Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007

Balance Teachings and Criticism sections

As the teachings section has a link to a teachings page which is 100% pro prem could someone restore Criticism of Prem Rawat and add a link from the criticism section? 82.150.96.2 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Since Prem Rawat is controversial a criticism section feels relevant. This criticism section has been deleted or removed several times without comments by Momento and/or others. A previous article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat " has also been deleted. It has also been noted that an external link to a site about Prem Rawat and his work has been removed by Jossi without comment. However edit warring is prohibited Wikipedia:Edit war.

Any disputes should be dealt with using the dispute resolution process. 76.102.196.148 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 178.26.39.46

I removed that link on the basis of Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, as well as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. As for the "criticism section", please read the archives were this has been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user. This article is the only one you have ever edited. You have shown a dishonest approach by describing the website you tried to link to as a “website about Prem Rawat and his work.” I suspect you know very well that site is an unmoderated attack site set up with no purpose other than denigrating the subject of this article, who is a living person and protected by the Wikipedia guidelines and rules for Biographies of living persons. You are doing yourself no favours and are heading for a charge of disruptive editing. Please avoid this by reading the extensive archives of this discussion page before contributing again. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User IP 76.102.196.148, you are an anonymous, unregistered user, just like me. This article is one of many that I have edited, but since my ISP changes my IP address from time to time, it just seems I am only editing articles relating to Mr Ji's operations at the moment. I am sometimes incredibly dishonest, but my contributions to wikipedia have to be assessed not on the basis of my appalling crimes, rather, whether they make sense and are informative. I know very well the ex-premie sites are antagonistic towards Mr Ji and that nothing must ever be published that calls into question his good name and the multiple money-collecting organisations run in his name. This is an important piece of international law, with which every article in wikipedia must comply with as at present, under pain of persecution from the latter-day Praetorian Guard. Your contributions will be mercilessly deleted by a handful of premies whose spiritual path has led them to be the guardians of the premie-controlled pages in wikipedia. All I can say is to repeat something once said by a little known British leader some while ago, a man called Winston Churchill. He said: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, your comment in it's current form can easily be seen as a personal attack. You should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's the policy. The site being referred to describes itself as an information resource covering Prem Rawat and his work, and according to Jossi's comment above it's ok to refer to a biased site such as the site that contains Prem Rawat's resume.

Surely, even though this is a living person it is still justified to have a criticisms section, especially considering the fact that this topic is a contentious one.

I mean to the casual observer the fact that two people who were previously part of the organization disagree so vehemently suggest that there is contention and this page doesn't suggest that there is any. This feels somewhat unbalanced in my opinion.

A neutral point of view can be established by (at the very least) referencing that there is criticism, the type of criticism and the relative sources of the criticism (even if you don't link to them) you don't have to state that the criticism is right or wrong, that is for the reader to decide/believe. Nor do you have to go into great detail, just reference the fact it exists and what it relates to.

I also think the terminology "hate site" is a biased one. Truth is a highly subjective matter, surely to obtain a neutral point of view one must have all the points of view to appreciate where neutrality actually lies. This includes potential "hate". --Icky Media (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Since there have been well documented criticisms, preserved in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=101616544 it seems only sensible and reasonable to include them on this page if the idea to merge is a good one. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the history of "criticism".Momento (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid this article being inundated with newspaper opinion, this article relies almost entirely on what scholars say about Rawat. Critcism by tabloids, blogs and personal, unmoderated web sites are not acceptable sources.

Momento (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/misc/mdpanel.htm and acknowledge the reliability of the Washington Post when they report "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." This was the Maryland House of Delegates! I know it happened a long time ago, but this is an opinion published by a Government body. It simply must be mentioned, perhaps in the article about the Diving Light Mission itself though? What do you think? 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think for a person to represent an organisation denounced in that way and have no indication of it at all in their biography is just not right. The extent of media and published criticism of his organisation is extensive, but there is no indication of it at all in his biography. May I ask if you are directly or indirectly involved with Prem Rawat before continuing this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article about Prem Rawat, not Divine Light Mission. Secondly, it is not an opinion published by a Government body, it is an opinion expressed by a congressman reported in a paper. Thirdly, it is 28 years old. And fourthly, you would do well to read the extensive discussions about this article, including the numerous RFC and independent comments.Momento (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is so much criticism to be found on the Internet of this man, and so much of it is refuted by other sources. When two different sources disagree over someone it is controversy. When controversy occurs to this extent, but is not indicated in an article about the subject on wikipedia (particularly if it is due to the edits of a someone associated with the subject) it is a problem that needs to be fixed. It really is that simple, something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Momento - why do you continue to revert changes to this article? They are cited and well-documented. Additionally the warning to stop reverting posted on your talk page was removed by you as "vandalism." Wikipedia suggests that those that are involved with an organization not edit articles related to that organization. Your breach of WP:3RR has been reported.24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It also looks like a whitewash. You can't just revert to a no criticism version if there is in fact significant criticism. Undue weight does not mean delete, but reduce. David D. (Talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat suffers from two major faults. He became a famous religious figure at a young age and he is Indian. He was therefore the object of cheap shots from the media and criticism from a few Christian scholars. Momento (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The above speculation that criticism of Rawat stems from his being "a famous religious figure at a young age" and being Indian is unsupported and defies logic. It's far far more reasonable to conclude that the criticism stems from his explicit claims (from a young age) that he was the "Lord of the Universe." The fact that he made such claims, and then later backed off from them without any explanation or apology, is a much much more logical conclusion re why he's been criticized. It's a well-documented fact -- that Rawat claimed to be the Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, who encouraged followers to surrender everything to him as their object of devotion. It's inexcusable to leave this historical fact out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.142.2 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • The supposed intent of the media is immaterial; the purpose of the article is to reflect an integrated view of the subject. Thus the reason for WP:NPOV.24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is really interested in keeping this article factual and based on excellent scholarly references, please remove 24.98.132.123 (Talk) inclusion of The Register as a source. Thanks.Momento (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than wait for somebody else to remove this properly cited information it appears that you have again reverted this article. I will again remind you of WP:3R. It is unclear why you are so opposed to differing POV on this article. Regards. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My interest is in following Wiki policy. Wowest has now inserted The Register comment about Wikipedia into this article despite BLP saying - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". Could someone, even Wowest, please remove this violation.Momento (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well wikipedia policy seems to be if there is significant criticism, in this case the accusations of cult, then they should be mentioned. Guarding an article by deleting all criticism is not policy at wikipedia. Certainly one can discuss how much criticism should be mentioned but it cannot be none. I'd suggest that you mention some source of criticism you find acceptable. Even write a section that you could live with. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Momento, sir. The quotation was inserted by Philippe, not me, then deleted by you as an alleged violation of BLP and your deletion reversed by me, since it clearly was not a violation of BLP. The passage in question merely reflects the credibility of the article itself, which is zero. The article is nothing but an advertisement for Rawatism. Every direct or indirect reference to Rawat, his so-called "Knowledge" or other, superior methods of "meditation" available on the market, which you three deem might take business away from Rawat's enterprise is systematically deleted, isn't it? Even a documented quotation that beneficial results attributed to Transcendental Meditation as a result of experimentation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques was deleted, without discussion, by one of you three. Wowest (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was inserted by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) not by Philippe who protected the page. The article is clearly an attack article and not the best representation of criticism. What serious criticism is out there? David D. (Talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David. There isn't any serious criticism. What criticism there is comes from three sources - An anti Rawat ex-followers group, four or five fundamentalist Christian scholars such as Kranenborg & J. Gordon Melton from the 70s and tabloid beat ups from the 70s. This is one of the most scrupulously researched and sourced articles in Wiki. We have had numerous RFCs and excellent involvement from independent editors. As a result this article is factual and devoid of hype either pro or con.Momento (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How large a proportion of Rawats ex-follows are represented by this group? Are you talking about the people responsible for the ex-premie website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just searching on google for "'Prem Rowat' cult" yields many thousands of results from loads of different sites. If there is that much material expressing these views, shouldn't they be debunked or explained here somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

or not...it's actually only about 850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was right the first time, there are thousands of hits. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=alD&q=%27prem+rawat%27+%2Bcult&btnG=Search&meta= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.18 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopedia, it needs high quality sources not internet blogs. And Biographies of Living People require the highest standards of any Wiki articles.Momento (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The evening standard refers to him as a cult leader at least twice last year in separate articles last year, once on the front page. The article doesn't give any indication that a national newspaper has said that about him.

The Evening Standard is a tabloid. See WP:V#Sources, and Wikipedia:BLP#Sources, and all the links on the Google search are from self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely neutral here... I'm not bothered with editing the article... but, where in the 2 policies you reference does it say that tabloids are not viable sources? It seems that you are making a link between it being a tabloid and it being unreliable, but I think that's pushing your opinion not what those policies actually state... Onesti (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids can be viable sources for some articles but in Biographies of Living People "Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.". The Evening Standard articles that Anon and Jossi referred to are by the same author Robert Mendick and typical tabloid beat ups. The first one is headed "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor Appeal". This headline is contradicted in the first paragraph of the article. Firstly Rawat is described as a "former" cult leader and then we are told that Rawat is "involved in raising funds". It is obvious the Rawat is not handing over $25,000 in "cash" but "gives cash" sounds more like a drug deal than "giving a donation". In the second article Mendick's headline is "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". In fact, it was a charity event where the public were invited to buy tickets and to which The Prem Rawat Foundation had donated 10,000 pounds and encouraged people to support.Momento (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, when do you think that criticism can be inserted? It has been my experience that you delete any criticism, regardless how well sourced it is. Andries (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic. It makes sense if you think about it. (For the millionth time...) Rumiton (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we estimate total number of 'miserable Dutch Protestants', 'Catholics or Lutherans' 'Buddhists', 'members of competing theologies' and 'hysterical tabloids' who criticise Rawat? If it is not a tiny minority view it does belong in a BLP. 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be more specific - we shouldn't be using the people you describe as a source, we should find a source we can agree on as being reputable expressing the views of these people. It is the fact that a non-minority of people are critical or Rawat that must be included; rather than using this article as a platform to reiterate those peoples criticisms - that should be kept to those groups respective articles if appropriate.

In fact...this is a no brainer, the BLP page specifically says that criticism should be included, as long as it is not helpd by a tiny minority. Youv'e just mentioned 5 groups of people critical or Rowat. All we need to do is decide how few a number of critics constitutes a tiny minority in this case, and then judge the total number of these groups against that to decide if their criticism should be referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.236.2 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

..

":Well sourced, Andries, means, among other things, unbiased. None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies. No hysterical tabloids. Their views are predictable and unencyclopedic." Oh. O.K. Sri Rumiton Ji. Then, obviously, no opinions should be expressed which come from current premies since their views are predictable and unencyclopedic, or somehow it just doesn't work that way? How about no opinions from sociologists of religion who have accepted cash or other valuable consideration from the Church of $cientology or the Unification Church because THEIR views are invariably predictable and unencyclopedic? You three always include those guys, in whatever article, for some reason.

Then, from the now-notorious jossi, himself, we get "The Evening Standard is a tabloid," as if the page size of a publication has something to do with the validity of its content. "Divine Times" was a tabloid. So, I believe, are the New York Post and the Chicago Sun Times. So what?

Then, from Rumiton, again, "Rawat suffers from two major faults. He became a famous religious figure at a young age and he is Indian. He was therefore the object of cheap shots from the media and criticism from a few Christian scholars."

Oh. So only Hindu scholars count? Actually, he suffers from several major faults: (1) He is promoting a group of relatively harmful "meditation" techniques which have no real utility except as part of a "cult mind-control" package (2) He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth about whether he is God or not, (3) He has failed to take responsibility for bullying his followers into moving into ashrams, taking all of their money and possessions and they throwing them out into the street a few years later (but keeping all of their money, of course).

Let's see: he could apologize? He could admit that he previously claimed that he was greater than or equal to God, and acknowledge that that isn't true?

But, no, instead we just have this "Wikipedia" policy as if the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Reports magazine should not accept complaints from consumers who don't like a particular product because anyone who complains is obviously biased? Wowest (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind logging in with a user name? It is hard having a conversation with a number. I agree that "we should find a source we can agree on as being reputable expressing the views of these people." That is what we have tried to do. The statement that "Rawat was seen by some as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" comes in this category, as does "...Prem Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people." The fact that he appeared in public dressed as Krishna, and the reference to the mockumentary Lord of the Universe are other examples, as is mention of the purchase of a Boeing 707 for his international travel. These were all examples of criticism by reputable sources. The statement that at one stage "Rawat continued to teach the techniques of Knowledge and affirmed his own status as a master rather than a divine leader" refers to his change of approach in the early 80s which attracted a lot of criticism at the time. This is to me, a neutral and encyclopedic way of acknowledging these things, with regard to the most important injunction for a biography, Do No Harm. Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask for "neutral and encyclopedic" on one hand while demanding "None of your miserable Dutch Protestants, no Catholics or Lutherans, no Buddhists even. No members of competing theologies" at the same time? "Encyclopedic" by definition means "comprehensive," i.e. the opposite of refusing to allow criticisms from anyone not affiliated with the man in question. Are there similar limitations on the pages for Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other major religious leader? "Sorry, can't edit this, you're not a member of this faith and we're trying to keep it 'encyclopedic!' " BTW, there's a big link at the top of this discussion page that says "Be welcoming." Criticizing people for not having a username to sign isn't exactly friendly. Some of us have been turned off from joining Wikipedia by just the kind of insider gamesmanship exhibited by you and many of the other Usual Suspects on this article and throughout the site. 155.104.37.17 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

Below is the criticism section from Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2 a collaboration towards NPOV from May 2007. It never made it into the article as the whole section was cut before the imporved version was added back to the article in June 2007.

Prem Rawat has at times been the subject of criticism from religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members.

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University Nijmegen) wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. In 1986 van der Lans reported that compared to the educational level of the general Dutch population, high academic levels are overrepresented in Rawat's students

Kranenborg asserted that Jos Lammers, whom he labelled as an "ex-premie", made similar comments as van der Lans about Maharaji's lifestyle in his interview with the Dutch magazine Haagse Post. He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life.

The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote that "[...] in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex".

Melton reports that "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader."

An author initiated in Knowledge describes Rawat as being the subject of great controversy in India, "where he is also a major heretic."

This might be a good starting point for a NPOV version since all the users like momento (talk · contribs) had a large amount of input on this version. I think the main reason for it not being included is that it was supposedly worked into the text, however, I don't see any criticim in the current article. Is there any at all? David D. (Talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that as a hitherto uninvolved editor (yes, one who was brought here by the Register article but no, not one who accepts the Register's claims about User:Jossi at face value), I'm astonished that the level of whitewashing that seems to have gone on in this article. For a figure as prominent as Rawat and who has received as much criticism as Rawat has to have virtually no criticism in the article is, in my view, a stunning violation of WP:NPOV. I think the paragraph cited by User:David D. is an excellent and well-sourced starting point.

As to the argument that this article is about Prem Rawat, not about the Divine Light Mission is extraordinarily silly; it's like saying that criticism of Hitler in his article should be muted because it's about Hitler, not the Holocaust (and yes, I just became the first person in the argument to bring up Hitler - that means I win, right?).

This article as it stands is doing a great deal of harm to the credibility of Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Evening Standard may be a tabloid, but that doesn't preclude it from being a reliable source. WP:BLP does not include a sweeping statement deriding all tabloids, there is a gulf of difference between tabloid newspapers such as the Evening Standard, Daily Express and worthless redtop rags such as The National Enquirer, The Sun and The Daily Sport.

You won't find alien sightings, Lancaster Bombers on the Moon or hamster eating escapades in the Standard, nor will you find the "titillating claims about people's lives". Momento's arguments against the Standard's headline ""Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor Appeal" is incredibly weak. I'm pretty sure the Cash for Honours scandal didn't involve a drug deal, but we're not going to dismiss BBC's coverage because it uses such a term. To dismiss all sources from tabloid newspapers is an incredibly flawed application of BLP.

We have had suggestions above, from those I guess to be followers of Rawat, that any criticism from members of other faiths cannot be included because it's biased. That's bullshit and unworkable, I've taken a look at Criticism of Prem Rawat's article history, and that included sourcing from religious scholars. The redirect's edit summary showed "Revert according to Wiki policy on verifiability/foreign language sources" as a reason for essentially deletion, but there is no policy against foreign language sources, and the sources can be easily verified.

If Prem Rawat started a religion, and proclaims himself as lord of the universe, then some criticism of the religion will inevitably fall back onto Prem Rawat. I've seen "do no harm" quoted above, but a whitewashing of the subject does even more harm to the project and to the readers. - hahnchen 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been several version of the criticism section over the last year. I have stored some versions at Talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism for a comparison. While it is important to have some criticism we also need to use only the better sources and not write a section that predominates the article. I would hope all editors here could easily come up with a high quality paragraph, possibly two. David D. (Talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You will also notice the absence of praise. WQe will need to include an honors section like here [[1]]. And there's ample material here [[2]] to include.Momento (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, The Dalai Lama, section is "Awards and honors" not praise. Are they really equivalent? I looked at the Wikiquote about Prem_Rawat section but I only noticed one keys to the city award, most seem to be spoken praise. I see no reason to have some praise but awards are more concrete. Praise is often given out disingenuously, awards probably less so. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I found these here [[3]] .Resolutions, proclamations - Governors of Michigan and New Mexico. General Assembly of the State of Connecticut; Court of Common Council, Hartford, Connecticut; Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Rhode Island General Assembly; Wisconsin Legislature. Mayors of Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Buffalo, New York; Boulder, Colorado; Miami, Florida; San Francisco, California. House Majority Leader, Portland, Maine. Keys to cities = New York City, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; Oakland, California; Kyoto, Japan; Detroit, Michigan; Miami Beach, Florida; Miami, Florida. “Illustrious Citizen,” Quito, Ecuador. Letters of appreciation and honors = City of Atlanta, Georgia; United States Library of Congress; National Geographic Society; Vermont Historical Society; “Ambassador for Peace,” International University of Peace, Brazil. Special honors given by government officials = Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; Denver, Colorado. Award for Best Television Program 2004 and 2006: Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace.Momento (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how notable resolutions and proclamations are, but a key to a city is probably worth noting. An award for a TV program? Letters of appreciation? Feel free to add them but i think they will look like a parody of a normal award and honors section from a wikipedia article. What about honorary degree's from presitigious universities? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm not really thinking these honors should be included. I just want to illustrate the point that there are two sides to every story. People seemed to be outraged that followers of Rawat might edit this article. The fact that people who hate Rawat might edit is fine. I believe the best article sticks to facts provided by unbiased and independent experts.Momento (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are two sides to every story, but not at present in this article. You'd solve the problem by drafting a short section yourself. It's like in a debate where sometimes you debate against the position you actually hold. Its a good exercise in objectivity. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this article. I think it will be a lot easier if you give me an example of criticism you've found that you'd like to see included.Momento (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well how about the following two paragraphs that i just copied directly from Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2:

The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote that "[...] in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex".

