Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Expectations and rumors"

This thread is for the latest discussion of the contents of the "Exepectations and rumors" section. PLease also refer to Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1#Expectations section and Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1#choosing of specific material at the expense of other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this section might be too long? Perhaps it could be summarized. Does not every event, eg Woodstock Festival have expectations and rumors? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Still too much detail

If I were copy editing it, I would ruthlessly go through it and remove every unnecessary detail. Then I would add back a chosen few that substantially added to the subject. Is is really necessary to describe previous festivals, for example?

• "At the Hans Jayanti of 1970, Guru Maharaj Ji delivered his "Peace Bomb" address to a gathering of 1 million people.[12][13] The 1972 Hans Jayanti was attended by over 500,000 followers, including thousands from the US and UK who had flown to India on chartered 747s.[12][14] Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji decided that the 1973 Hans Jayanti would be the first to be held in the United States rather than India.[15] One scholar called it a "a celebration of world peace and religious rejuvenation."[2] Organizers planned it as a media event and invited hundreds of reporters from all over the country, hoping that the media would come to see Maharaj Ji in a positive light.[16][17][18] Sophia Collier speculated that Maharaj Ji had acquiesced to the grandiose plans of his eldest brother and mother in an effort to keep the peace within the family, or at least delay a confrontation until he was an adult.[19]"

Does this paragraph pertain to the festival that is the subject of this article? I confess I am still confused when I read the article, as there is so much detail. The detail seems to overwhelm the actual information. What are the main points (if you had to choose, say, five) that you want the reader to come away with from the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. How about this one - Mata Ji and the 22-year-old Bal Bhagwan Ji decided that the 1973 Hans Jayanti would be held in the United States rather than India.[15] and planned it as a media event hoping that the media would come to see Maharaj Ji in a positive light.[16][17][18] According to Sophia Collier, Maharaj Ji acquiesced to their grandiose plans in an effort to keep the peace within the family, or at least delay a confrontation until he was an adult.[19]"Momento (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is part of the "Background" section. In FAC, we were asked to provide more backgound to help readers put the article into context. As for those exact details, yes, "Hans Jayanti" is an annual festival commemorating GMJ's father, the founder of the movement, starting aftre his death in 1966. The 1973 festival was the first held in the US. As for your other question, I can't answer that right away fully, but the main points are for readers to be informed about the event, its context and significance. Let's remember that Wikipedia policy requires preserving information, so if we need to delete relevant, sourced information in order for this to meet the good article criteria then maybe it's not worth meeting that standard.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are bending things rather a lot here, Will. Wikipedia policy does not require that reams of extraneous information be "preserved." It requires, inter alia, that subjects be dealt with in a neutral and informative way. Readers should come away from our articles better informed than when they arrived. A barrage of difficult-to-stitch together facts and opinions does not create this. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Mattisse and have done some streamlining: [1], [2]. The second of these edits removes speculations by various parties and other material that may be deemed extraneous (Billy Graham). Please review. Jayen466 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Media coverage section is too long. It has to much detail and too many quotes that really do not add. Also, media coverage is described in other sections as well. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much detail. But an important detail that should not be omitted is that the star of the show was breaking away from the promoters of the show. That this was the last show they did together and within a few months the promoters were back in India, never to return.Momento (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We did mention that at the end, Momento. Wouldn't it be better to describe things chronologically? Jayen466 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The rift was underway before the festival and is therefore an important part of the background.Momento (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

World Peace Corps

"The World Peace Corps' name was called doublespeak and compared to the Big Lie." Another extraordinary statement. Who did this calling and comparing? Rumiton (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to ask? The sentence is supported by citations. The sources are both available online.

Regarding that section, why do you keep changing a quotation? The source says, "a Guru goon squad of tough-looking teddy bear types from Britain". Not "teddy boy". Perhaps that is what was meant, but that's not what was written. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely we don't have to slavishly repeat 35 year-old typos? If the original quote was unintelligible and contradictory (as "tough-looking teddy bears" is) and we can't agree to restore it to cogency, we should leave it out. Rumiton (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that a news article from the early 1970s would make reference to 'teddy-boys' in attempting to describe the appearance of these people. Pictures from the time (qv the 'Lord of the Universe' documentary) show a preference for wide-lapelled suits and ties - and not a quiff or brothel-creeper in sight! "Tough-looking teddy bear" fits the description far more accurately, so no need to infer typographical error on the part of the author/publisher. Revera (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote is "tough-looking teddy bear types from Britain". This makes sense to you? Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the context given, yes! (especially as 'teddy-boy' is so anachronistic). If you don't see what I mean, perhaps this illustration might make things clearer - http://picasaweb.google.com/tjbanjo/InnerMongoliaTripLongVersion#5219357464630421538 Revera (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(link no longer goes to original picture)Revera (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, do you really think that was the way people saw the English WPC? It's an affectionate image, not the way I remember them at all. I need to think about this. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the source now, but another writer compared the WPC guards to characters in a Michael Caine movie. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Caine appeared in a number of British gangster films, including Get Carter. According the article Rumiton linked to, teddy boys were teenaged music fans dressed in Edwardian clothes with slicked-back hair. That's a very different image. Based in the LOTU video, I don't think that's how WPC guards appeared.   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, the journalist's description of the British WPC may or may not tally with your own impressions and memories, but that's what he wrote. You're entitled to your own opinion about them looking (to you) more like 'teddy-boys', of course, but that's no reason to change the quote. Here's a short clip from the documentary where one of the British WPC is interviewed: http://gurumaharaji.info/video/lord_of_the_universe/i_dont_have_to_think.wmv Couldn't agree more with your last observation though! Revera (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am being 100% misrepresented here, but luckily I am rather used to that. Please read carefully. According to Wikipedia, Teddy Boys were noted for violent clashes with rival gangs and other brutal behaviour. The Edwardian clothing was just by the way. This is how the English WPC looked to me, and I had a pretty good look when the Australian ashram I was living in was taken over by one and run for three months as a Fascist dictatorship. Teddy bears? Please! But still, if a source said so... Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're betraying your own bias, Rumiton. "Violent clashes with rival gangs and other brutal behaviour" may be how you best remember these people, but where's your NPOV evidence for portraying them (the UK WPC at Millennium '73) this way? Perhaps it's time your ability to edit this article in a non-biased way was re-considered (and hopefully before we all get to the ninth ring of hell!) Revera (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Please assume good faith and don't be silly. Rumiton (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The WPC section is a good place to start Will. "They were seen by one reporter as "threatening, cajoling and generally pushing everyone around",[57] by another as "a Guru goon squad of tough-looking teddy bear types from Britain",[48] and by a member as a "corps of sweet-looking ushers and more brawny strongarms."[71] Described as dour and brutal,[35][72] they were seen by one reporter as exemplifying "the inevitable violence of any millennial sect hell-bent on abstract purity and infinite happiness."[35] One observer was quoted as saying, "These people were mad with a sense of divinity-authorized power. It was like descending into the ninth ring of hell."[73]Momento (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As above. Opinionated and over-reaching, journalistic showing-off, and not the stuff of an encyclopedia. The fact that these observations were made can be reported in an editorial tone. Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can folks please try to keep topics in the threads where they make the most sense? This thread is title "Intro" and above is a thread titled "World Peace Corps". Since this has nothing to do with the Intro, and does concern the WPC, let's just move it up there, OK?   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Done.   Will Beback  talk  13:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Love your new logo.Momento (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A change for the new year.   Will Beback  talk  13:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gray wrote:

• Some of the premies—particularly the British ones that make up the bulk of the 'World' Peace Corps,' the Divine Light security outfit which is marshaling the Millennium—are no less aggressive. Dour, didactic, and cavernous-faced, they push you roughly back from many sections of the Astrodome barking, 'Premies only here, premies only, please obey….' It is through being shoved by them a few times that I receive the first hint of the movement's latent violence, the inevitable violence of any millennial sect hellbent on abstract purity and infinite happiness.

I summarized the last part this way:

• They were characterized as part of the violence associated with a millennial sect.

An editor deleted that as an incorrect summary so I restored the quotation of the part I've bolded above. How should we paraphrase this assertion, or is it better to leave it as a quotation?   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "This was seen as being evidence of the latent violence that can exist within the high ideals and abstractions of many a millennial sect". Though, to my mind, the removal of the original summary seems unwarranted. Revera (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll put that in unless anyone has a better idea.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't seen as "evidence", it isn't even "latent". It is "hint" of the movement's "latent" violence, that she experienced when she repeatedly tried to go where she wa not allowed. Well, as we all know she was wrong. You cannot summarize her opinion without including how she came to it. "they push you roughly back from many sections of the Astrodome barking, 'Premies only here, premies only, please obey".Momento (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's your proposal?   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers

During the summer prior to the festival, 380 followers worked full-time in Houston preparing for the event.[67] The total staff for the festival eventually numbered 4,000.[39] Reporters wrote that the amateur volunteers maintained a tight and professional operation,[48] and showed the egalitarian obedience of the Israeli Army or a monastery.[21] One reporter noted that the workers seemed to be "model human beings, perhaps even on their way to becoming the 'new evolutionary species' that they claim will establish heaven on earth."[3] Others commented of being pushed around and threatened by the mostly English World Peace Corps whose main job was providing security for their guru. [57][48][16][3][69] Momento (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that deletes too much information. Styaing closer to the source and the other material in the article already, the Gray quote could be paraphrased as "The bullying by the WPC was characterized as a hint of the latent violence that can exist within the high ideals and abstractions of many a millennial sect".   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's also not delete "Reporters wrote that the amateur volunteers worked "smoothly, efficiently, happily ... without a word of complaint or a note of friction",[30] One reporter noted that the workers seemed a remarkably contented lot. ... They are supportive of each other, much given to massaging one another's backs – cheerful, kind, loving. We should also put in the bit about rolling up the carpet for tomorrow's game.Momento (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about the WPC. Let's try to avoid wandering off into other discussions. If you don't agree with the suggested paraphrasing we can just leave that one as a quote. However let's try to move forward not backward.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New reference material found

Editors might be interested in these rare behind-the-scenes communications between the production team that filmed the Millennium 73 documentary (TVTV, comprising Hudson Marquez, Allen Rucker, Michael Shamberg, Tom Weinberg, and Megan Williams). Here are links to the three downloadable pdf files available at http://www.mediaburn.org/Video-Preview.128.0.html?&uid=4247 (click on right hand tab "Documents" when you get there)

• Proposal and Production Plan: [3]
• Pre-Houston briefing: [4]
• Press Invitiation from DLM: [5]

Some of the material strikes a welcome balance between the pro and anti camps, and could be useful in incorporating into the article, or at least linking to it from within the article or from here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennium_%2773/sources Revera (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a message on the homepage of that website: "Please note! We are making improvements to our site this month, and there will be times when things don't work. Please have patience, and check back with us soon!" Revera (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the circumstances, it'll probably be easier to use the following links

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/13/2266124/Proposal_ProductionPlan.pdf

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/13/2266124/Pre_briefing.pdf

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/13/2266124/PressInvitation.pdf Revera (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it's interesting to know that Shamberg had already characterized premies as zombies before he got to Houston, this material fails WP:RS.Momento (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

Forgive me for having to point it out, but there's one hell of an elephant in the room.

Intelligent readers must surely want to know WHY the event was promoted as being "the most holy and significant event in the history of humanity".

