Talk:Prem Rawat

Momento is banned from editing the Prem Rawat article, for a period ending 20 April 2010.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Prem Rawat article and associated talk page. Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by {{{4|MBisanz talk 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

Rumiton is banned from editing the Prem Rawat article, for a period ending 20 April 2010.
	The above mentioned editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the Prem Rawat article and associated talk page Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details.
This notice was posted by {{{4|MBisanz talk 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

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

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

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

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

NEWS about TPRF

“TPRF has just been awarded a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator, America’s largest independent evaluator of charities. According to their letter, “Receiving four out of a possible four stars indicates that your organization excels, as compared to other charities in America, in allocating and growing your finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible.”

Of course there will be strong opposition, by we know who, to including the above, branding it as propaganda. Why they do this is something they do not even know themselves. But I do. For a part of Wikipedia editors, whatever is positive about Prem Rawat is “propaganda” and whatever is negative “important facts to be included”. And Wikipedia has allowed this for years and still seems to find it fair. Fantastic. Pedrero, my signature does not work with my new Spanish Email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.1.4 (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great for the TPRF. But so far as I'm aware, the subject has nothing to do with managing it. If he has some control over its conduct then we should add that to the article. But since it appears that it is simply named for him and promotes his message without his involvement, I don't see how its fiscal management is really relevant here.   Will Beback  talk  16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Will's right, that info belongs in the TPRF article. And stop disparaging other editors IP. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Too bad only the TPRF-article had been dumped along the way...--Rainer P. (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Beback said that "If he has some control over its conduct then we should add that to the article." On page 273 of "Peace Is Possible" by Cagen, Linda Pascotto is quoted as saying "All I did was start it up and M made it clear there would be no activity without his consent." This clearly demonstrates that Prem Rawat is in charge of TPRF and the 4-star rating should be included in the article. Here's the link to show the rating--> http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... rgid=11810 Gadadhara (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That book is not a reliable source, and even if it were that statement is too vague for use to really say that he has control over it. The consent may have been a one-time approval rather than day-to-day oversight. Thanks for finding that though. There are a lot of reliable sources listed in the current "references" section.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I almost missed this, stuck up here as it is. I do not agree that the statement is too vague. Its quite clear: no consent from Rawat, no activity, and that is consistent with sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of 15. Also, Cagan names her source, Pascotto, so the quote or paraphrase can be attributed to Pascotto. Early this year I read the Steve Crossins discussion pages, links provided by Will. There was no consensus. The earlier discussion did reach the consensus that Cagan was acceptable for dates and facts. I see no problem at all including this in the article. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible we might devote a short paragraph to the TPRF, in the context of other changes to the article, in which case its ratings and finances would be relevant. But separately, there's no consensus that Cagan's book is a reliable source. We discussed this extensively last year, and I'm not interested in rehashing it again unless there's some new point.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a short paragraph would be fine. Nik has raised some points. I'll do my best to address those.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, you asked about ratings and finances. This is impressive [1]--Zanthorp (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the same source that Pedrero referenced in the first place. I'm not as easily impressed as you are. The rating is based on two factors: the amount spent on salaries and fundraising, and the growth in contributions. Since the staff are apparently volunteers, they get the highest rating for efficiency. And since the contributions are shown as having grown three years in a row, they get a high rating there too. The ratings show nothing about whether the charity accomplished anything wortwhile. Anyway, I added a sentence about it.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Zanthorp's claim that "sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of 15" seems like extreme WP:SYN. In any case including minor details about an organisation in a BLP, when a separate article exists for the organisation, is non encyclopaedic, unless the argument is that TPRF should not have a speparate article; in general information should not be repeated across articles. A useful comparison to judge the worth of commentary on TPRF in the Rawat article is the Bill Gates article in which a section is devoted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - there the fact that it is Bill Gates' money and that Bill Gates devotes his time and effort to that Foundation is explicit [2], which in turn justifies the inclusion of information about the organisation in the bio article. Unless there is some evidence the Prem Rawat actually does something in terms of running TPRF, rather than merely being a 'name' there is no reason to include any organisational detail in his bio. All efforts have been gone through regarding Cagan as source including RfC - no consensus has ever been achieved that allows Cagan to be used for other than non contested references (birth dates etc), simply rehashing the argument that greater use of Cagan should be made, is bordering on Tendentious Editing. As to the Steve Crossin mediation - the only reason that there was not a far more broadly achieved consensus (progress was made in a number of areas) is that three editors, two now topic banned for a year and one permanently blocked for their behaviour in editing this very article, were engage in a POV war. The recent ArbCom decission identified that the Rawat articles are in need of improvement, this talk page might therefore be expected to be concerned with proposals for new text strictly focussed on the subject and related to established sources, and not on the introduction of extraneous material or the justification of positions held by banned and blocked editors.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got me! According to the article he was 16, not 15. The text reads, "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement." The source is Downton. What is extreme WP:SYN?

I don't see any tendentious editing here. Your point about active involvement is reasonable though. I remember reading something about that. I'll see what I can find.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Downton text doesn't match "sources that show Rawat began to exercises control over organizational activity from the age of ...." so either it's synthesised with some other source or it's OR or POV, and in any case we can't project Downton's pre 1979 judgement forward to encompass Rawat's current relationship with TPRF, that's certainly original research or POV. There is also the very obvious point that a 16 year old could not take on the legal obligations that "taking control" would entail, if you read the section on Charisma you will get an idea of the complications entailed in your proposal, Pilarzyk is particularly helpful in this respect and his writing on Rawat and the DLM is worth reading in full.

Regarding Tendentious Editing, endlessly re-hashing the same argument as a means of avoiding consensus is certainly Tendentious behaviour, especially so when the same rejected arguments have been made by banned and blocked editors. The status of Cagan as a source is clear, Cagan is suitable for non controversial references only, anything that looks to be exceptional, self serving to a POV etc is unlikely to gain a consensus for use, the exception might be where an opinion is directly attributable. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nik, I disagree about Cagan. Based on our extensuive review of its accuracy, it does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than the author's opinions, which aren't notable enough to include. We left the existing citations to her work in order to avoid disruption, but sooner of later they should all be removed.

On the point about involvement in TPRF, Downton's book describing events in the 1970s has nothing to do with the TRPF, founded in the 2000s.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Article hides controversy, is not presented in a neutral way

This article has severe POV issues. Reading the article, it is not immediately obvious in any one place that it is POV. However, when you read over the whole article, you see several very real issues:

1. The criticisms often leveled at him are buried in paragraphs and in sections. While I'm all for integrating criticism into the main body of an article, in this case the effect is not to provide a balanced POV but rather to hide the bad things. The sections also consistently end on a positive note, which is very, very forced and obvious once you've read over the entire article.
2. There is insufficient criticism of someone who has been termed a cult leader and has been accused - repeatedly - of essentially robbing his followers so he can live an opulent lifestyle.
3. The overall tone of the article is sympathetic to this man. It shouldn't be.
4. The emphasis on the positive is excessive, and numerous statements are glowingly positive.

This article needs some help. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Start listing your suggested changes here so that we can discuss them. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples of issues

Leaving India section

His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader. But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. His first western address was given in June 1971 at the first Glastonbury Fayre, and in September he spoke to a large US gathering in Colorado. A US based Divine Light Mission (DLM) was established in Denver, Colorado by Bob Mishler. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers. One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there...he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody...Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees". Enthusiastic new members spread the message that the 13-year-old Rawat could reveal God.

This whole paragraph is a great example of the POV prevalent in this article, as well as several of the issues. The negativity is buried in the second paragraph, is only a sentence long, and is rebutted immediately by fawning praise. "But he also created an extraordinary amount of itnerest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.", beyond being a poorly written sentence, is blatently POV in his favor. Likewise "Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace, and commitment shown by Rawat's followers."

America 1973

A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers. Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement. Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives, but public attitudes were often unsympathetic. Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly.

