Talk:Prem Rawat

• 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

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

Organization of this Discussion Page

I would like to collapse several threads that are dealing with the same issue into one section each respectively, with subsections as appropriate. Main categories that could be stagnate: "The Photo", "The Lede", "Hunt", "Kissing of Feet", "Time Article", "References", and all the discussion over the article about Jossi, his statement of purpose, and everyone's comments who were "disturbed".

I think this would help the snowballing of this page, as well as keep some editors in here from starting new threads about a subject that has been well covered.

Also, I think this would help any outside admins or editors to see in a concise manner the way in which the page is discussed. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've regrouped recent talk about the Criticism section below under #Discussion on "Criticism" section from 8 February 2008 --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of edits lost

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

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

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

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

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

Further,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" [[1]] so it is pre 1983. So 4 out of 5 references are pre 1983 (Goring being unknown). Making it's placement the "His teachings became more universal, and less Indian, and in the early 1980s" sentence inappropriate. Since we are already talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mishler quote (doesn't really belong to the talk page section on the criticism phrase in the lead of the article)

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

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

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

This Mishler?

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

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

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

Added subsection title (talk page organisation) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

External links section...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By website

Prem Rawat's official website

'Maharaji', Prem Rawat's personal website. Available in 16 languages.

• No problem to include the website. I'd change the presentation though: "Maharaji Official site of Prem Rawat", while "Official site of Prem Rawat" is what it currently says in the title tag - no need to add another interpretation. As this is English Wikipedia, the number of languages seems quite irrelevant to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• No comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Maharaji

Excerpts from recent addresses

• Works for me, but would recast the presentation: "The Voice of Maharaji Texts by Prem Rawat" --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• No comment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-premie.org

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

• I'd keep that one in the article. Contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. I'd limit the sentence describing this website to "website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat". The "cult claim" is too detaillistic: it is treated on one of the pages linked from the main page of that site, but that's a too limited angle on that website for Wikipedia's description imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is fine. The link is appropriate because it leads to a site which is maintained by former followers who obviously have some serious issues with the organization. They have loads of sources for their claim on the site, and they hold themselves out for contact. I can't comprehend why people are trying to argue this is not relevant. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Fails WP:BLP: 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. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As explained above and below (#External links disputes) this reading of BLP is essentially flawed. The fact that the text quoted from WP:BLP is not an example of clarity doesn't help either, and I don't agree with one-sided interpretations. Further, it is not yet demonstrated by far that this source is a "questionable source or a source of dubious value" --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If BLP policy isn't clear to you [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], perhaps you can discuss your concerns at [[2]]. In the meantime we will abide by it.Momento (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It's clear enough to me: it doesn't say what you would like it to say. Further, I'd go to Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons only for rewriting the phrasing of the policy. But then I wouldn't do that in the middle of a discussion where I'm involved in and that involves that policy. If I didn't feel confident on its meaning for our case here, I'd go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard BTW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem-Rawat-critique.org

Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing the mass of criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations

• I'd keep that one in too. Also contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. But I'd turn down the language with which the site is announced: "mass of criticism" is a view that we do not need to underline. "Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations" would do better I think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think you are right here too. Perhaps the "mass of criticism" is too much (although I think it's accurate). Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Fails WP:BLP: 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. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As explained above and below (#External links disputes) this reading of BLP is essentially flawed. The fact that the text quoted from WP:BLP is not an example of clarity doesn't help either, and I don't agree with one-sided interpretations. Further, it is not yet demonstrated by far that this source is a "questionable source or a source of dubious value" --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If BLP policy isn't clear to you [User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], perhaps you can discuss your concerns at [[3]]. In the meantime we will abide by it.Momento (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It's clear enough to me: it doesn't say what you would like it to say. Further, I'd go to Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons only for rewriting the phrasing of the policy. But then I wouldn't do that in the middle of a discussion where I'm involved in and that involves that policy. If I didn't feel confident on its meaning for our case here, I'd go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard BTW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article

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

• Largely irrelevant to the topic at hand (Prem Rawat). I'd get rid of that one. The Prem Rawat article is not an exercise on Wikipedian introspection. This talk page maybe is in part, but not the encyclopedia article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• No comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

prem-rawat-maharaji.info

Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource

• Would like to know whether others would think this a useful resource. It appears as such to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This site violates BLP. The policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". This site is an derogatory and uses unreliable OR to defame Rawat. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy? I'm removing it immediately.Momento (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Nonsense, Momento. The statement "if derogatory, should not be used" applies to "questionable sources or sources of dubious value," and we aren't talking about any questionable sources or sources of dubious value. I've been on a few pages there, today, as a result of this discussion, and I can't find anything that isn't true. If it's true, it isn't defamatory. The site requests anyone finding inaccurate material to notify them so that it can be removed. What inaccuracies have you warned them about, Momento? This is really a question of criticism of a flawed product or service by dissatisfied consumers. There have been serious quality control issues in the past. Different "mahatmas" gave different instructions. After ten months of dedicated practice, I assure you that the techniques, as presented to me, are harmful both by themselves and because they distract aspirants from other "meditation" techniques which actually do have more value for most people, but I'm not proposing to list myself as an expert for the article -- just for this discussion. This has nothing to do with BLP. There are hundreds of practices labeled "meditation," many of them cataloged in The Book of Secrets by Rajneesh, some of which have specific benefits in specific situations. Potential consumers have a right to be warned about the dangers of Rawatism. Such a warning is extremely valuable to people seeking beneficial practices. It keeps them from reinventing the wheel. Wowest (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The home page of this website says:

        The authors of this website have gone to great efforts to create an objective and broad-ranging account of Prem Rawat and his movement. It is not our intention to attack him or his followers, or in any way restrict their right of religious freedom. Rather these pages provide a point of reference for both journalists and those who are interested in the activities and philosophy of Mr. Rawat and the organizations that support and promote him.

        Is any of this demonstrably wrong? If so, please: "The authors welcome corrections to any inaccuracies that may have inadvertently been applied to the website's content", there's contact information available on the website, to send such proposed corrections to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The vast majority of this site is self published OR that isn't verifiable. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. It is unacceptable in terms of OR, Verifiability and BLP. And it is alsoderogatory. I'll let Msalt remove it, he seems to know what he's doing.Momento (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • • Thanks for the compliment! I haven't had time to look at it, and I need some sleep. Bsides, it looks like you deleted it already. But I do want to mention something about original research, Momento. You've criticized a couple of websites for having OR. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, that's precisely what we look for in our Verifiable sources. The whole point is that WE don't do original research, but rely on strong external sources. They do the OR so we don't have to. Msalt (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, your accusation of OR seems quite out of line. I just took a random page of that website: http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=23 After the intro on that page:
            1. 1st paragraph: no references, but general info (which can also be found in the Wikipedia Prem Rawat article, Prem Rawat#Childhood)
            2. 2nd paragraph: content referenced to Elan Vital
            3. 3rd paragraph and 4-paragraph quote: referenced to Academic specialist in the 'Rhadasoami tradition' Professor David Lane of California State University.
            4. 1st paragraph after the quote: referenced to former US Divine Light Mission President, Bob Mishler
            5. next paragraph: referenced to Prem Rawat himself; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
               • I've just remembered, BLP Policy sats : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space". That means every editor is obliged to remove this link. So I have.Momento (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                 • And where is your demonstration that this is "questionable", or whatever derogatory statement you're making? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                   • Do you really believe that a self-published anonymously written website become a "reliable source" by including a few quotes from real scholars? Find me a "reliable" and "verifiable source" for this derogatory claim "Rawat's right-hand men in the sixteen years between 1971 and 1987 were Bob Mishler and Michael Dettmers both have described him as an 'alcoholic' giving descriptions of carrying him up the stairs unconscious, after a night's heavy drinking at his home. Both detailed Rawat's abusive rages when under the influence of alcohol.".Momento (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                     • Seems perfectly in line with:

                       Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982: "[...] In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."

                       --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                   • How about this "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued." [[4]].Momento (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                     • The source was Michael Dettmers. There's no problem linking to a website that is a publisher of something Michael Dettmers said. Afaik Wikipedia does not use that bit of information. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this website further, I fail to see how or why it's a BLP violation to link to it. Anything contentious appears sourced. It's clearly an indepth, notable, and independent source not under Rawat's control. We are perfectly within our bounds to link to a source like this, that I can see. Lawrence § t/e 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

dmoz search query

Prem Rawat, at Open Directory Project

• I'm not in favour of keeping this one in: of the 17 links listed on that page only four are in English. Of these four, two have been rejected already, and two are under discussion here. Generally, it is to be avoided to link to a website that launches a search query (e.g. we don't link to a search query in Google books by way of external link), it sort of defeats the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I would enocurage editors to take the advice of User:Thatcher:[5]

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

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

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

BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued below #External links disputes --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Kissing Prem Rawat's feet

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

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

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

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

I think that scholarly material is more suited to cover this aspect than newspaper articles. Read what Jan van der Lans and Derks wrote [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This sort of stuff is pure goading and unconducive to a consensus approach. Stop it. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about claims of divinity should be described explicitly

Janice, regarding this edit by you [7] Melton wrote that Rawat claimed to be an embodiment of God. This should be described, not toned to such a degree that it is distorted and unrecognisable. Dowton held a somewhat opposing view. Andries (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism by mother

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

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

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

Removed text (single opinion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need some time to translate the criticism by Kranenborg of DLM's n(or Rawat's) overly simplistic view. Andries (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed text (Randi)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• revert [8] Revision as of 12:54, February 10, 2008
• revert [9] Revision as of 16:50, February 10, 2008
• Your initial addition [10] Revision as of 11:48, February 9, 2008

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

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

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

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

I summarized the Randi reference in general terms (Rawat has been described as a fraud -- cite Randi -- and as a cult leader -- in the Criticism section, moving Lawrence's insertion from the "Coming of Age" section. I generally prefer criticism to be "in-line" in the general article rather than in a separate criticism section, but the insertion was such a general blanket statement that it just read poorly. It look like it was air-dropped in. Also the section already has more detail on the same subject -- allegations of brainwashing and coercion. If we're going to have a general criticism section, then that is the place for such statements. I would like to see some further changes to that Criticism section -- notably, the Melton quote minimizing Mishler's significance seems quite POV and WP:SYN -- but I realize a LOT of work has been done on it already. I'd like to read through the subpage collecting different versions of the section, and look for other sources as well, before I jump in. Msalt (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does Melton refers to PR as a "cult leader"? Have you read the source? As for your "jumping in", can you explain your sudden appearance in this article after a year of inactivity? There are several editors that have suddenly activate dormant accounts, and I find that puzzling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

