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)

Will, you are of course right about Cagan, all these old arguments had me slipping into a time warp of an agreed, but not consensus position.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:44, 26 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.[3]   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: [[4]] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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[[7]].

"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 [8] has a substantial list of scholars who clearly have no difficulty with the word cult [9]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: [10] 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." [[11]]

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)

Hey, you were next! :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 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)

What an amazing compilation, thank you! Still, reading (admittedly supereficially) through it, to me it seems that "cult" is not the dominant denomination, except perhaps in some mass media, but there are many many alternative terms. Again, I do see a reason for mentioning the "cult"-perception, but it should be properly balanced, perhaps put in context neutrally. And BTW I did not bring up this employee thing, but Will did. Personally I don't actually believe that current or former employees are active here.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 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)

The Time article is not a tabloid article because Time is not a tabloid. The article is sub-standard, tabloid-like journalism because it is written in breathless hyperbole, and includes baseless insinuation about tax irregularities ( If there really were any they would have been reported in this article, I'm sure.). I note also that it criticizes Rawat in hyperbolic language for allegedly exercising freedoms that all of us enjoy[[12]]. Stigmatization via the use of the term 'cult' in such substandard, tabloid-like articles has been criticized by scholars as I have pointed out previously. I fully agree with Terry Macro; It is not a reliable source on the subject and should not be included as a reference.

I also agree that 'cult' should not be used in the lede. It should not be necessary to restate yet again all of the reasons for that. And, in reply to Will, 'scholars' who use the term 'cult' were proponents of the anti-cult / deprogramming industry, e.g., Conway & $iegelman, and $inger. I see from Rainer P's post that the list also includes evangelical Christians. Due to their bias, such writers are not generally representative of main stream academics, sociologists mostly, who wrote about Rawat and the DLM in more measured, scholarly terms. Will has neglected to mention that fact.

I note also that Will deleted the definitions section from the list of sources[[13]]. In fact, the page is not merely a list. It includes quotes from the sources. The definitions are essential to understanding the terms used. I have reinstated the definitions. Here is an extract that is relevant to this discussion.

"Provided to offer context about the various ways in which the term "cult" and "sect" are used, which are being conflated in this list without providing such distinction. See also Cult and Sect...The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside of the mainstream of Western religion. Exactly which groups should be considered cults is a matter of disagreement amongt researchers in the cult phenomena, and considerable confusion exists. However, three definitions dominate the writings of social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anticultists. Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term."

BTW, The article history shows that an IP recently inserted expremie.org as a reference. Can someone confirm whether or not that site has been deemed not acceptable as a source? --Zanthorp (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Margaret Singer was an academic psychologist who was also a clinical psychologist. She had valid, reputable academic credentials, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have academic credentials. She was a published author, just as the scholars of NRMs/cults have published books and material from both camps should be considered reliable sources. Singer was not a deprogramer (like Ted Patrick) and she shouldn't be characterized as such. This is what Singer said in 1979 about the term "cult." Btw, the term "anti-cult" was coined, I believe by CESNUR's Massimo Introvigne, who himself, has no credentials as a scholar of NRMs/cults. Rather, his area of expertise is in the legal realm. He's a patent attorney in Italy.