But there's no mention (as yet) of the event's MC - Rennie Davis - (star convert to the guru's cause) saying the following:

"It is not possible to understand the Middle East, or Watergate, or UFOs, or the super comet in the sky unless you understand the central event on this planet around which all other events now spin. Guru Maharaji says: 'Life is like a chess game and very soon now the whole world will be checkmated' and if America wants to know what is happening it must first understand the main thing that is happening, the Lord is on the planet, he's in a human body and he's about to usher in the greatest change in the history of human civilisation."

short clip at - http://ex-premie.org/video/lotu/rennie_millenium_intro.wmv

fuller clip at - http://gurumaharaji.info/video/lord_of_the_universe/intro.wmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Rawat considers his Guru's birth to be "the most holy and significant event in the history of humanity". And he commemorates it every year with Hans Jayanti. As you will recall Revera, Rawat considers the Guru to be greater than God. The "holy" seems to have been dropped from most claims about the event. As over the top as Davis's intro is, it echoes the times as per introduction to Levine's article on Millennium in Rolling Stone "In the damp late autumn of 1973 it did not take a religious fanatic in a tattered overcoat to sense that the real Kingdom lay within, things being as rotten as they were without. There was an unmistakable apocalyptic chill in the air. Corruption in Washington. Mass murders in Texas and California. UFO sightings across the South. An energy crisis that threatened to turn off the Christmas lights and slow Americans down to 55 miles per hour. Reports that the brightest comet ever recorded would soon trail orange clouds of cosmic dust over the whole land. One imagines looking through cracks in the wall at glaciers clinking outside like ice cubes in a tray."Momento (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to his many similar comments, there's no doubt that Davis really thought that Maharaj Ji was god or the messiah, not just a guru. That assessment was shared by many followers, who made comments to the effect that Maharaj Ji was responsible for everything that happened in the world, from sunsets to the pie throwing. Davis himself said at the festival that GMJ gave Nixon his life, despite Nixon being born decades before GMJ.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could write the article, more or less, as you just summarized above(with references and the language formalized a little), the article might fly. What I mean is, whatever happened (Rawat said and did such and such) can be described, as you would any person, happening, etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Davis didn't think Rawat was God. Rawat made it very clear in his first talks in the west that no human being could be God. Rawat said God is "pure and perfect energy". Davis may have thought he was the his personal messiah but not the Christian version. No devotee thinks his guru is just a guru.Momento (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If Davis wasn't referring to GMJ/Rawat, then who was he referring to when he said that "the Lord is on the planet, he's in a human body"? Bal Bhagwan Ji? ;) It's certainly possible that what the followers believed and what Rawat said were not identical. That's not unusual. To take a common example, what Jesus said about himself and what most of his followers think about him are not identical. It's not the job of Wikiepdia to decide which is "right" - we should report all the viewpoints without trying to indicate that one is more correct than another.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Davis was referring to Rawat but don't assume the "Lord" he refers to is God or Jesus. Bhole Ji was called the "Lord of Dance". And there is no doubt that most followers added their own concepts to their view of Rawat. The Indian/Hindu view of Rawat overwhelmed what would become the Western view in the 70s. As Downton wrote "from his early beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the "Knowledge" or life force, but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement".Momento (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, we don't have to figure out what Davis meant. But, as Momento points out, Downton talks about the followers' views of Maharaj Ji's divinity. It was a topic at the press conference, and of comments by various followers and DLM leaders, including Davis.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And that is why the Q: Are you the son of God? A: Everyone's the son of God. Should be included in the interview section in place of the Halley question which isn't adequately covered in the interview.Momento (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The same issue is addressed in two of the questions that we do include:

• Question: Are you the messiah?
• Answer: Please do not presume that. I am a humble servant of God, trying to establish peace in the world.[47][3][111]
• Q: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?
• A: Well, why don't you do me a favor ... why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?

I don't see what adding a third question and answer would add to the reader's understanding. But now that the article has had so many quotations removed perhaps it's OK to add back one more. The Halley question should certainly not be removed as it is what led to the press conference ending hastily in a shambles after a disagreement over between the press officer and the reporters. So far as we know, it was the last question ever answered by GMJ at a press conference.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with an over reliance on the media. We know the press conference lasted for about an hour and yet all we have is about 5 minutes worth of the Q & A the media has chosen to report. Since the whole purpose of the event is Rawat as the focus of the fastest growing NRM in the 70's, what Rawat says about himself is far more important than an ill informed reporters out of date question.Momento (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the media are not going to print an entire press conference, unless perhaps it's with a U.S. President. If it were printed in its entirety then it would be a primary source. The secondary sources we are using include only the more important parts, as selected by professionals and reviewed by editors. That's why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. The nature of press conferences is that they often include questions about issues that the subjects have not addressed in their previous statements. Responses to questions at press conferences are often notable. I'm not sure what the point of calling the reporters "ill-informed" is. None of the questions exhibit ignorance. And I don't know what is meant by saying the questions were out of date. At the time they were asked, each of those questions was very timely. They were at a festival where everyone was saying that the "Lord" was there, there had been many stories in the past year about his Rolls Royces, and the reporter had been beaten just four months earlier. So none of these questions seems out of date.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, instead of being unusual that the media have printed so little of the press conference it's remarkable that so much of it is reported. These reporters had probably all been to dozens of press conferences before. It's very rare in news reporting to have such extended quotations from press conferences, which is a testament to how important and unusual they thought it was.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think part of the problem here is that Western (Christian) culture only knows one messiah, who lived 2000 years ago, whereas Eastern religions (Hinduism, Sufism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism) have loads of holy people, all held to be inwardly the same, and all held to embody the same divine principle. It's somewhat less of a big deal in an Eastern context if someone claims to be a holy man or divine; it's not like he is trying to usurp the one messiah's place. In fact, there is a respected cultural tradition in the East of people making such claims (or having such claims made for them); their graves become pilgrimage sites, etc. The nearest Western equivalent are the various Christian saints. But there are no live Christian saints these days. People are sanctified once they are safely dead. :-) My two cents. Good luck with the GA. Cheers, Jayen466 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• I probably will not be editing on Wikipedia anymore, but I think the comment above by Jayen bears consideration in these debates. I wish you all well regarding this article and hope it can all be worked out . Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I'm sur you're right. The different concepts of religion that come together when spiritual leaders from Asia come to Europe and America is a frequent topic of scholars and journalists, both in general and specifically about Prem Rawat in the 1970s. I'm not sure what more we should say about that in this article though. Is there anything specific that should be added?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento cautions against assuming that Rennie Davis meant to imply that the "Lord" he was speaking of equates with God/Jesus. I find it quite amazing that Momento should fail to see what is quite obvious to those of us who lack what can only be described as his apparent 'agenda'. We have only Rennie Davis' words to go on, of course, but it would be fair to say that he was hardly making an effort to deny the "divine' status in which he evidently held his guru. And that's putting it mildly!

Just to make it clearer, here's what Davis said on the subject of the guru's alleged divinity in his introduction to the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?"

"The timing of Guru Maharaj Ji's arrival in this world is very far out. Even he admits that he came at the last possible moment. When people finally discover who Guru Maharaj Ji is, they'll feel a nice smile inside thinking about how he slipped in the back door just in the nick of time. But I want to talk to the people who don't know who he is. Because the idea of a fifteen-year-old Indian dressed in a business suit coming to America as the savior of the world must seem like a bad joke. Some people really get angry when you try to tell them who Guru Maharaj Ji is. I remember last spring when I traveled around the country announcing to old friends the joyous news. Many of them thought I had lost my mind or was secretly working for the CIA. I spoke in Berkeley and New York and said "the Creator has come to help us pull the world back together again," and tomatoes and cherry pies were hurled at me. When you tell someone that Guru Maharaj Ji is the power of creation, they may punch you in the face instead of shake your hand. I go on the radio and say that Guru Maharaj Ji is revealing the same Knowledge of life that Jesus taught and the most devoted Christians call the station sounding like they'd rather crucify him instead of rejoice.

... When a devotee makes the outrageous statement that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe, it's cause enough for a chuckle. But it also happens to be true. Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe and anyone can find out who sincerely wants to know". Rennie Davis, Houston, Texas, June 1973. Revera (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that does seem pretty clear. Davis even repeats himself with a clarification.   Will Beback  talk  11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of glory between being God and merely being Jesus. As far as Davis is concerned Rawat, whilst not God, is a million times more incredible than Jesus. Not just because Rawat is alive and Jesus isn't but because Rawat has done so much more than Jesus ever did, given Davis Knowledge. Most devotees from the 70s consider GMJ divine, after all he was a member of "The Holy Family". So I repeat my "caution", when Davis is talking about Rawat being the Lord, he is not talking about Rawat being God or Rawat being Jesus but something more incredible.Momento (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Wow" Will? I think it has always been clear that Davis, Balbagwan Ji and to some extent, Mishler appeared to be competing with each other to see who could make the most outrageous claims about Maharaji and this event. I believe I read somewhere that Davis, at least, has apologised to Maharaji for his role in the hype. The article needs to reflect this situation in a neutral way, as well as the role Maharaji played. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "hype"is a major part of the story, and the roles each party played in the event should be reported in a neutral manner. If we can find a source for Davis' apology then that might be worth mentioning in the aftermath section.   Will Beback  talk  15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The role Maharaji played? It seems he sat there grinning from ear to ear like the Cheshire Cat while all these "outrageous" claims were being propagated - and without making one peep of protest against them. If he had any objection to being portrayed as "the Messiah America has been waiting for", he had a damn funny way of showing it! Revera (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the truth is that he was complicit as any in promoting the hype. As reported August 07, 1973 in 'The Harvard Crimson': "Maharaj Ji himself has been given several residences, a limousine, and many expensive gifts by his devotees. He says that these possessions have been given to him "to help spread the knowledge. If Jesus came today, you are not going to give him a donkey to ride on. Is that right?"

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=501558 Revera (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Jayen's apologism is interesting and a bit insulting, so I'll repeat it again: the belief system of this NRM is specifically that Prem Rawat, a/k/a Guru Maharaj Ji, a/k/a Maharaji, is the Lord of the Universe, greater than God, the greatest incarnation of the Lord to ever walk the earth. There's never been a misunderstanding on the part of premies about who Rawat said he was, and how he was to be viewed and revered. To try to obfuscate that as Momento is doing (again) is not helpful, and definitely not objective. During the earliest years, Rawat himself gave satsang using Bible quotes to prove that he was the greatest incarnation of Jesus. Bible quotes were used in Knowledge (initiation) sessions. Rawat spoke English in the U.S., not Hindi. There is/was absolutely no ambiguity in the minds and hearts of premies who lived in ashrams (and community premies) about who they were worshiping when they sang arti: "Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, all bow their heads and pray to you," twice per day, nor when they prostrated themselves to Rawat. Gimme a break.