Another example of the same issue of burying criticism, it also presents uncritically the statement of the reporter, which is in utter contrast to ex-members of the group, who claim the opposite - that he was regarded as divine by his followers, and accepted many lavish gifts from them; indeed, he has been criticized as being the opposite of humble and human, repeatedly, elsewhere in the article. The reporter's comment is very tacked on at the beginning, doesn't make much sense in the context of the paragraph, and is clearly a rebuttal/burying of the topic of the paragraph. How public attitudes were unsympatheic is not addressed, and it should be, if we want to integrate it into this section.

Coming of Age

This section has criticism of Rawat's lifestyle buried in the center of it, another example of burying criticism. Likewise, the paragraph itself speaks about his lavish lifestyle, but gives no examples, nor does it go into any amount of detail about his lavish lifestyle, leaving the critical paragraph lacking substance. It also, likewise, has the same rebuttal format as the criticism elsewhere, though it is much less pronounced. However, this paragraph is very out of place, as it is stuck smack dab in the middle of a section about his break with his mother, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to that topic. It should be split off into its own section and, given that it is a major criticism of him, I'd say it should be removed from this chronological section entirely and given its own section.

1976-1980 and Westernization

Downton is used a great deal to say what his followers thought, but his conclusions are, again, directly contradicted by members of the group who left in later years, who claimed that they saw him as divine into the 1990s at least. This is, again, uncritical, and in particular:

By 1976, most students viewed Rawat primarily as a spiritual teacher, guide and inspiration.

Is in fact a rebuttal to this very critism, which is unspoken. While publically he renounced his image, his ex-followers have claimed this was merely a public charade and he has been accussed of using this to simply drop off the media's radar so he no longer was as obviously a cult leader.

While the little tidbit about his flying is possibly noteworthy, it probably belongs elsewhere in the article, as its placement at this point appears totally random.

Media

The first sentence really is an introduction to a paragraph, but is left hanging out on its own unnecessarily.

In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about it] and the next day something completely different is printed."

Again, this is a rebuttal to criticism which doesn't appear in the article. What the newspapers said should be stated.

This paragraph concludes with:

Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[132][133] as well as anti-cult writings.[134][135]

Which really deserves its own section, rather than a throwaway sentence.

Charisma and Leadership

This is a positive heading for a section which is, in fact, largely negative. Again, it obscures criticism, because while critical, it isn't obvious that it is a criticism section, even though that is what it actually is. It also buries the criticism between the first and last paragraphs, the first which is not negative, the second which is positive.

Additionally, the paragraph beginning with David G. Bromley speaks of his failings in his marriage, but what those might be go completely unstated, depriving the criticism of its substance.

Following

The section on former followers is a single paragraph long, two sentences long, and is written from a POV sympathetic to the Elan Vital movement.

Also, Stephen Hunt's claims that Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion is, again, contradicted by statements made by previous members of the group.

• Apparently at one point, Criticism of Prem Rawat was split from this page. I found the deletion discussion, which had a merge consensus, and some of the people commenting on the issue noted that this splitting had effectively been a POV fork which made this page unencylopedic and left the criticism page such as well. I suspect what ended up happening was that the criticism was cut out, then not worked back into the article very well. Perhaps we should reexamine that page and try to pull in stuff from it which is neglected in this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Looking at the criticism page, its not very well written, and I'm not sure how much is salvageable; while the stuff about financial exploitation of followers is... okay, its not very detailed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• These are all valid comments from Titanium Dragon however resolving the problems requires (IMO)a structural approach, not an ad hoc attempt to put right long standing problems, carried out on a piecemeal basis. I've been making the point for over two years that both the section structure and existing section headings are profoundly unencyclopaedic and in some case seriously POV. My suggestion is that any substantial re-write begins with some agreement on structure; the following section heads are my preference:

  • • 1 CHILDHOOD
    • 2 ADOLESCENCE
    • 3 SCHISM
    • 4 INTERREGNUM
    • 5 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
    • 6 FROM GURU TO INSPIRATIONAL SPEAKER
    • 7 PHILOSOPHY and BELIEFS
    • 8 THE KNOWLEDGE MEDITATION
    • 9 COMMUNICATING THE TECHNIQUES OF MEDITATION
    • 10 PERSONAL
    • 11 FOOTNOTES

  These heads are accompanied by a draft text at [3] however I'm not suggesting that text as the starting point. There was valuable material produced in the 2008 mediation, the drafts concerning Charismatic leadership were particularly valuable [4] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we should base editorial debates on "preferences". The page, from what I can gather, is well-written and profusely referenced. It's neither an hagiography of the guru, nor a hatchet job, which is what a neutral article should be. Basically, supporters of the guru will never be happy with the page, neither will his critics, and that is just perfectly fine. The only thing I see missing is some stuff about the CIA conspiracy theories in both India and the US in the 70s, and an exposition of the move from world-peace aspirations to personal peace. Pergamino (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a detailed list of problems that we can work to address. While Nik is probably right that a larger re-organization may be beneficial, this topic is such that grand corrections are hard to digest while more modest improvements are more achievable.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate discussions here: the specific POV issues raised by Titanium Dragon, and the organizational issues raised by Nik Wright2. I suggest that we keep them separate, maybe even split this thread. Regarding the organization, this article has two halves. The second part is topical, covering interests, teachings, and reception. This proposal doesn't concern them.

The first part is a chronological account of notable events and actions.

I've worked on hundreds of biographies on Wikipedia. It's my experience that overly descriptive section headings can cause their own problems. For the first part, I suggest switching to headings which list years or decades. For examples, "1960s", "1970-'75", "Twenty-first century" or "2000s". The advatange of this scheme is that it is very neutral. The heading is neutral plus the contents are not prejudged. A section heading like "Westernization" implies that it only concerns issues of Westernization, while in fact that section deals with all aspects of the subject's life during a time period. The headings should better reflect the contents. So I suggest:

• Childhood = 1960s
• Leaving India=1970-1972
• America 1973=1973
• Millennium '73=1973
• Coming of age=1974-1980
• 1976–1980=1974-1980
• Westernization = 1980-2000
• Twenty-first century = 2000s

Does anyone think that's less neutral then the current scheme? The subject's life has been complex - let's keep our description simple where we can.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the rationale of a purely chronological ‘bio’ sequence, with the non event based material following in separate sections. I have two concerns though – firstly the use of editorialised sections heads – Coming of Age and Westernisation. These are far less precise than the date heads or the notable event head of Millenium (although I would prefer to simply include Millenium within the 73-75 date range), and this leads to my second concern. At present there is a poor distinction between the life of the individual ‘biography’ and an explanation of the dynamics of the organisations with which he is associated; of course the two things are intimately related, but when we use a phrase like Coming of Age and then link that to organisational outcomes there is a real danger of a false synthesis of sources. Likewise with Westernisation, certainly there is one academic source which identifies Rawat’s ‘teaching’ as becoming westernised but that is not the same thing as the bio subject (Prem Rawat) becoming westernised. Of course as a person Rawat did change culturally, ( though Americanised would be a more precise term) , but I don’t think we have sources that talk about him personally becoming Westernised – certainly not in a sense that might be understood from Westernised . Particular thought needs to be given to how the family schism is to be dealt with – is it just an event in the chronological treatment, plus an artefact to be recorded in the Beliefs section, or are the philosophical and belief aspects of the schism to be treated as part of the personal chronology (which is what the current Coming of Age section does, albeit rather badly).

One smaller point - the operative date range should be 75 (or 76) to 1983, not 1980 – 82/83 is when the ashrams closed and the period when renaming of the DLM’s as Elan Vital commenced. The 1980 date comes from Björkqvist, unfortunately there seems no other academic who has given a precise date for the ashram closures, however Björkqvist may be considered suspect on this point because he can be shown to be wrong in his associated statement that the “DLM was disbanded”, based on good primary source evidence [5] In the absence of any other definitive source, the primary source of the Elan Vital Foundation [6] , can be used to fix the 1983 date as the point of its creation – the organisational name Elan Vital representing the new phase in Rawat’s life. This reliance on primary sources may not be desirable but they do provide consistency. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon's apparent POV is the problem, not the neutrality of the article.

