Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 45435g (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 18 August 2008 (Revert to the revision prior to revision 232135177 dated 2008-08-15 16:46:16 by Will Beback using popups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Mediation

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.
Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Formal mediation

See:

I'd advise against it: it's the surest way to scare away fresh contributors. We had arbitration (... which lost us among others Janice Rowe), followed by informal mediation (Msalt? ...). Tools for dealing with anything that can occur are more than sufficient. Of course I think Steve should take the time to absorb some of the ArbCom case (when he's back from holidays ;) - and then we should stop running in circles: if a certain editor plays "I didn't hear that" regarding the status of PIP, we use the tools installed by the ArbCom case: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is part of a guideline, and blockable, so no problem to bring that to AE (and let the AE folk deal with it); if another user posts extensive talk page comments breaking down proposals by others without ever proposing a piece of text or reference that could be used for the article, then, surely, the current informal mediation can deal with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just re-reading over this. The ArbCom case is extraordinarily large. I'm not so sure that I'd be able to read all of it, and absorb it all. Besides, Arbcom deals with editorial conduct. MedCab and MedCom deals with content disputes. I'm not so sure how the ArbCom case would help, but perhaps you could explain? Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what I want to avoid is running through the same tredmill, where perhaps almost anything has been said already. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Francis, that's part of the magic of formal mediation: the Mediator will undertake a full reading into the case's background (in this dispute, s/he'll be there for a while...), including relevant arbitration cases. Formal mediation involves a much more structured approach to facilitating consensus-building discussion, and I've found that it works very well "in the background" -- that is, it interferes with the contributions of fresh editors much less than, say, a medcab case.
Trust me: if you enter into mediation with the medcom, you'll have a serious crack at getting this matter closer to a resolution than it'll ever have been before. Anthøny(talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened the last time I volunteered participation in a formal mediation after ArbCom. Sorry if that casts doubt on your rosy picture. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am still awaiting an email from the Committee, it is taking a little longer than I originally thought. I suppose we can discuss the matter after I receive their reply, I hope to have it today. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Francis: don't worry, there is no rosy picture here. I'm well aware that a small number of parties here are going to stand in the way of our attempts at DR.Retracted with apologies; superseded by below. I suppose the fact that we're hitting a hurdle with even getting folks to try formal mediation stands to support that. I'm afraid I can't compensate for prior bad experiences with formal mediation, but... Everybody's different. All that's being asked is that you try it. One can't expect to disagree, yet indefinitely refuse to participate in exercises that find a common ground. Anthøny(talk) 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony: please remove your insult, "I'm well aware that a small number of parties here are going to stand in the way of our attempts at DR": if you say that in a response directed at me, it is entirely inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I apologise: I didn't mean to come across in that way. Let me try again: I'm well aware that several parties are reluctant to enter into more 'formal' arrangements for dispute resolution. Trust me, I wasn't 1/ having a dig at you; 2/ launching an attack on you. Look up my contrib' history -- I'm just not that sort of guy. :) I'm here to try and help Steve, who has been doing an excellent job thus far, and the parties as best as I can. And, of course: my previous sentence, stricken. Anthøny(talk) 12:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it was Anthony's intent to attack anyone. I think he was generally saying that in every sort of dispute (this one included), there are very different types of parties, and that some may be less, er, flexible, when alternative solutions are suggested. That's just my look at it. I do think that a more experienced mediator to have a look at this case, while me continuing on in some role, whether co-mediating beside them, or something else, would be the best course of action. It's really just the question of where it's done. Steve Crossin Contact/24 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, please remove your insult: "...some may be less, er, flexible, when alternative solutions are suggested", if you're saying that about me, it's still an insult. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (e/c with AGK)It's not directed at you Francis, and it's not intended to be an insult. It's a general statement. I've mediated four cases for MedCab, and at least 3 on talk pages, and in my experience, there have been parties that have been firm in their ways, for example, my Spore Mediation was such an example. I am only saying that there are parties in cases who appear to be somewhat firmer than may be liked. It's not an insult, and it's not pointed at you. Steve Crossin Contact/24 12:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I don't think that's an insult. Steve's speaking his mind, and he has every right to, no? Look on the bright side of what he's saying, rather than get defensive -- that's the best way to edit. :) Steve: I don't think you need to retract your statement; above, I did (in hindsight, I worded it poorly), but here, you're fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AGK (talk • contribs)