Can these be improved to something that you would find acceptable along with a preamble? David D. (Talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be unbalanced to include Kent's view of Rawat without including another first hand viewpoint. How about Emilio Colombo, former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament, European Parliament. Parliament Conference Hall of the Italian Parliament, Rome Italy. July 7, 2004. He said "What intrigued me in Prem Rawat’s message is that he speaks of the possibility for every person of finding within themselves a peace, a happiness, that is not dependent on circumstances. Peace, he says, is within, and can be felt; we just have forgotten how to get in touch with it” Levine's comment could be balanced by Marc Galanter's experience of a DLM ashram , Galanter's a Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Center. He says - The atmosphere in the ashram was indeed quite striking. The intense communality of the members was immediately apparent, a quality that's clearly an important aspect of the group's function. One could sense a closeness among those present, and an absence of the minor tensions that would be expected in a setting where two dozen people were living in tight quarters. A college dormitory, a military barracks, or a summer camp soon weal a certain amount of hostile banter or argument. These appeared to be absent in the ashram. Caring and intimacy, reflective of the group's cohesiveness, seemed to mute any expression of animosity. There were kind words, offers of food, expressions of interest, and warm smiles, all from people I'd never met before. Any question was soon answered, sometimes even anticipated. Having been invited by one of their members and defined temporarily as one of their own, I was made to feel as if I were entering a supportive envelope, to be protected from the rough edges of relationships in the outside world". Momento (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the article is already wildly out of balance; if we keep "balancing" any criticisms we insert, we're only going to preserve that out of balance state. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me nothing being discussed here is new. This article has long been a focus for strong emotions. About a year ago there were editors who didn't like Prem Rawat adding things they found on the Internet, and then people who did like him would add something like the above, and the antis would get riled again and post a general diatribe against "cults" and the pros would respond in kind once more. An application for Good Article at that time was declined when the article was described as "bloated and unencyclopedic." That was mild, it really looked almost schizophrenic. I think David D's suggestion for a reliable secondary source to summarize both the praise and criticism is the way to go, and in fact that is what has been attempted. But reliable sources generally do not make the sort of extreme statements that might satisfy the extreme people on both sides of the fence. Will that lead to another Register article? Rumiton (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think (though I'm biased) that you'd be hard pressed to describe me as an extremist; same with David D. Hopefully the new editors on this page can cobble together something truly WP:NPOV, even if it's not to the satisfaction of the more extreme viewpoints. Right now it looks to me that one extreme is basically getting its way, and the other has resorted to I.P. pseudo-vandalism, and that needs to change.

I reiterate my belief that what David D. posted is a good starting point. We've heard my thoughts and those of Momento on the subject - what do others think? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article currently reads as if no-one in the world doubts Rawat's methods or techniques, and is thus in major need of balancing criticism. I agree that David D.'s post is a good starting point - this should be fully fleshed out until it is acceptable to both sides of the debate. Criticism cannot simply be ignored, and I would imagine the furore over this article is more damaging to Rawat than the criticism originally on this page. --Phl3djo (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note and this will probably be my only post here....but I found the last sentence of this section to be a little convoluted. As a first time reader, I couldn't easily discren whether it was criticism or refutation of criticism. By the third read the sentence becomes clear, but maybe it can be reworded? I added double dashes to what's there now to illustrate.

• "According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints -- that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use -- found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission." WNDL42 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of any critical commentary deeply disturbing

I read the Register article and I was deeply concerned. I'm very familiar with Prem Rawat and his organization, and this article is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. Criticisms from such sites as [[4]], while perhaps exaggerated, contain many citations to reference materials and cannot be ignored out of hand. TomRitchford (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also disturbed

Wow. I am stunned. I have been the staunchest of defenders for Wikipedia, and the founding ideas of it, since the beginning. Although I am not a logged in member and the breadth of my contributions were humble corrections to spelling and grammer mistakes I have been an avid user, active promoter and, as mentioned above, a staunch defender of Wikipedia since it's earliest days.

I have spent over an hour now reading this talk page, the Prem Rawat article, the Register article, links concerning the 'definition' of cult, and many other related topics. Heck, I even stayed away from the [[5]] site so I wouldn't get such a biased opinion until I read several other articles/sites concerning this man. The zealotry exhibited in defending this individual speaks volumes about the cultish aspect of this man and his followers. While I've always viewed Wikipedia as evolving and getting better all the time with it's policies I now have to doubt how useful these policies are if they are only used as tools against outsiders by Wikipedia's main editors. The very fact that this article is now locked is enough to convince me that Wikipedia has sunken to what it so vehemently denied attaining to - a cheap publicity tool and akin to a tabloid. My faith in transparency and openess on the web is deeply shaken and I will think long and hard before I begin any research here in the future. - Sean Henderson - Not a Wiki Member... Just a (former) user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.173.87 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was locked by Philippe (talk · contribs) because of vandalism (after the reg article was published?). I've looked through the history and I dont see significant vandalism that wasnt dealt with quickly (e.g. this was quickly reverted by another anon.), however there was also an edit war erupting. In a few days when the storm blows over, the page will be unprotected so that those who are seriously interested in editing can do so unrestricted. Until then, keep discussing the article, and when there is general agreement for a specific wording change, ask an admin to make the change using the {{editprotected}} template. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Becoming disturbed

By all the new people popping in to tell us how much they care about Wiki.Momento (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As you said in February 2007, I am a consistent editor of Prem Rawat articles and constantly involved in discussions on the talk pages. It's quite understandable that you're disturbed by all of the publicity about the Wikipedia article, and that many editors seem to have concluded that it is missing a large amount of needed content.

Please also keep in mind Wikipedia's rule against ownership of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the publicity, it's the people it attracts that disturb me. People who have decided that as far as their POV is concerned Rawat needs to be criticized and so they've come here to express it.Momento (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How hilarious that you are all hurt and surprised that people come here to criticise. Get real. What many are actually critical of is your twisting of the article to suit your POV! The way you put it, it sounds as if you are suffering some sort of seige mentality..as if you feel the world out there is populated by negative people who are simply predisposed to want to criticise your idol for no good reason. That is such a cult hallmark. PatW (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

COI2

I have removed the recently added {{COI2}} tag as it is intended to be used for new articles in order to guide new content onto a path towards NPOV. The motivations of the creator in 2004 are irrelevant by now, and if it hasnt been fixed in that time, a tag on the top wont help. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of criticism

I've just restored the article about the Criticism of Prem Rawat and added a NPOV tag. (I mean, really, it was TL—DR; but any criticism page is going to be somewhat biased. :P) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzraelUK (talk • contribs) 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What does TL-DR mean? Rumiton (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"too long; didn't read" -- John Vandenberg (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Search "Criticism of" and you'll find that in all of Wiki less than 10 living people have a personal "Criticism of" article. Remove the politicians and you have Bill O'Reilly, Noam Chomsky, Sylvia Browne and Prem Rawat. "Criticism of" article are a way of getting around Wiki's BLP and NPOV policies. In a "Criticism of" article you can criticize another person to your heart's content without any need for NPOV. Somewhat biased? They're a disgrace.Momento (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it your position that criticism of a person is a BLP and NPOV violation? If so, would you point to policy that says so? And if not a violation, could you explain more about "getting around policies" - does that mean criticism is wrong to include? (Is there another policy or guideline here, or is this simply personal opinion?)

If your position is that there shouldn't be a separate article, will you help integrate the criticism into the main article so that a second article isn't needed? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is OK but there definitely shouldn't be a separate article or a separate section. I'm happy to work constructively with you.Momento (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To Rumiton: Relgious scholars who happened to be Christians are okay

Again, Rumiton, as I have stated at least 5 times, statements by religious scholars, like J. Gordon Melton, Reender Kranenborg, Reinhart Hummel, Jan van der Lans who happen to be Christians are generally fine as a reputable source. I admit that is probably not the case for Christian countercult movement writings, but I never insisted on using this sources. Again, I suggest that you seek disputed resolution, because I think that you are completely mistaken in your assesment of sources. Andries (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with any of these specific scholars, so I can't comment on them individually, I do agree with User:Andries that any suggestion that criticism from people with opposing religious views to Rawat's is automatically not okay is completely absurd (although I'm not accusing anybody of having made such a suggestion). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And so is the suggestion that people who aren't opposed to Rawat should be excluded from editing.Momento (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest that, anywhere? I think people are more concerned about the fact that the article is WP:OWNed by people who not only aren't opposed to Rawat, but who are opposed to the inclusion of any criticism whatsoever.

To Andries, I agree completely. I responded to Rumiton earlier, and was ignored, but I don't see how one can claim in good faith to want the article to be "encyclopedic," i.e. comprehensive, by definition, while forbidding the vast majority of sources. 155.104.37.18 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi Fresco article

Wow, less than three minutes. I'm quite impressed. I expected that my edit will be deleted by a true believer but not this fast. Here is the Register article. [6]

It is currently a featured article of the Register. I should remind people, especially the follower of this guru that the Register article is in the front page of Digg and hence the editing of this article will receive far more outside scrutiny from now on.

Anyway, here is a defense to my edit. The wikipedia article about the founder of this site, Jimmy Wales, included a section which refers to an incident when Wales tried to edit his own wikipedia biography. What is so different if a mainstream media outlet mention that followers of a guru tries to edit wikipedia article about guru. Would Wales avoided embarrassment if he asked his aids to do it for him instead? I remember that some U.S. congressmen tried to do something similar and was promptly outed by media. The Register is a verified site and the article is clearly about Jossi Fresco, Wikipedia and Prem Rawat. Deletion of verified fact is a policy violation, IMO.Vapour (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you would be very hard pressed to call me a "true believer", since all of my contributions to this talk page except for this one have been complaints about what a ridiculous whitewash the article is. Second of all, while I don't dispute that the fact is verified in the article (I read the article earlier today), your edit was not about Prem Rawat. It was about Jossi Fresco and it was about Prem Rawat's Wikipedia article. This article is not about either of those things. You might have a case for including it in Criticisms of Wikipedia (I don't hang around there much, so I'm not really sure what the discussions have been with regards to what's suitable for inclusion), but that there is controversy around a subject's Wikipedia article is not something that needs to be included in the subject's Wikipedia article (otherwise, infinite loop). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Wales, it's obviously more notable when the Wikipedia God King edits his own article against Wikipedia guidelines than it is when somebody else does it. Moreover, there was no evidence - or even allegation - in the Register article that Rawat had anything to do with Jossi's edits. Reversion of your edits was really a complete slam dunk. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re including that link elsewhere...what does "verified" mean? Is it another way of saying "reputable?" Rumiton (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea what I meant by that. I've struck it, and am now going to bed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My use of the term "verified" is crude reference to Verification principle. Didn't this principle mean that source reference must come from entity with proper editorial oversight, such as academic journal or media, which The Register is one? Secondly, the article is not just about Jossi Fresco. It is about Jossi Fresco, a follower of Rawat (and an employer of his organisation) editing the wikipedia article and wikipedia policy. In fact, entry should be made in the article about wikipedia, Rawat and Jossi Fresco. Secondly, Jimmy Wales editing his own page was inclusion worthy in wikipedia not because he is the founder of wikipedia. It is inclusion worthy because it was reported in media and it was about him. You personal judgement about important of Jimmy Wales is irrelevant even if it is plain obvious. Newspaper article about an Aid of U.S. congressman editing wikipedia is inclusion worthy so as an employer of a guru editing wikipedia article, IMO. Vapour (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got here through Digg. Started tinkering with the article by adding two extremely relevant links and a photo of Prem's mansion. I was obliterated within minutes and warned by jossi that I was going to get banned after a slew of absurd "verifiable" arguments which held absolutely no water. These editors are rabid defenders of this guy. What really concerns me is the fact that if you type Prem Rawat into Google, the first 3 out of 4 articles are concerned with helping people get out of his organization and explaining what a sham this guy is. Reading this wikipedia article, you would never have guessed that the group was a cult. This wikipedia article has failed due to the biased view of the editors who have taken the guru's rep under their wing. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief history of editing principles used for this article

I want to give a brief history of the editing principles used in the article Prem Rawat which explains to a great extent why the article had become one-sided . I also think that this history of editing principles may be helpful for other articles. I was involved from day 1 with this article.

1. arbitrary use of personal websites and ad hoc rebuttals of criticisms of Prem Rawat by Wikipedia editors

2. Summaries of newspapers and published quotes by Prem Rawat. This eventually developed into a "quote war" between somewhat contradictory quotes by Rawat. Quotes were moved to Wikiquote.

3. Summaries of scholarly sources. Heavy and repeated accusations of misparaphrasing and one-sided summaries led to quoting scholarly sources, instead of summarizing them

4. Article was reviewed by user:Vassyana who stated that the frequent use of opposing scholarly quotes did not yield a good article. He proposed a new editing principle that only scholarly views deemed as controversial by contributors that were supported by at least two scholarly sources could stay in.

5. User:Momento adapted Vassyana's proposed principle and removed all statements that he did not like unless supported by two scholarly sources that stated exactly the same. Momento thinks that quoting a scholar is undue weight to one particular scholar.

Andries (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article after reading the Register article, which popped up in Digg's front page. May I ask why I can't see the section which say "Criticism"? Isn't this a blatant example of content forking? Vapour (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In this regard, we are on the same side (see me not being a "true believer", above). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I apologise for accusing you of bias. Vapour (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat

There's really another article called Criticism of Prem Rawat, but the only link to it comes in the infobox at the bottom of the page?

And people are alright with that? Isn't there normally a small section with an italicized line under the heading along the lines of "Main artcile can be found at Criticism of Prem Rawat'"?

Lame. 90.187.55.29 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Until today it was a redirect. It's not usual to document redirects. David D. (Talk) 13:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But to answer your question, yes, per WP:SS, a criticism article is considered a daughter article, and there should be a summary paragraph in the main article - this article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A Balance of References

The fundamental problem lies with the reliance on Downton, Geaves etc. The following sandbox article provides a more balanced distribution. Together with appropriate media references a reasonable article is achievable.

[[7]]

Sources requiring inclusion/improved textual positioning:

Relevant academic writings excluded from or only partially referenced in Wikipedia about Prem Rawat. Björkqvist.K World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin Encounter with India: studies in neohinduism N. Holm (ed.), (pp. 79-99) - Turku, Finland. Åbo Akademi University Press.[1]

Introduction:

The present paper will attempt to examine change in three religious or quasi-religious movements of Hindu origin: Transcendental Meditation (TM), the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), and the Divine Light Mission (DLM). Although other important aspects of change (such as organizational ones) should be recognized, only two will be considered here:

1) change in the degree of deliberate divergence from the norms of the mainstream society, i.e. - in the terminology of Wallis (1984) - world-rejection, and 2) change of goals.

In the present paper, Wallis's (1984) conceptual framework will be analysed in some detail . Goal displacement, a concept utilized by Gross and Etzioni (1985, pp. 9-27) for describing change within non-religious organizations, economical as well as political, will also be introduced and adopted in this particular context.

Quote

“DLM (which is not called DLM anymore, although the name is retained here for the sake of comprehensibility) has changed enormously during the 80's from what it was during the late 70's. It has still retained many of its old hard core members, but these now tend to live a "normal" life. Since there are no meetings, or special communal activities, old members do not meet very much. New people are still being initiated into the meditation techniques - according to what by the present author considers a reliable source of information, 7,000 in the West and 14,000 in India (within the fraction loyal to Maharaj Ji) were initiated during 1986. This sounds large, but since there is no formal organization, it is impossible to estimate how many of these actually practise meditation regularly. DLM has, as a matter of fact, almost changed into what Bainbridge & Stark (1978) calls a client cult, with clients or customers rather than followers. The new people it attracts are predominantly middle-aged, and not young, as was the case in the 70's.”

Errors Björkqvist does introduce a number of factual errors. The claim that in 1974 “He [Rawat] disposed of many Hindu traditions” is contradicted by the author elsewhere in the article, and as suggested by Price writing in 1978, a ritualised approach to a followers life was still at the heart of organisational effort, the rituals being the same fundamentals as introduced in 1971[2]. Björkqvist overstates the case when stating: “In 1976, Maharaj Ji declared that he felt that the organization had come between his devotees and himself, and he disposed of the headquarters altogether.” While there was some reduction in staffing the Denver headquarters was maintained, further Rawat simply did not have the power to act alone and it is misleading to not acknowledge the role of officials such as Mishler (who Björkqvist identifies elsewhere) and Dettmers[3]. Björkqvist gives a date of 1980 for closure of the ashrams and associated changes, and also claims the Divine Light Mission as an organisation was abolished; in fact the ashram closures occurred in 1982 and 1983 while with the exception of the UK Divine Light Mission which was closed in 1995[4], all other DLM organisations were simply renamed Élan Vital, over a period of ten years.[5]

Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans.

Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308 [6]

IN AN ARTICLE in the 1980 winter issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Downton presents an "evolutionary theory of spiritual conversion and commitment." He differentiates twenty seven steps in the conversion process and in the growth of commitment to Divine Light Mission ideology. In this article we do not criticize Downton's theory, although we think it problematic to identify as many stages as he did. We only want to point out that Downton's group of respondents differs in at least one important way from Divine Light Mission members we have interviewed, and that this difference has some important theoretical implications.

Dupertuis, Lucy Gwyn

Company of truth : meditation and sacralized interaction among Western followers of an Indian Guru Thesis (Ph.D. in Sociology) -- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1983 . Bibliography: leaves 335-342

How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. (1986): University of Guam [7]

Introductory paragraph:

This paper examines the recognition of charisma as an active conscious social process involving the confirmation of belief through non cognitive methods of altering perception. In the illustrative case of Sant Mat / Radhasoami / Divine Light Mission tradition the Hindu concept and ritual of darshan is examined. Devotees use meditative means to recognize charisma in the guru considered as the formless Absolute, as himself, and as a "presence" generated within the community of followers. The aim on all three levels is ecstatic merging of a separate sense of self with the Absolute . It is conjectured that once Westerners learned this they no longer felt need of the guru. The discussion calls for further research on social components of mystical practices.

Quote

Guru Maharaj Ji modified Radhasoami theology by identifying himself with great masters of all religions. Thus not only did he hint that he had been Krishna and Ram and Buddha, but among others, Christ and Mohammed as well. (In this he followed a common neo-Hindu practice of trying to universalize Hindu theology). He did not object when his followers persisted further by identifying him with all these saviors as they had been predicted to return: Kalki the tenth incarnation of Vishnu; Jesus Christ's second coming; the Buddha Matreiya; and the tenth Imam of Shiite Islam.

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin

Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji Sociological Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Summer, 1978), pp. 157-164.

Note Foss and Larkin spent thirty months observing and participating in the activities of Divine Light Mission between 1973 and 1975, their study is the only sustained academic investigation of Prem Rawat’s following and as such stands as a key reference work.

Introductory paragraph:

This paper is the result of a two-and-a-half year participant-observation study in which the authors

analyse the basis of Guru Maharaj Ji's appeal to ex-movement [movement is used by Foss and Larkin to mean the 1960s Youth Movement] participants in the early 1970s. The youth movement of the 1960s had generated a reinterpretation of reality that called into question conventional reality. When the movement declined, the movement reinterpretation had no possibility for implementation. Left between a reality they rejected and one that could not be implemented, ex-movement participants experienced life as arbitrary and senseless. Guru Maharaj Ji was deified as the mirror of an incomprehensible, meaningless universe. The Divine Light Mission stripped its followers of all notions of causality while simultaneously subsuming and repudiating both conventional and movement interpretations of reality.

Galanter, Marc.

CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion Oxford University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-195-12370-0 [8]

Study Description

“The study was conducted on the outskirts of Orlando, Florida, at a national festival held by the Divine Light Mission, one of the conclaves regularly organized to allow members the opportunity for personal contact, or darshan, with the guru. A field had been rented for the weeklong event. Events there showed how the group's cohesiveness could be mobilized as a potent social force and how nonmembers could be excluded. The atmosphere of belonging was pervasive, as some 5,000 young adults gathered to make preparations. They interacted in a congenial and open manner, even when they had struck up acquaintance only moments before. To say the least, this was not an impersonal work site. It represented a network of people who hastened to assist each other and sought ways to further their common cause of making the festival a shared experience, something valuable to all.”

Notes Galanter’s study was predicated on testing the hypothesis that: “a relationship existed between the perceived emotional relief and fidelity to the group [Divine Light Mission]” Galanter did not consider Rawat as a specific source of relief, nor as an agent separate from the Divine Light Mission. Galanter did give consideration the Knowledge meditation, however only in the sense that it was a practice common to the group, and that it was correlated to altered consciousness which Galanter describes as a ‘religious experience’.

Quote

“This episode of altered consciousness was not very different from many in the literature on religious conversion, but was nonetheless difficult to explain from a psychiatric perspective. Raymond's vision of the halo might be construed as a hallucinatory experience in conventional psychiatric terms, and thereby ascribed to causes of perceptual change such as a dissociative reaction, transient psychosis, or even mass hysteria. But his history, his behavior, and his demeanor as we spoke gave no hint of such a diagnosis. This "vision" also fit in nicely with his later experiences in meditation, and could not be dismissed as an isolated phenomenon.

I was left with a tale told by a perceptive and lucid observer who described a phenomenon that did not fit into my handbook of diagnoses. Nonetheless, the experience had clearly served as a basis for the attribution of a new meaning to his life. It set him off balance and he turned to the philosophy of the sect to explain the puzzling event. From that point, Raymond's relationship with the Divine Light Mission followed with seeming inevitability, and served as a basis for his understanding of his own role in life. This experience had many counterparts in my interviews with other members of the Divine Light Mission, as it became clear that altered consciousness in the form of inexplicable perceptions and transcendent emotional states was common in their conversion and subsequent religious experience.”

The history of the Rawat movement given by Galanter is based on the work of other authors and reproduces their errors, notably Downton and Melton Galanter’s own research into the social and psychological characteristics of Rawat’s followers is insightful and unique.

Galanter M, Buckley P, Deutsch A, Rabkin R, Rabkin J. Large Group Influence for Decreased Drug Use: Findings from Two Contemporary Religious Sects American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Vol 7. 1980

Introductory paragraph:

This paper reports on studies designed to clarify the role of large cohesive groups in effecting diminished drug use among their members. Subjects were drawn from two contemporary religious sects and data were obtained by administering self-report questionnaires under controlled conditions, in cooperation with the sects' leadership. Data which bear directly on changes in drug use are reported here. Members of the Divine Light Mission (DLM), many of whom had been involved in the "counterculture" of the early 1970s, reported incidence of drug use prior to joining which was much above that of a nonmember comparison group.

Reported levels were considerably lower after joining, and the decline was maintained over an average membership of 2 years. Unification Church (UC) members showed a similar pattern but their drug use began at a somewhat lower level and declined further still; this reflects a stricter stance toward illicit intoxicants in the UC, and relatively less openness to transcendental altered consciousness, which is an integral part of DLM meditation. Data from persons registered for UC recruitment workshops corroborated retrospective reports of the long-standing members. Changes in the consumption of tranquilizers were also considered. Data on caffeine consumption reflected less strict commitment to controls over this agent. The decline in drug use was considered in relation to feelings of social cohesiveness toward fellow group members, which was a significant predictor of change in drug use in multiple regression analysis. The findings are examined in relation to the interplay between behavioral norms in a close-knit subculture and the role of its beliefs and values in determining levels of drug use. [9]

Note As with Galanter’s 1989 publication the focus of this work from 1980 is concerned with the role of a Group, not upon the Group leader as a separate agent nor upon the Knowledge meditation as an ameliorative or otherwise beneficial practice.

Haan, Wim

De missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. (Dutch language) ISBN 90-242-2341-5

page 55 note 2

"Bij Divine Light Mission is nauwelijks sprake van een filosofische achtergrond. De centrale 'geloofspunten zijn allen weergegeven in dit lied.”

English translation:

“Divine Light Mission hardly had a philosophical background. The central beliefs were all summarized in this song.” – The words of arti[10],[11] are then given in both Dutch and English

Note Haan’s contention that the central beliefs are all to be found within the ‘arti’ song is undoubtedly correct, though it is important to note that neither Prem Rawat nor his supporting organisations have ever produced a comprehensive codification of those beliefs separate to the song. When after 1983, the practical liturgy of the singing of arti became a rare event, Rawat and his followers took the position that arti had never represented any expression of belief, but had merely been a meaningless ritual inherited from the Indian organisation. This revisionist position is called into question not only by Haan but respectively by the work of Dupertuis, Juergensmeyer and Rife who all note the relationship between Rawat’s teaching and the Radhasoami and Sant Mat philosophies, which involve emotional attachment to a guru.

Hummel, Reinhart

Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-170-05609-3

Quote

Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen. Hatte der Vater sich vornehmlich als >>Guru der Armen<< verstanden und sich in einer bilderreichen Sprache mehr um praktische Anwendbarkeit als um theoretische Durchdringung bemüht, so blieb doch der Inhalt seiner Satsangs auf dem Hintergrund der Hinduistischen Tradition klar verständlich. Die Satsangs jedoch, die der Sohn im Westen gehalten hat und die mit einem Minimum hinduistischer Terminologie und Konzepte auskommen, müssen für den nichthinduistischen Hörer vage bleiben. Der junge Guru erklärt das konzeptionelle Denken, das auch in deutschen Übersetzungen mit dem englischen Wort >>mind<< bezeichnet wird, als Hauptfeind der unmittelbaren religösen Erfahrung. So ist es nicht verwunderlich, daβ von seinen Anhängern nur wenig Handfestes über die DLM-lehre zu erfahren ist. Andererseits eröffent ihnen der Mangel an vorgegebenen Konzepten einen Freiraum für Äuβerungen einer spontanen Subjektivität, die wohltuend vom unselbständigen Reproduzieren autoritativ verkündenter Lehren absticht, wie man es vor allem dei den Anhängern der ISKCON antrifft. Wie auch immer die Bewertung ausfallen mag - die geistige Konturlosigkeit der Bewegung fällt allen Beobachtern auf.

Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son, did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings. Both saw [doctrines] as presenting more problems than advantages. Although the father saw himself primarily as the Guru of the Poor, and his discourses that were rich in metaphors were more concerned with practical applications than with penetrating theory, yet his satsangs could always be understood against a background of Hindu tradition. But the satsangs that his son held in the west, which he managed with a minimum of Hindu terms and concepts, still remain vague for the non-Hindu listener. The young Guru explains that conceptual thinking, translated with the English word “mind” in German translations also, is the main enemy of direct religious experience. It is therefore hardly surprising that little firm information about DLM teachings can be obtained from his followers. On the other hand, the lack of professed concepts allows them a freedom of expression which is spontaneous and personal, and which makes an agreeable contrast with the unexamined reproduction of received teachings which one especially finds in the devotees of Iskcon. Whatever judgment one may have about the movement, its intellectual lack of contours is clear to all observers."

Note Hummel’s assertion that Hans Rawat saw himself as “the Guru of the Poor” appears unsupported although it could reasonably be concluded as being the case based on the Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj.[12] Certainly Hummel if correct, is identifying a fundamental difference in philosophy between father and son.

Juergensmeyer, Mark

'Radhasoami Reality', Princeton Paperbacks ISBN 0-691-01092-7 Quote

Radhasoami teachings were also introduced to Westerners indirectly, through groups that utilized Radhasoami ideas but presented them under their own banner. The Eckankar movement, for example, borrowed directly from the writings of Radhasoami teachers, and its founder, Paul Twitchell, was an initiate of Kirpal Singh. Kirpal Singh had followed his own master, Sawan Singh, in linking the first phrase in Guru Nanak's morning prayer, "eckankar," to the highest level of spiritual consciousness. Twitchell followed suit and made it the name of his movement. The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami as well, and other spiritual leaders of the time were also influenced by Radhasoami teachings .pp 206-207

Radhasoami as a Trans-National Movement unpublished, quoted in Shabdism in North America, Rife,D: American Academy of Religion's Western Region Conference at Stanford University on March 26, 1982

Quote

“It is reported that the "Divine Light Mission" of the boy guru, Shri Sant Ji Maharaji , is derived from Radhasoami teachings and the Radhasoami community. According to some accounts, the father of the present boy guru had been a follower of one of the Radhasoami branches, but split off from them to start his own following.

Quote

With the emergence of Balyogeshwar (alias Guru Maharaji), the mission came to the attention of the general public in India and North America. The movement had its biggest impact in the early 1970's when it attracted thousands of devotees. The initial growth, however, has since subsided, and the group is currently enjoying a relative stability, with neither a significant influx of new members or a substantial exodus.

Quote

The most striking parallel between the Divine Light Mission and the Radhasoami Tradition concerns their teachings on the "Divine Word," the inner-spiritual melody. Both groups employ meditational techniques for initiates to concentrate their attention on this current of "light and sound" which is believed to free the soul from its attachment with the physical body. Though both groups have similar theological teachings concerning the nature of this "Divine Word," each differ in their own way on how exactly to approach the Supreme Abode.”

Messer, Jeanne

Guru Maharaj, Ji and the Divine Light Mission. The New Religious Consciousness, Bellah, Robert and Glock, Charles (Eds.) pp. 52-72 University of California Press (1976)

Note Messer’s work, although published in an academic journal, is not itself a formally written academic document although it can be understood as a Qualitative study. An interesting observation comes in the contrast of practical financial concern with a movement belief in ‘Grace’:

Quote

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 loan 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." That is not a common reason for such unbusinesslike behavior. The owner of DLM's national headquarters building has repeatedly paid for extensive alterations to the building as activities burgeoned, though he ostensibly has no relation to the Mission other than landlord. To devotees these are miracle stories, and there are hundreds of them.

Grace operates at all levels. Devotees are agreed that anyone who decides to go to India, for instance, will come up with the money to go; and devotees report finding hundreds of dollars in kitchen drawers, being approached by strangers and offered unsolicited motley, and other bizarre tales of money being generated by devotion.

Price, Maeve

The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 1979 [13]

Introductory paragraphs:

It is the thesis of this paper that the Divine Light Mission as a social organization is a product of a number of analytically distinct sets of forces which impinge on any 'ideal' structure which the leader might devise. It cannot be stated, as Wallis claimed of the Children of God, that 'the development of the movement as a social structure has been altogether defined and directed by the leader's specification. . .' (7) Judging from what the leader of DLM has declared to his followers it is clear that he would like the mission to function without any formal organisation at all.

Nevertheless it does not follow that the leader has either a clear definition of the type of organization he desires or that he possesses the requisite skills to achieve his goals. In particular, the leader has to take into account the social characteristics of his following who will also have attitudes concerning the existence of end form of organization. Nevertheless it does not follow that the leader has determine events and is frequently having to respond to situations which he could not have deliberately planned. This is particularly the case where the mission's financial problems are concerned.

Note. Price suggests in contrast to the unsupported claims given by Chryssides, Downton, Geaves and Melton, that the leader (Prem Rawat) was not in a position to make the autocratic changes in the Divine Light Mission/Élan Vital organisation that are so frequently accorded to him, not least in the Wikipedia articles.

Price states that: “Factual data have been obtained either from the mission's records or have been supplied verbally by mission officials.” And also

Quote

“Data on membership have been obtained from the total sample of active premies on the mission's records which were compiled in the years 1975 and 1976. Out of the 2,050 who declared that they were prepared to donate 10% of their incomes to the mission, 642 filled the mission's questionnaire on education, occupational skills, age, year of receiving knowledge and other items. My own questionnaire, put out to premies at a London programme in January 1978 elicited 177 replies from the 500 forms issued, but the results tally very well with the mission's data and the information from each source corroborates the other. In addition personal observation and over thirty tape recorded interviews over the past three years have provided further evidence for the statements which are made.”

Unlike writers such as Geaves and Melton, Price investigated what actually occurred within the Divine Light Mission, recording views of participants in the DLM:

Quote

'For over two and a half years until they had the Alexandra Palace programme it was a very strong movement. In that time I imagine 5,000 to have joined and there must have been nearly a thousand full-time workers for the mission. It was completely incredible; it had a staff of a medium to large size company and was doing amazing things. Everyone was completely inexperienced and then after that [Alexandra Palace] there was nothing to do. Everyone was saying: well, what are we doing? Why are we here? We've got all this set up; we could build a bridge across the Thames; we could do anything - I mean there was just nothing to do. It was just literally - there were all these people with nothing to do, all set up, all geared up to, you know, spread the knowledge, to build this, to build that, but there was nothing to do. It has grown too quickly and the expansion didn't really have a foundation."

Quote

Festivals often reach a peak of mindless fervour some might associate with a Nazi rally. At the festival held in Wembley in 1977 a 'seeker' drawn towards the idea of receiving 'knowledge' told me she was completely put off by the way in which Maharaj Ji could manipulate his audience. She saw him to be as dangerous as a Hitler with the potential of leading his followers to violence and acts of destruction.

Quote

Once Maharaj Ji became the de facto head of the mission, various factors, which must include his own inexperience and lack of long-term policy and his anxiety not to become a puppet of his officials, led to a gradual slowing down of recruitment, a falling away of active support and an almost complete cessation of organized proselytizing activities.

Quote

At the conference in Frankfurt in November I976, Maharaj Ji had announced that the International Headquarters were dissolved and that henceforth he would guide the mission, with his brother, Raja Ji, as his ambassador. In fact what had occurred was the removal from power of his closest adviser, who had been the International President since the headquarters were set up in the United States. It is apparent that Maharaj Ji resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate and dismissed him when a clash of wills occurred.

Quote

The dismantling of the International Headquarters did not in fact take place, although staff numbers were greatly reduced, at the national level as well, and officials are very cautious now, afraid to take initiative while they try to guess what it is their Guru really intends.

Quote

At the same time the stress on the community premie, which had led to what was now viewed as excessive democratization, which was strongly repudiated by Maharaj Ji at Frankfurt, has now been controlled by the simple device of blocking public communication channels upwards to the head office. For more than twelve months now, the national publication which carried letters from premies, often extremely critical of other premies and the head office, (but never of Maharaj Ji), has not been printed. Instead premies receive an exclusive diet of full transcripts of Maharaj Ji's satsang at various festivals across the world.

Quote

In the case of DLM, confusion over organizational goals and lack of firm leadership control at the intermediate and grass root levels, combined with a following who are being pulled in one direction after another without structural channels of two-way communication, all lead to confusion and lack of desire to recruit new members. What is surprising is not that the mission is no longer expanding significantly, but that it manages to survive at all. This answer to the second issue must lie in the mission's continued ability to satisfy fundamental psychological and social needs of its adherents.

Errors Price does introduce certain errors some of which have been repeated uncorrected elsewhere. The date of formation of the Divine Light Mission in India is given as 1930, in fact it was 1960, and rather than being the sole creation of Hans Rawat as Price suggests, it was an initiative of a number of his followers. Price’s description of the Indian DLM as being a ‘Hindu sect’ is at odds with evidence of Galanter and others that Hans Rawat was associated with Rhadosami and Sant Mat, movements which are equally close to Sikhism as to Hinduism. Price also appears to be the original source for the statement repeated by later authors that “In 1969 the new leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, sent one of his mahatmas, or a 'realised soul', to Britain as a missionary to win converts for his master.” Price later undermines this statement by acknowledging that at the time Prem Rawat’s mother was“in fact was the organizing force”. Price is also wrong in two respects regarding the legal status of the UK Divine Light Mission where it is suggested that Rawat’s mother held a position on the Registered Charity as ‘regent for her son’, Charity trustees have always held the position in their own right and if Rawat’s mother was indeed a trustee there was no question of her exercising that role in anything other than her own right. Price also refers to DUO as an alternative organisation to DLM, in fact no legal structure called DUO existed in Britain although various Rawat connected businesses carried the name. In all other respects Price’s work stands with Foss & Larkin as the sole body of contemporary in depth research into the Rawat movement.

Thomas Pilarzyk

The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43.[14]

American pluralism has different implications for different types of youth culture movements. Environmental responses to the emergence of religious movements are the result of the prevailing mood in the dominant religious and political institutions as well as of the ideological battles between competing sub-cultural systems of meaning. Religious movements, in turn, react to a pluralist situation in different ways, even though they may share certain orientations toward directly experiencing the sacred and are critical of certain trends of modernity. Cultic movements, as pluralistically legitimate, are more comfortable in a secularized environment than are the more dogmatic sects. Sectarian movements, as epistemologically authoritarian, find it harder to live in a society with competing religious and secular meaning systems which are neither "pure" nor "true."

Note Pilarzyk is as much concerned with organisational change and development as religious or philosophical change in the Divine Light Mission:

Quote

Like some of its youth culture counterparts, the Divine Light Mission movement experienced rapid growth from its inception in the United States in 1971. By the summer of 1974, the American movement had grown to a total of 27 ashrams which housed over 1200 of an estimated 50,000 members or "premies." However, its development was not as simple, gradual, consistent, nor as longlasting as changes within other "Eastern imports" such as the Hare Krsna movement (see Pilarzyk 1975).

Quote

The DLM's early development was characterized, then, by the organization of numerous local cults in various U.S. cities. Meditative practices and discussions concerning the mystical knowledge were individualized. The movement lacked both centralized control of its ideology and a standard interpretation of the religious experience. Rather, the emerging belief system consisted of a loosely-bound set of precarious cultic beliefs and practices which only later were formalized into a simplified version of Vedanta closely approximating the classical hindu non-dualist philosophical position.

Quote

By July of 1972, the first national conference of DLM leaders took place, and guidelines were laid down which specified certain rules and regulations for U.S. ashrams. DLM officials note that this led to an initial departure of followers who viewed ashram life more as an economic convenience than as a step toward the enhancement of the spiritual path to God-realization. The "Guru Puja Festival," also held in July of that year, marked the first public meeting for the American membership. This initial stage of organizational development involved a growing definition of membership, esprit de corps, and lifestyles for ashram premies.

Quote

The distribution of power and authority in the movement in the early 1970s was officially and symbolically based upon the somewhat ambiguous charismatic appeal of guru Maharaj Ji. Many "rank and file" followers were uncertain about his position in the whole organizational scheme of the movement as well as the claim that he was the only true spiritual master. Devotion to him allegedly was based in his ability to inspire a connection between himself and the "spiritual energy" or "divine light" experienced in meditation.

Quote

In summary, the development of the DLM in America has largely substantiated Wallis' contention that cults are inherently fragile social institutions which are constrained from effective institutionalization by internal factors. Developing within a pluralist social environment, the Divine Light Mission has been constrained by continued doctrinal precariousness, the unique locus of its leadership authority, and continued problems of generating and sustaining consistent commitment among its membership. These characteristics are identical to those which reportedly have constrained Spiritualism, Dianetics, New Thought, and other religious movements. And like those movements, the Divine Light Mission presently remains caught in the tenuous position between cultism and sectarianism in its development and decline as a youth culture religion.

