Talk:Prem Rawat

Edits on this page must reflect consensus. Discuss all changes on the talk page, or on the Mediation Cabal case page, before making disputed or controversial changes. The full request is here.

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1, /Observations of scholars
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37)

Visualisation of footnotes

(please keep this section lower on the page than any footnotes that are to be visualised)

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DLM article additions

I've added good detail from the DLM article. I haven't removed any existing material.Momento (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. "I haven't removed any existing material":

• You removed "Maharaj"[1] and "by his family and his father's followers"[2] from "When his father died in 1966, the eight-year-old Sant Ji Maharaj (as Prem Rawat was then known) was accepted by his family and his father's followers as the new Satguru."
• You removed "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed."[3], nonetheless referenced to Downton.

So, that's the lies.

There are other remarks too, e.g. inserting repetition of the same material (why?) - e.g.

• How many times does his mother return to India? Added again here, but was already in Prem Rawat#Coming of age (1st paragraph).
• Is this an exercise in how many Downton references can be added consecutively? [4]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice... Less that a few hours that the article is unprotected and this whole thing starts again? If one believes that an editor has made a "sloppy edit", rather than revert his work, why no fix/improve upon it? This type of behavior is the one that caused numerous problems before, and would be best avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from being sloppy and with an untruthful edit summary (it looks like information was removed), if the edit in question does not add anything relevant to the topic it should probably be removed, and then discussed if necessary. In fact, since just about everything here seems so contentious why not discuss things first? That doesn't seem like such a burden if it helps remove this type of behaviour. Also, generally speaking (and of course there will be some overlap) DLM info does not need to be repeated here, that just bloats up the article unnecessarily. The information is already in the DLM article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rawat was never known as "Sant Ji Maharaj" and is not referred to as such in the cited sources. Was "accepted" doesn't need "by his family and his father's followers". Cited nine sources of which two were Downton is hardly a crime. And I apologize for leaving out the mahatmas, an unintentional omission and having Mataji go to India twice was also a mistake.Momento (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain Prem Rawat signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Maybe someone can confirm.PatW (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Divine Times Volume 2, No 23 - December 11 1973 - The legal name of Guru Maharaj Ji is Sant Ji Maharaj, Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj Also I see I was correct that he signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Here is a letter which was published in the "Divine Times" Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974. Incidentally these magazines are available in the library not just at ex-premie.org where there is another letter from the 'Special Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times, page 2, under the heading 'A Festival for the Whole World' PatW (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1975: "Proclamation for 1975, signed Sant Ji Maharaj the name by which Prem Rawat was known at that time. Divine Times (Vol.4 Issue.1, February 1, 1975)" (sorry, I have only a reference to a sister project for that: wikiquote:Prem Rawat#1970s) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He may have been called that after he became Guru but not before. As per U. S. Department of the Army, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains (2001) pp.1-5 , The Minerva Group, ISBN 0-89875-607-3 "Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master and therefore he assumed the head of the Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father."Momento (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Do you think the article should not explain that 'Sant Ji Maharaj' is a historic pseudonym of Prem Rawat? PatW (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is the source cited says his was known as "Sant JI".Momento (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Teaching section

I cleaned up the Teaching section and corrected several errors but it was immediately reverted by Francis [5].

Here are the errors he re-inserted -

• 1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected
• 2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.
• 3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.
• 4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.

And it reads very badly, so I have reverted back.Momento (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have relocated the material about his "teachings" from the "Leaving India" section to the "Teachings" section. Isolated where it was, it gave an incomplete picture without any supporting context. I have deleted the Time quote and the Collier quote as undue weight and they are not necessary in the "teachings" section. I am certain I have not lost any important material in the move.Momento (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento, can you please add the citations when you add material? I mean here:[6]. I don't understand why you deleted the Time material.[7] How much weight is undue weight? What's your standard? Why are some sources attributed but for others it's undue weight? Moving on, this edit which deletes a source and adds material says "see talk", but I don't see the discussion.[8] Last but not least, this edit deletes sourced material with the note, "Removed misquoted Galanter". I tried to find "Galanter, Mark M.D. Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association. 1989, ISBN 0-89042-212-5 p. 20", but page 20 doesn't mention the subject. Which page are you reading that is misquoted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Galanter is here [9] or here [10], page 21.Momento (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are from Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. The citation is to Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association, an entirely different work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It only took me a couple of mintues to track this down. Jossi provided the source, and Francis added it. Jossi posted:

• Galanter: It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.[11]

Then Francis summarized it as:

• According to Mark Galanter Rawat's early western discourses were something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.

That certainly isn't a misquote or bad summary. The mistake, to the extent that there was one, when Francis used Jossi's proffered source without checking the information himself. It appears that the actual citation is to Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion, and the text is on page 21.[12] So the material is proprely summarized/quoted and should not have been deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been otherwise preoccupied, I don't know whether this still needs clearing up or not, but Momento is right. Here is the complete quote from Galanter:

What were some of the trappings of religious practice in this emerging movement? Potential initiates were usually introduced to the Divine Light Mission at a session of religious discourse called a satsang, where experienced members presented the philosophy of the sect to the assembled group. The satsang could be delivered to active members or to those with only a casual interest. It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.

Galanter is referring to satsang, not to Rawat's discourses. Jayen466 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Fahlbusch source for the rivalry? [13] I don't see any mention of it there. Can you give the citation and quote the source please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct source, Fahlbusch writes, "they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family". Chronologically it appears between the succession and his first trip to the west (which is incorrectly given as 1969).Momento (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please address the other issues above? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Criticism section

Why was this material moved to the "Teachings" article?[14]

• In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Dr. Paul Schnabel described described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. Comparing Rawat to Osho, he argued that personal qualities alone are not enough to explain charismatic authority – while he characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, he found Rawat no less of a charismatic leader than Osho. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization. Schnabel observed, referring to research by Van der Lans, that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude, giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person.

The text addresses Rawat as a leader, and doesn't refer to his teachings. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Because it comes from an article about "Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health" and compares the "charismatic leadership" of Rawat and Osho. It is not about Rawat as an individual, it is about Rawat as a "charismatic leader" or teacher.Momento (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't about Rawat as a leader then we'd need to remove all mention of him as a leader. This article is about Rawat, and his notability derives from his leadership of the DLM. The Teachings article is not about the personal charisma of Rawat. In a sequence of edits you deleted the entire "criticism" section. I've restored the material. Please do not delete sourced material that's required to make this article NPOV and balanced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly Rawat's notability doesn't come as a result of his leadership of DLM, DLM notability exists solely as a result of Rawat. We have several articles related to Rawat - his father, his teachings, Elan Vital, DLM. An isolated paragraph on Rawat function as a leader of a religion belongs iin the "Teachings" article.Momento (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The DLM had a million followers before Prem Rawat became its head. It was as the head of the DLM that Rawat achieved prominence. The Schnabel material is about Rawat the person, not about teachings. This doesn't explain why you deleted the entire "criticism" section twice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert for the following reasons.

1. Mishler's comments are already presented in the "Coming of Age" section - "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[59][60] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control".[61][62]

2. Kent's comments are already covered in the "Teachings" section - "Some journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content".

3. Schnabel's lengthy comment should be in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, where I put it.

4: Simply having a section called "Criticism" violates NPOV, particularly - "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;[15].Momento (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying reasons, but those are not sufficient or accurate.

1. The actual criticisms by Mishler are not contained in that earlier mention, they are just referred to.

2. Same problem - Kent's actual criticism is not included, it's summarized along with countless other scholars. Your edit summary claimed you were moving the material, but all you did was add the citation to exsting material elsewhere.

3. Per above, there's no consensus for that. As I've already said, that material is about Rawat's charisma and leadership not his teachings.

4. A problem with the heading is not an excuse for deleting the section. It was named "reception" which is very neutral. If you don't like the heading then change the heading rather than deleting sourced, neutral material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section (continued)

Where are we currently with regard to the idea of merging Criticism of Prem Rawat into this article? That article (i.e. the Criticism article) had a "mergeto" tag until a few days ago, for merging it into this article (i.e. the Prem Rawat article). Not so long ago someone also replaced the mergefrom tag in Prem Rawat#Reception by a {{main}} tag in the "Criticism" subsection (now deleted).

Well, one of the two, either the idea is still to merge, then it would be best to indicate that in both articles with an appropriate "merge" tag; either we're no longer sporting that idea, and then I suppose the only practical solution would be to follow summary style for a criticism section in this article, while keeping a separate criticism article.

The situation as created by Momento (by removing an appropriate link to the Criticism article, whether in a "merge" type of tag or in a "main" type of tag) is of course untenable. Suggestions? I'd go for the "main" tag again under the current circumstances, but that sort of implies to have a "Criticism" section title in the Prem Rawat article. Or is there currently still a broad support for the merge option? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Material from that article has already been merged in to other articles where appropriate. The bulk of the remaining material is in "Observations from scholars", and I don't think that material should be merged "as-is." It's a set of sumamries of views by scholars, but it incorrectly gives the improession of summarizing those scholars views in toto. Doing so correctly would be impossible, or at least too lengthy. I suggest we review the source material and add viewpoints from scholars and other reliable sources to the relevant topics in this bio rather than in a separate section. The other parts of that article, "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members", could probably be merged in with little or no change. I don't think anyone really wants a "criticism" article anymore, we just have to make sure that all relevant material is included in this or another article in a neutral and balanced manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but my question was in fact entirely practical, on the short term do we use:

• {{main}},

or do we use:

• {{mergefrom}}

on top of the section that groups some of the criticism? Whether we will still be grouping criticism in a few weeks time is a different question, but doesn't solve the current problem of the lack of a decent link between two Rawat-related articles (both regarding the person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to do neither. I suggest we just go ahead and merge the last two sections in here, and redirect the title to this article. I don't think the remaining material is well-suited to direct merging into this article. After that we can add to this article whatever viewpoints we find that apply to biographical topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a real mess. First the article is restored to pre-Arbcom state, and then that is partially undone. Now there are discussions about completing the merge, when we have not been able to stabilize the article. What do you think would be the result? Would it be stable or would it start another set of roundtrips to WP:AE? What happened to the mediation? Are we serious about it or it is just a smoke and mirrors exercise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to wait for the article to stabilize before making changes to it. As long as we proceed towards better articles then threats of WP:AE are unneccessary. If editors get into revert wars over material then WP:AE may be required. Mediation is not a reason to stop editing. As for the topic at hand, do you have a specific reason to object to moving the material in "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members" to this article, and then redirecting "Criticism of Prem Rawat" here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's no specific objection I'll do that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I object. To any links prohibited by BLP and EL policy.Momento (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The material that I've outlined doesn't contain any prohibited links. Any other objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'll add some detail when you bring it over.Momento (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a case of assuming good faith (WP:AGF if you need the link) when you automatically assume that another editor's work will immediately need additions from you once it's done. However, it's probably a nice change to see you adding text for a change. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You wait til you see the "praise" section.Momento (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That last remark sounds like an intent to disrupt the article to prove a point, which I hope isn't the case. Part of the "reception" material is a description of Rawat's following, which is an indication of the positive view many have of the subject. Anyway, I'll go ahead with moving the material over. The remaining summaries of scholars can be moved to a subpage in case editors find anything useful for this or another article. Hopefully this outcome will give us a NPOV article here and address the complaints about having a "Criticism of" article about a living person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

geroutiniseerd

Can one of the Dutch speakers explain this word? Is it even Dutch? "Routinised charisma" makes no sense in English. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Dutch, if you keep to the Green Booklet, that's why I had originally put "[sic]" in the Dutch text, when I first translated it over a year ago (the translation included here is still basically mine, see /scholars#Schnabel 1982). In the mean while we had a discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article, which made clear it was simply the Dutch version of Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma (a direct reference to the Weberian terminology regarding charismatic authority). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just read up on it, but now two things become apparent:

1. It needs some serious contextualising if it is to remain in the article. As I said, the term is quite meaningless without the context.

2. The sentence from the above article, "However, the constant challenge that charismatic authority presents to a particular society will eventually subside as it is incorporated into that society" seems absurd when applied to Prem Rawat. He has, so all sources tell us, never been "incorporated" into any society so his charisma has not been "routinised." This would be an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Routinised charisma

I intend to delete the sentence containing this expression as misleading. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies unknown to most English speakers. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma, and as it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect it has no relevance to Prem Rawat. It is, at best, an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, please cease the old bad habit of fragmenting discussion by creating new talk page sections for topics that are still active in other talk page sections, see above #geroutiniseerd (which you also started). [update: talk page sections merged 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)]

Re. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies - incorrect, it is a (stock) sociological concept: Max Weber who popularized the terminology was a sociologist. Schnabel, who is also a sociologist, makes a sociological analysis. "Charismatic authority", and its sub-terminology, is part of a sociological analysis of types of authority, not limited to religious figures (although Jesus is indicated as an archetypal example of this type of authority - along Mussolini and Hitler who respond to the same leadership type).

Re. unknown to most English speakers - The issue can be solved by hyperlinking: [[Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma|routinised charisma]], which renders as: routinised charisma.

Re. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma - it is not "rendered" as "inherited" charisma. Inheritance is one of the mechanisms by which the charisma of a charismatic leader can become routinized, see Charismatic leadership#Routinizing charisma. This is the specific routinization mechanism Schnabel indicates for Rawat, who "inherited" the satguru qualification from his father. Note that Schnabel writes "geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging)", translated in the footnote as "routinized charisma (hereditary succession)" - maybe we should stay closer to Schnabel's wording as less confusing?

Re. it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect - well, if a million people come to see you when you're celebrating the person whose charisma you inherited [16], then it's maybe not so absurd to claim some "inherited" routinized charisma might have been going on. But as I explained at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article Schnabel does not really study the Indian episode of Rawat, thus according to Schnabel: for the followers in America and Europe [the routinized (inherited) charisma] is hardly significant, or as it is summarized in the article currently: this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. That claim by Schnabel is, in fact, the same as what you try to say via the OR you presented on this talk page. Well, what's "exceptional" about it then? It's what a normal sociologist's analysis would claim. If you want to test it for WP:REDFLAG: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat is still open: I suppose you could start a new subsection to that section if you'd like to have more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Francis, the ref (2) I deleted made no mention of the name Sant Ji Maharaji. It added nothing of value to the lead. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"[...] where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering [...]" is in that ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-Navbharat_Times-1 --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Sorry. Rumiton (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits [17] have multiple problems, which I will address later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Snipped PA --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Since when a comment on an edit is a personal attack? Please do not refactor anymore my comments about edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor That is what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack either, but I also don't see any point to your original posting. If you're just saying "these edits are bad but I won't say why" that's unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment was placed to alert other editors like yourself to comment on these edits. I have some pressing private issues to attend, and will comment on these edits as soon as I can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for resolving your private issues. In the future it'd be better if you waited until you can give a useful description of purported problems rather than just posting an "I don't like it" message. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits

I do not have time for a thorough review of all these edits, but these are the more critical:

1. Rawat, rejecting theoretical knowledge as useless,[3] has been criticized for lack of intellectual content.[17][18][19] He is also criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]s replacing Rawat, whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma,[3][8] has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse,[17][18][19] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]

   The edit eliminates a source, and uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact. The previous version was more accurate and NPOV, and I gather it had some consensus behind it. Changes to the lead, in particular, given the editorial disputes that exist, would be best discussed in talk first

2. From 1996 former followers speak out via the internet.[112][113]

   Violates Wikipedia:BLP#External_links. Sources used for that statement are sourced to self-published websites, one of them an anonymous, NN site.

Given that we are engaged in ann orderly debate about these articles with the assistance of the MedCab, which all editors have been informed of its proceedings, it would be wise to engage there rather than make changes to the lead without discussion and introduce additional disputes. We have our hands full already.

I would encourage all participants, to cool off and accept the fact that we need to reach consensus on this and related articles. Fighting for our preferred versions of the article will not produce the results we need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

None of these topics is on the agenda at mediation. I'f you'd like to include them then feel free. I agree that edit warring back and forth is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. 1: "I gather it had some consensus behind it", no: it was edit-warred leading up to the recent ArbCom case: [18]. I'm restoring the version that had more consensus, and was more or less stable for several months before the final edit war leading up to the ArbCom case.

Please take it from there. I prefer the version I had made yesterday. The source eliminated was only proof for the organisations' take on the issue, not Rawat's. "uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact" is unclear. "The previous version was more accurate and NPOV", definitely not, and it is an OR version: combining "whose emphasis is on an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma" and "has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content [...]" is bringing two unrelated issues together as if they weren't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the whole intro is poor and I'm not a part of any consensus for either version. I think it should be re-written from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice...

