a book about Prem Rawat and his message. Granted, she does report on McGregor and other people, so it seems that she reported what she thinks is notable on the subject. Sure, she makes some quite devastating arguments about the activities of certain detractors, without mincing words, but hey, that is her prerrogative, as it is the prerrogative of other sources to write things intended to assessinate PRs's character. This book can and should be used to report facts and figures not available in other sources, and on subjects about which there are other sources that say differently, we can always use attribution, as we have done with many other sources that would have been less informed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also argue that the framing for "pro-Rawat", "anti-Rawat" is one that critical ex members tend to over emphasize (which can be understood given the intense focus these people have on the subject), but that is a distortion that should be ignored when addressing ths article. This article is not about pro or anti viewpoints on the life of PR, but a biographical article that needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculation, Jossi, it's argument, two different things. Cagan wrote a hagiographical account of Prem Rawat and neglected to fact-check matters concerning those people she chose to be critical of, i.e., apostates (your term), or former followers, ex-premies. That, without question, brings into question the reliability of her book as a whole source in this article by viture of her omission of fact-checking in those areas. In my argument here I'm not advocating more anti- over pro- material in the article. Those are also your words. I'm merely asking that all editors put on their objective thinking caps and acknowledge that Cagan didn't do an exhaustive fact-checking of her book on all areas of her writing, and didn't interview all the subjects in her material. She is guilty of error by omission. It's plain and simple and undeniable. She didn't interview John Brauns, for example, or Mike Finch, and that may have been her choice, but that's also her problem if she wants her book to be viewed as a credible biography. Therefore, her book is not a reliable source for anything but for non-contentious material. Why? Because Cagan chose to take the "sloppy writing" route rather than confirming information about everyone about whom she wrote, including your apostates. Heck, she could have interviewed all the apostates and still written about them in her book as it stands, including that your apostates said they disagreed with her account of them. That is simply what all good biographers and journalists do -- they contact the living subjects of their books or articles, in order to give them the option to confirm or deny or not comment. But, unfortunately, Cagan didn't do that, and because she didn't do that, her whole account of Rawat's life is now not reliable. Cagan cannot have her cake and eat it too. If one or two of her chapters are in question, then the entire book must be called into scrutiny. That's the context of my argument, which is not opinion, but argument. Please remember that instead of characterizing my arguments based on your personal opinions of me. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're requiring Cagan to come up to a standard that many of our other sources do not fulfil either. I am as sure as you are about Cagan that all the people who wrote negative and slanted articles about Rawat, whether based on apostate testimony or not, didn't bother checking with premies either (or Rawat himself, for that matter). They certainly didn't bother putting his or their side. What you are proposing seems like a double standard to me, unless you are in favour of excluding all those one-sided press articles as well. Jayen466 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, Jayen. Jossi claims the book is exhaustively researched and he asked for errors to be pointed out, which is what I did. Rawat's organization claim it to be the most thorough, etc. biography of Rawat ever written. Omissions of fact (and people) are still errors. Just like lying by omission is still a lie. All I'm saying is that any author who writes non-fiction, especially biographical works, must be held to high standards, just like mainstream periodicals and newspapers hold their writers to high standards, especially concerning their sources and fact-checking because their newpapers could be open to liable suits. That Cagan writes about former followers but chose (Jossi's word) not to contact them so she could determine if what she writes about them is factual or not, is sloppy, unprofessional unreliable writing and unsuitable for any sourcing, but for dates of birth, places of birth, etc. which I hope she did get correct. I know of one date she did have an error on and it's a minor point, but still. It's the date of a program in New Jersey in 1976. And if you read many of the media accounts, the majority of such reports have asked for resonses from official Rawat/DLM spokepersons, and/or followers. Another argument against the Cagan book is that her other works are categorized as autobiographies because she co-authored them with the subject. That Cagan never interviewed Rawat is quite strange, considering he's a living subject and given they both live in the L.A. area. Additionally, because Cagan had open access to the subject's organizations, archives, and followers, she must be held up to a much higher standard of accuracy and fact-checking, than say, scholarly sources and media reports that had very limited, if any, access to the subject, etc. And I'm not just speaking to POVs here, pro or con. I'm speaking to a book sloppily, haphazardly written with little regard for facts. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that the book is perfect. Not referring to the DLM name is an editorial decision; but are you seriously suggesting that because of this, readers would not know who the book is about? Rawat is called Maharaji for much of the book, the Millennium event is covered, the entire controversy around his marriage and family rift is covered, and as far as I can see, factually. What the book does have is a distinctly pro-Rawat POV. For example, describing the court case against Bal Bhagwan Ji, Cagan writes:

Maharaji filed a counterclaim against Bal Bhagwan Ji. But after listening to false accusations for nearly an hour in a private talk with the judge, Maharaji withdrew his counterclaim and asked for the proceedings to be stopped immediately, out of respect for his late father. The judge responded positively. After being shamed by the judge for disrespecting his father's name, Bal Bhagwan Ji withdrew his claim as well, and Maharaji left India, not to return for many years to come.

— Cagan, pp. 208–209

Now compare this to the LA Times report:

Rival gurus Majaraj Ji and his oldest brother called off their legal confrontation Friday but kept up their feud over who is "perfect master" of their sect.

Maharaj Ji, 17, and Bal Bhagwan Ji, 24, promised an Indian judge they would try to settle their competing claims to leadership of the Divine Light Mission out of court. They dropped their defamation suits against each other after being scolded by Judge Prithan Singh Safeer during an hourlong hearing.

"Courts should not be utilized for washing this dirty linen," Safeer declared. "You say you are men of religion. Well, there is going to be bloodshed in your family unless you settle your disputes. If you want bloodshed, continue with this litigation. But why not come to terms?"

Maharaj Ji then stepped forward and unconditionally withdrew his defamation suit against his brother. After some coaxing from the judge, Bhagwan Ji withdrew his suit.

However, within hours after the hearing ended, it was clear that the brothers were still reluctant to work out a compromise over who should lead the international religious movement founded by their late father in 1961. [...]

"I intend to serve as the spiritual head of my devotees as instructed by my late father", Maharaj Ji said. "Although I was not the first in starting litigation, I am happy that I was the first to withdraw out of it," he added.

— "Gurus Call Off Courtroom Battle", Los Angeles Times, 24 May 1975

The facts are the same, the POV is not. But that is not a problem. Each source brings its own POV, and we should generally be on guard against that.

If opponents of Rawat fear that Cagan's book may be used to slander them, I am hopeful we can all agree that we will not cite those parts of Cagan's book. Beyond that, I feel it adds valuable insider detail, and as long as it is used with attribution, it can be managed responsibly. Jayen466 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will be libelled (btw, libel is written defamation, slander is spoken defamation). The point is that the book is promoted by TPRF, ContactInfo, and Mighty River Press as "...the first full and complete story of Prem Rawat. It documents his extraordinary life, from growing up with a father who was a revered master, to the day he first addressed audiences at age three, to being discovered by hippies at his home by the Himalayan foothills when he was a child, to his dramatic arrival in the West at thirteen, to today." Either it's full and complete or its not. Moreover, if this authorized biography is used as a source for controversial issues, then I propose that the earlier authorized biography of Prem Rawat, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji. is also suitable to be used as a source for this article(s). That book, published in 1973 by Bantam Books, states it is "The authentic authorized story of the 15-year-old Guru whose message of peace has changed millions of lives!" Sylviecyn (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not speaking in a legal context, but if you want to discuss dictionary definitions, see [21]. The book certainly covers his entire life story, including the DLM period, so I have no idea what you're getting at. My feeling is you simply don't like the POV of the book. At any rate, I and others still await a cataloguing of all these numerous factual inaccuracies. So far you have claimed, without a source, that a date is wrong somewhere. Wow! Jayen466 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "one-sided" press reports are published in mainstream newspapers that have editorial review processes. The "one-sided" material in Cagan's book was published by a one-book publisher established by his followers that has no perceptible editorial review process. They are not in the same league. And the journalists do routinely quote Rawat's spokesmen and followers,m so they aren't one-sided at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow that not all, but very many quality media accounts have taken the trouble to seek and include a statement from a spokesperson for Rawat. I would reiterate though that popular press accounts have been criticised as biased by scholars and religious freedom observers. Jayen466 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those criticisms were not, so far as I'm aware, about any of the sources we're using. They were general criticisms. There are general criticisms of vanity biographies too. I don't think that general criticisms that aren't specific to these sources or this topic are especially useful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only? Jayen466 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going away from the computer for the next 24 hours or so, and will respond when I'm back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Sylviecyn: I did not characterize arguments based on you. But let me ask a question: why should Cagan interview John Brauns? What notability are yous asserting to consider his testimony to be useful? So, she did not interview Finch or other people, so what? An author interviews whomever the author want to interview. Are we now starting to make assessments of sources based on whom the source's author interviewed or not? If we do that we shall throw away 99% of the sources we have used. We have sources that are absolutely wrong, and yet we cite them. We have sources that are contradicted on other sources, yet we cite them. We have sources that are written by people with an agenda (Lans, Kraneborg, for example), and we still cite them. We have sources written by irresponsible journalists, and we still cite them, etc. So, if we apply the same standards to all sources, biased for, bisaed againsr, or neutral, there is absolutely no reason not to use Cagan as a source, attributing anything that is contested when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Will Beback: You are implying that journalistic sources are impeachable, but that is farther from the truth. As someone has already argued, the context on the 1970's is one that cannot be dismissed. Journalistic sources that describe PR as a "overweight midget" are as tainted as one can argue, and still, editors here have fervently argued for their inclusion. In summary, Cagan's book is as good as any other source we have proposed for these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has argued, fervently or otherwise, for the inclusion of comments like "overweight midget". However, it is a fact that the subject was about 5'5" in height and was soberly reported to weigh 160 pounds, which is overweight according to today's standards. Those facts aren't in dispute. Even his physician discussed his weight publicly. There's no comparing of mainstream newspaper reporting with a vanity book paid for by followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you again. Have you read the book? How can you argue that this book is a "vanity" piece when it describes numerous controversies, including a tomato throwing incident at an event in France, and many others. This book is as good as a source as many other sources that you have proposed. As for "paid by followers", it seems that these "followers" had a good business sense, as the book reached number 9 in Amazon in the first days after being published, and seem to have sold the rights to three other publishers in Europe. That in itself does not make this book unsuitable as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When a book on a now-obscure spiritual teacher sells tens of thousands of copies in a week it's pretty obvious that the buyers are his followers. You have only to read the Amazon reviews to get a sense of the buying population. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had previously established, with the agreement of the Rawat followers here, Jossi, Derek, and Rumiton, that Cagan's book is to be treated as self-published for the purposes of the Wikipedia articles, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious information. Is anyone now arguing that it is published by a reliable publisher? If so, then surely ex-premie.org is back in? If that previous agreement is now thrown out, then any agreement that Steve mediates is equally transient. Steve, how do you propose that any such agreements stand the test of time? Are you willing to police the articles forever? Rawat's followers will serve him until their death or the day they become ex-premies. --John Brauns (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will ignore your highly offensive last remarks. Consensus can change. Source can refer either to the author, the publisher, or the work itself. I previously agreed that PiP be restricted to non-controversial information, not because I considered the source (in this case the author) to be inferior, but because I considered the book to be biased. Since then so much even more extremely biased material and sources have been included (mainly by one editor) that objecting on these grounds has become absurd. Count me out of the previous consensus. I now posit that Cagan is a WP:RS in every respect. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously there will be a time where I do mark this case as {{resolved}}. Until that time comes, I'll continue to mediate this case, and I won't rule out mediating it in future if needed. For now, please take note that in a week or so, I may be busier than normal, for a week or so. As for Cagan, I'm thinking it will be more likely that at a point, I'll just have to consider proposing a compromise for it's use. But I'll leave that when all other options have been exhausted. Steve Crossin (contact) 08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What an obnoxious statement to make John. And quite disgusting, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I see, some people here are maybe afraid that Cagan's book will be used as a source about the detractors. Is that the issue? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, the issue is that we, including you, had previously agreed that PIP is self-published, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious issues. You do remember agreeing to this don't you? I do hope so because I don't really want to quote the diffs. And which statement is disgusting? Are you saying you won't serve him all your life? I thought you would be proud to agree with me on this issue. --John Brauns (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have exhausted this debate. As with other sources, we shall conduct specific discussions about specific facts and opinions in Cagan's book in the context of specific edits. I move to close this discussion and get on with the proposals ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Jossi's proposal. We should re-establish that Cagan's book is self-published so that such long debates about content are unnecessary. --John Brauns (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, this isn't a meeting being conducted by using Robert's Rules of Order where you can move to close the meeting. John's right, it was previously agreed to limit the use of PIP. I agree that we should so limit PIP's use as previously agreed. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Since last discussion the book has been published by three additional independent and reputable publishers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a misleading statement. No one else has published the book in english as far as I know. Republications in foreign languages do not lend more credence to this book's authority. And just curious, what research did you do to confirm the "independent and reputable" qualities of those foreign language publishers? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Version, Editorial Dilema, in the book: "The version in English of this book can be requested to the publishing house Might River Press through the Web", sounds like a straighforward translation to me. No additional authors listed.

German Version/Alles Kultur, "The American best-seller authoress Andrea Cagan submits the first comprehensive Biografie of Prem Rawat", with Cagan again listed as the only author.

Portuguese version/ Editorial Magnolia,Same text as the German, translated almost verbatim again, Cagan listed as only author again.