David Rife

Shabdism in North America Paper presented at the American Academy of Religion's Western Region Conference, Stanford University, March 26, 1982[15]

Quote

“In confirmation with Juergensmeyer's contention that Guru Maharaji's father was associated with one of the Radhasoami sects, I was informed personally in July of 1978 at Sawan Ashram, Old Delhi, India, by Bhagwan Gyaniji (who was a disciple of Sawan Singh and personal secretary to Kirpal Singh) that Balyogeshwar's father was indeed initiated by Sawan Singh of the Radhasoami Satsang Beas and later branched off to start his own movement. It also appears that Balyogeshwar's father was a disciple of another Sant mat guru named Sarupanand, who worked in the tradition of Sri Paramahans Advait Mat --a surat shabd yoga lineage apparently connected to Shiv Dayal Singh which was founded in the latter part of the 19th century and is now centered in Guna.

Notes and error identification taken from an unsigned web source - all seem sound to me.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

External links section...

Are all those links official websites of Prem Rawat as stated? Most appear to be independent. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "official" is but they are operated by people or organizations that have permission to use Rawat's speeches.Momento (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But not run by him. Maybe that sub title is not really required? It seems to be a hold over from when there was another section of links. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right.Momento (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

... contain links that are in contradiction with Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly which prong the links are in contradiction with? I don't see any contradiction with the stated guidelines. Simply claiming that the links are in contradiction with Wikipedia Policy is not adequate. Onefinalstep (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you are continually deleting my external link submission?

On the External Links page of Wikipedia under the subsection “Links to be Considered” of section “What to Link” you will find that “sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources” are permissible.

Moreover, the sites I am attempting to link to, which Momento continues to arbitrarily delete (have you sent him a warning yet jossi?), can arguably be said to be reliable sources in their own right. The two sites have documentation on many of their claims, and hold themselves out for contact by the users of the sites. Under the section of “reliable sources” Wikipedia states that “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.” However … the section goes on to state that “Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.”

So first, it is debatable whether or not the sites are reliable. I say they most certainly are. Unless there is a valid argument from Momento to the contrary, why should they be omitted? Secondly, even if I am wrong about their reliability based on “verifiability” of the facts they present (which I contest), they should still be considered “reliable sources” by the definition of the Wikipedia guidelines I quoted above due to their value in presenting viewpoints and criticisms of the subject at hand, especially due to the religious nature of the subject. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: it's a guideline, not a policy, and it contains the words normally and should. It's also not very clear. I have no idea what the first sentence, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. means.

In any case, the person who dinged the link should explain why, preferrably without c&p'ing a link to a guideline. After all, if the link did violate the guideline, it'd be nice to know why so the "error" isn't repeated. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The external links to the other sites have been deleted, simply because they do not follow Wikipedia BLP policy, which is quite clear: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Whilst I have rarely agreed with Andries in the past, this item is not a matter of argument, the links simply violate the criteria that Wikipedia requires. Armeisen (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs)

The sites are not poorly sourced. I guess everyone needs to make their own judgment on that though. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, although it should have come from someone else. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Ex-premie.org

Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is a cult

• I'd keep that one in the article. Contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. I'd limit the sentence describing this website to "website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat". The "cult claim" is too detaillistic: it is treated on one of the pages linked from the main page of that site, but that's a too limited angle on that website for Wikipedia's description imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. The link is appropriate because it leads to a site which is maintained by former followers who obviously have some serious issues with the organization. They have loads of sources for their claim on the site, and they hold themselves out for contact. I can't comprehend why people are trying to argue this is not relevant. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem-Rawat-critique.org

Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing the mass of criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources

• I'd keep that one in too. Also contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. But I'd turn down the language with which the site is announced: "mass of criticism" is a view that we do not need to underline. "Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations" would do better I think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right here too. Perhaps the "mass of criticism" is too much (although I think it's accurate). Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article

'Lord of the Universe' Article detailing about Prem and the controversy of conflict of interest in Wikipedia.

• Largely irrelevant to the topic at hand (Prem Rawat). I'd get rid of that one. The Prem Rawat article is not an exercise on Wikipedian introspection. This talk page maybe is in part, but not the encyclopedia article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would enocurage editors to take the advice of User:Thatcher:[8]

To the extent that prem-rawat-critique analyzes the wikipedia article, it might be useful as a guide for editors looking to improve the article, but it is certainly not a reliable source for use in the article itself. However, no surprises that an anti-Prem web site thinks the article is not negative enough. The next step is for someone to try and fix the articles on wikipedia, consistent with policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, undue weight, and so forth. Thatcher 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, these links violate WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links If editors believe that these constrains are not acceptable, they should bring these issues to WT:BLP first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we know you think the links are questionable sources. Lets have that discussion. But would you concede that assuming they are reliable sources they are not of dubious value? Onefinalstep (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of edits lost

... in this edit. That is not acceptable. Articles need to get improved, not brought up to a version that misses the hard work, research and copyediting of many editors over a period of more than one year, and that includes responses to GA reviews and peer reviews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A more advisable route is to improve the article rather than revert to a version that is more than a year old. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Too much important info and work has been lost. 30 kilobytes of bloat inserted. Lede destroyed. Only negative criticism highlighted. Unacceptable links etc etc. Having seen how Wiki's inherent goodness triumphed over nastiness during Jossi's COI, I look forward to the discussion these extraordinary edits will bring.Momento (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, that is a very one-sided argument. The version that Francis deleted was a complete new rewrite by Momento and Rumiton that destroyed thousands of edits by many authors. Andries (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands" is incorrect. I had to go back somewhat over a thousand edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=189986984#Section_break
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=189994816
• User talk:Jossi#Prem

--Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for more discussion with Francis. As a compromise to losing what I consider to be good edits I have restored the version from Feb 2008 and included the criticism paragraphs that represent the most significant consensus I could find in the history, from May 2007. I think this is the best starting point. Other version criticism can be found at Talk:Prem Rawat/criticism. I have no horses in this race other than trying to keep this article from devolving into a massive fight. David D. (Talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be protected at Vaassyana's last edit. Inserting a section of criticism that is bigger than any other section isn't balanced. For a start, Jan van der Lans comment that Rawat was a "charlatan leading a double life" is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources. Not just a Catholic priest's view of someone his religion says is going to hell.Momento (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, let us start with the last version by David D. as a compromise version. We can move forward in addressing specific concerns. It is a starting point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to edit that section as you see fit. This is a stop gap edit on my part to preserve the current version. If users here are sensible there will be no reason to fully protect the page. As yet I think everyone has been calm and kept the discussion at the talk page. If you think it is too much prune it down to a suitable size, really, I would not object to you improving what I just pasted into the article. Isn't that reasonable to at least keep the editing environment cooler? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As we have seen editors haven't been sensible. To stick 7 lines of a 25 year old criticism by a Roman Catholic priest into a BLP is over the top. Go back to Vassyana's last and let's talk.Momento (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no I stand with the version I reverted to. Let's take that as a starting point. It has 129 references. The other has only three quarters so many references. Several of the references from the last year are malformed through inadvertent use of citation templates. "Bloat" is equally true of the version I reverted away, etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between 53 kilobytes and 83 Kilobytes, don't you?Momento (talk)

I miss the mentioning of the most prevalent criticism from the lead section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article.Momento (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thus, it should include the main points of the criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No to edit wars!

Please help in finding a way forward. There is a proposal on the table by David to start improving the article from a compromise version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to work on David D's compromise version. Clearly it is a lot better than the bloated, badly written version of early 2007 before it was subject to a GA review and hundreds of hours of work from independent editors.Momento (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As said, I stand with the version I reverted to, as a starting point. That is as much "on the table". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally reverting to a 13 month old version without discussion and in the face of considerable opposition is not the way to do it.Momento (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the current article unacceptable too. The article must be reverted to the time when it had criticism section within this article. As I understand it, there has been deletion of verified content (i.e. source from media or academia) under pretext of double verification (it must be sourced to two media or academia sources). This article must at least go back to the time before such undue deletion start to occur. Secondly, all content which were merely sourced from writing of PR or his organisations should be deleted. Vapour (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and you may be familiar with our policy about sources. Please re-read WP:V#Sources for information on how to deal with self-published sources related to the subject of an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Any contributions to an article can be reverted at any time. If Francis is correct that all the work that had previously gone into a criticism section was first moved to another article, then "merged" without actually being restored, that work too has been lost. Under such circs., I too strongly support reverting to Francis' version and working on that. Relata refero (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Half-broken references

I'll try to make permalinks to currently half-broken references (inadvertent use of citation templates) - can someone help out, I've not so much experience with these templates, nor do I exactly know how to make the best of these references:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=190045557#_note-9 (currently footnote 14)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=190045557#_note-54 (currently footnote 59)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, there is a great free resource that creates the cites automatically, for books, journals, URLs, PubMed, etc. see: http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in automated cite creation. At the time I don't even know whether the cite is *useful* and, if it is, how to make the best out of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just responding to your request for help with the half-broken refs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some and tried to consolidate all the repeated ones. I think there are more but I have no more time. David D. (Talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

tx, again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section:

In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings[4][5] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[6][7][8]

My concern:

• ref 4 is a 1982 Dutch book: not clear whether it links in time or in place to any of the four places mentioned as being visited when in June 1971 Rawat left India?
• (ref 5 is a 2001 book, as its title refers to the "late Vietnam war era" this might link to the media attention when visiting Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971.)
• ref 6 is from 1975. Although published in the USA (The Ruston Daily Leader) the criticism originated in fact in India, from Rawat's mother. The sentence where this reference is added jostles with that: "Rawat left India", visited four places far from India "where he was [...] criticised [...]" - and then follows a criticism originating in India... no, not OK, bad style. (bolding was added)
• ref 7 is from 2003, and is apparently not written from a seventies perspective (e.g. "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added)
• (ref 8 is from 1997. As it is from a dictionary, and no text is quoted directly, place/time might be in order here)

Far from wanting that ref 4, 6 and 7 be removed I just want to point out that it is a non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment to make it seem (in the intro of the article) as if the criticism only extends to his speaking tour to London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971 (mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro), and, also suggested, no later then when he turned 16 in 1973 (3rd paragraph of the Intro). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Francis. The criticism is mostly from the 70's and early 80's. That paragraph can be easily fixed, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, the version I defend didn't have that flaw. So I conclude you agree I revert to that version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean of the lead? Can you place a diff here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article is the diff that removed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.. You can add this to an appropriate place of the lead, if that will help: Rawat attracted controversy for what has been considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, but note that ref codes without content can only be used if a ref with a same name and with content is on the page, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the refs are correct as these are used already elsewhere. See the ref section, which has no errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I checked them: the last two didn't work: other references with the same name and no content depended on them to have content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will wikignome these and add provide the refs here so that these can be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I *had* already filled them with content on the Prem Rawat article (the content that was there in the sentence I had to remove in order not to double content in the lead). I'm not the one leaving behind me semi-disabled references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to *ref 7 - "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" [[9]] so it is pre 1983. So 4 out of 5 references are pre 1983 (Goring being unknown). Making it's placement the "His teachings became more universal, and less Indian, and in the early 1980s" sentence inappropriate. Since we are already talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're back to place/time incoherencies with your reverts:

In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized by some for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings[4][5] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[6][7][8] Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide.[9][10] When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. (bolding added)

Rawat turned 16 in 1973. The sentence before that, so before turning 16, "Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring [...]". Before making his home in the U.S. and the ensuing touring, "Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message". Before that (still according to the timeline now proposed in the intro of the article) he visited four cities outside India, "where he was criticised [...]". So, the text of the intro still implies that criticism is something happening between June 1971 and Rawat's birthday in 1973, and happend in four cities (none of them in India, nor in the Netherlands - which is also incoherent with the references).

As I said, "non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment" - the criticism extended at least (!) from the mid seventies to the mid eighties, and originated in places not limited to "London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles" — that's what you have references for here, not for the 1971-1973 period nor for the criticism exclusively originating in the four mentioned cities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism. The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream. The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971. That's why the lede should structured the way I proposed.Momento (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism."

"The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream."

"The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971."

Even if all that is true, the criticism didn't stop there, did it? The references used in the article try to give a wider scope (both in time and in place), than just some superficialities when he first arrived in the west. So, it's still incorrect to use more profound references for what in the body of the lead text refers to a relatively short period of superficial criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which criticism is superficial? The "lack of intellectual content in his teachings" or "leading a sumptuous lifestyle".Momento (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream"; "he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971" --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be slightly off-topic, but I can't find any mention of Robert Mishler in this or any of the related articles. He is a former president of the DLM and made critical comments about the subject. Is there a reason he's not mentioned? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted because Momento found mentioning Mishler's criticism unencyclopedic. I disagreed among others because Mishler's criticism was mentioned in Melton's encyclopedia' of cults. Andries (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I mention him because I was just reading an L.A. Times article from 1979 that quotes him extensively. The Times is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This Mishler?

Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s. According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints — that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use — found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.

Can this go in the article? Does it need tweaking? If suitable for the article: where to put it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. {{criticism-section}}

Now I'm definitely going to revert to the late January 2007 version: that version had a "reception" section (not a "criticism" section), containing positive as well as negative criticism, completely conforming to the recommendations of Wikipedia:Criticism, the "criticism" maintenance template can go in the same revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Francis? Don't you think that it would be best to move forward from a version that has support. Is edit-warring the way to go? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you "reverted", then came to this page pleading to stop the reverting.

I don't like the version you reverted to either.

If you revert to a version that has a problem, and then put up a dispute tag, that was not needed for the version you reverted away, I don't know what to make of that.

I prefer the version that has the positive and negative comments from both scholars and other sources in a reception section, as recommended by Wikipedia:Criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth getting into 3RR territory. I hope you would agree with me on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I can only interpret that as you offering a self-revert to a less problematic version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'd prefer to improve what we currently have here rather than revert back a year. The GA review improved the Jan version significantly. Do we really want to lose those good edits? David D. (Talk) 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but beg to disagree, the version I got from under the dust was less problematic: it didn't need the {{criticism-section}} tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "Reception" section of Jan 07, is that is misses many sources that were found during 2007. If we add all these, we will end up with a bloated article that does not read well, and that will end up formatted as a series of opinions, rather than a biographical narrative. Let's build up from the current version instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem to put these sources back in. Over 30 sources were also deleted since late Jan 07. Maybe some of these are worth keeping. It's easier to find back more recently added sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bloat" can easily be fixed by less Draconian measures. It's really just a matter of using good language skills. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding David D.'s opinion, see also this conversation:

[...] I still defend the version I reverted to [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [10]
[...] what you suggest might well be best. [...] David D. (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [11]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actual (Suggested) Edits to Criticism Section

I don't have a position or stake in this controversy, and am encouraged by the direction of the most recent changes. So, moving forward, I have some suggestions for relatively minor edits in the Criticism section for clarity and readability.

1) 3rd paragraph (starting with "Kranenborg") -- can we give him a first name, and a brief description of who he is or what his credentials are? Ditto Melton in the 6th paragraph. Is Kranenborg speaking as a Christian leader to an explictly Christian audience? The wording implies so; it might be useful to say so if true or reword if not.

2) The 4th paragraph (Stephen Kent) is awkwardly worded. I bet it was Kent's comment about Rawat that was in the preface of his book, not his experience with him as is written. "on him in the 1970s" would more typically be phrased as "of him...". "described" vs. "treats" is a tense mismatch. Here's a proposed rewrite: "Based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat, the sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Rawat's message as "banal" in the preface of his book "From Slogans to Mantras", and later summarized criticism of him in the 1970s by the countercultural left.[12]"

3) Last paragraph -- "An author initiated in Knowledge" -- Why not use the name, which appears to be Jeanne Messer? Also, "initiated in Knowledge" seems unnecessarily jargony. I don't know exactly what being "initiated" means or entails. How about "Jeanne Messer, an author trained in Rawat's meditation techniques,..." (or Knowledge techniques, or Knowledge system)? Msalt (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I have the actual power to edit this section without a Talk page discussion, but given the heat surrounding this page in general and this section in particular, I think it's a better idea for me to wait until tomorrow at least before going ahead with these, though I consider them content-neutral.Msalt (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I covered most bases of your suggestions. Feel free to review again, and offer new or additional ones. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, Reender Kranenborg is a relgious scholar. Ditto for J. Gordon Melton. Initiation means that you receive Knowlege. User:Vassyana has argued that Christian sermonizing should go out of this article. I disagreed with most of what Vassyana wrote but I guess he was right in this one. Andries (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Msalt. I'd like to work with Francis on the lede before I get involved in anything else.Momento (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The lede

Francis Schonken and I are discussing the order of the lede. Everyone is welcome to join in here. In the meantime Francis could you stop adding new material to other parts of the article its distracting. The picture of the house and the links to anti-Rawat sites will never appear in this article because they are clearly excluded by BLP.Momento (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

'splain the last sentence and its attendant assertion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kissing Prem Rawat's feet

Please do not remove cited material, as happened here, which was then restored here. Discuss here. Lawrence § t/e 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary used by Momento (talk · contribs) - Removed incorrect cite, was also blatantly false. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Given the wide media scrutiny on this article, this article will be closely monitored. Lawrence § t/e 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it unfortuante that this article is scrutinized only after Wikipedia (and somewhat unfairly Jossi) received so much outside criticism. The lesson learnt is, I think, that obscure controversial articles cannot be left alone to fighting factions, because one faction may gain the upper hand and then the article becomes completely unbalanced. Andries (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that scholarly material is more suited to cover this aspect than newspaper articles. Read what Jan van der Lans and Derks wrote [12]

"DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness."