Well, are you? Anthøny(talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to solicit opinions from other parties to this mediation, in addition to Francis. Opinions on Steve passing the dispute along to the more structured hand of the MedCom are welcome. Anthøny(talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony, most of the parties gave their opinions here (as I am well aware the committee is aware, thanks to Deskana ;) Steve Crossin Contact/24 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will watch the formal mediation process. If it looks like creating an editing environment from which an intelligent, informative and balanced article might emerge, I will come back. Otherwise I am out of here. Bye. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Francis, who is the only one that has raised a concern in this regard withdraws his objection, formal mediation can certainly proceed. As a reminder, formal mediation requires that all parties agree to it. I propose that we do this as per process and open a request ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) The concern is valid (that concern being, as explained in more words above: it is my experience that too much procedure has the tendency to scare away fresh contributors – and maybe fresh contributors is what we are wanting more now than the same set of contributors rummaging again over the same content). I'd like to see someone actually addressing that concern instead of this hush-hush attitude.
    • Re. "If Francis [...] withdraws his objection, formal mediation can certainly proceed" – it can proceed with or without my concerns: false dichotomy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per this, if one party rejects, the case cannot be accepted. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't say anything about the concern I raised above. So, repeating: I'd like to see someone actually addressing that concern. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you restate your concern, because I can't exactly see which one you're referring to. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is offensive: I don't know where you are with your thoughts. My first contribution to this page above, and then repeated some contributions later beginning with "that concern being, as explained in more words above: ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not as if this topic needs to be concluded in five minutes. You can take your time to read comments, and maybe that's preferable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I will try to be more attentive (even at half past 2 in the morning ;) Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I read above, is the concern that formal mediation discourages participation from "fresh" contributors. In my experience I am not sure that this is the case, but I will leave the clarification to be made by the MedCom≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) There's no concern regarding formal mediation as such, that's an incorrect rephrasing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the concern, but I also think that at this stage, and from what I have seen in this case so far, not many editors have been willing to get involved. It is a rather contentious dispute. I'm not so sure if this case stayed at MedCab, whether fresh editors would join in the mediation, and I doubt that the case being at MedCom would alter this, for the better, or for the worse. Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Steve, it's not quite clear what point you're trying to make with that last comment, could you explain? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. I've been involved with this case for quite some time, and from the responses I have got, the general reaction when I mention on IRC, or elsewhere, "Prem Rawat", people run in the other direction. I had to beg for someone to look at an RSN post some time back. There was a recent request for comment that got so little input that it was largely unhelpful. AN/I threads which wouldn't get looked at for hours, or were ignored, because it related to Prem Rawat. Basically, people are unwilling to become involved because it's such a controversial area of editing, and I was just noting that I've noticed it. Steve Crossin Contact/24 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very sensible, and not unlike my line of thought lately: it would be better to get rid of the "high profile" status of the Prem rawat related content (...that scares people away). It is my feeling that going to formal mediation at this point in time would be another step buttressing that "don't come near" feeling many editors appear to have. I can only hope (and am willing to collaborate to this end) that Prem Rawat and related articles can go back to normal Wikipedia editing procedures ASAP. My efforts regarding Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations can be seen in that light. As far as I'm concerned that article seems about to be "ripe" to be taken out of the pool of Rawat-related articles that need "special" attention (mediation etc).
      • Note, on the other hand, when taking for instance a look at the latest WP:RSN topics that spinned off from informal mediation (Affidavits, Rolling Stone), they appear to have attracted interesting and helpful outsider comments, and helped to settle a few issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree, this is a high profile case and that status hasn't helped the case at all. But I think that such a profile, given the subject, would be hard to remove. It does appear that you are not in favour of formal mediation (this case progressing to it). I'm going to ask a direct question here, if this case were to be at WP:RFM, would you Reject it there? If i know your course of action, it would aid me in how I will handle this dispute. If you don't wish to answer, that's fine too. Steve Crossin Contact/24 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that. Yes, I saw that, but I still think that it will take an awful lot to diffuse the high profile and contentiousness of this area, This dispute has been on Wikipedia for like 4 years now :) Steve Crossin Contact/24 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only got a very high profile from February 6, 2008 (I wouldn't even describe its profile all that high before that date). Initially that change in profile attracted new editors, and renewed interest from others. Then came the procedures: by now the high profile generated by these procedures is more a burden than a help in attracting sensible contributors (and the procedures definitely chased a few, see the names involved in the ArbCom case compared to what we have today). So, whether it takes a lot of time or not, building down the procedures (and the high profile resulting from them) is not as if there's some sort of