Talk:Prem Rawat

The Wikipedia Community has placed this article on 1RR probation Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months, ending June 4 2008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /Finch, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Heller comment, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /scholars, /temp1, /journalists

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 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34)

Arbitration underway

The request for arbitration was accepted:

Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

--User:JayvdbJohn Vandenberg (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

comment here 147.114.226.172 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Visualisation of footnotes

(please keep this section lower on the page than any footnotes that are to be visualised)

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's a Good Link for the page when it gets re-enabled

From a website that bills itself as "Religion News Blog is a non-profit service providing academics, religion professionals and other researchers with religion & cult news". It's like a scrapbook of news cuttings based on its impartial search of news articles on particular topics, one of which is Prem Rawat. The BBC has a similar service on its news website, so you can compare different news sites' coverage on a given topic. The link in this instance is: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/category/prem-rawat/

religionnewsblog archives copies of newspaper articles as they are published. It then uses the common device (as does wikipedia itself) of claiming fair use, with the proviso that it will cooperate with any copyright holders who want their material removed, just like the Rick Ross site discussed above. Note that there are over 100 links from wikipedia to the Rick Ross site. These must all be removed in order to remain consistent with the judgement here about that site. 84.9.49.223 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I've a bet with a friend that this link will be blocked from the article by Messrs jossi et al who will find some pretext amongst WP's policies for excluding it (in spite of this site already being used as a source for numerous other WP pages), or else will quickly generate such policies :-) 84.9.49.223 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good bet! Is there any way I could get $100 on it? There is no way a bigoted, sensationalist blog like that would be considered as a reputable source for Wikipedia, no matter how they try to present themselves. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Before calling a long-established, well-used and informative Christian-based website "bigoted and sensationalist", it might do to go away and attain a level of inner peace. Some say this process can be accelerated by taking the Knowledge. Why not give that a try, Rumiton? 84.9.49.223 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rumiton, as a good wikipedian, you'd better get on with it and remove all the links given at here. We wouldn't want the readers of those articles to see a "bigoted, sensationalist blog" that is simply a news clip service. Let's not make it easy to find archived newspaper articles directly from wikipedia. As we all know, contributing to wikipedia is about people who know better finding pretexts to hide information rather than simply providing it and letting readers decide what is useful to their researches. 84.9.49.223 (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your puerile attempt at cleverness, the issues of blogs like the above being linked to a biography of a living person have been discussed here almost ad nauseum. Check out the archives. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, thank you for pointing out my puerile attempt at cleverness. I must have a lot to learn and you should be praised for making me feel so humble. We could attempt to discuss whether one makes a better wikipedian by being clever or by being stupid, but I'd rather simply draw attention to the fact that this search returns several links from WP pages about living persons to the religion newsblog. As a good wikipedian yourself - clever or stupid, let's not go there - shouldn't you be as concerned to remove those links as well as the links from the Prem Rawat page, both for the reasons you give and because nowhere in the archives has it been discussed why such links from certain living persons' WP pages are acceptable whereas from one particular page, the Prem Rawat page, it is not? 84.9.49.223 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is time-wasting. The Wikipedia guidelines on living person biographies and reputable sources are clear. If not all articles on Wikipedia meet proper standards that does not mean this article should descend to their level. Rumiton (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your attempt at creating a hostile environment on this talk page is known as baiting. This tactic has been tried before and does not work, though it can get a user permanently blocked. Thank you for your more reasonable recent tone. Rumiton (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a link to an external website has proven useful in another article without demur then that can be cited as a precedent to indicate that that it is acceptable. What is wrong with providing a link to a news clipping service that collects together press coverage on a particular topic, or an archive site that provides the only on-line source for a particular reference? Surely it is a courtesy to the reader to save them having to go and conduct the searches themself. Many people use wikipedia for just this purpose. What good reason can there be to prevent people finding out easily what press coverage there has been on a particular topic? Beats me. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beats you? As I have said, go look through the talk archives. The issue of reputable sources for a biography of a living person has been explained multiple times. The blog you are talking about is tabloidal and sensationalist. It works (the word to avoid) "cult" in constantly. I looked at two sections. From memory, the first was something like "Cult faces court." It was about a legal action taken against Elan Vital in the UK several years ago. It does not say that the case is long over, and Elan Vital was found innocent of wrongdoing. The second was "Local builder in drive-in (Amaroo) protest" or similar. It does not tell us that the protester (who I know, and who incidentally was not a builder's earhole) shortly afterwards served a 5 month jail sentence for substance and firearm offences pertaining to his real occupation, which was drug dealer. The MO of this blog is to use any trick to create a negative impression of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. It is not up to the standard of an encyclopedia. Bigoted is the best word for it. Rumiton (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked through all the talk archives and I am certain that you are mistaken. Nowhere does it state that a news clip service is not useful. Obviously if a news clip service didn't cover newspaper articles that provided coverage on a particular topic then that could easily be exposed by showing links to the newspaper articles that had been missed. Again nowhere in the archives is there any reference to newspaper articles that might have been missed by WP editors. If the idea that Prem Rawat is even a notable topic is to be supported then surely it is helpful to indicate that his name has appeared at least once or twice in a recent newspaper occasionally. Otherwise there would be a case to delete the whole article on the basis that it isn't notable enough to be covered in wikipedia. In fact I wonder whether that isn't what the Arbcom is considering at this very moment. What evidence is there to support the idea that Prem Rawat is worth covering at all? 84.9.49.223 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has been discussed endlessly. It comes from Wikipedia Reliable sources, and Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons.