There also wasn't any problem with premies misunderstanding Hindi terms, or Eastern versus Western interpretations of the religious terms and concepts. Premies, especially the earliest ones, also read the Eastern religious scriptures and there were plenty of Indian premies around to interpret them for premies with a slant toward's guru worship and surrender to Rawat. The Eastern concepts are not that difficult to figure out. "God is God," and "Lord is Lord" in any language, and the concept translates quite well. Rawat even said that "Guru is greater than God." Rawat has been teaching his own specific belief in imself as the Lord, God, etc. for 40 years. It's not a misunderstanding, and has nothing to do with East versus West. Especially in the 70s, being a premie meant full-on devotion, surrender to and worship of Prem Rawat personally, as the Lord come again (like Jesus -- no ambiguity there!, Rawat often compared himself to Jesus, Buddha, Rama, especially Krishna who he dressed up as in public!). This conversation is officially absurd and ridiculous. Adherents are repeating the same confusing, incorrect claims they've been trying to spread for going on five years now about Rawat's divinity, and how premies were somehow misunderstanding something based on their "concepts." The adherents ought stop to doing this. It's not helpful. Please stop the apologetics, revisionism, rewriting of history, and move on to something other than one little quote already that's more than adequately well-sourced and documented.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it is absurd to imply that the notion that "Guru is Greater than God" is in some way specific to Rawat. It is in fact an ancient idea, part of the Guru Gita ("The entire creation consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva is all Guru only. There is nothing greater than the Guru. Therefore one should worship the Guru. ... It is by the Guru’s grace and blessings that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva become capable of performing their respective duties – creation, preservation, and dissolution.") and explained for example here, under "The Multi-Faceted Nature of the Guru". It was a phrase used by Kabir and other Indian saints. Rather than being specific to Rawat, it is a standard feature of Bhakti Yoga. The disciple is expected to overcome his limited self through the intensity of his devotion, in a process that surpasses his human understanding. These ideas, while all well established in the East, just don't sit well with the Western mindset of self-reliance and so forth. Cheers, Jayen466 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's interesting but this article isn't about the theology of eastern religions and your explanation isn't specific to the particular belief system of this NRM. Btw, Rawat has always claimed (even as recently as the late 1990s, that he has never read any scriptures). He has always spoken about Knowledge and himself using a combined hodgepodge of eastern and western religious concepts, along with his own beliefs about himself and his father. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Theological arguments aren't my cup of tea. It appears to me that there isn't much of a disagreement here. The DLM and GMJ himself apparently promoted both the typically Indian beliefs in holy men and the importance of the guru, as well as suggesting strongly that GMJ fit the role of the Savior/Messiah that is typical in Western faiths. While GMJ, when asked personally whether he was god said "no", the DLM, including senior officials like Davis, Mata Ji, and BBJ, was giving out a different story. Based on comments by Davis and other followers, it appears that they sincerely believed that GMJ was the omniscient, omnipotent God. For example:
  • Another premie gets up and says: "We're just one big family, just brothers and sisters. Our Lord, our Father, has come to us and all we have to do is play. Today I wake up and I'm in a Charlie Chaplin movie and the next day maybe it'll be a horror movie and the next a soap opera. Once you receive Knowledge you know it's all just a movie-and Guru Maharaj Ji is the director."
  • A third premie: "I was having doubts today and it was like a cloud hanging over me. But listening to satsang I realized that everything's perfect. I understood what Guru Maharaj Ji meant when he said that angels may drop flowers over the Astrodome. I was sitting watching the sunset earlier and now I realize that Guru Maharaj Ji made that sunset so that I could enjoy it, so that I could feel at one with the universe."
• Getting back to the topic at hand - this article - I don't see any particular way to add more about this, other than perhaps adding the quotation that Revera posted at the top. This is really more of a topic for one of the other article, like the DLM, the Rawat bio, or the Rawat teachings. We cover it slightly, by mentioning some of the things said at the event, by referring to the And It Is Divine article that speculated on whether GMJ fulfills messianic prophecies, and by quoting the qestions and answers on the topic at the press conference. Is that enough? Is anyone here proposing a change in the article?   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we leave this topic can I repeat again, no well informed devotee thought GMJ was God. As Rawat made clear on numerous occasions God is energy. As in- energy is infinite, eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent. And Knowledge allows you to connect with that energy inside you. The guy talking about the sunset is waxing lyrical.Momento (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"No well informed devotee" = "No true Scotsman"? Momento's statement may be true if we assume that Rennie Davis, a VP of the DLM and its most prominent spokesman in 1973, was not well-informed.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I still have the feeling when you say it, Will, it doesn't mean what it said when Davis said it. If God is an "energy" that "dwells in the heart", as Rawat said, if, in other words, God is Love, then that is not some bearded dude floating on a cloud in the sky commanding and judging people, but an impersonal quality that is within, and links everyone inwardly with everyone else. Surely, if you have ever been in love with another person, or even just with nature, you will have felt as though love was coming to you from the sun, the trees, the river, and everyone around you. Davis was talking, then, about something in Rawat that triggered an experience of this sort. And, surely, there was excitement and a good amount of immaturity in Davis' response as well, and, for all I know, perhaps even in the teenage Rawat himself. But what premies – "Lovers" – were talking about was their realisation that God was not an imagined concept to be thought about, but actually an alive experience, and they were playing with, and trying to match up, both the concept of God they had been brought up with, and the experiential dimension they had discovered. Jayen466 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Rawat said in 1971 - "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, toothbrushes, washes mouth and he is an old man also so he makes his beard also and all that people think. But no, God is energy, God is perfect and pure energy and that is why scientists say energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed... People try to search God outside. How can we get you? God is inside." and " What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk." - people keep insisting that Rawat and his devotees really think he's god. A much simpler explanation is that some people, even devotees, are stuck in their own concepts and believe what they want to believe.Momento (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt people believe what they want to believe. Many commentators have noted that followers of Jesus and Buddha, for example, don't necessarily follow the actual teachings of their spiritual leaders. As for Jayen's point, Davis said, "...the Lord is on the planet, he's in a human body and he's about to usher in the greatest change in the history of human civilisation." That's very different from saying 'God is everywhere'. It's not our place to say that Davis, et al., were wrong. Davis was a key leader of the DLM in the US at the time of this festival. There's the old story of the blind peolple comong upon an elephant (to get us back to the beginning of this thread). One feels its tail and says, "it's a rope". Another feels a leg and says, "no, it's a tree". The third feels the trunk and says, "you're both wrong - it's a vine." The job of Wikipedia is to report all of those assertions and let the readers decide which (if any) description is correct.   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this for the benefit of the readers. I'm saying it so that you can realize that Davis isn't saying Rawat is God.Momento (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. We don't need to agree about this.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here". That's what Maharaj also said, Momento. You see, his message is rarely consistent. He contradicts himself and makes claims that contradict each other. On one hand he makes out that he's the Lord, and the Lord is God incarnate. Then he waters it down for the press - and hey, presto, he's just a humble servant of God. A good encyclopedia article will illustrate these contradictions, rather than censor the ones that don't fit with a particular bias. It might help here if you refreshed your memory of the discussion we had about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revera#communication_with_Momento_re._Rawat.27s_claims_to_divinity Revera (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's completely consistent Revera. Rawat has always said "God is energy" and therefore everything is a manifestation of God. And amongst the almost infinite manifestations of God is the guru. The guru in the Hindu religion is the highest manifestation of God because the Guru teaches people how to experience God. All gurus consider themselves to be humble servants of God and devotees serve the guru is a necessary part of realizing God. Since God is everywhere focusing on the guru provides the devotee with a human scale. So when you're with your guru, don't try to worship something too big to imagine, worship God by worshipping to guru who is standing in front of you.Momento (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, do you have any contemporary sources that describe Rawat as guru in the hindu tradition you describe? If not it sounds to me like revisionism and OR. It's just that I never heard that explanation when I was a premie. In fact I was taught that Rawat wasn't just a guru, but that he was the Perfect Master, and that there is only one Perfect Master on the planet at any one time. All other gurus were considered false gurus. Previous Perfect Masters, according to the teachings of the time, included Christ and Krishna, both of whom were considered to be uniquely divine by their followers. --John Brauns (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In September 1973, Malcom Carter, religion writer for the AP, wrote:

• He is Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old from India who promises to reveal God and achieve world peace. [..] His followers compare him with Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. [..] It is an experience, a 'realization of a unity with the spirit of God, they say. [..] Then came the guru with a promised path to inner serenity and an answer to life's great questions. To his fervid followers, he is God himself. [..] For his part, the guru terms himself "just an ordinary humble servant of God, preaching the gospel of peace in the world, preaching the knowledge of peace."

I think that Carter a good job of summarizing some the concepts of "God" in the DLM at the time of the festival.   Will Beback  talk  05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter contradicts himself. If his "followers compare him with Jesus, Buddha and Krishna", how can his followers think "he is God himself"? Momento (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's just reporting the contradictions that he found. As we've discovered in this discussion, there was more than one answer to the question, depending on who was asked. Some described GMJ as "the Lord", others as the director of their lives, and still others as just a person of wisdom. Refer back to the parable of the elephant and the blind men.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think people just got really giddy with excitement, and logic went out the window. God had gone from being a dusty concept to being identified with a tangible experience. As for Davis, it seems he got a kick out of juxtaposing his new experience and old idea of God. One Davis quote went "Jesus is back, but this time he's brought his father, and it's revelations time." It's almost like he tried to see how close he could sail to the wind in using traditional Christian language and still have it make sense to him from his new perspective. And of course it was an attention-getter as well. Jayen466 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Will, I think you have more parts of the elephant there. That author seems more reliable with respect to the topic at hand, probably due to its being his normal area of work. Other journalists may have just gone for the outlandish, etc. The more of this we can source to authors who are at home in this field, the better. Jayen466 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We cite Carter in other articles already. His piece, which is around 2500 words IIRC, was written in the summer before the festival, so it's not directly relevant to this article except as background. Like other wire service stories, this one has been published under many different names, on differnt dates, and with different lengths, all depending on the local editors. However, so far as I know, Carter only wrote the one article.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A different perspective, also valid (though not a reliable source), is this website on the "Radhasoami" sect. (Some consider the DLM to have been connected to their tradition). It says:

• In fact, a devotee who practises surat shabd yoga and attains such spiritual heights as to identify the Satguru with the Supreme Being can alone reveal the secrets of this name. But as the Satguru is the human manifestation of the Supreme Being and is known as His son or representative in the world, he is generally addressed as "Radhasoami". Such a one possesses all the attributes of the Supreme Being and like the tidal wave of the ocean, remains in constant union with Him. [6]

That illuminates the background, though I haven't seen any sources on the festival that talk in those terms.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Momento and Jayen are misrepresenting the teachings of Prem Rawat and it's probably causing confusion. Davis's quote correctly describes how Maharaji was presented, and his teachings at the time of Millennium '73. I also never heard anything similar to what Momento has described above. Yes, there have been contradictions made by Rawat, but the main focal point of teachings and belief has always been that Prem Rawat/Maharaji is the Perfect Master, the embodiment of God, and the unique person who is more divine than any other messiah who ever walked the earth. I was a devoted, intensely involved ashram premie, I worked closely with Maharaji himself for a year, I was an assistant community coordinator in a large community (Gainesville, FL), and I spent a lot of time with instructors, mahatmas, ashram premies, and community premies. These beliefs (as described by Davis) have continued throughout the 70s, 80s, 90s, and presently amongst premies, although these things are never discussed openly and publicly anymore. I only left this NRM in 1999, so I really don't know what the heck Momento and Jayen are talking about with respect to Rawat's teachings. It's nonsense. The subject of this article is neither Rawat's teachings, nor trying to figure out what eastern or western religion Rawat's teachings most emulate. As I said, Rawat's religion is a hodgepodge of eastern and western beliefs, the scriptures of which have been used in this NRM to prove Guru Maharaj Ji's supreme divinity. When is a consensus going to be reached on this one quote? I ask that Momento and Jayen please stop making their own personal interpretations of this NRM's beliefs and practices. It's not helping the article. The elephant in the room is the stalmating being done by both Jayen and Momento. Thanks! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Or more correctly, in the 70s the description was that Prem Rawat/Maharaji is, following the death of the previous one, the living Perfect Master. An embodiment of God, who, by virtue of being "alive" is more important to the living than any "dead" messiah. Rawat dropped the Indian description in the early 80s to make his message more universal.Momento (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sylviecyn. This is Rawat quoted on the ex-premie website, dated 1971:

"I believe in one reality and that is the pure religion. Religion word has been started from the word realization and the realisation of God is the pure and perfect religion. There is a glorious sun, not the sun that you see in the sky but the sun which is within ourselves, which is much brighter, much, much, much brighter than the sun you see in the sky. People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, toothbrushes, washes mouth and he is an old man also so he makes his beard also and all that people think. But no, God is energy, God is perfect and pure energy and that is why scientists say energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. And this Knowledge, this Word of God, how, they say in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, now try to understand here, and the Word was God. Isn't it, isn't it a fantastic sentence? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now this is that Word and so this is the perfect and pure energy and it has no creation and no destruction and this is the Word, this is God. And he is under our pillow and if we search Him outside, can we get Him? No. We can't get Him, this is a very practical thing before you. It's a very, very practical thing. People try to search God outside. How can we get you? God is inside."