There are more than 30 paragraphs in the article. Mostly they report facts in a neutral tone and are well referenced. TD perceives 2 or 3 of those as problematic in terms of POV. Even if a POV problem can be identified, the overall tone of the article is not governed by those few paragraphs. The article overall is neutral, balanced and well referenced. I agree with Pergamino about this.

There is no problem at all with presenting and comparing contrasting reports in the same paragraph. Criticism or "Negativity" is not "buried", it is quite prominent. Its there for anyone to read. If some of the article is positive it is because the sources are positive. If other content is negative, that's because the sources are negative. We report the sources. We do not remove their meaning or restructure the article to suit Titanium Dragon's POV.

There is no "fawning praise" in this. "But he also created an extraordinary amount of itnerest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God." The sentence reports a fact according to the source.

The biggest problem here seems to be Titanium Dragon's perception, apparently colored by whatever he or she has been reading. I see no reason to write an unsympathetic biography based on unreliable, unspecified, tabloid(?) material that someone happens to have read and taken seriously. "...essentially robbing his followers so he can live an opulent lifestyle." According to every source I've seen, Rawat teaches his meditation free of charge, and as far as I am aware he does not solicit money during his talks. If Rawat acted like a tele-evangelist soliciting donations in exchange for a ticket to heaven, then Titanium Dragon would have a case. As it is, TD has no case.

Rewriting the article according to TD's POV will not produce a good, stable article. It will produce the opposite. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to discus the POV of other editors, unless you're willing to have your own POV placed on the table for discussion too. It'd be better if we just focus on the content and avoid discussing each other.

The first problem that TD notes is this pair of sentences:

• His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader.[12][13] But he also created an extraordinary amount of interest amongst young adults who were willing to examine his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God.[12]

There are several problems. One is weight. More space is devoted to the positive aspects than the negative aspects, even though the first sentence has two sources instead of one. In fact, there are dozens of sources that discuss at length the problems that the subject had with public perceptions. There are relatively few that mention the delight that he brought to followers. So giving them equal weight doesn't fairly represent the range of views. Second, the word "but" implies that one offsets the other, or that there is a contradiction. That's what gives the impressoin that the critical material is being compensated by positive material.

I don't think we can sweepingly say that the article is perfect and needs no further improvements. Not when specific problems have been pointed out. Let's take them one at a time and seek improvements.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "problems" being pointed out; what I see is strong bias from both sides. Pergamino (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What bias are you talking about? Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Will, I don't mind having my POV discussed. My POV is that the article should be fair, neutral and conform with policy, not doctored to render it less sympathetic because someone apparently doesn't like the subject, or more sympathetic because someone loves the subject. And if possible lets make it accurate, succinct and well written. The article does need work. Its far from perfect and I think there are more important issues than whether or not a sentence should begin with but. BTW, but in this case does not offset anything, nor does it imply contradiction. It is simply used to contrast two different situations that occurred at the same time, so there's no problem with it.

The section titles Nik proposed read like a fixed agenda within which there is little scope to write anything like an accurate biography. SCHISM and INTERREGNUM might be technically accurate. Unfortunately they sound like the titles of B-grade thrillers, and anyway, I don't think those events were of such Earth shattering importance that they require a separate section. Your preference for chronological section titles is far more sensible.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your POV appears to be "pro-Rawat". Since you welcome the discussion of your POV, could you please describe your history with the subject? Are you a student or how did you come to edit this topic, which accounts for two-thirds of your contributions to Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not a student. You will find the rest of the information you have asked for in this discussion with Msalt[[7]] and there's more on my talk page. I read the Cagan biography and went to youtube. The interviews with Mr Rawat are especially interesting and his talks are very insightful, IMO. My first ever discussion of any substance on Wikipedia was with you[[8]], in my opinion less than welcoming and not particularly helpful. Perhaps you hadn't noticed. My disagreements with you mostly involve civil liberties issues. So Will, what's your history with this subject and how did you come to edit this topic?--Zanthorp (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the subject's comments are "very insightful" an example of expressing a positive opinion. Seeking to remove negative material about the subject is another example. It's OK to have a POV on a topic, but pointing to the POVs of others while claiming not to have any is likely to be challenged and lead to discussion like this one. I suggest that we all stick to discussing the topic and leave out our speculations on each others' motivations or biases. (In answer to Zanthorp's question, I'd never really heard of the subject before reading about it here. I got involved in editing the article because it was dominated by a trio of editor. Though they are now prohibited from editing the topic, their legacy remains and requires furhter editing to correct.)

I'll start a new thread on the issues raised by user:Titanium Dragon, since this own has gotten tangled up with other concerns.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Zanthorp, Will's proposed section headings are very neutral. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a very sensible idea for section headings. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and renamed the headings, with some laterations from the above proposal to make the sections reasonable length while trying to keep related material together. Some text will still need to be moved up or down.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom remedies

Pergamino (talk · contribs) was blocked today after having been found to be a sock account of Jossi (talk · contribs). I'd like to take the opportunity to remind everyone engaged in this topic that there are several ArbCom-imposed restrictions. The primary one is the year old probation which requires us all avoid "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty." All editors are restricted from reverting more than once a week, and two editors are prohibited from any editing of the topic until April 2010. There have already been enough blocks and bans. Let's all keep our cool, obey the regular and special rules, and stick to improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadadhara, Introducing myself

Hello, all. I thought I’d introduce myself because I’d like to help out with improvements to the Prem Rawat article. I am a student of Mr. Rawat, having received his gift of Knowledge on May 2, 1982 in a Santa Monica ashram. Many people have received Knowledge over the years that I’ve been practicing and listening to Maharaji, some have stayed on and continue to attend events with him and some have not. I have benefitted immensely from practicing Knowledge. The four simple techniques take my outgoing senses and help me to invert them to go inside and experience what is there. I continue to listen to him because I enjoy his wisdom, humor and practical viewpoint of life. As a matter of fact, I was fortunate to be able to attend an event with him last Sunday in Thousand Oaks, California, and was once again impressed with some of his unique and pertinent observations. I am not hypnotized or brain washed by Mr. Rawat or his gift of Knowledge and I freely practice the meditation and listen to him because it is enjoyable to do so. I’ve experienced much peace and love over the years by doing so.

Anyway, I have no agenda here other than to make sure that things written about him paint him in a fair and balanced way so I would like the opportunity of discussing some of the issues about him and his Knowledge with some of you who are participating as editors here. I signed up as a Wiki editor awhile back but I’ve been busy with school and other things in my life until recently so I thought it was time to give my 2 cents worth. I look forward to talking with you all in a spirit of getting to the truth about this man and his message.