Again I think you are mistaken. I checked the talk archive and there is no mention of preventing the posting of information about press archives or press clippings services. There is, as far as I am aware no WP policy that covers this either, nor need there be - see my closing remarks in this posting. Obviously if a particular news clipping service can be shown to produce unreliable results then its use should be called into question. For a wikipedia user to prevent access to a service that simply shows that there is newspaper coverage on a topic, a service that gives publication dates and sources and provides archives covered by a fair use policy, is not contrary to any WP policy that I have seen. The fact that many other WP pages provide links to such a service (indeed the particular service mentioned here) gives that service legitimacy within the WP community. Obviously if you'd like to propose a better, more relaible or more comprehensive service than the one proposed here then I'm sure the consensus would be to use your recommended news clipping service, Rumiton, rather than the one suggested here. There has been established for quite a long time in the West an idea known as freedom of the press. Attempts to prevent access to it are known as censorship. (I only mention this in case Rumiton is not familiar with these concepts, as appears to be the case here).147.114.226.172 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm again. I suggest you go to WP:RS and argue your case there. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no sarcasm intended. I am genuinely flummoxed that you do not seem to support the idea of a free press and would rather, it seems, censor what high-quality news organizations have written about Prem Rawat. People who understand the benefits of having a free press don't censor the press just because they don't happen to like what it publishes. That's called totalitarianism. (I'll assume pro tem, Rumiton, that you're not from some primitive back-water and can handle the concepts I introduce here. Otherwise you might like to go to the wikipedia welcome page and ponder what "free" means in the title section.) 147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The news organisations currently cited on the religionnewsblog website in respect of Prem Rawat are:

• The Register - in the wikipedia category of News Websites
• Evening Standard - in the wikiopedia category London Newspapers
• Reporters Without Borders - "a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press" - in the wikipedia category Winner of the Sakharov Prize
• Scoop - a prominent independent news website based in New Zealand
• Bristol Evening Post - Award Winning Paper Of The South West 2007
• The Daily Californian - in the wikipedia category Publications established in 1871
• The Courier Mail - in the wikipedia category Subsidiaries of News Corporation

(All info in preceding section taken verbatim from wikipedia)

Hardly a self-published blog with nothing but self-published trash, wouldn't you all agree? If we are going to ban all these, where do we draw the line? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it says in this section heading, A good link to put in the Prem Rawat article. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree again. A bad link. Most of the above are tabloid type newspapers, and the better ones are no better than their reporters. Some of them are very shonky, and none meet the standards for "scholarly source." If the article was about you, you would agree with me. Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources, which says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." There is therefore a distinction between opinion and biographical detail, and no injunction that opinion in contentious pieces should not be used. What is disallowed is contentious biographical material, i.e. lies about the person, presumably because that might be libellous. Otherwise all is allowable. What there is no explicit WP guideline for, it seems, is links to news clipping services that themselves provide archived material from a number of sources closely aligned with the topic of a wikipedia article. Since linking to such a service is already established wikipedia practice and clearly helps in establishing the notability of the WP topic, I'd still say this is a good link to put in the article. 147.114.226.175 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

On the subject of news organisations, When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

On Biographies of living persons, Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. In other words, we shouldn't even be allowing quotes from disreputable sources to appear in this talk page.