alternative. At least I've not seen a single compelling argument why keeping up the high profile based on an escalation of procedure would be beneficial, for anything. And there's a difference between giving it time to diffuse, and keeping the high profile up wilfully for no apparent reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say there was no apparent reason. The article suffered from edit wars. I am not optimistic that that wouldn't start up again right away once the restrictions were lifted. Jayen466 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which doesn't relate to what I was saying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the candid question, no need to apologise for the directness, I appreciate that. I can't answer pre-emptively however. I look at how a case is presented (that is when the formal request is filed), and decide then. Some facts (that are not an answer, but may give some insight): when invited to participate in mediation, which thus far happened about a handful times (formal and informal taken together) as far as I can remember, I've mostly been one of the first to register. For the Prem Rawat MedCab case someone else registered me. If the presentation of a case would contain verbiage in the sense of the "the magic of formal mediation..." or the like, well, that turns me off (I've had my experiences).
  • Note that if you don't want to run the risk, it is not obligatory to invite me. That's also what I meant when I wrote "[formal mediation] can proceed with or without my concerns" above. Then it further only would depend on other participants whether they think my participation is unmissable. And if they do think that, I can still listen to reasonable arguments. Nothing lost. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that if this case went to the mediation committee, all active participants in this case would be included. I'm not sure (and I'd be suprised) if you can just "pick and choose" which editors to include. And as how the case would be filed, or who would file it, is still unclear. Steve Crossin Contact/24 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above you linked to Wikipedia:Mediation. Most of what you talk about is addressed there, for instance:
    • Mediators commonly want to reduce the number of parties, usually two. Other concerned parties are sometimes invited to appoint somebody to represent their views in the case. Might work here.
    • There's no prerogative as to who may file a request, anyone can: but most preferably parties seeing need for formal mediation, decide together to go there.
  • At least that's what I understand from that guidance page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the mediator is empowered to reduce the active participants to 2, who act as representatives, and the other editors talk through them. I suppose it is up to the mediator. As for who would file the RFM, I imagine it would be Will, as he initially requested it be upgraded to formal mediation, however, I could choose to refer the case to MedCom myself, but it would work like any other RFM, i suppose.Steve Crossin Contact/24 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Nor rush... Just that doing it per process, will remove any ambiguity about that acceptance of the mediation by parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, if a request for mediation is filed, the parties will still have to visit the case page and sign off their acceptance there: a simple but necessary formality. The idea behind asking here if folks are willing to move into formal mediation is, I suspect, simply to ensure that we aren't headed for a guaranteed rejection due to lack of party agreement: we're just getting an idea of what our options a little farther down the line will be. Ultimately, however, it's Steve and the parties that make the choice here; as I said, however, formal mediation will do (at minimum) some good for you guys–and possibly a whole lot more too. Anthøny 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware, that is still what would happen. The matter being discussed on the list (from what I gather), was whether I would have a role in the case, and if so, what it would be. But obviously, that depends on whether all the parties accept formal mediation. So, the accept/reject would still happen, and if someone rejected formal mediation, well..... Steve Crossin Contact/24 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tending to agree with Francis, or at least I'm undecided on formal mediation. More mediation isn't necessarily better. Also, re: the issue concerning the affidavit, well, nothing was resolved about it so it hardly matters that uninvolved people responded. Nothing got done on it. Steve, if you don't have the time for this, that's understandable. Btw, who's Daniel, from whom your waiting to hear? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I sounded somewhat more optimistic. As far as I can see no affidavits returned on mediation proposal pages. Seems pretty much settled to me. Imho, your final comment on that WP:RSN topic wrapped it all up. I see no problem to take to WP:AE, if someone would play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the affidavits issue. So yes, pretty much settled, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel is the acting chair of the committee, while WJBScribe is away. Apparently, the committee has already made their decision, I am just waiting to be informed by the chair. As for my involvement, I'll stay available to help as long as my help is sought. :) Steve Crossin Contact/24 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage everyone here to continue participating in mediation. Several editors have worked on numerous drafts of Proposal 7, for example, but none of the drafts have consensus. I don't see any harm that can come of this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, in response to Frances' comment above, it was not mediation that burned me out, but simple exhaustion as well as the failure of the ArbCom to address or even acknowledge carefully laid out evidence of Jossi's misdeeds that convinced me there isn't any recourse or fair forum available within the Wikipedia organization to solve this blatant POV skewing and conflict of interest. Very disillusioning. Wikipedia is a beautiful concept but, like US politics, hasn't figured out how to solve the problem of disproportionate influence by highly motivated special interest groups.Msalt (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex-premies"