I can see that editors have rushed in and got Momento blocked. Round trips to WP:AE, will now become the currency of this page? I was under the understanding that we were conducting an orderly debate with the help of the Mediation Cabal, but it seems that certain editors rather than participate in the mediation debates, have chosen to force their hand via WP:AE. This does not bode well, IMO. 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be an anti-Momento bias here. Francis appears to have called him a liar in the above DLM article additions section ("that's the lies"), and yesterday PatW called him a "vandal", an "absurd POV pusher" and without "social conscience". (He self-reverted, but it stood for long enough to make his point.)

"It hasn't taken Momento long to get back into his old unwelcome tricks ie. removing material which has been discussed many times. When is someone going to stop this absurd POV pushing? And how? Will, you should know perfectly well what this vandal's standard is by now. Anything that is critical about his guru gets removed at the earliest possible convenience. What a complete farce. Also the guy has been criticised until the cows come home by almost everyone who comes here (visa vi the Arbcom evidence) and yet he carries on without a hint of embarassment. What does that tell me? He is probably working for Prem Rawat and is just following orders. Anyone who was an unbiased editor would have been long ago piqued by social conscience into being more reasonable. Also Momento is clearly laughing at you and Francis when you ask him your polite little questions. Do you really think he's going to give you a sensible answer? No he is plainly delighted at your impotence to stop him doing exactly what his bosses want."

In neither case was an objection raised by Administrators or Arbitrators. Please be more vigilant, guys. This slackness can not lead to a good article. Rumiton (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted the above at midday and, regretting my tone, deleted it before 2. That's under 2 hours-hardly a long time. It seems rather mean for you to repost it. I would call that a 'personal attack' too.PatW (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it what you like, you can expect more of the same. The record shows you have contributed nothing of value to the article and have constantly sniped at those trying to improve it. On 26 December, John Brauns made a clear and culpable threat of blackmail against editors, then "apologised." The threat still existed. You are doing the same thing with your highly derogatory remarks, and reverting them isn't enough. If you ever do this again, whether or not administrators do anything about it, I will. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What record?PatW (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento did not discuss deleting the criticism section before doing so twice. Editor of this page should know that that is unacceptable and contrary to consensus. That said, let's try to stick to discussing the article here rather than each other. Personal attacks are inappropriate on any talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect it was probably a mistake to unprotect this page. I suggest reverting it back to the last "bad" version from when it was protected.[19] There've been a lot of changes with little discussion and no consensus. That's not helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I will be out for a couple of days, so please revert to that diff and protect (or rewuest via RFPP) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'll revert to April and request protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On reflection I've left it as it was, pending input from other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problems need to be discussed one by one. Here is one...

...whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma...

Why does this keep getting deleted in favour of a negatively slanted version? A host of sources, from Hunt to Hummel, tell us this. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hummel, Reinhart. Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3, pp.76-77: "Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen...Von ihr bestimmt ist die Ablehnung äußerlicher Rituale und Zeremonien und die Forderung, das Göttliche im eigenen Inneren zu suchen." I will provide a translation if you need it. Can you suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead? Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Hummel says, or why folks are editng the text you list. But from my recent readings on the subject that summary appears mostly correct but obtuse. Rather than going back and forth between competing versions why not try to bridge the difference with a third version that will be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We need to start accepting the fact that we need to work toward consensus, and not towards our favorite version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I asked, "Can you (anyone) suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead?" I don't think I can. If there is no suggested improvement I will reinstate them, in the fond hope they might remain this time. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I also disagree with you that the sentence is "obtuse." Perhaps you are referring to the connection between the perceived lack of intellectual content in his teachings and the emphasis on "an individual subjective experience." To me this is the crux of the matter. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If other editors disagree with your edit then just restoring the same material isn't helpful. I suggest drafting a version which encompasses both points of view. And if you want editors of the English Wikipedia to discuss a German-language source then a translation would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my attempt, though the content is echoed by many other sources. The word Lehre is crucial, as it can mean either teachings or dogma, depending on context. I would say here it falls somewhere between. As a translator, I would solve this problem by using both English words alternately. Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings, both seeing [any] dogma as being more likely to be a handicap than an advantage...certainly from this (the Sant tradition) comes the rejection of external rituals and ceremonies and the call to seek God in one's inner self. Hence the wording that heads this section. Any other suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the translation is difficult then why don't we stick with English language sources? We certainly have plenty that describe Rawat's beliefs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All translations are difficult, and contain ambiguity. I have suggested several times in the past only using English language sources. However, these statements re the deliberate lack of intellectual content in the Sant Mat philosophy etc are echoed by Hunt and a bunch of others. I have reinstated the sentence. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<My comments have been, for some time, above in #Problematic edits. Another "fragmentation of discussion" example, not caused by me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Teachings

I don't believe it is necessary to have about 30% of the material in this section. It is all quoted, or paraphrased, from the Teachings of article, which is referenced right at the beginning of this section. If someone wants to find out about more, it is one click away. This duplication of material seems to be spreading throughout the PR articles which only serves to make them appear longer than they should be. This section should summarize his teachings, which can be done quite easily by fluffing out something like "Originally drawn from Indian traditions, PR's teachings have evolved into series of meditation techniques that seek to help the practitioner achieve an inner peace by turning one's senses inward instead of outward. These methods are not indicative of any particular religion or lifestyle. The are subjective to each individual, and expected to be practiced and comprehended privately.". Suggestions, thoughts, flames, etc invited and expected. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, the "teachings" article should be briefly summarized. I'd think a paragraph would be enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm out for the evening, but unless someone else beats me to it, I'll see what I can do with it tomorrow. (Monday)-- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that PR's teachings have "evolved into" the four techniques, rather that an accretion of Indiana that had built up around them was removed. The four techniques were always central to his teachings, as they were to his father's. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the arbitrary decision about one paragraph? An article may need more than one paragraph to be properly summarized, and I believe that is the case here. WP:SUMMARY ask us to summarize the article, and one paragraph may not do. I would suggest applying WP:LEAD in which it is asked that an article is summarized in four paragraphs. If an article can be summarized in four paragraphs for a full article, that could be the same measure applied for a summary spin-off article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "up to four paragraphs". The actual lead is a short paragraph:

• Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques that he claims will allow the practitioner to experience peace, joy and contentment with regular practice.[1][2][3] He calls these techniques Knowledge and claims that Knowledge will take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you."[4] Practitioners are asked not to reveal these techniques to anyone else.[5]

The simplest solution would be to copy that here. If that's not complete maybe we shold make it complete and then copy that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead of that article needs work as it is too short and does not summarize the article properly. I agree with you that interested editors can first go there to create a good lead and then copy it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom enforcement: Momento

FYI:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Momento_edit-warring_over_criticism_section_at_Prem_Rawat. Interested editors may want to add their views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles fire brigade

I intend to get rid of this breath-takingly irrelevant nonsense. Any objections? Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the section you are referring to instead of making everyone go through the article to find it please? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of a fire brigade. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton is probably referring to this passage: Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire.[53][54] Controversy around a helipad on the property[55] was resolved by installing emergency water storage for use by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in emergencies and by limiting the number of permitted flights.[56] Ah, I remember it well! As a group effort, it was worthwhile. But I don't think it is that important to the general reader looking for information on Rawat in this article. Jayen466 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case I would object strongly to the deletion of that material which was drafted as a group effort based on reliable sources. As for its importance to readers, we have no way of judging that fact. We should use reliable sources as our guide for what to include in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have made this point before, Will, and others may have said, "What about intelligent editing?" Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ahh the good old days huh? I don't object to the removal of the "controversy", but I would object to the removal of the whole "lavish estate with a helipad" reference. Slap me on the wrist if you need to, but why do I think that's really what was going to be removed here...? Or first remove the controversy, then come back later and remove the estate with helipad as unsourced? Also, I'm sure my phone is tapped and the government reads all my emails, but lets stay on topic :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not really help here, don't you think? It seems that the discussion is relevant and it is being conducted properly, so can we stay on topic? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dad! (That's sarcasm, see the difference?) My above post is directly on topic, and is how I feel about the direction the article may take. It's on point, and it's legitimate. If you're referring to my last sentence, I'm sure you're adult enough to handle it without losing the thread of the conversation. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave in the lavish estate with its highly controversial and fascinating helipad, but the Fire Brigade? Please! Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the text you're talking about? There's no mention of a "fire brigade" in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization

This is very far from what the Dutch source says. I will change it tomorrow. God, this article is a freaking pigsty. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the Schnabel/charisma related stuff in one talk page section please? See above #Routinised charisma, thanks.

I disagree that Jayen would've done a bad job when he summarized the following (see Schnabel footnote [20], quotation from p. 101-102, bolding added):

Tegelijkertijd betekent dit echter [dat] charismatisch leiderschap als zodanig tot op zekere hoogte ensceneerbaar is. Maharaj Ji is daar een voorbeeld van. In zekere zin gaat het hier om geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging), maar voor de volgelingen in Amerika en Europa geldt dat toch nauwelijks: zij waren bereid in juist hem te geloven en er was rond Maharaj Ji een hele organisatie die dat geloof voedde en versterkte.

translated as:

At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. Certainly, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (hereditary succession), but for the followers in America and Europe this is hardly significant: they were prepared to have faith specifically in him and Maharaj Ji was embedded in a whole organisation that fed and reinforced that faith.

...without excluding pre-emptively that improvements to the summary wouldn't be possible. Please see also discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Improving article, where various alternatives were considered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Geaves, Melton?

In the teachings section it says: Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation, uncluttered by tradition in the vein of a contemporary Kabir or Nanak.[89][90] and this is referenced from Geaves and/or Melton. Such a particular and ceertainly flattering comparison seems to me to be likely made by Ron Geaves, himself a well-known and self-proclaimed devotee of Prem Rawat. I may be wrong but my guess is that Melton would not have said this. Can someone a) please clarify where this sentence derives from? b) Explain what the current thinking is about using Geaves here as a reliable source given his status as a significant follower?PatW (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I researched this and the sentence in question is copied almost verbatim from Geaves. I'm not sure why Melton is listed as a source. I think we should drop Melton and attribute the view to Geaves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be assessed as "flattering"? In any case, page 220 of Melton's, has useful information that is related to that sentence, referring to "a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib", the Sant Mat tradition, and other material. Geaves material can be attributed, as we have (and need to do, if we haven't) with all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Geaves is plainly and quite predictably making a flattering comparison. Kabir and Nanak are not Tulsidas anyway. I would judge Geaves' comments to be more personal wishful thinking than an academic and unbiased judgement. Do we hear Melton comparing Rawat to Tulsi Sahaib in any such way? Undoubtedly not. We know that Geaves believes Rawat is a great reformer 'uncluttered by tradition' and he has devoted a whole paper to 'bigging up' Rawat in a rather fanciful way. It's OK..it's to be expected but for goodness sake let's not pretend it's unbiased academic work. It's not. Also I might point out that when Geaves says 'Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation' - that may be partially true but why make Rawat out to be this fountain of unique wisdom when Rawat has actually for years peppered his 'Satsangs' with scriptural references? Geaves knows that but he doesn't say it because it doesn't help him prove his assertion that Rawat is 'uncluttered' and somehow beyond tradition. My academic friend's reaction to Geaves' paper is more blunt: 'It's just bullshit - Rawat came from a tradition and he's just continuing it - end of story'. 'Geaves paper is all about making out Rawat is special and many of his more fanciful assertions are highly speculative and obviously influenced by his personal feelings about Rawat.' So please, what is the thinking about using Geaves? If we do we should avoid including such obviously flattering 'opinions' of his. PatW (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the "Teachings" article - the summary in this article shouldn't contain assertions not found in the main article and the point is too minor to require mentioning here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that there was agreement to write a good lead for the teachings article and then use that as the summary for this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's an agreement that that would be a good idea. In the meantime the summary should not contain assertions that aren't in the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Would you work on a draft for a new lead for that article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in that effort right now. As I wrote there, I think that article needs to be substantially expanded and rewritten but doing so is not on my agenda at the moment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. I will give it a go, and post in talk for editor's comments. May take a few days, time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2008

(UTC)

Is there any particular reason why nobody is addressing my question above (which I have discussed many times here with no real consensus ever being reached) - what is the current thinking on the use of Geaves as a source? Same goes for Collier and Cagan. For two years now I have restricted my contributions pretty much to the Talk pages for the stated reason that it was plainly important to establish ground rules as to what material is can be used and why. For years I've had Jossi preaching at me as if he knows the answer and I don't - but that's all up in the air now. Now I bring it up again nobody's apparently interested. Will? Francis? Jossi? Ruminton? Are you there?PatW (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation with Geaves is very different from either Collier or Cagan. Ron Geaves is a noted scholar writing in academic settings. While he may be partial, or even biased, that doesn't exclude him from being considered a reliable source. There's no requirement that sources be neutral. When he's used to give something that could be considered an opinion it should be attributed to him. Now if his work has been impeached or questioned in a reliable source then that might change things somewhat, but I haven't seen anything like that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that there is specific discussion about this on the DLM page. Is there a good reason that I was not asked to participate in this discussion along with other involved parties?PatW (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission? That mediation effort originated with disputes on about the DLM, and so the list of participants included those who were active on that talk page. It subsequently grew in scope but the list of participants wasn't expanded. Please join us. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Yes that discussion seems to be dealing with these questions. I'll take a good lookPatW (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom enforcement: jossi

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Jossi launching subtle personal attacks --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton!

Deleting sourced material with an edit summary of "tweaked" is unacceptable. If you see something in the article you would like to change please discuss it on the talk page first, this is something I would have expected from Momento, not you. I am reverting your edits until there is a reason for them, not because I do not agree with them. There is no reason to act this way. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What was removed? I see only this text removed: " in an arranged 2½ hour DVD presentation featuring Rawat's instruction. " I see no source provided by you, so the deletion may be warranted. Do you have a source for that statement? If so, please re-add and add the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That probably belongs in the "Teachings" article anyway. It's not biographical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The first sentence is sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in the teachings article. What I object to was the 5 edits in a row with a summary of "tweaks". These were not tweaks they are definite edits, in some cases, changing the essence of the text. BTW, jossi, you as well as I know, EXACTLY where that is sourced from, and is sourced, in the Teachings article. Ever hear of "Cite needed"? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know from where, Maelefique. And yes, {{fact}} could have been used. Now, please don't call my comment "disingenuous", it wasn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is disingenuous, *YOU* gave me the source when I asked in one of the other articles. Do you want me to produce the diff? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not biographical, it should stay in the teachings article. That's one of 5 edits that were made with a summary of "tweaks". I think it's slightly dishonest to make edits that way. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the edits, and get of your public relations kick please. If you don't find them slightly dishonest, you will continue to damage my ability to accept things you say in the spirit of WP:AGF, these are not tweaks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

and FTR, I was referring to {{Citation needed}} specifically, I find it preferable to {{fact}} in cases like this. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

and get of your public relations kick please ???? Please cool it and remember the page probation. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is a question or not you are asking me. Did you not understand the comment? and if you did not, why are you commenting on it afterwards? I cannot help but note that you do not disagree with any of my positions taken in this discussion. Therefore it looks a lot to me like you're just trying to run some "damage control", "spin", or as I mentioned a "public relations" exercise. Please see this and here and the trifecta here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot read my mind, can you? So please keep your opinions of my motives to yourself, as it is simply not germane to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you cannot read minds, you shouldn't make assumptions. You are the one off-topic, *I* started the topic! "Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith." What kind of fluff is that? It says nothing, it makes no point, takes no stand, states the obvious, and wastes our time, please contribute... or don't. Do you consider stripping away text that alters the content and/or context of this article in general to be ok, with an edit summary of "tweaks"? Would you say that was "more helpful" to other editors or "less helpful" using an edit summary that implies nothing more than a minor change, when in fact it is a significant change? I don't think these are complicated questions. (and I used "germane" yesterday, it is pretty handy isn't it!?) :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here I am! "Slightly dishonest," huh? Well I have never been so insulted in all my...OK, I'm kidding. But seriously guys. Were any of those edits really a problem? Most were the tweakiest of tweaks, one was inserting the name of the country his mother repaired to, which the article confusingly lacked, the most terrible was apparently shortening the repetive description of Key Six. Of course it was presented by Prem Rawat, we have already said all the Keys are, and the 2.5 hours long thing seemed just superfluous, or perhaps even promotional. It was not a "significant change," and there was no POV there, it was just an attempt to make this horrendous hodge-podge of an article a bit more readable. If we are going to agonise like this over every such attempt it does not look good. Let's discuss the important things. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said to begin with, I didn't revert because I necessarily disagreed with the edits, and after thinking it over, regarding the 2.5 hours, I agreed with you that it didn't need to be there. What I objected to was the edit summary that made it look like you were fixing typos, and shifting a verb or something, when in fact you were deleting/adding material, then I got all excited and annoyed. Then jossi stepped in and stirred the pot a little more, even though he had nothing to contribute here (except to suggest I don't have a source for the material, which I got from a source he provided me with). In light of some of the other edits that have been going on around here recently, it would sure be helpful (I think) if your edit summaries were a little more explicit in their defining nature. And besides, a day without a controversy around here, how weird would that be?! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, buddy, I appreciate your good humour. I will try to be more explicit in my edit summaries. I have been lazy. No excuse, Rumiton! None! Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claim?

