Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 13 May 2007

Vassanya's comment on this draft as at 30 March

Some comments. This is a good general direction to move in. The material needed to be mercilessly edited and cut down. I would prefer to see a version with citations so I can follow the material to sources. On citations, I would recommend you stick with a variety and inline cite anything that could be contentious, gets into fine detail or is reporting a POV. Using a good variety of sources and in-line citations helps promote verifiability and stability.

The closing of the lede seems a little promotional, with two variants of the "peace" quote. That material would be better suited under the teachings section, for example. I believe the current ending of the article lede about the Foundation is preferrable.

While the trimmed childhood section is generally good, I would suggest you reintegrate two facts into it. The statement about primogenture I think is interesting and informative. Also, it may be good to include the mention that he was visited by Westerners during the 60s, which is what lead him to send a teacher to London.

In leaving India, I think the much more neutral tone is readily apparent. Much more reporting, much more clarity in the writing. Overall, I find this rewrite more informative. However, I believe you should restore the Time Magazine information. It's notable that such a prominent magazine reported on the worship of Prem Rawat by his family. I also believe the Sociological Review claim should be reinstated. They both present things about the guru that are highly criticized and do so with a neutral tone without framing them in an opinion about those facts.

I'll come back and provide comments for the second half a bit later. I want to make sure I look over that with fresh eyes, so I can provide good feedback. Vassyana 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Leaving India" section is much longer than the other sections and is too long for it to fit on my screen. So I added another heading in the middle.Momento 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm reordering a paragraph but keeping all material.Momento 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's still a bit of doubling up between the Getting Married section and Teachings. Another couple of kb might be saved there. Might have another look tomorrow. Rumiton 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a bit disconcerted by the phrase "to appeal to a western context." The context is the background against which the appeal takes place, not the thing that is appealed to. Can't for the moment see a better phrasing. Rumiton 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Rumiton. I enjoy this collaborative effort, as opposed to combative editing. The big test will come we try to replace the old article. Once this is finished there won't be much room for inserting POV.Momento 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Momento, I enjoy the team thing too, when it works, as it does here. Rumiton 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did a word count. This article comes in at 2400 versus the old article's 6300. I believe this article is the right length, it covers all the major issues in appropriate detail (obviously we can't include the thousands of pages of available material but this article, its sources and bibliographical references will enable any reader to delve deeper if they wish). So as to avoid this article suffering the same fate as the last one ie, editors constantly adding new material they think important until the article becomes "bloated" and "over long", I propose that we put an upper limit on this article of 2500 words. If any editor feels that something important has been left out, decide what should be removed to allow room for the new material and discuss the change here.That way we will keep the article well sourced but concise.Momento 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've returned Vassanya's comments to the top of this section as a reminder of what we're aiming for.Momento 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the end of the first paragraph to include mention of Knowledge, which wasn't mentioned at all in the lead. Sylviecyn 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of something like that too, Sylvie. Rumiton 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been mucking around with the Westernisation section tonight, cutting out a bit of redundancy and condensing the rest. It's a bit chaotic right now, but please be patient. Ta (Australian for thanks.) Rumiton 15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going to give A+ to SylvieCyn, a B+ to Rumiton based on continuing work (Westernisation was always happening but finally occured in '83) and a C to Jossi. The Rolling Stone insertion takes up six lines to say what the "my knowledge is God" says clearer in one (addressing the Hoffman's quote). In comparison to the rest of the article it stands out as "bloated". If you want it Jossi, you're going to have to fight for it.Momento 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I stuck in the "Getting Married" headline to provide a break and end the "Leaving India" section. Mainly for visual and readability reasons. I find it easier to read articles if an entire section can be seen in one screen shot. Also "Getting Married" was a turning point for Rawat (splitting from mother, affect on followers etc).Momento 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just put in a necessary Downton quote (22) which now makes 3 Downton cites for the one paragraph. Is there a way to encompass three quotes with only one blue cite number?Momento 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you not just cut and paste the other two into the first area, then delete the numbers? I thought the Getting Married section was a good idea. Looking back, Rawat's marriage was extrememly significant to his work, and a lot sprang from it. I'm still looking at Westernisation. As you say, it is a large part of the story. It might need to be broken up into more sections. Thinking. Rumiton 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for Vassyana (sounds like a stage play) I thought it might be good to look at the section headings. Westernisation needs shortening, and the contents don't fit too well, I think. I also thought that Teachings should come higher up. How about this sequence of headings:

Prem Rawat... Teachings... Childhood... Initiation... Organisations (DLM/EV)... Marriage... World Travel... Recent Years. Rumiton 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to relate everything to PR, it's his life story. So I don't like "Organisations" being a heading. I'd be happy to see "Teachings" come last, so that people read first about Rawat and then his teachings. "Initiation" occures in "Childhood", so how would that work. "World Travel" starts in 71 and hasn't stopped so I can't see it as a heading. I see the major periods as being -