FYI,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error in cite

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

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

The Photo

First Photo Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Photo Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you view this page, [13] then switch to "satellite" view and zoom in, you will find an image of the same house. Press reports in a reliable source have verified that Prem Rawat's home is owned by Seva doing business as "Anacapa View Estates", and that there is a heliport (one of only a few in Malibu). The permit for the heliport has been the subject of government hearings and attendant press coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Photo Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP should not be taken as black and white. I consider BLP very serious, as my history shows, but this is clearly not a nude celebrity case. If someone posted a nude celebrity image then yes I probably would remove it on sight per BLP. However the BLP issues in this one are much less clear. I am satisfied that this is his house. Whether or not the information/sourcing we have is sufficient to satisfy BLP, I'm not sure. But the fact that this is his house means it's not such a serious issue as when someone posts an image with absolutely no evidence. Similarly if Prem Rawat had been a private figure I would be much less flexible, but he's not he's clearly a highly public figure. There may be other issues here relating to BLP but again all of the are not so serious as to require immediate removal. Instead, it is perfectly fine to leave it in for now. You are welcome to continue to discuss BLP issues. I personally am not going to bother because it's a pointless discussion. This image is almost definitely going to be deleted per NFCC and it's current inclusion is not so terrible as to require immediate removal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fourth Photo Thread

This photo will soon be deleted, in the meantime I am putting into into the "Personal" section where the text says Rawat lives in Malibu. It is vandalism and POV pushing to place this photo anywhere else.Momento (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not a good idea: you have strong ideas in the debate on the photo, you won't pay any attention to what others say, yet again you start a new talk page section about something that's already and still actively discussed in 3 or 4 sections above, and to all that you add the presumption, that pre-emptively you know what the closing admin will decide at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg. That won't fly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, let's wait to see how that IfD will be closed. Arguments presented there are related to WP:FAIR and discussions about NPOV are unnecessary at the moment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, above in #Third Photo Thread, the discussions at IfD are not limited to (nor should they necessarily be limited to) the "fair use" aspect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission to assume Momento is a Hostile Editor

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

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

Discussion on "Criticism" section from 8 February 2008

Previous discussion can be found (for instance) at:

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 28#Criticisms
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 28#Criticism

(and other sections of Archive 28)

I've regrouped the "Criticism section" talks from 8 February 2008 here, as the time sequence of these sections had become disturbed, but primarily to avoid their general scattering (leading, for instance, to redundant repeats of same arguments). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. {{criticism-section}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...] I still defend the version I reverted to [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [14]
[...] what you suggest might well be best. [...] David D. (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [15]

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

Actual (Suggested) Edits to Criticism Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 27:

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

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

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

From User talk:Jossi#Prem:

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

From this page (above):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Praise section PLUS criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph at issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to base one

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

Can we discuss rather than revert?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page discipline

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

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

Criticism (take n)

To balance the Criticism section I will restore the Praise/Awards section as soon as I have a full list of 2ndary sources. I do not like this, it makes the article look promotional or schizoid, but while Criticism remains as its own section, in defiance of Wikipedia advice, I see no alternative. Rumiton (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can look at ways to integrate the material in criticism section into the appropriate sections, without losing any material. There is no reason that it should not be possible to do. A very short summary of the honors received, such as keys to cities, would also be useful. Same about the fact that his TV programs are available in Canal Infinito (a Time Warner channel in South America and southern states of the US), 31 Brisbane in Australia, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Rumiton (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, as I explained above in #Talk page discipline the discussion about the criticism is still active in at least two threads above:

• #Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D
• #Criticism section

No, appending yet another instance of discussing the "criticism" topic, to a thread that started out on something else will not do. Certainly as very awkwardly you come to another new conclusion not yet really explored in these previous threads. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is a good idea to keep discussions together, I think that it is worth exploring the possibility of integrating the material in the criticism as well as any "honors" in the appropriate places in the biography. This idea has the support of several editors (including several uninvolved editors), while others disagree. If there is no agreement on how to move forward in this regard, or there are no compromises possible, we shall need to explore dispute resolution on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to decide on what criticisms and what praise to include (on a separate page or on the talk page) - write a paragraph for each - and then review each item and come to a consensus on where in the article they belong. --PTR (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope the amount of material will change a lot shortly, as more sources come to light. Might be good to hold off for a few days. Or perhaps not. We can always discuss again. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please not that has been discussed already years ago and then I argued that criticisms and praise from relevant experts in the field is okay in the article. An analogy, if George W. Bush likes the star wars movie then we do not mention his in the article star wars because he is not relevant expert in the field or a notable journalistic soource. Andries (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Donations Make Him Rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jossi, the quote from Elan Vital is simply wrong in saying that non-profit organizations cannot provide a financial benefit to any individual, by law. The head of the United Way makes $1 million a year, and there are dozen of religious figures (mostly Christian fundamentalist TV preachers) who lead lives of luxury paid for by their non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. Msalt (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is confusing, I think there is a clear difference between a "donation" which is "something that is given to a charity, esp. a sum of money" and a "gift" which is "a thing given willingly to someone without payment" or a "contribution" which is "a gift or payment to a common fund or collection". Since Rawat didn't charge for teaching or speaking, he was reliant on "the generosity of his devotees".Momento (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links disputes

Links like these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This element of the WP:BLP appears to have been under frequent, and even recent, debate.[16] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Here are the current links, as of this moment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is there ... just scroll all the way to the bottom, on the right sidebar. The Prem Rawat Foundation carries his name, and perform activities related to Prem Rawat under his auspices. Their 2006 audited annual report says Activities performed by the Foundation which promote and disseminate the speeches, writings, music, and art of Prem Rawat and support public forums and humanitarian initiatives. [17], so that may be grounds for inclusion. The other sites have information about their owners, you can check these if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus to remove, sorry. The only one I'd tentatively allow to have removed is the contactinfo.net, it's more about the organisation than about the person. I was waiting till I could see any logic connecting to actual Wikipedia policies that would justify such removals. I don't see any in what Will, Jossi and others explained here. Also my vocal opposition was simply ignored in commentaries provided by Will, Jossi and others. It's not because you ignore it, that it isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy that I was involing was "consensus". In other words, we've got to find something we can all agree on. The external links section has been a battleground. As a compromise I suggested removing virtually all links. Now that youu've taken it on yourself to restore them you'r assuming responsibility for defending their presence. Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "please defend the addition of the links" - I did, above, I gave the link to the section where I did. For those external links not mentioned there, additionaly, I think we should have 5 to 10 external links, to the *best* available resources on Prem Rawat, where *best* means, not discriminating between links to websites that contain criticism or not. The guiding principle is rather: can you find useful information on Prem Rawat on the website.

Re. "The external links section has been a battleground." - I'm not impressed by those trying to make it a battleground. If you think the behaviour of those trying to make it into a battleground is unacceptable, e.g. RfC can be tried, otherwise, take to ArbCom, if other means to come to an agreement have been exhausted.

Re. "As a compromise I suggested ..." - I really cannot see how this is a "compromise", and even less, how this could be an acceptable compromise, in view of WP:NPOV.

Re. "Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already." - For example, sources listed at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm would on average count as RSses in Wikipedia, they contain information not yet in the article; http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ contains (at least, but there is more) the look and feel of the message Prem Rawat wants to spread, something that's hardly possible to capture in a tertiary source like Wikipedia (at least for copyright reasons). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two that seem particularly unnecessary:

• The Prem Rawat Foundation

This site is already linked from the article as a ciation, so there's no need to link it again the extrnal links section, plus we have multiple internal links pointing to a whole article on the topic.

• The Keys website - Keys for preparing to receive the techniques of Knowledge

This is just a subpage of the "Maharaji.net" offical site. As a side note, we also include an external link to it in the text which is frowned upon in WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I looking at the reverts in this section, it is obvious that there is no consensus forming about what to include and what to exclude. Unless we can find a suitable compromise that we can all live with, we will need to pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:MEDIATION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and I agree that some Websites have to be deleted. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I find it extraordinary that the is any doubt about the unsuitability of the anti-Rawat websites.Momento (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Prem Rawat Critique and Ex-Premie.org . With the edit war going on the need for them is greater as critique tend to get mutated into oblivion by some follower of Prem Rawat. Look at Reverend_Moon for another BLP with links to websites of critics. Epiteo (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've revived the discussion by website, above #By website --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no rebuttal to my assertion above that

• The Prem Rawat Foundation
• The Keys website - Keys for preparing to receive the techniques of Knowledge

Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see no rebuttal to my assertion above about Ex-Premie.org & Prem Rawat Critique, Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees.Momento (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's been substantial discussion of those links and it would not be appropriate to say that there's any consensus, implicit or explicit, regarding them. Also, I notice that some user(s) is relying on a shifting IP to continue deleting the links in what appears to be an attempt to circumvent 3RR. If it continues I'll ask for the page to be semi-protected, and possibly also ask for a checkuser to see of it's being done by a registered user. It's very disruptive to edit war. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need consensus Will Beback. As an admin you should be familiar with BLP policy. And in the case of BLP, it says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". As yet no one has produced an argument why this article should be exempt from Wikipedia policy. In the meantime this article "must be written conservatively". I've have deleted the links in accordance with "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."Momento (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is it? You say above that you're going to delete because no one disgrees (which is certainly incorrect), then you say it doesn't matter if they disagree or not. Is it you who are deleting the links as an unregistered IP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Will Beback, I didn't say I am "going to delete because no one disagrees", I wrote "Should be deleted". Please do not puts words into my mouth. As an admin you have a responsibility to follow Wikipedia policy.Momento (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big difference is between what I wrote and what you wrote, or why it matters. I suggest you work towards resolution rather than picking fights. It's the responsibility of every user to follow Wikipedia policy. You haven't answered my question - are you the user who has been deleting the links while logged out? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First you incorrectly stated that I said that I was "going to delete" the link, when in fact I was making the same comment as you, that the link "should be deleted". And now you accuse me of picking fights because I object to your misrepresentation. And I'm not deleting the links as an unregistered IP?Momento (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you wrote that they "should be" deleted, then you deleted them. I said you wrote that you were going to delete them. Why are you picking a fight over that negligible "misrepresentation"? How does this bring us closer to resolution on this topic? I'm glad you're not the editor who's intentionally hiding his or her identity to delete material. I hope that every editor will act in a straighforward manner and bring their disagreements to talk pages rather than engaging in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not continue to misrepresent me. I wrote "should be deleted" at 23:22 [[18]] when the link had already been deleted by another editor. And I did not delete the links until after you put them back in at 23:25 [[19]]. Your continual and deliberate misrepresentation of my actions is a personal attack, see [[20]]. Stop it. Do not characterize my correction of your misinformation as "picking a fight", it is an editor's duty to correct false and misleading claims. The link issue is resolved by application of BLP.Momento (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion of links to the critical websites under #By website above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith

≈ jossi ≈ has contacted me via wikipedia email, expressing the view that I am the owner or otherwise associated with one of the sites in question in this section. I have answered ≈ jossi ≈ publicly because I consider his claims to be fundamentally lacking in Good Faith WP:GF. For the record there is a single article authored by me about the writings of one academic who has written about Rawat on the particular website that is of concern to ≈ jossi ≈. I have posted my reply at User_talk:Jossi and copied at User:Nik_Wright2 --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, could you clarify your involvement in or relation (if any) to the websites listed in the "external links" section of the Prem Rawat article and/or under discussion here and/or subject to reverting in the article? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honors section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You will also notice the absence of praise. WQe will need to include an honors section like here [[21]]. And there's ample material here [[22]] 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 [[23]] .Resolutions, proclamations ...(cut list for clarity)........Television Channels for Words of Peace, a weekly series featuring excerpts from Prem Rawat's message of peace.Momento (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

... and sometimes a big overlap. --Simon D M (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of “Peace Is Possible”

not to be confused with [[24]]

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

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

From which:

"the book is in effect an ‘authorised’ biography procured by Rawat’s followers. The publisher of Peace is Possible is given as Mighty River Press which lists its address as P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 US, its CEO’s name is given as J. Levin. No business with the name Mighty River Press is on record with the Pennsylvania State Corporations Register,[12] [25]however P.O. Box 605 Dresher, PA 19025 is given as the address of James Levin, President of a business called Neighborhood Restorations, vice President is given as Scott Mayo. The name Neighborhood Restorations appears as part of the title of a range of businesses of which the officers are James Levin and Scott Mazo.[13] [26]

An SEC filing says of Levin and Mazo:

The General Partner of the Operating Partnership is WPB L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership (the "General Partner") whose general partner is WPB II, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("WPB II") which also serves as the Developer of the Apartment Complex. WPB II is equally-owned by James Levin and Scott Mazo. Mr. Levin, a Certified Public Accountant, has been involved with the development and syndication of tax credit projects since 1990. Mr. Mazo has been involved in the development of the tax credit projects since 1990 and commercial rental properties since the mid 1980's. Since forming a partnership in 1992, Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo have developed over 350 units of affordable housing. Mr. Levin and Mr. Mazo are also the sole owners of Prime Property Management, Inc., a property management company which is serving as the Management Agent for the Apartment Complex. [14] [27] The name Scott Mazo appears on a FEC filing which lists Mazo as being Employed by Neighborhood Resorations, and which gives his home address as Gulph Mills.[15] [28] Scott Mazo is also the name of a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation,[16] [29]details lodged with Guidestar give the address of Scott Mazo TPRF Board and Treasurer, as Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania.