Is this an "exeptional claim" that needs to be removed? [21] Please provide rationale:

Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, [1978] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission

What is needed is maybe to simply change the verb to: "found little support and have did not affected the progress of the Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A) It's a claim that is only made by one source in one place. B) The organization underwent a loss of membership in this period and disbanded a few years later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(A) So now we can start removing content sourced to scholars which have not been mentioned in other sources? Are you sure of this? How is this argument compatible with other discussions you are having about singular claims made in much less reputable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(B) For that, we only need to change the verb as proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook is a tertiary, non-academic source that misspells Mishler's name. This is not the highest quality source available. His assertion that Mishler's widely reported comments had no effect on the "progress" of the DLM is unsourced. Since the plain facts show that the DLM was not undergoing progress but was in a serious decline the statement is extraordinary. As orginally worded it placed too much weight on Melton's negation and too little on the actual assertions by Mishler. According to Melton, Mishler's complaints — that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use — found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.[22] Iff we gave substantially more space to Mishler's various criticisms then mentioning Melton's opinion might be worthwhile. But we barely mention Mishler so Melton's extraordinary claim is out of place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are bringing the argument of "extraordinary claim", which is defined in Wikipedia here WP:REDFLAG, in relation to what Melton is saying. I would argue that you are engaging in WP:OR by making these arguments. Mishler is the one about which WP:REDFLAG applies: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended, if at all. After all, we do not know that Mishler's comments had in relation to impact in membership.; we are simply quoting a scholar's opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, if we give Mishler's assertions more space then Melton's opinion may be worth including. It's poor writing to make the rebuttal as long or longer than the assertion. Regarding the Mishler's assertions, they seem in character with what we know of him. It is not at all extraordinary that he would criticize Rawat, and we have several sources which say he did so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all extraordinary that he would criticize Rawat, sure. But what I am arguing that it is a WP:REDFLAG, as of reports of a statement by someone against an interest they had previously defended. That is in WP policy for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but the "redflag" requirement is satisfied because we have numerous highly reliable sourcs which conform that he said those things. WP:REDFLAG does not prohibit us from reporting "exceptional claims", it only requires that we have highly reliable sources to back them up. Are you seriously arguing that Mishler didn't become a critic of Rawat, and that he didn't say the things attributed to him? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG cannot be put aside because something was said multiple times, Will. Redflag is there to avoid reporting opinions that are made by people that may have had an ax to grind. That is exactly what thee policy is there for. And not, not waved enough unless you have taken notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press and United Press International both carried quotations from Mishler (apparently froma press conference). The assertions have also been reported in scholarly sources and even in Melton. WP:REDFLAG simply requires that we support extraordinary claims with highly-reliable sources. Which source is not highly reliable? If one of them is a problem I'm sure we can find a better replacement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No will no. You are missing the point completely. It does not matter how many wires you throw at it: WP:REDFLAG is pretty unambiguous about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear (and brief):

• Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Which sources are you saying are not "highly reliable"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Imho, per the discussion in this section this edit should be undone. Further, we do not systematically "use all the quote or none". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What?

In 1973 the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission summarized Rawat's image as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling. Are you sure this is what the PR team said? I really do not know anymore what are you trying to do here, Will. Seriously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the context:

• 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." ... Richard Profumo, 27, who went to prison as a draft resister, told his colleagues at the public relations meeting of a necessity to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility. "We're marketing a commodity which is visible only as a reflection," he said, referring to the knowledge and the peace it is supposed to bring.

The point of this is to illustrate the public image of Rawat at the height of his fame, as described by his own PR team. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the source, Will. Are you saying that you are unaware of the poor way you reflected that source? I mean, if you are unable to see the problem with your edit ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What's your objection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Will, I want you to take a hard look at your text, and a hard look at the source, and then tell me that you do not see any problem with it, before I point to you the obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the obvious. This game of "if you can't see the problem then you're a bad editor" is tiresome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is not a game, it simply me trying to understand what drives you. In any case, here it is: When reading that statement, it reads as if the PR group is summarizing his image, when actually they are stating that "he is seen as". One thing is to say:

In 1973 the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission summarized Rawat's image as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling.;

and another thing is to say:

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."

This is a better presentation of that material, per the source:

According to an AP wire published in The Stars and Stripes newspaper in 1973, the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission who met to talk about the guru's image, concluded that he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling", and pointed at the necessity to establish his credibility beyond his age and body shape.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, though it doesn't need the lengthy attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either version, if the second one makes jossi happier for some reason, I have no objection to it, although I fail to see this "obvious" huge difference that jossi apparently sees...oh wait...Seriously. (Although I think we can lop off the "newspaper in 1973" phrase, and just leave that in the source reference) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you fail to see the difference, so be it. I see a massive difference and I am sure others will as well. Think of the reader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The attribution is needed, of course. Stating that AP wire that was picked up by the paper of United States Armed Forces overseas is most necessarily needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? FWIW, I have five copies of the same story reprinted by differnt newspapers, and there are doubtless more. Should we list them all? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which papers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<(A small request: please do not use "per Jossi's request" in edit summaries. Stating as per discussion in talk, is prefereable and more accurate. Thanks in advance.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Unless you have a disupute with the quote, or the sources already provided, I don't see what difference it makes. Since you're not arguing against its inclusion, you obviously don't argue with the quote (ya ya, I can't read your mind, blah blah blah). Ergo, add the quote, footnote it as per standard procedure, and allow the reader to investigate if they feel the need. On the other hand, if you do have a problem with the veracity of the quote, that's an entirely different matter. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[e/c] It's an AP story. It was probably carried in dozens or even hundreds of papers. I suppose it'd could be reasonable to say something like "It was reported that..." or "Reportedly...", but unless we're asserting that the AP has a particular bias that needs to be attribued then it's a waste of space to attribute it, especially since it's a quotation. The remark is not particularly surprising: it's brief statement of the popular perception of Rawat in the U.S. in 1973. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"probably carried" is a statement that is inconsistent with my research. As far as I can see, it was picked up by a single paper. You said you have found it in many of papers, so I am just asking if you can say which. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And why, exactly, does this matter? Is this just an idle request or is there a reason you want me to compile a list for you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An idle request to ask in which newspapers this wired was published? As I said, I have not found any other newspapers that picked up this AP wire, in the databases I have access to. If it was only on one outle4t, then we attribute it to that outlet. Makes sense? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. It's a wire service. While individual newspapers may cut copy or write their own headline, the text of the material is from AP. They are the source. We don't attribute books to their publisher, just to their author. And in this case I don't even see a need to attribute it to the AP, since it isn't an opinion or judgment call, it's a quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

since it isn't an opinion or judgment call. How do you know that? The AP wire does not provide information if that quote is hearsay, if an AP journalist was there, or if it a quote from another source, does it? Fact is that this "quote" is only available in a wire has significance, and thus it needs to be attributed. Just remember that AP has had its share of controversies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and I think you're making a spurious point. The standard you're suggesting would require that virtually every assertion in this and every other article be attributed. Maybe we should also include the name of the newspaper archive in the attribution, because we're not really sure that the archive correctly recorded the newspaper article? And attribute the edit to the editor who added it, in case that editor mis-characterized the material? How about including the editor's ISP? Where does it stop? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> How could it possibly be more accurate to attribute a text change to some non-specific contributor on a talk page, rather than to identify who suggested it? It may be preferable, it certainly isn't more accurate. It *might* be more preferable and accurate to say "per jossi's request, see discussion on talk page" or something like that. Is that what you meant? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a collaborative effort, isn't it. So saying "as per talk page discussion" is more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a collaborative effort, but it's going to be Crosby that scores the goal to take home the Stanley Cup, there's no harm in noting individuals on a team. While everyone plays a part, the Penguins coach is not going to shoot the puck, and ESPN is not going to say The Penguins scored the winning goal, they're going to say Crosby did. Why? Because it is more accurate. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Premie.Org

• There is also a website that utilizes this term, Ex-Premie.Org.

An editor (temporarily) removed this with the edit summary: violates BLP and EL, [23]. However I don't see how either applies. There is no policy that prevents us from mentioning the existnce of a website, or giving its domain name. WP:EL applies only to links and an unlinked domain name is not a link. I don't see how WP:BLP could apply. The existence of the website is established by reliable sites. Note that this material has already been discussed at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#"Extremist websites". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not apply? You have got to be kidding. I'll better leave this to others to discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which provision of WP:BLP is relevant, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Directly from the WP:EL Page, under important points to remember..."This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." and under the heading of "What Should be Linked" from the same policy, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." and under the heading "Links to be Considered", "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". However, under the heading "In Biographies of Living People" it says "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all", but I would contend that ex-premie.org, while it may have some derogatory information, has sources such as copies of the Divine Times that are not questionable, or dubious, and therefore, since it's not both, the guideline doesn't apply. Having said all that, I think I would tend to agree with Jossi, that the insertion of the name of a website is de facto the same as inserting a link to a site. Add it to Steve's list if we haven't already. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that analysis is correct because we're not using it as a source or as an external link. We are mentioning its existence, which is established by reliable sources, as an example of the use of the term "ex-premie" and of organized opposition to the subject. It's no different than mentioning the existence of any non-internet organization. If there were a "Committee to Impeach Prez. Bush" it would be comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I may have misunderstood it's original usage, and since you've explained (re-explained?) it I see your point, still seems a little but of a fuzzy interpretation, but its fuzzy both ways so I'm gonna sleep on this one. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As the webmaster of ex-premie.org of course my view is that a link should be included. I would also argue that the quality of many of the first hand reports is of sufficiently high journalistic standard that I think it should also be used as a reliable source for much information that is not available elsewhere. I would also argue that the only reason that information is not available elsewhere is that no reputable journalist or academic (apart from the Professor described by his colleagues as 'Rawat's Goebbels'), has found Rawat of sufficient interest or importance to research and write an in-depth article on Rawat. Of course if Rawat continues to promote himself, it's only a matter of time before such an article is written. Anyway, I have no intention of spending the necessary time to try to further argue my view here, so in the meantime I would be happy with a link. :-) --John Brauns (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In 2006, after much wrangling about this, neutral editor P Jacobi opined that because Elan Vital criticise this website (amongst others), characterising them as 'Hate Groups' then the ex-premie organisation deserve mentioning as significant critics. That is obviously because Elan Vital have made some public efforts to counter them here for example. PatW (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well on the one hand, if EV can talk about them, I don't see why WP can't. On the other hand, while it seems obvious that they are referring to ex-premie.org, they don't mention it by name, so I'm not sure we can definitely say that's who they mean. I must say I find that page to be a bit surprising in its exaggeration of claims. Flooding the internet? By using a whole 3 sites?? I can't think of any other company of this size that would put up material like this against such a small number of people, seems quite strange to me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that, having argued about all this many times over the last years, I should let others discuss it. However if Jossi and Ruminton present all their historic arguments I may chime in again for balance.PatW (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WillBeBack, perhaps you can explain why you removed sourced material about the two "ex-premies" mentioned in the sources provided? Don't you think readers have a right to know who these critics are?Momento (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't base editing decisions on what readers have a "right to know". Instead, I try to make sure that articles cover their topics completely and neutrally. The lives and criminal records of ex-premies are not the topic of this article. Neither do we report Rennies Davis's criminal record, nor Geaves's academic credentials, nor how Mishler died, nor the weather in Haridwar, nor a thousand other facts that aren't relevant to this article. Do readers have a "right to know those facts"? Hey I think readers should get whatever info they want, within limits of this project. But this article is about Prem Rawat, and readers of this article only have a right and expectation to read things diretly related to Rawat. Unless the crimes of the expremies are related to the subject of this article they don't belong here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, please reinsert the sourced material on MacGregor since it is all about Rawat. Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And please remove the bit about the boat not being paid for as that has nothing to do with Rawat. Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I identified Macgregor, added some context, and placed the material in the "2000s" section. We should summarize his criticism briefly. As for the boat, it's a sourced detail that does concern the subject. However in the interests of keeping the bio focused I'll remove mention of the wedding gifts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is more MacGregor material to add. The trial, skipping the country, perjury. Since the ex-premie org is in then the Elan Vital website material must be included. And Ackland seems to have gone missing.Momento (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by "ex-premie org is in". We are only mentioning its existence, not using it as a source. We also mention the existence of the Elan Vital but we have to be extremely careful about using it as a source. What're our sources for the trial of Macgregor? And what can we say about Ackland? That he drove a truck in front of a facility where Rawat was staying? OK, I guess that's relevant but it should be kept brief. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• You don't know what he means? It's there, for goodness sake! The reader can paste it right into the http box and go straight there. Wikipedia is directing its readers to an unmoderated attack site against the subject of a biography of a living person. It has to go. Rumiton (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could neutral editors please ask Rawat's followers here to desist in their repeated attacks on former followers of Rawat. Rainer has been allowed to compare us to restaurant garbage, and now this from Rumiton. Ex-premie.org is NOT an 'unmoderated attack site'. There are only two people who have access to update the site, and in recent years, updates have been very rare. Since taking over the site I have asked readers to correct inaccuracies and apart from some minor errors of wording no one has done so. All the substantial critical information about Rawat is corroborated, and it only looks like an attack site to Rawat's followers because they find any criticism of Rawat blasphemous. --John Brauns (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I echo John's sentiment. It's all too easy for people who are anonymous, like Rumiton and Momento, to make personal attacks on others with whom they are corresponding on this talk page, whose real names are out here front and center, like John Brauns's and my own, Cynthia Gracie. Now, if this doesn't stop, I'm going to take the same measures that Jossi did (rightly so) last week when I lost my cool and called people names. It's all too easy to demand "civility" and "good faith" of others while tossing out insults and being impolite. This behavior doesn't help to form concensus here nor does it promote good will and faith. This name-calling, innuendo, analogy-instead of name-calling, and false reporting of facts concerning former followers and their websites must stop here and now. Please don't forget, we are living people too, just like Prem Rawat is a living person. Just some food for thought. So, this is the last warning for anyone thinking about issuing personal attacks against others here. Next time it goes on the notice board. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it would also help smooth out the process here if editors Jossi, Rainer, Momento, and Rumiton would consider being more polite to all other editors here, instead of framing their posts here in the form of demands. In other words, please try to make your requests more polite and civil instead of making demands of others as if you are everyone else's supervisors on this article, i.e., "This is in!" "This is out!" "Change this edit now!" "Slow down!" "You can't!" Thanks!  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this thread at the bottom of the page. Start new sections above it. Thanks.

Notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DLM/PR coordination

We now have a well-developed article on the Divine Light Mission. Some organizational topics are better handled there than in this biography. Other topics are more biographical and should be covered here. Viewed from the perspective of this article here are some topics that I think can be expanded or reduced in this article:

• Millennium '73 - covered at "DLM" and more relevant there - a couple of short sentences would suffice here.
• Marriage - many details of the marriage are better suited here.
• Pie - the main notability concerned the attack on the reporter that followed, which makes it DLM-related, but it might be worth brief mention here.
• Ulcer - the ailment was reported on widely and repeatedly in articles about the subject. Not DLM related.
• 1972 charges in India - the smuggling charges are about the subject personally, so that should be in this article. I understand that the subject couldn't leave India for several months before finally posting a bond, and then charges were later dropped.
• 1974 lawsuits in India - those cases were more about the control of the DLM, so they're handled best at "DLM".