Andries (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't in line with our general policies on sourcing in general. Time Magazine is certainly a noble and acceptable source. Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit of course that the Time is an acceptable source, but why use it when a better more scholarly source is readily available? I can see no good reason. Andries (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define "better". I'm serious. TIME is a highly respected source. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If both sources satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, why not simply use both? Cirt (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If two sources accomplish the same thing, but one may be more accessible to general readers, I believe it preferable to default to the easier to access one. If both exist, use both. Either way, we will report that his family and followers kiss his feet, as it is a sourced fact. Lawrence § t/e 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well let's hope we can get some more experienced editors as the Time magazines articles cited are from after Rawat came to the West and therefore don't belong in the section Cirt puts them. . Momento (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section. Removing valid sourced historical info, as you did, was not correct. I like to think I'm at least an experienced editor by now. What is your definition of experienced? Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll fix the mistake.Momento (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have a pending 3rr report on you for this article, you may want to take a break. Lawrence § t/e 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"don't belong in the section Cirt puts them" - I did not "put" anything there. It was already there. I was merely undoing Momento (talk · contribs)'s removal of cited information, that he had removed with a blatantly false edit summary. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was me that added that information, and I will be adding more sourced information as time permits. I put it in the slightly wrong section, but it can be moved to fit the chronology of Rawat's activities. Removing it outright with a false edit summary was not a wise move. Your reversion was good. Lawrence § t/e 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). It is one thing for Momento (talk · contribs) to continue to be disruptive. It is quite another to remove obviously cited information to a WP:RS/WP:V source. It is quite another to use blatantly false edit summaries while disruptively doing so. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

This latest series of edits by Momento (talk · contribs) seems to use selective quoting in a weasel wording style, and also removed one of the 2 TIME citations, again. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time used to produce 52 issues a year. Please cite the correct one for the quote. I removed the incorrect one.Momento (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought there must have been another Time magazine intended since the ones cited clearly said 1972 and 1975. Please be more careful.Momento (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be consistent Lawrence. You said "That's a house keeping task then, to move it to a different section." and so I moved the cite to the appropriate section. Now you're complaining about it and have put a quote about Rawat in the US into the section of Rawat in India. My head's spinning.Momento (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Large amounts of quoted text within citations

Large amounts of quoted text within citations are simply not needed, at all. A simple citation will suffice, to satisfy WP:V. These large quotes should be removed from all of the citations. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just started, and will get more if others don't first. I'm very short on time lately due to family illnesses. The references section appears to be used to provide unneeded flavor and as a possible means to work in unencyclopediac quotations about his teachings, outside of NPOV. We don't I believe see such work in place on other articles on religions or groups. Not appropriate. Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that these large quotes arose out of repeated and heavy accusations of misquoting, misparaphrasing and out of context quoting. I propose to retain these quotes. Andries (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs), they are not appropriate and should all be removed. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They can stay in some form of course, but at a quick glance (I need to look more closely) it appears to be reading as a POV-based fluffery. We are not to make a pro-Rawat article here, anymore than an anti-one. We're not here to spread his teachings or beliefs. They need heavy pruning. Lawrence § t/e 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on the subject's teachings so we should restrict ourselves to summarizing that info here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine "claims"

This is just pure POV. We don't qualify simple facts from sources. Do not do that again. Lawrence § t/e 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm seeing a lot of disagreement about the types of sources that are acceptable, so in case this helps:

• The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:BLP.
• Both scholarly and non-scholarly sources are allowed.
• Mainstream newspaper and magazine articles are welcome in an article like this, because it's about a popular figure, but the publications should be high quality because it's a BLP; Time, for example, is fine.
• Third-party self-published sources are not allowed (that is, material self-published by anyone other than the subject or his organization), again because it's a BLP, so that would exclude any personal websites. They are not allowed as sources or as external links, per BLP.
• Material self-published by the subject of the article is allowed. People often think this is a bad idea, but the reason for it is to allow the subject to be able to respond to errors about himself that may have been published elsewhere, and also to allow things like dates of birth to be provided, which might not be available otherwise. However, there are restrictions on the extent to which a subject's self-published material may be used -- they are listed here.
• 3RR does not apply to the removal of BLP violations. I took a look this morning at the report against Momento, and it was ambiguous, because although it was clear he had violated it, some of the external links he was removing were to what looked like personal or anonymous websites, and he can't be blocked for that. Other links he was removing were to things like the Washington Post, and that would have been a violation, but it wasn't clear he had done it more than three times.

Anyway, I hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Slim. I agree with everything she just said here. This is an excellent summary. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with non-scholarly sources for this article is that they do not try to make a summary over a longer period of time. They tend to cover one event or one incident of interview. This is problematic for some aspects of this article, like Rawat's teachings and his claims about himself. Using a published interview as a source for Rawat's claims about himself instead of scholarly sources strikes me as wrong. In another interview Rawat said that guru is greater than God. Are we going to use all interviews that Rawat ever gave to describe his teachings and claims about himself? Clearly this is not a workable solution. Andries (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Please see the new note at WP:ANI/3RR by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs), and the note left by the same user to Momento (talk · contribs)'s talk page. If Momento had not violated 3RR for the first report, or the start of the second, he certainly has by now. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I left him a warning, but I see he's been blocked now. A forced break is probably a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to ex-premie website violates BLP. Andries (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}}

Requesting that what is bolded in the next quote would be removed from the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro: "[...], his emphasis was on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma."

Reason: this part of the criticism Prem Rawat has been receiving doesn't seem prominent enough for a lead section mentioning. There's nothing about it in the Criticism section, so I think we would better be without it in the lead too. If there's consensus for this then the editprotected template may be enabled as far as I'm concerned. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected now, Francis. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

tx for informing. Anyone objecting that I proceed with the removal of this part of the sentence from the lead then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about claims of divinity should be described explicitly

Janice, regarding this edit by you [13] Melton wrote that Rawat claimed to be an embodiment of God. This should be described, not toned to such a degree that it is distorted and unrecognisable. Dowton held a somewhat opposing view. Andries (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Melton cite says: "DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness." Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See also some conversation with Janice here: User talk:Janice Rowe#Rawat. I'm going to continue these conversations on this talk page here:

• Re. the "four children and Boeing 707" rebuttal: still, not in its place, and not really a rebuttal.
• Re. Messer quote, I'll try and rephrase. --FrancisSchonken (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Janice, no, you are confusing Melton with Lans/Derks. Here is what Melton wrote

"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

Andries (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Put simply this article should tell Rawat's past as it was, not as he or his followers want to revise it. Rawat consistently spoke out of both sides of is mouth about his Divinity. That is absolutely plain from what scholars have reported. On the one hand we have Momento, even in the face of clear logical defeat, arguing again and again that Rawat ONLY denied being God (see my discussion page to see the full extent of his illogical dissembling) and on the other we have a huge weight of evidence from Rawat's own mouth and reports from the time about how he posed as God Incarnate and had no qualms whatsoever in lording it over people and worse, intimidating people with his authoritative doom-laden threats. Rawat exploited his followers subsequent awe of him to fear to control his believers just like all power-corrupted cult leaders. It's undeniable. What also needs to be clear is that he and his organisation now have money and power and use it to silence critics whenever they can. The final thing that WILL BE APPARENT when this article presents the whole story (and not just a totally biased twisted selection) is that Rawat and his organisation are at great pains to blame others (notably past followers and former incarnations of his organisation that conveniently no longer exist) for Rawat's own mistakes. A perfect example of this has been the persistence of Momento's efforts to slant quotes to give the impression that Rawat was 'misunderstood' and blameless in followers perception of him his as 'The greatest Incarnation of God ever to have trod the planet' etc. PatW (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially on your first sentence. It appears that Rawat's public iconography and image was gradually changed over time. This is fine, of course. However, and especially using sources that predate that shift in presented public appearance, we are obligated to report on how he was perceived and presented by verifiable independent sources at the time. If this is distasteful or unacceptable to some, that is unfortunate, but has no bearing on what the article must contain. Lawrence § t/e 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the problem with the article is that views are presented as facts, even when the views are contradicted by other sources. I will give some expamples later. Andries (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted to see newcomers having a go at trying to storm the battlements around this article. I strongly support their efforts. However I am very disappointed to see the same Rawat supporters still being so staunchly unreasonable here. Everything newcomers are challenging them on has been done before with a lot of effort and reasoning. It's just going over the same old ground. Above there is talk of there being "disagreement about the types of sources that are acceptable". We've tried to get this agreed before. Years roll by and Momento and Jossi absolutely will not accept sources other than ones they vet. They vehemently refused to allow quotes from Rawat out of magazines printed by Divine Light Mission magazines (which Rawat was the editor-in-chief of I think) and which I and some others found in many public libraries. Outrageous isn't it? Also, read the engagements I and others had with this Momento on my discussion page (Someone called Revera really won the argument over the 'Divinity' denials but would Momento accept that and allow some of quotes to be more balanced and in context? No way. My worry is that history will repeat itself and the predominant 'premie' editors here will just wait until the new wave of editors tire of getting nowhere and then they'll revert the article. I'd stake money on that's what'll happen. PatW (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, or was in the past, I think it will be stopping now. Do you have these sources, that we can see, which were denied before? Lawrence § t/e 06:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was about a year ago that I had arguments over sources such as DLM magazines etc. Actually a Rawat follower of more integrity, who was disgusted at the revisionism here, wrote to me privately offering to send me loads of these magazines- he/she wanted to remain anonymous and approved of my attempts to straighten facts out here. Eventually I did not take up the offer preferring to attempt to get some ground rules agreed upon here, and to point out that these magazines are readily available in libraries etc. I strongly recommend looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat&diff=121699226&oldid=121579434 to see what a hail of panic the suggestion of even referring to such publications met. Since then I believe that a huge number of Divine Light Magazines are reproduced online. Can somebody provide a link please? The trouble is that anyone who picks quotes from them will be immediately accused of asserting a critical POV. I have no substatial time to engage here any more due to new business pressures. But I will try and help from time to time. Please do take the time to go and read that Talk page from late March/April 1997 to see what your up against and to so you hopefully are forewarned and better fore-armed in your fresh attempts to stop the rot here.PatW (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW, and Slim, self-published sources have in the past led to problems in this article because many, somewhat contradictory, quotes by Rawat appeared in this article, leading to a quote war when each party starting adding more and more quotes that supported their view. Andries (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing that you say that 'contradictory Rawat quotes started appearing' because that is exactly what needs clarification. The Collier quote is a good example. In the end Momento and Jossi relegated that quote to the footnotes. The specific quote being iterated at footnote no 31 in the article now:

"There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life..Guru Maharaji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God."

As it is, the existing paragraph is carefully sculpted by the premies to give the ludicrous impression that Rawat had very little part in actually cultivating the belief in his divinity amongst followers. As is well-known and easily seen by the most cursory glance through his speeches from the time (as published in those DLM magazines I spoke of) the diametric opposite is true. From the following paragraph the impression is now given that he was more or less an innocent bystander and the stupid followers and his mother were to blame. This has been the party revisionist line for some time and Momento vociferously argued that people who believed Rawat was divine had misinterpreted his words through their own stupidity and that basically they were following their own agendas. Again absolutely the opposite was the case. ironically neither Momento or Jossi were around at that time to witness what went on. That is no excuse for revising the past and weasely implying that Rawat's followers simply adopted these ideas despite Rawat's protestations! Here's the current paragraph:

Several scholars wrote that Rawat claimed or suggested to be divine. [27][28]As a guru, he carried divine connotations for his followers, and despite Rawat's appeal to his followers to give up their beliefs and concepts, it did not prevent them from adopting a set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age. Despite his denial in an interview of any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, as well as partly by Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people.[29][30][31]

As I said this is just going over the same old arguments nd I am pessimistic about this article changing as the followers are more committed to maintaining it to their weasely slant than others are to repeatedly take them to task over it. PatW (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are Downton's opinions stated as fact when there are sources that disagree with him?

I propose some rewording, like this (copied from Divine Light Mission "According to Downton, by 1976 the vast majority of students were viewing Rawat primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration,[30]An article commenting on Downton's viewpoint was presented by Lans and Derks, who stated that there was a difference in the initiation policy before and after 1975. While before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for "knowledge", after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour; pre-1975 members joined due to an attraction to Hinduistic ideology."

Source: Derks, Frans, and Jan van der Lans. Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308

Andries (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW, I understand your concern. It seems that dispute resolution is like winning a battle and losing a war, unless you seek dispute resolution every week. Andries (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you been having fun in my absence but a few errors seem to be creeping in. For instance, John Brauns desire to insert the name of James Randi's book into the text when no other book is mentioned is unacceptable. Momento (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I had fun in having reasoned talk page discusion and not having all my edits reverted during your absence. Andries (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was impressed that you stood up for BLP and removed the links. Good editing.Momento (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo of the house (if it is Rawat's) clearly violates BLP. Firstly it violates the core intention of BLP policy "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"". Secondly it violates this aspect of BLP = "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". Obviously showing a house that can be identified is a pictorial version of an address. But since no one has provided a reliable source that claims the house in the photo is owned by Prem Rawat, I will follow BLP which says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pero, quizás está la casa de los espiritus santos, la casa de la paz interna, la casa de la esperanza del mundo. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by mother

A criticism by Rawat's mother is considered so important that it is quoted in the lede. Aren't we obliged to add her to the list of critics in the criticism section, so that it reads, "Prem Rawat has been criticized by his mother, religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members".Momento (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I was told that doesn't work here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're sarcastic about the edit not the editor, it's OK.Momento (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text (single opinion)

I removed the following from the article (refs nowiki'd):

Based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat, the sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Rawat's message as "banal" in the preface of his book From Slogans to Mantras, and later summarized the criticism of him in the 1970s by the countercultural left.<ref name="Kent2001">[[Stephen A. Kent|Kent, Stephen A.]] ''[[From Slogans to Mantras|From slogans to mantras: social protest and religious conversion in the late Vietnam war era]]'', Syracuse University press, 2001, ISBN 0-8156-2948-6 </ref>

I don't understand the point of this statement in the article. Why should it matter that a single person thought that Rawat's message was commonplace and pedestrian? If Kent later summarized criticism of Rawat by the countercultural left of 70s, why not report on those criticisms? Simply saying that Kent summarized it is saying little more than "criticism exists". Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassyana (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Why should it matter [...]": cheap thrill. Inuendo not argument. You'll have to come up with something better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat's teachings have been criticized for its simplism by Kranenborg. Meditate and everything in the world will be all right. Andries (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced information about claims of simplistic or over-simplistic elements of Rawat's teaching would be fine. The Kent text is just a throwaway opinion based on limited exposure and a statement that there is summarized criticism. Could you provide more information about what Kranenborg said (a quote or two if possible)? Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Throwaway opinion" — again cheap thrill. That's not how we look at things in Wikipedia. Kent's book easily passes criteria used by Wikipedia for sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Vassyana. Kent went to one talk by Rawat and made his judgement. If his opinion is so important why not add some more of his jewels - " Consequently, I could not fathom what so many of my peers found inspiring about this kid, and I was wholly unprepared for what happened after the presentation concluded. Riding home with a friend that evening in the back seat of a car, I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day".Momento (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And? I was looking whether you attempted to come to some sort of conclusion you want to draw from that quote, but could see none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticism by the countercultural left has been at times been extreme and in hindsight sometimes completely without merit. I think that Rawat was labelled a CIA agent (or was it Rennie Davis?). It is important to mention it, because the DLM recruited its members from the youth culture and was a direct competitor in this for the countercultural left. Andries (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there I couldn't have drawn that from what was in the Prem Rawat article. Either the thing is explained, either the "countercultural left" part is left out of the Kent quote, while unclear for the average reader. I'd choose the second option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue I see with Wiki is that much of the opinion and editing is centered on the US. In South America, Rawat's followers were characterized as Communists.Momento (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you recommend some reliable sources that talk about Rawat's movement in South America and other areas of the world? Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an scholastic info. Lots of personal anecdotes from SA premies who were rounded up and harassed. There's a bit in Cagan's book about a premie(s) being jailed and tortured.Momento (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Reender Kranenborg quote. Am I right in thinking that it is something he wrote as a Christian teacher to help Christians proselytise to premies? If so, it is unsuitable for this article.Momento (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with any Kranenborg quote. WP:NOR, you're second-guessing about his intentions. Even if he had these intentions, that wouldn't disqualify him as a source per se. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

@Vassyana: you put the Kent reference back in, but forgot to link to the Wikipedia article we have about that book.

Note that the Kent quote was moved yesterday from the criticism section to the place where you removed it: if I remeber well, Memento moved, saying that was the appropriate place.

@All: No, I don't think we're still going to play the game of removing quotes from the article on "why should it matter [..]", "throwaway opinion", "[I have no argument]", "the author has a different background" etc reasons. That period has afaik finished.

I'm going to put the Kent quote back in, with the book and its author properly linked, but without the for most readers probably rather obscure "countercultural left" part – at least, for that part readers would need to see links that are not given in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We would not permit the use of a newspaper op-ed opinion piece to cite the claims that George Bush's message is "clichéd" or "boring". Prefaces are not part of the general reliable material in a book. Introductions, assuredly, but prefaces are essays that are certainly not academic material. In this case, it's even openly plain opinion based on one experience, instead of a conclusion based on research, and pretty selectively quoted at that. I really don't understand how reinserting the text could be remotely perceived as good practice. Vassyana (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, disagree. Opinion is opinion. This one's from a scholar (a sociologist): whether it comes from the preface or anywhere else in the book is irrelevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a better reference that addresses the issue. So, this should be moot. Vassyana (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text (Randi)

I removed the following text (refs nowiki'd):

Skeptic James Randi described Rawat as the leader of the cult Divine Light Mission, and as an overweight teenage guru, who was addressed as “Lord of the Universe” by his devotees and who was driven in a Rolls-Royce or driving high-powered motorcycles.<ref>James Randi and Arthur C. Clarke 'An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural' New York: St Martin’s Griffin. ISBN 0-312-15119-5</ref>

James Randi is a debunker, not a journalist, sociologist, religious scholar or other such source. His opinions and claims about religious figures, unless related to debunking claims of observable phenomena, simply have no place in such articles. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting claim you've got there. For your statement to be true spiritualism has to not be a religion. Randi has enough profile that his comments are generaly worthy of note.Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If "enough profile" were sufficient, we'd have Oprah quotes populating thousands of topics. What good reasons are there to use Randi as a source? Vassyana (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TV shows are difficult to cite. However it fills the time gap between J. Gordon Melton and David V Barret raher nicely.Geni 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It's like quoting from a book called "Indians who live in the west who I don't like".Momento (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidences?Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that a book published by St. Martin's press and co-authored by Arthur C. Clarke isn't worth citing? Because you label Randi as a "debunker"? Even though he's not expressing an opinion, he's stating what he believes to be facts? If a professional "debunker" can't be trusted to get basic facts right, then presumably nothing that he says should be considered reliable. Is there a particular sentence of a policy or guideline that you're relying on for the basis of this removal?