In Summary:

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

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

Scott Mazo is the Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.

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

End of extract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we get some agreement on this matter? Do we keep this book as a source or not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the photos and speeches in it, it is an authorized biography. That would make it acceptable.Momento (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the book. Is it called an "authorized biography" or is that just an opinion based on looking at it? I think we need to be fair here and hold all sources to similar standards. If Rawat writes an autobiography, or cooperates with an authorized biography that's one thing. But a self-published (aka "vanity) book is different. I can't see a logical reason to use a different standard for a book written by a current associate then for one written by a past associate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say it "authorized" but it has personal photos and speeches in it that are copyrighted by Elan Vital. What then is your view of the unsourced photo of a Malibu house that has been in this article for days?Momento (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See #Third Photo Thread for the thread about the photo of the house. This thread is about Peace Is Possible. However there is one analogy: This article has a copyrighted photo belonging to Google but that doesn't mean that the article is authorized by them. If the book meets the same standards we place on other sources then we should keep it, but I don't see anyone saying we should set a lower threshold because of its POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some agreement on this matter? Do we keep this book as a source or not?

No this can not be kept because it is not honest - either it IS an authorised biography, which means there should be a quotable entry in the book explaining that - or it is no more than a Vanity effort, self published by an individual who has close links to the subject, but who has deliberately obfuscated those links. Without a clear statement in the book itself about its status, it is untrustworthy. The book needs to be removed as a reference and as with any other WP article where an illegitiate source has been removed and which can not be replaced by alternative sources, the material in the article which is dependant on the removed source, will itself have to be removed. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The framing of this discussion is out of whack. If we are not using this source for contentious claims, the source is valid. If there is a specific sentence in the article about which there is a dispute, we discuss that specific sentence and decide if to keep that specific cite or not. The attempt to remove a source entirely from an article, because someone thinks that it makes a contentious claim, is incompatible with common sense and with established guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties. In the editing of this article sources have been held to the highest standards, which this book doesn't meet. At least one assertion from the book is contentious. Which established guidelines would have us use such a reference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, policy. On the other hand your contention ("We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties") is not how it is phrased in WP:V. If this source is "self-published", then it is self-published under auspicies of Prem Rawat himself (then it can be used); if it isn't published under auspicies of Prem Rawat, then it is a secondary source, and it can be used. Probably, it is somewhere in between (with the role of Prem Rawat in the publication process somewhat unclear): it can, at least, be used on general biographical facts. Even if other sources contradict such data, it can still be used in the form of: "this source says so-and-so; that source says so-and-so". There is no WP policy disallowing to use it as a source in the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, one of our major guiding principles in selecting what we put in the article and what we don't is WP:NPOV, not the reasonings of http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/prem_rawat_followers_exposed.htm - if they think they're better placed to say how an encyclopedia article should be written, they should simply do so, and not lecture on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:V says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons..." This is a self-published source. The publisher isn't Prem Rawat. Therefore he's a 3rd-party. That's pretty much Wikipedia 101. If we had a source saying it's an official biography published under the auspices of the subject then that might change things, but we don't. All we have is a Wikipedia editor who's looked through it and said it appears to him to be an authorized bio. That's original research - again, Wikipedia 101. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You see: you inverted the wording:

• We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties (your paraphrase)
• Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons (real WP:V)

...they can be used, not as "third-party sources", but still as "self-published sources" for those living persons, subject to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the real question of this section (Status of “Peace Is Possible”), I'd treat it with the same status as a hagiographic resource, similar (for example) to how Jean de Joinville's biography of Saint Louis is used in the Wikipedia article on that person (see Louis IX of France#Sources). Now that biography was by all means "self-published", and also not written by the king who is the subject of that article. Many details on that king's life are derived from that hagiographic account. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The press release announcing the publication of Peace is Possible is produced on of The Prem Rawat Foundation's web site.Momento (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, the book is self-published by Mazo and Levin, and can be used as a reference about them. Prem Rawat is a third-party. If Rawat writes an autobiography and has it self-published then we can use it as a source about him, but not about other people. The Prem Rawat Foundation is yet another entity, and I don't see the relevance of a press release on their website. Prem Rawat has no offical ties to the foundation that I can see. It may exist to further his teachings but it's not controlled by him. Finally, Saint Louis died long ago so the issues aren't comparable. Herodotus may have been self-published, but that isn't germane to this discussion either. Will Beback NS (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this discussion. I thought a self-published book is one that the author has published themselves (the implication being that no one apart from the author considered it worth publishing). The author, in this case, is Andrea Cagan, a reasonably successful biographer. The book is published by Mighty River Press. According to their website, this title is currently the only book they have published. But in what sense does this make the book self-published? It was not published by Cagan. Granted, there seems to be a clear link between the publisher and the subject. But would this, for example, mean that an official biography of the pope, written by an outside biographer and published by a publishing house with strong links to the Catholic Church, would be inadmissible as a source in Wikipedia? Am I missing something? -- 172.189.122.83 (talk) (Jayen466) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missed nothing, 122.83. The problem is that the book says that Prem Rawat was gifted with (presumably) a lot of money, shares etc. when he arrived in the west as a child, and the money was well invested to provide a high quality lifestyle for him and for his family today. All sources agree that he does not ask for money, either for teaching the knowledge techniques, or for his public appearances, or as donations. Maybe some people still personally contribute to him, maybe none do. We don't know, and it is nobody's business except theirs. Some anti-Prem Rawat editors here are trying to discredit the book so as to keep the issue unresolved and create a suspicion of money grabbing. Rumiton (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton either provide evidence of your claim or withdraw your remarks about 'anti Rawat editors' - otherwise you are in breach of [[30]]

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the book is not self-published, which appears in doubt, the next trhreshold it must meet is reliability. I gather that some sources have been rejected because they were not "scholarly". All source, whether positive, negative, or neutral, should be held to a consistent standard. If this book meets that standard then it should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the book, and it is by far the most exhaustive biography ever published. The Author's Note reads: Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you are being dishonest. You know that Cagan did not interview a single former follower of Rawat for the book. She did not interview Mike Finch who organised Rawat's first trip outside India. She did not interview Saphlanand, Rawat's first western mahatma. She did not interview Mike Dettmers, who ran Divine Light Mission. She did not interview Anth Ginn who taught Rawat's children. She did not interview any of the people who have written their stories for ex-premie.org. She did not interview any of the owners of critical websites. Exhaustive? If you wanted to illustrate your deep bias you could not have done so more clearly than that remark.--John Brauns (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have made your point without personal attacks. I only stated what the author said. I would appreciate, if in the future, you avoid making value judgments on other editors, unless you want so say something nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you, not the author, described the book as 'by far the most exhaustive biography ever published'. Will you withdraw that claim and admit it is wrong? If not then the description of you as dishonest is simply a statement of fact.--John Brauns (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The taunting has gone far enough... You and others are, yet again, creating a toxic atmosphere in this talk page. I will not respond to the baiting. I made my opinion of the book know and reserved to myself my opinion on yourself So you can make your opinions know in a productive manner, and stop and calling them 'facts'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on treating the Cagan book as a hagiographic account, as I suggested above? Does anyone need an explanation on the meaning of the word hagiographic? (If needs, I'd try to explain further) Does anyone need further explanation on how to go about with hagiographic sources in Biographies of living persons (BLP)? If needs, we should maybe elaborate on that: WP:BLP does not contain direct information on that type of sources, as far as I can see (the division between "third party sources" and "self-published sources" is too coarse for hagiographic accounts, as they fall between these two categories of sources).

Can we also keep discussions on this page concentrated on what contributes to a better quality of the Prem Rawat article? I'd be very grateful! --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree on treating the Cagan book as a hagiographic account. Please keep your comments NPOV. Thanks.Momento (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The book is not an hagiography. Have you read it, Francis? If you have not, on what basis are you making this comment? The book is available in Amazon, get a copy and have the information you need to make an assessment on the type of book it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make a "comment", I asked some questions. And answers are coming in, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading this Wikipedia description of the modern meaning of 'Hagiography' I would say that Cagan's book 'Peace is Possible' is plainly 'uncritical' and even 'reverential' and therefore qualifies as hagiographical. Jossi why do think otherwise? Why is it NOT hagiographical?

