Talk:Prem Rawat

Archives

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

Criticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of any critical commentary deeply disturbing

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

Also disturbed

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

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

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

Becoming disturbed

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

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

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

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

COI2

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

Restoration of criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jossi Fresco article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief history of editing principles used for this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Prem Rawat

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

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

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

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

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

A Balance of References

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

[[7]]

Sources requiring inclusion/improved textual positioning:

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

Introduction:

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

Dupertuis, Lucy Gwyn

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

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

Introductory paragraph:

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

Quote

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

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin

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

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

Introductory paragraph:

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

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

Galanter, Marc.

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

Study Description

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Introductory paragraph:

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

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

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

Haan, Wim

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

page 55 note 2

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

English translation:

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

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

Hummel, Reinhart

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

Quote

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

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

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

Juergensmeyer, Mark

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

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

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Messer, Jeanne

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

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

Quote

Divine Light Mission operates almost entirely without capital, and this is the source of great numbers of "grace" stories. In 1972, for example, the Mission wanted to buy a small plane to transport Guru Maharaj Ji and his family around the United States. They had negotiated a price and secured a loan from the bank. The down payment was nearly $18,000, with no serious chance of generating it even in donations. The owner of the plane eventually put up the money himself, to satisfy the bank, because he "liked Guru Maharaj Ji." That is not a common reason for such unbusinesslike behavior. The owner of DLM's national headquarters building has repeatedly paid for extensive alterations to the building as activities burgeoned, though he ostensibly has no relation to the Mission other than landlord. To devotees these are miracle stories, and there are hundreds of them.

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

Price, Maeve

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

Introductory paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

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

Thomas Pilarzyk

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

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

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

David Rife

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

Quote

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

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

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

---

External links section...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thousands of edits lost

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

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

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

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

Further,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No to edit wars!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Half-broken references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references

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

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

My concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regards to *ref 7 - "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" [[8]] so it is pre 1983. Making it's placement in the 70s sentences more appropriate than after 2001. And since we are talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. {{criticism-section}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actual (Suggested) Edits to Criticism Section

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

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

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

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