No other fact checkers or additional authors listed. If it was different text, it wouldn't be the same book, and it would have additional authors listed. I see no reason to think these foriegn versions lend any more legitimacy (or any less) to Cagan's book. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but they do lend more. The insult implied by "self-published" and even more by "vanity published" is that the manuscript would be unlikely on its merits to recover publication costs. The fact that foreign publishing houses saw the English success of the book and paid for translations gives it the lie. This is a quality source. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, the politics are quite obvious: the only reason there such a long discussion about this book, is because it paints an horrendous picture of certain people, the motives and their actions. The discussion above is designed to impeach this source so that it cannot be used for that material. Politics and nothing else. Of course, that is my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is a major assumption of bad faith by a number of editors. I'm not mentioned in the book, I wasn't part of producing the book, and I don't know anyone who has been. For you to assert that I'm opposed to using this book with its bizarre omissions as a reliable source has nothing to do with anything it says about your unnamed "certain people". In the future please keep your conspiracy theories on private TPRF forums, and remember to AGF when commenting on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen asked above: So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only?
• I think that what we have here is the result of a few of Prem Rawat's followers under the auspices of TPRF putting together the money to hire a celebrity ghostwriter. She listened to tapes of talks by Rawat and others, and interviewed a few carefully-chosen current followers. The resulting book was published by the followers. What we have is essentially a self-published autobiography that contains obvious bias and has huge holes in it. She calls his palatial estate a "little house", records every honor he's ever received or paid for, yet neglects any mention of the subject's two main organizations. The omissions of the DLM and EV are so strange that this book nearly qualifies as a fringe source. (How many other publications that discuss the subject, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists, and no matter how short the piece, neglect to mention either organization?)
• So how do we use it? The same way we'd use any similar source - as little as possible. It certainly can't be used at all for the articles on the DLM or EV since the book negates their existence. When it's used for the biography of Rawat, and when it quotes someone, we should provide double attribution, "According to X, as quoted in Cagan..." If it's not quoting a source I don't think we should use it at all. If there are other sources covering the same incidents then it isn't necessary, and if it's the only source for an incident then it isn't sufficient. Only when one of the interviewees has a significant viewpoint that we need to include about an already established event should we quote from the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which house are you referring to Will? The one in the google photo or the little house that was pulled down in the early 90s. The organizations are adequately covered, PIP can be used in the DLM and EV articles if it is relevant. We don't make the newspaper articles say "Claimed by Morgan from an anonymous source" so why would we make Cagan?Momento (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what - we can use Cagan as a source for the DLM any time she mentions the DLM by name. As for the difference between Cagan and mainstream newspaper, PIP was printed by a one-book publisher while the newspapers are preinted by respected publishers. Per WP:V, that means the newspapers are reliable and Cagan is not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If we accept the argument of Cagan's book being a self-published source (which I disagree is the case), we can still use Cagan for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, and we can also quote Cagan for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the book has demonstrated errors so significant as to render the book unreliable. Please also see WP:V which says that the reliablity of books is judged by the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, that if the book was indeed published by "followers", it does not make it self-published. Same as many books written by followers of Meher Baba, i.e. his main biographer Purdon, was a follower and still his book is used extensively as a source in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Purdon's book was originally published by a respected publisher, Allen & Unwin, so the two cases aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan reviews

• I have found as many ways to work as there are clients. While each person thinks, creates and expresses differently, my initial task is similar to that of a detective - - to develop the most effective, comforting and productive method of interviewing I can find. I experiment with taping, taking notes, writing together with the client and apart, until we find the freedom and trust to tell an authentic story in the client's voice - - one of my most challenging and playful skills that make all the difference in the finished product. My main goal with my celebrity work is to pick up the voice and tell the story in a way that will leave the client feeling intelligently and authentically represented while inspiring the reader to keep turning those pages!
  • Cagan on Cagan: How I do it" [22]

• Before discussing the ways that rock autobiographies have been received by critics and fans, I need to note a particular feature of most rock autobiographies. They are written collaboratively. Of course, many pop culture autobiographies are written collaboratively, as are a few ‘high culture’ life-stories. But how can an autobiography, by definition a story in which actor and author are understood to be one and the same, be written by – or, rather, ‘with’ – another? Most collaborative rock autobiographies list the musician’s name first and then add ‘with’, as in Be My Baby by Ronnie Spector with Vince Waldron (1990), and Faithfull (1994) by Marianne Faithfull with David Dalton. But what does it mean to write with another? How does collaboration work in these cases? What are the processes, advantages and problems? Grace Slick’s book gives us a bit of insight into her case in an ‘author’s note’, which I quote in part:

. . . [our] method involved Andrea’s [her collaborator, Andrea Cagan] giving me a foundation for each chapter by providing a list of topics she’d heard me discuss, at which point I’d write down my recollection or interpretation of that aspect of my life . . . Yup, these are my words, with the help of the runway, the mechanic, and the control tower. (Slick 1998, p. xi)

• Slick goes on a bit more, suggesting that Cagan served only as an unusually active editor. Employing Slick’s metaphors, we are meant to understand that Slick did the actual ‘flying’ or writing.
  • "That’s Me in the Spotlight: rock autobiographies" by Thomas Swiss Popular Music (2005) Volume 24/2. Copyright © 2005 Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–294doi:10.1017/S0261143005000504 Printed in the United Kingdom

• I used to feel bad about being born too late in the 1960's to absorb fully the signal... But by the end of Grace Slick's messy, muddled, indulgent and occasionally amusing autobiography, I'm kind of relieved I did miss most of it. ...Her reflections often read as if her collaborator, Andrea Cagan, scribbled in the margins of the manuscript, "PIs. insrt yr thots on 60's here."
  • "White rabbit" Alex Kuczynski New York Times Book Review; Sep 20, 1998; pg. 12

• Slight but endearing, Somebody To Love? briefly catalogs Slicks highs (Woodstock,fucking Jim Morrison, going to the White House with Abbie Hoffman and a dose of acid for Nixon) and laws (Alog stalkers, DUIs). There appear to have been several pages let to fill, and they ve been added out with screeds on politics, taxes, and the plight of the panda bear. The autobiography makes good use of Slicks years as an alcoholic, rambling and reeling like a good-natured lush who's latched on to you in a bar. Since her '60s heyday is recalled so undramatically, it's Slicks life these days that stands out as the books most memorable aspect. Out of the public eye since 1989's brief Airplane reunion, she leads a mostly reclusive life in Malibu. Just another slob at the supermarket--and rails at length against aging.
  • "Somebody To Love? A Rock-and-Roll Memoir" John Sanchez. The Village Voice. New York: Sep 1, 1998. Vol. 43, Iss. 35; pg. 57, 1 pgs

• The jury ruled in favor of Goldman and Barzano, but reduced their monetary award by 42 percent, assigning them that share of contributory blame. Goldman's final award was around $1 million. By the time her lawyer proposed she write a book, Goldman had blotted out many traumatic details. "For me, it was more about going on with life," she said, "and that's what I've been doing for the past 14 years. Once I started to work with Andrea (Cagan) and the tape recorder, that's when it started to come back."
  • "She lost her legs, not her heart;" CECELIA GOODNOW. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Jan 30, 2002. pg. 1

• Slick does a nice job of explaining the dynamic of her band, The Jefferson Airplane, and its place within rock history. She talks about how she loves the creative process of making a song in the studio, but she never takes us in there with her while the magic is being made. Perhaps she was too messed up to remember. She certainly forgot much of her recording chronology. There is precious little here about how her brother-in-law, Darby Slick, wrote "Somebody to Love" or about how she concocted the drug anthem "White Rabbit." Those songs pre-date her Jefferson Airplane years, even though it was only with them that they became hits. Slick skims over the years she spent with her first husband and the year or so she spent in her first band, seemingly anxious to get to the funny business with that warring family, the Airplane. ...But the battle-by-battle account of her ego-struggles with Airplane's Marty Balin, the only guy in the band who didn't sleep with her, is missing. And after she had - and squandered - a platform from which others, notably the Beatles, tried to change the world, it is hard to take her autumnal animal-rights activism seriously.
  • "ROCK ICON REFUSED TO ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES;" Roger Moore JOURNAL BOOK REVIEWER *Moore, a former Journal reporter, now writes from Florida.. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Apr 18, 1999. pg. 20

• Before the publication of "A Bend in the Road," people in this quandary were forced to muddle through on their own. But no more. We now have a guidebook by Joan Lunden, a true American success story, a woman who pulled herself up from the affluent suburbs of northern California to make something of herself. (Does not making prom queen count as hardship?)...Even if one could stomach this cliche-fest ("Stand Like a Mountain, Flow Like Water"), the photos ultimately do the thing in. Certainly Lunden is an attractive woman, with a younger boyfriend and a positive self-image. But does the world really need pictures of Joan in bed, Joan in cowboy dress, Joan bungee jumping, Joan dressed as a Las Vegas showgirl as part of one of her "Behind Closed Doors" specials?
  • "WAKE UP, JOAN LUNDEN YOUR EGO'S ENORMOUS, AND YOUR BOOK IS A BORE" KATHLEEN RIZZO YOUNG. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Nov 11, 1998. pg. D.1

• Slick, 58, spearheaded a psychedelic scene that grew from a San Francisco phenomenon into an international movement, then became one of the few 1960s stars to weather the '70s by helping to transform the band into Jefferson Starship. And she's lived to tell the story in an autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books and written with friend Andrea Cagan. The literary venture wasn't exactly her idea, though. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she said.
  • "People in the News;" Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Sep 8, 1998. pg. 5.B

• If what Robin Williams says is true -- that if you remember the '60s, you weren't really there -- Grace Slick was there after all. She certainly doesn't remember much in this tame, chatty memoir, short on details, absent of feeling, written in a perky style more appropriate to women's magazines like Redbook than a gritty rock 'n' roll survivor like Slick....The fear and shock Slick experienced is clearly visible in "Gimme Shelter," the film of that disastrous day, but don't look for it in "Somebody to Love?." In the end, she resorts to quoting Chronicle columnist Ralph J. Gleason rather than plumb her own emotions....This strange dissociation from her own life continues through discussions of her alcoholism and recovery -- even in episodes like her 1994 arrest by Mill Valley police, after she aimed an empty shotgun at officers summoned to her house by an equally inebriated boyfriend. Ranting about saving lab animals, she often comes off more like a harmless eccentric than a sharp intellect. But Grace Slick remains one of rock's great dames, even if she was coaxed into writing a book she didn't really put her heart into. (The reported advance for the book was $1 million). Her saucy rejoinders and libertine spirit have always been a refreshing blast of comic relief for a rock scene that customarily insists on taking itself much more seriously than it should. Too bad her book isn't more like her.
  • "A Not-So-Slick Memoir by Grace / The bright, insouciant voice of Jefferson Airplane's lead vocalist comes out flat;" REVIEWED BY Joel Selvin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 3

• Most remarkable of all, she's lived to tell the story in a casual and often hilarious autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books. Written with Slick's friend Andrea Cagan, the book is a conversational, languidly outrageous document of one of the best and worst times in American history. It's also a compendium of backstage gossip and loopy psychedelic philosophy....She admits, though, that the whole literary venture wasn't her idea. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she says. "About two years ago my lawyer told me, `You ought to be doing something.' I said, `I am doing something. I'm drawing and painting.' He said, `You ought to write a book.' I said, `I don't want to write a book.' But he gave me the name of an agent friend of his anyway. She talked my ear off for nine hours about how fabulous it would be. So I finally gave in."
  • "Gracefully Outrageous / Rock's original high priestess simply refuses to mellow with age;" Neva Chonin, Chronicle Staff Writer. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 34

• As entertaining as Somebody to Love? is -- and Gracie can dish dirt with the best of them -- fans of her more serious artistic side may be disappointed in how little the music is discussed. We learn which of the band members she slept with, and even how one of them is proportioned, but we aren't told her favorite songs, her most meaningful lyrics, or what she considers her artistic successes and failures. Which is a pity and a loss. Jefferson Airplane, and Grace Slick in particular, were among rock's most radical political voices during the '60s and early '70s. You wouldn't know it from reading this book. Grace is far more interested today in her animal rights activism than in revolution. In Somebody to Love? the sex and drugs are in plenitude. It's the rock and roll that is in meager supply.
  • "ROCK MUSIC;" Tom Graves. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 9, 1998. pg. X.06

• The bottom line, of course, is that mountain of legal bills, and [Heidi Fleiss] says her lawyers agreed to a slice of whatever advance she can get "because they know I'm sitting on a pot of gold." She's called in Andrea Cagan, who ghostwrote Marianne Williamson's best-selling "A Return to Love."
  • "IT WAS JUST SOME GALS AT THE DORM WITH NOTHING MUCH TO DO" From wire reports Compiled by F. VULIN - of The Oregonian staff. The Oregonian. Portland, Or.: May 19, 1995. pg. A.02

• Convicted Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss says she's considering asking writer Andrea Cagan to help pen Fleiss' long-anticipated memoirs. Interesting, since Cagan's last ghostwriting gig was for a far different personality: New Age guru to the stars, Marianne Williamson's best-selling Return to Love.
  • Fleiss Checks Out Ghost-Writer to the Stars" Bill Zwecker. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: May 16, 1995. pg. 30

More discussion

Very few of the reviews of Cagan's previous books have actually addressed the writing or research. (In addition to co-writing biographies with celebrities she's also cowritten a book with a celebrity dog trainer and written a book on how to apply cosmetics.) These are the only reviews I've found that actually get into the writing process. None of them do anything to add to Cagan's credence. She seems to have been mostly engaged in transcribing and polishing the tape-recorded reminiscences of Malibu residents. The fact that some of the books she's co-written has been best sellers is obviously due to the fame of the memoirists and not to her own skills as a writer or researcher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this? Are we going to critique the The Oregonian?Momento (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Cagan's previous efforts have not been lauded. While her clients may have led interesting lives, their books are noted for their omissions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether her books have been lauded or not is immaterial, we don't subject other sources to that subjective criteria.Momento (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do. If scholars cite a paper by another scholar it gains credence in the academic world. In this case, the publisher of PIP has no reputation whatsoever. The presumed reliability of the book rests on Cagan's shoulders alone. Is she up to the task of researching the life of an Indian guru who lead a controversial life that involves complicated spiritual and organizational issues? Well, some reviewers thought she wasn't up to the task of writing biographies of Joan Lunden or Grace Slick, people with whom she has far more in common. Further, we can see that in her own statement she acknowledges that her method is to basically interview her subjects, not conduct research. That's why I think it's appropriate to treat this as an autobiography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that an autobiography is written by the subject of the biography. In this case it wasn't.Momento (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was compiled from tapes by the subject. It certainly does no reflect independent research or viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? That is not what the author says. Sure, Cagan used transcripted speeches for the quotes she mined and published in the book. 99% of the book is sourced to direct witnesses that went on the record. Excellent authorship ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, now we are in the business of literary critique. Although I appreciate the effort of Will Beback in listing reviews of Cagan's other books, I would argue that the strenous effort to diminish her standing as an author, while turning a blind eye to other sources biases and mis-information, is quite innapropiate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I think that is being made is that if editors want to assert that PIP should be considered a reliable source for the Rawat article, only based on it's purported "commercial success," which would require information about the publisher's initial print run and purchases, (where's the source for that?) then it's equally valid for an editor to demonstrate that many of Cagan's books were indeed not critical successes, based on the reviews above, the most important of which would be the New York Times Book Review. As far as I can tell, PIP wasn't even reviewed by the NYT Book Review, which is the hallmark for the success of any published work by an author in the U.S. PIP also did not it make the NYT's bestseller list, another hallmark of a book and author's success in the U.S. and abroad. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To Jossi: We're not discussing other sources' biases or misinformation here. You've started threads about the biases of Foss & Larkin, Momento likes to mention how inaccurate the New York Times is, etc. This thread is about Cagan. The reason that it's important to consider reviews of her work is that she is the sole source of reliability for PIP. The publisher has no reputation for reliability. But here we find that Cagan has been accused by reviewers of major omissions and muddled writing. So we have a book published by a one-time publisher created by followers who've hired a celebrity ghostwriter known for mediocre writing. On the other hand, WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers. Following that policy leads us to the conclusion that PIP is not reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, Will. The quotes you post do not support your contentions, but we are getting used to that. The criticisms are mostly directed toward the subjects of the autobiographies. Cagan comes across as an editor helping non-writers to write, but having to accept what they wanted to put in their own life-stories. Anyway, this is not an autobiography. And WP:RS "tells us" that the word "source" can refer to the publisher, the author, or the work itself. Any one of them can validate a reference. This work is thoroughly validated. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This is non-academic, but it isn't from a respected mainstream publication. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More of the same. "Particularly" is not the same as "only." Cagan has an established reputation as a biographer, even if it may not be unanimous. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find a 3rd-party source that says Cagan has a reputation for research and reliability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find a 3rd-party source that says that the sources we use in these articles have a reputation for research and reliability. 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions do not count here. By all measures this is a book that can be used as a source for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions do not count here. There would not be this much discussion over a book that "by all measures" can be used. The statement is almost humourous placed at the end of the vast amount of discussion regarding it already on this page. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not by "all measures". The most important measure, per WP:V is the reputation of the publisher, and that's non-existent in this case. The book has huge, unexplained omissions, and obvious bias. By "no measures" can it be used as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have already discussed your argument about "omissions" which is your personal opinion. We have also discussed the fact that it is a sympathetic biography (although it does not spare the inclusion of numerous controversies). SO, I do not understand the repeating of the same arguments. What is obvious, that per policy, the book can be used as follows: for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that Cagan never refers to the DLM or EV by name even once. It's not my opinion that WP:V tells us to evaluate books based on the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I note too that you're setting an lower bar for the use of Cagan then you've set for far more reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with the three independent publishers that have published the book in three European countries? What is your problem with a book about the life of PR that does not mention two organizations which he did not found? And if you speak of double standards, look at the mirror and see how you defend sources that are obviously biased and/or misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The disassociation of Rawat with the DLM and EV is a fringe viewpoint. How many reliable sources about Rawat that are longer than a few paragraphs fail to mention either organization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