In "Crtical viewpoints": Former followers became known as "Ex-premies” - I’ld like to put it more precisely, like: A group of former followers have engaged in antagonising Prem Rawat and became known as “Ex-premies”, because probably the majority of former followers do not take a hostile stance over the subject. “Ex-premies” seems to have rather become a brand name for organized active detractors on the internet, and I think a majority of former practitioners, who may have stopped practicing for various reasons, would prefer not to be identified with that. If there is no substantial objection, I will amend the text accordingly.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're wrong, Rainer. I think the "branding" is exclusive to the meme developed in the premie mind-set and no where else. So, unless you have a reliable source to back up your POV claim, I'd suggest you drop this kind of personal attack against fellow-editors. And, btw, maybe it's time to lock this article again -- it seems like vandals of all stripes are trying to insert their unfounded, unsourced povs. Rainer, people are sincerely trying to reach concensus on this article. What you've written doesn't help in the least. Are you aware that these Rawat articles are under ARBCom and mediation? If so, why aren't you signed on to go by those rules? Your post above is disruptive. Please stop. This article isn't open to your sporatic postings and edits. ! Sylviecyn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, and none of the referenced sources actually says "Former followers became known as Ex-premies". However, what you suggest putting in is OR as well. I believe Ron Geaves has written a paper mentioning the ex-premies and the ex-premie.org website. So we could add a mention with a suitably neutral wording sourced to Geaves's paper -- i.e. that there are former followers calling themselves ex-premies who operate a website critical of Rawat. Jayen466 11:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not probably right, Jayen, he definitely wrong, Jayen. One and only one person owns that EPO website and he's already responded to this below. I think premies and their apologists are overthinking this term "ex-premie." It's no different than the terms ex-wife or ex-husband. And there is no group, hate or otherwise. I object very strongly to having "ex-premies" being characterized by Ron Geaves and I don't care what university he writes from. Geaves is a long time devotee of Rawat and one of his most ardent apologists. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are missing the obvious here. Former premies who have simply gotten on with their lives do not "become known" as ex-premies. They "become known" as ex-premies if they speak or write about their experience. It's quite natural – people do not "become known" as ex-catholics if they quietly convert to Anglicanism; they "become known" as ex-catholics if they write or speak about what, in their view, is wrong with Catholicism and why they left it. That's all. Jayen466 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going nowhere fast, since Rainer neglected to make a new proposal in accordance with MEDCAB. It's his/her choice as to whether he wants to follow the rules concerning this topic (Prem Rawat). We could talk all day long and into the night debating your POV and mine, but where the rubber meets the road, nothing is going into the article that hasn't gone through the proposal, draft, and mediation process which is the place to reach concensus. That's what most of us agreed to. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have made more significant changes than the one Rainer was proposing above without going through the full proposal process, e.g. [1], just based on talk page consensus. Jayen466 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, re Geaves, what I suggested above was to include a mention, sourced to Geaves, but with a suitably neutral wording. If you're unclear what I meant by that, it meant "a wording that does not disparage ex-premies." Jayen466 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum, here we go again.... The former followers who run websites critical of Rawat call ALL former followers 'ex-premies' following the established use of the english prefix 'ex-' meaning 'former', and the word 'premie' which was for many years publicly used for a follower of Rawat. It is only a small group of hostile current followers that repeatedly try to change the meaning of the term to restrict it to those former followers who post on the internet. You cannot reference former followers as coining the term (and we didn't), and then give the term a different meaning. Secondly, my guess, which is good as, if not better than, Rainer's guess, is that the vast majority of former followers have a negative view of Rawat. Both guesses are of course inappropriate for this encyclopedia. --John Brauns (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the attack, Sylvie? And where is it personal? Why are you defensive? Aren’t you in a way proud of having “exed” and generally recommending it to others? Perhaps a bit OR, as I personally do know a couple of people who stopped practicing, but would certainly not have anything to do with “Ex-premie”-activities. Just like you probably know a lot of people who think like you do. Everybody lives very much in their own universe. Numbers are