So at least one large topic can be reduced, another expanded, and a couple added added. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Teachings - still needs work, I haven't had time to work on the Teachings article for a few days, I still plan to, it's just one of those things I haven't got to I don't think we need to have nearly as much about his teachings here if we have a separate article anyway.

And regarding the smuggling charges, I could be wrong, I'll have to try and find it, but I think Downton touches on that and says it was based on a mistaken identity, he was released immediately with the apologies of the Indian government, but I'm not 100% sure on that, it might be some other incident I'm thinking about, I will find that today. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in moving material around if these moves will make the articles better. But this would have to be done with caution. I do not see what is the encyclopedic value of a report on an ulcer, though. The "smuggling" incident, is also problematic. To cover it properly we will need to list many competing reports about it, as there are many different reports on what happened, who was charged, and why it was dropped. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "Teachings" article needs work. We've discussed it a bit over at that talk page.

I haven't put it all together yet, but apparently Rawat flew to India for the November '72 festival and that's when the briefcase was found. Singh, in the NYT article published in April '73, says that Rawat couldn't travel because his passport has been confiscated. News reports in August say that Rawat posted a $13,000 bond in order to leave the country in June 1973 (his first stop was London, presumably for the festival there). One news account quotes his mother as saying Rawat was cursing her for having him come home, indicating another early source of tension between them. It appears that the episode lasted at least ten months. It was a big topic in India, where the case was discussed in Parliament. The whole matter was widely and repeatedly reported and this biography is incomplete without it.

The ulcer is "encyclopedic" because it was widely reported and because it had theological implications. Ulcers are associated with stress while Rawat promised peace. DLM officials and even Rawat's doctor offered theories for the illness that involved claims about Rawat's place in the scheme of things. ("He said there was no contradiction between the concept of the guru's being master of perfection and the vulnerability of his body. "His body obeys physical laws just perfectly," [his doctor] continued. "He's here to show what perfection is, and he's here to show what's human, too. Some people expect physical miracles in him.") There's no indication in the press reports that Rawat's handlers were making any attempt to maintain his privacy or keep the condition confidential. Just the opposite. That said, I don't think more than a sentence or two is needed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a short sentence about the ulcer could be enough. As for the Indian customs incident, the sources I have indicates that there were many conflicting reports about that incident, but the conclusion was that no charges were ever filed. It would be not easy to come up with a factual account of it, but we can try. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The peptic ulcer sentence lacks context. I suggest to add that his doctor attributed it to His body has become weakened by the pace because of continual travel. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This ulcer thing does not have "theological implications" it is yet another example of the need for intelligent editing. At the time (early 70s) it was believed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, and there was indeed a question in many people's minds about this apparent contradiction, (including my own at the time.) Ten years later it was shown by Australian researchers that this type of ulcer is almost never caused by stress, but by a contagious bacteria common in developing countries, the helicobacter pylori [24]. Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It has theological implications because of the explanations given by Mishler, et al. I'd have to look it up again, but IIRC he said something to the effect that the subject's ulcer was due to stress caused by taking on the cares of the world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The context needed is that in those days everyone, including Mishler, believed that ulcers were the result of stress. Nowadays no one does. For NPOV, this needs to be explained. I propose adding this explanation to the article. Is there a consensus to do this? Rumiton (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanations for the physiological causes of ulcers can be found in the linked article. For this article we should use the comments about the subject's ulcer, comments which explained that it was due to stress, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider a less pontifical communication style? This Voice-of-God thing is wearing very thin. Yesterday you said that the ulcer issue needed to be included as it had "theological implications." Now, after it has been shown to have no such implications, you still want it in, and want to smother the explanation in a link. It clearly belongs in the text, if this private health matter needs to be in the article at all, which I greatly doubt. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. The ulcer was attributed by Mishler to Rawat carrying the weight of the world. That's where the "theological implications" come from. If the people around Rawat had said something simple like "he's got a minor ailment and is expected to recover shortly" then it would probably have not been reported on at all. But they did give details of the diagnonsis (contrary to Cagan) and explanations for it (even if they were based on a faulty knowledge of science). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Customs incident

<<< On November 7 1972, Rawat returned to India from the U.S. to attend the annual Hans Jayanti festival celebrating his father's birthday. A suitcase containing cash, gems, and wristwatches was not properly declared to customs, leading to accusations of smuggling. As argued above, this can be easily seen as a coatrack. If this is to be included, a statement about the fact that no charges were ever filed, is needed. What is the point of having discussions in talk, if editors chose to make unilateral additions while we are discussing the issue? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It now says " The charges were later dropped." Actually, I can't find a source for that. We could say "No charges were filed", but I don't have a source for that either. Can you find one? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

'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 filled. H. W. Wilson Company, Current Biography Yearbook (1974) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book right now. It contradicts other sources that say the money, etc., was part of a "bank" belonging to followers from the U.S. (Of course there may have been multiple stories given out and if necessary we can report all of them). If the date of publication is 1974 then it may have been written before the matter was resolved. The fact that Rawat's passport was condfiscated and that he had to post a bond to leave the country make it appear that some legal action was taken. Let's keep trying to find a better source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• snippet view (Google Book Search, but a bit slowish today) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "posting bond" is dubious. Also, there are so many conflicting reports about the value of the contents of that suitcase ... one source says £60,000 later corrected to £13,600 (Daily Mail), another £27,000 (The Times), another $35,000, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the posting bond assertion dubious? As for the purported values, I've seen figures all over the map which is why I omitted specifying an amount. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• A teenaged guru touring the United States had to post bond of $13,300 before being allowed to leave India to spread his "Perfect Knowledge," the government says. Minister of State for Finance K. R. Ganesh told Parliament yesterday that the guru had to post the bond because he is under investigation and may be charged with smuggling. He did not say whether the government plans to prosecute Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old leader of the Divine Light Mission.

The bond was reported by a government minister speaking in Parliament. The assertion that his account is false would require a highly reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I said I would find it... "First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with the apologies from the government." from Downton, pages 187-188. Doesn't clarify anything I don't think, but there it is. (If someone wants to complain about that cite, I'll do one). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In many BLPs, if an allegation or civil/criminal investigation is found later to be without merit, these are not included in the BLP. That is my recollection from several BLPs that were brought up at BLP/N, regardless of the press that was generated before the allegations were found to be without merit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we don't mention that murder charge in the OJ Simpson article, right? But seriously, the case was international news and it affected the subject's life and reputation. As Jossi himself has pointed out, the case is mentioned in even short biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Simpson was charged, prosecuted, and found not guilty, please... Here is a case of an alleged smuggling of an estimated value of £13,600 found in a suitcase, which some sources report being the property of an individual other than PR. The charges were never filed, the government apologized for the mistake, so why we should perpetuate that in WP? If we mention this, it needs to be explained in detail, but f we do we will be giving it undue weight. So why keep it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We keep it because this is a biography, and it's an important biographical detail, as shown by such reference works as Current Biography Yearbook. Even the subject's own PR team acknowledged it was a part of his image. I'm not sure why there's a requirement to cover it in greater detail. Like any topic, it should be given space proportionate to its importance. I think the present length is sufficient. What details do you want to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As its stands it is (a) incomplete; (b) misleading. Not saying that it was a paltry sum is misleadding. Not saying that the government apologized is incomplete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want to add the bond amount? OK. Glad to settle this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the bond amount. The alleged value of the suitcase content, and the fact that the government later apologized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I don't think we should give every possible amount - just the range. I think the low I've seen is around $27,000 and the high is $65,000. (I've seen one that says a couple of hundred thousand, but I expect the writer misread the amount and added a zero.) Shall we also add that six MPs complained that he wasn't charged, and that Mrs Ghandi reportedly took an (unspecified) interest in the case? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the bond amount removed? I thought more details were reqested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

A 14-year-old guru hailed by his American devotees as lord of the universe and castigated by his critics as a smuggler, has become the center of a controversy which reportedly has interested en Prime Minister Indira Ghandhi. Customs officials have yet to decide whether to prosecute the pudgy teenage guru, Maharaj Ji, on allegations that he tried to bring in about $80,000 worth of ondeclared currency, precious stones and watches. Maharaj Ji arrived in India from the United States on Nov. 7. Government officials no longer will talk on the record about his case. According to some press reports, Mrs. Gandhi has taken personal interest in the case, The controversy swirls around a briefcase Maharaj Ji brought with him on his return. His critics say it contained the undeclared valuables. His followers maintain the contents of the controversial briefcase, seized at the airport, were part of his divine bank and belonged to his devotees, not him. "Why should Maharaj Ji smuggle anything?" said Arthur Brigam, 22, the guru's public relations man from Denver. "He is a saint who needs nothing." Before leaving for Hardwar, headquarters of the guru's Divine Light Mission, Brigham claimed customs officials had cleared Maharaj Ji, but the officials still have not announced the results of their investigation of the case. "Pudgy Guru, 14, Controversy Center in India", UPI. BRIDGEPORT TELEGRAM, November 24, 1972 When Maharaj Ji stepped off a jumbo jet in' New Delhi before his cheering Premies, he looked for all the world a kid with the world in a jug and the stopper in his hand. But there was trouble on the horizon. A few hours later customs officials leaked the still unproved allegation that he had attempted to bring into the country almost $80,000 in undeclared American currency, precious stones and watches. THE Premies said he was being falsely persecuted, just as Jesus Christ had been. They said the alleged countraband was part of the assets of the mission's divine bank and was being held in safekeeping for the owners, all devotees. Customs officials, presumably, are still meditating over the case. The holy mother is bitter. "My son is cursing me for having persuaded him to come to India to attend the Hans Jayanti (Maharaj Ji's late father) Festival," she told a newsman here. She charged that customs officials had humiliated Maharaj Ji and his entourage and that the Indian press had given his visit the worst possible coverage. The holy mother said Indians did not appreciate what Maharaj Ji has done for the country. "Isn't it a matter of pride for India that Englishmen who ruled over this country for two centuries now bow their heads in reverence before the young guru Maharaj Ji?" she asked. "Some feel the youth is fraud" Long Beach, Calif., Sun., Dec. 19, 1972 INDEPENDENT, PRESS-TELEGRAM A-27 The airport arrival of the religious, leader — who reportedly gets his kicks from squirting water pistols, eating mounds of ice cream, watching triple-feature horror movies and wearing Frankenstein masks — was marred when Indian customs officials discovered and impounded a suitcase containing $65,000 in cash, jewelry and watches. According to the guru's disciples, the stash was a Divine Bank that had been put together to support the pilgrims during their month-long sojourn in India. Refusing to buy that story, the Indian government ordered an investigation into the movement's finances and seized the passport of the "prince of peace." "The Mini Guru" By J. KING CRUGER staff writer, February 3, 1973 THE STARS AND STRIPES Page 9 There has been a spot of trouble with Customs. On the guru's return from a world tour last November, accompanied by 400 foreign devotees, U.S. currency and goods with a total value of $27,000 were seized from his entourage. ... ""Will you be going abroad again?" I relaize I have committed a faux pas; the police have impunded his passport. "The Guru Business", Khushwant Singh, The New York Times, April 8, 1973 When Maharaj Ji returned to India last October from a tour of the U.S.—accompanied by several planeloads of American followers — Indian authorities confiscated more than $50,000 in cash and jewelry from him. "Slapstick Test Of Guru's Mortality" UPI, Lebanon Daily News, Wednesday, August 8, 1973 A teenaged guru touring the United States had to post bond of $13,300 before being allowed to leave India to spread his "Perfect Knowledge," the government says. Minister of State for Finance K. R. Ganesh told Parliament yesterday that the guru liad to post the bond because he is under investigation and may be charged with smuggling. He did not say whether the government plans to prosecute Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old leader of the Divine Light Mission. .. Customs officers seized $35,000 worth of jewelry, watches and foreign currency when the guru and some of his disciples returned to India last November from his visit to the United Status. Spokesmen for the movement say money was collected to finance the stay of 3,000 Western devotees, mostly from the United States, who flew here last November. They, came in seven chartered jumbo jets to meditate for a month and to observe the birthday anniversary of the guru's late father. The jewelry and watches, the spokesman said, were gifts for the guru's family and the mahawmas, the movement's priests. Customs authorities said the guru and a few close disciples who were responsible for the items had not properly declared them on arrival in New Delhi and were suspected of trying to smuggle the things into the country. Six members of the India Parliament, including some from the ruling Congress party, attacked the government for letting the guru leave India in June, after taking his passport earlier in the investigation. "This so-called bhagwam (Hindi for god) has been disgraced even in America," shouted Jyotirmoy Basu, a Marxist member. He referred to an incident in Detroit, two weeks ago, when the guru was struck by a cream pie at a public function. Ganesh said the government had permitted the guru to leave India on the advice of the Law Ministry. "Boy Guru Suspected of Smuggling" AP, Oakland Tribune Aug. 25, 1973 The allusions were to his encounter with a pie-tossing youth in Detroit and the confiscation in India last November of $35,000 in undeclared jewelry and cash, which the mission has said was forgotten by a disciple. The case has not been settled and the guru had to post $13,300 bond before leaving for his latest world tour. "15-year-old guru uses computer to keep track of disciples" AP. October 21, 1973 Kokomo Tribune Maharaj Ji was accused by customs officials of trying to smuggle eighty thousand dollars of jewels into his native land. Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson, 2004 A few days later, however, Maharaj Ji made headlines not to his liking. From New Delhi Aug. 25, 1973 the Associated Press repotred that before he was allowed to leave India he had to post a #13,300 bond becuase he was under investigation on a charge of smuggling. A year earlier, it was revealed, customs officers had seized $35,000 worth of jewelry, watches, and foreign currency he and his disciples ad with them when they returnd from an American trip. The movement insited the riches were used to support 3,000 Western devotees who came to India to meditiate for a month. Chicago newspapers carried the story. Superstition and the Press, Curtis D. MacDougall, Prometheus Books 1983 p.437

There, chronologically arranged, are the sources I've found regarding this incident. The range of values is $27,000 to $80,000.

The text now reads:

• Cash, gems, and wristwatches worth a reported total of US$27,000 to $80,000 were not properly declared to customs, leading to accusations of smuggling.[34] Rawat was not able to leave India due to the investigation until he posted $13,300 bond in June 1973. Charges were never filed and the government later apologized.[35][36]

I hope that is sufficiently short, complete, and neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems not far off what happened, which was (according to a close friend of mine who was on the flight, note the impeccable attribution!) that all the westerners had been invited to stay in the Delhi ashram during the festival, and ashram rules forbade the possession of personal money and the wearing of jewelry or watches. Someone went around the plane collecting the valuables, and when they went through Customs nobody thought about declaring it. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The explanation given out at the time was that the watches and jewelry were gifts for Indian mahatmas and others. I don't recall reading any account that matches your friend's recollection. It may be right, but it isn't verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

<<The problem with that sentence is that it misses important information. IMO the "smuggling charges" are less encyclopedic than the reasons why that happened. I will assume good faith here, and not complain about why that information was not used. Here is a proposed edit that puts that material in the appropriate context.