???? What does have anything to do with this discussion? Cagan chose not to mention these organizations, sure. So what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It does mention the "organization", just not by name, though key personnel like Mishler are referred to, by name, with reference to their role in the organization, and the org's notable exploits like Millennium. The DLM was founded when Rawat was a minor; at one point, the org apparently told him he needn't show up in the office, because he was a minor. So I don't have a major beef with the name not being mentioned in this bio. Like Vassyana said elswhere in a different context, a source's bias does not make it unreliable or unusable per se, it just requires circumspection in how to use it. I think we should concentrate on parameters for that, rather than arguing all or nothing. At any rate, it seems not right to want to exclude the one recent biography of the man there is. Jayen466 06:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to remind editors that that saying "So what?" isn't an argument. The fact is that Cagan doesn't name Prem Rawat's organization(s) Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital makes the author less credible as a biographer. That is an enormous omission of fact in a book that's being purported as "the most complete...exhaustively researched biography of Prem Rawat." This article is about the leader of an NRM. The author of the biography chose to omit the name of the NRM. That's a huge omission in a non-fiction work. If Cagan calls the NRM organizations "the organizations" and doesn't name them, one cannot assume which organizations to which she refers, just because someone already knows the names of the organizations! Omissions of fact are the same as omissions by lying. It's still a lie; it's still misleading by the author. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• In response to Jayen: Prem Rawat was an emancipated minor at age 16 and that would have occurred in December 1973 (he was married in 74) therefore he was a legal adult. He was also, for a time, the legally named, "Chief Minister" of Divine Light Mission in the U.S. That changed eventually, but he was legally attached to the organization, DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article on which all of us here are working states confidently, albeit without a source, that Rawat became an emancipated minor in April 1974, aged 16. The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, and the US branch formed in 1971. Please provide sources for his "legal attachment" to the DLM. These might be useful for the DLM article. Jayen466 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just a reminder to please try to limit the use of <code>:::::::</code> where possible. It makes it impossible to read on a cellphone. And could someone please answer this. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16. As for the relevance of the DLM, it was the family business. The family lived in the DLM ashram. When the subject (not his father) came to the U.S. and U.K. branches of the DLM were founded to support his work. The DLM bought him expensive homes, cars, and planes. It organized festivals to honor him, set up ashrams to house his followerss, and published magazines devoted to him. And Rawat didn't sit in a trance while these things were happening. He attended DLM meetings and he gave orders (agyas) on DLM stationary about the conduct of DLM business.[23] There is a claim that Rawat fired Mishler, president of the DLM. How could he have done that if he didn't control the DLM? I cannot see any legitimate reason for a biographer to make the bizarre "choice" to ignore the organiztion that was so closely associated with her subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (First assertion struck through due to later discoveries. -W)
• Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16. Yes, and we say that happened in April 1974. A source that names that month might be useful to add to the article. As for ignoring the organization, honestly, have you read the book? I haven't read it from cover to cover, but just skimming through it, it describes various conflicts he had with Mishler, Dettmers and so on. How can you say it ignores the organization? The book describes him complaining about it, and about his deputies wanting to impose their own agenda on him. The sense that comes through is that he did not feel adequately represented by them. Jayen466 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So why did the biographer fail to name the "organization"? What organization is Rawat complaining about? What organization did he feel inadequately represented by? Jossi is arguing that Rawat had nothing to with the DLM. Do you agree with that position? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, when Rawat was 2 or 3; clearly he had nothing to do with founding it. The U.S. DLM was started up in 1971, when Rawat was 13; again, it seems implausible that he would have taken a leading role in that, and we have sources that say that his family managed the movement's business and legal affairs in the early years. So he clearly set up neither the Indian nor the U.S. Mission, and it seems that from 1974 through 1976 he parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM.
  • One thing I trust we are all agreed on, Jossi included, is that the Mission promoted him as its guru.
  • Note that even if Cagan's book did have Rawat claim that he had nothing to do with the NRM known as DLM, that in itself would be notable and of interest in his bio.
  • And have you read the book now or not? --Jayen466 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that, by analogy, because the Charles V didn't establish the Holy Roman Empire it's natural for a biographer to avoid mentioning it? When you say Rawat "parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM" - how did that happen? Are you saying he had no involvement with the hirings and firings of DLM executives? Are you denying that he wrote a letter on DLM stationary addressed to all premies? Why would he do so if he had no involvement in it? Are you denying that he attended meetings at the DLM HQ, or that his home in Malibu was the called DLM HQ for a time? Note that the book doesn't mention the EV either. Are you saying he had nothing to do with the change in name or organizational structure? That he was just a bystander to all of the organizational events between his designation as leader of the DLM and some time in the 21st century? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • She does mention the org, that it existed, who ran it, etc., but does not mention the name. So that would be like a book on Charles V, the man, referring to his empire, and to his ministers, but not to the "Holy Roman Empire." If it gives me insight into the man, I would still read it. All the other things that you are wondering whether I am saying them I am not saying, and I frankly marvel why you would think I might, because they are completely absurd suggestions. Just bear in mind that Rawat was obviously unhappy with the DLM, he had no input in how it started, because he was too young, then he tried to take it over and alter it, and then he dismantled it. If you haven't read Cagan, it might help to get hold of a copy. Some of its content may be useful to editors, regardless of POV. Jayen466 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What "org" does she mention? If Rawat dismantled the DLM what was established in its place, and by whom? As for the book, I've read it before and I have a copy in my possession now. Please feel free to quote any pages in which she mentioned the DLM or the EV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Too late over here to go through the book now, but see page references given in the book's index for Mishler, Dettmers, Houston/Millennium etc. Or search for Cagan Frieden in amazon.de and use the Search Inside function to look for the word "organisation". At a quick glance, she mentions several orgs founded by his dad, as well as orgs in the US, UK, Scandinavia, South America and Australia. Jayen466 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Without any entries in the index it's hard to find. The first one I can find is on page 185. It mentions the Paris Peace Accords, which were signed in January 1973. Then it goes on to say:
  • But there were no peace accords within Maharaji's family, and antagonism s were building within the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours, now led by Bob Mishler.
• That's just plain weird. Does anyone think that the proper description of the DLM is an organization set up to finance and manage tours? That all of the scholars who've called it a new religious movement, a sect, a cult, etc, were all wrong - it was really a travel agency? And what does "now led by Bob Mishler" [emphasis added] mean? Who was there before Mishler? How and when was it founded? And what of the U.K. DLM? It doesn't even get a backhanded mention as 'the organization' - it's just doesn't even exist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cagan refers generally to "organizations" in many chapters in the book. For example on Page 61 -63 describes an organization set up by Hans Ji Maharaj devotees as being registered in Patna, but she does not mention the name. That may be weird to you, but it seems that Cagan did not see the need to describe its name, maybe as to make a distinction between the message of father and son, and the organizations that were set up on their behalf. The only exception is The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is described along the lines that "he created The Prem Rawat Foundation". Not "weird", actually maybe to make a point. A writer's license. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and how did the DLM manage to go out of business and the EV originate? That just happened with no input from Rawat? Writers of fiction can write whatever they like but we don't use those as sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two very good reasons not to name the organizations that supported Rawat. One is that DLM India and DLM UK were never under Rawat's control and were antagonistic towards him. And two, there were many organizations that supported Rawat, for example in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.Momento (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is reality. Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good for a laugh. Unfortunately, "reality" isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia biographies of living persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to follow the conversation. We're not talking what an amateur Wikipedia editor has access to but what a real author has access to. Cagan is not limited to already published material, Cagan can talk to dozens of eye witnesses. She would very quickly establish facts that have never been published. The reality is that there have been numerous organizations that have helped Rawat that were not called DLM. Cagan would know this, even if you don't.Momento (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anyone here who thinks that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about these descriptions from Foss and Larkin that are roundly criticized by Kemeny. They described DLM as "... a highly incongruent, even self-contradictory organization" and "... the ultimate parody of bureaucracy in the wider society" (159) other than to define it as "... a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism .. ." and to argue that the main function of the staff was to monitor its own activities (159)".Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, those don't seem anything like Cagan's description. If you want to discuss Foss & Larkin let's start a separate thread. Again, getting back to Cagan, does anything think that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, this is sounding like a trick question, but uhm,.. could the source be reality? (I know, I know, I know, but I just couldn't resist, I'm already sorry :) ) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one think it is a correct and factual description, and I am amazed that it should be contentious. Clearly, Rawat travelled a lot, and still does. He travelled with a large entourage, and from continent to continent. That costs money, especially when private planes are bought and maintained to facilitate that incessant travel, when the organisation buys or rents – sometimes at great expense – venues for speaking engagements in various continents, when it books whole floors of hotels to accommodate the speaker and his entourage, etc. In fact I would think it very strange if anyone asserted that the financing and managing of festivals etc. all over the world wasn't the main business function of organisations such as the DLM, Raj Vidya Kendra etc. We have ample sources – including Cagan, by the way – saying that the DLM was in serious debt after Millennium. They were in debt because they financed and managed that particular event, were they not?

Having said that, I would not advocate that Wikipedia should describe DLM as an "organization set up to finance and manage Prem Rawat's speaking tours", period, to the exclusion of any other attested descriptions in reliable sources. But I think it is a valid and factual description of something the DLM did. And btw, even I knew that Rawat's organizations have had different names in different countries, and that neither the DLM nor the EV moniker is or was universal. I am sure sources can be provided, but they won't come from the LA Times. I don't think the U.S. media were or are much interested in what Rawat was or is up to in South America, Africa or East Asia. --Jayen466 09:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, your opinions are always welcome and respected. There's no doubt that one of the many roles the DLM fulfilled was that of arranging his tours. Likwise, the Roman Catholic Church arranged the tours of John Paul II. Would anything think of describing the RCC, in a biography of JPII, only as "an organization that arranged his tours"? It is true but it is so insufficeint as to be essentially false. The topic here is the reliability of Cagan. Cagan chooses to not mention any branch of the Divine Light Mission (Indian, U.S., U.K., Swiss, etc.) and also foregoes any mention of the Elan Vital. To the extent that she refers to the DLM at all she does so in a strange manner that Jayen wouldn't even want to see repeated in Wikipedia. I'll mention again the close association between the subject and the DLM/EV described in virtually every source we have except for Cagan. It's anomolous when one source (commissioned and published under dubious circumstances) presents a radically different picture from the sources of unquestioned reliability. Cagan doesn't mention financing festivals. She doesn't mention regulating ashrams. She doesn't mention the WATS lines, the TELEXES, the IBM computer, or the $1 million budget. We all acknowledge that scholars are the best sources, followed by journalists. Cagan, with these bizarre omissions and descriptions, isn't even in the same spectrum. She's an expert on cosmetic application, not Indian spiritual movements or their leaders. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the major defining difference between Rawat and DLM, and the Pope and the RCC is that without Rawat there is no DLM whereas without the RCC there is no Pope. Apart from that "bizarre omission" you almost made an analogy.Momento (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just plain wrong. The DLM predated Rawat. Upon the death of the father it wasn't obvious or automatic that the youngest son would succeed to the role of guru and leader. In fact, the DLM has continued in a more similar form under Prem Rawat's eldest brother who may have the larger following. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, you're preaching to the converted. I didn't say DLM "predated" Rawat, I said " without Rawat there is no DLM". And that, of course, is absolutely true, there hasn't been a DLM without a Rawat. A Rawat started DLM and a Rawat ended it. Popes can't do that and that is why a pope will always be subservient to the RCC, whereas Sant style gurus find organizations a hindrance and happily destroy them.Momento (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And there hasn't been an HRE emperor without a Bourbon or Hohenzollern. They're family businesses. So say many sources, except for Cagan. And that's the core of the problem. Cagan has an ideosyncratic view of the verifiable facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

She is not an expert, but she had journalistic access to various sources close to the subject, which adds value. I've got to do some work now and will come back to this later, but note that her book includes many mentions of the ashrams set up to further Rawat's teachings. I am not arguing that she should be considered more reliable than a quality newspaper where her account and that in the paper contradict each other. Just that she is one more source worth looking at. Jayen466 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

She had access, though not to her subject. I don't know what "journalistic" would mean in this context. She didn't seem to make any effort to interview those with contrasting opinions, as journalists typically do. The book has worth (even toilet paper has worth), only it's so low that it is not worth using much for Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you bother to speak to people with contrasting opinions when you can read their opinions from a safe distance. Cagan's book, Peace is Possible, the life and message of Prem Rawat, is an excellent source. She is a successful biographer and it's clear she talked to people who have been very close to Rawat. It provides a wealth of information not covered by popular media and relgious scholars.Momento (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs provide wealths of viewpoints too but they're not reliable sources either. Cagan's PIP omits any direct discussion about the most important organizations in the subject's life. To the extent it mentions them it does so in a strange and distorted way. Due to those and other weird choices by the author the book is not a reliable source except for itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the U.S. the ashrams were Divine Light Mission ashrams under the control of Prem Rawat, DLM and its agents, including mahatmas, initiators, instructors, or anyone else in a position of authority in DLM/EV. Cagan's neglect to mention the name of the organization DLM/EV is very poor authorship of non-fiction. Cagan's omission of the name of the NRM, DLM/EV is tantamount to someone writing a biography of Sun Myung Moon and omitting the name of the Unification Church, L. Ron Hubbard, and leaving out the Church of Scientology, Maharishi and leaving out TM Organization, and Sathya Sai Baba and leaving out Sathya Sai Organization. The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect. Read the articles of incorporation. It's designated as a church in the U.S first as DLM, now named EV. Besides, AITTA (operated by Joe Anctil, DLM's spokesperson, first located in Denver, and later situated right next door to the Miami Beach, FL DLM headquarters) was the travel agency that facilitated travel for this NRM. Not DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect. About as wrong and incorrect as asserting that that is what I said above. ;-) I believe though that the events where Rawat spoke were very major occasions for premies, and that their preparation and organisation, as well as advance publication, PR and subsequent DLM-internal reporting on them, constituted a major part of what the DLM organisation did. If I'm wrong there, do tell me. Jayen466 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, the DLM organized his tours. But it also organized festivals, ran ashrams, produced movies, published magazines, employed 250 at its HQ (50 of whom were on its public relations team), and so on. Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM this way? I doubt it and that's one reason why I say this is a fringe source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Rawat spoke at the festivals; the festivals were based around his appearances, which were their high point. The magazines reported his speeches, the PR team, again, publicised his speaking and teaching. Yes, they also ran ashrams, which Cagan mentions many times. Jayen466 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Jayen, you're absolutely correct but the events and travel were only a part of it. DLM/EV is the NRM's name of which Prem Rawat has been a leader since he came to the U.S. That's why the omission of its name in a biography of Prem Rawat demonstrates what an incredible hack job was done by Cagan. It's inexcusable to call it a well-researched, exhaustive biography of an NRM leader and then omit the NRM's name. The majority of people don't know who Prem Rawat or "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "Maharaji" is. Most people have never heard of him or or of DLM/EV. Rawat (and his many a/k/a's) is not a household name nor is he a celebrity, that's why the book is so terribly misleading to the casual reader. Sure, as editors of these Wiki articles, we know what orgs. she means, but not so with any casual reader of her book. Btw, if memory serves, the date Cagan gets wrong in the book is the date of the December 19, 1976 Atlantic City, New Jersey program. She cites it as December 20th. That's why I said it was minor, but still, it's factual error. Previous discussion about it is somewhere in the archives, but I don't have time to search for it right now. Cheers. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• You said in your earlier post (12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC), Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_24#Is_Cagan.27s_book_considered_a_reliable_source.3F) that "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." Cagan on page 216 merely says that on Dec 20 1976, Maharaji reiterated some priorities to his disciples, and added "that he could provide guidance and inspiration to people and that the organization had to leave him free to do so". The nature of his comments is consistent with the occasion having been the coordinator's meeting which you say took place on the date Cagan gives (20 Dec). Jayen466 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• It may be that Cagan read part of one of Geaves' papers on Rawat and got confused. He says of the Elan Vital:
  • There was no membership, but a small number of paid and unpaid volunteers who looked after organisational matters such as Prem Rawat's tours, ftnance, legal affairs, public relations, and communication.
• Confusing the Divine Light Missin with the Elan Vital is a major error, but at least it makes more sense than describing the DLM as a travel agency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• The book does not pretend to be a consummate history of the movements Rawat established. Its focus is more personal, describing much of his family life and origins, intimate episodes of his non-public life, etc. Accordingly, the movements are covered more from the point of view of how they impacted on him personally. For example, while the movement names in the various countries aren't mentioned, in a number of cases the name of the national organisation's main coordinator is given. There is even the occasional self-critical look back at his own youth from Rawat.