In the absence of counter-evidence that this statement was clearly erroneous (e.g., a successful lawsuit, an apology, a printed correction), it's certainly (in my opinion) appropriate to leave the quote in - it is absolutely factually correct that Randi said this, and that he is a notable figure, and that this wasn't a casual off-hand remark, it was part of a book that a reputable publisher printed. (Exception to the prior sentence: perhaps Clarke should be added in?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote should be reinserted, AND the name of the book, because of the reasons above and that Randi's view is echoed by many mainstream media publications. --John Brauns (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "it should" but then choose to editwar rather than discuss. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, why do you describe my insertion of a reference from a notable respected figure as 'editwar'? The majority of the views in this discussion are for inclusion. It is for the minority to make a case for exclusion, before the entry is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no concept of "majority" or "minority" in Wikipedia. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Also, it may interest you to read WP:BRD, and adopt that behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• revert [14] Revision as of 12:54, February 10, 2008
• revert [15] Revision as of 16:50, February 10, 2008
• Your initial addition [16] Revision as of 11:48, February 9, 2008

That is what we call in Wikipedia, edit warring ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The text was added, edited a few times, deleted, discussed here, and re-added. That's hardly an editwar. --John Brauns (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR if you have any doubts about what I am saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Methinks WP:EW would be more appropriate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

FYI,

Declaration of intent ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was very pleased to see the number of editors in the COI debate who said the simple "Show me the evidence". It's very easy to say something but an entirely different thing to prove it. From long observation of your involvement here and other articles I have always found your editing honest and proper.Momento (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you've said Jossi is that you intend to change nothing about your behavior on the talk pages where you've for systematically intimidated every editor who isn't a devotee of Maharaji, myself included, and you'll continue game the system to obtain the article you want as Rawat's public relations man. Basically what you've said in your declaration is that everything continues to be status quo as far as you're concerned. By the way, in your response to the Cade article you mentioned that John Brauns, Mike Finch, Nik, myself and others have colluded to disrupt the editing of this article. Nothing could be further from the truth, Jossi and I don't know where you got that notion. Sure, I've discussed you and the article out of sheer frustration on that forum, but colluded? Never. I've never colluded with anyone about this article nor have I or any of those individuals ever harrassed you. You need to retract those remarks. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This look like harassment to me. Jossi cautioned Johns Brauns about disruptive editing and this is how he responded- You are making a serious mistake threatening me like this when I have information about many current followers that I have refrained from making public. --John Brauns (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC) [[17]]. Momento (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento - harassment should be reported at WP:AN/I, not on an article talk page. If you want to post a warning to John Brauns about his behavior, please do so on his user talk page, not here. And if you are saying that Sylviecyn and John Brauns are colluding (hopefully you have better evidence than what you've posted, else this seems an WP:AGF violation to me), again, that's not appropriate for article talk pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize John. I shouldn't have commented but I felt it necessary to correct Sylviecyn's erroneous comment for those unfamiliar with situation.Momento (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in cite

Levine's book, Page 96, mentions only Hare Krishna, Unification Church, And Children of God, in the context of the citation. I can provide a full citation if neede. Please correct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx. Anyway, I threw the list of other movements out (while performing another edit): this article isn't about these other movements. So I referred to them as "other movements". --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First Photo Thread

What was the reason for which the image of Prem's home in Malibu was deleted? I restored it. It is relevant to the section "21 century" as it is an image of the home in which the man resides at this time.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it amounts to an intrusion of privacy amongst other things. But I'm sure you know that.Momento (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way does the image of the house invade privacy?Onefinalstep (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is different. That photo does not pass the test of verifiablity. The site from you which copied it is not a reputable source for Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think you are wrong here. The picture's authenticity is verifiable. I think I will keep it up. Onefinalstep (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it not verifiable. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will verify it before I put it back up. Thanks. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Onefinalstep: The source you have used in your last edit, is not a valid source for Wikipedia, as it is a self-published source. See WP:V#Sources. Please remove it. As for the image, it needs to be verifiable to a reliable source as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An L.A. Times article: "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1, includes a blurry photo of the house taken from a road leading to it. It doesn't look quite like the photo now in this article, but after 22 years it may have been remodeled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Beback ... yeah I thought about using that photo but I reconsidered based on the mood of the editors here. If they can't remove it because its "unverified" they will just say its not a good photo and take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely different house.Momento (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of the presence of the heliport the address (and coordinates) of the property are available on several websites, so verifiability isn't really an issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way. Posting pictures of a house you claim is Rawat's house is an invasion of privacy.Momento (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2008 (UT)

Momento, anyone can look at anyone's house on Google Earth. You're just flailing as usual to HIDE the truth. Your unremitting commitment to HIDING the truth will surely backfire very badly. You horrible, HORRIBLE bunch of liars are all going to hopefully be revealed as the shameless dishonest, immoral brain-washed creeps you clearly are. You and Rawat are actually showing yourselves to be enemies of truth which is the diametric opposite of what you proclaim. I hope Wikipedia bosses have the integrity to see what a corrupting influence you represent and do something about it! You attitude disgusts me as you may have noticed. PatW (talk)

Pat, Jossi interprets your comment above (and other comments on this page) as a personal attack. See [18] Please read WP:NPA if you're not aware. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was just a bit over the top. However, did Rawat sue the LA Times for publishing the picture? (that he would have lost is irrelevant) If not, there's nothing wrong with at least a link to the articles, especially in that it speaks to the criticism of Rawat that he lives a bit high on the hog. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Photo Thread

If Rawat was an architect, a photo of a house might be relevant to this article but he isn't. It is just an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Nor should editors link to any site that misleads the reader by use of unverifiable research. The majority of material in the anti Rawat sites is unverifiable research because "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added or linked to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. And the material on the anti sites has not been published by a reliable source. I'm surprised you didn't know this.Momento (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions peoples criticism or Rawats lifestyle. The image relevant because it highlights the luxurious property he lives in. The issue of privacy is more contentious, but if you can view the scene from public property I think it is acceptable. Maybe it would be helpful to look at Google Earths policy on privacy and private property? I can't really comment on the verifiability of the image.79.68.139.205 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the few new disputes on this article. Most other disputes can be found in the history of the article or the archives of the talk pages. Andries (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many precedents for including a photo of a house in a biography, where:

a) The wealth of the person is relevant to the biographical article

b) the house is obviously opulent, and thus an appropriate illustrative symbol of wealth

c) the photographs are taken from a public view and show the house but not the person referred to or their family

d) the location and residency of the house is well known, publicly available information.

Consider Bill Gates' house, which is referred to from his biography. In my opinion, in both cases there is no privacy issue, due to c) and d) above.

The 'unverifiable research' argument is not applicable to a photograph, as it is factual material and not written research. My understanding is that the two criteria for the legitimacy of an image are copyright legality and verifiability. If a photograph has been verified to be of what is claimed in the caption, then by definition it is reliable information, regardless of source. Any dispute as to the copyright claim or status of an image should be handled as per the standard process, but separately from any question of verifiability of the claim of the image itself. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I said above, the location of the subject's house is easily verifiable due to the heliport. The heliport, and to a lesser extent the home, were discussed in several local newspaper stories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, please also see Image talk:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From BLP = Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Also BLP says = Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. And that would include link, photos, clues etc that would achieve the same. And again BLP says - Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. Momento (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

I don't see anyone proposing to include the street address. The fact that the subject lives in a "walled, palatial estate" called "Anacapa View Estates" has been published in a reliable, even stodgy newspaper, which even published photos of the mansion. The subject has, by his own actions (related to his heliport), brought the estate to public attention. The subject's lifestyle, including his residences, are a matter of notable criticism. Since the information is so widely available it doesns't look like we're divulging private info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The BLP page says all these details are OK as long as they've been published by a reliable secondary source. Have any reputable sources published similar images of this building?79.68.139.205 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this part of BLP sums it up - Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. Has the photo of the house been published in a reliable source and has a reliable source identified it as Rawat's?Momento (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the image to "This might be Prem Rawat's house" pending some confirmation that the house in the photo has been identified by a a reliable source as Rawat's.Momento (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a bad summary. Either the image is of his home, and the summary should reflect that, or it has not been verified as his home, and the image should be removed. How has this been verified as an image of his home?79.68.139.205 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you view this page, [19] then switch to "satellite" view and zoom in, you will find an image of the same house. Press reports in a reliable source have verified that Prem Rawat's home is owned by Seva doing business as "Anacapa View Estates", and that there is a heliport (one of only a few in Malibu). The permit for the heliport has been the subject of government hearings and attendant press coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) here. And this latest edit by Momento (talk · contribs) appears to be a weasel wording attempt to avoid yet another disruptive revert, as opposed to removing the image, again. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, see edit summary in this subsequent edit, by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove it again if someone can't provide a reliable source for the claim that the house in the photo belongs to Rawat.Momento (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You actually cannot. You have heavily violated 3rr here. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Momento is right about the pic of the house. It is probably unverified. I also think that the external links violate BLP. Andries (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain. A statement absent a reason is of no value: you need to explain why it is an issue. Momento's c&p and subsequent interpretation and extrapolation are outside of the codified version of BLP and are merely, at best, his opinion. "Probably unverified" has no meaning either -- it just seems like grasping at straws. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The house was verified through a LA times article. This is not an issue anymore. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an issue. The photograph may not be Prem Rawat's house. I've not seen the LA Times article, but even then, a newspaper article may or may not be accurate. It would depend a great deal on the reputation of the author. The photo should be deleted. It has no relevance to any discussion of what Rawat is on about. Armeisen (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times is not a reputable source?!!! I am at a loss with this article and its editors. The LA Times is one of the most influential news sources in the nation. This is not even debatable. If the LA times is not reputable enough then what is? Are you telling me that you, Armeisen, are going to pull something off Wikipedia when it is verified through the LA Times because you think the newspaper "might not be accurate?" If I follow your editing, I should be able to pull everything off this article that is cited simply because I think the source "might not be accurate". Regarding the author of the story ... if there is some reason to believe (e.g. because of an retraction, or correction by the newspaper) that the story was not accurate, you need to show the evidence. If something is substantiated by the LA Times, I would argue that the burden is on you to prove that the paper was wrong. The benefit of the doubt goes to the national daily, not you. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One final step, you have reverted the article even though your reversion flies in the face of Wikipedia policy on BLP. I will revert it, as it is direct violation of that policy, as outlined above. Armeisen (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. I have continued to place three things in this article that deserve to be there. All of these things have been continually deleted with no comment by the deleter. I suggest that we get someone in here to mediate this situation. To continue to fight over this is exhausting.Onefinalstep (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Photo Thread

No one has provided a reliable source that claims that the house in the photo is owned by Rawat. BLP says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". And " The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". So I'm going to remove it again and keep removing it until someone provides a reliable source that says that the house in the photo is owned by Rawat and I will apply to have any person who puts it back blocked. Momento (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento - the photo is being discussed for deletion (per the link in its caption). That discussion is where you should make the argument that this is a violation of WP:BLP. Or at the BLP noticeboard. This is the wrong place. And since the weight of opinion in the deletion discussion seems to be running (at the moment) in favor of keeping the image, I suggest that you work on building consensus in the deletion discussion based on your argument.

Also, in the future, if you want to provide further explanation for your edits on this talk page, please mention that you've done so in your edit summary. That way, other editors (like me) will be fully aware of your arguments. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a discussion about Fair use. And you should know that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space"Momento (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, a notice at WP:BLP/N may be not a bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.Momento (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore comments such as those below, that seem to be designed to bait you in reacting, Momento. Stay cool, OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the photo from the article and commented at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Prem_Rawat. As Momento pointed out above, per WP:BLP questionable content is removed immediately, it may be replaced if and when the it meets the concerns of WP:BLP no where in WP:BLP does it say that the content must be contested at the notice board or some decision made before it is removed RE:this edit. Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Can we try to keep discussions of topics under their appropriate section? There are currently three threads running on the photo of the house, two on the kissing of the feet, and a couple on the external links. Also, if anyone is unaware the photo is getting alot of attention here and I think it's probably the best place to talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I don't personally believe the image meets NFCC per NFCC the only way the image can be included is if the house is discussed extensively in the article. A simple comment on him owning extensive property is not sufficient. Is there really justification for including extensive criticism of this specific property based on the sources and without violating undue? From what I can tell there isn't. He has been criticised due to the fact he owns a lot of expensive stuff including this house however this house is by no means the only nor necessarily the most significant of his properties considering he owns a lot of stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "From what you can tell" is the operative sentence here. The criticism on his lifestyle is being cut out day after day. I agree, the house looks strange when its just sitting on the criticism page with no criticism of his opulent lifestyle. But you have to view the fight over the photo in context of what is happening with the other battles over content. He does own other expensive stuff, but the mansion is the best symbol of how he lives. I would suggest putting a picture of his yacht in the criticism section, but I would like either or. I don't think we need to show every helicopter, boat, jet, mansion (on whatever continent) he has. Also, I think the same fight would erupt if we substituted the picture of the mansion with some other symbol of wealth. But the picture works well. We have had comments by people claiming that it spoke a thousand words to them just to see how this religious leader lives. Onefinalstep (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• But that's exactly the point. I have no idea what's going on here and really I can't be bothered getting into this rather nasty image thing. But as the image is a NFCC image the only way you can include it is if there is justification because of resonably extensive commentry on the specific thing depicted in the article. Because this guy is so outrageously rich and owns an outrageously amount of expensive stuff there is absolutely no justification for including an NFCC image of his house. You could just as well include an image of his yatch, helicopter, jet whatever else he owns. Or just don't include any images and mention he owns an outrageous amount of stuff. It doesn't matter whether in your opinion this best depitcs his wealth since this is NOT an argument about whether or not we should depict his house but an argument about whether or not an NFCC image of his house is justified. NFCC requires an image be irreplacable and an image is not irreplacable when you can depict what it depicts with another image even if that image isn't quite as good as the image you are replacing. And in any case, you should include the NFCC house AFTER you have fixed up whatever other issues exist which mean you are hardly discussing the house at all. NFCC requires there be justification for including the picture of the house at this very moment not 3 months in the future when we've resolved what POV issues are currently unresolved. To put it another way... If and when we got a free image of his house then sure we can have a debate on simple principles about whether to include a picture of his house (well I probably won't be taking part since my primary concern here is NFCC but anyway...). But that isn't the case at the moment, this is a NFCC image and it needs to meet NFCC or be removed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg.

Until that discussion is at its end the IfD tag included in the image can't be removed (I'm sure there's a rule somewhere one shouldn't remove a delete tag during a delete discussion, while that is considered disruptive)

When some uninvolved admin closes the IfD discussion (I don't know when, and don't want to speculate), there's two possibilities: either the image is deleted, either it is kept. In the first case further discussion would be held at DRV (if any); In the second case, a discussion whether or not the image is suitable for the article can be held here or in some appropriate place.

Anyway, removing the image during discussion at IfD is not an option, for two reasons:

• It would remove the IfD tag, with the link to the IfD discussion too, which is, as said above, disruptive.
• As the image is "fair use" as long as it isn't deleted, it needs to be in an article per "fair use" rules. Now some of you smartasses might think it would be OK to remove the image from the article, and then have it speedied per CSD-I-don't-know-what-number. That would be disruptive too. Note that the speedy procedure was tried before IfD: as there was no consensus for CSD applicability, that is the reason that the only possible way for the deletion of this image is via reasonable discussion at IfD.

The least that would happen in the case of continued removals of the image from the Prem Rawat article is that I'd ask the IfD people to keep the discussion of this image at the IfD page open for a longer period, equal to the period it wasn't visible, or properly tagged here at the Prem Rawat article. I'd prefer not to go looking for the appropriate "disruption" tag for posting on whatever user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would agree with Francis, it's best to leave the image in for now. While I do think there are potentially BLP issues here, IMHO they aren't serious enough that people should remove the image from the article for now. I highly doubt the image will be deemed to meet NFCC anyway and would strongly suggest that editors let the IFD play out instead of worrying too much about BLP issues at this time Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy takes precedence over a debate about Fair Use which this photo fails. If we followed the above argument I could take a nude shot from a celebrities house and put it on their article and claim it must stay there why we debate Fair Use or other policy. No reliable party has confirmed the house in the photo is owned by Rawat so BLP is clear - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through some guidance, what I found thus far:

• Nor BLP (in general) nor "libelous material" are CSD criteria;
• BLP (in general) is not a 3RR exception;
• "Libelous material" is a 3RR exception;
• "Libelous material" hasn't been brought to the discussion of this photograph while it apparently doesn't apply.

Whether this is a BLP issue, is not proven yet. The IfD discussion is not limited to "fair use" discussion, you can bring any argument to that discussion you want, which I think you even did. The closing admin wil make his/her decision, and we take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, there are indeed reliable sources that say that the house is owned by a company for the use of Prem Rawat. If there is a problem with the sourcing then let's discuss it here rather than edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If Rawat isn't shown as the owner, you can't use it. It's that simple.Momento (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that's the case. It's "his" house, identifed by reliable sources. The name on the deed is a secondary matter. Nowadys, most sensible people keep their major assets in a living trust that technically own the properties. But no one would seriously propose that the assets don't belong to them. OTOH if you can get a consensus of editor to agree that it isn't his house, despite the reliable sources to the contrary, then it would be a different matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a citation saying it's "his" house"

• The one-time "perfect master" of the Divine Light Mission has been denied permission from the county's Regional Planning Commission to triple the number of helicopter landings annually at his Malibu mountain-ridge estate...Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway...He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spent time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said.
  • "Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use;" JUDY PASTERNAK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jul 7, 1985. pg. 1
• The argument centers on how many times each year the one-time guru can descend from the skies in a helicopter to a landing pad at his Malibu mountain-ridge estate, 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. Maharaji is seeking county permission to increase the number of landings to 36 each year, triple the number he is currently allowed. Until last spring, Maharaji was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, said Linda Gross, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents him. He and his family stayed there a few times a year, but they also spent time in Miami and abroad.
  • "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights; JUDY PASTERNAK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 11, 1985. pg. 1

There are two reliable sources that say the house is "his", that the house is called "Anacapa View Estates", and that it has a heliport. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission to assume Momento is a Hostile Editor

I'm reading and that's the impression I get. I see incivility and hostility. Some of you editors should take this up and not allow yourselves to be trampled. --Pax Arcane 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request declined. Maybe everyone is best to manage his or her own civility level. If that's not enough, follow steps recommended wikipedia:dispute resolution, which afaik does not include a recommended remedy in the line of: "start the dispute resolution by calling each other incivil; if that doesn't help, continue by calling each other hostile, etc..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone need pic of Rawat smiling while having his feet kissed?

Is it possible for inclusion? --Pax Arcane 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have one? 216.165.4.30 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can quickly provide a link. --Pax Arcane 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The "overweight teenaged guru" happily getting his feet kissed. http://www.sott.net/signs/images/darshan.jpg --Pax Arcane 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Now that we've cleared up the issue of the photo and the links, it's time to clear up the criticism section. BLP policy is clear = "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one". It is obviously disproportionate to give each critic a paragraph since nowhere else in this article is any other source quoted at length. So I will summarize the criticism.Momento (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've treated this section like the rest. That is summarizing the scholars rather than quoting at length.Momento (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been away on business for a few days and missed the excitement. I must say, even with Momento's necessary criticism summary, to me the article now reads like a great barrel of steaming horse manure. It will take much to get it back. I believe the simple "what, when, where, who, how" approach of a week ago was much more likely to be stable than the present version, which gives undue prominence to criticism. For balance, it will now need a "praise" section. This was what we had before and were trying to avoid, an endless inflation of the article by editors inserting their pros and cons. But I think it is now unavoidable. And do you have any idea how much praise this man has received? Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And do you have any idea how much praise this man has received? Do you have any idea how much no one really cares, save for paid Wikipedia editors? Laughs. Why should praise have anything to do with how we edit? --Pax Arcane 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if Momento and Rumiton restricted their comments and edits to fixing errors. But when they argue about balance and NPOV and how the article should read, overall (as does Jossi), then I (personally) have grave doubts that they are placing the interests of Wikipedia first and their own personal beliefs second. Yes, that could be seen as a failure on my part to assume good faith, but the fact that I found this article to be - in its pre-Register version - an embarrassment to Wikipedia, an opinion I think is shared by many other editors previously never involved with this - indicates, I think, that the intentions of Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton are clear regarding this article.

As a single point of illustration: It's not "Newspapers have remarked on the amount of positive comments about Prem Rawat's accomplishments", but rather "Do you have any idea how much praise this man has received?" Momento should know that a million praises by followers of Prem Rawat should be given less weight than a single sentence by an expert, in a published book by a reputable publisher, about this topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John, I appreciate your comments, but I think Momento was referring to academy, business, and government leader's praise, not followers. That material was removed in previous edits, including a speech by Vice-president of India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't Momento, it was me, Rumiton, back from my break. And yes, I was saying that if large amounts of criticism are quoted directly in the article, then balancing amounts of praise (not from "followers", from impeccable sources) will need to be included too, for neutrality. It is readily available. Several times I have fended off current devotees who wanted to throw in gushing praise for just this reason, it only incites the other POV. The article becomes huge and the discussions bellicose, and it's a nightmare to make readable and useful. So it's better just to say what the subject has done in his life and quote from 2ndary sources who say that both positive and negative responses have been recorded. This is a neutral, Wikipedic attitude, not biased thinking. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask you, John, where do you see me discussing balance and NPOV, and why would that not be appropriate for any editor to discuss that in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your second question, the more an editor has a strong personal interest in a subject, the more difficult it is for that editor to remain neutral about it. That's one reason why we have WP:COI. It's much easier to be neutral/objective about factual statements than it is above things like balance and whether specific wording is NPOV or not. As for the first question, I note the following (and I've only gone back to the most recent talk archive):

From Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 27:

• The personal section should remain as is, as it relates to current events and not those that happen 30 odd years ago

• There is no need to highlight a non-existing dispute, as it would violate V, NOR and NPOV.