Even if you don't remember that, other ex-premies clearly do. Jayen466 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that quote and raise you ten more. That is but one aspect of how Guru Maharaj Ji and Knowledge were publicly explained. Sure, I've heard it and don't disagree that Rawat said it. Btw, the quote "In the beginning was the Word..." is from the Bible, not an eastern scripture. But, that one quote doesn't encompass the entire teachings of Rawat then or now. I could (but won't) provide you with many, many quotes where Rawat tells premies that he is greater than God, the Lord, that he *is* Knowledge, (that he doesn't just teach it), that he (Maharaji) is that most powerful energy within each premie, that he knows premies' thoughts and can hear their prayers to him (personally), that premies should pray to him personally, that premies are such low beings that they don't deserve or have a right to speak to him or even look at him because he is so great a power, and even most recently, within the past few years, he has told premies they should think of him personally when they are dying. As far as the word "messiah" is concerned, Rawat never used that word to apply to himself, and indeed, he denied that he is a messiah, but at the same time (and there are reliable sources (the Boston Globe is one) that can be used in the article to demonstrate that Rawat most certainly, and many times, said he was greater than Jesus (who is a messiah). You're not helping this process, Jayen. How would you like it if I went to the talk pages on your NRM/cult and started telling *you* what your belief system is comprised of, and tried to tell you how incorrect you are about it? This isn't the subject of this article. You are refusing to listen to me and Momento is obfuscating the issue by pretending that his whitewash of Rawat's teachings is the truth. Not "T" truth, but small "t" truth. The Davis quote is literally accurate, based upon how the teachings of Rawat were presented in 1973. I'm sorry if you disagree and don't like that, but you don't have to insult my intelligence. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have people telling me how incorrect I am all the time. :-) But I thought the lyrics to the title song in the video were interesting: "Open up your heart, to the universe of love, and he will fill you up." "The Lord of the Universe has come to us this day, ... and he's come to show us the way back to our father." I see nothing that departs from the Eastern guru/mystical union paradigm, on the contrary. In my view, you are going on about the Rawat = God thing just the way the anti-Scientologist crowd are going on about Xenu, making something out of it that it ain't. <shrug> Jayen466 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie break

I'll bet I sound like an ex-cult member to you. :) Thanks for the compliment. I mean that sincerely. Btw, that doesn't mean you've won the argument, but this isn't the place for this discussion. I love a good debate, so feel free to register and post at the Prem Rawat Talk Forum anytime. Meanwhile, here's Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. I noticed that I broke a couple of Sagan's rules in this conversation, so I'm glad I reread it today. Cheers! Sylviecyn (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sylviecyn. I fear I spend more than enough time arguing with people online and neglecting my family as it is, though I do appreciate the offer. However, since we are taking a break from arguing, here's some cookies. Best, Jayen466 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I'd like to ask if you see any problem with the truthfulness of that position. Rawat might like to 'drop' the claim of being the Messiah and walk away from the claims he once made, (even to the extent of trying to have all the promotional material from those times destroyed) but that in itself is hardly the mark of a responsible, let alone enlightened individual. Also, you try to convince us that Rennie Davis wasn't saying Rawat is God, even though "when Guru is here, God is here". A remarkable use of doublethink! It's just a pity you don't seem to be cognitive of the dissonance involved in holding both contradictory opinions at one and the same time.

I also hope you can resist the temptation of using your influence over this article to proselytise using such a perverse form of propaganda. We all need a strong sense of impartiality if we're to finish up with a piece that meets the criteria for a good article. To that end, where an editor's bias is detected, it should be clearly identified and brought to light. Revera (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, he never made the claim "messiah", in fact, he specifically denied it. Secondly, Rawat got rid of the promo material as part of his decision to de-Indianize his message because he recognized it was an impediment to people receiving Knowledge. It was a a necessary step for him in his desire to take Knowledge to the world in the same way he dropped the title Guru, closed the ashrams and eventually stopped satsang. Thirdly, my dictionary gives this example of embodiment -a tangible or visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling : she seemed to be a living embodiment of vitality (music, art, love etc). Ergo when your partner is here, love is here. When your priest is here, God is here (that's what confession is all about). There is no "cognitive dissonance involved" because the opinions are not mutually exclusive.Momento (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, so when we next see a duck walking like a duck and squawking like a duck, we must remember - it's not really one unless we hear it say "I am a duck". Momento, the dissonance is definitely there, it's just that you're (sadly) not yet cognizant of it. Revera (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Having corrected three mistakes of yours in one paragraph, I'd be a little less confident at your powers of deduction.Momento (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes? They might appear so to you, but that's because you're filtering everything through your own rose-coloured glasses.

In fact, Momento, I've recently come across a number of your guru's quotations (up to now unavailable on the internet) that give a totally contradictory take on your interpretation of Maharaji's use of the word "God".

I'll have the relevant quotes transcribed this weekend (hopefully), and when that's done, it'll be plain for all to see that a large proportion of what you've been feeding us as supposed 'fact' is nothing more than your own highly personalised opinion. Revera (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculation?

"Some sources later speculated"? Are we going to go through this article and note that virtually everything was written "later" and that anything not backed up by impeccable evidence is "speculation"?Momento (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The way you phrased it made it sound like it was a fact rather than an opinion. "It seems that..." is too strong a construction. IIRC, Collier is explicit about saying that she is just guessing as to GMJ's motives for going along with the plans for the festival. It's important to say "later" because this was not known publicly by anyone at the time. Omitting it implies that it was known contemporaneously.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Publicly knowledge is not the criteria for existence. I fixed it.Momento (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Nobody knows why GMJ acquisced to the hyping of the festival, except GMJ himself and I'm not aware of any comments from him on the topic. All we have are guesses from two sources who wrote years later.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

God and guru - who's Who in the Rawatians' theology

It's been claimed by one particular editor here that Rennie Davis didn't actually mean what he said when he claimed that Maharaj Ji was "the Lord" and "the Creator". That editor also has implied that the numerous claims made regarding the guru being "God" incarnate are not valid, simply because a few examples exist of the guru denying his alleged divinity (usually when in the presence of newspaper reporters - his addresses to the faithful were invariably a horse of a different colour).

I have never claimed that Davis "didn't actually mean what he said". What I said was that you and others are misinterpreting what Davis said. Secondly, I have never "implied that the numerous claims made regarding the guru being "God" incarnate are not valid". They are valid. We all have God (music, dance etc) within us but the Guru is considered God incarnate in the same way Beethoven was music incarnate and Fred Astaire was dance incarnate. Not because only they are God, music or dance but because in the speaker's opinion they are the greatest representation of that spirit. Your willful distortion of my opinion is harassment.Momento (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Given access to a comprehensive and coherent selection of the relevant quotes, any independent/unbiased reader should be able see that there are obvious contradictions in the guru's message. Unfortunately that's a fact that some editors seem to be reluctant to admit to. Of course, those editors are entitled to state their objections to including such quotes in the article, though doing so may only betray their own bias against presenting their guru's record as being anything less than exemplary. I hope it's evident to more impartial editors that these contradictory statements need to be cited in the article, in the hope that access to an accurate historical record of the times is the legacy that Wikipedia will be able to offer its readers in the years to come. Revera (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC) To that end, the following quotes are submitted for inclusion/reference to in Millennium '73 (and other Rawat-related articles). They can be found in the paperback, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_Guru_Maharaj_Ji%3F published by Bantam in 1973, and are given in chronological order:

"So remember, we have to find God, that person who is perfect; He is ours and we are His, and we have to find Him.
... So remember: we are part of Him who has manifested Himself as a Guru and who has come into this earth, and now we have to be one with Him. We have to completely merge and make our souls one with Him because He is perfect, and once we merge with Him we will also be perfect"
... So if you go to Him, ask. Ask and it shall be given, knock and it shall be opened unto you".

Guru Maharaj Ji, discourse given at Prem Nagar Ashram, India, 10 December 1971 (quoted in WIGM p256)

Comment: Revera seems to be overlooking the word "we" in this quote. GMJ is making it absolutely clear that he also has "to find God, that person who is perfect" and he also is "part of him who has manifested Himself as a Guru" (in GMJ's case his father) and he also has to "completely merge and make our souls one with Him because He is perfect" etc.Momento (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So how are we going to recognize God as He comes on the earth? Are you going to ask to see His identity card or passport? See, if it says, "Name ... God. Occupation ... Generator, Operator, Destroyer." That is foolish! Or are you going to recognize Him only if He fits in with your mental picture of Him, what you have picked up from the scriptures and other impressions, what you imagine Jesus or Krishna looked like? So what will be recognized by one will not be recognized by the other. But the test of the Perfect Master will be that which is undeniable to everybody and that is the experience of himself which he can give, and that is the true Knowledge.

Comment: So what? Since GMJ had his own guru we have to accept that GMJ couldn't have been God when his Guru was so he has had to go through the same process he is suggesting for others. That is, recognize the Guru by what he gives.Momento (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

... Believe it or not, the fact is that God is supreme and pure; people are lying on a bed of ignorance and dreams and doubts. They expect God Himself to come, they pray for it, they ask for it, they announce about it, but when He comes they fail to recognize Him. And not recognizing Him in His physical form, they cannot recognize Him within themselves. People have forgotten their Creator".

GMJ discourse, Johannesburg, South Africa, 29 April 1972 (quoted in WIGM p213)

Comment: Again, so what? He is saying what every preacher, teacher and mulla says. That is, people expect God to hit them with a thunderbolt but it is more prosaic than that. It will be in the words and actions of another human being.Momento (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"And when you reach the top, the highest Knowledge, you find the Lord, the Perfect Master. He is the topmost teacher in the whole of spiritual education, and His teaching is the most divine, the most supreme. You cannot find it in these other things. He's the unique one, the principal, the head, the perfect. He can give you that Knowledge. So when when you finish all your other classes, you come to the head and say, "Here I am, now I'm ready for you". Those other teachings all help you to climb, but they cannot bring you up to the height where Maharaj Ji is standing. ... We can see Maharaj Ji everywhere. And Maharaj Ji can see us everywhere".

Mata Ji (GMJ's mother), Concord, Massachusets, 19 May 1972 (quoted in WIGM p288)

:Comment: Just what a Catholic would say about the Pope. Except Mata Ji is saying we can be at the height GMJ is at. Very egalitarian.Momento (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Have we accepted that Christ is come in the flesh? If we have, then we are of God, and if not then we ourselves are antichrist". Bal Bhagwan Ji (GMJ's brother) from "To see God", Who is Guru Maharaji? p275

"What Guru Maharaj Ji is doing is not taking us away from our Lord Christ or the Bible; he is giving us a better understanding of the scriptures. To us he is hope in desperation, and light in the darkness. He is the Word turned to flesh which raises itself to speak about the glory of the Word. Who else can reveal the Word to us except that flesh which is the Word, or the Word which is turned into flesh?

Bal Bhagwan Ji (GMJ's brother) quoted in WIGM "To see God", p276

Comment: Again. Many scholars have noted the "evangelical" nature of early satsangs.Momento (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

... For 2,000 years we have been showing the Lord's death, but while we live, our Lord is of the living and not of the dead. He has come to give eyes to the blind, for it is his Knowledge which makes us know what he is. For it is his light which makes us see him. Let us now all join together to receive him and to understand him through his Knowledge. Think - he who comes as a thief and goes away will have nothing to lose. We will be the one who loses the golden opportunity, like the rabbis did 1,973 years ago. Let us remember our past to better our future, and receive the one who has come for us.

You know truth is bitter, very bitter when it comes to taste. But that's the way we have to accept things. People thought that Jesus Christ would come as a king and when he came as a carpenter's son, only those truly of him received him with love. Let us now see how many people stand up to receive him who has come for them. As the sun rises from the east to the west, may he bestow his grace on you and give you courage to accept the divine Knowledge".