The term "hagiography" has come to refer to the works of contemporary biographers and historians whom critics perceive to be uncritical and even "reverential." For example, critics of historian (and John F. Kennedy associate) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. often call him a "Kennedy hagiographer."PatW (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to post something similar. Jossi why would you consider Cagan's book to have objective critical aspects to it and not reverential? I have not read it, I could, but a short explanaition would be preferable, thanks. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The book is not reverential at all. There is plenty of controversy covered, such opposition to his father, the opposition he faced in India as a child-guru from the Arya Samaj, the controversy about his mother and elder brother turning on him, how that affected him and was hospitalized, how some anarchists at his first appearance in France, threw egss and tomatoes at him, questions posed to him in the Griffin show about him being wealthy, and much more. Most definitively not a "reverential" presentation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"questions posed to him in the Griffin show about him being wealthy" – interesting, could we have anything about that in the article? Imho has the advantage also that Cahan wouldn't be the only source. Also, when there is criticism about him being wealthy, contained in the Prem Rawat article, I'd like to hear the man himself about it. Jossi, or anyone else having the book, could you give a useful excerpt? And another question, what year are we speaking for this Griffin show? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On November 28, 1973, a few weeks after the event, Maharaji appeared on The Merv Griffin Show on television, where he fielded questions with great confidence. Merv asked him, "Are you rich?" Maharaji smiled and replied, “I am absolutely rich, the richest man in the world probably. Because you don't have to be rich in money to be rich. You have to be rich in heart." (p193)

We could try and find the transcript of the show. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi says: The book is not reverential at all. There is plenty of controversy covered, such opposition to his father etc.
Reporting that Rawat was the subject of controversy does not really amount to fairly covering it does it? This book only comments from the perspective of Cagan (who I gather was commissioned indirectly by Rawat to write this biography - she's hardly going to write an unflattering book is she?) Fine but where in this book is the perspective of these critics represented? She did not interview any it would seem. Jossi is possibly only telling half the story when he says that Cagan covers plenty of controversy. It's kind of kind of a half-truth. I still think that this book is in effect self-published and indeed technically hagiograhical but I am not bothered by the actual use of it here so far. I just think it tells us that Rawat wants to keep control of 'the telling of his story' and this book is simply another example of how his wealth permits him to do so. I am personally uncomfortable with people who can effectively buy credibility and avoid accountability through sheer wealth. There was an occasion a few years back when an interview with Rawat appeared in a corporate glossy mag in the US. This interview was flaunted by premies I know here in the UK as some kind of proof of his credibility which bothered me...they actually believed that this magazine had approached Rawat for an interview. Out of curiosity I picked up the phone and by luck got straight through to the CO of the mag. Even I was rather taken aback to find him in a spate of intense annoyance and repentance, furious to have discovered that the entire interview was more or less fictitious in that it was a paid for 'advertorial' (apparently without his knowledge or consent), and with Q's and A's contrived and supplied by Rawat's organisation and presented falsely as a genuine interview. He told me that the standards of his paper had been, in his opinion, compromised and that the editor in question was being reprimanded. He was utterly apologetic and was at pains to say that his paper would never make the same mistake again. I put the phone down feeling rather sorry for him ...what I had suspected was evidently correct. So it's all very well painting the picture that Rawat is globally well-respected but it's rather underhand to illustrate this with examples of accolades or seemingly frank interviews which turn out to have been bought and very far from open and fair. I am not trying to engender suspicion at all. I am simply saying that Wikipedia should be careful not tolerate similar pretentiousness and that we should be on guard against this kind of self-promotion posing as proof of someone's notability.PatW (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of words here. Let's aim for consensus. Jossi and Rumiton, do you dispute that this book was published by a one-time publisher with close ties to Rawat? Evidence has been presented that it is not an independent effort, unlike the scholarly and journalistic works relied on elsewhere in this article, and I see no rebuttal. PatW and JohnBrauns, do you agree that this work is OK for non-controversial biographical details, even if it is (arguably) hagiographic? If so, then we can agree to disagree on hagiography and move on.

I see only two places where this book used as a source that are or could be controversial. My compromise proposal would be that we keep the source for everything else, don't use it in these two places, and drop the points if they don't have other verifiable sources. Those points are 1) the source of Rawat's money (as discussed above); and 2) the fact that he pilots his own rented jets around places. The latter point is tangential at best and clearly serves mainly to portray Rawat in an impressive light. It's already very close to NPOV if not over the line, and certainly shouldn't be in this article without a rock solid source. Msalt (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this with some reservation that this does not become the thin end of the wedge. There is quite a lot of controversial stuff in the book that (if my memory serves me well) people wanted to include which was objected to. It may have been a reference to the so-called 'hate group' of ex-premies although I don't exactly remember.PatW (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearing no objection, I'll do it myself if no one else gets to it first. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunt Paraphrase

First Hunt Thread

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

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

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

Here is how the sentence stands now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, so the main problem is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point that Momento makes is a valid one. Hunt is not making statements about Rawat. That is, he is not claiming that Rawat did certain things, he is simply reporting that other people have said that Rawat did or said this. As a result, his research does not verify anything about Prem Rawat, it simply verifies that some critics said certain things. Big, big difference. It is simply a question of accuracy. If sources are going to be used, then they have to be used in an appropriate manner. Their findings can't be changed to suit the desires of a particular person to wish that they had said something different. Armeisen (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's true, Armeisen. When Hunt says "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers", I firmly believe that Hunt is saying that the lifestyle appears opulent to HIM (the author). I doubt that the critics are saying "we hereby criticize what appears to be an opulent lifestyle". Though I haven't looked up the criticisms he cites, I think it's clear from the context that the critics are, well, critical and Hunt is being more careful (but mostly agreeing) by saying "appears to be" an opulent lifestyle.Msalt (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The summary "Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers", Is completely OR and a distortion of the source. Nowhere does Hunt say Rawat at any point "denounced" material possession. Nor did Rawat "turn away from ascetism", he left "his more ascetic life behind him", in the context Hunt is probably talking about his life in India. The stuff about "enjoying" etc is all OR.Momento (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Memento, you seem to be the only person who feels that this is a blatant distortion. Everyone else, including myself, finds it similar at best and slightly different at worst. Insisting on deleting it is not collaboration, it's "my way or the highway" and does in fact make it look like you think you own the article.Msalt (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have higher standards. There is huge difference between "no longer eschewing material possessions" and "he does not personally eschew material possessions" which is what Hunt says.Momento (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you do have higher standards, in which case I would encourage you to reach consensus with the bulk of us with lower standards instead of deleting chunks of material. In any case, the article has his exact quote, so we're all good now, right? Why rehash old battles? Msalt (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Hunt Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Momento, I'm not having this argument with you again. If you want to make positive suggestions please do, but otherwise just stay out of it. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Onefinalstep, I have argued that your edit is editorializing the quote. Why do you keep adding it? Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers. That is not what Hunt says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that Hunt did not mention Rawat's followers funding him, that section of the paraphrase is cited by the other source. But did Hunt did say that Rawat stopped shunning the material life and he did say that he appeared to begin living a material life. Did he not say this??Onefinalstep (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from Hunt: "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him ..."

The paraphrase: Rawat also turned away from asceticism ...

• Quote from Hunt: "... he does not personally eschews material possessions."

The paraphrase: ... and no longer shunned material possessions.

• Quote from Hunt: "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle ...

The paraphrase: He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life ...

• The rest of the paraphrase is supported by both hunt and

So Jossi, what exactly is your problem with it?? I don't understand man, you have to come with something better than "thats not what Hunt says".Onefinalstep (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have re jigged it. I have already discussed this at length but........ the quotes that back the sentence regarding "lack of intellectual content" and "materialistic lifestyle" all come from the 70s. Putting it last makes it looks like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years when this criticism was limited to the 70s. It is important that lede accurately reflects the content of the article, unfortunately some editors have chosen to create a separate section called "Criticism" against Wiki guidelines. When this article is cleaned up, those criticisms and the sources will appear in the "Leaving India" and "Coming of Age" sections where they belong.Momento (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunt stays in till you guys have a consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to revise the statements to better reflect the source.[33] In the process, I removed Price from the reference tag, as she does not discuss his lifestyle. Vassyana (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose this rewrite (abbreviating references that of course should be properly formatted if this goes to the article, but here on talk this is probably clear - if not I'd oblige to give the full text):

Rawat also turned away from asceticism, no longer eschewing material possessions.^{(Hunt2003 p117)} Rawat came to considerable wealth through donations^{(Cagan2007 pp.218-19) (Hunt2003 p117)} and investments^{(Cagan2007 pp.218-19)}.

May I ask those having a copy of these books to check whether the indicated page numbers are correct. The quote to the Cagan book refers to this footnote currently in the article: [34] (see also above: #Status of “Peace Is Possible”, where this quote is discussed). May we assume that quote is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that wording. Hunt does not say plainly that he came into considerable wealth via donations, but rather that critics focus on an apparently wealthy lifestyle alleging that it is supported by donations. Cagan also says no such thing, but rather states that he received stock shares as gifts (apart from donations to DLM/EV) that generated significant wealth. Stick close to the sources. Vassyana (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe there's a semantic difference between "donations" and "gifts".

What I objected to in your rewrite is that you added "According to critics..." - that he came to considerable wealth isn't under discussion is it? (if nor the Hunt source, nor the Cagan source are the best for that, sure there are others) That he received gifts is also recognised generally. Some of these may have come through his organisations, but I don't think that is the issue here, neither in what form these gifts came: he received gifts, and virtually any source would do on that. The Cagan bio adds the investments, which I asked if we can take that for granted (maybe using other sources too). Whether or not he lived an "opulent lifestyle" is maybe not a topic for the "Westernisation" section, as (1) being "westernised" is nowhere a synonym of "living an opulent lifestyle" - as if "opulent lifestyle" doesn't occur in the East or any other part of the world; (2) indeed Hunt says that critics concentrated on that, from which does not follow that Hunt indentifies with these critics (he only reports on the criticism), and to me that suggests that part would probably be better of (for the time being) in a section of the article that details criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, see also User talk:Momento#From beyond the grave --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the "gifts" section of the former paraphrase was supported by a good reference. "According to critics" should not be inserted, because the living situation is verifiable by more than his critics views. The reference supporting the "donations" is sound. The rewrite should be reverted until consensus. I will concede that perhaps there should be a reference that after the gifts, he made good investments to continue his lifestyle. But this is covered in other sections. If you guys need to include it, that is fine, just don't rewrite without consideration. Onefinalstep (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Hunt doesn't say it, you need another source. No where does Hunt say Rawat "no longer" eshews. It's a completely OR interpretation and should be removed.Momento (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Momento to be Blocked

I propose that Momento is blocked for a short period from editing this article. Yet again, today, he has taken it upon himself to continue to delete a statement that is in discussion here and without comment. He has consistently done this, and refused to reach any consensus with the other editors here. The sentence is reasonable, and being discussed for concerns. I think Momento's actions on this and other areas of the article should show a clear reason for this action. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Teachings

I have removed the statement about the positive effects of meditation. It doesn't really fit into a section on Prem Rawat's teaching, and could constructively be placed in a section or a new entry on the benefits of meditation. Armeisen (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Momento (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here, I am going to edit the teachings section further to focus on what the teachings are, while removing claims of the benefits or harms they might cause. Listing lots of benefits of the Teachings does not illustrate them, is not encyclopedic and reflects a non-neutral POV. There is nothing neutral about describing premies as " finding benefits such as increased energy levels, an increased awareness of coincidences and a tendency to see them as divine interventions, as well as improvements in their marriage and work life." That would be like an article on Mercedes-Benz cars saying that "Mercedes drivers love the hand-craftmanship, superior handling and status they receive while driving the cars." It might very well be true, and documented by verifiable sources, but it has no place in an encyclopedia.

The fact that one can find a source does not change the fact that this is OR, or to be more exact, WP:SYN. On the other hand, the material about the historical tradition in which Rawat's teachings arose is fascinating AND the very model of what an encyclopedia should provide. Msalt (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Momento (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Early 70s Time article

I have taken out "...kissed his feet when they were in his presence". Redundant and unencyclopedic. They could not kiss his feet when they were not 'in his presence."