• when you come to this project it is expected that you check your negative viewpoints at the login screen

From User talk:Jossi#Prem:

• You cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand thousands of edits to a version you created more than 14 months ago.

From this page (above):

• Let us start with the last version by David D. as a compromise version. We can move forward in addressing specific concerns. It is a starting point.

• There is a proposal on the table by David to start improving the article from a compromise version.

• My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.

• Why Francis? Don't you think that it would be best to move forward from a version that has support. Is edit-warring the way to go?

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember my comments, John. But my point is that all editors, pro, con, or neutral should be welcomed to discuss NPOV, which is our long-standing and non-negotiable principle. I would hope you would agree with me on that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that all editors should be welcomed to participate vigorously in discussing balance and other NPOV issues for articles in which they have a significant personal interest. I think it's appropriate for such editors to restrain themselves to factual and objective issues, rather than issues that are subjective (what is "neutral"; what is "appropriate balance"). I'm fully aware that this is not current policy, so it - of course - represents my personal opinion. All I can do at this point is strongly suggest to other editors that they should evaluate the comments by you, Momento, and Rumiton as coming from less-than-fully-neutral editors. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You personal opinion not-withstanding, I would argue that it is in contradiction with established principles, of WP:AGF, and WP:CONSENSUS. Neither pro, or con editors should be subjected to the dismissal of their arguments as you suggest unless remedies have been decided by community consensus, or by the ArbCom. I would further argue that it is in talk pages that editors, regardless of affiliation or POV, discuss the details and nuances of NPOV, V, BLP and other related policies and guidelines in the pursuit to creating a good article. See an example of that in many articles in which there are strong POVs at play, such as Homeopathy, Israeli-Palestinian_conflict and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your example of Homeopathy is an excellent one - that's a case where the interaction of editors with strong POVs lead to an Arbitration Committee ruling that put the article and related ones on article probation. I suspect that the "many others" you refer to include a number of other cases where (eventually) Arbcomm had to become involved in order for anything constructive to happen with the related articles. If that's your idea of how Wikipedia should effectively function, we do indeed have very different opinions. As of WP:AGF, that isn't an absolute - for example, with WP:COI, the community has decided not to assume good faith with editors who have clear conflicts of interest, but rather to strongly suggest that they refrain from certain edits. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Praise section PLUS criticism section

I am fine with a Praise section as long as the criticism section gets the same respect.Onefinalstep (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with statements like this: if large amounts of criticism are quoted directly in the article, then balancing amounts of praise (not from "followers", from impeccable sources) will need to be included too, for neutrality - as if WP:NPOV required some sort of equality of criticism and praise. That's why the fundamental issue here still remains that three long-involved editors with strong points of view (in favor of a "positive" article) are acting as if they can somehow be neutral in the same way that editors without such a bias - yes, bias - are relatively easily able to be.

Anyway, we might as well try a "Praise" section if that's what it takes to stop the objections to a "Criticism" section, although it would be better if neither existed because the information had been integrated into the article. But let's drop the "balancing" theory, since that isn't what WP:NPOV is about - it's about appropriate balance. Someone who has done much more good than bad should have an article reflecting that; someone in the opposite situation should have an article reflecting that mix; and editors who have strong biases are singularly ill-equipped to decide what that balance should be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why a criticism section at all? Doesn't Jimbo prefer the criticism woven into the article since these sections become "vandal magnets"? FWIW - I'm totally uninvolved and don't have time to edit any article right now nor do I intend to edit this article but came here because of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. --PTR (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See notes 5 and 6 of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is no question that if criticism can be integrated into an article, it serves the reader better (all related information is in the same paragraph or section). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. The Article Structure section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view seems to argue against it though and points to the manual of style which exposits further. --PTR (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct PTR, a "criticism" section violates NPOV policy. NPPOV policy warns about ""Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself". Any criticism should be woven into the article.Momento (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I think you are misreading WP:NPOV. It does not require that criticism/praise be integrated into the article; it merely suggests that doing so is desirable when possible. It further notes that there are differing opinions. I'd say that the right answer is for editors to decide what's best for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph at issue

Alright, here is a paragraph that is being deleted over and over. Lets try and work this one out here on the discussion. Momento, please detail your problems with this entry and be specific.

• Some scholars have criticized Rawat for living a luxurious lifestyle and, while a teenager, being immature. Reender writes, that in the Divine Light Mission, members were expected to turn over all material possessions to the mission and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex.The scholar J. Gordon Melton, a research specialist in religion and New Religious Movements, reported that "Maharaj Ji frequently acted like the teenager when he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader." Onefinalstep (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How does this sentence "Maharaj Ji frequently acted like the teenager when he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader.", gets summarized as "Some scholars have criticized Rawat for living a luxurious lifestyle and being immature"? Clearly the immature thing was related of him being 16 years olf at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, the sentences that get placed on here for discussion soon lose their context and relevance due to the hyper editing. Two of the sentences I put up here, this, and the Hunt critique have lost any place they had in the article while they were sitting around here waiting for the people who deleted them to help rewrite them. Also, the statement, "while a teenager, immature." seems idiotic, I agree, but I think that statement has been boiled down to its nubb at the moment because a further expansion and comprehensive critique of Rawat's personality (which critics have attacked) is impossible on this article. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Jossi. As for Reender, he is commenting on Divine Light Mission not Rawat. But he's wrong even then because the only people who were "expected to turn over all material possessions to the mission and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex" were the small minority of people who asked to live in the Ashrams. I should say at this point I have read everything there is to read about Rawat and in the hundreds of hours researching this article I have found impeccable sources to back every edit I made. Many of the flurry of edits being made recently suffer from a superficial understanding of everything that has gone before.Momento (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi -it would help a great deal if you would (a) not just criticize one sentence in a suggested paragraph but rather (b) respond to the entire proposed paragraph by (c) suggesting alternative wording. Your limited response does not significantly help arrive at consensus; rather, it simply delays the issue. Please propose an alternative. (And since the sentence you criticize has two sources, not one, please make sure that you draw from both in terms of suggested rewording.) Consensus requires both sides to make suggestions, not for one side to propose and the other side to do partial critiques.

Similarly, Momento, instead of patting yourself on the back (I have found impeccable sources to back every edit I made), you might actually want to respond to Onefinalstep's proposal with alternative wording. And if that's going to take a day or so, just say so, rather than leaving the impression that you've responded when in fact you have not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While we wait for the "Criticism" section to be moved, I have added an "Honors" section for balance.Momento (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to base one

Per the above #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, but I'll give it more respect to the non-footnoted sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Donations Make Him Rich

That the donations of followers made him rich is an undisputed fact.

Price, Maeve, The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. (note 1) Sociological Review, 27(1979)

"Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. Note 27: Contributions from premies throughout the world allow Maharaj Ji to follow the life style of an American millionaire. He has a house (in his wife's name), an Aston Martin, a boat, a helicopter, the use of fine houses (divine residences) in most European countries as well as South America, Australia and New Zealand, and an income which allows him to run a household and support his wife and children, his brother, Raja Ji, and his wife, Claudia. In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals."

Andries (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is from 1979. Many things have changed since the 70's, as you already know. Prem Rawat does not charge for his appearances, the use of his speeches in materials such as DVDs, TV programs, CDs, etc.

Does Maharaji benefit from the activities of any of the organizations promoting his message? No. Most of the organizations promoting his message are non-profit and by law cannot provide a financial benefit to Maharaji or any other individual. The financial records of these organizations are impeccable in this regard, and absolutely no money flows from these organizations to him or his family. He receives no benefit from the activities of the not-for-profit organizations supporting his work and no income from attendance at his addresses nor from the sale of materials.He supports himself and his family through private means.

The dissemination of his message of peace is made available in more than 90 countries and 70 languages. TPRF’s humanitarian activities are entirely supported by voluntary contributions and the sale of related materials. As a private investor, he supports himself and his family through independent means.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Having said that, I would argue that there is merit in adding a sentence in the appropriate point in the chronology, that presents Maeve's point about the the financial independence of young Rawat, and the role that followers played in affording him that independence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, though, you only need to be made rich once, don't you? If somebody gave me, say, a billion dollars, and then I renounced acceptance of donations and supported myself via "private means" (i.e. investment income), that doesn't make it inaccurate to say that I got rich from others' donations. I don't know the particulars of Rawat's financial situation, but I don't necessarily see that what Jossi says refutes the 1979 quote. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawat has never renounced acceptance of donations. --John Brauns (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. See my comment above, which I had an edit conflict. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Rawat was 16-years old at that time. Maeve's full quote: ''Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India. Another factor may well have been the financial independence of Maharaj Ji, which he enjoys through the generosity of his devotees. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is already covered in the "Coming of Age" section - "Rawat, now legally an adult and financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, took control of the Western DLM". Like getting rich, it only has to be said once. I think we need more emphasis that unlike Maharishi and TM and many other NRM/philosophies that require tithing and paid courses, Rawat has never charged people to receive the techniques of Knowledge.Momento (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

External links disputes

Links like these:

• Ex-Premie.org Website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat
• Prem Rawat Critique Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations

Keep getting added and deleted. Could editors please use this talk page to discuss which external links should be added or deleted rather than simply edit warring over them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have written many times on these pages and as I wrote in the edit summary, those links are in direct violation of BLP policy. Please make yourself familiar with BLP policy. It says - "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Further "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy".

I have pointed out this policy many times.Momento (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this getting anywhere between Momento and I. I think this needs to be fleshed out in exactly the same way the photo has; namely, by allowing a large number of people to comment on their worth for inclusion. I don't feel like laying out my same tired argument again in yet another external links thread. Jossi, since you know what the hell goes on with these types of disputes, would you mind making a suggestion (unrelated to whether the links should be kept) on how to resolve this? Onefinalstep (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording of WP:BLP is quite unambiguous, and editors have already discussed this (see Thatcher's comment above: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Discussion.) If there are still disputes, you may need to pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, these links are not reliable sources (per WP:RS). However information within them that are sourced from RS', will be suitable -- If it comes from RS'. Just like in any BLP. --Shot info (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Onefinalstep: please note that you are in violation of WP:3RR, that states that: The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.

1. 05:57, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 23:30, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 16:31, 11 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 00:14, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

You may want to consider self-reverting to avoid getting dinged, and pursue dispute resolution instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the guy who keeps deleting them with no discussion? I mean, both Momento and I are at odds and are the only ones continually deleting/adding them ... I'll accept some sort of non biased intermediary, but until something is suggested why should I be the one to back down? Onefinalstep (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR is strange as you are using it anyway. It always is in favor of the first reverter. If I put something up, and momento deletes it, I will naturally reach my three reverts before he does. This is an arbitrary way of deciding if the links should stay up or not while the debate goes on.

Certain people keep saying that the links are to sites that are spam sites, blatant copyright infringements, or "questionable sources". I think we need to have a discussion on what exactly "questionable sources" means for ELs. The sites I want on the links section are not "questionable sources." They would be questionable sources if they held themselves out as something they are not. But the sites are very clear in what they are. If the links were to a page that purported to be an official page of Prem Rawat, and it was dubious that it in fact was an "official" page, then yes I would say this is a "questionable source." But these pretty well organized and run websites which don't seem unreliable. I might not use them as source material in an article, but only because they are secondary sources. But they do have their own documentation on their sites. The sites are on the same level of dubiousness as Wikipedia. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A) External links are not the same as reliable sources. B) WP:BLP says that external links in biographies must comply with WP:EL. WP:EL says that we may not link to copyright violations or to spam sites. It makes further suggestions on which sites should not be linked, but it does not ban linking to them. If a compelling case can be made for linking to the sites then BLP does not prohibit them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, BLP also says: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the wikilink in that text, for more info about what questionable sources are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2, chill out Jossi) Ah yes, apologies, I thought the links were being used as references, rather than just as a true "EL", however (as Jossi points out) BLP applies in BLP. Moral is, need a better link :-) --Shot info (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence from WP:BLP isn't clear. We're not using these links as a source, so they aren't "questionable sources". We aren't adding any information from them to the article, so I'm not sure that the sentence from BLP applies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me, Will. The wording speaks to the core of this debate. Maybe you want to take this to WT:BLP if not clear? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Back onto the merits of the particular ELs, given the general low quality of the existing ELs (which seem to just link to equally dubious quality ELs), I am of the opinion that a review of all the ELs is required. Because if some of the existing ELs stay, then those proposed have some validity - using "dubious" as a quality measure. Shot info (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This element of the WP:BLP appears to have been under frequent, and even recent, debate.[20] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, could proponents of the links stop re-adding them until there's a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the issue to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#External links on Prem Rawat. Hopefully, outside comment will help resolve the issue. Vassyana (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the current links, as of this moment:

• 'Maharaji', Prem Rawat's personal website. Available in 16 languages.
• The Prem Rawat Foundation
• The Keys website - Keys for preparing to receive the techniques of Knowledge
• Words of Peace - His Words of Peace broadcasts, DVDs, and live events
• Broadcasts, online radio, audio-visual materials about Maharaji and his message, Europe - Available in 11 languages
• Raj Vidya Kender, India
• Portal for contact information Information about volunteer groups world-wide, news, etc.
• Excerpts from recent addresses
• Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is destructive
• Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources

Of these, only the first appears to be the subject's official site. Some of the others are covered in articles on those specific topics (TPRF and Techniques of Knowledge). Others appear to be anonymous fan sites and blogs. In order to minimze the edit warring over external links, I propose that we delete all but the first one. Are there any reasons why we have to keep the rest of them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already proposed pairing down the EL section, but note that none of the sites are fansites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If they're not Prem Rawat's official sites then what are they? Who owns and runs the websites? If they belong to Elan Vital then they should be in the Elan Vital article (and maybe there already). I assumed that they are run by followers/students/practitioners, but if they are also owned by Rawat then we should say so. If they're not we should remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, thanks for starting yet a third (or fourth?) concurrent talk page section about the same links.

As far as I'm concerned the following should be kept:

• Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is destructive
  • Ex-Premie.org Website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat
• Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources
  • Prem Rawat Critique Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations

...for reasons I gave above: #External links section... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And as far as I am concerned these should not be kept: Wikipedia:BLP#External_links and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is bad English. Sorry. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ..." I understand. That means, don't put that material in the article. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ... as an external link" is some sort of gibberish. An external link does not imply one uses the material. No material that is solely available via ex-premie.org or prem-rawat-critique.org is used. If the quoted sentence of that policy page isn't clear we're not required to second-guess about its "true" meaning, that would be OR.

Linking to many websites implies linking to a website that may have a blog, or a forum where people that are not "experts" in the discussed domain may take part. None of these links are RSs. Scott Adams' Blog (where anyone can post a reply, and which can contain some inane critique of Scott Adams) is linked from the external links section of the Scott Adams article. There is no BLP issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence reads quite clearly to me, Francis. I guess that we will have to agree to disagree, and request additional feedback from other editors. There is a thread at WP:BLP/N about this already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author, and that is why is permissible per WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author": no, more than 90% of that website are clueless rants, not by Scott Adams (and even less by Dilbert) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "pro" sites have the appearance of blogs or self-published sites. In particular, http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ is formatted like a blog and has no ownership or authorship information that I can find. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That site, has a copyright message at the bottom right (© The Prem Rawat Foundation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show up on my screen, but I'll take your word for it. Since we have an article about the Foundation, that link should be in that article. Prem Rawat doesn't own or even sit on the board of the Foundation so it appears to be an entirely independent entity. Who do the other websited belong to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is there ... just scroll all the way to the bottom, on the right sidebar. The Prem Rawat Foundation carries his name, and perform activities related to Prem Rawat under his auspices. Their 2006 audited annual report says Activities performed by the Foundation which promote and disseminate the speeches, writings, music, and art of Prem Rawat and support public forums and humanitarian initiatives. [21], so that may be grounds for inclusion. The other sites have information about their owners, you can check these if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what formal relationship exists between Rawat and the Foundation, if any. "Auspices" just means "kindly endorsement". Since we have an article on the TPRF why do we need to duplicate them here? Regarding the other sites, what do they add to this article and are they all of "high quality"? Gettig back to my proposal, I think we'd have more peace if we restricted the links to just the one official site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have commented on this issue just enough to make my point. I will leave this to others to comment as well. External links should be made available in accordance to Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you object ot removing all the sites except for the one official site of Prem Rawat? Does anyone else want to defend individual sites? If not then, for the future stability of this article, I think it'd be best to delete them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You could try it, Will, and see if it sticks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to get an explicit consensus first, but since you don't object and no one else does either I could take that as an implicit consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with http://contactinfo.net? This article isn't about the Elan Vital movement, so contacts among EV members appear off topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that site belongs to the "Elan Vital movement", but I agree that it is not needed here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the link to his personal site only, removing all others. This article is about Prem Rawat and is well-referenced. With an article of this quality, the external links section should include his official site, links to articles that could be used in the future as sources (ie they meet WP:RS, are on-topic, and provide unique information not already covered), and links to other media that meet the very highest quality criteria (links to video, audio, etc that record notable events, etc). --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, and some support, for deleting the additinal links I've gone ahead and done so. I hope that editors on all sides of this issue will find this to be an acceptable compromise and not edit war any more over them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Honors section