Bal Bhagwan Ji (GMJ's brother) quoted in WIGM "To see God", p280

Comment: Many scholars have noted that GMJ was the focus of the fastest growing New Religious Movement in the 70s. And a religious movement is all about connecting people to God and that's what GMJ offered. BBJ is saying GMJ can do it.Momento (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"God is both with form and without form. Butter still in milk can be said to be without form, and when it is churned out, with form. In the same way, the divine Light which is self-existent in all being is God without physique, whereas the Satguru of the time, or the realised soul, is God with the physique. Submergence of the mind into the divine light; obedience and service to Satguru together with supreme love for Him; consecration of body, mind and all activities to Him; together with a great anguish for the slightest forgetfulness of Him, constitute sublime devotion. Hence perpetual peace, eternal bliss and salvation within the lifetime are ensured. There is absolutely no other way to achieve them. This is universally substantiated".

Yogiraj Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (GMJ's father) Prem Nagar, India, June 1961 (quoted in WIGM p283-4).

Comment: And finally, Shri Hans is making it clear that this idea of God in not unique to GMJ but existed before he became a guru. As Rumiton and scholars say GMJ's teaching is based on ancient Sant mat. In short, all these quotes say the same thing. If you're looking for God look inside yourself and if you don't know how to do that look for the most realized soul you can find. The best teacher, the perfect master who has realized the experience you want and ask his help.Momento (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Revera (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard old-style Santism, already covered in a host of related articles. But also an illustration of why selected, out-of-context quotes from primary documents are inadmissible as Wikipedia sources. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Very dimissive of you, Rumiton. Are you also dismissing Momento's objections too? Where's your evidence that this has been covered before in "a host of related articles"? Revera (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for something fresh and new but it's the same old careless and ignorant argument. You either believe in God or you don't. If you don't then every religious teacher is a charlatan and every believer is a fool.Momento (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, would you please not put your comments inside of others' comments? I couldn't tell who posted what here. Also, this isn't a forum, folks, and this discussion going nowhere fast. Quote mining on either side of the argument won't help make the article better. Rawat has said many things over the decades and he has always spoken differently in public (and to the press) versus "premie only" programs. That said, I'm looking for the photo of the Millennium stage (not sure if Rawat was seated on his throne) but there's a huge sign flashing words and the photo shows a big fat GOD shining out that's right next to the throne.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You understood it clearly enough to make a criticism? Revera wrote about me and I responded to Revera. Revera will remember what he wrote and you don't have to read it. Momento (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be nicer, Momento. Sure, I understood it, but only after I had to compare this page to my watchlist to figure out who posted what. You know that's not the proper posting style. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sylvia - here are the pics you're looking for:

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] Revera (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

and one more: [11]

and here's a link to the way the quotes were originally presented. Much more cohesive, I'm sure you'll agree:

[[12]] Revera (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of wasting my time on this. Go do your worst Momento, and turn the historical record into a whitewash if you must, but shame on you for trying to re-write history - well, at least the WP version of history.Revera (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are the pix, Revera. Without provenance, they can't be used for the article. It's obvious from looking at them that somebody was promoting Rawat as God, (as in God-God, not even Lord-God) and of course, GMJ didn't run in protest from the stage when he what the signs were flashing about himself.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Provenance? They all come from the documentary "Lord of the Universe" the whole thing is in the public domain - at http://www.mediaburn.org/Video-Preview.128.0.html?uid=4247 (though you might need broadband to view it). Revera (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Very dismissive of me? Yes, I suppose it is, but I have had two years of dealing with this same issue again and yet again. When Prem Rawat came out of India he brought with him an ancient art of inner exploration and a tradition of regarding the Guru as an embodiment of the divinity that was being sought inside. He still teaches the inner journey, but he has radically altered, largely abandoned, the worshipful traditions. It is easy to quote from primary documents and make the early phase seem sensational, then claim there is "an elephant in the room." There is no elephant. In the Indian milieu, regarding one's Guru as divine is common and considered admirable, however suspect it might appear to many westerners. That is why Wikipedia needs to speak with the voice of unbiased secondary sources. Rumiton (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting, Rumiton, that WP:RS states that "primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements". Revera (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Rawat has since 1973 "radically altered, largely abandoned, the worshipful traditions", but this article is supposed to give a clear, accurate portrayal of a historical event! It's common knowledge that Rawat and the premies are eager to dismiss the history, Rumiton, but do you really think that such an attitude will help reveal the facts? That is what an encyclopedia's meant to do, isn't it? Revera (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're opinion "that Rawat and the premies are eager to dismiss the history" is simply your POV. Frpm my POV Rawat and the premies are more interested in the present than the past.Momento (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your sentence starting, "It's common knowledge..." is snide and nasty and obviously intended to start an argument, which it is not going to do. Please don't characterise editors of this article in such a way again. An encyclopedia is doing its job if it leaves the reader wiser and better informed than when they arrived. That means using the best sources, not the worst. A Wiki article has no business confirming 35-year-old prejudices. Rumiton (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence of mine that seems to have touched a nerve for you is simply a statement of fact - that Rawat and premies are eager to dismiss the history. If there are any editors here for whom that isn't common knowledge, then let them come forward and say so. The fact is that Rawat ordered his premies to destroy all published material relating to him from this time period (including Millennium '73). Isn't that evidence enough of trying to dismiss the history? I honestly don't see what there is to argue about. Nor do I accept your allegations of bad motive on my part in bringing this fact to light. Finally, could you please make it clear just who and what you are referring to when you speak of "35-year-old prejudices"? Thank you. Revera (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a fact, your opinion. It is well documented that Rawat removed the Indian aspects of his message to make it universal. Publications, ashrams, community satsang, the greeting "Jai SatChitAnand" and the titles "mahatma" and "guru" were all eliminated as barriers to acceptance. If a restaurant owner decides to end his Greek restaurant and open a French one gets rid of the Greek menus, the Greek decor, the Zorba soundtrack, his Acropolis sign and changes his ads is he, and his customers, "trying to dismiss the history"? I don't think so.Momento (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statement accuses editors of being liars about the past. This is more than incivility, and I am not going to get baited into a discussion about it. Look at the banner at the top of this page. These articles are under probation and if you do this again you will get reported. Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship (as in Rawat's order to destroy the historical material about him) is the issue here, Rumiton. The phrase I used - "being dismissive of the past" - is a euphemistic way of referring to that censorship. As I prefer not to accuse you of having taken my words and wilfully misrepresented them, I will ask you to reconsider your use of the word "liars" when you erroneously equated what I said with what you mistakenly inferred.

My motive for contributing here is solely to help present an accurate portrayal of the historical record, as reported by observers at the time. (Incidently, your threat of "reporting me" is one I can view with a wry, though somewhat amused, smile). But I do hope you are going address the issue of your use of the term "35-year-old prejudices". And while you're at it, could you also clarify your earlier suggestion that "Santism" (a term I've not seen used before) is referred to in "a host of related articles"? Thank you. Revera (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile as wryly and as amusedly as you like, but that is not the phrase you used. You said, "It's common knowledge that Rawat and the premies are eager to dismiss the history." That is an incivil statement, and a clear allegation of untruthfulness; in other words, lying. And it must be obvious to a neutral, uninvolved editor like yourself that the reporters and commentators of the 70s were unaware that the supposedly hilarious pieces they were writing were ridiculing another culture's most respected institution -- the Guru/Student relationship. Their attitudes were ignorant and prejudiced, and have no place in the more enlightened western world of today. That was what I meant. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your evident evasion of the issues I've raised contributes to the reason why quality editors are tempted to leave WP to its own devices. I'm tempted. You glad? 91.125.0.187 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it almost impossible to talk to a number, would you mind logging in so I know who you are? Whether I am glad or not at your contemplated departure depends on your editing record. If you have tried to make this Wikipedia article a balanced, mature and intelligent description of the subject, then I am unhappy. If you have promoted facile parottings of outdated prejudices then I rejoice. Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Prejudice can be for as well as against, but neither will help to make a better article, as far as NPOV is concerned. Vested interests - either way - are equally handicapping.

Whether or not you or I are predisposed towards or against Rawat as a person, the important result is an article that can be clearly seen to be "representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" (as demanded by WP:NPOV).

If the historical record shows that Millennium '73 was received unfavourably by a large - or at least significant - proportion of commentators, then that is what the article should reveal. If editors here have a prejudice (whether 35 years old or not) either in favour of or against Rawat, then that needs to be put aside, and the facts allowed to speak for themselves. We are, after all, meant to be giving an account of a historical event, not imposing our own judgements on it.

When you have time, I would appreciate clarification on the point you made earlier about 'Santism'. Revera (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC) (remembering to sign-in this time)

And there it is, right in the lead, " Scholars and journalists generally depicted the event as a disappointment". And in the "Afterward" section "According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.[3][48][23][126] Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure,[127] a fiasco,[128] a major setback,[11] a disastrous rally,[129] a great disappointment,[130] and a "depressing show unnoticed by most".[70] According to one scholar, James T. Richardson, the event left the movement "in dire financial straits and bereft of credibility".[131] Religious scholar Robert S. Ellwood wrote that Maharaj Ji's "meteoric career collapsed into scandal and debt" after the event.[132].Momento (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Santism? Look up Sant Mat, Mirabai and Guru. It seems that Prem Rawat's lineage, or at least spiritual background, lies in these traditions, which respect Guru as the embodiment of God. You can see the dogma that has grown up around the subject in the words of Bal Bagwan Ji ("truth is bitter" etc.) Prem Rawat has worked to take it all way beyond this stuff (though the article acknowledges, as it should, his family background in the tradition.) Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for (eventually) acknowledging that Rawat, aka Guru Maharaj Ji, did indeed claim to be the "embodiment of God". If so, why is there no mention of that fact in this article?

And for the sake of accuracy - at least - I must also point out that there is no mention at all of "respecting the Guru as the embodiment of God" in either of the first two articles you refer to. Only the third article you mention refers to the "avatar" - or "guru who considers himself to be an incarnation of God, God-like, or an instrument of God, or who is considered as such by others" - and yet within that article, there is no mention whatsoever of your particular guru in its "List of Gurus" - [[13]]. Surely some oversight? Correction - I've struck through the reference to the third article which does, though somewhat confusingly, list the Guru Maharaj Ji as "Prem Rawat". However, though that article states he was a guru, it fails to include the fact that he claimed to be an an avatar, and the article does not include him in the list of people who have been considered to be avatars, as given here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar#People_who_have_been_considered_avatars_outside_the_orthodox_tradition_of_HinduismRevera (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some major disengenuous word-twisting going on there. Not worth responding to. Rumiton (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your repeatedly dismissive attitude, Rumiton, does your credibility as Wikipedia 'editor' no good at all. You apparently are refusing to recognise - let alone discuss - a number of valid points I've raised. Instead you display a remarkable level of incivility towards me which I find hard to believe is unintended or accidental. I'm inclined to think that your attitude has more in common with the psychodynamics of denial. Be that as it may, it is still my intention to contribute toward this article with the intention that the recorded facts are not whitewashed over by current followers of Maharaji/Rawat who would prefer this episode of his history to be erased from the record. Rawat was indeed portrayed as "the Lord" at Millennium '73, and that (at present) this article doesn't even mention that fact speaks volumes - not least for the perceived unreliablity of Wikipedia. Your contribution to that reputation for unreliability is quite frankly, blatant. Revera (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It'd be best to only look at the sources which are specifically about this festival, so WIGMJ is not an ideal source. IIRC, a number of articles about the festival did mention the attendees' view of GMJ as God. Let me do some research and see what turns up. Then we can decide how to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WIGMJ was launched in the USA at this festival!