On the subject of notability, personally I agree that the work Prem Rawat does is private, person to person, and word of mouth, and a good case could be made that this causes him to fail the notability test. Unfortunately, I don't think others would see it that way, and if the article were to be deleted it would be endlessly reinstated. It is relevant that this article was originally written as a forum for criticism of the subject. Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat

Since that redirect was to a place in the Prem Rawat article that doesn't exist, I have reverted that redirect so that it now stands as admin Jossi originally intended. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since that page has been revived, I'd request

{{see also|Criticism of Prem Rawat}}

to be added under the Prem Rawat#Reception section header.

Is it OK to request this with a {{editprotected}}? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this. Consensus can change, but an unilateral reversion to an old version needs to gain consensus before implementing. I would also argue that it would be advisable to wait until the ArbCom case is completed before any major issues related to these articles is undertaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Was there something wrong with this? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Four years ago, there was nothing wrong with it. Now, this article contains summaries of the ciriticism on that old page which you reverted to without discussion, and as such it is a POV fork, and unacceptable. You can ask Francis about what a POV fork is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Francis, what is a POV fork? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no exclusive rights to the idea ;) See Wikipedia:POV fork. That's how easy it is: write "Wikipedia:" before it, and most of the time one gets an explanation.

Note that the addition of the link I suggested above is indeed intended to avoid that Criticism of Prem Rawat would be a POV fork, see Wikipedia:POV fork#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no summary of Wim Haan's criticism. There is a quote from Stephen Hunt, but no summary of his argument. There are quotes from Kranenborg, but even though he is mentioned in the article there is no summary of his criticism as stated on the criticism page. Jan Van Der Lans, a vociferous critic, gets a mention and gets quoted in the article, but nowhere is there a summary of his criticism, namely that "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. "When a professor of psychology of religion writes such a thing, people might be interested to know why. And so on, and so on. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to become familiar with the nuances of NPOV writing. For example, (my highlight) work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is not quite the same as saying remove identification of sources that do not support a particular point of view. It is the notability of the sources that counts, regardless of what they say. If they say things you think unreasonable, that can be pointed out in the article by citing other sources who disagree and letting the reader make up their own mind. Sources such as Stephen J. Hunt, Reender Kranenborg, Jan van der Lans, Ralph Larkin, Saul V. Levine, Margaret Singer and Paul Schnabel mentioned in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article have their own wikipedia entries. If they are notable enough to have articles about them in wikipedia, their views can reasonably be expected to get a mention in other articles where relevant. See Wikipedia:Notability. 84.9.49.223 (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_and_verifiability, that explains that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, and it does not override it. That is what there is a need for seeking and finding consensus, in discussions about inclusion of material in Wikpedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The piece at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_and_verifiability doesn't say that you can only cite the views of others which are neutral on the subject. It is only about presenting the content of verifiable material in a neutral way by wikipedia editors. So, in an article explicitly presenting criticism of a topic, to quote a notable source as having put "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life." as an example of such a criticism and is quite allowable. For balance, it would be helpful to indicate whether there were other sources that presented a different point of view. But the reader is going to decide whether a notable professor of psychology making such a statement is helpful, not an editor who disagrees with that point of view by deleting it. 84.9.49.223 (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the charlatan quote, I note that this has been the subject of a previous discussion: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_24#BLP_violations. Jayen466 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY again. It is the subject of the article that has to be notable. The sources used have a whole host of other criteria they have to meet. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are again mistaken here, and I realised from looking at past postings that you had completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick on this point. At the beginning of the WP:NOTABILITY page there is an 'in a nutshell' definition, which says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." So notability is to do whether there ought to be an article in wikipedia at all; it's not about whether you think the subject of a particular 3rd party article is notable. In this instance the application of the NOTABILITY guideline would be - there are a number of newspaper articles about Prem Rawat which weren't commissioned by Prem Rawat. They are from reliable sources. This fact, possibly combined with other facts, implies that Prem Rawat is notable enough to have an article in wikipedia. I'm not arguing, for instance, that because Jossi got a mention in the Register Article that there should be a wikipedia article about him. I think he would need to become a bit more notorious than that, i.e. there would need to be more coverage elsewhere in order for him to qualify as being notable enough for his own wikipedia article. The notability guideline is salient in this context however because it indicates unequivocally that all media qualify as sources, not just scholarly sources: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." is what it actually says.147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to user .223, who mistakenly referred to "notable sources" instead of notable subjects. (I wish you both could come up with a username, it is almost impossible to have a conversation with a number.) The first 95% of your post reiterated my point. Fine so far. Then you go off with the fairies on "...all media qualify as sources." I am thinking of getting a tee-shirt printed up saying "Please refer to biographies of living persons." Please do so. Then click on references and discover how stringently Wikipedia applies its rules on living biographies. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, and perhaps other editors, do not want this article to be expanded in length at all, if I understand correctly. If that remains the case then the material in Criticism of Prem Rawat, and other material about the subject, cannot be included here and must be in a subsidiary article. This is is the topic of a discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#unredirected. Are folks willing to expand this article, or do we need to recreate the subsidiary article? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