Prem Rawat

Childhood 57 - 71

Leaving India 71 -74

Getting married? 74-83

Westernisation?(Ashran close, DLM=EV, drops Guru etc) 83-2000

Recent Years 2000+

Teachings

Momento 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found a good solution. The key point wasn't "Getting Married", it was Rawat becoming an "emancipated minor" in April 74. That action allowed him to get married in May, seize control of DLM from his mother and become financially independent. In short he was "Taking Control". That carries us through to 83 and the "Westernisation" or some better heading/description. I've had to add some more info to teaching but with condensing else where we're still below 2400 words.Momento 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento, do you have a source that states Rawat became an emancipated minor, or did he just apply to become one? If you would, I'd appreciate seeing the source text. I never heard about him becoming emanicpated, or I've forgotten. I don't have a problem with "taking control" as a header for the section, btw. I'm just curious about the emancipation part. Thanks for the compliment; I was a bit nervous making edits. If no one minds, I'd like to continue making copy edits to firm up any sentences that seem awkward. Thanks. Sylviecyn 11:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in Cagan's book page 197. "In Denver in April 1974, Maharaji applied to become an emancipated minor, becaue he and Marolyn were now engaged and he knew his mother would not condone his marriage at sixteen (or any other age, considering the American wife he'd chosen). With his emancipation, he could obtain a legal marriage licence without his mother's signature. After spending about forty five minutes with a judge, he was granted his request". I'll change the quote. Momento 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the name Taking Control, or maybe Taking Charge. Good. AndSylvie,pleasedo.What'shappened?Ican'tdospaces.I'llusecommas.I,write,weird,stuff,sometimes,please,tell,me,when,I,do,or,just,correct,it.Sheesh,I,hope,this,sorts,itself,out,soon.Rumiton 13:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back, with spaces. Would you believe it, a tiny piece of toast got caught under the spacebar? (OK, Jossi, going back to work now.) Rumiton 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento, the reasons I thought the Teachings section should go in early were:

1. I think that would be the main interest of someone looking him up.

2. I think there is a need to tell the reader more about Knowledge, as it is rightly mentioned in the Lead Section and also in Childhood. Rumiton 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that people might want his teachings, when this editor's talk space is removed the table of contents will sit in the lede. Meaning people can see "Teachings" and click on it as their first move. I agree Knowledge/Teachings could have more info. I'm really happy with the article now. As they say 'it may no be the article any of us would have written but it is an article we can all live with".Momento 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is pretty close to acceptable. There are a couple of points I think could be expanded or done better, but I can't see a way right now. I do feel the word Knowledge needs to be explained early. Rumiton 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's covered by the fact that clicking on the first mention of Knowledge takes you to the Techniques article. Added to Knowledge/Teachings - a bit from Melton/Partridge that bridges the gap between the Sants and the present and talks about the "living master".Momento 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision review 24-04-07

The lede is generally good. It provides a succinct summary overview. I believe it should briefly touch upon his marriage and family split, and the criticism directed at him. A single sentence would suffice for each issue and bring the lede right up to standard, providing a brief but complete overview.

The first 2/3 of Leaving India is very good. The final two paragraphs are somewhat problematic. The question of divinity should be left to a separate following paragraph. End the event paragraph noting that Abbie was a member of the Chicago group. The question of Godhood should be a complete paragraph of its own. Prem Rawat has on occasion given affirmative and negative answers about his Godhood/divinity. Quotes of both types should be included for balance. Even better would be no direct quotes but rather a statement that he has both affirmed and denied the claim. Quote mining can be dangerous territory and it may be simply best to report and reference. There are other ways the topic can be addressed better. These are simply my suggestions. Do what you think is best.

The remainder of the draft is very good until Teachings. The writing needs to be tightened up and made more consistent. The draft just seems to lose the flow of writing there. I have no particular advice in that regard, except to remove the age disclaimer sentance from the last paragraph, which seems out of place.

All in all, it needs some tightening up in just a few places, but this is a very good draft. Vassyana 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Altered the lede, created a separate paragraph for "Godhead/Divinty and reduced teachings. I will smooth and tighten later if Rumiton or SylvieCyn don't beat me to it. Thanks again for your excellent advice.Momento 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since part of the GA requirement is that the article is stable, I would like to propose a temporary moratorium on editing this article once it replaces the existing article (and we can all take a Wiki break).Momento 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems the some people do not have a clear understanding of "divinity". I take it to be "of or from God", i.e. not "God".Momento 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento: The refs need to be placed alongside the text, and not just at the end of a paragraph. That way readers can check what sources are saying what. Having 9 refs at the end of the paragraph does not work. See WP:CITE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I have altered/reduced some paragraphs in accordance with Vassanya's advice but I have left all references intact in case we want to reinstate the material. One para has 11 refs attached. Will do a tidy up once Vassanya and others have commented.Momento 01:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Leaving India)

We need to make the point that PR was also responsible for the perception that he was a Saviour and not that just others were to blame.

Hi Vassayana, regarding this edit - 27 April 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=126346446&oldid=126272899)
I have removed the phrase that stressed that Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' without mentioning his own claims of Divinity. I also added the second part of the Collier quote which Momento omitted and which created unbalance. That is:
Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.'
I hope you agree with my editorial decision. Momento has threatened on my Talk Page to revert such an edit. I think that the Collier full quote makes both the crucial points that a) Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' and importantly that b) he also was personally responsible for that perception. The latter is the contentious point that was conspicuously missing in many people's opinion. Can you help us settle this once and for all? What do you think? Is it not fair to make both these points quite clear? Is it not undesirable to omit the information that Rawat spoke of himself publicly as 'the source of peace in this world' and as one who could offer 'Salvation'? PatW 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the words PatW deleted = "for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord". You can't just alter a respected scholar's quote because it contradicts your POV.Momento 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, is your change of "for letting" to "when he let" a grammatical necessity. "For letting" is what Downton actual wrote.Momento 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a direct quote, it's a paraphrase. Downton's clumsy phrase obstructs the flow of our article. IMO. ("There has been far too much of this sort of thing lately." ref. Tony Hancock. "Hancock's Half Hour.") "I think this job is starting to get to me." Ref. me. Rumiton 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Momento wants us to carefully preserve the original meaning of quotes in our paraphrasing, I have added Rawat's significant Peace Bomb Satsang words as Collier uses, to reflect her original meaning. (ie. that Rawat was indeed responsible in part, for the perception of him as a Messianic figure.) So this is my edit:

Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with" whilst some of his public declarations such as "I am the source of peace in this world...surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation." inspired people to see him in a Messianic role.