Rawat returned to India from the U.S. on November 7 1972, together with 350 American disciples in one of seven Jumbo jets that were leased to bring thousands of Western followers to a visit to India. When clearing customs, a suitcase containing cash, jewels, and wristwatches worth a reported total of US$27,000 to $80,000 were not properly declared, leading to accusations of smuggling. The director of the movement's public relations division said that the money was to be used to support the local travel and food expenses of the visitors,, and lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that Joan Apter, one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables. Rawat posted bond in June 1973 to enable him to resume traveling and attend a planned English-American tour. Charges were never filed and the government later apologized.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for another viewpoint (not needed to be used here, but that it is quite accurate and provides a glimpse of other outrageous accusations against the young PR), is what Cagan writes about the incident:

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. [...] 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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

It does not matter as I am not proposing we use that source. My proposed edit is above it, which provides the necessary encyclopedic content for that incident, which is that 3,500 Westerners managed to charter 7 Jumbo jets and get themselves to India, and that facing opposition from the establishment, they try to make a storm in a glass of water. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear in Jossi's draft, what the source is for this assertion: "...lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that Joan Apter, one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables." Also, why is the bond ammount omitted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the bond amount is important. As for the source, here it is Disciples of Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old Indian boy-saint, are to press Indian customs officers to release £13,600 in currency and valuables, the contents of a "divine bank" confiscated last year. Official assessments of the contents - currency notes, travellers cheques, watches and jewellery - earlier varied between £50,000 and £60,000. The "bank" was confiscated at New Delhi airport last November when the young Guru led hundreds of Western disciples in nine Jumbo jets to India to hear his teachings. Lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission say they will tell Indian customs officials that Miss Joan Apter, a leading American disciple, was not trying to smuggle the "divine bank" into India. In the excitement of the Guru's return she forgot to declare the currency and valuables. You can use the source also to replace "US$27,000 to $80,000" with the correct amount of £13,600. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The *British* Daily Mail, is that what this is cited to? No problem for me, but you do realise this doesn't do Ms. Cagan's reliability status much good, who quoted the Britsh Daily Mail as notoriously inaccurate on the subject (...or the reliability status is affected the other way around, and then we shouldn't be trusting the Daily Mail on the correctness of amounts etc...) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct amount is available from other sources as well, and newspaper reports are not always consistent, as it can be seen from the many competing comments made during that time in regard of this incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bond amount is rather large, so I think we should include it. Where did Jossi get that clipping? From here? I've avoided using that site for references, but if we're considering it to be accurate then they've got a lot of useful stuff. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not from there. I have a large collection of materials I have amassed over the years. Should I ask you from now on where do you get your sources? I do not thing that it is necessary, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just unusual to have such a tiny clipping from so far away and long ago. Does anyone here object to using the sources posted at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/wptr2.htm? They appear to be accurate. Also, if that Daily Mail source is accurate, then the official valuation they list for the suitcase would be over US$100,000. However since this is the only source , out of many, that mentions this story I think it's an anomaly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not where I got that material, and the valuation of the suitcase is set at £13,600. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still awaiting to close this discussion and this edit to be made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have consensus for your proposal. The Joan Apter version only appears in one, very brief, undated news clipping. The more widely repeated version of events is that the cash was a "bank" and the jewelry were gifts (though that part is less weidely reported). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I read it correctly, it is the DLM officials who put the value at £13,600, and customs officials who valued it at £50,000- £60,000. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, it is the custom officials, not the DLM officials. As for Apter's being there, I am sure you have that info. And if not, check any of the online newsarchives.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As I already explained, I posted above all the resources I could find. None of them mention Apter. We have several reliable, dated sources that give a different interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'd try to still shorten it a bit. Apparently the incident caused quite some nuisance for Rawat at the time, but a still shorter mentioning would do for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortening only if the context is left there intact. This is not a tabloid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The conflicting stories of why the stuff was brought to India and why there was no declaration don't appear to be necessary context. In order to keep the material short I think it can be omitted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. The context I am referring is the fact that PR was traveling with 300 other people, and that another 7 jumbo jets flew there at the same time, as well as the fact that the suitcase was someone else's than PR. How can that not be context needed in a bio of PR? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the first parts, which are part of the general story and mentioned in numerous sources (though the numbers vary). I'm talking about the assertion that the suitcase belonged to Apter, which is only found in one problematic source and isn't mentioned in many reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but Mrs Apter was the person that organized the chartering of the Jumbo jets. This make sit very plausible that she carried the pooled moneys that were collected to pay for accomodation, etc. Remember that most of the travelers were young and many of them, hippies. Very plausible indeed. If this material is in one source, that does not invalidate it, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

She is mentioned in that role in an clipping of Charleston Daily Mail, Thursday, November 9, 1972, and I am searchin my clippings to see if I can find another source for the assertion that the suitcase was in her possession when clearing customs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can find sufficient reliable sources that attribute the mistake to her then we can attribute the mistake to her, even though it's derogatory information about a presumably living person. Also, if we have reliable sources about her position in the organization at the time then perhaps it would be better to describe her by position rather than name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Derogatory? What is derogatory? I disagree with the concept of "sufficient sources". We have a source, that describes the situation pretty unambiguously and that is what is needed. As for her "position", there was no such a thing in these days. Apter was one of the first people from the West that met the young PR in India in 1967; when she returned to the US she and others organized the chartering of these Jumbo jets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< BTW, there may be no consensus for my proposed version, but note that there is no consensus for yours either. So, remove it from the article and lets agree on a consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot just throw this jewel-smuggeling allusion into the encyclopedic room and then leave it uncommented. This is mere mud-slinging and may serve only as an example for the kind of reporting the press tends to wallow in. I am going to delete it after a decent term, if it is not amended.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer, it's our job to report biographical events. It's a fact that this incident occured, and we ahve ample reliable sources for it. We don't censor information. How would you like the material amended? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Will, is that this that what was reported is an exaggeration. According to an article in the NYT, dated July 18, 1973, the suitcase contained one necklace (not "jewels" or "gems" as reported by the wires), foreign currency and traveler checks, which is compatible with the assertions that these were pooled moneys by the travelers (if it was a "smuggling" why traveler checks, lol!). So, yes, WP is not censored, but WP is not a tabloid either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as we're following WP rules then we won't be a tabloid. I don't see any rule which tells us to exclude this well-reported incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Our job is not to multiply gossip and add dignity to the yellow press. The noteworthy content of the whole thing is at best the way the press has treated Rawat, it can be used (if there is a consense to use it at all) to show that. But then it must be displayed accordingly in a detached way, as is possible after all this time. Otherwise all that sticks is Rawat tried to smuggle jewlery. Which means deliberate mud-slinging. Maybe there is no explicit WP-rule against that, but there is a margin of discretion, I am sure. I wonder, how can a sane person wish to support such an obviously invidious and prejudiced scheme?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times and the AP don't report gossip. They report news. Those, and numerous other respectable news sources reported on this "smuggling" issue. There seems to be an effort here to characterize any mention of certain biographical events as "tabloidism" or "gossip". It's our job, as Wikipedia editors, to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. When we do so we're not engaging in "tabloid writing". Just because tabloids reported on Paris Hilton's arrest doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't either. Rawat subject had his passport confiscated and had to post bail to leave the country. Those are historical facts, as is their extensive media coverage. I still see no WP policy being advanced for the deletion of this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this issue already on the list for MedCab? If not, how can I add it?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit 2

This proposed edit is factually accurate, and presents the incident in the correct light:

Rawat returned to India from the U.S. on November 7 1972, together with 350 American disciples in one of seven Jumbo jets that were leased to bring thousands of Western followers to a visit to India. When clearing customs, a suitcase containing cash, traveler checks, jewels, and wristwatches was not properly declared, and was inpounded. An investigation was started by Indian customs officials. The director of the movement's public relations division said that the money was to be used to support the local travel and food expenses of the visitors,, and lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables. Rawat was forced to post bond in June 1973 to enable him to resume traveling and attend a planned English-American tour, while the investigation was ongoing. Charges were never filed and the government later apologized.

It has been a few days now that there is material in the article on this incident that is misleading by virtue of being incomplete, and it as about time his is fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is "India investigates guru's finances, The Times, November 29, 1972"? Can you poste the text or point to an online source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have made many edits and did not provide full text sources, so I do not see why are you doubting the sources I provide. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I used from that press clipping:

Mr. Arthur Brigham, from Denver, Colorado, director of the movement's large public relations division, said the money was to be used for meeting the local travel and food expenses of about 3,000 Western devotees, mostly from the United States, who came to India in seven chartered Boeing 747s to meditate.[25]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I've always provided quotes when asked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, you were insistent before that we include the estimated value of the stuff. Why are you now omitting it from your draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is not needed when we have the whole context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding the actual amounts -both the value of the material and the bond? Both are widely reported and it's more context and detail that allows readers to evaluate the case for themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean, these were paltry sums (10K pounds sterling for moneys pooled by 300 people is not that much, is it?). What is encyclopedic, is that an hostile press and a concerned conservative government made a big deal of it. You will find many wires carrying that story, but very few that reported that the moneys were finally returned and that nothing happened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How many scholarly sources say it either? Or other sources of any kind? Cagan, of course, puts the best possible spon on it. Anyway, if they are paltry sums then it shows the readers that large sums weren't involved, which they may not understand otherwise. Using the actual amounts gives readers the necessary context. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

In any case, I would argue that the proposed edit can be made straight away, and we can then discuss if to add or not to add these sums. There is no reason and no objections to omit the material I have added, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the amounts. Is there some reasin for excluding the sums, which I contend are usefl context and detail? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know we are discussing the amounts. That is why I am asking that we make the edit as is, and continue the discussion about the sums. There is no objection raised to have the additional context added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time, please. We can discuss the other edits next. Is there a policy reason to exclude the sums? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unnecessary vagueness which rather invites to give numbers instead of speaking about "large sums" etc. The guideline gives no advice however if no clear unambiguous number is available in applicable literature: than you'd be back to WP:NPOV I suppose: give the major viewpoints. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking of "large sums", on the contrary. My view remains that the encyclopedic value of that material is related to the fact that there was nothing wrong, that an hostile press made a big deal of it, and at the end no charges were filed, the government apologized, etc. The official sum was 13K pound sterling that is really not that much for a pool of money. The "gems" or "jewels" reported was a single bracelet; the rest was cash and travelers checks. So, let's stay out of sensationalism and report the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are not talking about large sums then best way to convey that fact to readers is by quoting the sums. There was no "official sum" - there were many reports. Reporting the sums gives readers the information they need to establish its value. I still see no reason for excluding it. It's not sensationalistic. I don't know what source Jossi is using for stating what the "truth" is - I'm just going by what's in the sources, almost every one of which reports numbers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see no good reason not to include the numbers, if we are going to include the incident, let the reader decide what is, or is not, a "large sum". Some may think $26,000.00USD (approx) is a large sum, others may not. If we have the information, put it in, let the reader decide. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #3

<<< OK. Here is proposal #3:

Rawat returned to India from the U.S. on November 7 1972, together with 350 American disciples in one of seven Jumbo jets that were leased to bring thousands of Western followers to a visit to India. When clearing customs, a suitcase containing cash, traveler checks, a necklace, and wristwatches worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000 (later reduced to £13,600) was not properly declared, and was inpounded. An investigation was started by Indian customs officials. The director of the movement's public relations division said that the money was to be used to support the local travel and food expenses of the visitors,, and lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables. Rawat was forced to post bond in June 1973 to enable him to resume traveling and attend a planned English-American tour, while the investigation was ongoing. Charges were never filed and the government later apologized.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I replaced "jewels" with "one necklace" as reported by the NYT article India still studying goods confiscated from youthful guru", July 18, 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jinxed

We have now again the highly unbalanced situation, that will inevitably cause controversy: A relativly extensive “Criticism” section in the article, and nothing about approval. Isn’t it jinxed? What do you “uninvolved” editors intend to do about it? How could this happen? Do you think it’s alright?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "approval"? We have a whole section to listing estimates of the numbers of followers. The first paragraph of the "criticism" section is a nuetral account of press coverage. Then there is a paragraph discussing the former members. Lastly there are opinions from two scholars. The last one is not necessarily even critical - it just discusses Rawat's charisma. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason I see for not interspersing that material in the appropriate sections in the article, and within the chronology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don’t balance appraisal. If you give room to negative assessment, you must also give room to positive assessment, possibly in a proportional way (that would make the article rather lengthy) or somehow giving an account of the real proportions. Otherwise the article is negatively biased. Maybe give it a thought or two when you're finished with dealing with that ulcer.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's very little "negative" information in the "criticism" section. If we tally the amount of "positive" information in the article we may find that there is an approximate balance. Surely Raienr doesn't want us to remove all mention of criticism, as that would profundly violate NPOV. I agree with Jossi that most information (positive or negative) should be placed in chronological order. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The heading says “Reception”, which should incorporate numbers and content in a neutral manner. Then there is only explicitly negative (“brainwashing” and “mind control”) or superficial (charisma being an effect of staging) appraisal as regards content. Hard to understand what made and makes such numbers of people get involved with Rawat, against the admittedly negative grain of mass media. “Following” does not balance “Criticism”, but covers the numerical development of the movement over time, which is also informative. “Criticism” is not balanced at all, but scrapes the bottom of invidious apostasy and Dutch theology. Isn’t this somehow “intellectually unremarkable”?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of balance a little here. There does not need to be an equal amounts of "positive" and "negative" content in the article, rather, the amount of criticism in the article should be balanced with how relevant it is to the subject. In this case, there is a reasonable amount of criticism about this topic. and as I've pointed out before, if the Mother Teresa and Pope Benedict XVI articles can survive as GA articles, with "Criticism" sections, I think a criticism section here should be just fine as well. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not against mentioning the criticism. But being explicit exclusively on critical issues is not correct in this case. Everybody has heard about Mother Theresa or the Pope from many sources, but Prem Rawat is largely unknown, and the WP-article may for many readers be the first instance of encountering the subject, so there is a special responsibility for delivering a carefully undistorted account. I did not request “equal amounts of positive and negative contents”, as that would display a false balance anyway. I asked for a more neutral point of view as a background for the Reception section, as I observe an obvious deficiency there. And I do not think I am misunderstanding the idea of balance, as it appears rather simple. And you have not adressed my concern.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To address Rainer's concern I'll find some laudatory quotes by Davis (or even Mishler himself) to add to the Millennium '73 section. Those can offset Mishler's negative comments in the same decade. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

From patronizing to cynical.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Will, please. This is not helpful whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer P., aside from being unhappy about something, I'm afraid I don't follow your thread exactly, perhaps you could cobble together some kind rough draft for the section you don't like and we can work on it here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rainer could explain or demonstrate a more neutral way of discussing the opposition to the subject from former members, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And now to hysterical. What's eating you guys? Aren't you experienced editors? Is what I say so far from common sense and so hard to understand? You make me feel I'm wasting time with you. But maybe I'm just tired, think I'll go to bed. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only remind you about WP:NAM and I look forward to reading your helpful comments in the morning. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer P, is making a very solid argument above, which is being dismissed with flippant comments and not to the merits of the argument. I do not think that he deserves that kind of treatment, so I look forward to hearing arguments and response to his comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I already answered him in all seriousness, twice, I did not give him flippant answers, and he chose to dismiss me, perhaps you'd like to respond to my comments above instead, since he chose not to? BTW, I also responded to your suggestion that we remove the "Criticism" section, I'm opposed. Am I still being hysterical? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning! So you can not understand what I say? How come I’m not surprised? Must be because English is only one foreign language to me, that’s why I’m reluctant to edit the article. But I am quite familiar with human behavior, and I can tell the difference between serious collaboration and arrogance. I like your fancy signature. But I think, the level of understanding you have to date displayed in enhancing the quality of the article does not give you the right of making me an object of your fun. Sorry, I won’t dance. And not being unemployed, I have to now to look after some responsibilities. Take care! P.S. "Hysterical" means: acted, not authentic.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rainer should read the press reports at ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm and decide if the Wiki article is too negative or positive about Rawat. --John Brauns (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A restaurant critic will not judge a gourmet restaurant by the content of its garbage can.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What does your comment mean? Is it a personal attack on me or are you calling the world's press 'garbage'? --John Brauns (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God, please, how can you doubt my reflexive kowtow at the feet of the world's press!

I mean, the garbage can has a very important function especially in a gourmet restaurant. At least you can be sure, that what’s in it is not on your plate. No offence!--Rainer P. (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hey guys, simmer down. Let's seek solutions instead of picking fights. Here's what I'm going to do: delete the "criticism" heading and split the material into three sections: "Media", "Opposition", and "Scholarly assessments". That will address complaints about having a "criticism" section and will make the actual contents clearer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks better. But one wonders, if the Stephen A. Kent-quote can be called a scholarly assessment – commenting on hearing one (?) address, seemingly unprepared (otherwise no disappointment nor surprise). Maybe he can be called a scholar in some of his works, but the term ‘assessment’ is stretched a little here, as it implies to my understanding a certain level of scientific effort, at least proper description. And still: Even the Teachings-section says little about the appeal, resp. the effect of the Knowledge, when practiced right. But that's what constitutes the main motive – not Rawat's charisma or other personal attributes – for the whole movement. Without information on this, the whole scene stays more or less incomprehensible, or just strange. So I suggest to give a little more information about this in the teaching section, there are abundant sources. That could perhaps counterweigh some of the negative slant of the Reception chapter. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that a passing comment on the foreword of a book deserves a sub-heading in any article. I am referring to the "disappointment" sub-heading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel

The material from Schnabel is written in an editorial voice, when it is actually Schnabel's opinion. The voice needs to be changed and the opinion attributed. It may need trimming as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the text referenced to Schnabel? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Current edit:

Schnabel observed, referring to research by Van der Lans, that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude, giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person. The divine nature of the guru is a standard element of Eastern religion, but removed from its cultural context, and confounded with the Western understanding of God as a father, what is lost is the difference between the guru's person and that which the guru symbolizes. The result is limitless personality worship. Schnabel observed that this kind of understanding of the master-disciple relationship, alien to the original Eastern guru-disciple context, often ends in disillusionment for the disciple, who finds that the teacher in the end fails to live up to his or her expectations.