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_Guru_Maharaj_Ji%3F)

"According to the book Rolling Stone: The Seventies, copies of Who is Guru Maharaj Ji were piled in stacks on the floor and on tables at the Divine Light Mission's "Millennium '73" event, which honored Maharaj Ji[18]." For some reason the WP page on the book "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji" is inaccessible from the search engine, yet it exists (see link above). Revera (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Still, it'd be better if we can find a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revera that is a paraphrase from the Rolling Stone article, Issue 156, March 14, 1974, pp. 36-50, as follows:

In truth, nothing very intriguing is happening inside the Astrohall. Over in one corner premies from Divine Sales are unpacking cartons of souvenirs that will be sold at Astrodome concession stands during the event. Piled on the floor and on tables are stacks of Guru Maharaj Ji stationery sets, Holy Family posters, Millennium '73 bumper stickers and pennants, "yoga whites," bound volumes of And It Is Divine, a recently issued Bantam paperback called Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? and an LP of the Blue Aquarius band that Stax, the soul-oriented company, has just released on its Gospel Truth label. Judging from their quantity, the hottest items are expected to be the Guru T-shirts and thermal underwear. picturing his silkscreened face in the sky above a swan floating in a mountain lake. I ask about some unopened cartons and am told they contain opera glasses, a variety of buttons, and two items used in the meditation: earplugs and something called a "barragon," a wooden elbow-rest in the form of a T-bar. "That's what Christ meant when he said you should carry your cross upon your back," a premie informs me.

Hope this helps. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, secondary sources, that's what Wikipedia's all about. But, to be quite frank, I fail to see how that precludes the article from mentioning notable quotes like "the Lord is on the planet, he's in a human body ..." etc, simply because that quote (from Rennie Davis, which is quite visibly evidenced as being authentic by playing the video/accessing the file at http://www.mediaburn.org/Video-Preview.128.0.html?&uid=4247) is from a primary source. Let's not forget that, in the midst of Wiki-correctness, the difference between primary and secondary sources is not as clear-cut as some contributors here would have us believe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Source_classification. And, quoting from that WP article, while we're not forgetting that, let's not forget this either:

"In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources.""Revera (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the import of that article. A Wikipedia article is not "historical writing." A Wikipedia article should report on such writing (which becomes a seconday source) once it has been created from primary sources. Trusting this clears this up. Rumiton (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when has trusting Rumiton's particular interpretation of what is permissible Wikipedia practice been a criterion for allowing/disallowing what is posted here? I'd like to know precisely how and why Wikipedia policy (apparently) can prevent a filmed record of an event being admissible for quoting from, only because the words spoken in that record may have not been transcribed. This is tantamount to favouring one form of journalism (of the written word) over another - ie filmic/video-based documentary journalism. If that bias is, in this day and age, favoured by WP policies, then it is a bias that definitely needs to be challenged. Revera (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The matter of video interviews etc. has come up before on the RS noticebaord. IIRC the view was that they are usable so long as the material doesn't require interpretation. So they would be reliable sources for "John said 'XYZ'" or "The college has brick dormitories", if these are clear in the video, but editors should not try to decipher garbled text, or decide that "The dormitories look poorly maintained." In the specific case of LOTU, it is an excellent source, having won an award and achieved critical approval. However it is not a neutral source so its use does require care. I don't see a probem with using it for clear speech. Note that we're trying to reduce or limit the number of quotes, so it'd be beter to summarize.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is substantially correct, though I am not sure what you mean by "clear speech." Your "John said XYZ" example could be problematic. The speech of an individual requires interpretation as much, or more, than other forms of communication, and can easily be quoted out of context to further a point of view. Reputable secondary sources are less likely to do so, and that is why they should be used. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the LOTU video, for example, it is clear that Abbie Hoffman says, "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves." That's clear speech. If he mumbled and it wasn't clear then it'd be more of a problem.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think mumbling and being unclear is one thing, but more important is the issue of context. He may well have said things before and after this statement that modified its impact, or there may have been personal reasons why his view was so harsh. A reliable (scholarly) secondary source would, as a matter of rigour, include this kind of context, or at least acknowledge it. A Wikipedia editor with an ax to grind probably would not. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with comments like "ax to grind" - they imply an assumption of bad faith. If there is a context that seems relevant, or that significantly alters the meaning of the statement, then it should be added. If not, not. Sometimes foks simply say things "out of the blue", with no relevant context.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to become over-sensitive, I was referring to partial editors as a general example, no one in particular. When "folks" say things "out of the blue" these things need to be looked at to see if they are consistent with their long-expressed beliefs, or are a momentary aberration. If the latter, they should be ignored, though tabloid-type sources and biased editors in general will seize upon them. It's their bread and butter. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of any assertions in particular? I don't know where you got the idea that folks said things at this festival, or in WIGMJ, that are momentary aberrations, or that such statements are the "bread and butter" of tabloid-type sources. Can you give an example of what you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing in particular, as I said I was speaking generally. Would you like me to spend a couple of afternoons going through these articles and other WP pages I have worked on, to find examples of editors inserting information that was incomplete or out of context, in order to further their point of view, then being corrected by conscientous editors who went to the trouble of buying the sources for themselves? It would make tedious reading, but I am happy to do it if it would be constructive. Rumiton (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that

"...primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings of prior cited authors.[27]" [[14]]

yet also that "A primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source". Why then the apparent WP bias toward using secondary sources? (if there is such a bias, as Rumiton apparently implies) Revera (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your second statement seems to dismiss your argument, but pressing on. It is more than a "bias," it is an injunction. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. See WP:BLP The problem with primary sources which are self-published (non-third party) is that statements can be taken from them out of context, or without the necessary explanation and background. The primary source cannot be expected to write with the almost litigious level of care exercised by a reliable (generally scholarly) secondary source, who knows that their reputation depends on their rigour. Simply, we get a better result. Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we could consider WIGMJ to be third-party primary source in this context. While the subject of this article is the festival, since it was organized and attended by the DLM and its members the DLM can be considered a "first-party".   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is a first party source, important strictures still remain on material for articles that effectively comprise a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The only 1st-party restrictions that are relevant to using WIGMJ in this article, so far as I'm aware, those in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see at least one other. Can a minor be held responsible for a book written about him, even if he appears to collaborate with it? I suggest not. It would be like finding a subject's junior high school workbooks and throwing them in his face when he is 50. So WIGM becomes a third-party, mostly primary, source. Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting more and more hypothetical since no one is currently proposing specific text for the article. However I'll make two points in reply. First, it's inappropriate, in my opinion, to characterize GMJ as a minor incapable of making decisions on his own. By November 1973 he had been the self-declared Perfect Master for more than six years. During that time he had been telling millions of people how to lead their lives as their guru. He had already learned to pilot a plane. Six months after the festival he was declared an adult, got married, and moved into a home of his own. So there's no reason to depict the 15-year old GMJ as incompetent, or compare him to an average junior high school student. Second, the "first party" is the DLM, whose personnel both created the book and the festival which is the topic of this article. The book, though published by a legitimate publishing house, was fully a product of the DLM and can be taken as an accurate source for its views.   Will Beback  talk  16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's hypothetical, let's leave it and go on to subjects that are not. Rumiton (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reportedly

This word now appears 5 times in this article. Quintessential weaselism, is it not? Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? I don't think it helps the reader to list the name of the reporter who makes the assertion. (They can find that informaiton in the citation). On the other hand, we aren't saying that the assertion is absolutely true. We're just saying that it was reported. That seems like the quintessential neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wavy Gravy

I've added Wavy Gravy back to this list. He's certainly as notable as half the others here. He's an author, a recording artist, a radio personality with his own show, and has been in over a dozen movies. He was the M.C. of, and the only person to be on the bill of, ALL of the Woodstock Festivals. He is a founder of the Hog Farm, Seva, and Camp Winnarainbow, and a major fundraiser for the Rex Foundation and the Society for the Blind. There's a new movie coming out this year about his life. He's been featured at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and he doesn't even play Rock and Roll. And he's got a pretty good sized article in Wikipedia. JuliusAaron (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I never heard of this guy and assumed he was just another unregenerate old 70s wanker, but I just learned he was featured on the Simpsons. He's in! Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily insulting. Please be a little more respectful of living people, even on talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see, I buried the lead. Where are my priorities? Does it clinch it to remind you that there was a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream flavor named after him? (Gravy flavored ice cream? Eww!) It was sort of a rainforest crunch type ice cream, with caramel and brazil nuts and other rainforest nuts, and a portion of the proceeds went to Camp Winnarainbow. JuliusAaron (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary, Julius, a mere gilding of the lilly. The Simpsons found him relevant; he is relevant. Don't worry about Will's rather humorless comment. Constant editing of these articles has depressed his otherwise no doubt playful spirit. Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Levitation sources

• Millenium '73, a gathering of the guru's faded flower children followers, was scheduled for the Houston Astrodome, which the guru promised would levitate at the close (like the Yippies at the Pentagon in '67, the guru knew how to create a media event).
  • Boyle 1985
• There were no levitations or other miracles, no visitations from extraterrestrial believers, and—for those of us whose expectations were more mundane—not much excitement and little substantive content.
  • Dreyer 1974
• The buzz in Houston was that the Perfect Master was going to transform the Astrodome into a gigantic flower-bedecked spaceship and whisk us of to nirvana...The Astrodome failed to lift off, which left a lof of premies disheartened and a few suicidal.
  • McDonald 1999

And of course there's also the Greenfield and Levine sources cited in the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the above sources, only one, Deidre Boyle, atributes these jokes and rumours personally to Prem Rawat. On the same page [[15]] she calls him a "spiritual Svengali" and goes on to speak of "...blissed-out devotees pathetically seeking stability and guidance in the guru's fold" and says that, "Neon lights, glitter and rock music furnished by the guru's brother (a rotund rip-off of Elvis Presley) on a Las Vegas styled stage was the unlikely back-drop to the guru's satsang or preaching to his followers." I don't believe it is acceptable in a living biography to cherry pick statements that you happen to agree with from amongst biased and quite nasty stuff like this. The source disqualifies herself. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many comments about Bhole Ji. If you think the article would be improved by adding more of them I suggest we start another thread on that. As for attributing comments directly to Guru Maharaj Ji, you might re-read Greenfield and Levine, both of whom attribute the prediction to GMJ. Another source for the levitation prediction is the Lord of the Universe video itself (see 9:04 "Man talks about the widespread conviction on the part of the Guru's followers that Huston Astrodome is going to fly off into outer space at the end of the gathering."[16]).   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Boyle, her article was expanded into a book that was published by the Oxford University Press, a publisher with an impeccable reputation. ISBN 9780195110548   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear why, but an editor changed this text:

• According to journalists and others, the festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation, there were no ETs, and the Astrodome did not levitate.<ref name="Levine 1974"/> <ref name="Snell 1974"/> <ref name="Dreyer 1974"/><ref name=Collier176/>

To this:

• The festival did not live up to expectations of establishing peace or world transformation. <ref name="Levine 1974"/> <ref name="Snell 1974"/><ref name=Collier176/> The Texas Monthly reported that "There were no levitations [sic] or other miracles, no visitations from extraterrestrial believers, and—for those of us whose expectations were more mundane—not much excitement and little substantive content." <ref name="Dreyer 1974"/> [17][18]

Is there an explanation for the change? According to previous reviews, it's better to avoid quoting if we can summarize instead, and I don't see any reasons for attributing a view held by many sources. Even if we do agree that a verbatim quotation is ideal in this instance, the "sic" seems unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's nothing more, I'll remove the attribution and summarize material presented above and in the listed sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to remove anything. It is OK as is, and it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_%2773/archive2&redirect=no Pergamino (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond to the fact I raised on that page, which is that there are multiple sources which assert that no ETS arrived and that the Astrodome did not lift off. First, are you aware of any sources to the contrary, or which otherwise make this a contentious assertion? Second, why would we attribute this assertion to only one source when there are others that say the same thing? We could list all of the sources, but that seems unnecessary. If there's a reasons I don't know, please explain it.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, remove the [sic], as it serves no function there. "Levitations" is the correct pluralization, there is no need to insert the sic that I can see. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to:

• According to reports, the Astrodome did not levitate, no UFOs landed, and no ETs attended.[3][38][107]

I'm not sure that we even need "according to reports", since it isn't a contentious assertion. Another variation which might read better is, "Reporters noted that ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit pushes a POV and degrades writing quality of the article