Now if I were to follow Jossi's idea to summarise this, I would say something like:

Rawat's views about himself were open to interpretation. Whilst he generally encouraged whatever views people held around him, the tone of his speeches inspired many to see him in a Messianic role.
What do you think?PatW 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what WP:SYN warns us about. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's not right yet. Sorry, I'll give it some further thought.PatW 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't right PatW, you should remove it. Since you didn't, I have. Downton is an excellent source on the 72-76 period. He has done far more research than any other scholar I know of. His understanding of Rawat's relationship with his family, his interviews with premies, his access to satsangs and his knowledge of the vibe of the early '70s enables him to make a well balanced and impartial summary of the period in question (that is from Millenium to April 74 when Rawat becomes emancipated). Your summary on the other hand is just unsupported OR and SYN for the sole purpose of pushing your POV. Why do you do it?Momento 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PatW you say we need to say that "PR was also responsible for the perception that he was a Saviour and not that just others were to blame". How can a person who happily uses the title "Perfect Master" and "Dispeller of Darkness and Revealer of Light" and "Great King" possibly be accused of not contributing to the perception that he was special. Who can deny it? I certainly don't. And nor does this article. This is what a reader will find out about Prem Rawat from this article -

Rawat claimed to be an Indian Guru when he was eight and said he was ready to bring peace to the world. He let his family kiss his feet as a demonstration of worship. A film of him was called "Lord of the Universe". He said "My Knowledge is God". He claimed that the Guru was greater than God. His mother's talks were full of references to her son's divine nature. He let people cast him in the role of the Lord. His appearance in Indian dress was enough to spark ritual and messianic beliefs and practices. He believes that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration". Could he have made more effort to give a perception of specialness? I don't think so. And it's all in black and white in this article.Momento 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No moratorium please. I don't have every hour of every day as you do, Momento, to work this article and I've been nursing a back injury this week, so wasn't able to sit for any period of time at my computer. I can't believe that you now blame the premies' belief that Rawat is the Lord of the Universe on his mother. That's just incredible. I got K long after the family split and never even read any of her satsangs. It was all Rawat's own words that perpetuates that belief. I don't understand why you and Jossi continuously insist that in a biography of Prem Rawat, that his own words that confirm what he said about his own divinity can't be used. And I'm not the least bit "confused" of lacking in understanding about what divinity means. Someone who claims they can practically reveal God to people ain't just some common priest or guru. Also, the sources shouldn't go at the end of the paragraphs, because a reader needs to be informed as to which source is saying what. Rawat has said on more than one occasion that he is Knowledge. Logically, if he says he reveals God within people, and he is also Knowledge, then what does that make him? This isn't Hindu mumbo-jumbo, he said these things in English in the late 70s on many occasions. In the United States, in Florida, and he had a great grasp of the language when he was aged 20 to 22. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of divinity:

di·vin·i·ty /dɪˈvɪnɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality of being divine; divine nature. 2. deity; godhood. 3. a divine being; God. 4. the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase) the Deity. 5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities. 6. the study or science of divine things; theology. 7. godlike character; supreme excellence. 8. Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source di·vin·i·ty (dĭ-vĭn'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key n. pl. di·vin·i·ties

The state or quality of being divine.

Divinity The godhead; God. Used with the. A deity, such as a god or goddess. Godlike character. Theology. A soft white candy, usually containing nuts.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. WordNet - Cite This Source divinity

noun 1. any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force 2. the quality of being divine; "ancient Egyptians believed in the divinity of the Pharaohs" 3. white creamy fudge made with egg whites 4. the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Dictionary dot com Sylviecyn 12:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a straw man argument, Sylvia. There is clear evidence of the mother and elder brother messianic aspirations and being a "holy family". There is clear evidence of some people around the DLM that were doing the same, and a good example is the change of words found by Daniella's research, in which someone changed "Guru Maharaji is here", with "the savior of humanity is here" in Cameron's book. There so many instances than anytime he was asked about who he was, he gave the same answer, trying to dispel these messianic ideas:

People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose. Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972

I am just an ordinary human being, with two legs, two eyes, and I work, and I voluntary put myself here so that I can reveal this Knowledge to people, I think because people need it. People have forgotten what this Knowledge is. And I am just teaching them perfectness, and that’s why they called me Perfect Master. And as a matter of fact, I am Perfect Master because I can reveal them this peace. Not saying that I am bodily perfect. I’m not saying I’m. . .I am perfect because of this reason or that reason, but simply one reason: because I can reveal them this Knowledge, which is perfect. London, UK 13 July, 1973

Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?
Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It' for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God. Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972

Dear gentlemen, people say that I say I am God. This is such a wrong thing. Look at many newspapers. They print that Guru Maharaj Ji has proclaimed himself to be God. I had a press conference in America and clearly declared that I am not God. They did not print this. They never print that Guru Maharaj Ji declared that he was not God. They printed that, ‚"He considers himself as a God." Because their purpose is to discredit me. They did that. Bihar, India, 15 April, 1975

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No one's blaming anyone for some people's belief that Rawat was "The Lord of the Universe". Downton says that " there were social forces encouraging the development of millenarian beliefs within the Mission. They were developed in part by the carryover of millennial thinking from the counterculture; by the psychological trappings of surrender and idealization; by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord".