Cheers, Gadahara69.105.255.105 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shifted the references list to the bottom - new editors please note this is the prefered location for references. Wowest - perhaps you would consider removing your response to Gadahara, it certainly does not seem to fit with the requirement to assume good faith. At this point we have no reason to believe Gadahara is not going to abide by the limitations placed on this article. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• user:Gadadhara, welcome. Please remember to log in when editing, so your username will show automatically. As a newcomer to this article you should read the headers at the top of this page - the article is under probation and other special restrictions.   Will Beback  talk  16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To Gadadhara, a belated welcome. This is an interesting and very active topic. Participation is a great way to learn about how Wikipedia works. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Emancipation

There has been extensive discusion in the past about the details of Rawat's marriage and emancipation. First, the emancipation was a result of the marriage, not a precondition. If he'd received parental permission to be married it would have also resulted in emancipation. The decision of the court was to allow him to marry without parental permission. Second, the emancipation is not an important detail and doesn't belong in the lede at all. It had no effect on any aspect of the subject's life that I've seen. He was not in legal control of the DLM before or after, and the properties and vehicles he used weren't in his name. It's not mentioned in reliable sources as being important. Lastly, the idea is that the lede should reflect the text, not the other way around. Therefore, I reverted the undiscussed change to the article concerning emancipation and removed it from the lede.[9]   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This seemed to me to be a minor edit and minor correction that did not require discussion. It isn't a major issue, IMO, but its nice to see that the eventual result of my effort has been an improvement to the article. And, I am impressed by your understanding of CA law pertaining to the emancipation of minors. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are few parts of this article that haven't been researched carefully and discussed at length. The emancipation issue was a big deal to one of the previous editors here. We consulted not just one, but two(!) lawyers. I've learned a lot from editing Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Will's sentiment here. Just about every detail of Prem Rawat's life has been done to death here. It leaves this article in an interesting position in respect of the Wikipedia principle "anyone can edit". It still holds true in theory, but in practice for this particular article, there is very little room for someone to successfully make even minor changes without deep knowledge of a) the subject and b)the history of the previous debates here. If you'll forgive me for going off-topic for a moment, I often wonder the implications of this type of situation will mean for Wikipedia in general as it matures and reaches saturation of biographies. Will we be left with fighting RfDs around new entries (see Britain's got talent for an example) on one hand, and more and more stale, detailed debating around older entries? --Savlonn (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Just about every detail of Prem Rawat's life has been done to death here." Not so Savlonn, there are glaring omissions. Most notably regarding the messianic nature of his claims to being the one and only living "Perfect Master". In the 1970s, this is what brought him to the public eye, and on which his notoriety was founded.

The article's reticence in addressing this is, possibly, a residue from the era when Jossi/Pergamino, Momento and Rumiton (all now blocked) managed somehow to impose their own protective-of-Rawat-POV on a supposedly encyclopedic work of reference. Rawat's afficionados may be embarrassed by that era of Rawat's history, but I hope Wikipedia doesn't have to submit to such revisionist tendencies in the long term.

Forgive my somewhat chippy attitude, but I've seen a lot of worthy editors give up the wikighost (as it were) in fighting that war. Let's hope that, in the future, good articles will not be so compromised by POV-pushers with an excess of time on their hands Revera (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For direct quotes from Rawat re messianic claims of Perfect Master, see: http://ex-premie.org/gallery/god_claims.htm Revera (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The context of my comment was not about the current content of the main article, but around what has already being discussed in detail. It was in reply to Will' statement that "There are few parts of this article that haven't been researched carefully and discussed at length." Your particular example was discussed in detail during the mediation last year. User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat--Savlonn (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you for a link to that discussion, please? I hope the inference isn't that the absence of detail about the messianic claims of the "Perfect Master" should have been deliberately omitted? Revera (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here's one detailed discussion around becoming known as a Satguru or Perfect Master . User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal4 I think there are several more, but I don't have the time to go through the mediation archive at the momment. To answer your last query, I am not inferring anything at all about what should or should not be included in the article. I am merely observing that just about any aspect of this biography that can be discussed, has been discussed. --Savlonn (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Inferring? The grammar-hound in me insists that you meant to say "implying" - but that's by the by.

Unfortunately the link you gave: [[10]] doesn't work for me - the page just hangs.

Discussion pages are one thing. That a major aspect of Rawat's history is not currently represented in the article itself - well, that's my concern. Revera (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's weird - the link I entered works fine for me. Your link is missing "User_talk:" at the start. I suggest you do go there and a have a read (you'll need to click on "show archive") as it will give you some context of a key reason why this isn't inlcuded; a lack of consensus. You'll see from the number of attempted drafts that the easy bit is that saying that something should be included; the tricky bit is agreeing reliable, high quality sources and gaining consensus on the wording to ensure neutrality. --Savlonn (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(belated comment) Will is right, Zanthorp. I remember editors took some trouble over Rawat's emancipated status at the time and we were very pleased to finally get it right. --JN466 12:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Info appreciated :) Except for obvious vandalism, minor grammatical corrections ( I read quickly and tend to miss most of those anyway. ) in future I will discuss any proposed edits here. I am concerned that other editors do not always demonstrate the same cautious approach. The result at the teachings of PR page recently was a minor edit war. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, most of us have been editing this topic for over a year, and I believe you've said you have no particular knowledge of the topic. So there's a difference in the familiarity with sources and issues. As for the editing disupte at Teachings of Prem Rawat, that dispute started when you deleted sourced material without any prior discussion, if I recall correctly.[11] That dispute involved an editor who was acting in bad faith and is now blocked. Let's hope there won't be anything like that again.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have this right. The intro says he was married in 1973. The article has him married in 1974 in Colorado.

Also, unregistered user, ip 67.169.70.227, has added the aberrant sentence It has been called a cult. [7] to the intro without discussion. Factually correct? Yes, but also neutrally called an NRM by scholarly sources. The reference added for that one is a Rick Ross promotional web site, a questionable source at best, so I will go ahead and revert that pending consensus on a neutral, NPOV entry. --Zanthorp (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the mistake about the wedding. It looks like this was the edit that changed the date.[12] I'll fix it.

The "cult" issue is being discussed below.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Growing ?

Editor IP 94.194.214.37 has made a change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=296712876&oldid=296186757 altering "new religious movement" to "Cult". The reference for this section is Geaves who uses neither NRM or Cult but "group". As we have no other source for "fastest growing" and Geaves quotes no data to support the claim, I suggest removing this element because its quantitative character requires some supporting data - how many per month/year - which month/year - for how many months/years etc.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[5][6] [original version]

That deserves scrutiny. I'm going to revert it pending a review here. If I recall correctly, There's a source for "fastest growing", but it isn't either of those cited. Lemme look.   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Larson writes:

• In the early seventies, Guru Maharaj Ji commanded one of the largest and fastest growing followings of all imported cult leaders. [Larson:1982]

I think there's another one too.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Larson is fine, there's a complete difference between saying "one of the largest and fastest" and saying categorically that it was the fastest, which without any evidence to back it up, borders on being an exceptional claim . The only reservation I have is that Larson is specific to the US, and the text of the Rawat article should therefore reflect that; Geaves refered to the US and UK, but I don't think there is any data that would support any claims about the rate of increase in the levels of UK adherence to Guru Maharaj Ji, compared to growth in comparable groups - TM, Hari Krishna etc. There's another rather clumsy edit by an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=296732959&oldid=296725997 Larson uses the 'C' word and Melton references Larson in that context so perhaps it would be appropriate to quote Larson directly on that point, which would address the IP editors' concerns.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Guru Maharaj Ji, the boy his followers call lord of the universe, king of kings and the one perfect master on earth at this time — who has inspired one of the fastest-growing religious movements in this country today — sat on a gold velvet sofa and told a visitor, "I'm just a 15-year-old kid."
  • "I'm just a 15-year-old-kid,' Maharaj Ji says" Blau, July 31, 1973

• [Sociologist Peter L Berger] observes that those who embrace therapeutic, political action and sectarian groups — "far out religious groups" — have a tendency to join several in a row. These people have spawned a counterculture, and in it grew the roots of dozens of spiritual cults that have their seed in Eastern mysticism. Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission is by far the fastest growing of these spiritual organizations.
  • "Boy prophet reaps man-size profits" MALCOLM N. CARTER SEPTEMBER Z3.1973

• Twenty-seven-year-old Michael Bergman who left his Job as public Information officer for the New York City Sanitation Department to join the guru, and quickly became Executive Financial Director, told me: "We're the fastest growing corporation in America. Between January and June of 1973, we grew 800 per cent. Our business practices are sound; our accounting practices are sound; our credit and collateral are sound. Dun & Bradstreet has all our financial information." Most of the money is donated by premies, many of whom come from affluent families and are urged to give up their worldly goods when they join the movement.
  • "Oz in the Astrodome" By Ted Morgen December 9, 1973 New York Times

• Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudey Shri Sant Ji Maharaj - the 15-year-old so-called boy god arrived in Britain yesterday to a welcome from 800 devotees who thronged London Airport. Ten thousand more - from Britain, Europe and the U.S. - are expected to gather tomorrow in a 'Divine City' under canvas at Alexandra Palace, North London, for a three-day rally at which they will hope for a chance to prostrate themselves before their 'perfect master.' For his part, the luxury-loving holy boy, Guru Maharaj Ji, for short, hopes to double his British following of 6,000 - doubtless boosting the amount they pay for the privilege of seeing the Divine Light. His Divine Light Mission, which claims a world-wide following of six million and the fastest growth of any religion today, already has a capital of £100,000 in Britain, including a luxurious £40,000 London HQ and a fleet of 36 vehicles, one of them a £9,800 Rolls used only by the boy god.
  • "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream... and the good things of life" by Richard Herd, Daily Mail, July 12, 1973

• Prem Rawat has been successful since he left India in 1971, establishing his teachings in over eighty countries, and his original vehicle Divine Light Mission was described as the fastest growing new religious movement in the West
  • "Globalisation, charisma, innovation, and tradition" Geaves 2006

There's one for UK too. I don't know it there's any point to saying that it claimed to be the fasest growing corporation in America for th first half of 1973. Maybe in the DLM article.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From all this material I see no justification for using the controversial "c-word" in the lede-section. Obviously most scholars have systematically avoided it.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separable issues here. The matter of the DLM having been called [one of] the fastest growing cult/NRM/spiritual group/corporation is one part. I think that is well established now. It is repeated often enough that it is a notable characterization. "Cult" is a problematic term. It is also another notable characterization. The list of scholars and others that have used the term in relation to the subject is fairly long, I expect a dozen or more. See Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of for some excerpts that use in that regard. One that is to the pont is this, possibly written by the eminent Eileen Barker in 1983:

• The term "cult" is probably the most widely used expression in everyday English for referring to new religious movements which have been at the center of controversies in the West for the past decade or so. The best-known movements include ... the Divine Light Mission.

I think it's appropriate to say that the subject was regarded as a "cult leader" in the 1970s. Now it's true that scholars have shifted away from using the term now, but back in the 1970s and '80s they did so, and most of the scholarship and reporting on the subject are from that period. So we should reflect both of the common usages. I suggest that we change:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[5][6] It has been called a cult. [7]

to:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing cults or new religious movements in the US and UK.[5][6][7]

That covers both terms, and is also a better summary of the sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that should rather be placed into the DLM-article, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have something like that over there. The subject achieved fame as the leader of the DLM, so it's important to include a description of it in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  15:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the word 'cult' in quotation marks is the right usage for this article, as it is an accurate reflection of terminology used at the time most of the source material was written. The use of quotation marks provides the implication that it is not being used as a direct statement of current usage of the term. There are many examples of where a term or phrase has become considered less politically correct over time. However, to maintain academic integrity, the original phrase or wording has been used with quotation marks and sometimes followed by bracketed used of the current terminology. --Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When I read the cult article, it was interesting to see that the term 'New Religious Movement', whilst being promoted as poltically correct, has not been fully accepted in general usage as a replacement for 'cult'. As such, I would rather see bracketed usage of 'New Religious Movement' rather than Cult/New New Religious Movement, as the terms are not completely equivilient and thus not directly interchangeable.--Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that much of the source material on Prem Rawat is written from the context of the 1970s 'cult era' I just can't see this article being an accurate, neurtral reflection of the subject without this terminology used. --Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As such, my suggestion for the above statement is:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (new religious movement) in the US and UK.[5][6][7]--Savlonn (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn's proposal is sound,it would be absurdly revisionist to start editing out 'cult' from long standing sources because the word is deemed by some people to be offensive, it is not a slang term or exclusively negative in connotation and is a normal part of every day English usage. However if we are looking at amending the lede with regard to Divine Light Mission references, I think a more substantial edit is required. I've made a proposal for a new lede on the DLM talk page and I think those changes should also feed through to this article. The current DLM article is historically confused and the current lede is unreferenced, the confusion in that article is I believe currently in evidence in the Prem Rawat article.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn's version looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Savlonn's reasoning, but if more neutrality is required, the sentence could be changed to "In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (now referred to as new religious movements) in the US and UK.". Having said that, the "now referred to as" may be more wordy than we'd like, but I would like to see the link to NRM remain. (PS. yup, I'm still here! :) ) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep - that's even better IMO Maelefique. I was also tossing up whether to include a 'now known as' conditional, but didn't because I thought it was a bit wordy. However, I now agree that it really helps articulate that we are using historically accurate terminology, without the intention of being derogatory. I'm also not sure about referring to DLM here, as it shifts emphasis away from the personal biography, but that is different discussion. --Savlonn (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---Insert to retain subject flow--- I appreciate the intent, but Maelefique's version is horrible. It implies that all reliable sources now reject the use of the term cult (not the case) and all groups now refered to as NRMs could previously have been termed 'cult', which is also not true, there were/are many NRMs which are not cultic in nature. Even more significantly there's no evidence that the sources that refered to the DLM as being a cult would have ever used the phrase NRM in relation to DLM. Having seen numerous versions of a long lede being attempted I'm now of the view that the first paragraph as it stands should be the lede in its entirety, with the remaining (and weirdly balanced) three paragraphs/sentences incoprorated into the body, if for some reason the material isn't there already.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. Having read your argument I do now agree with your point that the wording could imply that all cults are NRMs and vice versa, which is not the case. The intent was for (New religious movement) to be specific clarification for this case, and not a general one. Also, NRM is intended as a clarification of 'cult', and a not a replacement. I'll change it to my version as it has greater consensus. I take it from Maelefique's comment above that he is ok with my version, even though he preferred the one he used. --Savlonn (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Savlon's reasoning. We don't refer to the Civil Rights Movement as the fastest growing group of nigger lovers in the US during the 1960s because many American's used the term nigger lover at that time, and because the term is still in use today. Similarly, we should exercise great caution using the pejorative term cult. Its fair to say that everyone is aware of the negative connotation associated with nigger and issues of racial intolerance associated with its use. That is not generally the case with the word cult. Yes, most readers will understand that cult = negative. But I think its fair to say that most readers are not aware of the inseparable media bias issue. Inevitably, anything branded a cult is associated with Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and so on. The application of such a term is quite inappropriate here.

After reading that Time article we discussed previously, I started doing some research on sub-standard journalism and media bias, and came up with this[[13]].

"This type of bias is often seen with reporting on new religious movements. It is often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is a negative and sensationalized report by the media.... According to the Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th edition), the news media play an influential role in the general public's perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favor sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates (Beckford, 1985; Richardson, Best, & Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993)."