I don't know whether this edit was done by a premie or not but it is certainly the sort of weasely way that premies argue they should change original wordings. Why? Because what 'in his presence' tells us is that at the time (1970s) there was a 'lingo' in effect which had real meaning. In this case it strongly hints to us that Rawat's presence was considered something special and indeed sacred (as it most certainly was and still is to this day). In short, it emphasises the fact that people used to worship him as Divine which is exactly want premies now want to hide. This is a perfect example of how re-wording can produce an entirely different meaning and whoever suggested this change please tell us who you are and whether you accept my point.PatW (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi what do you think about this? Come on, you're kind of referee here. Why do you think someone would want to change that wording? Do you approve of this sort of logic?PatW (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am nor referee, Pat. I see that the text now does not show "in his presence", because it is obvious. Seems a good argument to me. The article is in Time magazine, which I doubt have had any "lingo" related to darshana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed you've missed the point. It's not that subtle. So how much re-interpretation can you tolerate Jossi? Can you not see that this amounts to toning down the meaning to add to the impression that Rawat was LESS worshipped and 'revered' than he was? Your turning a blind eye amounts to favouring your POV since we all know that that this article has been plagued with controversy about Rawats perceived divinity and who was responsible for that. PatW (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The original text from TIME is:

• The Maharaj Ji's mother and three older brothers literally worship him, kissing his "lotus feet" whenever they are in his presence. [35]

The key word there appears to be "whenever". In other words, they did so every time they saw him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another key word is "lotus" that should be included.Momento (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, whenever they 'saw him' and whenever they 'were in his presence' have quite different meanings. How many people do you know who you would say 'when I am in your presence' to? Most people that I know would think I was fawning or mad if I said that. Can I just make a strong request here that people understand that altering the language of quotes and paraphrasing like this is not innocent because the sum of the many such revisions and modern interpretations of original language amounts to giving the reader a very different impression of the relationship that Rawat had with his devotees than was implicit in the original language. It's just more weasely revisionism. Please can people just put stop this habit.PatW (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be bending things a bit here, Pat. Seems you want the article to show the recently-out-of-India period in the weirdest possible light. Time didn't claim they said "when I am in your presence" to their son/brother, or that anyone ever said that. That was the reporter's way of describing the situation. The family foot kissing itself is unwestern and startling enough, without the titillating, redundant and unencyclopedic modifier. Rumiton (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am so not bending anything Ruminton. Now you're trying to distract from your POV pushing by blaming me! It's you who have altered the meaning, not me for goodness sake. Let's get this straight..You are the one who thinks that the reporter is casting the situation in 'the weirdest possible light' not me. And I have changed nothing. I happen to think that the reporters words perfectly reflect the mood and lingo of the time. If you think the truth was LESS weird then a) that's simply your POV and b) you are quite out of place to tone down any 'weirdness' or emphasis implicit in his report. You're way out of place to censor a reporters words because you don't like the way he put things. Your also way out of place to act upon your POV that he was being inappropriately 'titillating'. That is simply none of your business. As anyone who was there at the time will confirm, it was totally commonplace for followers to say blissed-out things like 'when I'm in Maharaji's presence' and everyone talked about him in highly reverential terms. There is nothing titillating or inaccurate about reporting that whatsoever. It's so obvious that you're trimming out all such language contemporary to the time, in an attempt to show it in a different light. If you think it looks too 'weird' that's again simply YOUR problem-not mine. Anyway, why are you uncomfortable to show Rawat's past in it's full 'weirdness'? It matters that the craziness of those times is NOT sanitised by you lot to suit Rawats new public image. This is not an advert for the 're-invented , reformed Rawat. Besides it's simply paranoia and fear from Rawat that he will be judged as having lapped up and encouraged people to worship him (which of course he did) and it's reprehensible to weasely brush all that under the carpet here. In short, I am not trying to show the 'out-of-India' period in a weird light - the reports of the time do that quite adequately without my intervention. [User:PatW|PatW]] (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's also totally transparent that Jossi pretends that he thinks your arguments to cut out the lingo are 'good' (see his mystifying non-reasoning above) because actually he supports the POV pushing you are doing. This place has more weasels per square inch than Toad Hall! It's quite dizzying. PatW (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths, Pat, deep breaths. I think it is right and inevitable that the way a social or religious phenomenon is described 35 years after its inception will be more mellow and mature than when it first appeared as a startling and apparently incomprehensible import. The better understanding we now have of the role of the guru in Indian culture, and especially of the Guru-shishya tradition illustrates this. What do you think? Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're trying to cast those times in such a way that it doesn't raise questions about how 'weird' it was because you are sheepish about admitting the extent to which Rawat himself subscribed to, and encouraged all that Indian God-man, Avatar stuff and all the supposedly 'respectable' tradition it was rooted in. There's no need for me to take a deep breath here Ruminton. I am perfectly clear about this. You, Jossi, Momento, Ron Geaves..who-ever you bring to the table spouting so-called 'mellow, mature, educated, kindly' descriptions of the Indian Guru culture, you will never be able to paint those times and events as wholly reasonable or healthy. It's always going to look pretty damn weird to modern, less religiously-inclined and frankly, more sensible and educated people. And I tend to agree with the Indian Government that their Guru Traditions should be drawn into question for the abusive effects they've clearly had on their populace over the centuries. (They have an active policy to expose fraudulant Gurus as it is a real problem there).

Even the most respected scholars (with the exception of wishful-thinking premie academic Mr Geaves) such as Mark Jurgensmeyer, are very clear that all these traditions are shot through with hypocrisy and prosaic power struggles and their books do not indulge in nostalgia or display sympathy for the beliefs of these traditions. To the contrary they generally offer de-mystifying, prosaic explanations for the sociological phenomena around this culture. I agree that we need better understanding of the Indian Cultural roots of Rawatism but I don't think that the way to go about it is to dress it up in respectable or sympathetic terms. I think it is a very bad start to be cutting out the 'informative' lingo from those times. Those times were replete with idiosyncratic colourful lingo and where they were described in such terms it should be left alone. There's nothing immature or sensationalist about retaining those descriptions - in fact it's important that you don't to try to justify or add respectability through any contrived 'mature or mellow' paraphrasing. 'PatW (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am sympathetic to the attempt to tone the language down. We are dealing with a journalistic source here. A scholar of religion with some understanding of Indian religion would probably not have written that way. There is an undeniable Western cultural bias at work in the Time article, trading on the shock factor a Western audience feels about this kind of gesture.

Now, in India, touching the feet of a respected person is an everyday gesture. It is, and that is very difficult for Westerners to "get", no big deal. It's the West that has a problem with the gesture, because to the Western mind it feels masochistic and/or sexually loaded. The gesture has no such connotations in India. Translating it into a Western context, it is roughly equivalent to a handshake combined with a polite bow or curtsey, or, in a religious context, kneeling in front of your vicar and having his hands placed on your head. Staying with the Christian context, kissing the feet might be comparable to kissing the ring of a Cardinal. The thrill of deviancy that the Western mind feels upon reading such a description, and which such a description is designed to evoke, is really the result of cultural ignorance. To want to perpetuate this kind of thrill in Wikipedia is cheap.

We are taking due care in Wikipedia to call prostitutes "escorts" when that is how they wish to be referred to. We refer to male-born transsexuals as "she", out of basic human respect for the individual. We take care to ensure that we call ethnic or religious groups by the names that they prefer to use for themselves, rather than the terms that outsiders and critics would use for them. We are certainly not in the business of filling our articles about such groups with abusive terms that have been used about them. To me, to insist on this kind of sensationalist description of another group's religious practice is also a subtle kind of abuse. It flies in the face of everything that Wikipedia is about.

It is not much different from citing a source that says "negroes have huge, protruding lips". It is true, in a way, but still abusive, stupid and disrespectful. Mutatis mutandis, I suggest the same applies here, in a religious context. So I propose we lose the cultural bias and stick with a neutral description of the actions described. -- 172.189.122.83 (talk) (Jayen466) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to point towards, a mature and intercultural approach to the article. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Jayen. It's well known that people in India don't use toilet paper but use their left hand and then wash it. I guess we should be grateful Time didn't say "Guru who doesn't use toilet paper" etc.Momento (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is political correctness gone mad. Just who are you trying to avoid offending here Jayen? Because frankly your attempt to categorise this mildly sensational news report as offensive racism is lame. It is sensationalism of the mildest type and could never be construed as offensive to Indians. I fact it is only offensive to premies who want to play down his once so important divine role which is why I ask who you are really trying to avoid offending here Jayen. Do you propose to cut out all language which reflects the historic fact that there was some surprise and questions raised that this man was worshipped as God? The fact is that devotees (including Rawats family, kissed his feet and worshipped him as God. It was NOT a casual greeting it was an affirmation of 'His' divinity and Rawat (then known as Guru Maharaj Ji-the 'Satguru') was cast in and accepted that role. How this suddenly becomes something you can't report accurately is highly questionable. By the way Jayen, are you a follower of this man too? PatW (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, I feel you would do well in this debate to stop stigmatising people who hold a different opinion. None of us are idiots, none are brainwashed, we are just seeing and evaluating things differently. Rumiton (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I don't think your criticism fairly describes Pat W's comments, Rumiton. I don't see him stigmatising people, and the words "idiots" and "brainwashed" are yours, not his. He is not in this section "bending things"; he is simply advocating a direct quote of a verifiable source, rather than the admittedly neutralizing paraphrase you advocate. I don't find the original out of line at all; neither Time nor PatW deserve to be compared to blatantly offensive racist comments or described as "abusive, stupid and disrespectful" as Jayen did. And in my opinion, telling PatW to take "deep breaths" was condescending and disrespectful, Rumiton. No need for that.

Yes, PatW is showing a bit of emotion here, but so are the three people arguing against him, and to my eye his comments are more respectful and less personal than yours, Memento's and Jayen's. So let's focus on the issue at hand (I say realizing that I am precisely not doing that right now.) Msalt (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See [36]. Emotions are emotions, but these types comments should not be made here. He was already warned [[User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3], and hope he will not do that again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the comment you cite is way out of line, and I hope no one makes comments like that again. I guess I didn't find "brain-washed" when I searched because of the hyphen. All the same, there has been a lot of discussion since then, and from what I see PatW has been behaving himself recently at least as well as Rumiton and Memento. Perhaps because of your remonstrance.

Given your stature on Wikipedia, and your much-discussed involvement with Rawat, it would be wonderful to see you put as much energy toward calming those editors who seem to be sympathetic with Rawat, as with those critical of him. "Deep breaths" is simply baiting; no one wants to hear that from an antagonist. "Abusive, stupid and disrespectful" is pretty darned close to a personal attack, even if it technically describes a comment rather than the person. Etc. Msalt (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just who are you trying to avoid offending here Jayen? Isn't that obvious? The followers of Prem Rawat, in this case. Don't they deserve the same amount of concern as male escorts? Much of Wikipedia is still filled with transparent attempts to ridicule the beliefs and practices of religious minorities, or to create revulsion towards things or people that members of such minorities consider meaningful in the context of their religious lives. At times this is uncomfortably reminiscent of the mentality that created Judensau images on German cathedrals. In my view, Wikipedia has some catching up to do in this area, to bring it level with the concern shown to other groups. Note that this does not mean that I propose to ban mention of views that ridicule religious groups in Wikipedia. However, such views should go into a "Reception" or "Criticism" section, and come with attribution. They have no business in the main part of an article, which should be written in as neutral and factual tone as possible, without the salacious addition of titillating information.