And no one is denying Rawat's divine status. It comes with the territory of being a Guru. Wiki says about the Guru "Based on a long traditional line of philosophical understanding as to the importance of knowledge, the guru is seen in these religions as a sacred conduit, or a way to self-realization". As your dictionary says about "divine" (rather than divinity) - "of or pertaining to a god, devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship, proceeding from God or a god: divine laws, godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity, having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities, godlike character; supreme excellence". Saying a Guru isn't divine is like saying a singer doesn't sing.

Finally this proposal has been in existence since early March. Vassanya criticised the existing article and several editors have worked to create a better one. Vassanya has reviewed this proposal twice and pronounced this draft as "very good" except for two minor areas (a separate paragraph for Godhood/divinity and tighten up Teachings) which have been worked on. There may be some minor adjustments to come but this article is finished. Like you, I do not want to spend hours on this project. I want to help create a "Good Article" to replace the existing "bloated, POV laden, badly written" article. As Wiki suggests, it may not be the perfect article from everyone's viewpoint but it is an article we can all live with. Momento 17:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read Vassayana's thoughts on the Divinity issue and I still think that the 'Leaving India' section fails to address his concerns ie. Prem Rawat has on occasion given affirmative and negative answers about his Godhood/divinity. Quotes of both types should be included for balance. Even better would be no direct quotes but rather a statement that he has both affirmed and denied the claim.
What Vassayana thinks of the current wording remains to be seen. I have tried to compose the kind of balanced statement he suggests but it has been instantly removed. Hey I tried. Since Momento is apparently never happy with anyone else attempts to say 'Rawat has both affirmed and denied his Godhood/divinity.' might I suggest he has a go at composing such a statement if only to show some respect for Vassayana's opinion. As it stands the wording of this section simply brings to mind Colliers own choice of words to describe Rawat's denial of his divinity. It is at best still so 'Sheepish'. PatW 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute...I think I may have solved the problem with this edit. I have replaced the statement that just says that Rawat denied Godhood/divinity in interviews with Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood/divine status, in 197..? he claimed that the Guru was greater than God etc... Perhaps someone could add the date of the subsequent statement which I don't know. My personal opinion is that thie claim about Guru being greater than God etc. is superfluous in the light of Vassayanas' recommendation to make a simple summary statement. Is this not almost exactly what Vassayana has asked us to do?PatW 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That last edit of yours], Pat, violates WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are saying that Vassayana's suggestion is to violate WP:SYN? Forgive me but I fail to see why this edit is not almost exactly what Vassayana suggests. Do enlighten me on this please.PatW 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Pat. Vassyana asked to write a sentence that would include information about these claims and its denials. He did not offer a specific wording, and your wording does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Close to what we need is something along the lines of "Prem Rawat has on occasion given affirmative and negative answers regarding claims of divinity", as per Vassyana's. But I am also not happy with that either. Maybe others can have better ideas. (also note that godhood and divinity mean the same thing) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask that this time editors leave my wording alone until Vassayana has commented? I think that on this occasion there is no good reason to remove it. It is perfectly good english. And actually your version is almost a simple rearrangement of the same words. It's cutting the cake a different way and saying it's better. I think you are just splitting hairs now for no clearly expressed reason. Your last comment I presume affirms that my edit is also extremely 'close to what we need' and that you retract your former statement about my wording violating WP:SYN. I also agree that Godhood and divinity mean the same thing, so to reflect the use of the word God in the next bit I've left it as Godhood. PatW 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not splitting hairs, Pat. The wording you added does not work for me as it violated WP:SYN, that is it makes a statement based on primary sources that has not been published in a reliable source as such. And the alternative wording based on Vassyana suggestion does not work for me either, for the same reason. I will let others make other proposals. Maybe Vassyana himself can craft something we all be happy with? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As Jossi said your edit violates WP:SYN. You have assumed that Rawat "made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood". These are Vassanya's words. As for "In 197..?" etc, the edit is incomplete and meaningless. Please change it back.