I won't be much help. I'm going to be heavily involved in the "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" article [1]. He's far more notable than Rawat and subject to considerably more criticism.Momento (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You made your point, Momento. But we are working on this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, are you saying that you won't object to expanding the article in order to move more of the critical material over from Criticism of Prem Rawat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Including links the Ex-premie hate site? Doesn't that violate BLP policy.Momento (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking of the other material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well why don't you remove it as a gesture of good faith.Momento (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You haven't answered my questioned - do you object to expanding this article in order to include more critical material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we expanding with just "critical" material? Why aren't we adding more "positive" material? I get the feeling editing this article is being driven by some need to satisfy The Register rather than by established Wiki policy and guidelines. Perhaps you can give me an example of how and what "criticism" you would like to include?Momento (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many critical (meaning positive and negative) assessments of the subject. NPOV requires that we include them. We can either expand this article, move it to an existing article, or spin it out into a separate article. Do you support or oppose expanding this article to include more of the information from Criticism of Prem Rawat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "Criticism of..." article about Rawat or any other BLP. In order to not give undue weight, criticism should be included in the article not in a separate section and any criticism will require context. Like Jimbo's BLP, Rawat should have the last word.Momento (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So if you oppose having a "Criticism" article then do you support the expansion of this article to include some of the material from that article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Any reasonable criticism should be summarized and put in the article at the appropriate place as per BLP and other policies. Most of the criticism in the "Criticism" article that was left out of this article was omitted because it was contradicted or rendered absurd by other scholars' material or allocated to the "teachings" article. And, of course, some of the material in the "Criticism" article in in violation of various Wiki policies.Momento (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Merely "contradict[ing]...other scholars' material" is certainly not a reason to omit criticism. As for "rendered absurd", rendered absurd in whose eyes? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Example - Kent wrote of one talk "I found his poorly delivered message to be banal" and this quote is sometimes inserted into the article without his subsequent paragraph which goes "I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day to pay homage to him by kissing his feet. I was flabbergasted, stunned. How could anyone have thought that this guy was a spiritual master? Unable to comprehend why anyone had been impressed by the amateurish performance through which I had suffered, I pondered this mystery for years". For the sake of space, I'd leave it all out. As for "rendered absurd", it's hard to go past Reender Kranenborg who "argued that a satguru who drives an expensive cars 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 he considers to be a normal and simple life". Clue, Rawat isn't Jesus.Momento (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Singer

Are we already ignoring Margaret Singer for some reason, I may have missed the topic if she came up already. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only but a passing reference to Divine Light Mission in an article by Singer, published in January 1979 in Psychology Today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not true jossi. If you could refrain from phrasing your opinions as facts, it would be a little less contentious of an atmosphere around here. I think most of us would agree you are somewhat of an expert on this subject (biased, COI-ed, or not). When you make statements like this, it is easy for people to believe they are true; and that is not helpful at all in terms of directing the research that people are pursuing for this article. Inviting an open disussion instead of attempting to close the door would be much more helpful.

Former members report that in [Maharajji's] Divine Light Mission the lights would be dimmed and the guru would pass among the followers bestowing 'divine light' on individuals by pressing on their eyes until the pressure on the optic nerve caused them to see flashes of light. This was reframed as Divine Light.

