User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat

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

Please do not edit war in this userspace.

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

Summary of Issues to be mediated

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

Issue/Discussion topic A

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

Schnabel p. 53:

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

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

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

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

Issue/Discussion topic B: buzzwords

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

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

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

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

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

The dictionary defines "editorializing" as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • I don't see how I left out anything important. You're welcome to go there and add whatever circumstances and context you think will give a different answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the important thing that was left out is the question of the testimony of NRM apostates. This is not just a "change of heart" it is a radical reversal of things they previously held dearest, a total emotional flip-flop which brings their intellectual stability into question. This [[1]] is pretty interesting on the subject. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving a new religious movement does not make one mentally unstable. But I can see why current followers would like to believe that. Zappaz even wrote the bio of Kliever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely offensive, Will. Extremely! And a strawman argument, nobody said anything of the kind. If you can't have a neutral point of view, at least pretend to. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break (Guru Puja)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

Sources

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

Ahem...

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

Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) As per 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Cagan, pp. 208–209

Now compare this to the LA Times report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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