The term "cult" is always one of individual judgment. It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and practices just off the beat of traditional religions; to groups making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader. The people I have studied, however, come from groups in the last, narrow band of the spectrum: groups such as the Children of God, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Divine Light Mission, and the Church of Scientology. I have not had occasion to meet with members of the People's Temple founded by the late Reverend Jim Jones, who practiced what he preached about being prepared to commit murder and suicide, if necessary, in defense of the faith. -- Margaret Singer, Ph.D, 1979 Psychology Today. Singer stated in 1997 that her above article and writings from 1979 still apply in the current day. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the article from Time that Zanthorp is referring to, but it isn't the one I was referring to, my article talks about none of that. So I guess that's multiple issues/articles from Time, which still is NOT a tabloid, despite Terry Macro's attempt to paint it as one. I also think it's important to note that both scholarly sources as well as public media such as Time agree on the term cult. Zanthorp makes quite a few claims against the Time article, can you prove any of them with sources? There are in fact many references to his tax problems, so your "baseless insinuation" suggestion is just outright wrong. Your suggestion that Time is anything other than a reliable source is pretty hard to digest without facts to the contrary (and I could be wrong, but didn't we already take that question somewhere and have it confirmed as a reliable source? Or was that just the LA Times?). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME is a perfectly relaible source, and if folks want to challanege it we can go to the reliable sources noticeboard. However there are so many other sources available that I don't see the point of focusing on that single magazine. Zanthorp makes disparaging comments about some writers, but again, it's used by many scholars. Even Melton included the subject in his book The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America - notice the title.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, TIME is only a news magazine! No need to pretend it is faultless, when you have a chance to look at an issue after 35 years. You don't need sources to see an article is an embarrassing shot from the hip, that happens in news business inevitably sometimes. It does not really lessen Time's merits as a news mag, nobody expects it to be anything else. I think, a person who can't see the face evidence of this won't be able to profit much from any source. Even science makes mistakes, but is at least obliged to keep up with reality. Only the pope claims infallibility.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with TIME. It's clearly reliable and if folks wish to argue otherwise I suggest they seek input from the relaible sources noticeboard. But regardless of what is written in TIME there are numerous other sources. If complaints about TIME as a reliable source is the only argument then I'm going to add the proposed text to the lead.  Will Beback  talk  22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the bio of living person needs extra care for the quality of citations, and TIME does not fulfil this criteria Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call consensus?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think what Will is saying is that your argument is so preposterous that if that is the only reason you oppose the proposed text, then there really is no legitimate opposition to its addition. Also, it's too bad Jossi isn't here (well, actually... anyways, I digress), he'd be the first to tell you, it is not what's true, or false, or reality, or infallibility, it is what can be proved with reliable sources (like Time). Also, if you're only going to accept the pope as a reliable source, we aren't going to make a lot of progress on this article if we need your approval. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your basis for opposing it? Just saying "I don't like it" isn't enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to see if anyone had ever questioned whether TIME is a reliable source at the noticebaord. The most recent and relevant discussion is here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Christopher Hitchens, "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as RS. Longtime editor and respected admin Nandesuka wrote:

• It's unquestionable that both the Washington Post and Time magazine are reliable sources. To argue otherwise borders on the absurd.

If folks want to keep arguing that it isn't reliable then we can post a new thread asking about it, but the repeated assertion is bordering on tendentiousness.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying that Time is unreliable, It has a very high reputation for being the most reliable of the news mags, I am aware of that, But it is not so extraordinary as to overwhelm all the other publications that don't describe DLM as a cult. In order to avoid undue weight, other RS must also be used. I take some from the page you have linked above:

"a religious movement" asndia Investigating Religious Movement By YRON L. BELKINDHindu, "Divine Light movement" = The Mini Guru By J. KING CRU February 3, 1973 THE STARS AND STRIPES Page 9; "spiritual leader" = he guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes; "spiritual leader" = Moritz, Charles, ed. Current Year Biography, 1974; " Indian sect" = Associated Press Writer Dec. 22, 1973; "new religious movement" = Psychological Reports, v.39.3 - Missoula- p.976 etc. etc. Therefore if the Time description "cult" is to be used so must many others. Of course that would bloat the lede unnecessarily, so I suggest to keep it the way it is now.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If Time were the only source that used the word it might be considered anomolous. But the term is used by many newspapers, magazines, and scholars. We already use "new religious movement", but that is just one of the terms used. Further, the DLM was not just a minor cult, it was included in every short list of cults, meaning that it was among the most prominent cults of the decade. If the assertion here is that a dozen sources are insufficeint, then the materials in the article with even fewer sources should probably be removed first.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we do have consensus that Time is a reliable source, and we have evidence of several other reliable sources referring to the DLM as a cult. There is also clear RS evidence that it has been referred to a NRM. This leads us back to the recent proposal of including both terms in the Lede, unless there is a very strong reason to argue that this is not a neutral reflection of the source descriptions. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The remaining arguments that I've seen against using the word cult are:

a) If we use 'cult', then we must also use all the other terms used. This argument is almost directly contrary to the purpose of a summary lede. The lede should ideally use the single most reflective terminology, or occasionally two terms where a single term can't be agreed. In this case, it is clear that NRM and Cult are the only two qualifying terms for the lede.