The NPOV term appropriate for the lede is new religious movement, not cult. If you want to refer to media use of the term, that should be done within the body of the article where an appropriate reference to media bias can be included. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scholars, inclusing those you've quoted approvingly, have used the term "cult", and so the comparison to the term nigger lovers is inapt and appears to be a strawman. The simple fact is that the subject's movement was widely characterized as a cult in both popular and scholarly sources. I don't think that a discusion of generic media bias is appropriate for this article, unless it is bias about the subject himself. The articles on New religious movement and Cult are fine places to investigate the details about the use of the term. For this article, we should accurately reflect what the sources say about the subject, and the proposal by Savlonn does that.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that one cannot fight spirit with words. If neutral editors feel a need to mention the word c-u-l-t for historical reasons and manage to develop a neutral formulation (and religiously avoiding the word seems somehow a bit cramped), I would not object. I find it a little problematic having it in the lede, as it is a historic item when the subject is quite contemporary.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the definition of "cult" in Merriam-Webster. Of the five definitions, only one is negative, the other four are neutral, meaning that that 80% of the dictionary definitions for that word are neutral in character. Looks like an accurate and neutral word to me. Cla68 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Rainer P. means by "historic item". The term was used by a newspaper in 2007, and by the The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography in 2003. In 1999, the movement was featured in a book titled Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion by scholar Marc Galanter, and also in another book titled Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America by scholar J. Gordon Melton in 1992. If 17 years ago is such ancient history that we can't use sources from that period then we'll have to make major revisions to the article. the fact is that the term "cult" has been applied from the 1970s to the 2000s to movements lead by the subject. This is a biography that covers the subject's entire lifer history, not just the last four years.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say ancient. Historic insofar, as there has been a development from the 70s, the golden age of the “cults”, to what it is now. This is certainly history. There are reasons why scholars nowadays hesitate to use the word cult in this context. This should be cognizable from the article. No need for major revisions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision clearly recognised that substantial work needed to be done on the article, so major revision is required. Cult is not a banned word amonst all academics even if a grouping of self described "Religious Scholars" has developed its own standard of 'correctness'. The ICSA [14] has a substantial list of scholars who clearly have no difficulty with the word cult [15]so perhaps we can dispose of tis specious argument once and for all. The 'historic' context in respect of Prem Rawat relates directly to his 'notability', it is precisely because of the controvery that involved the use of the word cult, and Rawat's claimed leadership of the DLM that Rawat is at all notable, without that early 1970s controversy, there would be nothing to say about Rawat beyond the Elan Vital/TPRF promotional content.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely happy with the article either, albeit evidently coming from a POV opposite to yours. But I am glad about any working modus vivendi. The International Cultic Studies Association ICSA, formerly the American Family Foundation, describes itself as an "interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments." (Wikipedia), and they carry "Cult" in their heading. Not what you would call a neutral source, but with a definite anti-cult slant. They created one Margret Singer Award! I respect their motives, and I agree on exposing zealotry and whatnot, but I would not use them for encyclopedic purposes. And history is more than mass media coverage, may sometimes even point the other way, that's why it's necessary.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I was not proposing the ICSA as a source (although it meets all the conditions of WP:RS) - the point is that there are 182 academics listed on the ICSA people/organisation pages, an unequivocal demonstration that 'cult' is not an unacceptable word in academia. The argument that cult is an unacceptable word in academia has been made consistently for nearly five years on these talk pages - it is a spurious argument and does not in anyway support the censoring of Reliable Sources. The opinions of "pro" NRM sources are well represented in the references for this article, if references are to be assessed on the positioning of sources then the "pros" will have to be edited out along with the "antis". That of course is not Wikipedia policy, which is instead to provide a balance of perspectives with genuine differences presented as such without synthesis. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If we tone down Zanthorp’s example to the word ‘Negro’, we can see similar examples to my phraseology, such as here: [16] Bishop Henry McNeil Turner, Garnett’s contemporary and a white-looking black Georgia state legislator, who strived to improve conditions for formerly enslaved Africans both in America and in Africa, and who said that God was “a Negro” (Black)… This clearly articulates that in this example, the useage of the word Negro is equivalent to the non-racist contemporary usage (today it would probably be ‘African-American’ in parenthesis).--Savlonn (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

By saying the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing 'cults' (new religious movements), we are also clearly articulating that we are not intending it be considered in same light as (say) the Jim Jones cult, which would certainly not be considered a New Religious Movement. As others here have pointed out, the word ‘cult’ is still in academic use and currently has several meanings, only some of which are pejorative. The sources for this article demonstrate the fundamental historical fact that the DLM was considered to be a cult and thus Prem Rawat a cult leader in the early 1970s, before the use of the term broadened to also become associated with mass murderers such as Jim Jones. The suggested wording prevents the term from being interpreted as such, whilst maintaining the historical accuracy that Prem Rawat was a cult leader as described by the academic sources.--Savlonn (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW - when I wrote the above, I didn't realise that Maelefique had already changed the lede, which I have now altered to my version as per discussion above. I would have preferred more time for discussion before changing the lede. --Savlonn (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "cult" can still be applied to Prem Rawat because newer reliable sources have categorized him as such. That's the point of using "cult" instead of "new religous movement" (NRM) -- that's the term the sources use. It also ought not to be put in quotes because it's still an English word that is in common usage and the manual of style wouldn't support that, imo, and there's just no reason to be so afraid of the term. Also, the term "new religious movement" hasn't superceded the term "cult," at all, except by certain scholars of NRMs/cults, who want to be politically correct. For instance, Jim Jones, Koresh, and the more famous destructive cult leaders were also leaders of new religious movements. Some scholars simply don't like the word and that's why the term is poorly explained in the article of that name on Wikipedia. Using the term has nothing to do with comparing one group to another, either, because that assumes that the usage of the term is always a personal attack or a pejorative. It's a descriptive term that has meaning in this context that is backed up by many, many sources. Also, (this is for everyone) please don't use the term "nigger" or "nigger lovers" again. The way it was used here was not an apt comparison at all, and the term is extremely offensive to Americans, myself included. It's simply not necessary. I don't think I'll be contributing much more than this but I had to break my wiki-leave to comment on this particular issue because it's so important to be well-informed about this article subject, as well as the general subject of nrms/cults, including trhe controversies over the usage of terms and the history of the the controversies before jumping in and muddying the waters here. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The references (5. ^ a b c Geaves (2006) 6. ^ Melton (1992), p. 217 ) may not support edits by either Maelefique or Savlonn. Geaves, as quoted above, calls it "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" and we need to check Melton's wording. I was unable to locate that one. Page 217 is not available at Google Books. Its worth noting that most of the refs quoted above do not use the word "cult."　... one of the fastest-growing religious movements in this country today; the fastest growing of these spiritual organizations; the fastest growing corporation in America, are examples.

Most editors appear to be greatly underestimating the stigmatization associated with the term 'cult' both during and after the 1970s. Concerning the 1960s and 70s proliferation of NRMs, van Driel and Richardson write, "Utilization of the concept "cult," with its concomitant pejorative connotations, has served to stigmatize these groups." [[17]]

Savlonn assumes that by placing the terms cult and NRM together, the reader will understand that a more benign meaning is associated with 'cult,' and that we are not placing the subject of this article in the same category as Jim Jones, for example. This reasoning is illogical because we can make no assumptions about readers' understanding of these terms. NRM is a neutral term, and that is what we should be using in the lede, not 'cult,' which is a non-neutral, loaded term. Most academic articles that I have seen so far do not refer to the DLM as a cult. The use of the word (and I doubt that it is universal) by journalists has been mentioned in the article, but without reference to media bias. Again I put it to you that the pejorative term 'cult' has no place in the lede. It belongs in the article with some appropriate reference to media bias. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference fixed - Larson 1982 (page number needs confirmation) but otherwise as noted by Willbeback at the top of this section. Zanthorp your arguments take no account of what anyone elese has written in this section, including points made by at least one uninvolved editor. The subject's notability is intimately tied to the growth of the movement that promoted him in the early 1970s, those sources that use "fastest growing", as apposed to the moderated "one of the fastest growing", are making an exceptional claim which requires support by data to ensure reliability. Larson provides the usable formulation and is specific in his use of the word cult - not NRM. Again you seem to wish to avoid the limitations imposed by WP:SYN. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Bob Larson article. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me, to put it mildly.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the DLM was the fastest growing, or one of the fastest growing movements is a moot point. I'm quite happy to let you and other editors sort that one out. I have no opinion one way or the other. The issue and points I have raised refer to stigmatization of the subject through the use of the term 'cult.' As a general principle I think we should use neutral wording in keeping with Wikipedia policies, and that applies to all BLPs, not just this one. Reporting on the use of non-neutral, ( and arguably) sensationalistic terms by elements of the media should be done within the body of the article. In effect you and other editors have legitimized the use of the term 'cult,' and stigmatized the subject by reporting the term as a fact. This is not NPOV and such use is not commensurate with BLVP policy. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If the sentence goes "the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing ...." it must read "new religious movements" as per Geaves.