[19] - This edit by Pergamino (talk · contribs) introduces poor sentence structure and degrades the quality of the article. By linking Maharaj Ji's reaction to the other sentence, it also pushes a POV and is inappropriate. Best to keep these sentences, and paragraphs, separate - and let the reader make up their own mind after reading the facts. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What "POV" does it pushes? The material is clear: there is consensus that the festival was a disaster, but the guru disagreed. Isn't that correct? Pergamino (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for "facts.... but interpretation of the guru was..." that is essentially how you changed it to flow and push that last point. That is pushing your POV, and it is most inappropriate. You also changed the sentence to have horrible sentence structure, which effectively degrades the writing quality of this article, during an ongoing FAC assessment of its writing quality. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous organization was to give the reactions of outsiders, then of leaders, then of followers. So among the leaders, we first give Guru Maharaj Ji, then Mishler and Davis. Is there any reason why that doesn't make sense?   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback that this previous organization makes perfect sense. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys seem bent on scaring me off from this, with your uncompromising and aggressive attitude, throwing at me three and four letter acronyms that make no sense. What the FAC? Pergamino (talk)

Care to specifically address any of the issues above about how your edits to this article are degrading the quality of the article itself, during its ongoing FAC? Cirt (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You say that I introduced a run-on sentence, but I guess you have no clue of what that means. Using a comma, followed by "but", is not a run-on sentence. Using a semicolon is not an run-on sentence, etc. Pergamino (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your change may not literally meet the definition of a run-on sentence, but it sure makes the writing quality of the article much poorer. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is becoming better written since I raised a voice about the poor use of grammar in certain passages, so you can thank me for that. It is a pain in the ass to copyedit with all the markup, though. Pergamino (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so you are not disputing that the change you made combining those sentences together degraded the writing quality of this article while it is currently at FAC. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The change I did was fine. It placed a point and a counterpoint alongside each other, giving a better perspective on the obvious contradiction of perceptions. Pergamino (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Before change by Pergamino [20] - Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure, a fiasco, a major setback, a disastrous rally, a great disappointment, and a "depressing show unnoticed by most" that fell flat. Maharaj Ji gave no public indication that he was disappointed, although one reporter said he appeared to be nonplussed by the turnout.
2. After change by Pergamino [21] - Journalists and scholars called the festival a dismal failure, a fiasco, a major setback, a disastrous rally, a great disappointment, and a "depressing show unnoticed by most" that fell flat, but the Maharaj Ji gave no public indication that he was disappointed, although one reporter said he appeared to be nonplussed by the turnout.

Change by Pergamino (talk · contribs) clearly made the sentence too long and run-on and degraded the writing quality of the article. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Take a break, man; you seem all worked-up for no reason. Pergamino (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, saying "No, it didn't." doesn't really avoid the fact that you just added a "but, the..." at the end of one sentence and combined another sentence onto the end of it = poor writing. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino may be unfamiliar with some Wikipedia policies. Majaraj Ji's views don't modify the views of other observers - they are separate things and shouldn't be juxtaposed as if to prove or disprove any of them, which would tend to violate WP:OR. The section lists views by outsiders, leaders, and followers. Nobody has a wrong or right view, and WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain how having a ", but" or a ", and" between two sentences is a an "unpublished fact, argument, speculation, and idea;" or "an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"? Pergamino (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well for one thing I agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) that these are separate ideas that don't need to modify each other, they are NPOV as presented as separate sentences. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Pergamino, can you explain how joining those two sentences with a "but" improves the article?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV balance

Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance: "... describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."

Have you been giving precedence to the sources that have been successful in presenting facts in an equally manner? It does not seem so. What I see is that there has been an indiscriminate use of sources in this article, so this rule has not been applied if one is to judge by this:

• Levine a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak Levine, Richard (March 14, 1974), "Rock me Maharaji - The Little Guru Without A Prayer" Rolling Stone Magazine:

and this

• a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Kelley, Ken (February 1974), "Over the hill at 16", Ramparts Magazine: 40–44, #12

It seems at a cursory look, that precedence has been given to sources that have made no attempt to present facts in a balance manner. On the contrary. Pergamino (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Pergamino (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How so? The article is exhaustive in its use of numerous WP:RS sources. Can you be more specific please in explaining your opinion that the 100 some-odd sources used are not presenting the facts in a balanced manner? Cirt (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cursory looks often miss things. For starters, let's look at the text of the policy:

• Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Rolling Stone is a very prominent source, so the viewpoints expressed in it should be given more weight than those reported in more obscure sources. I don't believe that there are many assertions about which sources contradict one another. Could Pergamon give isues on which there are significant contradictions? (There are some varying estimates for attendance and for the size of the set, but I wouldn't say those are really significant.)   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am not discussing the number sources, I am not discussing prominence, and I am not discussing contradictions, so please stay on argument. I was making the point that the sources seem to have been used indiscriminately, and not in accord to the rule about giving precedence to those amongst all sources that have been successful in presenting facts in a balanced manner. For example the source most used is the Levine (38 citations!), so it has been given precedence. Same about Kelley, which is the second most cited (14 citations). Now, do you think that these two sources are presenting facts in a balanced manner? You can search for these on Google if you want to read them. Pergamino (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are WP:RS, Levine is Rolling Stone, and Kelley had been living with the Divine Light Mission since before the Festival and reported directly from it as well, in addition to serving as a debate moderator during the Festival. Both seem fine to me. Interesting that you are just bringing this up about these sources now. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are not addressing my argument, but I'm glad that you are finding this debate interesting. Pergamino (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You fail to bring up any rationale backing up why you think these sources are not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino is citing the NPOV policy. It says that when sources contradict each other then the precedence should be given to those that make the most balanced presentation. When they don't contradict each other then the greatest weight goes to those viewpoints with the greatest prominence. Along with the New York Times, TIME, and Newsweek, Rolling Stone is among the most prominent sources in the article. So again I ask, where are there contradictions?   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way I'm reading it. Pergamino (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino, Will Beback is making a good faith attempt to address your complaints here on the talk page regarding your assertions about NPOV - it would be most appreciated if you could clarify what you mean further than these obtuse statements. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining, but you seem to be very keen in insulting me at every opportunity, unless you have no clue what obtuse mean: Open a dictionary ("lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid ". With that kind of attitude, it is not fun participating. Pergamino (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino, the clause you quoted comes at the end of a sentence which begins, "[h]owever, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence,..." My view is that it is a pair of criteris which first have to be met before the rest of the sentence comes into effect. In other words, "When equally prominent sources disagree, give precedence to the source with the more balanced presentation." What is your view of the intent of that language?   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pergamino, my last comment was not meant as an insult, merely pointing out that many of your comments have been obtuse: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression. Cirt (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant quotes

[22] - These quotes should be retained, they are interesting and relevant and cited appropriately to WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[23] = Pergamino (talk · contribs) violates the Arbitration remedy by removing the quotes a 2nd time, and also introduces very poorly written text: According to Lonnie Lane, on his autobiography about a jewish family search for God,. -- "on his autobiography" ?? Cirt (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1976?

"As of 1976, it was Maharaj Ji's last press conference. United Press International 1976 "As of 1976" is a long time ago. Is there anything more current? —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be difficult to ask to disprove a negative, but I am not sure if independent reliable secondary sources have reported on whether or not he has given a subsequent press conference. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's phrased that way - a source in 1976 makes the point of saying that he hasn't had a press conference since then. I've never heard of any subsequent ones, and I'v done a lot of research about the subject. One of the DLM's press aides called it the "greatest botch" of the festival, and it did make a very negative impression on reporters who were highly skeptical to begin with. While we don't report it in this article, one of the reporters apparently asked him about his masturbation. So after that experience it's understandable that he wouldn't have had another press conference for some time, if ever. But if anyone sees a report of one we can modify the text to suit.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly been a TV interview in 2006:

• http://www.tprf.org/press-room/20060402
• http://innerlink.typepad.com/india/2006/03/maharaji_on_tv_.html --JN466 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a press conference... Cirt (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right there. :) --JN466 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Great article

This article is very good and brings context to the Lord of the Universe movie. Shii (tock) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Success or failure?

The lead to the article is confusing. One sentence states that the conference was considered one of the most important events of 1973 yet a few sentences it is stated that observers considered it a failure? Considering that few people even today know about this event, I doubt the first claims, even if writers in 1978 made that statement.Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the contradiction, or at least how to present it better. Big failures can be important events. This event was important because it was so hyped and so well-covered. Seven years later it was still considered a major event, but 36 years later it's almost forgotten.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked the opening a little. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, but I don't think that edit improved the clarity so I've undone it. Even those who depcit it as a failure say it was one of the more significant events, so it's not a "some said it was hot, some said it was a flop"-type situation. It was viewed as a major event and it was considered a failure. There are ways fo phrasing it that'd be clearer, but they might verge on OR, such as "Despite being depicted as a disappointment by scholars and journalists, the event was later described as among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s, the high point of Guru Maharaj Ji's popularity, and the most important development in the American DLM's history." Maybe that would be an acceptable conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added "some" to It was later described by some scholars and journalists as among the major events of 1973 and the 1970s, the high point of Guru Maharaj Ji's popularity, and the most important development in the American DLM's history. and many to Many scholars and journalists generally depicted the event as a disappointment. I agree with the event being the high point of the guru's popularity and an important development in the DLM's American minsitry, I doubt any unamiminity of opinion as to the overall importance of the event to the general public. Likewise, many scholars and journalists may have seen the even as a failure, but no means all of them.

You're right that there's no unanimity. IIRC, some editors have objected to using words like "some", and many consider "many" to be vague. But I don't mind them. It's all covered in the conclusion so any reader can see exactly who has said what.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother and brother

The final sentence of the lead section reads:

• The following year the movement split into branches headed by Maharaj Ji in the West, and his mother and brother Bal Bhagwan Ji in India.

To me, that sentence seems to suggest that Bal Bhagwan is both his mother and his brother. It is obvious that the sentence is simply suffering from loose usage of parenthesis, but that's still enough to throw the reader off. Would any agree?

AGK 14:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Without digging through the history, I think we had it phrased differently at one time. Something like "... heading in the West by Maharaj Ji and in India by his brother, Bal Bhagwan Ji, and their mother." Would that phrasing make more sense?   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole article sucks the balls. How did it become the article of the day? Its confusing multiple times just in the opening and the whole thing reeks of POV and trying to balance the POV. 138.162.140.52 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are contradictory views of this event. We try to include all views without judging which are correct.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

advertising hyperbole in opening

"Organizers billed the festival as the most significant event in human history which would usher in a thousand years of peace". That is not encyclopaedic. Midgley (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibberish! Whilst it certainly is hyperbole, this is the exactly way the organizers billed the event, hence it is worthy of inclusion --217.23.234.99 (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. This claim was repeated often by reliable sources. It was one of several extraordinary predictions that were not fulfilled. The festival is notable for the remarkably high expectations promoted by its organizers.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

I enjoyed reading this article. This is a topic I've never even heard of, and it's always good to read a well-written and well-researched article about a hitherto unknown subject. Thank you to all who helped get the article on the Main Page. Lovelac7 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Most holy"

It's a matter of documented historical fact that the event was touted as being not just "the most significant event in human history" but as "the most holy and significant event in human history" How did that little fact get left out?Revera (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources differ:

• While these auspicious astrological configurations formed in the heavens, a three-day festival called Millennium '73 and billed as "the most significant event in the history of humanity" was taking place in the Houston Astrodome.
  • Morgan 1973
• American journalists witnessed the same phenomenon last November when the Divine Light Mission staged "Millennium 73," a sort of God-in at the Houston Astrodome that Davis soberly billed as "the most significant event in the history of the universe."
  • Kelley July 1974
• So here it is the evening of the last day of the Millennium, and Walter [Cronkite] is about to wrap up the show without a word about the most significant event in all of human history.
  • Levine 1974
• Just last week a true believer arrived in our offices to remind us of the most significant event in history: the Perfect Master's return bout with the world to be held at the Houston Astrodome on the eighth through the tenth of November.
  • Cahill 1973
• Advance billing called it "Millennium '73," and went on to describe the coming attraction as "The most significant event in the history of humanity."
  • Baxter 1974

So the text properly reflects sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, you say "The text properly reflects sources".