really guessing, I agree with John. So, the statement former followers became known as “Ex-premies” simply lacks differentiation, and I’m trying not to attack anyone with the suggested amendment in the article, do I. And John, I understand you like to believe you are avantgarde in consent with a “silent majority” of former premies, but by your ostentatious style you have made the term “Ex” problematic in this context. In my understanding one is not necessarily obliged to treat the subjects of their “ex”-relationships in such a throughout derogatory way as you advertise on your sites, and you have actually usurped the term from its common use, that’s why there needs to be more differentiation in the article at that point. And Sylvie, I’ld love to contribute less sporadically, but I am really a very busy person, running a family and not being unemployed, and I’m happy if I can help enhancing the article’s precision every now and then, please try to understand. Probably not so much different from what you do. And I am not a vandal. And I don’t feel the original issue of this thread has been resolved. Former followers did not become known as Ex-premies. Ex-premies became known as Ex-premies, and most of them are former followers. Not?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been so many discussions of the word "ex" when attached to "premie." "Former premies" is the same thing as "ex-premies." Your labeling of former followers doesn't help. Btw, "ex-premie" was a term used long before EPO. Please find the discussions in the archives and please read them. In your post above, you again engaged in personal attacks by characterizing John as ostentatious and myself as defensive. Please stop that. And please don't bring off-wiki issues here, it goes against the ARBCOM findings. It's inappropriate, and definitely not helpful. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an off-Wiki-issue. The statement Former followers became known as "Ex-premies" would be tautological, if both were the same thing! If it is tautological, it does not belong here. If it is not, it needs explaining. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are the same thing and it's only tautological because you're making it so. But, this isn't a discussion forum about ex-premies/former followers. It's a BLP article about Prem Rawat. A Wikipedia article named "Ex-premie.org" was created last month and already deleted. See Articles for Deletion ex-premie.org If you want to have a discussion about the semantics of "ex-premies" and "former followers" you're welcome to register and post on the Prem Rawat Talk forum. You know where it is. Enough already. Stop trying to bait me, please. And btw, please address me by my full username "Sylviecyn," not "Sylvie." Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rainer. Jayen466 13:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my perception, “premies” is still common in safe traditional non-formal inside use, e.g. from one “premie” to another. It is just easier than the somewhat laborious term officially prevailing in inside communication at the time, which seems to be “PWK” (= Person(s) With Knowledge), or, in public use, “students”, which is more neutral, but less specific, as it may include “aspirants”, i.e. people who are in the preparation process (the “Keys”), or just anybody, who likes to listen to Prem Rawat. Somehow “Ex-PWK” would sound a bit weird (who wants to be an ex-person?). “Former student” sounds quite factual. “Ex-premie” has become brand for a certain defined type of former students, who for instance advocate “exing”, among other things, which seems to mean a negative reverse of the aspirant process. Somebody please correct me, if I am mistaken or misunderstanding.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it relates to this dispute, it appears that older followers were called "premies", but that usage has largely ended. Therefore all ex-followers from that period could be called "ex-premies". Former students/PWK/aspirants who came to the movement later and were never called "premies" wouldn't be called ex-premies. In any case, I doubt we'll every find better sources than we already have for this. We have at least one source from the '90s that uses the term to refer to ex-followers. I don't see the need to change the text in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rawat had upwards of 50,000 followers in the US alone, in the early seventies. Our sources seem to indicate that the majority of that early following dropped out over the subsequent decades. It's not my impression, and I believe no source alleges, that there are tens of thousands of people in the States who are "known as ex-premies". Do you think I'm being too literal?
  • What I suggested was using Geaves as a source, since he specifically comments about ex-premies and their inimical relationship to Rawat, but sticking in our article strictly to the neutrally describable facts, and emending any bias or side-taking that may be present in his paper. Jayen466 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see where Geaves says that there is a group of ex-followers known as "ex-premies". Could you quote the text to which you're refering? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond" refers to ex-followers and the ex-premie website. Jayen466 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the quote:

          Maharaji will face the problem of renewing inspiration to support his efforts to reach out to a wider audience. In addition, he now faces the added difficulties of the cultural suspicion of new movements in the face of over twenty-five years of anticult publicity from the Western media. Although not attracting media coverage himself, a small but vociferous minority of ex-followers, unable to accommodate change and showing signs of considerable cognitive dissonance, has cornered the market as Maharaji's opposition, determined to destroy his reputation through public denunciation on their website.37

          37 For the perspective of this group of dissatisfied ex-followers see <http://www.ex-premie.org>, accessed April 2002.

          Jayen466 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on that source we can say something like, "Some disgruntled ex-members started a website called "ex-premies.org". We can't say, "Some former followers became known as ex-premies" because that is not what Geaves says. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite agree. But at least it would be properly sourced, which the present sentence isn't. Jayen466 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We could replace the present sentence with the following,

            According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, Rawat faces the difficulties of cultural suspicion of new movements occasioned by over twenty-five years of anticult publicity in the Western media, and although he himself does not attract media attention, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying his reputation through public denunciation on their website (ex-premie.org).

            Jayen466 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't suggest we get into all of that. Simply repeating that "he himself does not attract media attention" is incongruous after discussing the 50-member public relations team, etc. If we said that then we'd need to provide the other viewpoints on his media relations, which is the topic of a different paragraph (where that part of Geaves statement may be appropriate). Let's keep it focused on the ex-followers. How about According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a "vociferous minority" of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying "his reputation through public denunciation on their website" (ex-premie.org). That avoids bringing in the synopsis of Rawat's public career. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think mention of the "cultural suspicion of new movements occasioned by over twenty-five years of anticult publicity in the Western media" is appropriate in the section; falls under critical viewpoints (our heading). Rawat not attracting media attention obviously refers to recent years, but that part is not a must-have for me. Jayen466 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I believe we can dispense with the quotation marks as well; it seems neutral and factual enough. Jayen466 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [outdent] If we want to get into the "cultual suspicion" matter we should do so in a separate sentence or paragraph. This sentence is about ex-followers, not about anticult publicity, etc. The current text reads:

Former followers became known as "Ex-premies",[116][130][131][132] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[130]

  • I propose we change that to:

Former followers are sometimes called "Ex-premies",[1][2][3][4] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[2] According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a "vociferous minority" of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying "his reputation through public denunciation on their website" (ex-premie.org).[5]

  • That makes the "ex-premies" bit less contentious and adds Geaves' scholarly commentary. As for the quotaiton marks, if we're quoting him we should make that clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two words don't qualify as a quotation; as for the other, longer part, we have the option of rephrasing or adding the quotes as you have done. Otherwise I think I can live with it. Let's see what the other guys and gals say. Jayen466 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I still think I prefer my earlier version above. Jayen466 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other draft removes sourced information and gets into other topics which will then need to have more material added to make sure we cover all POVs. I'm not averse to adding the "anticult publicity" part in the proper place, it just isn't this paragraph. Let's keep focused on addressing this one issue. Otherwise we're not going to get consensus and the thread will be pointless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>

  • The quotation marks seem editorial, as though we are passing judgment on what Geaves says, and as per NPOV we shouldn't do that. We are just reporting what sources say. I accept though that the second set is technically required, given the above wording.
  • I don't think the passing press references add much encyclopedic value, and neither does the "disgruntled employees" claim IMO. Here is an alternative version of my earlier proposal without undue verbatims, and without quotes:

    According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, Rawat faces the difficulties of cultural suspicion aimed at new movements, occasioned by decades of anticult publicity in the Western media, and although Rawat himself has not attracted media attention in recent years, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying his reputation by publicly denouncing him on their website (ex-premie.org).