On a more practical note, of the three references following the phrase "his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship.", only one (18) seems to apply. I haven't been around this article long enough to see where the other references (17, 19) came from originally and whether they can simply be deleted, so I'll leave this to a more knowledgeable editor. Cheers, Jayen466 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen Jayen, You are simply imagining that this report is offensive to premies. The fact that you and they are demonstrating offence is what is inappropriate and questionable. There is a fine line between excluding genuine criticism and unnecessary use of bigoted reports which of course one has to be aware of, but in this case it is simply not bigoted or critical. The only word which has a sensational tone is 'literally' (which is kind of superfluous). Suddenly according to all of you, saying 'when they were in his presence' is deemed a bigoted comment rather than an innocent illustrative one . Why? Furthermore to cite the expression 'Lotus Feet' is also not condescending at all. That is what premies called his feet quite openly in those days. The fact seems to be that you sympathise with the premies new-found embarassment and desire to distance themselves from this culture which they once embraced, and you are prepared to let them tone down perfectly respectful descriptions of their past here. I question that an encyclopaedia is the place to support revisionism under the guise of wanting to not offend the sensitivities of a religious group in an inappropriate way. Next you'll argue that Wikipedia shouldn't report Scientology's former teachings about UFO's and disembodied spirits ec. because it's rude to talk about things they now are shy about. An encyclopaedia should not pander to the desire of reformed religious groups or any other groups desires to change history. By citing history you are not approving or endorsing it. To cut out the word 'prostitutes' from historical quotes because the derogatory meaning is now unacceptable is absurd. Also to cut out relevant, illustrative quotes where reporters use other derogatory terms such as 'Nigger' is also doing a disservice to all. Contrary to your opinion, there is NO merit in 'toning down' the language of the past. The present is a different matter. If premies don't want to be called 'devotees' now we naturally don't do that but we should not change the language of quotes from the time that refer to 'Maharaji's devotees'. Same with escorts, transsexuals, you name it. PatW (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pat, I appreciate your thoughts. I still think that it was the right decision to tone down the wording and hope that you can live with it as it stands. We are using the Time article here simply as a source of historical fact, rather than as a source of historical colour. Such colour as there is in it, beyond the facts described, reflects the cultural attitudes of Time Magazine at that time, rather than the attitudes of Premies. As a purely hypothetical (and probably daft) example, if we had a historical verbatim from 18XX saying "There are about 100 niggers living on Mr Y's plantation" I should think we would not write, today, in an article on the historical person Mr Y, that he had about 100 niggers -- we would write, quite naturally, that from contemporary accounts it appears he had about 100 slaves. _{(By the way, I do think that many of the Scientology articles have been terminally strangled by anti-cult sentiment.)}

References 17 and 19 are still there: since they do not back up the preceding sentence, I'll go and delete these now. Ref. 17 contains a longer text passage; it that is considered useful by anyone, please restore in the appropriate place. Cheers, Jayen466 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do take your points and can live with the wording since it is not a direct quote. Of course it would be heinous to use the quote itself and change the wording. The Guardian newspaper here in the UK would love to hear that Wikipedia administrators approve of that as there quite a bit of criticism of Wikipedia there. I suppose what bothers me is that generally the 'colour' is so rigorously toned down so as to effectively not attract interest. I want the opposite of the 'strangulation' of the article by anti-cult sentiment. I want the encyclopaedically interesting facts to be presented here that naturally attract interest to Rawat as it is a subject that I would like to see fairly discussed and yes, questioned very publicly and openly. What I do not approve of is when articles about minority religions are controlled by themselves. This article probably has historically swung from a critical bias to the opposite extreme. The trouble is with cults is that when the facts about them do become fully known then anti-cult sentiments will naturally arise - why? because the public naturally disapproval of the abuses and evils that go on behind their closed doors. So if this article does become one day 'strangled' by public reaction then I won't be so surprised. But I agree that we should start by giving Rawat a very fair chance to account for himself. (Which is effectively what is happening via his followers here). Must dash.PatW (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in danger of straying into discussing the subject rather than the article, something that has got me into admin trouble before and I dare say will again (can you let us alone for a moment, Jossi please?) No doubt the Indian government warns about corrupt gurus but they do not question the guru-disciple system itself, the tradition of profoundly honoring the teacher which is at the heart of all Indian schooling, from general education to music, dance, writing, art, and of course, spiritual growth and meditation.

That they do not include Prem Rawat in their warnings was demonstrated when the Vice President of India put his reputation on the line to praise Prem Rawat's work (ref coming soon, I hope) as have a host of other government and semi-government officials in India and abroad. I don't disagree with you that those early times were not "wholly reasonable or healthy," and I don't think the article gives that impression. It was a jolting culture shock for us all. But I feel the transition times passed a long time ago, and what was good and universal has mostly been retained. No doubt the evolution will continue. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be particularly pleased about that if I were you. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat has also come out in defence of various other spiritual leaders, including the "yogi master" in a northern state who apparently said that he had a course in yoga that would cure cancer and prevent AIDS, or perhaps the other way around. You try adding "VP of India", I'll make sure that the wording reflects that he isn't a particularly difficult endorsement to get. Relata refero (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any mention of any such issues at Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. Also checked news archives and found no issues either [37]. Hes seems to be a supporter of Naturopathy, but that does not make his endorsement of a public figure to be questionable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[38][39][40][41]. As I said, best to not mention any connection with the VP. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Of these four links, one mentions Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as being in a a guest list. I do not see any mention of an endorsement, and even if there was such endorsement, the material does not belong here, but in the article about Ramdev. If there is published criticism of Shekhawat in regard to the subject of this article, that would be different. I am looking for Indian newspapers stories that published information on the Indira Gandhi indoor stadium event of August 2006 , that was attended by 25,000 people, and in which the VP made a speech. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)You cant have it both ways. Either you think this is a notable enough act/endorsement that it goes in the article; in which case I think we owe it to the reader to tell them exactly what else the source of the endorsement supports. The truth is, of course, that it is not notable. As Rumiton says "he put his reputation on the line...". Exactly. He doesn't have one, because he attends meetings for large numbers of spiritual leaders and releases their books and opens their offices and praises their foreign exchange earnings and inner peace. So, as I said, if you make the decision to put him in the article, then you are making the decision that his words on Rawat are notable or in any way exceptional. And that implication, that misleading of the reader should not be permitted to stand without some form of context. (And as for your "lack of an endorsement", here's the VP on the cancer-curer:"He has assured the right to lead a healthy and disease free life to all".)

Also Here he is saying"..he received inner strength and attained peace of mind which helped him with the recovery...Swamishri has helped spread the Indian culture across the world. It is a great mission. He is continuing the mission of Swami Vivekananda.." about Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Here's a sign of his closeness with another well-known "godman". http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about209931.html Here's] 200,000 and a speech at Shree Guruji's. Does a picture emerge? Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything in that blog post or the other source, that has any implication for this article, and ddding "context" such as you suggest would be a violation of WP:OR. In any case, I will bring the source, and then editors will look into it and decide if worthy of addition or not. But first, I need to find it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're implying that a speech by the Vice-President is notable. Implying that is a bloody enormous violation of NPOV in the light of all these facts, and one I think you would do well to avoid. Whatever. Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A speech by the vice-president of the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world is notable by default. That he is Indian and addresses Indian cultural and religious issues, is no surprise. Try and negate a speech by the vice-president of the US Dick Cheney, just because he is a controversial conservative. As you are using the word bloody", I would say that dismissing the VP of India because he is Indian, would be a bloody demonstration of Western bias that has no place in this pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say until you actually try to add this, in which case I will investigate the wording, but I'd like to point out that equating a tendency to indiscriminate enthusiasm for leaders of spiritual enterprises with "addressing Indian cultural and religious issues" is a bit of a stretch, and perhaps a demonstration (OK, I can't use the word again) of another sort of bias. Relata refero (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One could argue about a tendency to indiscriminate enthusiasm for specific groups in the case of Cheney as well. And yet, we would not dismiss it. Orientalism or Western bias is of no consequence in the pedia. People are what they are and they say what they say in the context of the culture/politics in which they act. What's new? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, I would politely request that you check your prejudices at the door if you are to contribute constructively in this article, which is very much about the way totally different cultures and philosophies have interracted. To say that the second highest elected official in the world's most populous democracy "has no reputation" comes across as breath-taking hubris. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hubris-schmubris. If the implication is that Mr. Shekhawat has an ability to discriminate between spiritual leaders - which is what I presume he is being considered worth a mention in this article for - then I'm afraid, as the evidence I presented suggests, he doesn't have one, because he is indiscriminate.

On the Cheney comparison, if a right-wing organisation wished to put in their article that Cheney has nice things about them, I'd certainly want it qualified somehow. (The only reason that there might be a difference is in what is expected of the readership of the two articles; I don't suppose that the readership of this article is generally familiar with Mr. Shekhawat's behaviour, but it is likely that the readership of an article on a small right-wing organisation would be.) Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not hold Shekhawat in high regard, and you may have your reasons. But this is not about your opinion of Shekhawat, is it? Time to re-read WP:V? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't the slightest idea how I regard him as a politician or as a man.

Whether his giving a speech at a function organised by a leader of a spiritual movement is a notable event is what this is about. And I've demonstrated that it isn't exceptional in the least, and pushing it into the article thus gives it a slant. Time to re-read WP:NPOV? Relata refero (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lede

The quotes that back the sentence regarding "lack of intellectual content" and "materialistic lifestyle" all come from the 70s. Putting it after events that happened in 2001 make it look like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years when this criticism was limited to the 70s. It is important that lede accurately reflects the content of the article, unfortunately some editors have chosen to create a separate section called "Criticism" against Wiki guidelines. When this article is cleaned up, those criticisms and the sources will appear in the "Leaving India" and "Coming of Age" sections where they belong. I have rejigged the lede for greater accuracy and NPOV.Momento (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you're repeating arguments that have been debunked above. And again, don't start a new talk page section about something that's discussed elsewhere, and even was an agreement (#Thousands of edits lost: "Thus, [the lead section] should include the main points of the criticism.", last sentence, nobody found anything unreasonable about that; and then a few sections lower, #Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references which debunked the argument entirely, nobody objecting) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could the sentence be moved to after Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. as a suitable compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I put it there for some time, until someone else moved it again to the last sentence of the section. So I propose to keep it there (last sentence of the lead, separate paragraph) until a new consensus where to put it (if any) emerges here on talk. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it about time that editors here start looking for some common ground and developing consensus by finding a compromise that all can live with, instead of reverting each other endlessly. I would hope that both Francis and Momento would agree with me on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Or is it time to request a full protection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that starts In June 1971, Rawat left India could benefit by saying that he was 13 years old at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't debunked any arguments Francis, you've just agreed with your own. If the sentence is moved from the chronologically correct 70s section of the lede, it should have "in the 70s". Suit yourself.Momento (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop....

... refactoring this page! I have asked you three times to stop. This is most unhelpful! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I held myself only to the Hunt section and Photo section until further discussion.

See the first section on this page for my comments. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional references

Can some regular editors add relevant material from the following references to the article ?