b) The meaning of the term 'cult' has changed to become more derogatory since the 1970s, and as such shouldn't be used. As the cult article and many people here have pointed out, the term has several meanings, only some of which are grossly derogatory. The use of the NRM term, combined with the context of article text (strong emphasis on peace, meditation practice, etc.) removes any possibility of association with David Koresh, Jim Jones et.al. It is also very important to note that according to reliable sources the DLM was very much associated with most of the definitions of the term 'Cult' and in fact was a cult.

c) The media has used the term 'cult' in such a biased and unfair way that the use of the term is now unfair and shouldn't be used. This is almost an appeal to apply original research. As a general point, regardless of the merits of this argument, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to actively change the way language is used, or to apply 'political correctness'. We must passively reflect current usage of language as it is used. Terms like should be used or shouldn't be used must be a red flag for us when they imply that we should be actively changing normal, current usage because of subjective reasons. --Savlonn (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are any additional arguments to not include the word 'cult' in the lede, could you add them in bullet point form below, so that we have a tangible list of points to consider for reaching consensus? --Savlonn (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- Cult is a difficult definition with competing meanings. The definition of cult for a scholar, is not the same as the definition used by the Christian counter-cult, or the one used by the secular counter-cult. Thus, using a reference to "cult" in the lede, conflates all these competing meanings making the statement useless and not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, you have managed to create a self-referencing meta-paradox, according to your own reasoning. You have argued that the definition is different, depending on the groups you have claimed as responsible for defining these differing definitions, but have actually applied the term itself within your definition of the groups responsible for defining the term! Douglas Hofstadter would be impressed! (see Gödel,_Escher,_Bach) Therefore, by your own reasoning, you are arguing that the terms 'Christian count-cult' and 'secular counter-cult' are meaningless. As you can see, I could continue along this paradoxical path for a quite some time, but hopefully you see my point. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many more terms by which this movement was described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#Reception, so it seems biased to pick and choose just one, in particular the one that is the less neutral of the bunch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

1) I agree with you about the 'pick and choose just one' argument, as New Relgious Movement is used almost as commonly as 'Cult' to describe the DLM, and as such my preference is to use both, but in a way that accurately reflects 'Cult' as the most widely used and commonly understood term at the time the majority of the source material was written.

2) re: "the one that is the less neutral of the bunch." It is our responsibility to ensure that a neutral overall article is written. This does not mean using polite phrases and terminology throughout the article, but reflecting accurately and without bias the source material that is used for the biography. I assume by 'neutral term' you mean one that is least controversial or negative. That would not be an accurate historical reflection of the subject or source material, and thus would deviate from overall neutrality of the article. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- There are many religious leaders included in scholarly books and encyclopedias related to the studies of "cults" (in the scholarly meaning), and yet these are not described as cults in their articles. One notable example is Sun_Myung_Moon, who has been described as a cult leader in many more sources, and yet there is no mention of it in the lede, probably for the similar reasons argued above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.3.141 (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough about Sun Myung Moon to be qualified to respond to your specific example, though a brief read of his biography indicates much broader notability in terms of timeframe and scope than Pram Rawat, whose primary notability was that of a 1970s Cult Leader. My point is that you can't apply generalisation as an argument for the appropriate usage of terminology, as it will depend completely on the unique circumstances of each biography. --Savlonn (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, 190.246.3.141 is probably a blocked editor who is very familiar with the texts in question, having written some of them. Further edits by blocked or banned users will be reverted.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not know if the anonymous editor was a blocked editor, not that this statement disagrees with the reversion of their edit in this instance. You cannot make up Wiki rules on the fly to suit your purposes. Edits by anonymous editors cannot be summarily reversed unless this becomes Wiki policy. Terry Macro (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by banned editors may be reverted by any editor, and editing to evade a block is also forbidden. I've requested an investigation and will report back.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It did seem a little curious that someone new was suddenly participating without signing their comments. Thanks for the heads-up. On a related note, they refer to the Sun Myung Moon article, which has an entire section dedicated to the "cult" status of the Uniication Church, I wonder how that anonymous editor would feel about us leaving cult out of the lead, but dedicating paragraphs and a section heading to it instead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Stating that DLM was a cult places undue weight on this perspective. It is original research for Savlon or WB to claim "cult" is a more popular term (not to say accurate term) than sect or religion or church without providing some statistics to back it up. For example as a bit of trivia, if you pair various words including "cult" with DLM in Google, it shows that "cult" is less often found with Divine Light Mission than these other words such as church, religion, religious movement etc. Therefore how can any editor state to the effect that in the lede DLM should be described as a cult based on popular sources. Can any editor show how this demonstrates a NPOV? Any inclusion of "cult" in the lede must be based on objective reason(s) that support NPOV. Terry Macro (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The proposal isn't to state that the DLM was a cult. The propsoal is to say that it was included in lists of cults. That is NPOV and accurate.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Will. Cla68 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV depends upon the context. If it is to be stated that DLM is included in a list of cults (provided adequate references are available) then other claims that have greater weight will also have to be included such as along the line "Rawat has often been termed a guru, master, teacher, humanitarian and speaker in the popular press". Terry Macro (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Let's add the most important terms used to describe the man and his movement, as represented in reliable 3rd-party sources. We certainly have enough to add the propsoed text, and there may be enough to add other terms as well. "Sect" is another frequent one. I think we should keep the list short, using opnly the most common terms.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with this suggestion. I'll repeat the link to the reception section of DLM Divine_Light_Mission#Reception as the first sentence in particular provides sourced references to descriptions used for the DLM. I realise this refers to the movement and not the subject, but it is a starting point. --Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It was called a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, an offshoot of Sant Mat, an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,, a youth religion, a Radhasoami offshoot, an orthodox Sikh community, an Advait Mat related tradition, a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"), and a defunct religious movement.--Savlonn (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't want that whole list in the intro. Some of those are very obscure usages. The first three might be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