Needs to be summarized, as it stands it is way to long amd contains editorializing that is not needed. The mention of the Vice-president of India, would be a good addition, as India is the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the best way to incorporate all the comments contained in Wiki quote.Momento (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These need citations. The Prem Rawat page is nice but not unbiased or verifiable. Nice try, though. Anyone who wishes, yank it.--Pax Arcane 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUB. In any case, it needs to be summarized further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB prohibits the use of self-published sources for material that is, aomong other things, contentious or unduly self-serving. If these honros are notable they may have been reported in 3rd-party sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keys to the city are unduly self-serving or contentious? I will look for sources, these must be recorded in the public record. Same about other commendations. Will also look for sources for other items. Could you also check on the online archives you have access to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, asserting that one has received honors or awards is self serving. If someone on claims on their website to have received the Nobel Peace Prize we would look for an independent source. It's a difference of degree, not of kind. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is "unduly self-serving". Admitting any skill or accomplishment, award or recognition may be "self-serving" but not unduly otherwise no one could talk about themselves.Momento (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If claiming to have received numerous awards isn't "unduly self-serving" then please explain what you think meets that defintion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what unduly means. It means - unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate. For example, creating an award for yourself to win can be "unduly self-serving" but these are awards given by others.Momento (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of a fact that might be claimed by a source that would meet the threshold of "unduly self-serving"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this discussion is productive. If the issue is one of sourcing, we can look for secondary sources. Let's focus on that shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi asked earlier about what I could find in newspaper archives. There are lots of press releases, but very little else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a third party source (see below), and will continue looking for others. Keys to cities are issued by City Mayors, and is in the public record, so it should be easy to locate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this correctly, we may have to remove the line that reads "Award for Best Television Program 2004 and 2006: Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace." As far as I can tell, all sources of this point back to PR's websites (tprf.org and wordsofpeace.com), and the link in his article which should point to the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels does not work. A quick Google search does not bring up a website for them,or even a reference to them (defunct?), and the PRNewswire/USNewswire story that repeats this story circularly references the source for it as "The Prem Rawat Foundation". This would seem to violate at the very least, the third, and also the last points at WP:SELFPUB would it not? However, if I'm missing something, lets chat about it here before I go ahead and remove that line, and get all the excitable types around here in an uproar. Any objections? Going once... Maelefique (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that if these are not to third party sources, perhaps shouldn't be used. However rather than blowing them away, leave it for a couple of hours for consensus. Shot info (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Give em till tomorrow (I'm speaking at GMT -5, so about 7 hours), I'm sure they'll find it, but if not, I agree that we need to take it down unless verified by some other source. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a third-paty source: "INSIEME - a revista italiana daqui". Retrieved 2008-02-12. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

jossi, I carefully read that article, (from September 2007, not 2004, or 2006) and see no reference to either the award donator, or the fact that PR received the award, did you reference the wrong page? Also, attempting to adhere to WP:RSUE would indicate that we should strive for an english translation published elsewhere and 2) I don't see where you have a "clear citation, including a direct quotation of the relevant portion of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said". Accordingly, I am going to remove that line until such references are found and we can add it back.Maelefique (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis already deleted it, on his last revert. As for the source, it is a good source, regardless of language. WP:RSUE speaks of a preference for English-language sources. The text (portuguese) reads: Prêmios Internacional e Brasileiro - No Brasil, o programa “Palavras de Paz”, com Prew Rawat já ganhou dois prêmios da Associação dos Canais Comunitários (ABCCOM) , em três anos . Na entrega do prêmio, o presidente daquela Associação, Fernando Mauro Trezza,. You can ask a Portuguese-speaking Wikipedian to confirm the translation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the point is moot, but it certainly would have saved much time if you'd included that single sentence out of the article the first time, independent translation is not necessary for me, thanks for the offer though. However, the sentence just makes reference to some award, it does not say what award it is, it definitely does not say it's an award for best show of the year. Further, it mentions some other award offered by some other entity which sounds more like the award that has been referred to all this time. It would seem if anything that this reference muddies the waters even further (if possible). "E mais: o programa “Palavra de Paz” acaba de ser reconhecido como o melhor programa de entrevistas/palestras em outra TV comunitária, a CTV (Community Acess Magic) do estado de Maryland, condado de Prince George, próximo à capital norte-americana. O prêmio foi concedido a Jimi Jones, morador de Prince George’s County, que no ano passado trabalhou como voluntário na produção local do programa." (I can provide a translation for you if required). Anyway, I won't spend any more time on this as it's no longer relevent to the article... at least until someone reverts, again, and then I'll step in. Maelefique (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that these two sections "Honors" and "Praise" need to be summarized and collapsed into one. Also, I do not believe that is best for NPOV to have separate sections on "Honors" and on "Criticism". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to remind people about a discussion that might have got lost in the noise, see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Semi-arbitrary_break above.

You will also notice the absence of praise. WQe will need to include an honors section like here [[22]]. And there's ample material here [[23]] to include.Momento (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, The Dalai Lama, section is "Awards and honors" not praise. Are they really equivalent? I looked at the Wikiquote about Prem_Rawat section but I only noticed one keys to the city award, most seem to be spoken praise. I see no reason to have some praise but awards are more concrete. Praise is often given out disingenuously, awards probably less so. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I found these here [[24]] .Resolutions, proclamations ...(cut list for clarity)........Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace.Momento (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how notable resolutions and proclamations are, but a key to a city is probably worth noting. An award for a TV program? Letters of appreciation? Feel free to add them but i think they will look like a parody of a normal award and honors section from a wikipedia article. What about honorary degree's from presitigious universities? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm not really thinking these honors should be included. I just want to illustrate the point that there are two sides to every story. People seemed to be outraged that followers of Rawat might edit this article. The fact that people who hate Rawat might edit is fine. I believe the best article sticks to facts provided by unbiased and independent experts.Momento (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would reiterate, are we really going to document every minor award? Parody still comes to mind when compared with similar sections in other articles, this alone should be good reason not to have such a stand alone section. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, David. We should not. Just a summary would suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But before we discuss that, I think we need to address this: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Can_we_discuss_rather_than_revert.3F ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Words of Peace (WOP) has received the "Honoris Causa" Award from the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels for its "important contribution to imparting a culture of peace." It is the third award this international series, featuring Prem Rawat's message of peace, has received in Brazil. The program reaches 10 million viewers.

Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Momento (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How many of these awards are handed out a year? (There's a thin line between self-serving and non-notable...) Relata refero (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of “Peace Is Possible”

not to be confused with [[25]]

The “biography” by Andrea Cagan is used a for ten references in the current article, 10.5% of the numbered footnotes.

The status of Cagan’s work is brought into question here : http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/prem_rawat_followers_exposed.htm

From which:

"the book is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography procured by Rawat’s followers. The publisher of Peace is Possible is given as Mighty River Press which lists its address as P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 US, its CEO’s name is given as J. Levin. No business with the name Mighty River Press is on record with the Pennsylvania State Corporations Register,[12] [26]however P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 is given as the address of James Levin, President of a business called Neighborhood Restorations, vice President is given as Scott Mayo. The name Neighborhood Restorations appears as part of the title of a range of businesses of which the officers are James Levin and Scott Mazo.[13] [27]

An SEC filing says of Levin and Mazo:

The General Partner of the Operating Partnership is WPB L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership (the "General Partner") whose general partner is WPB II, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("WPB II") which also serves as the Developer of the Apartment Complex. WPB II is equally-owned by James Levin and Scott Mazo. Mr. Levin, a Certified Public Accountant, has been involved with the development and syndication of tax credit projects since 1990. Mr. Mazo has been involved in the development of the tax credit projects since 1990 and commercial rental properties since the mid 1980's. Since forming a partnership in 1992, Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo have developed over 350 units of affordable housing. Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo are also the sole owners of Prime Property Management, Inc., a property management company which is serving as the Management Agent for the Apartment Complex. [14] [28] The name Scott Mazo appears on a FEC filing which lists Mazo as being Employed by Neighborhood Resorations, and which gives his home address as Gulph Mills.[15] [29] Scott Mazo is also the name of a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation,[16] [30]details lodged with Guidestar give the address of Scott Mazo TPRF Board and Treasurer, as Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania.

In Summary:

James Levin is the CEO of the self described family business (Mighty River Press) i.e. Levin is the owner or is a co-owner of Mighty River Press. MRP is the publisher of the Rawat biography. Therefore Levin is, via the unregistered Mighty River Press, the publisher of Rawat’s biography.

James Levin has been the business partner of Scott Mazo for twenty years, they have more than thirty business listings in which they share partnerships.

Scott Mazo is the Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.

The relationship between Levin and Mazo undermines any suggestion that Peace is Possible has been published independently of Prem Rawat or his promoters. Its use as a reference for an encyclopedia is dubious, not because it is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography but because the ‘authorisation’ has been deliberately disguised.

End of extract

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is used for basic bio info (see list), which even if we accept your claim of lack of publishing independence, is still falls with what is permissible under WP:SELFPUB.

1. Prem_Rawat#_ref-0 - Names of family members
2. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan.232_0 - Date of birth
3. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan.232_1 - That he tours extensively
4. Prem_Rawat#_ref-9 - The name of the school he attended
5. Prem_Rawat#_ref-23 - Date of marriage
6. Prem_Rawat#_ref-33 (not sure what this one is for)
7. Prem_Rawat#_ref-35 date of moving to Miami Beach with his family
8. Prem_Rawat#_ref-Cagan_1 - Use of 707 for touring
9. Prem_Rawat#_ref-38 piloting leased executive jets
10. Prem_Rawat#_ref-73 Pilot licenses

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the book is fine for basic biographical details (unless it contradicts other sources on these points), but that we should stay away from it for anything contentious, in keeping with this talk page's apparent philosophy of using only the most reliable sources. All of the references Jossi cited above seem appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi carelessly omits the most controversial of the references (currently number 83) to Cagan's book, and that is in the 'Personal' section, related to his income. The quote is "He received stock shares in corporations as gifts, which later generated significant dividends for him. Some of these companies were sold, generating substantial windfalls, and his profits were reinvested smartly. One particular company that developed large-scale software applications for government contractors went public, generating considerable wealth for Maharaji and his family". How Rawat acquired and maintains his wealth is probably the most controversial aspect of his life, so I propose this reference is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published by the subject unless it's published on his own website or by his company. This book is self-published by Mazo (if what is written above is true). Using a self-published book as a source for a living 3rd-party is not consistent with either WP:BLP or WP:V. Perhaps this is good time to ignore the rules so we can allow it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, if the book makes contentious claims, such as mentioned by John Brauns, then we should probably treat it like any other 3rd-party vanity press book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Format of "Footnotes" and "References" section is a problem

The norm (I analyzed four weeks of Main Page articles, in November 2007) for the hybrid Harvard-style footnotes and references used in this article is:

(a) In the Footnotes section, provide only enough information (author last name and title of work, for example, or - more commonly, author and year of publication) for the reader to find the source in the References section. [The Footnotes section should also includes page number(s) and - arguably, sometimes - a quotation, of course.]

(b) In the References section, provide full information about the source (year of publication, publisher, ISBN, etc.)

That's not what is being done here - instead, the full citation is appearing in both the Footnotes and the References section. If everything the reader needs to know is in the Footnotes section, then the References section is simply duplication, and should be deleted. (Sources not actually cited in a footnote would be moved to a new, "Further Reading" section.) Alternatively, the information in the Footnotes section should be shortened, as is the norm for Harvard-style citations, with the reader, where interested, expected to check the References section for full details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, John, I wondered about that myself. What about multiple refs to a single source? I guess they should appear as footnotes, to avoid the whole cite disappearing when someone makes a deletion? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue, Rumniton. You can have a <ref>Melton, Encyclopedia of Religions, pp.140-8</ref> and later on another reference to the same book <ref>Melton, Encyclopedia of Religions, p.230</ref>. Then in the Reference section you have the full name of the author, source, publisher, ISBN, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that we seem agreed on this, either (a) one of you can work on fixing this, or (b) I can do it myself. (Also note that in this approach, the "name=" parameter is not necessary because we don't want to combine footnotes if a reference exists; each footnote probably has different page numbers, as jossi pointed out.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss rather than revert?

Francis, your last edit removed some material that was being discussed, and about which sources were being found. For example, see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Sources_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this. It was the best measure now, as explained above at #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on, Francis? Your input here is welcome, but doing this for the third time is not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm forced to disagree. Quite strongly, actually. I think you'll find most editors here feel the same. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall that I created a temporary holding page at Talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism for various incarnations of the criticism section. I would suggest using that as a source for adding relevant material. Clearly not all should go into the article but it does allow us to determine if any quality commentary has been inadvertantly missed out. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I said above that I think Francis is right in this matter. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discipline

As has been remarked above (in a section on another topic), it's not such a geat idea for things that already have a separate section on this talk page, to just ignore it and start another section on the same topic — especially when the discussion in the previously existing section is still active.

For instance, Jossi's revert (the one I re-reverted) is already discussed above in #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D. The criticism section is a problem, see for instance also above #Criticism section. The version I reverted to doesn't have that problem. And solved the problem far better than the solutions proposed above at #Criticism section. And I explained why in the section some sections above that section, #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, and there I also explained how I would act to address that problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First Hunt Thread

OK Momento, care to explain the reason you took down Hunts comments? Do you want to explain what was flawed about the text? Until you do, this is the fourth thing that I will keep putting back up. Onefinalstep (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over this it will not get any results. Why don't you work with Momento and find a wording that would work for both of you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Momento, how would you like this paraphrased? Please give an example and we can try and work it out. Onefinalstep (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the sentence stands now.

"Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions. Critics alleged that his "opulent lifestyle" was largely supported by the donations of followers." Onefinalstep?

What Hunt actually said was - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers."

Hunt doesn't says "he "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says "he does not personally eschew material possessions".

Hunt doesn't say "critics alleged", Hunt says "critics have focused on".

Hunt doesn't say "his opulent lifestyle", Hunt says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle".

And finally Hunt doesn't say "Rawat was largely supported by his followers", Hunt says" the critics argue that he was supported largely by his followers".

Four deliberate distortions of Hunt's comment in only two sentences. But this info that Rawat was "supported by his followers" is undue weight since it has already been covered in the article with "Rawat became financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". I hope this makes clear the level of accuracy and NPOV that is expected in this article. And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them.Momento (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the main problem is:

• that the words eschew & denounce are too far apart from each other in their respective definitions
• that the phrases critics alleged & critics have focused on are too far apart in their respective meanings
• that Hunt himself does not say Rawat was supported by his followers, but Hunt said his critics claim
• That we need to include the qualifier "appears" or some word like it when describing Hunts analysis of Prems lifestyle

If you want to be collaborative, I suggest you offer a synonym to the word eschew that you can be happy with, and another phrase that means the same as "critics alleged" that brings our paraphrase closer to "critics have focused on". Also if you wish, we can add a qualifier to the paraphrase so that we make clear that Hunt only says that Rawat "appears" to live an opulent lifestyle, and that it might not be true.

As far as it being "undue weight", yes it has been covered as a fact that he is supported by his followers, but what we are trying to do is highlight that his critics use it to criticize him ... for whatever reason. I think you would agree that this is one of the main bones with his critics. So we need both to explain in a section other than criticism that Rawat lives, in part, off of donations, and, in criticism that his critics harp on the fact that he lives such a nice life and still receives donations.

Further, I want you to make the suggestions for the words and phrases to be used so that I can agree and then move on, but I do want to take a second and say that I really can't see "obvious distortions" with regards to the paraphrase and the quote. Instead of just deleting, why don't you come to the discussion page and tell us your problems with the sentence and we'll figure out a solution. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see any gross distortions here either, I can see where the words used are not exactly equivalent, and I'm not opposed to the changes of the words pointed out by Onefinalstep (dependent of course on what words are chosen). However I must say that the attitude that produces "And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them." displayed above is certainly neither helpful, productive, collaborative, or necessary. I was under the impression that no one person owned articles in WP, does anyone know if Momento is aware of this?Maelefique (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting distorted summaries is "helpful, productive, collaborative, and necessary". Here's another example Onefinalstep says "so that we make clear that Hunt only says that Rawat "appears" to live an opulent lifestyle". No, onefinalstep, Hunt doesn't say that he says "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers". Hunt is reporting what the critics are doing, it is not his opinion.Momento (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite right, however, that is not what I said. Once again, please read before typing. I said the attitude was not helpful, productive, etc. And while deleting distorted summaries could be helpful, I haven't seen anything there that rises to the level of distortion that requires it to be summarily deleted, unless, of course, you mean any statements you don't agree with.Maelefique (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, well then I'll make the changes that Hunt documents that Rawat's critics focus on what they view as an opulent lifestyle which they believe is funded from donations by followers ... etc. Is this ok?
• And can you please go ahead and give us the synonyms you think are workable for the other problems you pointed out with the paraphrasing? Onefinalstep (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Hunt Thread

This recent edit [31]: The quote from Hunt reads (Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8):

Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers.

... but the text in the article editorializes this as: Rawat also turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions, and, in fact, appeared to begin enjoying the material life that could be had in the western world. This transformation was funded in part by donations from the many follwers that he had collected. Please correct by staying close to the source and by using better grammar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad libitum, perhaps, yet very close to the quote.

BTW:"...he does not personally eschews..." ???? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

appeared to begin enjoying the material life that could be had in the western world. ???. This transformation was funded in part by donations from the many follwers that he had collected. ?? The quote is the quote, and it needs to be respected. The author had his reasons for stating it the way he did, and that should also be respected. The editorializing is unnecessary and the grammar is atrocious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also quite derogatory to say material life that could be had in the western world, as if you cannot live a good material life in India, China, Japan, or Singapore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence I included in the article has two sources to validate both the claims. The first part of the sentence is close enough to the quote you referenced for a paraphrase. Is there a problem with the second part based on the reference I used for it? Onefinalstep (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained the need to stick to the source with this quote but Onefinalstep doesn't care. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is how the sentence stands now: (I think we should replace the word "denounced" with "shunned" as shun is a synonym of eschew.)Onefinalstep (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers.

Your suggestion is completely OR. And even an accurate quote doesn't belong in the "Westernization" section. And since Rawat being funded by followers is already mentioned in the "Coming of Age" section it doesn't bear repeating.Momento (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

Ok, Momento just arbitrarily deleted the Hunt paraphrase with no comment again. I gave him ample time to rewrite the Hunt article and even asked him to choose the words that needed to be changed (please see the "First Hunt Thread" section above on this page). He ignored my requests and simply did not respond. So, I rewrote it with his concerns in mind and placed the sentence back into the article. Then jossi complained about the grammar, which I tried to fix (haven't heard anything negative about it yet). Jossi also mentioned he was concerned with the source not being paraphrased accurately, and I responded that I had sourced the two claims with two different sources (I think he might have thought I attributed the money from followers to Hunt). In response to the deletion by Momento, I reverted (He didn't say why he deleted it except "per discussion" which I don't understand because, as I'm sure you all agree, we haven't come to a consensus on anything yet ... and in fact I am responding to the concerns so far so it's a fluid situation. Before I reach another 3RR, which I will before Momento does (even though I'm not sure he cares), can someone other than me politely tell him to wait till we sort this out? Onefinalstep (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Can we keep any suggestions for the sentence or concerns above the sub section "Here we go again" and relegate the fights down here so we can separate the constructive proposals from the nonsense? Onefinalstep (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is my comment from two days ago. Onefinalstep claims Hunt says:

"Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions. Critics alleged that his "opulent lifestyle" was largely supported by the donations of followers."

What Hunt actually said was - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." Hunt doesn't says "he "no longer denounced material possessions", Hunt says "he does not personally eschew material possessions". Hunt doesn't say "critics alleged", Hunt says "critics have focused on". Hunt doesn't say "his opulent lifestyle", Hunt says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle". And finally Hunt doesn't say "Rawat was largely supported by his followers", Hunt says" the critics argue that he was supported largely by his followers". Four deliberate distortions of Hunt's comment in only two sentences. But this info that Rawat was "supported by his followers" is undue weight since it has already been covered in the article with "Rawat became financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". I hope this makes clear the level of accuracy and NPOV that is expected in this article. And please note, I am not going to spend my time repairing other editors distorted and inappropriate edits. I'm going to delete them.Momento (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I do not think that your last edits work that well: [32], mainly because unless there is some common ground found between editors actively working on the article, this will be a ping-pong effort with no traction towards a stable article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes that back the sentence all come from the 70s. Putting it last makes it looks like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years. I originally coupled it with "media attention".Momento (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right, but I think it would be best to take this to talk and discuss. Otherwise this become a game of ping-pong reverts that nobody wins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yiur idea to place that sentence in the place you put it in the lead, is sound, IMO. What I am asking is that you explain that so that others see the merit of making that change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)