• Eileen Barker, "New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction", pages 178 etc.
• Alan Aldridge, "Religion in the Contemporary World: A Sociological Introduction", pages 58-59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.255.235 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, and why don't you do it? Onefinalstep (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Barker wrote some excerpts from follower Jeanne Messer's article about the effect of mediation that are currently in the article Divine Light Mission. Andries (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Jeanne_Messer ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this "effect of mediation"? (OK, I'm kidding, Andries. Carry on with your unique and special understanding of English.) Rumiton (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility, notably WP:SKILL, please. Andries was talking about meditation, obviously, which is a typo: there isn't even a conclusion to draw w.r.t. language skills, even if that would be appropriate in Wikipedia talk page context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I said I was kidding. I don't think Andries took it seriously. His English is imperfect, as is my German, and he has helped me with that. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumion, to answer your question about the effect of mediation, there was no mediation. I had filed three mediation requests with Momento to the mediation committee but they had all eventually been rejected. Andries (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, God. OK Andries. OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section

While we're integrating sections, the "personal life" section seems unnecessary. Is there a point to the section that I don't understand? Isn't the whole article about his life? We mention Rawat's arrival to the U.A. chronologically, so why wait to the end to mention his citizenship? We mention family relations throughout, so why leave mention of his wife to the end? All of the material can be placed chronologically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see merit in this approach, Will. But just note that in many bios, private/personal matters are separated from aspects of the notability of the person. SO, I am not sure. Let's hear what others have to say about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on a lot of bios of politicians; almost always, there is a "personal life" section because the chronological parts of the article are, following the section where the person has finished his/her education, pretty much devoted to career, political positions, etc. Things like spouse, kids, and religion don't really fit in anywhere else. The section is usually put at the end of the article, sort of as a catch-all.

My personal preference is to integrate personal information into the main article, where that fits. But if there are one or two loose facts, which need to go into a personal life section, then (arguably) it makes sense to add others where they aren't critical to understanding a chronological sequence.

In other words (sorry for rambling), it does depend. Integrate if you can do so completely; put stuff into a separate section at the bottom if that doesn't cause problems for the reader in following events earlier in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the material isn't personal at all - it lists his business interests. Perhaps a solution wqould be to integrate the personal stuff (citizenship, wife and family), and then rename the section "Business activities" or something like that. We could move the investment income stuff there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, but what John says seems logical. Leave the personal odds and ends till last. Rumiton (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Personal odds and ends" - would that include his family relationships? His place of birth and education? His sources of income? Where do we draw the lines between his teachings, his career, and his personal life? Is being a guru his career, or is it being a pilot and inventor? The heading is inaccurate, so this discusion is on which improvement to make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the section I see your point, but still don't find it all that significant. How would you arrange these issues? Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I see you have already made a suggestion. Though I think his activities that are separate from his more notable roles are pretty appropriately classed as "personal." We can't call them "Private" or they wouldn't belong here. "Personal" seems about right to me. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine line. The 70s Time article talks about his family relationships. Is it in or out?Momento (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The only material in this section about family are two short sentences: A U.S. citizen since 1977, Rawat lives with his wife in Malibu, California.[82] They have four grown children. Since he moved to Malibu (at least part time) in the 1970s, the material could be moved to the "Coming of age" section that covers the mid- to late-'70s. The remaining material appears to be about businesses and isn't any more personal than the rest of the article. I propose a title like "business activities", but maybe someone else can think of a better phrase. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Business activities would be a very short section. I think there are way more pressing issues with this article. 13:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Time for an archive? 53500 words and counting...

This discussion page has quite literally become the length of a book! 50,000 words = a 200 page pocket book. Is it time for an archive of sections that haven't been updated in a few days, or at least a clean up and consolidation of duplicated material? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had second thoughts. I hope that we don't end up having a new debate in a discussion page about how to best edit this discussion page, etc :-)82.44.221.140 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. How about setting up Miszabot with these variables:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_%(counter)d
|counter = 29
|maxarchivesize = 250K
}}

Anyway I also saw someone started archiving, and some sections are going to be brought back by me, for unconcluded discussions, or discussions continued in other sections, that pre-suppose the older section still to be at hand (note that I objected to fragmentation of discussion - scattering the fragments over multiple pages is still less useful). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I archived any discussion that had no posts from 10th Feb on. Sorry if I archived one you still needed. The problem here is that there is just too much recent stuff, the bot will not help with that. As set above nothing will be archived until 14 days of inactivity, yet, every section on this page has been active in the last 4 days. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could try seeting the bot to 5days and see if it helps?

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_%(counter)d
|counter = 29
|maxarchivesize = 200K
}}

If discussions get archived prematurly they can always be brought back. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought back the sections I did think premature to archive. Less than 7 days... works only for Jimbo Wales' talk page imho. But I adjusted my proposal to a minimum I wouldn't go under. Really, I didn't cause the problem of redundant repeats while some people chose to restart new sections on topics still discussed in multiple other sections. Let's avoid further fragmentation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK lets try seven days. Note also we need to define the max size of the archive. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, you had archived a section which was still edited yesterday (#Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references) - no hard feelings, just an argument to have this handled "neutrally" by bot.)

But on the 7 days I think we agree. Any one else second thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly human error is a problem when doing it manually, as you discovered in this case. I discovered the bot template is already at the top of the talk page, it just needed to be reduced from 14 to 7. In all seriousness, it might be necessary to bring it down even lower, but let's see how it goes with 7d. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my proposal I used the "default" of 250K, as it is in the example of the bot's "how-to" page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed that too, not concentrating today. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's organisations

I propose to add a new section to the article giving some basic information on the organisations associated with Prem Rawat. For someone new to the subject, it now gives the impression one is supposed to know a lot of things before starting to read the article.

For every one of them, I'd like to see a short overview: how many people involved; when started; does it still exist or has it been renamed; what is the nature of Prem Rawat's involvement; are these official organisations, or informal designations?

These descriptions might work as summaries in a Wikipedia:Summary style aproach, which is good quality article writing.

Ashrams

"Ashram" is clearly a concept existing outside the context of Prem Rawat too (Prem Rawat isn't even mentioned at the Ashram article). How many of them associated with Prem Rawat were there, roughly, with how many members, with what evolution over time? Are there any statistics, external sources providing information on them etc?

Divine Light Mission

also basic statistics, and nature of Prem Rawat's involvement, linked to external sources would be welcomed. Was it completely merged to Elan Vital, or did it still continue as a separate organisation (until today, or until what time), after the merge to Elan Vital?

Elan Vital

apart from the kind of information suggested before, some explanation on where the name of this organisation came from would be welcomed.

Divine United Organization

currently unmentioned in Prem Rawat article, see below.

Raj Vidya Kender

currently only mentioned in an external link at the bottom of the page: if nothing of this organisation is explained in the article, I'm not sure why we should have a link to its website.

Prem Rawat Foundation

Same questions, also: were other organisations merged into this one?

I wouldn't give much more detail in the Prem Rawat article, and I know more detail can be obtained from the individual Wikipedia articles (that's how "summary style" works). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem in principle, but see the following on "debloating." I can see it all having to come out again. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of this.... Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here and there is wording about them in this article (teachings section). Same as the Elan Vital , and The Prem Rawat Foundation. These organizations are described and in the article already, do we need more?. Raj Vidya Kender link could be removed, if needed. I have not found published sources about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the Divine Light Mission article, the concept ashram isn't really explained (only that they were "established", "closed", "disputed", etc), nor is the word "ashram" in that article even a single time linked to the Wikipedia article ashram. I suppose the DLM article needs some serious debloating too, and provide actual factual information instead, e.g. what the difference is between a western ashram, and an ashram in India? Other factual information (as opposed to bloat) missing from that article are basic questions like, how many Prem-Rawat related ashrams were there? How many of them are there still in India? How many of them are there still of the variety connected to his brother and mother (which is DLM too, at least in India)? How many people were involved in ashrams over time? Basic statistics please.

Also, it would be better that Wikipedia is less an exercise in solving puzzles. You say "Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here" - but how on earth are readers supposed to know in advance that from the Prem Rawat article they don't have to click the ashram link when they want to know more about what is unsatisfactorily explained in the paragraphs mentioning them, but instead have to navigate via the Divine Light Mission link (...to find there an article with also incomplete context, but no longer a link to the ashram article)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Maybe a brief lead at the start of a summary section, such as "A number of organizations have been associated with Prem Rawat over the years:", a quick description of each, with a Wikilink if applicable. I think this would be a great help for the reader just learning about Rawat to understand his history and works. Msalt (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. There is evident confusion and cross-referencing between Rawat and these organizations; Jossi, you as much as anyone have criticized editors for referring to him when a source describes one of these organizations. They all seem to be organized around him and his teachings, and he is the common threadbetween them. So a listing with a quick description or distinction between them would seem to be the essence of encyclopedicality. (is that a word?) Msalt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a more or less correct overview:

His first organizations were called Divine Light Mission (DLM) and Divine United Organization (DUO). Later in the eighties he started referring to himself as Maharaji and the various Divine Light Mission organizations were gradually replaced by entities with the name Elan Vital. Today he typically uses his given name, Prem Rawat, and his newest organization is called The Prem Rawat Foundation. In 1974 a legal battle saw him lose control of the Divine Light Mission in India to his mother and elder brother. With the loss of the Indian DLM, the promotional organization for Prem Rawat in India became Divine United Organization, which has now been renamed Raj Vidya Kender. [42]

? (seems we need to mention the Divine United Organization too, currently unmentioned in the Prem Rawat article). And on the ashrams:

[In the early 70s] 'mahatmas', were sent to support the [...] western Divine Light Mission and a system of ashrams - houses where Rawat's followers lived communally in a Hindu style of monasticism - was instigated. [...] in 1977 [...], the ashram system was reinvigorated after a period of apparent decline, a more restrictive set of rules were imposed and all of Rawat's followers were subject to stronger encouragement to enter the ashram system. [...] In 1982 without prior warning, Prem Rawat announced that the Divine Light Mission ashrams would close, [...] the closure programme [...] was complete by the end of 1983. [...] The DUO ashrams in India were treated separately and remain to this day as largely monastic in character. [43]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Premie

Currently, the premie disambiguation page explains more about the use of the designation "premie" than the Prem Rawat article (apart from figuring extensively in quoted footnote text), although that disambiguation page refers to the Prem Rawat article for this meaning of the term. There's also something that looks like a contradiction (but maybe isn't): the disambig page refers to premies as followers of Prem Rawat; the Prem Rawat article mentions the term only in connection with Prem Rawat's father ("...his father's followers (known as premies)", in the Childhood section).

Could we merge the "use of the term" information, currently on the disambig page, to the Prem Rawat article? Any objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem except article size. As part of becoming stable we will probably want to go for Good Article again, and almost certainly the reviewers will call for another debloating. We are not writing a book. The pendelum swings. Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"premies", comes from the sanskrit word "prem" that means "love". I will look for a reference. In India the term is widely used, but in the West is used rarely nowadays. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”).

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"the Mission" being DLM in this context, according to the footnote, and not, for instance, The Mission. Anyways, thanks for the clarification, naively I thought "premies" derived from Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem is a very popular name in India. And yes, the mission here is the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Prem Rawat was known in India as a child as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar, and as Maharaji today. It is only recently (last 10 years or so) that people started referring to him by his passport name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, what page in Melton? there is already a reference to the DLM entry in Melton in the Prem Rawat article, saying it is p141-2 (not p14). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, p.141. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anyway, here is what is on the "Premie" disambig page:

* Premie, a student of Prem Rawat. The word was widely used amongst followers of Prem Rawat in western countries until the mid 1980s, and is still used informally. It is still in use in India and other Eastern countries.