• As promised, I've had a look at what references to the various orgs there are in the book. This is, I believe, a pretty complete summary:

• p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
• p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
• p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
• p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
• p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
• p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
• p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
• p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
• p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
• p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
• p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
• p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
• p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
• p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
• p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
• p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
• p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
• p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
• p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
• p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."

• Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.
• So after another "88KB of handwringing", and having looked at the book some more, I suggest we treat Cagan more or less as a self-published source, to be used with circumspection: fine to use where not unduly self-serving, with relevance to notability of any statements cited to the book to be established by mentions in a second source. I think that will still leave us enough to discuss and fight over. :-) --Jayen466 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that research, that's awsesome. Before we draw a conclusion let's take a little time to review what you've compiled. It may be next week before I can sit down and see what Cagan says about the "organization(s)". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I finally looked up the Wiki definition of "self published" and was lead to this - A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense.[24] Do we have any evidence that Cagan paid for the printing? If she didn't, how can the book be "self published"?Momento (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was paid for tbe the followers of the subject. That's essentially self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Essentially self published" isn't good enough. If Cagan didn't pay for it to be published, it isn't self published.Momento (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one opinion. An alternative is that we don't allow it at all becuase it's so erroneous, incomplete and biased. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the opinion of Wikipedia. And your other arguments have already been eliminated - no errors have been presented, all other accepted sources are incomplete and numerous biased sources have been accepted. This argument is over.Momento (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No errors? It is incorrect to describe the DLM is "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours". It is incorrect to view the DLM as so unimportant to the life of Prem Rawat that it doesn't merit mentioning by name. We're still finding more mistakes. The author has no reputation for quality writing and the publisher has no reputation whatsoever. At best we might use it in limited ways like we'd use a self-published source, but that's iffy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to end this discussion

Every reason to limit the use of Peace is Possible, the biography of Prem Rawat by Andrea Cagan has been exhausted. According to Wiki it is not self published. Unless anyone can come up with something new and substantial, we should move on. It is no more biased, erroneous or incomplete than the majority of sources use in this article. Momento (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento, if a person or organisation pays a writer to write a biography, and then publishes that biography using a publishing house created for that purpose then the biography is clearly self-published. That is what has happened in this case. I agree it is time to end this discussion - Peace is Possible is without doubt self-published. --John Brauns (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just keep with the Wikipedia definition of self published not yours.Momento (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's. - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, ..... are largely not acceptable." --John Brauns (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a website," however, not all websites continuously operate for ten solid years as is the case with Ex-Premie.org. One cannot propose to end a discussion when no concensus has yet been reached on the subject. Therefore, I propose that this discussion continue until such a time as concensus has been reached. The Cagan book is not a reliable source for all the reasons listed in the discussions here. Let's keep on talkin'. That's the whole purpose of this mediation: to argue the issues until they're settled. It would be more civil an polite if Rawat adherents would discontinue their practice of ending discussion thusly.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Momento might be right, it seems on the face of it, that we have arrived at a consensus, which is that we cannot arrive at a consensus that Cagan is an acceptable source. I think we would all agree on that. Therefore, Cagan should not be used, and to quote Momento again, let's move on. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Based on what you're saying is that using Cagan for any past, current, or future proposals can't be allowable, except on very basic things, which means material in the existing article using Cagan as a source must be removed and re-argued. That's based on my understanding of what you're saying.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was horrible writing on my part. I don't think any concensus has been reached, therefore, Cagan cannot be used in the article for any purpose, since there are minor errors and major omissions in her book.  ??? Sylviecyn (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If we regard the book as self-published we might be able to use parts of it. If we don't regard it as self-published then there's little reason to use any of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• The attempt to validate PIP in terms of additional 'publishers' is ridiculous, not only are the works involved mere word for word translations but at least two of the touted entities are linked to Rawat supporting entities. Alles Cultur lists www.soulchill.com , www.woptv.de and www.elanvital.org as partners [25] and the claimed publisher Editorial Dilema is merely a reseller - the publisher of the Portuegese translation is Bajo el Alma [26] . I find it very difficult to believe that Jossi was not aware of these connections and if he wasn't it rather suggests a serious lack of awareness of the subject - either way, and even with assuming good faith, his arguments are seriously undermined by the omission to detail the Rawat links when arguing for validation through additional publisher editions.

I would also add that the Carrie Andrews issue, while revealing yet another link to Prem Rawat (why was the not for profit TPRF paying CA to fact check a privately published book ? And was that not somewhat unfortunate as the 'for profit' publisher operates from a business address shared by a Director of TPRF ?)does not help with the question of fundamental accuracy of Cagan's work. A fact checker does not carry out primary research, but merely assesses the accuracy of the content as provided, partial content will only be partially accurate even after the fact checker has done their work.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

• • Regarding emancipation, the most specific source I can find says:
    • The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune
  • I don't see any that say he was made an "Emancipated Minor", just that he was given permission to marry by a judge in lieu of permission from his parents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Read Cagan. I have provided a quotation from the book in main article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (btw, Emancipated_minor#Emancipation in the United States of America ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that just does more to impeach Cagan as a reliable source. Why would he need permission to marry in May if he'd been made an emancipated minor in April? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion migrated to Talk:Prem Rawat#Emancipated minor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, the failure to mention the DLM or EV in a book-length biography of the subject makes it virtually a fringe source. We have at least a hundred reliable sources about the subject - how many of those choose "not to mention these organizations"? As I said before, it'd be like a biographer of John D. Rockefeller choosing not to mention Standard Oil, or a biographer of Charles V choosing not to mention the Holy Roman Empire. If she had bothered to explain her "choice" it might be explicable, but she didn't and it's inexplicable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I do not understand why you keep making the same argument. Cagan may have had a reason, and we can speculate about it as much as we want, and yet that speculation is just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, she may have had a reason or not. All we can judge is the effect of here "choice", which is a bizarrely-incomplete biography that fails to menion his father's organization or the organizatons that he led and that paid his bills for decades. While Cagan is free to make her coices, we have to make ours. It's impossible to see how a book can be considered an acceptable, 3rd-party source when the author makes weird choices like that. See the critical reception of Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, an authorized biography whose author made a similarly weird choice (though at least he explained it). Do we use that book as a source for the life of Reagan? Nope, even though it was the result of interviews with Reagan and was published by a major publisher. Weird choices have their consequences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weird, maybe for you. You did not write the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And apparently not weird for you, since some of your first edits to this encyclopedia were to delete any mention of the DLM from the Prem Rawat biography.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Fortunately, Wikipedia is not edited exclusively by people who make such weird decisions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • WP is a learning process. I think knowing what they do now, a fair number of editors would consider their earliest edits here cringeworthy. Jayen466 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. But these particular edits exhibit the same strange bias as Cagan does in her book, which is the discussion here. Jossi says that omission of the DLM isn't weird, but we have to take that personal opinion in the context of his repeated deletions of any mention of the DLM from the Wikipedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That's Jossi's problem, not mine. And apart from that, it seems Jossi has long overcome it, since I don't recall him arguing in recent or even not-so-recent history that DLM/EV references should be removed. --Jayen466 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I never said it was your problem - I was responding to Jossi's assertion that omitting the DLM from a biography of Prem Rawat isn't weird. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It seems pretty clear Jossi hasn't overcome it, since he is now advocating the use of the same viewpoint, only promoted by someone else to the same end result. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Weird" is a very subjective word. I cannot see any reason why the name of the organisation should be deliberately omitted, nor any advantage to be gained from it. I would just call it imperfect editing, which is not an uncommon thing. It is still clear in the text which organisation is being referred to. This example is by no means bad enough to discredit the whole book. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Weird may be subjective to a point, but it applies in this case I think. One obvious reason to omit the name of the DLM/EV is to avoid any stigma that may or may not be attached to it, that's not imperfect editing that's biased POV editing. It is not clear from the text which organisation is being referred to, unless someone already has a previous knowledge of the DLM. Previous to working on these articles, I would not have known what organisation was being referred to. I had never heard of PR, DLM, EV, or the Millenium Event, etc. I think DLM/EV are inextricably wound to the story of PR's history, and there's really no valid reason to keep their names out of his biography, unless you want to skew towards a much more sympathetic viewpoint of PR. I could tell an interesting history of someone named Frank Biller, and how he helped thousands of people buy homes, and helped by lending money to people when others wouldn't, etc, but if I left out the part where he was vice-president of the Eron Mortgage Corporation, it's not really an accurate picture. (Eron Mortgage Corporation was shut down due to massive defrauding of investors, Biller went to jail for 3 years) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a rather poisonous comparison, Maelefique, and I must object to it. It could be taken as an attempt at guilt by association. The DLM has never, afaik, been convicted of any wrongdoing, and Elan Vital, its successor, certainly has not. If it were otherwise I could understand why this author might wish to conceal the connection with the subject, but as things stand I still must put it down to plain old sloppy editing. A literary offense, to be sure, but not a hanging one. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt be association" in this context, I'm not trying to say that the example and Prem Rawat's story have any details in common, but the omission of DLM/EV from a book that claims to be *the* biography of his life is certainly misleading, as it was in my example. If you'd prefer I'd substituted a different entity that had never been convicted of anything, how about the I.M.F.? Many people have a problem with that organization, and it would be wrong to write a bio about someone who ran it for many years, and never mention the I.M.F., at least imo. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I said you seemed to be trying to imply guilt by association because you mentioned an organisation that apparently defrauded people and compared it to DLM/EV, saying that the author might have been trying to "avoid stigma." There is no stigma if there is no wrongdoing. I think we agree that DLM/EV are extensively covered, just never mentioned by their given names. Not "wrong", just sloppy. Bad sub-editing, I would say, but not culpable. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a minor issue. The chief criteria for a reliable, 3rd-party source is that it have a responsible editing process. Even the best sources can still have typos. But the omission of the DLM/EV and of the "GMJ" name go beyond just overlooking something. That requires an active decision to omit the information, and then a decision to omit a discussion of that omission. To the extent that MightRiver had any editing process they didn't notice it or they agreed to or even required it. And since Cagan considers herself an editor as well, she may have handled that job herself aside from the proofreader. As for analogies, closer ones would be to a biography of Michael Jackson failing to name the Jackson 5, or to a biography of Shirley Temple omitting the name of the studio where she worked as a child (her 5 hit movies in 1934 are credited with keeping 20th Century Fox out of bankruptcy in the Great Depression). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• That IS a minor issue. And you are ignoring the arguments put up above and continuing to restate your own case. Please stop doing that if you are at all sincere about reaching a real consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Organization" citations

Let's use this section to investigate the references that Jayen found to "organizations". Copied from above:

• p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
• p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
• p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
• p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
• p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
• p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
• p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
• p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
• p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
• p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
• p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
• p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
• p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
• p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
• p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
• p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
• p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
• p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
• p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
• p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."
• Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.

The first entry is on pp.61-63. As with many other parts of the book, this material has no apparent source. Most of it is not discussed in any other source I'm aware of, except the old copies of DLM publications hoseted on another site. Those that I've read make no mention of any of the tensions discussed in PIP. One aspect that is mentioned in reliable sources is the fight between family members over control of the Indian branch. That conflict is covered further on later pages. However the description here concerns me. It says on p.63:

• Ironically, a little more than ten years after Shri Maharaji's first organizers sued him, the Indian branch of the organization turned against his son. As with his father, the son would be taken to court, but this time, the organizers weren't the only ones trying to sue him--his own family members wanted total control over organizational decisions and assets as they attempted to assert their authority over his work.

There are several problems here. 1) First is the name: Does any other source refer to the subject's father as "Shri Maharaji"? That appears to be an invention of Cagan, though she quotes "Sant Ji" using that name. 2) Second, it isn't clear which organization is being referred to since it is unnamed. We may guess it's the DLM, but that's just our own conjecture so while we can discuss it on talk pages we can't make that assertion in articles. 3) Third, it's my understanding from other sources that it was Prem Rawat who initiated the legal actions and that his brother countersued in response. This passage gives the opposite impression, making it appear that the family started the legal action. 4) Fourth, what "work" is being referred to? We've already established that Prem Rawat had little or no organizational control over the DLM while he was a minor, so whose work are we is Cagan talking about - Prem Rawat's or his father's? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See my earlier post 12:57, 13 July 2008 above. From that at least, it seems to be correct that BBJ sued and Maharaji countersued; witness the Maharaji quote given by the LA Times. "Shri Maharaji" seems fine to me, Indian usage is flowery and flexible.