Adding "cult" to the cited Geaves quote is WP:SYN which states "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". Therefore the sentence must remain true to the Geaves quote or removed completely, which I have done. Terry Macro (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Terrymacro's edit leaves the sentence unreferenced - and appears to be an attempt at edit warring over what is or is not an RS. Some explanation of why Larson is unacceptable would seem to be required. The Geaves reference is diffident about "the fastest growing" - which is precisly not what the consensus was.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The sources given for "cult" in Maelifique's edit do not support the word "cult".

The actions of Maelifique in this edit is verging on an edit war. Geaves calls it "the fastest growing new religious movement". And Melton page 217 makes no claim about its growth but calls DLM "a flourishing American organization". Melton also avoids the word "cult". Galantner talking about DLM writes "my own research experience with the Divine Light Mission, a Hindu-oriented new religious movement". While at the airport today I noticed a new book on cults (will try and track down the title) - it does not even mention DLM or Prem Rawat etc. If independent researchers do not classify Prem Rawat as the leader of a cult then doing so in Wiki would put Wiki into the extremist fringe view. Making DLM a "cult" at this topic is an attempt to denigrate a living person, and there is certainly no universal or widespread agreement that DLM was a cult. Larson is certainly not a reliable and suitable reference source: "Larson was often heard performing exorcisms of callers on the air". Terry Macro (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the term "cult" is such an inflammatory word to many here, seems to be creating an edit war and heating up the discussions, I suggest dispensing with the the term "cult" in the lead and only using "new religious movement." In the way of history, for those here unaware of previous discussions, the three pro-Rawat editors (who are now banned) argued strongly for years against even using NRM in the lead, which was problematic because then the lead also never has accurately described what makes Prem Rawat notable. This article has gone through two ArbComs so it's important for everyone to cool down and think rationally.

For those editos who are not aware of this, and to provide some background, Prem Rawat has always claimed (and continues to claim) that he does not teach or promote a religion, religious doctrine, spirituality, or philosophy, thus past objections to using "religious" in any form to describe him. All of that said, the word "cult" can and should be used where appropriate in the body of the article when sources use it. To replace "cult" with "NRM" when sources use "cult" would not be practicing neutrality, Wiki-style, imo, but would be endeavoring to be way too politically correct (PC). Additionally, newcomers to this article ought to also be aware that Prem Rawat would most likely not be notable enough in the present day to warrant a BLP article here were it not for his past fame in the 70s, when he was a teenager and first traveled from India to the United Kingdom and United States. I also caution folks here to avoid arguing over reliable press/media sources that describe Prem Rawat in a way that doesn't suit their sensibilities, by calling such sources "tabloids." That is not neutral editing. If anyone here uses the word "tabloid" to describe reliable sources such as The New York Times or Time magazine, well, I think it would be most unhelpful because often in the past editors have used the term "tabloid" to discredit reliable sources even when requests for comments on those sources were deemed to be reliable by Wiki policy. That word "tabloid" has caused great contention, personal attacks, and much incivility on these talk pages. So please don't do it! I hope this helps. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sylviecyn, in that NRM is not a good descriptive term for what happened/happens around Prem Rawat. He stated himself that he does not propagate a religion. But he surely never said that he established a cult, even though some signs of that may have characterized the appearance of his following, as seems to be a given attribute of human nature under certain social condition. Geaves states that Rawat continually and successfully has counteracted such tendencies. I think, meanwhile you find more elements of cultish behaviour in structures like Wikipedia, or, with due respect, in EPO. Cultish behaviour happens among human beings under certain conditions, when it is not purposefully counteracted. Maybe it serves a need in people at times. It has got nothing to do with Prem Rawat, who has been doing his best not to be a victim of the cult trap and to be a model for his students to do the same. That may be a reason why the unhesitating use of the word cult disturbs some people, who are familiar with the issue. NRM may be a little misleading, but at least it is not offensive. Cult is offensive and wrong, the way it has been presented here.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you just have a different definition of a cult, can you let us know what your definition of "cult" is? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, who knows. Understanding is to some extent indelibly a very personal phenomenon, reflecting even in the bureaucracy of WP. You can't help it. It makes the Wiki-process live and interesting.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainer P., you misunderstood me and you are misstating what I said. I didn't say that what happens around Prem Rawat isn't a cult or cultic. Here, it doesn't matter what editors think or don't think about Rawat. This is about reaching consensus among editors and avoiding edit wars and/or personal attacks. It's not up to us to editorialize about what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Btw, it's not at all helpful to this discussion for you to have responded to me by associating me with EPO, which I have nothing to do with: I don't own it, never have owned it, and I've never edited it. It's a website that's been in existence since 1996 that asserts a particular pov that has been already deemed on Wikipedia as not being a reliable source. So why bring it up? Please remember to assume good faith in the future. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is incredible how many thousands of words have been dedicated to the word “cult” in this place. I have already written about the Merriam Webster definition and the logic of applying it here, which came in one ear and out the other. Of the 5 meanings the Merriam Webster gives only the fifth may be applied and that one is far from the meaning intended by anti-Prem editors and from the usual perception of the term by readers.

I think most anti-Prem editors (ex-premies or not) have more time and enthusiasm than most pro-Prem ones (premies or not), and in my almost humble opinion that is one of the problems with this biography. If you told most ex-premies to write against Pem Rawat, including my two ex-wives, they would tell you they have better things to do with their time than waste it this way, and most premies do not seem interested in the Wikipedia biography, if they know it exists. So I suppose Prem’s Rawat biography will keep on reflecting the rubbish written by rubbish media in the seventies per secula seculorum, not exactly for the glory of Wikipedia.

What about something like “Prem Rawat was considered a cult leader by some in the seventies, but the form of his teachings and movement, from the eighties until now, does not respond to the term, and is clearly differerent from other movements considered cults”? Take for instance Trascendental Meditation, where you have to pay 2 thousand euros for a mantra, and Yogananda says mantras are mostly useless. Or followers of Osho Baghwan , the sex guru, and usually sex-obsessed, who do not have any normal social life? They do not seem so dangerous as Prem Rawat to many. First time I propose a sentence, and sorry, I have no time to debate it.

I like your proposal, only it should be formulated more neutrally (you cannot simply state things like "...is clearly different...") and sourced properly and carefully.--Rainer P. (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your approach here, P. Rainer. Let's face it, "cult" is a word that has a negative connotation, a dark, manipulative force preying on the innocent seekers. Even in a throwback way as described by several people here it is not appropriate. A cult can never be defined because one man's cult is another man's religion. I'm sure that Christ would be considered a cult leader as would Buddha, Nanak, Krishna, Mohammed and many others. Current Christian ministries could all be slagged with that term. It's a derogatory way of talking and should not be allowed into this article.

And to quote a Christian looney toon like Bob Larson as a cult expert is laughable. This man holds seances at Christian meetings to "exorcise" demons from Christians attending there. If an impartial person just looked back over the years at his life and teaching, he would be amazed at the fear and hatred that Mr. Larson has fostered over the decades. For anyone to look at Bob Larson and his extreme homophobic, right wing fanaticism as being a credible source for this article is an absurdist and their credibility should be discarded immediately. That man has no right to pronounce any other teacher as a cultist. He is a hater and an extremist. Gadadhara (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we use Larson book as a reliable source, we still need to treat him in accordance with the WP:BLP policy, which calls on us to avoid making unsourced derogatory remarks about living people on any Wikipedia page. I should think that editors here would be sensitive to how people with unusual faith systems are described.