Proposed edit:

Schnabel, referring to research by Van der Lans, that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude, giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person. Lans describes the divine nature of the guru is a standard element of Eastern religion, but removed from its cultural context, and confounded with the Western understanding of God as a father, what is lost is the difference between the guru's person and that which the guru symbolizes, resulting, in Lans' view, in a limitless personality worship. Schnabel observed that this kind of understanding of the master-disciple relationship, alien to the original Eastern guru-disciple context, often ends in disillusionment for the disciple, who finds that the teacher in the end fails to live up to his or her expectations.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check for grammar and readability, the first sentence misses a verb etc.

And no, I don't agree this is more accurate. The "view" regarding the general analysis is both Van der Lans' and Schnabel's. Schnabel extensively quotes, paraphrases and summarizes VdLans, sharing the view, there's no disparity between their views. Its specific application to Rawat (and some others mentioned in the ref, but whose article is elsewhere in Wikipedia) is somewhat more elaborated by Schnabel. This is accurately referenced in the current version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. As it reads in the current version it uses an editorial voice, when it is actually an opinion by Schnabel, based on material from Lans. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I am sure you are clever enough to fix my grammar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't invite others to do your cleanup. But thanks for the compliment, you used to comment on my English as being inadequate.

I have little interest in your version, I think it inherently more flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to respond to the argument presented about using an editorial voice. You are asserting an opinion as a fact, unless you attribute the opinion to these that hold them. If you do not fix that, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal, fully attributed:

Schnabel, referring to research by Van der Lans, asserts that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person. According to Schnabel, the divine nature of the guru is a standard element of Eastern religion, but when removed from its cultural context—and confounded with the Western understanding of God as a father—what is lost is the difference between the guru's person and that which the guru symbolizes, resulting in limitless personality worship. Schnabel opines that this kind of understanding of the master-disciple relationship, alien to the original Eastern guru-disciple context, often ends in disillusionment for the disciple, who finds that the teacher in the end fails to live up to his or her expectations.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still awaiting for a response about this proposal. Seeking consensus requires active participation, and discussion of the merits of proposals, and alternative counter-proposals if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

How have you changed the text and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you read it above? The only changes I made are attributing the opinions rather than asserting them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=214592307&oldid=214585807 --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost there, thanks. Made some small tweaks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask...

... That editors slow-down a bit with edits so that there is sometime given for these to be discussed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is stopping editors from discussing edits. The material just added is still being improved so it would be a bad time to protect the page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for page protection, Will. I am just asking to slow down a bit, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm making the edits that I proposed and received input on. I'm not editing that "fast" anyway. If there are specific issues with the edits go ahead and raise them. We can take as much time as is necessary to resolve any problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My above objection concerning Reception has not seriously been adressed, but pretty much run over, hasn’t it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep that discussion in that thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< I will still have to raise a concern here. We have at least 15 items in the mediation page that needs our attention, and instead of bridging these disputes there, a new set of disputes is being introduced here. There are even assertions made that the DLM areticle has improved, which in light of the many disputes there, I would say that it is either wishful thinking, or an attempt to frame that article as resolved. It is not. Hereby I object to the way this is progressing. I will port a concern in the MedCab page to in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not introducing new disputes. I solicited input for edits, received it, and edited accordingly. If you wanted to object you had the opportunity, but you didn't. Yes, the list of items to handle at the Medcab is long. If I recall correctly, you added many of them. The topics of these new edits are not issues that we are mediating anyway. It's not reasonable to ask people to stop editing until mediation is complete. Particularly not when this article is in such need of editing. If new disputes do come up let's try to deal with them here rather than just adding them to the mediation list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing new material about which there are new disputes. I have asked you to slow down, but it seems that you are not interested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I said I was going to add new material, you commented, I added the material, and now you're saying slow down. I dont know what you mean by "slow down". If you mean stop editng until mediation is entirely complete then I don't think that's practical or appropriate. If you want to discuss this bunch of edits further that's fine with me. There's no rush. We are actively discussing issues above. That's how Wikipedia works. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your position. You have decided to keep adding materials to this article while the article is in mediation, which removes the focus from it by adding more disputes. You seem to think this is OK, so I may decide to deal with this in a different manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked folks to stop editing until you did this evening, after I'd already made the edits we'd discussed. If the mediator requests that the articles be protected during mediation then of course I'd respect that. However, while there is a long list of issues at mediation, none of them are terrbily serious. You chose to use the mediation cabal instead of formal mediation. If you wanted formal mediation then you picked the wrong venue. This is just informal mediation. Relax. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation is part of WP:DR and a valid venue for resolving disputes. And if you decide that using the MedCab is not serious enough for you, I will file a request for mediation with the MedCom straight away. Is that what you want? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one complaining here, or asking to change the groundrules. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

<< Jossi, whoa. That sounded like you were threatening them. Okay, Everyone calm down. While I can't impose edits, or actions, I'd advise the editors to work towards a consensus here before making edits. Remember that all articles are on article probation. As for protection during disputes, I've only requested that be done when I felt necessary, at this time, it's probably unnecessary. And, if it was protected, I'd ask that Jossi not edit the page, even though they can, as a sysop. I'm still watching. Continue discussion. And erm, perhaps you should use bullets and outdents a little more? Creates a page stretch.Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not threating, unless you believe that MedCom is a bad thing :) Will Beback accepted to engage in the mediation. So, I am asking again: Does Will believe that the MedCab attempt is not serious enough and that he would be more compliant with a mediation process if we file a request with the MedCom? As for editing an article I am involved with while protected, I have not done that in 65,000 edits and I have not intention to do so :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel MedCab is a good thing, and I don't think it's beyond us, or, me, to resolve this dispute, or at least improve the situation. I haven't been following the discussion on the talk pages extensively, I can do that now. Could you bring me up to speed? And I have no doubt as an admin you would not edit a protected page, it was just something to mention. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise the editors to work towards a consensus here before making edits. - I wholeheartedly agree. What about others? Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is about consensus. With respect Jossi, perhaps I should do the advising here? :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you were doing the advising. Jossi quoted your advice, expressed agreement, and asked whether others agreed with your advice as well. That seems okay to me. Jayen466 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• e/c: If I weren't working towards consensus would I have asked for input before making the edits outlined in #DLM/PR coordination? Would I have replied to every concern you've expressed? Those are consensus-building activities. I have no complaints about the current mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We can work towards consensus in talk. And when there is consensus, we do the edit. It works, I have seen it work, and there is no reason why it would not work here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have still not responded regarding the invitation to participate in the Mediation, posted about a week ago now on my talk page. First: thanks for the invitation. Second: sorry for taking so long to think about it. I have read quite some parts of the MedCab related texts now: not so many of them were talk where I felt directly involved. I think talk on this page to find consensus on the content of the Prem Rawat article quite productive lately. I'm less interested in the DLM article currently, or rather, one can't do it all. Once the Prem Rawat article has reached near-perfection, I'll see what I do with my time then. Anyway, if some of the topics of the MedCab proceedings catch my attention I might contribute, I hope there's no impediment there (if there is: I'm happy with whatever consensus the MedCab results in). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of Cagan's Book

I understand that the status of Cagan's book as a source is currently being mediated, but my understanding from past discussions is that we (the editors who discussed it at the time) agreed that it could only be used for non-controversial content such as the number of children Rawat has. I have just read two items in the article that attack ex-premies that are sourced to the book. One related to Macgregor and the other to ex-premies engaging in criminal activity. I ask the editor concerned to respect the previous agreement and remove both of those items, and any other controversial material solely sourced to the book. Thank you. --John Brauns (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to that the flaws when one actually starts reading Cagan's text, see my remarks above in #Customs incident...

The bulk of the previous discussion is at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible”, John has a point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who added and where is the edit that uses Cagan's book for these statements? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just check Momento's recent contribution list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I had already removed one, before reading John's comment [26] --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that it was you, Will, that added this. [27] I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. It was added by Momento and deleted by me. Momento then asked that I restore it. I did so in a more appropriate location and with attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That all sentence needs to be removed. If we include a mention of Macgregor's article, we will need to inform readers of the controversy that ensued, legal wranglings, the apology, and affidavits, and that is not a good idea. Remove the lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just about Macgregor, but about other contentious material added by Momento sourced to Cagan. As you know, Cagan is one of the topics on the mediation list. As pointed out above, there was a consensus to not use Cagan for contentious assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue this in the section below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a discussion of Macgregor. This thread concerns Momento's use of Cagan in various edits. If no one here agrees with the new Cagan claims I'll remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Adressing John’s concern in the below thread, concerning the stated deficits in the Cagan book: It is only a biography. People who buy it are probably interested in its subject. The antagonism that surrounds the subject is also conditioned by the subject. The only circumstance that makes his detractors notable at all is their, albeit twisted, connection with the subject. A biography of John Lennon will name his assassin, but needs not give room to his personal motives. In WP, there is a seperate article on Mark David Chapman. Of course Chapman had his reasons, but they are not of interest in the context of a John Lennon bio. You can of course write a book on Israel without interviewing Hamas, Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, although they probably think you should. It is enough to mention and characterize the conflict, and it can still be a highly informative monography, no need to derogate it. If one wants to hear the voice of Hamas, they can easily do so anywhere else. Like I said above, the guest of a gourmet restaurant is not obliged to go through the contents of the garbage can. He is very thankful for the garbage can. If the reataurant had none, that would raise suspicion the waste is recycled in the meals. But for the description and appraisal of the restaurant the garbage plays only a role insofar, as the bugs are not supposed to populate the kitchen. As a guest, I don’t need to really hate the bugs, I just don’t want to eat them or their metabolic products. Even an ecology-minded person has a right to a clean plate. And that is, to my understanding, the position of a person who purchases the Cagan book (I hope you forgive me the somewhat drastic analogy, no offence meant. I am just trying to help clarifying the logics of a complex and turbid situation).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC

Rainer, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making derrogatory remarks about detractors, former followers, etc. Your post above is a bit over-the-top and borders on personal attacks because of the way you characterize detractors as having a "twisted" connection to..." And, with due respect, enough with the gourmet restaurant garbage and flies analogy. That's the second time in two days you made that same veiled personal attack against John Brauns (I have to assume you refer to myself, too). For the record, I don't have any connection to the subject anymore at all, twisted or otherwise. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylvie, I owe you an apology. I won’t use that unsavory analogy again, promise. Thinking it over, it may have given me a little sense of compensation for that sick feeling that persisted for almost two days after my first encounter with EPO. So it's maybe a rather personal thing and has nothing to do on WP. P.S.: I am now pretty immune. And I do have quite my own ideas concerning the connection between you or John and Prem Rawat, but that does not belong here, either.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was this edit made with consensus? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Were these [28][29][30]? Momento (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone discuss changing the section headings to "Disappointment" and "Opposition"? If you want to go by the rules Steve, and I do, very few edits in the last few weeks have been made by formal consensus. Perhaps we should institute no edits without discussion and consensus? I would support that.Momento (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I issued a warning to them about that, and I have asked that changes are discussed before they are made have consensus, right here. So, it goes for both sides. If ultimately necessary, protection may be used. But I don't want it to get to that. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there has been opposition to Rawat, so why would we only allow one source and not another? Frankly, I'm surprised that the "ex-premie" group has been included in the article (as they are an "insignificant minority") but since it is currently accepted Cagan's must be allowed to comment on them. To exclude Cagan on "opposition" is unacceptable bias.Momento (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm in favor of following the rules but what are we supposed to do about this? Every few days this part of Melton's comment is left off the quote -" Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission". Do I have to put it back in or can editors be instructed to use all of a quote or none at all.Momento (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I'm surprised to see you make that request because just the other day you added a quotation with no indication that you'd deleted a couple of sentences from the middle.[31] Do you think that it is acceptable when you do it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added new topic to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No concensus was reached for that edit, Steve. I thought we were going to wait until the Cagan book issue is resolved before adding contentious edits from her book as Momento did. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Please have a look at the Consensus section, everyone. I'd like to know if you all agree or disagree with my idea. Once again, while I can't formally impose anything, I strongly urge editors to discuss changes here before making them. Steve Crossin (talk) (review)

• Editors, please make a statement at #Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Macgregor

That whole paragraph needs to be removed. If we cite McGregor we will need to provide context about his legal entaglement and subsequent apology, and don't think that it is necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a non-Cagan source for his apology? The article he wrote appears similar to Collier's book - a memoir by a former member. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Will, Macgregor's Good Weekend article was not his personal memoir. It was well researched and he contacted Dettmers, Donner, Heller and others quoted in the article to confirm their testimonies. I know this because his articles are on ex-premie.org so I checked with his sources after his 'apology'.--John Brauns (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

His apology is not disputed, nor the statements he made under oath. Delete the lot and let's move on to more useful endeavors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What's a reliable source for it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An affidavit signed under oath filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland. Yes, it is a primary source, but my argument is that it is not disputed. Better, as proposed, is to delete the lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just asking for clarification here, for my knowledge. I assume this is the Supreme Court of Queensland in Australia? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• As I thought. I'll write more in a moment, below. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can send you a URL via email to download it if you want to read it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for a reliable source. Private emails aren't reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my subtle point. I do not want to post a link here as to not escalate this issue and upset certain editors. You have mail ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The link is the first external link given in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Are Apostates bad? - then on that external page, the second PDF linked from the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Jossi sent me a link to the Elan Vital website that hosts a PDF of a purported affadavit by Macgregor. Oddly, it's dated April 27, 2005, but according to notations on the page, wasn't marked as submitted to the court until January 9, 2007. Given that it's hosted by a partisan site, I think it's dubious as a reliable source for a contentious issue concerning living people. By comparison, the GOOD WEEKEND article is published in a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same. I agree re. Good Weekend carrying the reputability here, not needing to elaborate on dubious discussions in other less reliable sources when we quote MacGregor. This article is on Prem Rawat, it isn't a bio of MacGregor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares when it was filed? And how that is relevant? Again, for the nth time, I am not arguing for its inclusion. I am arguing that if you mention this protagonist, you cannot omit the context of his demise as a journalist. Delete the whole thing and let's move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, why do you refer to John Macgregor's 'demise' as a journalist? He has contributed to the Bangkok Post as recently as last year. I suspect if John is reading here he would take issue with your allegation. --John Brauns (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The affidavit is disputed, inherently, by an organisation that describes that "the court found Macgregor guilty [...] of contempt of court", and that some of MacGregors actions were influenced by "emotional and personal difficulties". No, the affidavit is a primary source: interpretations vary, but none of these are afaik currently given in RSs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither the affidavit nor the apology are disputed. These are factually verifiable. As I said, the whole lot needs to go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They are primary sources, their interpretation is disputed in various sources, none of very high reliability. It is difficult to establish notability on primary sources alone. Jimbo has been known to remove material exclusively based on court proceeding reports, while considered OR by him. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing about interpreting anything,. What I am arguing that it is a fact that the affidavit by this protagonist was filed with the Supreme Court, and it is a fact what is written there. I am arguing to avoid all this and delete the lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

re. "it is a fact what is written there", no much of what is written there is very much disputed.

Avoid all what? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We still don't have a reliable source for the affadavit, so it hasn't even risen to the level of being a usable primary source.