Note that "-ji" is just a term of endearment that can be attached to any name; grammatically, it functions much like "mate" in Australian (and some British) English: "Dave mate, will you pass us the hammer?" It is certainly funny when even religious scholars like Bromley in Strange Gods seem to think that "Ji" is some sort of surname, referring to Maharaji as "Ji". ("Ji's movement had a fairly simple structure ..., p. 44). It's like saying, "Mate is a good plumber", because someone has called Dave "Dave mate, ...". If you talk to Indians in online forums, and they get to like you, they will quite readily append -ji to your name when they address you. ("Will-ji, you are completely right.") ;-) See -ji. --Jayen466 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawat has frequently used "Shri Maharaji" as an endearing, affectionate term when referring to his father. He also referred to his father as "Guru Maharaj Ji," but, when telling anecdotes about the father he used the more endearing one. It's odd that Cagan used the term in the book describing the litigation, because unless that's explained, a casual reader won't know that. Just more sloppiness on Cagan's part, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The book is written in an intimate style, so why should she not use Rawat's familiar term. --Jayen466 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an intimate term and certainly Cagan made that editorial choice, but unless Cagan provides a glossary to explain terms and/or Cast of Characters explaining the various names, the casual reader cannot know for sure who she's referring to: Prem Rawat, his brothers, or his father. Premies will certainly understand that the reference to "Shri Maharaji," means "Shri Hans," which leads me to think that the book was written for premies, by premies, for use in Rawat's promotion only, not for wider use. It's supposed to be non-fiction, with sources, references, citations, etc., not to leave the reader confused, which is actually the case here, because Will didn't know and had to bring the question. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As you read through the book and come to that para in context, it's clear enough for the reader who is meant. --Jayen466 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to that discussion, I have just noticed that on page 3 (!), Cagan says, "When Prem was born, his family consisted of his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Shri Maharaji); his mother; his stepmother; and his three older brothers: Sat Pal (Bal Bhagwan Ji), born in 1951; Mahi Pal (Bhole Ji), born in 1953; and Dharam Pal (Raja Ji), born in 1955." If we are assessing the book's reliability, we should first make sure that we have actually read it in its entirety, and give page refs for any demonstrable reliability issues. I'll devote a few evenings' bedtime reading to that, and suggest other editors do the same. --Jayen466 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I'd never seen "Shri Maharaji" in print, but if editors here have heard the subject use that name in speeches by the subject that's good enough for me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The work" refers to Rawat's spiritual work – bringing people "Knowledge". That's okay too. What worried me more was that Cagan's book is unashamedly based on personal recollections, without apparent crosschecking. That adds great colour and flavour in places, but hampers reliability. The paragraph on p. 281 about the Daily Californian articles is a good example. We discussed these at length a few months ago; if you read them, and then read Cagan's summary of the affair, the impression you get from Cagan leads you to expect to find something else in the DC's correction than what the Daily Californian actually said. --Jayen466 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that misrepresentations like that are worrisome. As the book is examined carefully more and more of these worrisome issues show up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding point 1: "Shri Maharaji" as a name for Prem Rawat's father, do we have any other source which uses that name for him? Like other details, it's a writer's choice if they want to make up names for the people in their books. But to put quote marks around it, implying that it is actually what someone said four decades ago, is a fresh interpretation of history (to put it nicely). While I agree with what you about hte use of "-ji", it's still a novel spelling or usage. Regarding point 3: I believe there are sources that give a different chain of events. I'll check, but my recollection is that "BBJ" was supposedly spread photos and stories about his brother, then Prem sued him for libel and BBJ countersued. Let me see if I can find the references I'm thinking of. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic of names, Cagan writes on page 86 that after the death of Prem Rawat's father and after the tilak was applied to his forehead, "never again would the students call him Sant Ji. For them, he was now Guru Maharaji." Is this true? He was never called "Sant Ji" by students after 1966 and he was called "Guru Maharaji" instead? I've seen hundreds of sources and I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji", and few after that since he dropped "guru" at roughly the same time as he changed the spelling. It gives the strong impression that she's reluctant to use the name by which he was best known, "Guru Maharaj Ji", and to also bury the "Sant Ji" name, which we can see he still used occasionally in later years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • All his names – Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaji, Maharaji, Prem Rawat – are listed in the Prologue (p. xx). There's a couple of occurrences of "Guru Maharaji" later on in the book as well. --Jayen466 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji" Many, many papers in the 70s referred to "Guru Maharaj Ji". Jayen466 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Guru Maharaj Ji", the name and spelling by which the subject achieved his greatest prominence, is not listed in the prologue. "Guru Maharaj Ji" and "Guru Maharaji" are not the same thing, obviously. Does Cagan ever use the subject's most famous name? Also, Cagan asserts that students never called him "Sant Ji" again after 1966. Yet we know he signed his name as "Sant Ji" as late as 1974. Early newspaper accounts, when all that reporters knew about the subject was what they were told by followers, use names like "Balyogeshwar Sri Sant Ji Maharaj", or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". It seems like a sweeping statement to say the name was never used again by students. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think we are tilting at windmills here. Indian names and their English spellings are very fluid things, the same way Arab names are. Perhaps that might sincerely seem strange to some people, but let's concentrate on serious issues. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks mates. Or Jis, as the case may be. Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think that's fine too. There is no "right" way of transliterating the -ji syllable. Indian papers, in fact, usually add it directly to the name. In Mahatma Gandhi's case, for example, "Gandhiji" is far more common than "Gandhi Ji". So Cagan's way of writing it actually conforms to standard Indian-English usage. Jayen466 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If she weren't writing about someone who'd already achieved prominence in English-speaking countries under one name it'd be fine to come up with a fresh transliteration. But to ignore the most common name in favor of a spelling that was rarely, if ever, used, is bad history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cagan doesn't use the names of the DLM or the EV, and she doesn't use the best-known version of the subject's name. It's as if her subject is going incognito, wearing sunglasses or a disguise so he won't be recognized. That's a very strange way to write a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, I see, we are trying to discredit Cagan again. You are confusing the Wikipedia version of notability (mention in the press and by scholars, however ancient) with the normal person's idea of what it means (the most recent and well-known version.) You can't expect a biographer to conform to Wikipedia values. Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We're evaluating Cagan's reliability. Her refusal to use the most common names of her subect and his organizations is problematic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no confusion at all, quite the contrary. And if a person is still alive, nothing is ancient history. You know that. What these editors are trying to do is untangle the confusion and obfuscation that Cagan created in her poorly-written book that has no citations, sources, end-notes, glossary, or a cast of characters. I applaud these editors for doing this and so should you. The issue isn't about "conforming to Wikipedia values;" the issue is if Cagan's book is a reliable source by Wikipedia values/standards so it can be used in a Wikpedia BLP, which has very strict standards for application of sources as you know. PIP clearly is not because it's supposed to be a biography, a non-fiction, not a jumbled bunch of revisionism and confusing anecdotes about a subject's life events. Btw, I was always told by Indian premies that the use of "Ji" is the same thing as using "Mr." in Hindi/India. It's a polite term, not a term of endearment, but a proper term of respect to be attached to an Indian/Hindu person's name when addressing them. Also, the moniker "Maharaji" is commonly used in India and in the western world. It's not unique to Prem Rawat. Please stop assuming bad faith, Rumiton. People here are trying to make sense of that book, no thanks to the author and her sources who made a muddled mess of the thing. These editors are doing the right thing, writing on a BLP, my hope is you'd agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sylviecyn, -ji is a mark of respect, but I believe it is a bit warmer than Sri/Shree (Mr.). See e.g. [35] (written by an Indian), [36], [37], [38]. However, I'll readily confess that I don't speak Hindi. Cheers, Jayen466 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see the point Will is making about the sunglasses. On the other hand, if I extend AGF to Cagan, the following could be said to speak in her favour:
  • She mentions the name "Guru Maharaji" multiple times (once quoting a radio broadcast, p.164), which is but a variant spelling of Guru Maharaj Ji, and gives all his various names in a prominent place in the prologue (the word premie is also mentioned early on).
  • She uses Maharaji – a name the subject has been known by for about thirty years now – very often throughout the book; she could have stuck to "Prem Rawat" if she had wanted to be deliberately obfuscatory.
  • All the facts that made Rawat notable and that people would remember about him – his arrival in the West as a young teenage guru, the Millennium event, the marriage and resulting family rift – are covered.
  • The book includes many photos from Rawat's teenage years, again enabling identification. Granted, she did not include photos of Rawat in his Krishna costume, but then again, I would not necessarily want to show all the fashion statements I was happy to use in the seventies. ;-)
  • The names "Prem Rawat" and "Maharaji" are as easy to find on rickross.com etc. as Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital. As a matter of fact, Rick Ross has him as "Guru Maharaji" (so spelt).
  • Someone who doesn't remember "the teenage guru from the seventies" probably won't remember the name "Divine Light Mission", either (nor Elan Vital, for that matter).
• So I am not sure that she is being deliberately obfuscatory; at any rate, it would not appear to be very effective if she had tried to be. Cagan may simply be writing from a present-day perspective, where the Guru Maharaj Ji era is a story that lasted less than ten years and is now more than a quarter of a century ago. Sure, the subject got more press in those first ten years than in the following thirty years put together, but given that she set out to write his life history and asserts his present-day notability as a keynote speaker, orator on peace invited to speak in universities on all continents and so on, she does not have to be bound by that. Even if she is being obfuscatory, one could also see this in a more charitable way, as enabling people to look at Rawat and his message without pigeonholing him on page 3 and putting the book away at page 4, or refusing to have her subject defined by those high-coverage years in the seventies.
• By the way, the reference to the book being a "full and complete story" of Rawat's life is only present on the back cover blurb, which presumably was not written by Cagan. She herself says in her foreword that she realised early on that she would not be able to "tell his story in its entirety", but instead "fashioned this book to paint a picture of an extraordinary man". There's no false pretenses on her part; it is what she says it is. --Jayen466 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've checked through my electronic resources and the only time anyone uses that spelling is in combination with "Ji", as in "Guru Maharaji Ji". For her to say that after 1966 his students called him "Guru Maharaji" is just plain wrong. See, for example, the book, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?. The change in spelling in the 1980s was intentional and thorough, so the "organizations" and the subject apparently take the matter seriously. By analogy, if I understand correctly, folks didn't refer to "Osho" by that name earlier in his life. So it'd be incorrect for a biographer to quote people addressing him as "Osho" if that wasn't the name they used at the time. As for the statement on the back cover, the book is marketed as a "full and complete" biography. Presumably if the author didn't write that then the publisher did. Is it full and complete? I think we're finding that it isn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In terms of what they called him, it's correct, insofar as there isn't a difference in pronunciation between "Maharaji" and "Maharaj Ji"; they are just two different ways of spelling the same sound in Roman letters. Sure Cagan's bio doesn't cover all angles, but the same applies to the other materials we use as well, and Cagan does cover some things the others don't (family stuff and the like). (You're correct with Osho, the name was only used from '89 onward.) Jayen466 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It'd be more correct to say that his students called him "Goomerajee" or "Goom Rodgie" than to say they called him "Guru Maharaji". Regarding the family stuff, that seems the most biased and therefore least reliable. The only times that Mata Ji or BBJ are mentioned is to blame them for something or point out their flaws. If we're going to treat this as a self-published work we should restrict any use to just the thoughts, feelings, or actions of Prem Rawat because I don't think we can trust its reporting on family matters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I did not mean that family stuff. I just meant things related to his immediate family, i.e. his children. Otherwise, I think we are in agreement. Jayen466 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to make sure we are not talking at cross-purposes: I am not arguing that Cagan is a 100% reliable source. Some of the rosy "spin" she puts on things (probably by dint of quoting interviewed premies) in my mind puts the factual reliability of some passages in doubt, or makes their portrayal somewhat "self-serving" in the sense of WP:SPS. I would affirm the need for cross-checking with other sources whenever something is contentious, or potentially self-serving in that sense; and notability of anything she mentions (like awards etc.) should be attested to by independent sources. I think Cagan is a WP:RS on things such as the birthdays and names of his kids, if we wanted to include those, but even those can and should be cross-checked with the papers that reported his kids being born at the time. Jayen466 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I agree in theory, but in practice it hasn't worked out to limit the use of the book to non-contentious assertions because there has been disagreement over what counts as contentious. Names of kids are one thing, but this book has been offered as a source for far less neutral assertions. I don't think it can be used for anything but the simplest, statements. In almost every case if it is the only source it's insufficient, and if there are corroborating sources it's unnecessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I think a corroborating source is a must. Without that it is not notable. Where Cagan and an WP:RS disagree, we can look for further sources to see if any back her up. Jayen466 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell us what we should do when Cagan claims the first child was born in 1975 whereas a "reliable" newspaper has Rawat with 2 children in 1974? Momento (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• We use the best sources we can find. His first two children were reportein the press, but I don't recall seeing any mentions of the younger two, probably because he had assumed a lower profile by then. What source has the children in 1974? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article, LA Times (12 Jan. 1979). (Also see my post dd. 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) above.) Jayen466 00:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Certainly the longer any source is the more errors are likely to be in it. Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults misspells Mishler's name. Having one or two small errors doesn't invalidate a source but having more begins to do so. On topics like the older children we have many sources and we use what WP:V considers the most reliable: scholarly sources and mainstream media. If it was a situation in which we had only two conflicting sources about a fact, Cagan and a mainstream newspaper, there'd be no comparison between which is considered more reliable by Wikipedia standards. Verifiable doesn't mean true. This encyclopedia is just about what's verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so it doesn't matter whether what Cagan wrote is true as long as we can verify that she wrote it.Momento (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case, if we'd started out with just Cagan and that wrong article, looking for other newspaper articles would have yielded a greater number of articles that have the right info. So we get WP:V and truth, which is a bonus. --Jayen466 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And in the absence of any articles, wrong or otherwise, as long as we can verify Cagan says it, we can use it.Momento (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. We've found too many problems with the material where we have independent sources to trust the material for which we don't. As one of the original RfC respondnets noted, if might be given a benefit of the doubt if there were no errors, but now we've found significant errors and omissions. Neither its publisher nor its author have reputations for writing complete, reliable biographies. It just doesn't meet WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already said that verifiability is the determining factor not truth. So errors and omissions don't come into it. Look how hard you fought for James Randi. The only reason to question something from PIP is if it is contradicted by another source. And even then, both opinions can be attributed.Momento (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Randi is a noteworthy individual whose comments we were using as a significant point of view, which NPOV requires we include. Cagan is being used, not for her opinions, but for facts. The two istuations aren't comparable. As far as errors and omissions, their presence menas that sources aren't reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, please follow BLP guidelines: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured there's nothing questionable about PIP. And the only living people apart from Rawat and Satpal to get mentioned will be Macgregor and for him we have impeccable sources.Momento (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the preceding discussion about Cagan before making time-wasting statements like this one. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP if you do not understand the problem with PIP as stated above. Rest assured, there are quite a few questions about PIP, it should probably not be used at all. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Maelefique, please take care with your edit summaries, such as this one are not exactly what I would class as civil. There's no doubt that the use of the Peace is Possible book is disputed, but there is no reason to resort to edit summaries like that one. Civility, please. And that goes for all of you, I do read individual diffs, so please do not think that I miss the hidden comments in edit summaries. I don't. Steve Crossin (contact) 14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to hide it Steve (unlike some editors who remove parts of discussions from their talk pages to make their arguments look better), many people have believed in a flat earth until ridiculously recently, despite massive evidence to the contrary. See any parallels to that concept here? (Granted, it wasn't my *most* civil summary, but it was directly on point, still looking for WP:Don't waste everyone's time too) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please avoid that sort of thing though [39]. If I may ask you: rather attempt to lower tension than encourage it. This is in Steve's userspace you're working here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson

• Moving forward, let's look at pages 180-182 which cover the 1972 customs incident. There are numerous press and other reports that cover this topic. While reports vary, the estimate of the dollar value of the material ranged from US$27,000 to $80,000 (in 2007 dollars that would be $136,812 to $405,371 [40]). Cagan refers to "some cash and wristwatches" without giving any estimate of the amount. From what we know of DLM members, it's unlikely that any of them were wearing diamond-encrusted Rolexes, so presumably the bulk of that valuation was in cash. She makes light of the concern that the DLM could have been used as a conduit for money laundering by the CIA, despite the intense activity of the CIA in the early 1970s in south Asia. However she entirely ignores the investigation into the DLM's and Rawat's international finances, preferring instead to devote time to complaining about what appears to be an accurate account on another matter by a Washington Post reporter. Her assertion that the wristwatches belonged to followers contradicts DLM statements reported contemporaneously that the wristwatches were gifts for Rawat, his family, and mahatmas. In conclusion, she says nothing useful about the incident that we could use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Cagan does mention that he and his organization were eventually cleared. Did all RS sources that reported the commencement of the investigation report on the outcome, or did at least some feel that the fact that he was accused was more newsworthy than the fact that he was cleared? Jayen466 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I was just reading an email discussion between Wikimedia honchos concerning the general problem of BLP subjects where an indictment or arrest have been reported, but no news source has ever bothered to report the release/exoneration/not guilty verdict/pardon. News sources aren't biographies, though they may include biographical information. Likewise, while scholarly papers are reliable, they aren't necesarily biographies either, even though they may include short biographical summaries. to the best of my knowlede there are only three sources we have that purport to be biographies: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, Current Biography Yearbook 1974, and Cagan. The first of those doesn't cover the incident at all. Here's what Current Biography Yearbook 1974 says:
  • Within a year Guru Maharaj Ji's following had grown so enormously that after his 1972 tour eleven jumbo jets were required to carry a small fraction of the Western devotees back to India with him to celebrate the annual three-day festival in honor of his late father. A hostile Indian religious group asked the government to arrest Guru Maharaj Ji at the airport in New Delhi and force him to submit to a medical examination to determine his true age, which, the group asserted, was twenty-two. The request was denied, but an embarrassing incident occurred nonetheless: customs officials found $80,000 in jewels, watches, and money in the briefcase of Joan Apter, who was then serving as the Guru's secretary. Spokesmen for the Guru explained that the money was to pay the expenses of Western devotees during their stay in India and that the watches and jewelry were gifts for the Guru's mother, brothers, and mahatmas. Smuggling charges were never filed, but the Indian government was at last report still looking into the Guru's taxes.
• Here's what Cagan says:
  • Some of his students in the United States and Britain organized five chartered jets to take a record number of Western students there in late 1972. By the time they all arrived in India, however an innocent customs incident involving two people, some cash, and wristwatches soured the press toward Maharaji. They started writing articles that accused him of being involved in smuggling jewels and cash. Not that they needed any more ammunition, since they were already accusing him of lying about his age and of being a CIA agent. Needless to say, these frivolous assertions were never substantiated, but that never stopped detractors from repeating the stories.
  • [Two paragraph complaint about press coverage]
  • When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief¬case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India. So in the beginning of 1973, the fifteen-year-old was facing yet another challenging time in his life, having to stay in India in order to deal with the false allegations, when all he wanted was to return to his work and his friends in the West.
  • Maharaji's students explained that the briefcase in question merely held a pool of petty cash for the journey and safeguarded some personal jewelry. Maharaji and the organization would eventually be cleared on all counts.
• If Cagan were our only source I don't think we could assert that the charges weren't filed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • <off-topic> Just out of interest, did this e-mail exchange come to any useful conclusions about how to deal with this issue? Jayen466 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's Argosy's Aug. 1974 inset box on the topic:

THE GURU'S GAME

In September of 1972, I was assigned to cover Maharaj Ji's return to Mother India. The Divine Light people had rented 18 jet planes to ferry some 3,500 Premies to India to be on hand for the Guru's touch-down-a kind of modern replay of the old Ark trick. Maharaj Ji's return was to signal the beginning of a five-day celebration at the Ram Lila grounds, a dusty No-Man's Land that separates "Old" Delhi from "New" Delhi.

The flight was long and uneventful--except for one thing. DLM officers came marching down the aisles collecting all the money and valuables the Premies were carrying. Reasons were given. "It's the Perfect Master's will, man," was the one I heard most often. Nonetheless, a number of noses began sniffing the air. Their faith was getting a test from their common sense.

The Guru's faithful ran into problems as soon as the plane had landed in New Delhi. Joan Apter-a super Premie and one of the five original U.S. converts-had her suitcase opened by Customs inspectors. It contained $28,000 in cash, travelers checks and jewelry. When the officials had finished with the rest of the bags, the figure stood at $65,000. Indira Gandhi's government had a stroke. Bringing that kind of wealth into the country-undeclared-was deemed to be smuggling, and a minor international incident was under way. The Customs people confiscated everything in sight, including Maharaj Ji's passport.

Indira Gandhi flew to New Delhi to hold a special session with her ministers to decide whether or not to clap the Perfect Master in jail. The Holy Family, holding a special session of their own, decided that they had had all they wanted of New Delhi. They loaded all the faithful aboard buses and trucked them the 100 miles to Hardwar.

Final destination turned out to be a group of white-stucco buildings, ringed with barbed-wire-topped fence. It was owned by Maharaj Ji and the Holy Family. But by now the first-aid tents were jammed with people who were suffering from high fevers and a racking dysentery. Forced to eat food that was produced on land fertilized with fresh water-buffalo manure, they fell like flies in a Raid commercial. And, since they had no money to buy food, they were helpless to change their diets. A minimovement began to get some money back so that the sicker people could be moved back to New Delhi for proper medical attention (the Premie doctor's idea of treatment was to tell them they needed "More faith, brother, more faith"). It was at about that time that the DLM officers made an announcement. "According to Divine will, all money and valuables left for safe keeping with DLM personnel, will be donated to the Divine Treasury." At that point, a lot of people saw the "knowledge." To this day, the Indian government is still holding on to the suitcases, and the Guru must post a substantial bond any time he decides to leave the country. -EB

Among other things apparent from this eye-witness account, the point of the money/valuables being collected during flight sheds another light than Cagan's "...involving two people..." imho --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Issues like this make one wonder just what kind of research Cagan did. When compared to objective sources, this "full and complete" biography doesn't come off so well. Fortunately this topic is well-covered in other sources. The problem comes where Cagan is the only source available for something. Based on what we know so far, I think that would be a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where Cagan appears to be the only source for something, I believe we should (1) look whether there aren't perhaps other sources after all that back her up (2) failing that consider inserting her version of events, with attribution. Given the level of innuendo and stark ad-hominem hostility of many press sources such as the Daily Mail, I believe this is not asking too much in order to discharge our responsibility to NPOV. Jayen466 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Without some bright line rule of when to use Cagan we're going to spend the next ten years arguing over when and how to use the book. If we're trying to balance purported media bias then using Cagan only when there are no media sources is an odd way to do it. Perhaps doing the opposite would be more appropriate - use Cagan only when there are other sources and then only to provide a contrasting view of events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I meant. Where Cagan is the only one giving a view contradicting other sources, first check if there are other sources stating the same as she does, and if none do, consider putting Cagan's version as a contrasting view, with attribution. --Jayen466 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, your analysis is biased! I see some obvious reliability problems with the two sources that you have brought here: one claims there were "18 jets", the other claims there were "eleven jumbo jets". Cagan says it was "five jets". So who is right? Each source is impeached by the others. A jumbo jet takes about 420 to 520 passengers, depending on seat layout; assuming (!) the total of 3,500 premies given in Francis' source is correct, the group would not have needed eleven jumbo jets. On another note, the $28,000 in cash cited in Francis' source (less than $150,000 in today's money) should be seen in relation to the number of people that were being transported, accommodated and fed. Dividing this amount by 3,500, we see that we are talking about a little more than $40 per person (in today's money) to finance each premie's stay in India. I think $40 in today's money qualifies as "pool of petty cash", as indicated by Cagan. It's not for nothing that scholars recommend a triangulation approach, comparing self-published, neutral and hostile sources, to come to an understanding of the true circumstances of such events. And I'd be interested in hearing truthful accounts from any premies or ex-premies who were on those flights, and lived through those events, to see which of these sources comes closest to an WP:NPOV description of these events.

As for Cagan stating that Rawat was cleared, I believe we have an RS stating that the Indian government issued an apology to Rawat later on. That's a plus point for her reliability in my book.

And it's moving the goalposts to say that Cagan being incomplete disqualifies her as an RS, but the media being selective and scholars being incomplete are just the way things are and we have to accept it. We have to be neutral, or at least pretend to be. Jayen466 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan's book is sold as "The first full and complete story if Prem Rawat". We're judging the book on its own terms. Only two other sources purport to be biographies and we can judge them on the same terms. As for the differences between various types of sources, we don't expect journalists to have a deep understanding of spiritual concepts, and we don't expect religious scholars to spend time tracking down news. We do expect biographers to write complete and full accounts of their subjects' lives. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, that calculation of $40 per person being a reasonable petty cash pool implies that the money was somehow associated with individual members. None of the many accounts, even Cagan, ever say that the money found its way back to the members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it? According to your self-published source, premies were fed and accommodated (both in a rather basic way, admittedly) for four weeks and don't appear to have made any other payment towards that. You'd struggle to find a tent camp for $10 a week incl. bad food today, even in India. Jayen466 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so interested in the matter of the money as of what research Cagan did in reporting on this. It appears that she relied on interviews and faulty or selective recollections rather than any real research such as we're doing. If the book had been sold as "sketches of Rawat's" or "recollections by admirers" than we wouldn't necessarily view it as a reliable source. It claims to be a full and complete life story, and it appears that that claim is yet another inaccuracy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that claim is only made in the marketing blurb on the back cover. But yes, it appears she mainly interviewed premies. Jayen466 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we evaluate books based on the publishers' reputations for reliability. The publishers, the people in charge of fact-checking, think this is a full and complete biography. It clearly isn't. That further impeaches the reliability of the publisher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V allows use of self-pubslished sources. Jayen466 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there's two problems with that strategy. There's no agreement that it's self-published, and if it is, by whom was it published? Cagan never even interviewd Rawat, so it's hard to say it was published by him. We have some convincing information that it was published by the foundation, and if we agree on that then we could use it as a source for the foundation article. But even self-published sources that have proven errors and omissions should be avoided. We should be using the best sources, not those that we have to struggle to find a way to allow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the WP policy or guideline that says a source that has omissions can't be mined for what information it contains? Cagan has spin, yes, but its facts at times strike me as more reliable than those given in other sources we use (which also suffer from omissions, based on opposite bias). As for it being an SPS, we shouldn't be arguing both sides against the middle. Jayen466 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The policies in question are WP:V and WP:BLP, which tell us not to use unreliable sources. They don't say that it's appropriate to go through an unreliable source and pick out parts that we think might be more reliable. As for being an SPS, by whom is it published? Who is the "self"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of our work on these articles, I would define the "self" as Rawat and the organizations related to him, based on the fact that the book draws on transcripts of his talks, testimonies of people involved in his organizations, and the fact that the original US publishers are premies. Jayen466 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And by what logic do we say that a book published by MightyRiver is self published by Prem Rawat? What is the clear connection between them? Just because some followers self-publish a book doesn't mean that it comes under the SPS exemeption when writing about Rawat, a 3rd party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>

• Just a common-sense appraisal – it seems close enough for practical purposes and may be a workable compromise. Over the past few months (years), Cagan's book has been characterised as a self-published source by many editors here. John described it as such just the other day. Re-reading Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_29#Status_of_.E2.80.9CPeace_Is_Possible.E2.80.9D –
  • Nik pointed out that Mr Mazo, the business partner of the Mighty River Press CEO, is a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.
  • Momento pointed out that "The press release announcing the publication of Peace is Possible is produced on of The Prem Rawat Foundation's web site".
  • Francis considered it an SPS, noting the difference between the two statements
    • "We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties" (WP:V paraphrased) and
    • "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" (actual WP:V wording)
  • and concluded that "they can be used, not as "third-party sources", but still as "self-published sources" for those living persons, subject to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves".
  • Sylviecyn has argued at various times that the book has been endorsed by TPRF.
• To be fair, I think you always argued against it being treated as an SPS – your reason being that Rawat didn't publish it himself, making it a "third-party source" about Rawat.
• I argued against SPS status too – my reason being that self-published according to WP:SPS means published by the author, or at the author's expense, and it clearly wasn't published or paid for by Cagan herself. I stand by that.
• Cagan is a very successful biographer. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register, that it seems far better researched than Collier, and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine. I don't think it is a sufficient standalone source for exceptional claims in a BLP context. --Jayen466 22:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could we move this SPS discussion down to #Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published?. That'd help keep things more compact and focused. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As for "picking and choosing", we do that with all our sources. If a reliable source is directly and credibly contradicted by a host of other reliable sources – say, Melton calling Mishler Mishner – we assume our source is in error and do not cite that passage, while keeping our options open to cite other parts of the source that appear solid. --Jayen466 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, if we wanted to mention the number of Boeings that the premies travelled to India on, I would cite Cagan, your SPS, and perhaps add a footnote that various other sources made it 8, 9, 11, or 18 Boeings. I think Cagan and even your unpublished SPS are more reliable for this particular detail than the other sources, by virtue of being based on first-hand, eye-witness testimony. --Jayen466 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When we have a reliable source that makes an obvious typo or an anomolous assertion we deal with that. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which we take an unreliable source and use parts because we think those parts may be reliable. It's the difference between picking a wilted leaf out of your salad versus digging through a trash can to find enough unspoiled food for dinner. Or to use another example, forums are not considered reliable sources. Does anyone think it's OK to quote the forum postings of Davis, Dettmer, or Donner, on the basis that they appear to be reliable reflections of the writers' comments? No, obviously not. Now there may be circumstances in which we say that a source is reliable in some parts but not in others, but we haven't found the reliable part of Cagan yet. She even changes quoted text, which means she's unreliable as a simple reporter of statements so even the interviews aren't trustworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, I just don't take quite so dim a view of Cagan's reliability as you do. I think she uses spin (or passes it on from her interviewees), but the actual facts she reports seem fairly solid to me, plus she reports on some things that aren't prominent in other sources (like his being cleared of the smuggling charges, his being a keynote speaker at a Rotary Club meeting, his being invited to speak in universities in Oxford or Malaysia, the former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament being interested in him etc.). I haven't researched that stuff, and perhaps I'll change my mind later, but I don't at present think she made all of that up. At the very least, she could give us an idea on how to expand the scope of the article, and what to do further research on to make this a rounded bio. --Jayen466 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• We need to get out of these cycles of original research on sources. OR is *not* OK, per policy, WP:NOR. Sometimes discussions like this one go astray because of "no, we're not doing OR on the subject of the Wikipedia article, but we don't mind driving the OR on the sources describing that subject ad infinitum". The principles are fairly simple: did anyone directly and unambiguously involved with the authoring & publication of the book (that are *two* parties, an author and a publisher, not the name of a fact-checker we plucked from an internet site, possibly involved via a fourth party, etc.) have a *reputation* for fact-checking? No, and that's it. Whether it's a SPS (literally) is irrelevant, while it would be a *questionable* source in any case if it's not an SPS, and the rules for how and when to use SPSs and "questionable" sources are exactly the same (check WP:V on that - the only difference regards how such sources are being found either the one or the other by Wikipedia's simplistic rules).
• Notability: if no other source but Cagan mentions something, it lacks notability, and won't be included in Wikipedia. I have a late 20th century biography of over 500 pages on a UK painter. His Wikipedia article is a few paragraphs. Details only found in the published biography are not notable enough, even if it's written by a scholar (like the one I'm talking about here). That's how it works. We're a tertiary source, which summarizes other sources, not a PR platform for a living inspirational speaker.