  • But if there is a consensus that we want to keep the existing references in, and the anticult publicity out, could you live with the following?

Former followers are sometimes called "Ex-premies",[1][2][6][7] and Elan Vital has characterised the vocal critics among them as disgruntled former employees.[2] According to Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and student of Rawat, a vociferous minority of dissatisfied ex-followers have set themselves the goal of destroying Rawat's reputation by publicly denouncing him on their website (ex-premie.org).[8]

I object to giving space to this minority and extreme view.Momento (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whose view? Geaves? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some" is a weasel word, and "sometimes" isn't far behind it as a weasel word. There's nothing about Geaves' pov that's neutral and without another realiable source other than Elan Vital to back his up his characterizations of "ex-premies," I don't think Geaves can or should be used in the article for purposes of characterizing ex-premies or former followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviecyn (talk • contribs)

split intermediate thread

  • I'm not opposed to the use of "ex-premies," rather, I'm opposed to Rainer's and Jayen's need for labelling certain peole with the term in such a specific way, which has no scholarly source to back up their negative innuendo. Rawat's followers still call themselves premies, even Rawat calls his devotees premies, but Rainer is correct on one matter, there's a big difference between this nrm's public and private usage. The only "branding" that has been invented (that Rainer tries to explain) is the branding that premies have made up to use negatively to refer to people who are vocal critis. Ex-premies = former followers = former students = former followers = former devoteess, this is for the last time, for goodness sakes! They all mean the same thing. And btw, John and I are the experts on this matter.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not aware of having proposed the inclusion of negative innuendo regarding ex-premies. Jayen466 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayen, the negative remarks and innuendo and personal interpretations of who and what ex-premies are, exists right here on this talk page in this section and you said you agree with Rainer. Doesn't matter what you propose for the article, you agree with Rainer's statements, which as usual, are thinly veiled personal attacks. So far, no one's said one word to him about it. If you and other editors here are unable or unwilling to grok this, I don't see how any mediation is helping or going to help in the furture. It takes much too long for someone to take action on personal attacks on this case. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rainer suggested putting, "A group of former followers have engaged in antagonising Prem Rawat and became known as “Ex-premies”," and I told him that without a RS this was OR – much like the present sentence is OR, since none of our referenced sources actually states what we say. For what I agreed with Rainer on, see my reply above to Will. Jayen466 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for triggering so much dissent. In my mind my proposition carried enough self-evidence to simply improve the present sentence by being more differentiate and informative, without needing a special RS. I also found some of the reactions rather agitated than addressing the logics of the issue. I could live with Jayen’s last proposal, but I also agree with Sylviecyn, that “sometimes” is unnecessarily ambiguous. That was in a way my point to begin with, to closer define this “sometimes”. I am sure it can be improved, I don't insist on my wording. And sorry, I was not aware that an ex-premie feels personally attacked when identified as an ex-premie (I did not even do that!). Actually I like Sylviecyn’s passion and pride (no bait!), and I honestly don’t mean to hurt her. And I don’t mind her continuing to address me by my incomplete username… Hell, this is a discussion and not a law-court! Cheers--Rainer P. (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, quite apart from the above proposal, I just noticed that we twice refer to Geaves' profession and religious affiliation (if we input the above proposal as is, it would actually be three times!). Any objection to removing the repeat reference? (They're both in Reception.) Jayen466 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New subsection for "Reception" section (proposal)

To be inserted after the "Charisma and leadership" subsection

===Cult leader?===

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[9][10] and anti-cult writings.[11]

Associating Rawat with the term "cult leader" is disputed on several grounds:

  1. The movement that developed around Rawat is not a cult.[12]
  2. Whatever the movement, Rawat is not its leader.[13]

Further, that possibly unclear aspects in this sense (for example referred to as "Hindu/Indian trappings")[14][15] were removed by the early 1980s at the latest.[16]

The discussion of whether or not the movement has cult-like characteristics is at least partially a semantic discussion. For instance, Maeve Price and Roy Wallis distinguish between sects and cults, where the first is characterized by epistemological authoritarianism and the second by epistemological individualism, from which Price concludes that the term sect is more indicated in the case of the Divine Light Mission.[17]

General reference sources may however use the word cult in connection to Rawat's movement without such distinctions.[18]