— Margaret Thaler Singer (1995). Cults in our midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. p.136. ISBN 0787900516. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. I have the Psychology Today article, and it has but a passing comment. As for the above quote, it could be added, if it adds any value to the Teachings of Prem Rawat article alongside other commentary on the subject. And I would appreciate it if you discuss sources and materials rather than discussing me or other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

jossi, I read your statement above to imply that the only place that Singer had referred to Rawat was in passing, in the article you cite, since I never mentioned any books or articles in my question that you were answering. If you were thinking that the PT article was the reference by Singer that I was talking about, then accept my apology, your statement was a little ambiguous, and I took it in a way other than you intended. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique, I think Jossi will agree that there are historic reasons why descriptions these meditation techniques are unwelcome in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. (The Singer quote refers somewhat obliquely to one of the techniques.) I am sure that no follower of Prem Rawat would like the techniques made public since they are now only taught at the last stage of Rawat's course for initiates called 'The Keys'. Initiates are asked not to divulge these techniques. The techniques are quite well-known Raj Yoga meditation techniques but followers believe that without committing to the continued guidance of the Master these techniques will not be fully appreciated. In the past, followers were taught that they simply would not work without 'Guru Maharaji's Grace' and swore a much more solemn and formal oath than is (apparently) required today. Most of these things are referred to in reliable publications and can be properly verified but there has been, and presumably will always be, resistance to including such 'secret or private' information on grounds that it is against WP policy to reveal the guarded secrets/practices of religious groups. My point is that before including such quotes it may be prudent to be first very clear regarding WP policy on these matters. Jossi perhaps can direct us and/or explain his understanding of this. PatW (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Was I just 'soapboxing' there or having a pompous, long-winded rant again? Damn..I'm really sorry if that was the case.PatW (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The techniques as described by several scholars is already available at Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Descriptions_of_Knowledge_by_scholars. If Singer's description is deemed to add value to that section, it could be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is no policy against including practices of religious groups if these are available in reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ex-premie disambiguation

In January 2008, user jossi turned the ex-premie disambiguation page into a divert to a page about premature birth, which could be interpreted as him believing that people reading wikipedia should not be exposed to the term 'ex-premie'. However, the premie disambiguation page was not so altered. For consistency/symmetry and to assist wikipedia readers I've reverted jossi's change, so the ex-premie page is back to being a disambiguation. The term 'ex-premie' currently gets 115 hits with this search. Only one of these, i.e. less than 1%, refers to peri-natal matters. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Ex-premie#What is the source of the term 'ex-premie'?. You may want to discuss further in that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it. 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Collier? Really?? Wow...

I don't know who added the quote, I can see why some people would want that quote in the article, but seriously, are you kidding me?? Not surprisingly, since jossi is the only one who's done anything other than clean-up work, the Sophia Collier page (as well as this article) neglects to mention that she's a former student of Rawat's. And this article gives that quote way too much weight. This is not a quote from a scholar's book, it's an autobiography, of someone who was 16 at the time she was living in an ashram (for a month), and the book wasn't written until 6 years later. Also, jossi, while you're at it, if you want to fix Sophia's article, I am pretty sure she didn't sell her beverage company to Joseph E. Seagram in 1989, since he'd been dead for about 70 years at that point. If I can find some sources, I will try and edit that article later.

I don't even know how to express my incredulity at this addition. I have seen people on this article "freak out" because a reference was from a sociologist/psychologist/historian/scientist/scholar/whatever's PhD thesis, and therefore has undue weight, but a passing reference from a 16 year old girl who talks about her drug abuse and LSD experiences during that time in her life, written 6 years after the fact, that's ok with the same people?!? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you already to stop discussing other editors, and focus on discussing the article. If you have proposals on how to improve citations or use of sources, you can do that without resorting to such comments. The Collier quote was not added by me, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was possible, I would do so, but the actions of some of the editors on this article make that, at times, impossible I'm afraid. Perhaps you could help police their behaviour in the first place, or are you suggesting that quote is just fine in this article? Anyway, in case you missed my suggestion, I suggest we remove that quote from Collier completely. Thanks for letting me know you weren't the one that added it, you weren't at the top of my list of suspects, but I'll cross you off completely now. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique, I think your question about Collier is a good one, but your point will be more effective if you can avoid sarcasm, and teasing the editors you want to engage.