As for the material in general, would you characterize it as good encyclopedia writing? Was it a helpful addition by an editor who sought consensus first? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly worrying that Jossi should contend that the affidavit is not disputed, firstly Jossi was aware of the disputation as of June 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANik_Wright2&diff=138577344&oldid=138358398 and I reiterated the dispute at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence#Reference_to_an_Attack_Site in the following terms: The affidavit was the basis of complaint which I sought to have resolved in a number of ways – [[32]] which includes the following salient points regarding the affidavit: Authenticity: The linked .pdf document has no proof of authenticity. There is no identifiable named Notary, neither is there any identification of a legal case in which this document has been tested, nor any evidence that the claimed respondent has even received case papers, let alone lodged a response. There is no means for a Wikipedia reader to verify the existence of the document, other than as an item published by Elan Vital. It is acknowledged by the publisher of the .pdf document – Elan Vital, that at the time this affidavit is claimed to have been taken Elan Vital was seeking substantial costs from the claimed author of the affidavit, raising serious questions about the freedom of expression available to the claimed author. Subsequent to writing the above, a copy of the affidavit was added to a list of documents at [33] bizzarely the submission date is 18 months ! after the case was closed, the affidavit is item 59 while item 58 is 25/07/2005 Notice of Discontinuance (Whole Proceeding); the affidavit remains untested in the Australian Courts. Further the respondent’s name does not even accord with case number. In the light of the above, for Jossi to endlessly repeat that the document is not disputed raises questions of either contentious editing and/or lack of good faith. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you are upset because your name is in it. That is understandable. The question is: is that document real? Yes, it is. Was that document filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland? Yes it is (there is an obvious seal in each page). Did this protagonist affirmed its contents? Yes. Did he apologize publicly? Yes, he did. Thus, these facts are verifiable. Again, I am not arguing for its inclusion in this article I am arguing for the deletion of the lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Jossi, in which publication did the protagonist publicly apologise? --John Brauns (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Per recommendation from MedCab, I propose to remove that whole sentence from the article until consensus is reached on how to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you post the diff where the MedCab recommends deleting material? I haven't seen that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't play games with me, Will. You have taken an attitude that goes against the mediation and the recommendations presented. Why? The recommendation is to reach consenus in talk before editing. You have still to agree to that, and I am waiting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing any game. You're misstating the recommendation and mis-characterizing my comments. I have been supportive of the mediation. The recommendation is to "seek" (not "reach") consensus before editing. It says nothing about deleting material. Have you talked to the editor who added it repeatedly, without even seeking consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My request to the mediator was made after these incidents. I may have missed the whole brouhaha. What I am asking is very simple: discuss (and seek consensus) before rather than after. I am asking this from everyone, not just you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your timeline is off, if I read the record correctly. You posted this request (which you oddly describe as being "from" the mediators) at 05:36, May 23, 2008.[34] Momento added the Macgregor material at 10:44, May 23, 2008 [35] (He also made many other problematic edits in the same session). Here's Momento asking me to reinsert the Macgregor material, in case you missed it.[36] You were very vocal in defending Mometo on WP:AE, and yet here you are again complaining about his editing and his failure to seek consensus. I guess this is another incident to add to the report there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still not answering my question, and I am still waiting for it. I will resume this discussion when you do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you restate the question please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Do you accept the recommendation of Steve (the mediator) to seek consensus in talk before an edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered that at the mediation page. I don't know why I'm the only one you're asking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< My contention is that the current modus operandi is NOT working. And that we sought help from MedCab, and we are not using that avenue. Instead, more and more contested material is added resulting in frustration, stonewalling and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John MacGregor's published article "Blinded by the Light" has nothing to do with his legal "entanglements" related to the affidavit in question. Those are two separate things altogether, that have nothing to do with Prem Rawat personally, so MacGregor's article can be mentioned without explaining anything else in this article about him. Neither John nor the article publisher, Good Weekend, that is distributed by the Sydney Morning Herald as it's Sunday magazine supplement, ever retracted the "Blinded..." article, and it still stands unchallenged by Prem Rawat personally. It was after the article was published that John unfortunately took possession of computer documents that were taken by another person from George Laver's (a premie) computer, who is a private person. George Laver was(is?) on the board of directors of Ivory's Rock Conference Center, which is the entity that owns and operates the land in Australia called Amaroo where Rawat holds events once per year, sued MacGregor. It was George Laver that took legal action against MacGregor, not Prem Rawat. Therefore, MacGregor's affidavit and legal matters have nothing to do with Prem Rawat, who is the subject of this article and Cagan doesn't need to be the source for the "Blinded..." article. For the record, I was John's source on the "Blinded..." article to confirm the gold-plated toilet that Maharaji had installed on his first B707 executive jet because I worked with Rawat on that project. And that was the only contact I ever had with him (John).  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking your argument, why are we mentioning Macgregor at all? Should we mention that a current student, who is a noted author, published a book in which he praises PR? Of course not. If such author is notable, we can mention that fact in the article about the author, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to using the Macgregor article as a source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, as long as it is used only for non-controversial content ("number of children" and such), like the Cagan book. Is this salomonic? Otherwise it seems kinda hard to explain why a newspaper article should carry more dignity than a biographic book.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer, there is a big difference. The 'Blinded..' article was published in one of the major reputable Australian magazines, and had to pass the stringent editorial process of such publications. It is irrelevant that the particular journalist who wrote the article used to be a follower of Rawat. The Cagan book was commissioned by Rawat's followers, and they had to create a publishing company to get it published.--John Brauns (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

John, can you name a reputable source that confirms that the Cagan book was commissioned by Rawat's followers, and they had to create a publishing company to get it published ?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer, as I'm not suggesting that my assertion is used in the article I do not need such a source, but I assure you what I wrote is true. If you want Cagan's book to be included as a reliable source for the article you need to establish its reliability. --John Brauns (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my points, Rainer and Jossi. Jossi said that if the "Blinded by..." article by John MacGregor is used, then it follows that his whole legal entanglement must be discussed, too. That's incorrect. The former has nothing to do with the latter. John's "legal entanglements" and "The Blinded by..." article are two separate unrelated events and not "all about Rawat" as Momento stated above. One must separate out the two in one's mind to process this factual information. John's article was published by a mainstream media organization, stands on its own merits because John was already an award-winning journalist, Cagan isn't needed as a source for using the "Blinded by..." article. I don't know how to explain it better. If the "apology" is undisputed, Jossi, why don't you tell us where it was published and provide a link? (I dunno why my formatting is messed up, sorry) Sylviecyn (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=214585807&oldid=214527214:

• removed separate mentioning in body of text;
• recuperate re-used ref;
• add to ref list.

(and fixed formatting of Sylviecyn's edit above: avoid starting a new line in an indented paragraph) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sylvie, I disagree that McGregors legal entanglement and the “Blinded…“-article can at all be understood seperately, knowing the content of his apology, which I am sure you’re familiar with. It’s a bit like still giving the Nobel-prize to that South-Corean scientist, who was caught faking his stem-cell research, and claiming the two things have nothing to do with each other.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly like that. He disowned his previous statements. If this article needs to run to such detail, they can be mentioned, but only with that explanation. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not like that. His article is well-sourced, accurate, and published in a reliable source. His so-called apology and affidavit are unsourced, and from my personal knowledge of events at that time I have no doubt were coerced from him by Elan Vital in exchange for a financial and legal settlement following his contempt of court charge. Even then he did not withdraw a single factual element of the article. --John Brauns (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of that article, is of course, your opinion that you are entitled to. My opinion of that article is very different. Your assertion of coercion is also unsubstantiated. Now to the facts: The facts we know, as stated in his affidavit (which is in the public record and easily verifiable), that what he wrote in these articles had "a goal to defaming Rawat and his students", and that the implications in his writings were "absolutely false and unfounded". Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, did you not read Nik's post above? The provenance of the affidavit is very much in question. No identifiable notary, lodged with the court papers for a case that had been closed 18 months previously, never tested in court, and with a different name to the name in the court case. Your repeated insistence that this dubious document should be a source for Wikipedia flies in the face of everything you have previously stated about Wikipedia reliable sources. May I ask you a question - did Macgregor send his so-called apology to Good Weekend magazine for publication? --John Brauns (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, people are welcome to hold conspiracy theories if they wish to do so. Facts, on the other hand, are undeniable. This protagonist signed that affidavit, the affidavit is in the public record., and the fact that he he wrote what he wrote is also a fact. In any case as that material has been deleted, we can stop now, per WP:NOT#FORUM ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Jossi, why did you mention Macgregor's 'demise' as a journalist? --John Brauns (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

John, didn't McGregor ask you, after his apology, to remove his postings from your Website, which you denied to do?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the view, correctly in light of private information I have since received, that John's request was coerced from him by Elan Vital; and to protect other contributors to ex-premie.org from similar harrassment from Elan Vital I refused. As I have repeatedly stated, Macgregor did not retract a single factual statement in any of his articles. --John Brauns (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The affidavit is of questionable provenance and the apology wasn't public because it was placed on the ex-premie discussion forum. That's not a published journalistic retraction. But, this is going way off topic. The contents and veracity of the "Blinded..." article are not in dispute because it was so well-sourced and researched, very unlike Cagan's book. The sources for that article are not anonymous either. Cagan didn't even interview Prem Rawat nor does she provide standard cites and sources for a biographical work. Neither Prem Rawat nor Elan Vital ever took any legal action against John MacGregor because of the contents of the article. That's a fact. Also, please place into perspective that John MacGregor didn't rape or murder someone. By reading EV's faq one would think that he did commit a heinous crime or something -- it's so blown out of proportion to what really happened. Anyone that knows anything about investigative journalism is aware that it's quite common for a journalist to take possession of whistleblower's documents, regardless of how they were obtained. Please stop smearing other people's names. Rawat is a public person and, like every other person that puts themself out in the public, he is subject to public scrutiny. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for going slightly off topic. Got carried away a little. I have the impression that McGregor in his apology actually abrogated all his releases made during his ex-premie period, without going much into single factual statements. And still I don't think Cagan's book is so inferior. I found it rather well researched, and nobody had to apologize in the end. To my mind it is being inadequatly supressed in this article. Maybe it is not sufficient for the scientific community's standards, as it was probably written to pay by circulation, which I hope it does. But it is by light-years not as tabloid as some of the stuff that is given space here.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain why Cagan's book is a poor source - she did not speak to Mike Finch who organised Rawat's first visit to Britain, she did not speak to Saphlanand, Rawat's first western mahatma, she did not speak to Mike Dettmers who ran Rawat's organisation, she did not contact any former follower whether they post on websites or not. Her explanation of Rawat's wealth ignored the fact that his followers are still giving him money to this day. And she didn't even speak to Rawat himself. --John Brauns (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? An author choses the protagonists he/she wants to interview. As for your other assertions, I remind you that this is a BLP, and making statements that are opinion and not substantiated, is simply out of the boundaries established. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep these threads on topic. The Cagan book is already being dicussed in the previous thread. It is also on the list of items to be mediated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Summary

Jossi, Ranier P. and Rumiton are arguing in various terms that articles written by MacGregor can not be cited unless accompanied by citation of two other documents a ‘so called’ affidavit and a ‘so called’ apology.

Other editors are challenging this connection between published articles on one hand and the affidavit/apology on the other – this challenge can be summed up as a charge of ‘false proposition’.

• Status of articles written by MacGregor published by reputable sources. The reliability of this material is not governed by what MacGregor believed at any given time – he was not for instance writting op ed or authored column pieces in which his personal opinion was relevant - the repute of the material is based on the editorial control exercised over the material at the time it was published.

• The claimed affidavit: There is a non sequential document lodged with the Queensland Court service – this is claimed to be the same document that is published on an Elan Vital website, however it is a matter of WP:OR as to whether the one is in fact a duplicate of the other. Jossi contends that the affidavit is a ‘primary’ source, however a Court judgement would clearly be a primary source, which rather brings into question how an untested affidavit could be considered to have the same force as the conclusion of an entire case.

• The ‘apology’ has no reliable sourced publication and in any event has no characteristic that provides for challenge of the editorial control that provides repute for MacGregor’s journalistic work. In this context one might consider a notable television sports journalist who presents reputable material for many years, followed by his proclaiming himself Jesus, rejecting all his previous journalistic work and promoting a notion that alien lizards are in league with a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. The ‘exceptional’ claims of the later period have no impact on the editorial repute of the work of the earlier period.

Conclusion – neither the ‘affidavit’ nor the ‘apology’ stand as potential sources for WP, for the purposes of WP:Cite neither exists. Further, even if either ‘affidavit’ or ‘apology’ qualified as citeable, neither provide challenge to the editorial repute of MacGregor’s journalism. For those editors opposing the inclusion of Macgregor's journalism without reference to the ‘affidavit’ or the ‘apology’ it is now necessary for them to provide additional evidence that shows these items are indeed citeable, or othwise drop their opposition so that consensus can operate. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The affidavit is a public document and easily verifiable. In it, there are unambiguous statements about these articles, which cannot be ignored by any editor with a basic sense of good editorial judgment. The current emerging consensus is not to mention these articles or the comments the journalist made about these in his affidavit. Let's move on, as there are many other issues being mediated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (first sentence of WP:V#Reliable sources - bolding added): the "third party" requirement does not necessarily make the source less or more "reliable" sui generis, but it is at least also a notability threshold built into WP:V. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia: only if a court case has sufficient coverage in third party published reliable sources, would we write about it, and not outside what these third party published sources contend (if they describe the outcome of the case we could *quote* from the court documents, but then we would not quote about petty thievery included in the case, if no general news outlet reports about that part of the case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What emerging consensus, Jossi??? The only consensus possible as I see it is for Rawat's supporters here to respect [WP:RS], and stop trying to enter documents that have no provenance. --John Brauns (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Take the affadavit to RSN. I don't think editors there would agree that it's a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise against taking this anywhere else:

1. even if RSN thinks the source reliable sui generis, it's still not "third party published", and would for that reason again be refused as a source here: taking it to RSN would be loss of time and energy at best.
2. more importantly, this has gone quite far enough in bringing an outside conflict in Wikipedia, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So, don't bring the outside conflict at all. All it takes it to omit this protagonist's article that was so obviously repudiated by its author. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I've spotted this on my watchlist, as I've watchlisted all the articles in the mediation. As requested before, and while I can't directly impose it, I would prefer that consensus be sought before making controversial edits. If need be, add them to the list on the MedCab case. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission#Proposed addition to #Issues to be Mediated. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine with me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a good faith edit by an uninvolved editors is being summarily deleted? [37]. Not acceptable, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your revert prior to talk page discussion was not the right response, anyway. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your revert prior to discussing the merit of that edit, which BTW, has already been challenged by others, is what is at fault here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note that violating 3RR here, is a serious issue. I cannot impose anything on this article, though I strongly urge editors to discuss changes before making them. Additionally, constant reversion of material is a very serious issue. Please, all, be careful. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a response to the talk page discussion as I see it. After monitoring this discussion, it seems to be getting rather heated. I think it's best I make my suggestion clear. This, and the other articles in this mediation, are under dispute. In my experience as a mediator, when dealing with contentious topics, I tend to advise working towards consensus when editing. Looking over this discussion, and the recent article history, I would strongly urge that edits achieve a consensus before they are made, except standard edits such as copyediting, changing words, etc. Contentious portions of the article, and editing portions that are under mediation, would be best for consensus to be achieved here. If necessary, I'll mediate side issues on the talk page as well, it's something I have done before, and I see no reason why it can't be done here. Also remember that the article is under Article probation. It's in the editors best interests here to attempt to reach a consensus before making changes that could be disputed. That said, be careful to not violate 3RR or edit war. I'll keep watching the discussion, as always, just keep this in mind. And, in accordance with the protection policy for content disputes, I may have the article protected, if extreme circumstances present themselves. That's not a threat. It's just something that may happen, if things like 3RR violations occur. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Look forward to your assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now as I see it, there are several articles under mediation, as listed on the case page. I wonder, can a full list of issues, split up by article, be put into, say, a wikitable, on the case page? That way, we are clear on what article is being referred to, when an issue is mentioned. And all parties, don't be too hesitant to add an issue to the list of matters to be mediated. I'm in this mediation for the long run, whether it takes six weeks or six months, I'll continue mediation. Hopefully, it doesn't take 6 months. But, I'll continue to mediate this as long as the issues have been addressed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your approach Steve, and being more organized will be a big help. For the record, I'm not concerned about the amount of time it takes -- this article has been ongoing for four+ years. Thanks for your help. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there are articles that have been heavily edited for longer. It only means that there are strong POVs at play, and that some articles take longer than others to reach stability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of agreement to proposal by mediator

• Well, as I've seen things, again, changes, have been made without consensus. This includes the removing and addition of content. So, here's what I propose. Let's take a topic, as in, a section of the article, and each of you write up your section on a proposals page. That way, each of you can write your own versions, and then, each version can be discussed, and a compromise can be negotiated. As for following consensus, I'd strongly advise all editors to refrain from making any controversial changes without consensus here. Consensus isn't also about when everyone agrees, it's when a solution has been made that everyone can live with. Please note, that continued tenacious editing of controversial sections, without consensus, under the terms of the article probation, could have severe consequences, and we all don't want that, do we? :) So, once the first topic has been decided, as to which section the content is under dispute, I can create a proposals page for it. What say you all? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that changes should not be made without consensus, and I agree that consensus means content--John Brauns (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) that everyone can live with. I do not have the time or will to write my own versions of each section of content although I am happy to comment on others' versions as time allows. --John Brauns (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, time permitting for writing of each version. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Momento (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Section naming

The section named Prem Rawat#Disappointment is not encyclopedic. A possible alternative "Perceptions" (per User:PTR edit), is more aligned with encyclopedic content. If PTR's edit is not good enough, I look forward to hear further proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on toes. "Disappointment" seemed so glaring and "Perspective" seemed a better fit since, according to the text, Kent was disappointed but his companions spoke glowingly. I usually do copy editing only and make sure text is supported by refs. I don't know enough about the subject to be an involved editor. --PTR (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Reactions"? That includes even Mr. Kent's genuine disappointment. And the undying righteous indignation of ex-followers, who were not ready to follow any more, when things did not go as expected. And the almost continuously flippant way of reporting of the self-assured media - the mightier, the more. And the warning noises of clerical staff. And, of course, last not least, the excitement and gratitude of active students.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unencyclopedic sections headings.Momento (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid Momento's removal of criticism related section to due to lack of consensus and and prior discussion (as per mediation recommedation), but immediately self reverted and left request on AE page for decision/closure of claim of edit warring in criticism section, mentioning most recent removal by Momento. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean, "Authority"?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I propse we go back to the section name I used initially - "scholarly assessments". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For the two paragraphs that used to be under the section header ===Authority=== [38] a fuller title might be: ===Sociological analysis: charismatic authority?===; NPOV is respected: Schnabel makes the analysis, Geaves, based on statements by Rawat, covers both components of the "charismatic authority" qualification too: "does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure"; "... refer[s] to [...] as the basis of his authority" (my bolding) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated and too long. "Viewpoints" is more encompassing in a "Reception" section. KISS≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence ===Authority=== for those two paragraphs. Rawat disputes the "Charismatic", he doesn't dispute "Authority". --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the "Authority" subsection could read thus (this is not a tabloid, remember, nor an indiscriminate collection of information):

---

===Authority===

Do people accept Rawat's authority? And if so, where does such authority stem from? A 1980s sociologist, and Rawat himself (as reported by Ron Geaves) have provided answers to these questions.