At least formally, Rawat was not the leader of most organizations around him: when he became Satguru for the adherents of DLM in India in 1966, the practical leadership of that organization remained in the hands of his family members for several years to come, and would become consolidated as such in 1974.[19] The DLM organization founded in the United Kingdom in 1970 was controlled by his mother for the first years of its existence.[20] The U.S. DLM was not founded by Rawat either (he was still a minor at the time), and even after it had been reformed to Elan Vital in the early 1980s Rawat was not formally its leader.[13]

In general terms, however, Rawat's leadership with regard to the movement around him is asserted in most sources.[21][22]

The refs are maybe still a bit sketchy, but hopefully clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much OR and SYNTH for my liking. Jayen466 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no context or fairness.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honor: Prem Rawat Day

This statement was removed due to lack of supporting documents. Also raising the concern that person reading out the official statement and handling the award is not known. I searched around on internet and found following news: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1156446.cms Also regarding the person who hosted the opening and closing session of the event (and presented the award to Mr. Rawat) is:
Bill McCarthy, Administrator
UN 60th-CUltural and Educational events
President, Unity Foundation.
You may find the evidence in linked video at 02min 12 sec. Here the person himself speaks his introduction on the stage, to the people sitting in the UN hall. This is wiki of a living person, and such achievement should definitely be included in the content. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it was deleted due to a lack of notability. Virtually every day in San Francisco is designated to honor somebody or something. Aside from a nice plaque it doesn't mean much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • i am not sure if this award is given 'every day'. But for a wiki of person, this is one of the most notable recognition in his life and should be put on the wiki. When we have such events mentioned as "Rawat went to the Detroit city hall to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, but was pied by a reporter... " which happened over 30 years ago, more so highlights the importance of recognition mentioned above by me.

--Taxed123 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jossi recently brought to our attention an article in La Sicilia reporting that Rawat spoke in Palermo and was awarded an honorary citizenship there. That event appears to have been well sponsored, and perhaps better meets our notability criteria. If there have been other, similar events reported in reliable sources, let's hear about them. I agree with Will that the SF event was not notable – it does not appear to have been reported by a single SF paper. (The Times of India simply picked up a TPRF press release and ran with it.) Jayen466 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the previous discussion of this was at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Gavin Newsom. As for the La Sicilia article, it's not clear that it isn't a press release too. The best way of handling this sort of thing may be to just list them in a sentence. As for the Detroit honor, that wouldn't have been notable either if it weren't for the pie throwing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Las Sicilia is not a press release in looking at the thumbnail I have of the newspaper. As I said, I will provide a PDF of it once I get hold of it. If you want me to email you the thumbnail, pls ping me in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HinduismToday1983 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Keim, Tony. "Police block drive-in protest against guru", Courier Mail, Australia, September 4, 2002.
  3. ^ "Former Guru on a Different Mission", Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998.
  4. ^ Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone No. 156. March 14, 1974, pp. 36-50.
  5. ^ Geaves, Ron (2002), From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: an Exploration of Change and Adaptation, 2002 International Conference on Minority Religions, Social Change and Freedom of Conscience, University of Utah at Salt Lake City
  6. ^ "Former Guru on a Different Mission", Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998.
  7. ^ Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone No. 156. March 14, 1974, pp. 36-50.
  8. ^ Geaves, Ron (2002), From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: an Exploration of Change and Adaptation, 2002 International Conference on Minority Religions, Social Change and Freedom of Conscience, University of Utah at Salt Lake City
  9. ^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. September 20, 1997
  10. ^ Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
  11. ^ Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0310232171, p. 32.
  12. ^ Price 1979
  13. ^ a b "Correction" in The Daily Californian. May 1, 2003.
  14. ^ Stoner and Parke 1977, p. 77
  15. ^ Barret 2003, p.65
  16. ^ Downton 1979: "...Changes in terminology were made in an attempt to divorce the Mission from its Indian trappings..."
  17. ^ Price 1979
  18. ^ "Maharaj Ji" in The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography. U.S., 2003, ISBN 061825210X, p. 994
  19. ^ Melton 1986
  20. ^ Price 1979
  21. ^ Army Pamphlet 165-13 1978
  22. ^ Melton et al 1993
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&oldid=232748484"