Given a choice between John Dart of the LA Times and Collier, I'd pick Collier every time.Momento (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Building Blocks For Consensus

One reason that consensus has been difficult on this page, in my opinion, is a lack of basic agreement on fundamental issues concerning the page. Let's take the opportunity of the current relative calm to forge agreements on these building blocks. I will start two below -- standards for reliable sources, and comparable biographies -- but I encourage others to raise other fundamental points as part of a way forward. I am specifically calling on the major players here -- Jossi, Momento, Rumiton, Sylviecyn, PatW, John Brauns, Nik Wright2, Jayen466, Francis Schonken, Andries, Maelefique and Will Beback -- to accept or reject these principles. (No slight intended to anyone not included in this list -- you, too.) Msalt (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Standards for sources are available in the corresponding policy pages and there are no specific ones that would apply to this article as different from any other article. In any case, I will be waiting to the completion of the ArbCom case before engaging in any substantial discussions here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Building block for consensus 1: the standard for reliable sources

There has been much talk about reliable sources in these articles, specifically an emphasis on scholarly sources that appears to be a higher standard than most Wikipedia articles. Also, after dispute resolution, it was established by clear consensus that mainstream media sources of high quality are highly reliable; the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Time Magazine were specifically named. Many users on both sides have had a double standard -- holding sources that support the opposing POV to a very strict standard, and in some cases aggressively deleting them, under the theory that BLP allows edit-warring on "poorly sourced" contentions -- while at the same time, inserting sources that support their POV but don't meet the same standard.

I challenge the editors here to declare their personal standard for reliability, and to apply it equally to sources of all POV. Hopefully, we might even reach a consensus standard that we can then use to judge all sources.

I'll go first. I think we should strive to use scholarly (and undisputed) sources, and highest quality mainstream media sources, wherever possible. Sources that don't meet those standards should be disfavored (with "editing for the enemy", by those who have one). However, sources published by an independent, third-party publisher or solid but perhaps less than highest quality mainstream press are not "poorly sourced" to justify a BLP deletion exempt from edit-warring rules. They should be used for less controversial issues though. Sources from unpublished manuscripts, self-published web pages, and argumentative publications by interested parties on either side are poorly sourced and do deserve deletion under BLP.

Who wants to go next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs)

Source typing and evaluation is only one side of the equation and cannot be discussed in isolation. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Neutrality_and_verifiability (my highlight)

A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.
In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, and mandatory in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, or advancing a personal view are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the policy you quote is saying that verifiability of sources is a necessary but not sufficient reason to include information. In other words, a verifiable point must still be neutral, NPOV, and properly weighted. However, a point that is not reliably sourced can not be rescued by well-worded and well-weighted neutral phrasing, right? In that sense, verifiability is important in isolation. Do you agree? Msalt (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Building block for consensus 2: comparable articles