But why be so selective in only choosing the sources that omit the word "holy" that was in Rawat/aka Maharaji's original claim?

One of the two major news sources in the UK at the time (ITN) had this to report about the event: http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1973/11/10/509040168/?s=*

U.S.A. THOUSANDS OF RELIGIOUS SUPPORTERS HEAR GURU MAHARAJI SPEAK AT THREE DAY FESTIVAL. Clip Description:

Story

Followers from all over the world came to hear Guru Maharaji in Houston, Texas. They chartered 37 planes for the occasion, hailed as "the most holy had significant event in world history". The event was a three-day festival, which began on Thursday (8th November). 20,000 people crowded into the Houston Astrodome on the first day.

The Guru is 15 years old, and claims a following of about 8 million. They call him the "Perfect master". He says he has the key to inner peace through meditation.

The festival has resulted in a shower of gifts for the Guru. He's been given a Rolls Royce car, two Mercedes Benz cars, four houses and two planes. The festival is estimated to have cost about half a million dollars (GBP 200,000 sterling). The Guru promised to end the festival by unveiling his plan for world peace.

The Guru says he will unveil his plan for peace at the conclusion of the festival. George Lewis." SYNOPSIS: Followers came from all over the world to hear Guru Maharaji speak at the Astrodome, Houston, Texas, an occasion hailed as the most holy and significant event in world history.

The event was a three-day festival, which began on Thursday. Twenty thousand people crowded into the Houston Astrodome on the first day. The climax was to be the Guru's plan for world peace. He's fifteen years old, and claims a following of about eight million. He says he has the key to inner peace through meditation.

The festival has resulted in a shower of gifts for the Guru. Apart from the Rolls Royce, he's been given two planes, and four houses. Other wealthy followers have presented him with two Mercedes Benz cars.

Guru Maharaji's followers chartered thirty seven planes to fly to Houston for the festival, which is estimated to have cost half a million dollars to mount. The Guru said he'd end the festival by unveiling his plan for world peace". Revera (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Five sources say one thing, and one source says the same thing plus the addition of a word. I hadn't seen the ITN source before, but its version of facts are different from most other sources so I don't think it's necessarily better than the others. For example, no other source asserts that the festival resulted in a "shower of gifts", and 37 chartered planes is much more than other sources is higher than other figures, IIRC, as is the claim of 8 million followers. The bottom line is that many claims were made about the festival and we can't include every single one, especially in the lead.   Will Beback  talk 

Will, you said earlier that "We try to include all views without judging which are correct".

Yet it's obvious that you ("we"?) DO judge which you think are correct.

And your criterion for judgement appears to be based on quantity of citations, rather than quality. The Guru Maharaji's own letter to his 'premies' that gave birth to the slew of quotations about the festival is the origin of those words "most holy" in the original quotation. Some news sources chose to omit those words (possibly from fear of offending their readership?), but some didn't.

My question to you is simply this: why leave out the very words which demonstrate the very important fact that Rawat/aka Maharaji claimed to be the Messiah, back in the 1970s? (And which gives the lie to Rawat's current revisionist claims that he never pretended to be the Messiah). Revera (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues here. One is weight. Assertions that appear in many sources deserve more weight than those which appear in only a few. The ITN source doens't contradict the other sources, it just adds a bit that they don't report. Also, we've discussed this before at length. See Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 2#The elephant in the room, Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 1#"The most significant event in the history of humanity" was the original billing, etc. Note that we're not actually quoting anyone in the lead. As a compromise, we might quote the longer version in the last paragraph of the "promotion" section, where similar claims are quoted. That'd actually be desirable because at present the "most significant" assertion doesn't appear in the text, just in the lead.

PS: Checking back through the article history I see that the first verions included "most holy" in the text:

• In a letter to premies inviting them attend the festival, which had only been celebrated in India up to that point, Guru Maharaj Ji said, "This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America".

I deleted it in November 2008 as part of a general tightening of the text per suggestions in the Featured Article process that the article was too long.[24]   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that it puts Rawat's claims in historical perspective, and considering that those Messianic claims have been denied by his revisionists (such as banned contributors such as Jossi and Momento and their various sock-puppets) may I recommend that the re-inclusion of the those two words now be taken seriously? Revera (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything about this article has always been taken seriously. I made a proposal for a compromise. Is that acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what - and with whom - you compromise. Fact or favourability? Do you still think Rawat's former claims as regards being the Messiah should be hidden from the historic record? That is what Wikipedia aspires to be, no? - a historic record? Revera (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? I suggested adding the quotation about the "most holy and significant event" to the "Promotion" section.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that the words "most holy" were deleted. Apparently by yourself : "I deleted it in November 2008 as part of a general tightening of the text"

(see above) Offline now, til later. Revera (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Revera (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If are accusing me of trying to hide the history of the subject then you're barking up the wrong tree. I'll implement the edit that I suggested.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1974 until now, over 35 years, I've attended at least one talk per year given by Prem Rawat (aka Maharaji), and I can't recall ever hearing him make an explicit claim to be the Lord or the Messiah, though his followers may have billed him that way in the early days. I did hear him, at one event in Long Beach, California, in the 90s, explicitly say that he was not the Messiah, but simply a teacher who wanted to show people how to access a source of peace which is already within themselves. A lot of mistakes were made in those early days, but looking at Maharaji and the "premies" today, one can't help but be impressed by how much they've matured. This is an excellent article, scholarly and well-researched. It's just unfortunate that some of its sources were clearly biased, but I think that comes through. gdm 11/10/09

Thanks for the input, but let's not get off topic. I'd like to remind everyone that this page is here only for discussing improvements to the article, Millennium '73. Discussions of Prem Rawat and even the festival itself are off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Years of Bible study have taught me that we can't have a clear perspective on anything without framing it in its larger context. For instance, the reverence being given to Maharaji would have been considered completely normal in his own cultural context, so a transition needed to be made. Secondly, this article is in no way representative of Prem Rawat and his organization today, and it would be grossly misleading to allow people to think that it is. Nevertheless, your point is well taken, and in that spirit, let me point out a couple of minor errors which I'll leave it up to you to correct, if you want. Under the "Attendance" sub-heading, you add the phrase "giver of life" in the translation of "Bolie shri..." but these words are not a part of the original phrase. Under the "Press Conference" sub-heading, you use the phrase "Jai Satschadan". It should be "Jai Satchitanand" (literally, "Praises to Truth (Sat), Consciousness (Chit), and Bliss (Anand)." gdm 11/11/09

At one point we had several different translations of "Bolie shri ...", but we cut it down to one because the article was too long with too many details. Here is the text from the first draft:

• When Maharaj Ji was present his followers raised their arms towards him and chanted "Bolie Shri Satgurudev Maharaj ki jai!", translated as "Sing the praises of the Lord True-Revealer of Light, inexpressibly all-powerful majesty"[193], "All Praise and Honor to the Perfect Master"[194], or, roughly, "Let's hear it for the Perfect Master!".[195]

The cited source, the Los Angeles Times, adds the "giver of life":

• As the Astrodome's computerized scoreboard spells out such uplifting messages as "God is Love," Hindi chant sweep through the mass. "Boli~ shri satguru dev Mahara Jl jai," the followers shout, throwing their arms mto the air. "All praise to the Perfect Master, giver of life." "It is a holy hip-hip hooray," explained one smiling premie.

In various sources I see the other phrase also spelled "Jai Satchutanand" and "Jai Satchitanan". So there are at least four possible spellings. However I can't find the "Satschadan" or "Satchitanand" spellings in the cited sources, so I'll replace it with one of the more common (in the sources, at least) spellings.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's as given here: Jai (meaning 'hail') sat chit anand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat_chit_anand Revera (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That article muddies the waters further, providing four additional spellings: Satcitananda, Saccidānanda, Satchidananda, and Sat-cit-ānanda, plus more in the redirects.[25] Rather than trying to pick from those I think it's best to use one of the spellings in the contemporary sources. It's likely that the reporters asked how the followers to spell it, so they may have used the spelling preferred by the DLM.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, if you felt I was accusing you, I apologise. But I couldn't quite believe my eyes when I saw that the deletion of that particular quote was down to you. I'd imagined it was one of Rawat's people who had deleted it, and quite frankly, I didn't at the time have the stamina to enter into a time-consuming (not to mention emotion-draining) battle with propagandists whose respect for historical fact was ... how to put it politely? ... a little in need of nurturing.

You've reinstated the quote, and I'm sure future historians of the subject will appreciate your persistent efforts to present a fair and accurate portrayal of the event. To that end, and in the sprit of fairness, I'd like to draw your attention to an article that appeared the year after Millennium '73. It's DLM's own response to the international publicity that resulted from the event, and is worth a look, if only to put into clearer perspective the mind-set of the people who gave Rawat/Maharaji his biggest claim to fame - publicity wise, that is.

Maybe some parts might be worth incorporating into the article? But I'll leave that to you, if you think appropriate. Here are the links (it's a scan of a one-page article)

[26]

and

[27]

PS - gdm 11/10/09 seems to have posted without a link to a user page. I'd like to bring something to his/her attention. How? Maybe it'd be easier to do it here: [28]

Revera (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you note. As I wrote before, this article could be (and has been) much longer but at some point it becomes unreadable. While I regret having to omit many interesting facts, the end product is better for it. It's possible to argue over exactly which facts should be included, but while we do so we should assume good faith in each other's intent, even when we don't agree with the person's spiritual beliefs.

The article you link is indeed interesting. I found it when I was drafting the article and cited it six times.[29] It's actually a little longer than one page - you're missing a piece.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Let me ask a general question about the article as a whole: Do you think the "messianic" fervour of the event (as evidenced by promotional material such as this (from the official programme for Millennium '73) - [30] ) is communicated in the article as a whole? Here's the quote from Maharaji/Rawat: "There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and to spread the true Knowledge"Revera (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article does an adequate job of reflecting the sources. There are several references to extraordinary claims, including those concerning the messiah, savior, or Second Coming.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The spelling and definition I gave of Jai Satchitanand are those used by DLM in the 70s, and since they're the ones being quoted, we should follow their usage, although variant forms are acknowledged (direct quotes from other sources are excepted, of course). Re Bolie shri... 'Ki Jai' means 'Sing praise.' The rest of the phrase is just a longer form of Maharaj Ji's formal Indian title. While we make much of the title in the West, all of the words in the phrase are commonly applied in India to those considered to be spiritual masters. gdm (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Officially "blissed out"

The Oxford English Dictionary includes "bliss out". The first two citations are from articles about this festival.

• to bliss out (U.S. slang) [after to freak out s.v. FREAK v. 3], to reach a state of ecstasy. Chiefly blissed out (blst) pa. pple. and ppl. a., in such a state; blissing out vbl. n.
• 1973 National Observer (U.S.) 3 Nov. 1 A ‘soul rush’ of blissed-out young pilgrims is heading for the Western mecca of The Most Important Movement in the History of Mankind. 1973 Newsweek 19 Nov. 157 Initiates learn to see a dazzling white light, hear celestial music, feel ecstatic vibrations... The process is called ‘blissing out’. 1974 New Yorker 8 Apr. 32 The nonstop, glowing smile and the glazed eyes of one who is ‘blissed out’.

Looking through Ghits, it appears that "blissed out" is still used in common parlance for rapturous experiences. Maybe this is notable enough for a short sentence, like "The OED credits press coverage of the festival with the first recorded uses of the phrase 'blissed out'."   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is a bit OR-ish, but it is also quite fun (and verifiable). I'd go for it. --JN466 12:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)