The previous draft clearly expresses Vassanya's wish to have a paragraph that addresses that 'Rawat has both affirmed and denied his Godhood/divinity". The first sentence states that on one hand he clearly and repeatedly says "I am not God" but on the other hand he say "Guru is greater than God". Many people see those two statements as a great contradiction, as both affirming and denying divinity. Others believe the statement "Guru is greater than God" is a contradiction (or an impossibility) in itself. Christians, Jews and Muslims would no doubt see it as heresy. The argument for Rawat's belief that "Guru being greater than God" is also included, "Because the Guru can reveal God". As far as addressing the contradictory "Godhood/divinity" issue, that sentence does the job in a nutshell. The issue of why some people believed Rawat to be Jesus, the Christian Saviour or the Christian Lord is addressed in the second sentence with Downton's comment about "Millennarian beliefs". "Millennarian beliefs" meaning belief in "A thousand-year period of holiness mentioned in Revelation 20, during which Jesus and his faithful followers are to rule on earth." It is beyond doubt that Rawat clearly and unambiguously stated that he was not Jesus. Despite that, Downton believes that " there were social forces encouraging the development of millennarian beliefs within the Mission. They were developed in part by the carryover of millennial thinking from the counterculture; by the psychological trappings of surrender and idealization; by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord". So how do you explain Rawat's opinions of himself and other people's opinion of Rawat? The third sentence wraps it up " Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with". There is nothing "sheepish" about Rawat saying "I am not God" and there is nothing sheepish about Rawat saying "Guru was greater than God because the Guru can reveal God". They are a revealing and powerful declaration of Rawat's fundemental teachings. His frequent denials of being Jesus, the Christian Saviour begs the question, "Well why did some people say and a believe you were?". Downton answers that question. I think the "Godhood/divinity" paragraph addresses the issue clearly and completely with verifiable scholastic sources. I wouldn't change a word.Momento 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So Prem Rawat didn't take any control after all as you assert in the Taking Control, is that what you're saying? Prem Rawat most certainly did take control over his own mission (DLM) and ashrams, and all of the other trappings around him, including dressing in Krishna outfits long after the so-called satsangs of his mother Mataji was out of the picture. In fact, his own wife sat on those stages with her children while he sat on large thrones. This article is a travesty of the truth. Sylviecyn 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PatW, I think you told a story that illustrates Rawat's attitude. You were standing talking to him somewhere as one human does with another and someone came crawling along the grass to kiss his feet. Rawat just kept on talking to you. Different people have always had different and changing attitudes to Rawat, rather than correct and codify people's beliefs, he just lets people do what ever they're comfortable with.Momento 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm not denying that. I don't see how that behaviour reflects on his claims of divinity at other times. The fact he made such claims does not suggest that he was forcing people to believe in him as a Divine being. However it seems obvious that such claims encouraged people to adopt that view sometimes - whether they'd had such dormant religious beliefs in a Saviour figure or whether they'd been atheists. Anyway just to explain why the first draft sounds worse: The fact that the previous draft states first only that Rawat denied being divine and then follows it with one unclear quote about his belief that 'Guru is greater than God' plus yet another denial is clearly stressing that he denied it more. Neither does it express an affirmation about his Godhood, it merely alludes to the notion that a Guru (not necessarily him) is somehow greater than God. A lot of people might be interested to know what his definition of God is hearing that. Anyway that quote raises more questions than provides answers. Whatever the case I agree with Vassayana that it is wholly correct, accurate and balanced to report simply that Rawat both affirmed and denied his Godhood. I don't think the average reader would come to any different conclusion however many quotes they researched from the wealth of material available or indeed the quotes now supplied in the existing references. In short his suggestion is fairer and far more straight to the point. Personally I remain unconvinced about this idea of yours that Rawat's comment about "Guru being greater than God" is somehow an important revelation about his teachings. But I left it there so I don't see that there's problem.PatW 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are unambiguous statements about not being "God", and there are abundant quotes in which he makes distinctions between "divinity" and "God". You are mixing apples with oranges and that is the problem with violating WP:SYN. Your very short sentence, followed by one quote (that was selected based on unknown criteria) obfuscates more that clarifies this subject. Momento's version, although not perfect, at least bases the text on the sources provided, without adding a conclusion. Let the reader arrive to their own conclusion. Just note that I am stating my disagreement with your version as well as with Momento's version. Neither of these work for me. (PS: Pat, just a note that godhood is not use capitalized. ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we know for absolute certain that Rawat always denied being God and never, ever said he was God, so there is no question about his denying being God. And there is no doubt he said he, as a "Guru is greater than God". And as far as I know there is no doubt that he affirmed being generally divine, since a Guru is by definition "a sacred conduit". And there is no doubt he denied being Jesus or the Messiah." Thus he is both affirming and denying different aspects of "Godhood/divinity". Since the whole article affirms his claim as a Guru and "divine conduit" (title, foot kissing, devotion, showing God) so the last paragraph will naturally need to address those things he denies.Momento 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Affirming and denying different aspects of divinity" is one thing, and "affirming and denying claims about his godhood" is another. The former may work, but the latter is original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone back to the previous draft. PatW claim that Rawat "affirmed claims about his godhood" is patently false. I'm happy to work on a compromise version but not one that is completely untrue.Momento 01:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to revert, Momento. As long as we are discussing this, there is no need to revert each other. I think, call me an optimist, that we are getting close to a compromise version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Momento, that was a bit below the belt. I share Jossi's optimism. I really think you guys are just getting tied up over this. Maybe we should just invite Vassayana to cut through all this. After all Jossi invited him to mediate here and you surely have to respect his opinion. What I have inserted is totally and simply what he was suggesting. Anyway it's no big deal..Rawat did claim to be divine. Momento, you've elaborately argued how virtually the entire article proclaims this unashamedly and I agree. Now, when Vassayana just wants us to say this in a few succinct normal words you guys are getting all jumpy. Apparently about nothing. Momento I addressed your comment to me about Rawat accepting people's behaviours on my Talk page as I could see it veering off-topic.PatW 01:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana took us out of a quagmire in the Techniques of K article. Maybe he can help us here again. Or maybe Momento or Pat can come up with a version that we can all accept. I am reluctant to make specific proposals as I have been unable to come up with any brilliant ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An issue for me PatW is that you keep repeating stuff you know, or should know, is untrue. As Jossi told you on April 28, "I did not chose Vassyana as a "mediator". He was the editor that reviewed the GA proposal, and he did that out of his own volition". And yet on April 29 you're still claiming "After all Jossi invited him ". Please desist.Momento 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, I asked editors to do a review, and Vassyana accepted. I never engaged Vassyana before that, although I was aware of his capabilities as a reviewer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph

Jossi, I didn't revert because I needed to keep your improvements. PatW, if you want to replace the current version, come up with something better, don't waste your creativity on the talk page. Momento 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know why I am happy with the current paragraph.

It fits in with the logical flow of the section which helps readability = "Millennium '73,"→"Lord of the Universe" → Rennie Davis→ Abbie Hoffman→"If this guy is God→ "No. My Knowledge is God"→ Guru is greater than God→millenarian beliefs→divine nature→the Lord→"generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with".