And, oh, a third thought. Maybe Steve does not so much ask us to keep indenting low for reading on his mobile, as for us to stop endless-repeat discussions after the 2nd step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• To Jayen, as I pointed out earlier, the smuggling incident, including the failure to file charges, is well-covered in the best biography we have, Current Biography Yearbook. As for the rest, even highly unreliable sources can inform editing decisions. There's value in reading forum postings, user pages, self-published sources, etc., in order to understand the background and to learn about topics we may not know of otherwise. I certainly don't object to using any source in that way. To Francis, I agree that we don't have space in this article for every complaint and compliment. Being invited to speak at a university may mean many things. It may mean being the graduation speaker with the entire faculty and student body in attendance and receiving an honorary doctorate, or it may mean that a few students got together, reserved a room, and printed some flyers. Both fall under the phrase "invited to speak at.." but we have to be careful that we don't imply more than we can verify. This gets back to the UN anniversary issue that I've read about in the talk page archives. And yes, I think it's the multiple indents that bother Steve. It's standard practice on WP talk pages, but we can bend a bit to accomodate Steve's 2.5" screen considering how generous he's being with his time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson (part 2)

And I note that Argosy (magazine), quoted above, is described as an "American pulp magazine". Please! Jayen466 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not on the flight, I was back home in the ashram, but several of my friends were there. There were 5 aeroplanes, not 8 or 11. The story of the unwilling confiscation of money is a fabrication. The dialogue is made up, totally at odds with the jargon of the day. The story about buffalo manure is laughably inaccurate, though there were, as always in India, some cases of diarrhoea. These wildly wrong accounts should not be used in any way for this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The account in the Argosy is matched closely by the account in Jos Lammers' self-published memoir Abandoned Roads, available online.[41] In particular, Chapters Seven[42], Eight,[43] and Nine.[44] It may be that Rumiton's friend's are the unreliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How so? I note that this self-published author says "I was in one of the five chartered Boeing-747’s", backing Cagan and none of the other presumably more reliable sources. There is no mention of being asked to hand over money in the plane, or have I missed that? Yes, apparently there was lots of diarrhoea, and I can well believe it. --Jayen466 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite possible that different things were done on different planes. I was contrasting Lammer's recollections with those of Rumiton's friends, who apparently couldn't see shit (literally). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At any rate it seems there were 5 Boeings, not 8, 11 or 18, or any other number reported in more reliable sources. (Btw, using bovine dung as manure is not exactly a practice restricted to the Indian subcontinent. Some people should get out in the country more often.) Jayen466 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say 5? Do you have some independent knowledge of the correct figure? In matters like this, I expect it's very rare for reporters to make their own investigation. I'm fairly sure they were reporting what they were told by the DLM rather than calling up the charter companies in the U.S. and U.K. and asking for details of their customers. Based on how widely the DLM's statements about its following vary, adding and omitting a million followers from interview to interview, I think it's safe to say that the spokesmen didn't place a high priority on numerical accuracy or consistency. Further, we're talking about an international movement. Some writers may make statements that are correct regarding their country, but fail to include events going on in other countries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just answered above. Jayen466 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I retract the answer I just gave above. This user page contains the passage, "It was a huge celebration. Five "jumbo jets" (Boeing 747s) were chartered just to carry visitors from the US, and several more for other countries." It seems your instinct was correct, after all. :-) (FWIW, Cagan says the five jets were chartered by his disciples in the US and UK.) --Jayen466 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's Stoner, Carroll; Parke, Jo Anne. All Gods Children: The Cult Experience - Salvation Or Slavery?. Radnor, Pa: Chilton, 1977, ISBN 0-8019-6620-5, p 103, which I think clarifies some Cagan issues too (e.g. secretary/stewardess; finances;...):

GURU MAHARAJ JI

Thousands of sunsets had faded behind the Rocky Mountains since a small band of acid dealers brought a pudgy thirteen-year-old Indian holy boy to a teepee on a mountainside in Boulder so he could teach them and their friends how to meditate and get high without drugs.

Since 1971 the young guru has grown into a less rotund but far richer young man. He's moved from the mountainside teepee, first to a large $86,000 house with a pool in Denver, and then to a half-million-dollar Malibu estate complete with pool, tennis court, and ocean view. He's owned Mercedes Benzes and Maseratis and has been stopped for speeding. He's had ulcers and has married and become a father. In his early twenties, he's in control of a multimillion-dollar-a-year religious business, the Divine Light Mission.

He had some trouble hanging onto his religious enterprise in 1975, after he married his tall, blonde, and older secretary, Marolyn Lois Johnson, a former United Airlines stewardess from California. Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage, or the young man's gaudy lifestyle. At sixteen he was not old enough to marry without parental permission in Colorado, so he petitioned the court.

The judge agreed that the boy guru was old enough to marry, saying that he had an income and appeared mature beyond his years, a point confirmed by his most devout followers and disputed by others who tell of water pistol battles and legendary bouts of childish temper. The couple married in 1974 in a posh ceremony at a nondenominational Christian church outside Denver. They now live at the California estate with their two small children when they are not traveling on Mission business. The organization still maintains the Denver home as a place for Maharaj Ji to stay when he is in the city. But most of the time, premies live in the house. When their guru comes to Denver, they move out.

After his marriage, the young guru's mother, Rajeswari Devi (known as Mata Ji to premies) disowned her youngest son, saying she had made a mistake when she named him to succeed his father as head of the religious movement, and named the guru's older brother Bal Bhagwan Ji to direct the Mission. Maharaj Ji's reaction was to fight for his place as spiritual master of the Mission, and he went to India, where he and his brother became entangled in a series of legal suits and countersuits. Ultimately the two young men agreed, in a New Delhi court, to drop all charges. Now it appears that while Maharaj Ji is firmly in control of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, his mother and brother have taken the reins of the movement in India.

The Mission's tax-free annual income, revealed by Mission spokesman Joe Anctil as about $3.78 million in 1976, came from gifts, tithings, and annual business earnings. Robert Mischler, the Mission's executive director, has said the group considers itself a religion only for tax purposes. As a religion it is exempt from taxation. Under the Internal Revenue Service regulation no part of the net earnings of a religion may go to a private individual.

Anctil says that 60 percent of the Mission's $315,000 monthly income goes to support the international headquarters in Denver, the homes around the country where the guru and the 250 member staff live. The Mission makes the mortgage payments on both of Maharaj Ji's homes and spends about $200,000 annually from the Mission coffers to support the Mission's full-time premies, its guru, and its business activities.

Michael Garson, a former premie who worked in the Denver headquarters, has a different idea. In an affidavit presented in a British Columbia court he said, "My analysis of the accounts of the Divine Light Mission indicated that approximately 60 percent of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the lifestyle of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him."

In photostats of Mission financial records submitted with his testimony, Garson pointed out an entry of $139,925 marked "special projects." He said it was money "advanced directly to the Maharaj Ji for purposes related directly to his own maintenance."

It is no secret that the Mission has overspent in its brief history and has run up some monumental debts. The guru's millennium celebration at the Houston Astrodome in 1972 left the group sadly in arrears in making payments on debts it incurred at that time. Anctil says at one time the Mission owed more than $650,000 but had been able by late 1976, to reduce that debt to $80,000.

However, the Divine Light Mission is still feeling a financial squeeze. In selling real estate around the country the Mission has closed ashrams. With the closing of ashrams came a decline in income. Where premies move out of the ashrams they no longer turn over their weekly paychecks to the Mission. It must then rely on their voluntary contributions. In December 1976, Anctil said the monthly income from contributions had dropped from a high of more than $100,000 a month to $80,000.

In response to the declining income the Mission has had to consolidate its operations. In addition to the disposal of real estate in Denver and elsewhere the Mission has sold its printing business. The business was sold to a premie who, operates it in Denver and charges the Mission for printing work. The computer, which the Mission once used to keep track of its membership around the country, is gone. It was dropped when the costly lease expired.

With the printing business gone and some of the other Mission business activities shut down, premies who worked in those enterprises have had to reconsider their life's work. Many are being encouraged to go back into the world, get a job, and contribute to the Mission by tithing.

But the Mission doesn't show any signs of closing. As Joe Anctil says, "We are changing our image." It appears that the Divine Light Mission and its guru will be around as long as they can determine what the public wants and give it to them. And the guru has what looks like a long life ahead of him.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Again, it is worth noting that the financial practices of Rawat's organization were investigated and found to be in order (as stated by Cagan, and uncontradicted by any reliable source as far as I am aware). Garson's accusations came to naught. --Jayen466 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And re-investigated and re-cleared of wrongdoing many times since, though somehow that does not deter some from suggesting otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Garson's accusations came to naught" – well, let's put it this way, you've been tricked again by Cagan's flowery language:

Michael Garson, 35, the guru's former financial analyst [...] testified as a witness in a case seeking to prevent U.S. Heiress Darby McNeal, 31, now a British Columbia resident, from signing over an estimated $400,000 inheritance to the Divine Light Mission. Each week about $35,000 in donations and income flow into the mission's Denver headquarters, said Garson, and "approximately 60% of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the life-style of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him. So far as I could see, the whole function of the organization was to provide an opulent existence for the Maharaj Ji." [45]

Later that month:

A British Columbia Supreme Court order has blocked an American heiress from handing over much of her wealth to guru Maharaj Ji. [...] Darby McNeal, 31 [...] "The evidence before me is that this Maharaj Ji's way of living does not correspond to the ideals of a traditional Indian guru and that 60 per cent of the substantial receipts of the Divine Light Mission are directed to maintain Maharaj Ji and those close to him in grand style," the judge said.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not an investigation of the organization's finances and its compliance with charity regulations. (I remember reading that there was such an investigation following Garson's allegations, in Colorado, which did not result in any finding of wrongdoing, but I can't find a ref now. Anyone?) So the judge believed Garson, and another witness stating that Rawat was not a proper Hindu teacher, and refused to allow McNeal to accede to Mishler's request to loan the DLM money. In doing so, the judge essentially robbed 31-year-old McNeal of her right to make independent financial decisions (and ordered that she undergo psychiatric evaluation). In a similar vein, courts in the seventies ruled that kidnapping and deprogramming adults was okay. They no longer do. (Just out of interest, does anyone know whether McNeal came to appreciate the judge's intervention in later years?) Jayen466 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an investigation by state and local tax officials into the use of the DLM's tax-exemption for purchases of personal items. I haven't neen able to find the result. As for the McNeal matter, we're not here to discuss the injustices of the past. This thread is about the reliability of Cagan as a source. Like so many other issues, there's no mention of Garson or McNeal in Cagan, so at most it's another omission. The one thing that is perhaps most relevant here is that finding of the judge that 60% of the DLM's income went to supporting Rawat. That again belies Cagan's description of (what we presume to be) the DLM as an organization that manages his travel. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can bet if the result had been negative, there'd be plenty of sources. ;-) Granted, Rawat and his entourage travelled in ostentatious style -- Rolls-Royces and private jets. --Jayen466 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the press is notorious for failing to follow up on stories unless there's some news. As for Garson, I think his greatest contribution may be his comment, "It does take a lot of money to keep a guru and he does live well, but what he teaches I will believe in for the rest of my life." That sums it up succinctly and perhaps applies to other spiritual leaders as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 6

Way up above Will indicated 5 points which make Cagan unsuitable as a resource with a decent reliability for use in Wikipedia. I had a closer look at Cagan's text about the customs incident (Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Customs incident):

:I quite dislike Cagan's prose, which apparently is by its very style inaccurate. Take these three consecutive sentences:

[...] When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief-case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India. [...]

It is obvious that she characterises the content of the claims included in the first of these sentences as "inaccurate" and attributes them to the British Daily Mail. But what about the next two sentences? Impossible to say whether she continues to relate what she perceives as inaccuracy (by the Daily Mail?), or whether somewhere she has switched to telling what she thinks really happened. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thus I propose point six to be added to the 5 points listed above in #Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan:

6. Weasely and confusing writing style, which makes unclear what Cagan is trying to tell (or to hide).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the above sentences. If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life – Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle", Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21), they were wrong. I read the other two sentences as separate factual accounts, not as part of the Daily Mail story. It would not have occurred to me to read them thus. Btw, the Daily Mail made it "eight jumbo jet airliners". I'll grant you that Cagan is tendentious, but not more so than the Daily Mail. Jayen466 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...I read the other two sentences as..." – exactly, that was my point, they can be read in different ways.

Re. "not more [tendentious] than the [British] Daily Mail" – quite irrelevant, as we don't need the British Daily Mail (or any other tabloid afaik) as a source. If Daily Mail and Cagan have a comparable level of tendentiousness (as you seem to indicate), let's treat them likewise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Not more tendentious" in fact is a polite and moderate way of saying "Way less tendentious." Which it is. Re the above questions, it is grammatically quite clear that after dealing with the inaccuracies in the first sentence, she is then going on to say what she believed was the truth. She is saying that the false news report was followed by other tribulations, i.e. being called to Delhi, grilled, etc. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen wrote: If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life – Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle", Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21), they were wrong. How so? Back when we wwere drafting the paragraph on this incident we found many sources that refered to jewelry, some even getting into specifics like a pearl necklace. Why would we say here that the Daily Mail is wrong? Are we discounting the reliability of that newspaper just because of its printing format? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When I hear "jewels", I picture gemstones, rather than jewelry (or wristwatches). Jayen466 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We have many sources that say gems or jewelry, as well as watches. One of the definitions of "jewel" is A costly ornament of precious metal or gems.[46] So the term refers to both gems and jewelry. Is there any other reason to think the Daily Mail has reported incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