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. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.

Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat, writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Authority" carries in our society some loaded connotations and assumptions, which makes the use of the word ambiguous. Some perceive it, some don't. Should not be used in this encyclopedic context. I find "Viewpoints" more neutral.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Re. "some perceive it, some don't" – care to give some examples where Rawat is perceived as void of authority? At least Rawat doesn't eschew the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For example in that utterly dispensable Kent-quote (disappointment, paired with surprise over others' recognition of Rawat's authority).--Rainer P. (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

...thus recognising Rawat had an instant "authority" over his comrades. I never said all fell for the authority, or even knew about Rawat's existence, but all who knew him recognised that at one level or another there were at least some people over whom he had authority. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Or another possibility, trying to make the section title as hasslefree as possible (KISS per Jossi); avoid undesired connotations (Rainer's suggestion); and yet lead to the core of the context (leadership type analysis):

---

===Leadership type===

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. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization.

Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat, writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to typify Rawat's leadership style. It should be left as something sui generis, which it is in my opinion. Any attempt to compare or stereotype in this case would not be really descriptive and mean an unnecessary loss of information.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least, balance: if there's a scholar publishing the evaluation, with all the characteristics of a RS, mentioning the subject directly, the Rawat article would arguably not be NPOV without it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, "Viewpoints" seems best to express the remarkable range and variety of assessments, and their dependence on the beholder. Typifying assumes a consense that is not really there, not even among scholars. Typical is at best the extreme variability in this case, so that should be mentioned. Sorry, what is RS?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

RS = reliable source ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the WP:WOTTA!, my bad :) - anyway the Schnabel quote comes from a section called "De betekenis van het charismatische leiderschap in nieuwe religieuze bewegingen" ("The Significance of Charismatic Leadership in New Religious Movements") [39], and presents itself as a sociological analysis referring to Max Weber and the concepts he introduced (among which charismatic authority == charismatic leadership; "routinization" of charisma;...), there's no doubt there. That's an essential context for understanding this Schnabel quote imho. Not that we should start expounding on Weberian theories in a biographical article, but the same questions seem to be popping up again and again (see e.g. above #geroutiniseerd), so I'm convinced we should find a short way to make clear that is the context.

Further, see also this policy section: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's my objection to unstructured information (like ranging a number of topics under the vague mixed bag term "viewpoints" - yeah, sure there's always a viewpoint involved, as we learn from WP:NPOV): it results in bad encyclopedia writing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the problem is that we are discussin many such scholarly opinions, such as Bhakti, Sant Mat, etc. And yet, we do not have sub-headings about these aspects, do we? maybe all is needed is to conflate the whole section under "Reception" and without subheads. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I would not want to go back to a "by author" organisation of the reception material, but "by topic". That was one of the very first remarks I made regarding the article, one and a half year ago, before my first edit to the article. Not so long ago Will said he thought it would ask too much work. I disagree, I'm quite sure it should be done. I'm afraid if we don't make the topics clear, it will slide back in mixed bag mode that in the end stops making sense (the type of "troll magnet section" Jimbo referred to [40]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not wanting to go back to having a list of cherry picked quotes from scholars or others. It's better to cover important topics and include the necessary viewpoints on them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On more careful review of the issues involved here, I suggest splitting-out the sections of "leadership" (covering the charisma bit) and "opposition" (covering the ACM, deprogramers, former members, etc.) What other topical headings should we have? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Shri Hans

Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master and therefore he assumed the head of the Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father. Perhaps the source should be re read to resolve this howler ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what the source says, probably a mistaken construction of the sentence. [41]. In any case we are not using that wording in the article, are we? So there is no problem that I see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If I read other accounts correctly, didn't Prem Rawat imply that his father had made some communication after death to signal his choice? Or am I remembering incorectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I have never heard or read about such a thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>You're right, Will, but he didn't imply it, he described it as a voice he heard after Shri Maharaji's death. It's from Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji, in Part I, Chapter 2, "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji."

This is the way Satguru Maharaj Ji describes the experience of realizing the task that was before him at the age of eight.

On the day Shri Maharaj Ji left his body, a disciple tearfully begged to speak once more with his master. The young Guru Maharaj Ji had replied, "Shri Maharaj Ji has only left his body, but his spiritual body is still here, and he will appear again after a few days." At the time, he did not fully realize that this power was within him.

"I went home (from school) and everyone was, weeping. I was just sitting there not weeping and something began to happen to me. I began to feel that I am not this body; that I could not move these lips. I always thought that the soul would leave by the mouth, but my mouth was shut. Still I felt like I was leaving my body and my soul was everywhere going out. And this voice came to me saying, 'You are he, you are the one to continue.'

"Then I puzzled over the voice. Thirteen days later, I was doing pranam to my Father's ashes and bones. You know, in India they burn the bodies and thirteen days later you go and collect the ashes. I bent down to touch the ashes, the voice came: 'You are he. You are the one to go and give this to the world."

On August 1st, Guru Maharaj Ji, eight years old, stood in front of the thousands of devotees present at his father's funeral. The voice came again, saying: "This is the last I will tell you. You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world." -- Sylviecyn (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia, I had just found the quote and was about to post it when I read your post! It is a little surprising that Jossi claims to have never read or heard of such a thing, considering this was a central justification of Rawat's authority amongst his following. Also, Jossi has a copy of WIGM, and has quoted from it here before. If he hasn't read it all, which I would find surprising, then I recommend he does so, so that he can better understand how Rawat was presented in the 70s. --John Brauns (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

???? What does have to do with this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Will asked if it had been reported that Rawat received a communication from his father after his death. You said you had never heard or read about such a thing, so Cynthia gave the quote, and I suggest you could better contribute to thes discussions if you had read the book. Is it clear now? --John Brauns (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the book, and I have read it, and I do not see anything in that text that asserts a "communication from his father" as you argue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - he doesn't say the voice is his fathers although I clearly remember that was the belief amongst premies. He does confirm he had a conversation with his father in his speech on July 31st, 1966, where he says:- "I will tell you what happened at Dehra Dun after Guru Maharaj Ji left his body. I was sleeping. On one side of me Mata Ji was sleeping and on the other side a cabinet was standing. On that side, I suddenly felt that there was a man. I looked closely, wondering what this was all about. Then I saw that Maharaj Ji was there. I turned around and Mata Ji was still sleeping so I looked again to the other side and saw that Maharaj Ji was there. I talked with Guru Maharaj Ji about certain matters."--John Brauns (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The source says that Hans Ji appointed his successor after his death. This account seems to confirm it. I think we should report this in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have argued in a previous debate, this is a single source with that crazy assertion. All other scholarly sources do not make such assertion. The sentence it is obviously mistaken in its construction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept that argument? I thought you were arguing the opposite. Anyway, if it agrees with the official version that Hans came to his son in a dream, then who are we to argue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Lead Image?

Okay, just an idea. I've seen the current lead image, and looking at the date at it, it could probably do with a new one. This is the current image

Current image

. I propose replacing it with a cropped version of

New image?

. Now, I'm rather good with images, and I'd be happy to do this myself. Any thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone and replaced the lead image with a cropped version of the second image. I feel it shows the subject of the article clearer, but if there are objections, feel free to discuss it, I saw it as an uncontroversial change, and as I'm the mediator, I'm an uninvolved party, I merely saw an improvement to make and I made it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. I see that you have uploaded the cropped version to commons. That is good as it makes it available to other wiki projects as well.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Full-time membership of German premies

The quoted source [42] says apparently:

"Another more detailed assessment for West Germany covering many more movements concludes that well over one million people are involved or 'influenced' by new religions, with a 'full-time' membership of 64,200. The estimated full time membership for 12 of these movements is: " [table] ([43] - bolding added)

- don't see the need to change that to "active students" or whatever less faithfull to the source. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware the source used this explicit wording. It just sounds weird. Then it could be kept just "members", without the "full-time", as there were no part-time members. That's what the source seems to say.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposing the data may have been collected from the German tax office, in which case "full time membership" makes perfect sense (without therefore implying they did or did not show up at any DLM/Elan Vital gatherings). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The DLM is covered in a separate article. Statistics of membership belong in that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it important to give some general idea about *Rawat*'s following in this article, across organisational names etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that we're using second hand sources without making sure we know what the oringal sources acutaly claim. For example:

• Petersen states that Rawat claimed 7 million followers worldwide in 1973, with 60,000 in the US.

Has anyone read the acutal source, and if so does it list followers of Prem Rawat? Or does it refer to members of the DLM? If we're getting this info from http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_257.html then that is the source we should cite. And if the source, whatever it is, lists members of the DLM then that is how we should describe them, not as "followers" of Prem Rawat. Again, statistics about the DLM belong in that article. Among the pitfalls of including that info here is that many members of the DLM in India weren't necessarily followeres of Prem Rawat after 1975. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Petersen is quoted quite a few times at adherents.com [44], e.g.

Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing (1982); pg. 146.: "Guru Maharaj Ji... In 1973 he claimed to have some 7 million disciples around the world, including 60,000 in the U.S. "

I'd still try to give a general impression of Rawat's following in this article. Even if in some cases it is an adherence through his movements, if that is what we have the data for. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Among the pitfalls of including that info here is that many members of the DLM in India weren't necessarily followeres of Prem Rawat after 1975." - read the two paragraphs currently in the article under the "Following" subsection title as a whole please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean where it says " became less certain over time", and "By 1993 it was no longer possible to obtain estimates from Rawat's organisations"? I think if we're going to give numbers for India published after 1975 we'd need to insert the caveat that DLM members in India weren't necessarily followers of the subject. But instead of giving so much detail here, which we already have at DLM, why don't we avoid too many specifics. Maybe summarize it as something like "it had as many as a dozen Western members in 1971, and up to 50,000 by 1973, after which it declined to X number in (latest date available). In India it had X million in 1966, X in Y year, and X when the Indian branch split from Prem Rawat". There are other things we can say about the following, so we shouldn't spend too much space repeating numbers from the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't report on DLM followers in India after 1975 in the Rawat article - they're not Rawat followers. The only data that would make sense in the Rawat article about Indian followers after 1975, are DUO (India)/Raj Vidya Kender adherence numbers. I don't think such numbers are available, at least I haven't seen any, and they wouldn't be available before 1976, because only then this organisation was started. The only uncertainty is in the period of roughly 1975 to the early 1980s (the Elan Vital rename for Western DLM): not all authors are very clear which part of DLM they mean in that period: the Western part and/or the Indian competitor. Rudin&Rudin are clear on the point, so that's the ones we quote.

Re "summarize it as something like "it had as many as a dozen Western members in 1971, and up to 50,000 by 1973, after which it declined to X number in (latest date available)"" - we couldn't, for WP:NPOV reasons: sources of comparable reliability are too contradictory. Personally I think 50000 is a mythical number, repeated as a mantra until the turn of the century by Latter day saints and a reprint of a 1978 book, but nobody being able to certify it any longer, as Melton admits in 1993. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that it would be simpler that all numbers about membership, be featured exclusively in the Divine Light Mission article, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read that section and it is not that bad. With the exception of the last sentence: Outside the US, Paul Schnabel indicates a decreasing number of 150 DLM adherents, 15 of which living in a community setting, for Netherlands in 1980.[113] For West Germany, 800 members were recorded in 1987.[114] that could be omitted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask, who has actually read Petersen? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one will take credit for it, I'm going to change the cite and the material to match what's in Adherents.com, since that appears to be the real source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoints section

This section needs expansion with material from other authors. As it reads now it contains only these authors that expressed criticism. What about the many other viewpoints of scholars that weren't? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing viewpoints from authors is what many of us would like to avoid. Many of the authors have written entire chapters or papers on the subject and it is difficult to accurately summarize their entire viewpoint in a paragraph. A better solution is to use the authros as sources for viewpoints on specific topics or events as they are covered in the article. The opposition (ex-premies and ACM)) should be covered in their own section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Same as it ever was, I see...

I'm still catching up on all the recent history of this (and other related) articles, but working backwards and offering up one more opinion on the way, I think I am inclined to agree with Will Beback. I don't believe listing authors' opinions for the sake of having a list of opinions is worthwhile (or a very good policy in general). I also think that criticism (or opposition, in Will's words) almost always deserves its own place within an article, particularly articles on controversial subjects, if for no other reason but to maintain proper balance and avoid giving undue weight to the subject of such an article. Mael-Num (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, why do we have a Viewpoints section with only a few scholars and authors? What I am arguing is that the section is a WP:COATRACK as it stands now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. As for the opposition, does anyone object to naming a seciton for them, "Opposition"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed expansion to material about charismatic authority

Propose to expand that material, under a sub-heading TBD, with additional material:

Several scholars have discussed the Weberian aspects of charismatic authority as it relates to Prem Rawat. 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. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization. Dupertuis describes Rawat's role as Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma. Dupertius observed that charisma was not an impediment for some devotees to discover that they have learned the "experience of God" on their own and drift away, not in in disillusionment but in fulfillment. David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits, and presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public.

Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat, writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.Hunt, describes Rawat's charisma in a similar manner, observing that the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as is traditionally the case with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That material appears to be a discussion of leadership style or authority, which are terms proposed for section headings. If we have a section on that topic we may be able to find additional sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First Impression (Again)

Hi, all. Coming back to this article after several months, the first thing that struck me about this article is that the references section is completely out of hand. There are some cites that go on for paragraphs, and the references themselves sprawl on farther than the article itself. I understand that there may be more pressing matters currently in discussion, but for what it's worth, a cleanup (or at least slimming-down) of the references should be considered for the future of this piece, IMO. Mael-Num (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this already. Once the article is stable we shall remove all the notes, leaving the refs only. For now, it has been agreed to leave them so that they can be referred to while debating. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, on a similar "what are best practices?" note, do all the message boxes that appear on the top of the discussion page belong on the discussion page, rather than the article itself? In particular, the probationary note should definitely be on the main page, otherwise what's the point of having a warning at all? Mael-Num (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All these templates are for talk-page only. These are never used in the article's themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

IMO the section is organized in wrong way. It must not be a chaotic list of blurbs by varuious people. An encyclopedic article must describe particular items criticized confirmed by references to critics, not vice versa. Mukadderat (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above (#Viewpoints). No need to start a new section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

References

Proposals Page

Well, from what I gather, there are portions of content in the article that have been proposed for either augmentation, alteration, addition, or removal. As I previously mentioned, I feel it's a good idea to use a proposals page in this circumstance. We will start with a topic, pick one that's under discussion, and I'll create a page for it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)