Some major points are covered with the minimum of words = (I'm not God) →My Knowledge is God"→ Guru was greater than God.

I don't think Vassayana wants us to encapsulate (Rawat's claim to be divine) in a few succinct normal words. That is already demonstrated previously. He asked us to address that "Prem Rawat has on occasion given affirmative and negative answers about his Godhood/divinity". "Godhood/divinity" is a step up from just being "divine". It relates to - did he or didn't he say he was God? The negative answer is that he denied being God and the affirmative answer was that he said he was "greater than God" (more God than God).

Momento 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Housekeepiing: I much prefer to group the references at the end of the paragraph to which they refer. Because the ref numbers are bigger than the text, inserting them in the text makes the line spacing vary which looks untidy. Wiki guidelines say - Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. Can we agreee to places cites at the "end of the paragraph to which the note refers". Momento 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have too much time right now but let me just say that the statement 'Guru is greater than God' should absolutely not be supplied AS IF it were the singular 'affirmative answer about his Godhood/divinity". Besides it simply is not an affirmation about Godhood, it is an affirmation about being something 'greater than God' which as I say, raises more questions than offers any answers. ie. What is greater than God for heavens sake? This quote is obfuscating the issue inmho. This is a good example of why Vassayana rightly says that " The question of Godhood should be a complete paragraph of its own." ie. a separate paragraph without quotes. Why? Because it would be better to have "no direct quotes but rather a statement that he has both affirmed and denied the claim. Quote mining can be dangerous territory..." (which is apparently your favoured approach). As I said, I left the quotes that you supplied there, but simply inserted Vassyana's separate paragragh "Prem Rawat has on occasion given affirmative and negative answers about his Godhood/divinity" (in slightly re-arranged grammar). I consider that the quotes and impression that Rawat believed he was Divine are amply apparent and supported from the existing article in it's entirety. You yourself have affirmed this view so I think you should understand this point. I have now reinserted the separate paragraph as per Vassayana's suggestion, but this time have left your subsequent quote scenario unaltered. I would again ask that you don't revert it so that Vassyana can clearly see that we have attempted to heed his advice. If you disapprove then by all means state your reasons clearly here and we can discuss.PatW 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PatW, Vassanya's sentence (and now yours) suggests that Rawat has expressed contradicting opinion about his "Godhood" (godhood implies the God version of childhood, that is the act of being God). He has not. We have never found a quote of Rawat saying "I'm God" and many saying "I'm not God". Rawat has been consistant, I'm not God, I'm a human being, I am a Guru, my Knowledge is divine. Show me one aspect of god/godhood/divine/divinity that Rawat has given both affirmative and negative answers about. Momento 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I put the bit about needing a Guru into "teachings" because scholars have mentioned it and it's well sourced. The sources I removed were superfluous to the paragraph and just added unnecessary numbers to the text. The source I included (Downton) was added to support the claim people moved back in the Ashram (Reinserted). What other "cite needed" for that paragraph. Downton uses both "millennial" and "millenarian", "millenarian" seems to have more connect with prophecy. Momento 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento, frankly I'm not sure it would be the best use of my time to go off finding more quotes to split hairs over with you. You have admited that this whole article is full of confirmations that Prem Rawat considered himself divine. There are plenty of secondary quotes supporting this fact. Also Vassayana is well aware that we could legitimately resort to referring to primary source quotes if you push hard enough for evidence (in your unwelcome recalcitrance.) We have discussed this. You have on numerous occasions sought to nit-pick on exactly what you think Rawat meant by divine, as if the word itself needed his or your 'special' definition. This article should not be about yours or his re-invention of the English language and your attempt to argue over this is surely futile and a waste of our time. It is an argument that could go on for ever and I don't think Vassyana or anyone in their right mind wants to go there. Now you are quibbling about the meaning of the word 'Godhead' which Jossi and I both agree means 'divine'. You argue now that Rawat never said he was divine, but then I've heard you argue why he actually meant 'we all have divinity in us' and that's mysteriously ok. So I might as well argue back we are all God in our own way and so that's what I think Rawat meant. In short you sound chronically unable to accept any reasonable, linguistically correct generalisation about this because you are apparently worried that people will interpret english words in a way you'd rather they didn't. Please don't drag this discussion into an impossible stand off about new-age age semantics. Finally, it must have occurred to you that, at this stage of the game, it is Vassayana whom you need to impress with your arguments not me. I suspect that if you get your way in this matter your choice of words will simply be judged as dishonest again.PatW 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that editors here are arguing that there is no aspects of divinity involved? The article is very clear in presenting what secondary sources say about the subject in very unambiguous terms. There is no need to keep pushing a certain point of view (from either side), when there is so much material on the subject. See Downton, Melton, der Lans, Kranemorg, Hunt, Barret, Goring, Lippy and all others. They all refer to aspects of divinity. We can terminate this endless discussion here and now, by just simply agreeing to avoid OR, and stick to what scholars have said about the subject. As per Misplaced Pages policy, we report what secondary, notable sources say about a subject and in the presence of such abundance of sources, we do not need to even contemplate for a second to do our own analysis. We can keep such analysis for our blogs, Myspace or any other fora. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who appreciated the simple good sense of what Vassyana says? Jossi, please don't accuse me of trying to push a POV. That is not true. What I am trying to do is to insert an almost uniquely balanced view. Namely that Rawat not only made claims about being Divine but also denied it eg. "I am not God". As Vassayana confirms, it is NOT out of place , as you suggest, to make summary statements to avoid having to quibble endlessly over quotes. At least that is my understanding. The 'analysis' that Vassyana suggested (if that's what you want to call it) was perfectly reasonable and supported by the already existing sources. Why don't you and Momento stop avoiding the matter and compose your own single sentences that you think summarise what Vassyana and I are driving at? Why haven't you? Is it because you can't do any better than we have? Go on, give it a try. I'm all ears and quite open-minded for the wording to be bettered. Maybe put in your 'aspects of divinity' just so as the readers know exactly what Rawat meant.PatW 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about: Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about the degrees of his not ever-so, but quite, well...extremely...er..sometimes...Divine aspects and Godliness.. um...God-like aspects...or not as the case may be.PatW 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana. Momento keeps reverting my edit as per your suggestion. Your advice would be welcome