The Daily Mail seems to have referred, in various articles, to a suitcase or suitcases filled with jewels AND cash, wristwatches etc. – which would appear to be correct. Accepting that jewels can refer to items of jewelry, Cagan is indeed misrepresenting the Daily Mail coverage to score a gratuitous point. As for errors in the Daily Mail, there are some. The Daily Mail article I mentioned earlier refers to the money being used to feed and house "350 American converts-in-the-making, who had flown in with him in the chartered jumbo jet he called his silver steed" – we know the money was used to feed and house ten times as many (and there were five jumbo jets), and the festival attendants are usually described as (already converted) premies, not converts-in-the-making. Looks like a misquote, or an omission. Then, the Daily Mail refers to Rawat as "5ft. tall and a waddling 13st." – I believe most sources say he is 5'5. --Jayen466 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, double-checking on Rawat's height, I came across this letter that Rennie Davis sent to John Brauns relatively recently, and which John then posted in one of the forums. It is quite an interesting letter, and, if I may make a suggestion, I think editors unfamiliar with it would profit from reading it, just to gain some more perspective on what this is all about. Jayen466 11:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to your point of view! This is causing me some upset, Jayen. Btw, if Rawat is over 5'2" or 5'3" then I'll eat my snow boots. I'm 5'6" and I towered over him. He's around 5'2" in sandals. Just about everybody towers over him. He's quite short and petite (and there's nothing wrong with that and he shouldn't be criticized for his height). Also, Jayen, please stop cherry-pickign and linking to isolated posts from the ex-premie forum. The forums have been in existence since 1997, there are tens of thousands of them. Linking them here is inappropriate and they have no place here. Furthermore, if I started doing that (and I will if you continue!) I'd probably be called before a Wikipedia tribunal, then drawn and quartered. What Rennie Davis had to say once, on a private discussion forum, is irrelevant and clearly promotes your POV here. You're way out of line mining a forum that is over ten years old for your POV. But, if you insist on doing this, well, then, I'll more than happy to start linking many, many, many, many posts here from that forum and it's archives, about what Michael Dettmers, Michael Donners, and a host of other people, including former instructors, have had to say, who have held positions of power in Prem Rawat's inner circle. That includes many confirmations on matters written about in MacGregor's "Blinded by the Light" article. It's bad enough that Elan Vital has been monitoring that forum for years now and keeping dossiers on us. Please...don't do this! Sheesh!!!~ Sylviecyn (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen, I don't think the Daily Mail has it wrong. They're obviously referring to a single planeload of people. We don't "know" that the money was for feeding then times that many- we have one account that says it was simply collected on the plane from followers, seemingly as an offering to Rawat. Various stories about the purpose of the money and jewelry were floated. What's remarkable, and on topic here, is that apparently Cagan read this report and yet still got her account of it wrong. It clearly mentions that the investigation went beyond the mere smuggling charge. As for the height of Rawat when he was 15, I doubt we have any definitive source for that. His physician said he was 5'5", but the same physician also said he had an ulcer and Cagan now disputes that. Apparently Cagan was not interested in what mainstream newspapers wrote about her subject, except to lambaste their coverage. Since I doubt she cared enough or did the research to find those clippings and form an opinion of them, it's more likely that someone handed her the clipping and told her to view it as an example of absurd media statements. Or does anyone here really believe she travelled to London to research news clipping? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we are getting circular now. Posted at the beginning of this discussion, from page xi in Cagan: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. You say, "maybe" the DM talked about a different plane and didn't mention the others – by the standards you apply to Cagan, that would be an "omission" invalidating anything the DM had ever published. "Maybe" Cagan read a different DM article that's not online and which referred to Rawat smuggling diamonds. Short of asking her, we don't know, and will never know. Sorry. Jayen466 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • No, we don't know the full truth of the event, and we never will. The account of the Daily Mail, in which the money was on one plane, concurs with some other accounts. We have no basis for saying that their reporting is "wrong". Nor is the Daily Mail claiming to publish a full and complete life story. Yet their account is far more complete than Cagan's. Cagan is the issue here, not the Daily Mail. Rather than devoting the space to giving the full account, Cagan chooses to devote a paragraph to complaining about the press coverage but she never actually refutes any of the reporting. Nor does it appear, from her own statement that you've kindly quoted, that she did any independent research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Running in circles: topic by topic as an attempt to come out of that

Note that I just started Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India.

This is the reasoning behind it: we can continue to run in circles regarding a general discussion of the use of Cagan as a source ad infinitum. What I see is that when we start to tackle concrete topics (like the emancipated minor issue), solutions are often easily found, and quickly implemented in main namespace. I expect the same will be the case for Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India. Can we agree on taking such separate points, and leave the unending general discussion for what it is at this point in time? I'm thinking of Steve too: I wouldn't want to be the one reading this wallpaper of a discussion on my mobile device (although that's not for me to decide, of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, thanks. It does get rather hard to view this on my phone (or on my internet when we exceed our download limit, slows to dialup speed). As for having such a general discussion on the Cagan source, I do think that there is no likely success in the current discussion, it's rather clear that a general "yes it can be used" or "no it cannot be used", is highly unlikely to have success, and a better approach would be to look at each use of the source on a case-by-case basis. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see the point of Francis' suggestion. --Jayen466 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to start a fund to buy Steve a computer. I'm not willing to limit our discussions to what fits on a 2.5" screen. (I can't imagine how Steve has managed so far.) As far as the above discussion goes, I think it's been productive so far and has resulted in a several discoveries about the quality of the source. Obviously, in the long run all that matters is what goes into articles. But when we get to discussing which sources are suitable for a particular assertion then we need to know the background on those sources to make the decision. As we can see from Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India, some editors are still arguing that Cagan is a perfectly reliable source despite the problems already found. I, for one, am not done investigating the source and I object to any premature efforts to end the discussion so long as editors are still insisting it's suitable for all purposes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, thanks Will. Let me clarify here. I have a computer, I use it 90% of the time. I just do ask to keep the page readable for when I can't access a PC, I can keep an eye on the mediation. As for the Cagan source, I have considered personally, er, intervening, on how it should be used, as it seems clearish that it can't be decided amongst you, though I am awaiting discussion with Deskana, someone more experienced than me for a little bit of advice. I'm not perfect, but I think it's best to ask fellow mediators for input when needed. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Halley incident

This isn't included in Jayen's list of referencs to the "organization" that we're reviewing, but it follows the chronology and I think it's important to discuss because it shows a number of problems:

No matter where Maharaji was, however, his message of peace would be met with discontent by certain individuals. In August of 1973, he was in a ceremony, receiving the key to the city of Detroit, when someone in the audience threw a whipped-cream pie in his face. The man hit his mark, but in his usual gracious fashion, Maharaji wiped off his face and continued the ceremony. Afterward, a councilwoman gave him an official salute and a key to the city for his peace efforts all over the world. She ended her talk with a profuse apology for the pie incident.

Maharaji immediately accepted the apology by saying, "Love is the major thing between us all. I want to apologize to the person who threw that pie at me, because he might have been hurt by somebody, or maybe they tried to arrest him. I do not want him arrested, and I do not want him hurt, because if somebody doesn't understand something, you cannot blame him for that." page 190

Where to begin? Halley isn't named or described. He wasn't in the audience. It was a shaving cream pie, not whipped cream. "Usual gracious fashion"? Most importantly, there's no mention of what the subject's mahatma and follower did to the reporter afterwards. I know that some folks here say that the focus is on Rawat, but it's a bit ridiculous to avoid any mention of the attack while instead spending space on praising the subject's "peace efforts" and his graciousness, and specifically quoting him saying he didn't want the guy hurt, leaving readers with the implication that he wasn't hurt. She doesn't even mention that Rawat issued a statement deploring the attack. In this case there are numerous sources that give the full and correct picture, but if there weren't should we just assume that Cagan is correct and use her as a source despite these errors and omissions in cases where we can cross-check her? I don't think so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. We can (and must) supplement detail missing in Cagan with other sources just as we can do that vice versa. Jayen466 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • No, I don't think we can do that. Cagan isn't a reliable source, per WP:V and per our own invcestigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I seem to have misunderstood your earlier comment then. Jayen466 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• If it were merely incomplete that would be possible. But since it's downright inaccurate we can't use it at all. I'd almost be inclined to use it for quotations from the followers she interviewed, but I'm a bit hesitant because of the misuse of the name "Maharaji" long before he used that name. Since she actually changes quotations that pretty much means she's not reliable even for reporting what people have said. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Anyway, does anyone care to defend Cagan's description of the incident as being full and complete? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• So we have another instance in which the coverage is incomplete, inaccurate, and biased. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published?

I've read all the discussions about the accuracy of Cagan compared to other sources but I'm surprised editors aren't addressing the fundamental issue with Peace is Possible and that is that it is self-published. Rawat's followers clearly paid Cagan to write the book, and then set up a publishing company (that still hasn't published anything else) to publish the book. Most of the discussions above would be moot if we could agree the book is self-published, and should only be used for non-contentious content. --John Brauns (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needs evidence that Mighty River Press, the publishers of Peace is Possible, is a vanity publisher, here is a quote from their website:- "Mighty River Press publishes high-quality contemporary books about self-discovery..." - note the plural - they haven't published any other book. --John Brauns (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• We've addressed that point before, though never conclusively. Based on my evaluation of the source, I think it doesn't meet any of the standards for a reliable source unless it's treated as a self-published source, in which case it may be used in a limited fashion per WP:SPS. However there are problems with calling it a self-published source because it wasn't directly published by Rawat. That means it's just a book by an author with a mediocre reputation published by a one-book publisher with no reputation for reliability. If a similar book were published by anyone else, say ex-followers, we wouldn't allow it at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PIP has been conclusively proven to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia. It is not self published, the author is independent with several best selling biographies, it has been published by experienced and reputable publishers. So based on Wiki rules it is a reliable source.Momento (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer sells more issues in a month then any of Cagan's books do in a year, but mere sales don't make a publication reliable. MightyRiver is not an experienced or reputable publisher - it's a one-book publisher owned by followers. the book has proven errors and major omissions. By Wikipedia policies, especially WP:V and WP:BLP, it is not a reliable source and should not be used for any article, much less a BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you are seriously calling into question your good faith as an editor by claiming that Mighty River Press is an experienced and reputable publisher. Experienced? - they have only published one book! Reputable? - they have no reputation at all! Was this an attempt at subtle humour?? --John Brauns (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason this discussion goes on and on is because you keep forgetting the previous answers to your questions. PIP has been published by established and reputable publishers in Europe, so that dismisses that reason.Momento (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And you have ignored Nik_Wright2's rebuttal of this argument at [47] --John Brauns (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Translating a book into a foreign language does not improve its reliability. If you see a polcy which says so please share it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register,

• Definitely not. We have Cade Metz' own declarations on how much time (and research) he put in a single article, how he invited all key players (from opposing sides!) to respond, etc. If compared (research per word written) Metz definitely scores higher.

Comparing to Cagan that it seems far better researched than Collier,

• Collier is an autobiography (primary source or very close to it and all that), the matter of "research" doesn't even have to come into the picture. We treat it as a primary source per WP:PSTS

and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine.

• Far from. The Rolling Stone article is an average reliable source, Cagan is a questionable source, per WP:V#Questionable sources, look for the words ...are promotional in nature... (didn't you read what I wrote above?).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Article in the media

Unrelated to mediation

An interesting new media article describing the evolution of Wikipedia's Prem Rawat article, particularly since last year, has been published at the Independent Media Center. Ratbag web site sparks Wikipedia brouhaha. Administrators, please add a link to this article at the top of this page next to the link to Cade Metz.W Crub (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. Thanks though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Hmm, that article does give me some intersting background information..... Steve Crossin (contact) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Such as? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Francis, with respect, I have a right to read background information in the area without being questioned about it. It doesn't alter how I'll handle this case, and being a thorough mediator, or at least, hopefully one that tries to have a lot of background information related to the case, it doesn't change how I mediate. And noting that I'm mentioned in that article does now show me just how big of an impact this case may have. I suppose there will be more of this to come. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The question was entirely innocent: I saw no background info that wasn't already covered in (for instance) Wikipedia's ArbCom case on Rawat. I was interested in what you learnt from the article that wasn't already covered in our own media. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Alright, I apologise. Admittedly, I haven't reviewed the entire arbitration case, but one thing that has become very obvious, as I already see my name on that article, albeit in a comment. I have come to realise one thing. Once this case is over, there's going to be some discussion over how I handled this case, and it's probably going to be both positive and negative. I suppose I should've expected this to happen. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I sympathise with the feeling, so I apologise too. At one time I entered this debate without involvement whatsoever. Didn't take too long, now Indymedia describes me as being in "a phalanx of cynical editors". I think Will's words were the wisest: Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I really know how you feel, Francis. The use of Indymedia isn't new. But remember, it isn't Indymedia describing you, it's an anonymous coward using Indymedia to try to discredit you. This is an old tactic, used before, so consider the source, which is best ignored (based on my experience). I also think the link to the article should be removed from this page. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) No the use of Indymedia is not new, Rawat's detractors have often tried to use the site to promote their version of history. I saw no attack on Francis in that particular Indymedia article. However, it is interesting to note the toxic bile entering the dialogue on this page as soon as certain contributors post. The real nature of a disposition never fails to materialize, sadly. I suggest this discussion would be better served by the omission of such ugly and inflammatory terms such as 'anonymous coward'. W Crub (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what Indymedia is, is it something like the Register? I notice its link has been removed, and good riddance. Anyway we should just proceed with what we are doing with a continuing careful regard to WP:BLP and the other considerations. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic E: history negligence

This discussion topic pertains to:

• Divine Light Mission#Westernization
• Prem Rawat#Media and User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)

An aspect currently not mentioned in Wikipedia's mainspace regards deliberate/indeliberate attempts by Rawat and/or related organisations to wipe traces of its early history.

The closest I could find from an undisputedly reliable source was:

Like several of other religious movements which were popular in the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s, Elan Vital has moved on from [its] origins. Originally the flamboyant and definitively Eastern-inspired Divine Light Mission, it has matured into something new, changing its name to reflect its current emphasis and approach and, presumably, to distance itself from the past.

(bolding added) ..."presumably"... sounds rather hypothetical; ...distance itself from the past... is still quite different from "wiping traces". The harsher allegations are thus far by me only found in a source that needs RS status assessment for every instance where it is used:

(1) Around the mid-80s Rawat ordered all the movement's materials to be destroyed, including magazines and photos - materials where he promoted himself as a divine being.
(2) Rawat prided himself to have gone under the radar of the press: at a speaking engagement in the late 80s he said what a great achievement it was that when newspapers published lists of cults, they no longer included him.

Relevant questions:

1. Can we find more reliable sources on this?
2. Can this, with the use of appropriate sources, be narrowed down to either Rawat or the related movements?

I'd be inclined to call an RFC on this here, but only if Steve doesn't mind the extra "media" attention that brings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be honest here, I don't think an RFC would have much success. The three months I've been mediating this case have proven difficult, and one of the things I've learned is that no one really wants to get involved in the Prem Rawat related area, so I do think that an RFC wouldn't get the kind of input needed to help establish a consensus. I'm happy to give the RFC approach an idea, but I do think it's unlikely to have much success. I need some clarification though, would this RFC be on the use of the Register as a source? If so, please let me know. And in regards to the extra media attention, I've basically expected that it's inevitable, so there's not much I can really do about that now. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Tx for the reaction: well, no an "RFC on the use of the Register as a source" would usually be held at WP:RSN, and would then be some sort of follow-up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#The_Register. My first attempt would be to see whether people can point to any other sources, hopefully either more outspoken than Barrett and/or of a less difficult to ascertain reliability than Cade Metz. Only if such searches would result in nothing, a third question could be attempted, someting in the vein of, Even if no other sources with some form of reliability can be found, would we mention anything about this in mainspace, either based on the less outspoken Barrett source (which technically could only be used in the Divine Light Mission article while it says nothing worth mentioning in a BLP), either on the less reliable Register which would probably require a reliability assessment for the given context?
  I'm distinctly trying to prevent jumping to a discussion of the reliability of The Register at this point in time, as such discussion might be completely redundant if there are other sources for this content, which we might be unaware of currently.
  The request for comment would primarily be intended for those who have a clear view on available sources for Rawat, which might be still other people than the ones currently involved in the debates here. Note that, for example, a recent related AfD listing, after some initial negative prophesies, of late nonetheless succeeded in attracting comments from what I presume to be "outsiders". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, that could possibly work. I think that something more like a Request for Input or something, as in, if anyone has any sources, then they can suggest their use. However, some discussion on whether the sources should be used or not will obviously occur, and I reserve the right to judge sources for myself, and if I feel really necessary, add my 2 cents on whether a source should be used, if I feel that source clearly violates a policy. Shortly said, if I feel necessary, I won't rule out saying that a certain source shouldn't be used. But I think such a request for input idea could be a good one. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)