yep - just to be clear, I pasted that list purely as a basis for discussion; it certainly doesn't represent my opinion of what we should put in the lede. As I mentioned earlier, I personally prefer just the two terms previously discussed in order to ensure that lede remains a summary and doesn't bloat. However, I am willing to compromise for the sake of consensus, and if this means including additional terms, then so be it. --Savlonn (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will (did I really just say this?...)--Rainer P. (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not to get stuck on Time again, but they also refer to DLM as one of the big 4 cults of the 70's. Adequate references will certainly not be a problem. Seems a little like having to find sources before stating Prem is alive though...and wouldn't wanna be anyone's hatchet man, so I agree with Cla68 instead. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Terry's proposal. (And sorry for the hatchet man, Maelefique. This somehow happens, when I edit in the dark of night, being too busy at daytime...please accept my apology.)--Rainer P. (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, when you try what Terry indicated above, here are Google search hits for pairs:

PR + "guru" 12,500; PR+ "Master" 9490; PR+ "teacher" 7220; PR+ "humanitarian" 6450; PR+ "speaker" 5150; PR+ "cult leader" 3180. Draw your own conclusions.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with actual sources, not Ghits which have all kinds of problems.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This might work: "In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be one of the fastest growing organizations of its kind in the US." --Zanthorp (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vague.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How about: The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms: a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and different other labels.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no indication that those are conflicting terms. I doubt there are many sources that called it a "charismatic religious sect", though "sect" is common, and there seems to be agreement on including it. I propose:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission was called a "sect", was included in lists of cults, and was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.

The assertion that it was the fastest growing group is important to its notability and the notability of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For better flow, I suggest:

• In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, which was referred to as a "sect" and included in lists of cults, was judged to be one of the fastest growing new religious movements in the US and UK.--Savlonn (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought of adding the characterisation of his movement as a "cult" or "sect" to the last part of the lede, listing criticisms of him? JN466 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the DLM was the fastest growing NRM in the US and UK is not a criticism, and it's easiest to combine them all. I don't think it much matters where in the intro it goes, but there's a logic to introducing the DLM early.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