I have requested Momento leave the edit for Vassyana's attention and discussion, but he will not do so. Here is the simple line I have inserted and which Momento has reverted several times, ignoring my polite requests for him not to:
Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood.PatW 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful PatW. I reverted your edit after 24 hours because it was incomplete and you wouldn't fix it. You replaced it with another unsourced version and it was Rumiton and not me who reverted that edit. I don't accept your latest version Jossi. Someone has to show me a scholars quote that says that Rawat has given both affirmative and negative answers about anything.Momento 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The OR contained in the phrase - "Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims" will never be acceptable without a verifiable source. I've put in another version of the first sentence that does have a verifiable source. This is probably more in the area of illustrating the supposed contradiction Vassanya was eluding to. (I'm finding a more detailed one).Momento 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a proposed wording attempting to merge Pat and Momento's verions, which I am not 100% happy with as it may be too close to OR for comfort. Here is the diff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is OR without sources. I have replaced it with this sourced paraphrase - While he denied being the Messiah in interviews, pre-existing millennial beliefs were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord. Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with". The first phrase now more accurately relates to the "millennial beliefs".Momento 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, what are your objections to noting in "Teachings" that Rawat says you need a Guru.Momento 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I can't find in history the item you refer to. Would you mind quoting it here? Rumiton 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat, if you want to put in Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood, which Godhood are you referring to? The one that he has, or the one he doesn't have, or the one we all share, or the one that doesn't exist? To me, this statement doesn't make any sense, and to be exquisitely frank, at this point I don't give a flying freak if a hundred scholars said it that way. It isn't easy describing Prem Rawat or the role he has played in many lives in a way that will be intelligible to someone never before involved, and which does justice to him and to the experience he shows, but that is the sincere effort here. We all need to put our thinking caps on and find a way not to waste another couple of good years. Rumiton 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruminton, I think that 'divinity' and 'Godhood' (which were actually Vassayana's choice of words) are acceptable generalisations under the circumstances. To anwer your question, I am not 'referring to' any personal interpretation of the meaning of the words at all, and neither would any reader since we are not suggesting any specific details about 'aspects of Divinity'etc. which I see as a dangerous road to go down. It is clearly a generalisation about Rawat's numerous claims to be Divine, which is undeniable but not particularly clear in terms of what Rawat meant; and also his denials about being God , which (considering that statement about being 'greater than God') is also still totally unclear. None of the secondary quotes are particularly clear except that reading them gives the clear impression that Rawat was ambiguous about his divinity. Period. I personally don't give flying freak (as you put it!) about Momento's or anyones interpretation of what Rawat meant or means these day. As we've all discussed ad nauseam that is very, very open to personal interpretation- notwithstanding that people (like you) are also concerned about your interpretation in the light of your personal 'inner experience'. So it cannot be argued conclusively what Rawat actually claims or denies. I still maintain that the sentence Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood (or divinity) is a very neutral sounding general comment which broadly cuts across all the endless blather by us and which certainly would 'be intelligible to someone never before involved', and which amply does justice to Rawat. I'm frankly perplexed as to why supporters are so jumpy about it. Actually it just nicely preserves Rawat's continuing ambiguity. Quotes like the full Collier one simply illustrate this fact. PatW 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I added the bit in bold - "Like the Sants, Rawat's main claim is that God lives in the heart of every human being, and can be experienced through the techniques of Knowledge with the help of a Guru or master". Using this reference by Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 -The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher.--Momento 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, did I delete that? I wonder about this software when complex things are being undertaken. Anyway, no problem here, please restore. Rumiton 11:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PatW "Guru is greater (more important) than God because Guru reveals God". Rawat used to give this analogy. You're alone dying of thirst. Who saves you. The water which is necessary for every life on this planet or the person who shows you how to dig a hole and find it. It's the person, the water was there but you couldn't reach it. And PatW the sentence "Prem Rawat has made both affirming and denying claims about his Godhood (or divinity) is not neutral, it suggests contradiction. Rawat was consistant and stated clearly- I am not God, I am not the Christian Messiah, I am a Guru/Perfect Master (who are seen as divine), I am greater than God, we are all divine (to or from God). There are several contradictions here IF you want to interpret Rawat's comments through a Christian filter. If you accept the Indian basis for his teachings, there are no contradictions. No scholar suggests Rawat was "contradictory. To paraphrase the entire topic - Rawat's Hindu based theology caused confusion amongst some westerners who tried to interpret his ideas according to Christian theology." Momento 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, your new sentence suggesting Rawat denied a "divine nature in interviews and talks" is incorrect. He has one and so do we. A large part of Rawat's teachings are concerned with redicovering our "divine nature".Momento 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph

The problem I see is that we are taking Vassanya's earlier comment that Rawat "affirmed and denied" literally. So we look for that contradiction in Rawat's words that aren't there. But there is a contradiction between Christian and Hindu versions of the Divine Teacher ( example - denies being Jesus-the Divine Teacher but affirms being Perfect Master - the Divine Teacher). Scholars understand the difference in Hindu and Christian theology but this point was lost on many of Rawat's followers. Downton's research and book is the most detailed on the period in question - arrival in the West to getting married. He doesn't suggest Rawat contradicted himself. But he does describe the "contradiction", the adoption of pre-existing "millennial beliefs" into DLM based upon Rawat's teachings and behaviour when Rawat has already said he is not the Messiah. The contradiction occurs when Rawat's early Hindu based teachings are interpreted through Christian theology. Hindu and Christians have different understandings of God, (including embodiments, manifestations and incarnations of God), Gurus or people who claim or can show you God, past Masters etc. The contradiuction is Rawat saying he was not Jesus and many devotees claiming he was; not necessarily that Rawat was the historical Jesus but that Rawat was the new Jesus, the old Jesus returned. That contradiction of what Rawat said about himself and what his devotees said is noted by several scholars and media and should be addressed in the article. The article already contains an accurate and representative progression of Rawat's teachings and behaviour, it is just missing Downton's observation.

Chronologically it has Rawat declaring himself to be a Guru and Perfect Master ( defined as an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration"). It has his family kissing his feet, it has Hoffman talking about Rawat being God and Rawat's denial, (the missing paragraph goes here), it has Rawat going more secular, it has his appearance in Indian dress and the shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs. And it has his final abandonement of Indian methods and practices. The missing paragraph is all that's needed. And that is Downton's observation that between coming to the west and 1974 - "pre-existing millennial beliefs were fostered "partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of Lord". I'm going to go back to my original paraphrase from Downton.Momento 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to check this article for sources etc but I believe it is very good. I propose changing over in a few days.Momento 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Victim of our own success. Because we have so many references for this article and the ref numbers are bigger than the text, inserting them in the text makes the line spacing vary which looks untidy. Wiki guidelines say - Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. Can we agreee to places cites at the "end of the paragraph to which the note refers". It also allows the reader to read the paragraph unencumbed and then confirm all the references (if necessary) at once, since all references are visible once the first one is slected. It will make for a much better looking article.--Momento 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree they clutter up the place, and your suggestion would make for a better read. Maybe it would be better to combine all references for one paragraph in one number, and underline or bold the individual topics. Rumiton 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not work. We need, if we want the article to remain stable and unchallenged, have the refs placed after the text they support. That is the way it is done in Misplaced Pages, to comply with WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe in cases where the references support the paragraph (rather than individual claims), it is appropriate to footnote only at the end of the paragraph. Otherwise, I would agree with Jossi that the individual claim supported should receive the footnote. If there are too many references to cleanly cite, it would be perfectly fine to choose a limited number of the sources for footnotes. The remaining references could be listed under a "further reading" section. This allows the footnotes to be reduced, while not excluding potential sources of information for readers and researchers. Vassyana 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done it again, Vassyana! I left a message on your talk page. Rumiton 12:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's time

I think this article is ready to replace the exisiting article. There are a few Cagan refs that need more info but otherwise, it's all there.Momento 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think so. It's certainly way better than what is there currently. Rumiton 08:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC) What about Vassyana's suggestion re putting some of our overcrowded reference section into Further Reading? Rumiton 10:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The second par. of Taking Control doesn't reflect the source. Who said "secular, non-Indian DLM?" Who states that Rawat encouraged premies to move out of ashrams after his marriage in 1974 (which is implied in the prose? Where does the reduction in numbers of DLM staff derive from? This is a great example of prose-writing misinterpreting the source material. Thanks. Sylviecyn 13:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have stopped before the last sentence. If you find issues such as these, bring them up and these will be fixed by those that care about having a great article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I have inserted appropriate references from Downton covering 74 to 76. Thanks for pointing it out. Now will SylvieCyn agree it is a great example of prose writing accurately paraphrasing source material.Momento 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Joassi. how do we make the swap. Is it just cut and paste?Momento 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "The event was covered satirically in the award-winning documentary" is better than ":The event was covered satirically in a parody ".Momento 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, parody and satire are much the same thing. Rumiton 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think it's time to make the swap. I'm not sure how to do it, could you please?--Momento 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are still some issues standing, no? Have you made the necessary corrections as per above comments? We also need to complete the Cagan's book citations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I referenced the paragraph and I have found pages in Cagan. Let's do the swap. It's so much better than the current article. It won't be without its critics. I suspect editors will appear out of the woodwork who hate the idea of a Rawat artcicle going for GA status and will try to muck it up but we shouldn't let that scare us.Momento 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going make the swap tomorrow. I'll just cut and paste the two articles and leave the "Prem Rawat talk" page attached.Momento 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Feels like time to me. Rumiton 09:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this proposal is not accurate in citations and presenting the work of Hummel, Melton, Kranenborg and omits Derks Van der Lans. I have repeatedly stated this in precise constructive concrete ways at talk:Prem Rawat, but nothing is done with my suggestions and comments. In contrast, the old version is already accurate in this respect. As a result of this dismissive uncollaborative attitude of Momento towards my comments, I have no intention to spend the effort and time to give exhaustive constructive criticisms of the many flaws of this version. I do however see that this version has some advantages when compared to the old version, such as its better structure and its conciseness. Due to all of this I think it is a waste of time to try to improve this version and I have started another proposal Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal nr2 that tries to combine the good aspects of the old version and this version. For the time being I will focus there on improving the structure of the old version, not so much on shortening the old version. Andries 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)