As for whether Larson's book is a reliable source, that depends on several factors including the context. I think it is reliable but that we can find other ways of drafting this that don't need to rely on it.   Will Beback  talk  09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete disagreement on your attempted definition of cult. It is no wonder you would not want that word used if that's how you feel about it, however, I cannot find a definition of cult that matches your description. A simple place to start is dictionary.com I don't see a definition there that sounds even close to what you've described. Do you? Also, you say a cult can never be defined? Again, I disagree. I don't think it's that complicated, dictionary.com apparently didn't think so either. Perhaps it's just your own personal view of the word "cult" that is holding you back here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the definition is of "cult". What matters is that the term is used in reference to the subject in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that NPOV and accuracy would be served with saying something like "the DLM was called the fastest growing religious movements and included in lists of cults." That is undoubtedly true.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Still it should not be placed in the lede, as the lemma signifies a biography and not the history of DLM.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject's chief prominence came as the leader of the DLM, so it's appropriate to devote a little space in the intro to describing it, as we do. The text already says that he was often called a cult leader, and the intro should summarize the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

KEYS TO CITIES

On May 23 2009, at the invitation of Mayor Tain-Tsair Hsu of Tainan, Taiwan, Prem Rawat, known as Maharaji, attended a ceremony where he was awarded the Golden Key to the city as well as an emblem of the Sword Lion, a symbol of the cultural capital of Taiwan. The ceremony was held at the National Tainan Living Arts Center. Over 800 people attended including guests of the mayor, dignitaries from other towns in Taiwan, as well as international and local students of Prem Rawat.

News that I, a follower, copied from an official Prem Rawat source, and therefore “propaganda” and “unreliable”.

One key to add to the keys to the following cities: 1) New York City, New York; 2) New Orleans, Louisiana; 3) Oakland, California; 4) Kyoto, Japan; 5) Detroit, Michigan; 6) Miami Beach, Florida; 7) Miami, Florida. 8) plus a nomination as “Illustrious Citizen,” Quito, Ecuador.

Have these mayors been brainwashed by followers (also brainwashed in their turn)? Seems to me hard to believe, but we choose what we like to believe. How and why we choose what to believe or not is an interesting subject.

How many keys to cities does one person (or Prem Rawat) need to be considered important enough to be mentioned by Wikipedia? How many by anti-Prem editors? Pedrero. Sorry, my signature does not work properly, nor my computer, nor myself (joke). --88.14.4.202 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh yes, it did, my computer too, and perhaps myself too (another joke, both free).

It may or may not be propaganda, but without a source listed, it certainly is unreliable. List your source please. If necessary, you may also want to look over this BLP policy (which I'm fairly certain wasn't written by a secret cabal of anti-Prem editors). And FYI, who are these people that I see continuing to be referred to as "anti-Prem editors"? I certainly hope you aren't just using that as a blanket-phrase for people that don't agree with you. You could probably paint me with the "Anti-Revisionist History" brush if you had to though. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple way to judge the relevance - did any independent media source commit a notable degree of journalistic resources to reporting any of the awards ? The answer is I believe No! In which case we do not need to concern ourselves further with this side issue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Lede

Given the entirely circular nature of recent discussion, I propose to reduce the lede (which is profoundly unwieldy in any case) to the single consensus approved first paragraph. If, once the body of the article has has been rigorously assessed and re-edited, it is felt that the lede needs to be larger, content can added to the lede at that time.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

which is where/what now? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear - I mean't the first six lines as they currently appear as the first paragraph to article. I've taken the liberty of introducing a double paragraph gap after the first paragraph to make it easier to distinguish. I'm simply proposing to delete the rest of the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What's so bad about the lede, now that the cult thingy is gone?--Rainer P. (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wiki Manual of Style before making unrealistic proposals. It just wastes everyone's time. The lead must give a broad outline to the life of Prem Rawat. Proposing to stop his life at the age of 13 in the lead is totally ridiculous. Please study Wiki Manual of Style, Thanks Terry Macro (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been discussed over and over and over, and has been edited extensively. I wouldn't recommend making any singicant changes to it without good reasons and a fresh discussion.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. When I realized that Maelefique had gone ahead with a significant change before we had reached explicit consensus on the discussion page, I guessed that we would shortly end up back in a similar situation to which we unfortunately have. The lessons clearly learned from last year's mediation are that to enable a successful or 'sticky' change, there needs to be:

• a) an explicit statement of consensus (nothing more than 'I don't like it but I can live with it' is fine) from those involved in the discussions and

  b) a clear, reasoned audit trail back to the source material, combined with a) above, as justification for the change.

I also remind participants that Wikipedia is not a democracy. What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Trying to force through a change based on numbers hasn't worked. If there are a few hold-outs, then the fall back is to challenge them to fault the reasoning that has been used to gain the consensus.--Savlonn (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We now have a sentence which does not represent the source. Additionally there are artefacts of synthesis that create a wholly inaccurate presentation of the Divine Light Mission. There is one good paragraph, cutting back the rot to that 'sound wood' would be far more pragmatic than endless circling around whether or one may mention "cult" in the lede. However if that is what the consensus is for, then Will's formulation is needed to resolve the first sentence of the second paragraph and it doesn't matter how many time Rainier posits the contrary. As Will says 'cult' is in the article body, so there's no basis for not to be in the lede other than it fails the significance test, which in this case it certainly doesn't.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• just because the word 'cult' appears in the body does not mean it should be in the lede. The reference to cult in the body of the topic is marginal and therefore is not a significant aspect to be included in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly expand the reference in the article if that's the problem. There are no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader. It is a significant point of view. The fact that there is so little mention of the matter in the article is due entirely to the participation of three now-banned editors, each of whom were acknowledged followers. Perhaps the problem of editing by current and former employees of the subject hasn't been solved.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, if there is, as you say, „no lack of sources that describe the subject as a cult leader“, why does the claim for „cult“ in the „media“-section of the article rely on two tabloids, and on two highly biased books written by professed evangelical Christians? However there is no lack of sources that describe the subject as “leader of the DLM”, “messenger of peace”, “guru” etc. From the “Times of India” 30.June 2005: “an internationally known Indian humanitarian leader and peace advocate” and “a humanitarian leader and s steadfast proponent of peace”. Are these not significant points of view? And the articles from Sicily. Why just pick out “cult leader”? That is one significant POV alright, but for neutrality’s sake it should be complemented by others, and this circumstance can be referred to in the lede, in any case it should reflect in the “media”-section.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, it just occured to me, concerning your above insinuation: I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the line to which you're referring, located in the Media reception section:

• Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, as well as anti-cult writings.

It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough. First, the existing line is just about how the subject has been referred to in the media. However the term "cult" has also been used by many scholars, so expanding it in this location would be inappropriate. Instead, I think that a sentence in one of the 1970s sections would be better, since that's when the term started being used, mentioning that the subject was described by scholars as part of the "cultic milieu" and included in both scholarly and journalistic lists of cults.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DLM is also referred to as a cult by Time magazine too. Or are we going to go back to Time being a tabloid as well? And since Rainer P. brought it up, I herewith solemnly declare that I am not, and never have been, an employee of the subject either. Who's next? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "It seems that editors here think that it's not long enough" is incorrect. Only some of the editors here make the claim. "Time" does not satisfy as an adequate source for the bio of a living person. Most tabloid and glossy media promote the prejudices of their readers for circulation purposes. It is not Wiki's purpose to promote such prejudices. Terry Macro (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to reflect all significant points of view that can be found in reliable sources, giving each their due weight. TIME is one of the oldest, most reputable, and largest circulation news magazines in the world. When it reports with an angle that is representative of the opinions of its readers it is an excellent source for the most commonly held views, the views to which we should give the greatest weight. TIME is hardly the only source for the term "cult". Dozens of those sources have been compiled at this page.   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizen's Freedom Foundation (CFF) and the original CAN referred to DLM as one of the "big four" new cults along with ISKCON, $cientology and Unification. Of course, the "big four" of the "old cults" were the Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. Curious that the "old cults" were criticized for doctrine while the "new cults" were criticized for using psychological practices. Wowest (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)