David G. Bromley once said, Cult is a four-letter word for a religion you don't like. So while DLM being a fast-growing NRM wasn't criticism, calling it a cult was. JN466 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one viewpoint. However I'm not sure that there's a benefit to placing all criticims in one section or in one article. The current thinking on Wikipedia is that it's better to include criticism in the context of whatever is being discussed. So it would be suboptimal to discuss the DLM in one paragraph, and then add a criticism of it two paragraphs later. Further, the intro does have a someone chronological organization, so to the extent we can follow that the easier it is for readers.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely he was (and is) accused by his critics of being a cult leader. That seems to be a bit more prominent as a criticism than the lack of intellectual content in his discourses ... this article is about Rawat, not DLM. JN466 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit for splitting the characterization of the DLM with positive mentions in one place and negative mentions in another.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else, or shall we post this now?   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at JN's idea. Something like: Rawat has been criticized for being a cult leader, for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[8][13] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[6][14], and we can keep the fastest growing NMR, which is the way the source puts it, and we have the "cult" in a neutral perspective.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We have various sources for the DLM being called a cult, and even a few for Rawat/GMJ being called a "cult leader", but I'm not sure we have a single one that says "Rawat was criticized for being a cult leader". According to whom was this a criticism? Let's just report it in the simplest way possible, and let readers decide for themselves. The proposed text is neutral, verifiable, and relevant. We've already written a few thousand words discussing it. Let's bring this to a close.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets conclude this cult discussion. That the DLM was included in a list of cults is detail that belongs in the article, not the lede. Including the term in the lede would place undue weight on the use of the term.

I doubt that we have the resources to accurately document the use of various terms in all 'reliable sources', however, a quick check of of quotes from the list[[14]] gives these terms in addition to cult.

• a movement, a religious movement, new religious movement, peace movement: used at least 11 times
• peace movement, ex-youth movement and monolithic movement were also used.
• sect, Indian sect, mystical sect: used at least 5 times
• One writer also called it an Indian devotional group.

Here's a breakdown of Google search for the Divine Light Mission plus commonly used terms.

• Divine Light Mission + cult = 41,800
• + new religious movement = 51,600
• + movement = 90,300
• + religious movement = 68,000
• + sect = 89000
• + group = 147,000

The most commonly used term is group, almost 4 times the result for cult. Movement, at 90,300, including NRM and religious movement, accounts for well over double the results for cult. At 89,000, sect scored more than double the result for cult. The use of cult is outnumbered 8 to 1 by the use of alternative terms. Movement is generally a shorthand reference to NRM. The use of that term outnumbers the use of cult more than 2 to 1. Quite apart from the well documented issue of bias, there is no doubt that by using the term cult in the lede, we place undue weight on that term.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can counter Zanthorp's referral to a neutral view on the situation using Google search with some other third party neutral observation I agree that we should conclude this cult discussion in the lede. Terry Macro (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NEUTRAL LEDE WITH REVISED CHRONOLOGY

After all the to and fro discussion by the various editors wishing to improve this topic, I have taken the time to revise the lede in total including a more accurate chronology as follows:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice that he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained international prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West where the Divine Light Mission was considered one of the fastest growing new religious movements. When Rawat turned 16 he began to take a more active role in guiding DLM that had previously been managed by others. His marriage to a Westerner in 1975 divided his family and the movement with Rawat retaining control of DLM outside of India. He based himself in the US becoming a United States citizen in 1977 and continued to travel extensively to spread his message. In the early 1980s he abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable and disbanded the DLM which was succeeded by Elan Vital in 1983. In 2001 he established the Prem Rawat Foundation as a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message which is now available in over eighty countries.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses and for leading an opulent lifestyle."

I think the above satisfies Wiki's requirment for a NPOV Terry Macro (talk)

The current lead is the product of extensive editing by numerous editors. Rather than an outright replacement, I recommend you make suggestions for individual edits to the existing lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this lead is much worse than what we are already working towards, and completely ignores our current discussion about the lead already in progress, as well as adding details that are just about completely irrelevant to his "importance" in general. I would strongly oppose rebuilding the lead using TerryMacro's draft as a starting point. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique, you are right, I have removed the unnotable material - looks good to me, thank you for your advice. Terry Macro (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looked good to you before too, I am still opposed since you only took half my advice, you continue to ignore our continuing discussion above. This version is not a good starting point. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

the problem with the above discussion is that it is so piecemeal, it is hard to get a handle on what exactly is going to be the full end result. Such a piecemeal approach could end up looking like a dog's breakfast. The above discussion was headed "Neutral Lede" which is what I have produced. Terry Macro (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The discusion above is focused on altering a single sentence. It's not piecemeal at all.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro's lede is a major improvement in style. It presents all of the information contained in the current lede without the abrupt, somewhat disjointed sentences that are the result of innumerable edits. Perhaps most importantly, it better reflects the contents of the article. I will post more about this later when I get more time. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)