Can someone help clean that out over there? The rest, the part about the use of the term should be referenced and in the Prem Rawat article imho. Can someone provide an adequate reference? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have duplicated the material. The second sentence starting with In the late 1960s, British followers in India invited him to visit the West refers to the same people as Melton's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what you say now is that "Americans in India" == "British followers in India". The difference seems a continent to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Both British and Americans visited India in the late 60's and found there the young Maharaji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, logical. But Melton didn't imply "followers from English-speaking countries around the world", or did he?

"British" visitors would be more prevalent at the time in India I suppose (in general), with India having been a British colony and all: is there any reason why Melton stresses "Americans", or is that only accidental because he (supposedly) was one himself? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cagan's book describe these early seekers, with names and nationalities: Americans, and British. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can adapt the sentence now quoted to Melton? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To consider

Per Thatcher's recommendation in the closing of the COI discussion at WP:COI/N However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites., I would appreciate if edits such as this are carefully considered in that context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course anti-Rawat activists have similar COI issues to Rawat followers, and we should look at all such edits with sharp eyes. However, while I can understand how the edit you cite would be unpleasant to someone sympathetic to Prem Rawat, I don't think the edit itself is at all unreasonable. The fact that Randi included him in an encyclopedia of supernatural "claims, frauds and hoaxes" IS the main point, rather than the details of the entry. I don't think COI is really the issue here, is it? If I made the same edit, would you be happy with it? Msalt (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would. We do not use the names of books in this article at all, and we should not give undue weight to Randi's opinion by listing the name of his book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did you misspeak, Jossi? I asked if you would be happy with the edit if I made it, since I don't have any COI, and you said yes. I'm happy to go ahead and make the edit, which I think is in fact more accurate. But the rest of what you say implies that you think the opposite. My point being that COI doesn't seem to be the issue, you just don't like the edit, whoever makes it. Am I right about that? Msalt (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the mention so that 1) it's not a COI edit and 2) it puts it in context better. (ie, not just citing the title, but noting that he included him in such an encyclopedia.) Also tightened it up. Msalt (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct Jossi. Naming the book is just away to get around the appalling quote - that Rawat was fat.Momento (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To Momento - I would prefer including both the quote and the name of the book, but is is clear to me that the name of the book is the significant issue here. To Jossi, there is no rule in Wikipedia about not using names of books in articles. In this case it is warranted. Regarding my conflict of interest, where is the conflict? I simply want this article to reflect a little closer the view of Rawat held by pretty much every mainstream newspaper and magazine article writer over the last 37 years as documented at [44] and as ignored by the Prem Rawat Foundation's 'press room' at [45] --John Brauns (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Thatcher for his reasons to alert you on this aspect. Reputable publications have been used in this article. Sources that refer to the 16-year old Maharaji as a "the world's most overweight midget", or "His Divine Fatness" , or that repeat nonsense such as that "he strips devotees, pours abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administers drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", are obviously not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I disagree with the generaliztion. His behavior as a guru was unusual and considered inappropriate by many sources, inc. reputable ones as the Washington Post. And this can and should be in the article. Andries (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Randi's book makes all of those statements? If so, then please consider stating such objections directly, rather than couching this as an issue of COI by the editor who wants to name the book. I haven't read Randi's book but if he says all that, then frankly, that would be a much stronger argument against the book anyway. If he didn't say that, then I don't know why you would bring it up, it seems like an inflammatory red herring. Msalt (talk)

You can read the book and its article on Prem Rawat online. Arthur C. Clarke, it would appear from the cover art, only wrote the introduction; the book itself is Randi's. Given that the book appears to contain about a page's worth of ad-hominems and trivial information hoped to be found embarrassing, how notable is it? -- Jayen466 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link, that is very helpful. It would be great if we could reference web sources for all of these publications. Is there a WP against web links to materials both published on paper and available online? I dropped Arthur Clarke from the text in my edit, described above. However, none of the inflammatory statements that Jossi listed are in there. While the article is certainly very negative, and I think fairly described as ridiculing, I'm not sure that is sufficient reason to remove it as an exemplar of criticism. It also describes events also mentioned in sources on the Prem Rawat: Sources page that are accepted here, and in reasonably fair terms in most cases. I would like to see the opinion of other relatively uninvolved editors on whether to keep this or not. Certainly it would be nice to find a summary of criticisms with a tone that's a bit more fair. Msalt (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be a chance of finding something a bit more balanced and informed here. That could be researched and evaluated, and a summary included (to the extent that it comments on his person). This would be preferable in my view to dignifying this somewhat flippant page by Randi with an encylopedic citation. -- Jayen466 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The flippant comments in Randi's book, are hardly encyclopedic, but I would let others assess that. As for the link to JSTOR, note that most, if not all these sources have already been used in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, there is every chance of finding more balanced and informed comments. It shows an extraordinary bias that some editors would want to see a sensationalist book by a stage magician become a source for an encyclopedia. Apart from that, editors here are getting COI (Conflict of Interest) confused with POV (Point Of View.) COI exists where the material well-being of an editor is in some way affected by the outcome of the article. POV is just a strongly-held opinion. And Msalt's statement "While the article is certainly very negative, and I think fairly described as ridiculing, I'm not sure that is sufficient reason to remove it as an exemplar of criticism" shows perhaps an unfamiliarity with WP:BLP "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is do no harm." This is a living, breathing person with feelings, not a philosophical concept. Rumiton (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about WP:COI vs. POV, and am inclined to go with Jossi and Thatcher on this one. I don't see anything about "material well-being" in the policy; it's about promoting "your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." Those interests can be ideological, religious, political, or whatever. Msalt (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, do no harm can also be interpreted in a completely opposite way: to present an unbalanced positive article of Prem Rawat harms his (potential) followers and students. Andries (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I must still beg to differ. The Oxford Dictionary gives several meanings for "interest", from the most common "concern, curiosity" to the sense that I believe is clear here: "title, right, pecuniary stake." The first examples given on WP:COI are "quoting from your own book", "direct financial reward", "involvement in a court case" and "promoting (other)commercial or private sites". These are all monetary factors. Then we have "close friendship with the subject" and "involvement with a promotional organisation". With respect, I believe your suggestion that "ideological, religious, political" views constitute a COI is mistaken. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I am in broad agreement with you. However, the subject being alive should not even have to enter into consideration. If we are writing an encyclopedia, we should use academic sources wherever they are available, in preference over journalistic accounts and what could be termed "popular science". -- Jayen466 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, thank you for your level-headed and mature contributions, not to mention the elegance of their expression. The subject being alive does need to come into our consideration, not so much in kind as in degree. The requirements for reputability in sourcing and neutrality of article expression, the need to eliminate undue weight and extraordinary claims are not different from those for other Wikipedia articles, they are just a lot more rigorously applied. WP:BLP says it all, in spirit as well as in letter. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly familiar with WP:BLP, though certainly not to the extent that many others here are. (What's the provision on adherence to the law in Florida all about?) And I have already stated that I personally would prefer a less snarky source.

However, Rumiton, I think you are implying that BLP prevents any substantial criticism of living persons, and I don't believe that is true. Randi's book cites several facts also documented by sources accepted as verifiable on this page in judging Rawat as belonging in his encyclopedia. It's certainly better to mention the book and not quote the ridiculing language, so the article is already better than earlier today. Let's keep looking for a better source, rather than disparaging each other's knowledge of WP rules. Msalt (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to disparage. You are quite right, criticism that is very well sourced should be acknowledged, but not in the lip-licking way that some would like to see. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for removing the text of Galanter's quote. I found the description in the book.Momento (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo

The photo of the house needs to be removed. The count of independent editors (have not edited this article) is 8 to delete and 2 to keep.Momento (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The IfD will be closed soon, and the arguments there are compelling for deletion as the image fails WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not from Google as several editors have claimed, but from Microsoft, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules for images. So, delete. --John Brauns (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just looked at the last of the three external links and found it to contain anonymous allegations of illegality and immorality against the subject of this article and against other people. Links should be of the same encyclopedic standard as the Wikipedia mainspace articles. This link is not acceptable. Please discuss its removal. Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop creating new talk page sections about topics that *are* currently being discussed on this talk page. I already complained about this habit of someone starting a new talk page section when the person doesn't like the outcome of a previous, still active, one (#Talk page discipline). This is yet another example of the same.

See above...

• #External links section...
• #External links disputes

...for the ongoing discussions on the "external links" topic. Please make sure you read what is on this page before writing the same for the nth time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Having one negative and only two positive links is a typical case of false balance. If at all a critical site has to be included, it should be straight cognizable that it represents a contentious small minority view, even if it is somewhat virtually inflated. Otherwise a lot more positive links should be provided.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The balance doesn't strike me as unfair. On the other hand your "it represents a contentious small minority view" appears as some sort of OR to me. Where did you get that information? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your claim itself would be OR. We can certainly include a critical link about a public media figure. It is no BLP violation. Lawrence § t/e 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical links of public figures may be welcome, but not those that carry defaming statements. Why?, because it Fails WP:BLP: 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. . Fails Wikipedia:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. If you have a need to change the policy and established guidelines on the subject, do so at WT:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As explained again, there are no unsourced defaming statements. What defaming statements are you referring to? Please provide a specific example. Lawrence § t/e 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not repeat such allegations in talk page, as that would also be in violation of WP:BLP. Do you have email enabled? I can email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And your question does not address the lack of compliance with content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail is enabled. What evidence is there that this is a personal site? Also, did you see the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#By_website that talks about this site? Are those your concerns? My primary concern is that this article is imbalanced still, and too many people with known or demonstrated bias to the cult/sect have undue control of influence here. That will be trimmed back. Lawrence § t/e 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed you. Editors have been working to improve the article, and progress is being made. And what is new?, all editors have biases, but that does not stop us from wanting a good article, and influence edits in that direction. No different than editing Homeopathy, or any other subject about which there are strong POVs at play. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I'm just of the opinion that strong POVs need to forcibly placed in check, even if those with the POVs don't like it. Neutrality isn't something to negotiate on with POV pushing. POV pushers or strong POVs need to take a shot in the ideological mouth when they push too hard, and pushed to the side by the community whenever they come up, or else they'll end up with undue authority. Neutrality always comes before personal stakes, POVs, or wishes of any one of us. If some people get upset about that like on the homeopathy mess, or some of the editors here... c'est la vie. We're here to suck at the neutrality tit, not the tit of junk science or Prem Rawat. That's why I try to never touch articles I may be conflicted in, such as Judaism. I'll reply to your email on the specific points. Lawrence § t/e 15:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Jew, and I have no problems editing articles on Judaism. I lived in Israel for many years, saw combat there as a soldier, and I have no problems in editing articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yes, we all have POVs, and yes, we can still put NPOV, V, BLP and NOR, before our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

the word "cult"

I'm wondering why, before I just added the word, there was not a single instance of the word "cult" in the article main body (it appeared only in references) despite repeated and numerous media references to the movement as a cult, or in the context of a cult? Lawrence § t/e 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The word cult appears in Divine Light Mission, the movement that was considered by some to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar

... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)