Let's agree on a set of comparable BLPs on Wikipedia to use as a comparison for Prem Rawat pages. Previously I have suggested Robert Bly, Tom Peters, and Deepak Chopra. Please comment, and confirm or counter-propose. Msalt (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparable? Please keep your OR to yourself. I propose we model this BLP on Jimbo Wales.Momento (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:POINT and, in particular, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Most of the editors here would sincerely like to make some progress on reaching consensus, and your sarcasm could well be taken as a sign that you oppose that. If you think my examples are unfair, please explain why and offer counterproposals, explaining why you think yours are better. Thank you. Msalt (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to get all worked out about this. There are 263,487 BLPs in Wikipedia, some excellent, some very poorly written and all gamut in between, so I do not see the point of choosing a specific BLP as a "model". You may want to read this essay User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Jossi. I was pleased that the other problem with BLPs is being discussed on the talk page, and that is that an overly positive article on frauds and charlatans can potentially do harm to their future victims. When reading the article the reason for my small presence here became crystal clear, and that is to do what I can to help prevent Rawat doing harm to more people. A question occurs to me, Jossi. Do you agree that Rawat has done harm to people? For instance families of ashram residents who were ordered not to go home for Christmas? --John Brauns (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, Jossi. I am not "all worked out", however. I looking for a way for various editors to agree on some fair touchstones that we can use for comparison on questions such as "how long should the article be? What sources are acceptable? How much personal narrative vs. detail of notable work or events?" Etc. If you have a better idea for common ground that we can build consensus on, please suggest it. Msalt (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience in content disputes, attempting to make generic agreements do not really work. We have content policies and guidelines that cover these already. Best is to move slow and steady by discussing singular issues one at a time, seeking consensus, making the edit, and move to the next one, and so on and so forth. You may want to ask an experienced mediator to give editors some useful advice on how to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your idea has merit Msalt, even if it only gives us a new starting point so we can start with a place to build consensus from (maintaining adherence to WP policies of course). I have not looked at any of your comparables yet, and I'm not sure why Momento is so excited about your choices, but I think it's plain to see that Jimbo Wales is obviously not a comparable of Prem Rawat's. I also think that if none of the pro-Rawat editors are remotely interested in helping, and only interested in quoting policy, then this is still business as usual, and we know where that has taken us already. It's a little frustrating. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maelefique, I am interested in helping but I just noticed this discussion because, as you well know, there is a very time-consuming Arbcom going on which is somewhat distracting. Please have patience. Incidentally, I don't know who originally introduced the Collier material but I was myself strongly opposed to the way quotes thereof were selected to bolster the impression that Rawat always denied being Divine. However I am not yet completely persuaded that the book is not acceptable as a reference. I am listening though.PatW (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And who of Msalt's people are comparable to Rawat? They don't even come close. Chopra's article is a joke. A section on criticism? I'm going to argue for its immediate removal.Momento (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please share your suggestions for who would be comparable? Msalt (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since as I said, I haven't looked at any of the articles, and off the top of my head I have no ideas yet, I don't know. However, since PR is now billing himself as a motivational Speaker, I don't see why Chopra seems so ridiculous to compare with. I am however totally willing to look at the ideas you seriously bring to the table on the matter. I'm not sure why you suggested Jimbo in the first place, I can't see any similarities, but it's possible I've missed something if you'd like to spell it out for me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the statement PR is now billing himself as a motivational Speaker? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"He was billed as a motivational speaker, but until just a few years ago..." Bristol Evening Post (England), June 16, 2003 [2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what is the purpose of this debate. Is the idea to check other biographical articles of living persons to get an idea of how these are structured? Sure, go ahead. There are 240,000 of these in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to (hopefully) agree on some BLPs that are roughly comparable, that we can use as an objective standard of comparison when we disagree on things. Everyone who is editing in good faith should be able to state up front what their principles for editing are. If we can hold to principles (whether they help or hurt any given POV), then hopefully we can build good faith and reduce the mistrust that is leading to edit wars. People are stating things like "this article is too long", or "not enough criticism." A standard for comparison should reduce the large amount of "yes yes yes no no no" argument here. Msalt (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento is using Jimbo Wales as an example because Momento started a "Criticism of Jimbo Wales" article page this week and I think he is testing the waters to see if it will fly. So far I think there's been some objection to writing a separate article to criticize Wales. What Momento's motives are could be anyone's guess. I don't think Bly, Choprah, are comparable individuals to Prem Rawat. Rawat is the leader of a new religious movement. I would compare him to Moon, Sai Babba, or any other NRM leader who's worshipped as divine or is in a messianic position to their followers. But, I don't think it's a good idea to try to use another bio as a template or model. As you can see, nobody's agreeing on nuttin' around these parts, and anyway, why is anyone even writing on this page to begin with, until after the ARB results come out? Seems kind of weird to me. Give it a break everybody. Cool off. Get some distance. 02:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviecyn (talk • contribs)

I think all BLPs should be treated the same, that is according to BLP policy. The original re-write, done after the failed GA, aimed for 55,000 bytes after the previous version went past 100,000 bytes.Momento (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Osama bin Laden. Really! It's beautifully laid out. Each section is a summary with a corresponding subsidiary article, e.g. Criticism of Osama bin Laden, organised according to the point of view of each type of critic. (Given the emotion that bin Laden is likely to arouse, that article is also a paragon of NPOV, something for the wikipedia community really to be proud of. OK, maybe there aren't too many pro-bin Laden contributors, though there could be!) There's nothing to prevent giving the Rawat article similar treatment, now, by having articles for each section. We already have, Criticism of Prem Rawat, Teachings of Prem Rawat, but what about separate articles for the different stages of his life, his family connections, and so on, each succinctly summarised in the Prem Rawat main article. Then the arguments about making the Prem Rawat article too long can be substituted for discussing whether some event or opinion is notable enough to put it in the main article or in one of the subsidiary articles. 147.114.226.175 (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)