Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
| '''The Misplaced Pages Community has placed this article on ] ]''' Articles in ] are subject to community-enforced ] for a period of three months, ending ] ]. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in ] may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to ], where uninvolved editors will make a determination.}}
Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The Misplaced Pages Community has placed this article on 1RRprobation Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months, ending June 42008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.}}
Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section:
In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.
My concern:
ref 4 is a 1982 Dutch book: not clear whether it links in time or in place to any of the four places mentioned as being visited when in June 1971 Rawat left India?
(ref 5 is a 2001 book, as its title refers to the "late Vietnam war era" this might link to the media attention when visiting Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971.)
ref 6 is from 1975. Although published in the USA (The Ruston Daily Leader) the criticism originated in fact in India, from Rawat's mother. The sentence where this reference is added jostles with that: "Rawat left India", visited four places far from India "where he was criticised " - and then follows a criticism originating in India... no, not OK, bad style. (bolding was added)
ref 7 is from 2003, and is apparently not written from a seventies perspective (e.g. "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added)
(ref 8 is from 1997. As it is from a dictionary, and no text is quoted directly, place/time might be in order here)
Far from wanting that ref 4, 6 and 7 be removed I just want to point out that it is a non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment to make it seem (in the intro of the article) as if the criticism only extends to his speaking tour to London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971 (mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro), and, also suggested, no later then when he turned 16 in 1973 (3rd paragraph of the Intro). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.. You can add this to an appropriate place of the lead, if that will help: Rawat attracted controversy for what has been considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I *had* already filled them with content on the Prem Rawat article (the content that was there in the sentence I had to remove in order not to double content in the lead). I'm not the one leaving behind me semi-disabled references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards to *ref 7 - "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" ] so it is pre 1983. So 4 out of 5 references are pre 1983 (Goring being unknown). Making it's placement the "His teachings became more universal, and less Indian, and in the early 1980s" sentence inappropriate. Since we are already talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're back to place/time incoherencies with your reverts:
In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized by some for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide. When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. (bolding added)
Rawat turned 16 in 1973. The sentence before that, so before turning 16, "Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring ". Before making his home in the U.S. and the ensuing touring, "Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message". Before that (still according to the timeline now proposed in the intro of the article) he visited four cities outside India, "where he was criticised ". So, the text of the intro still implies that criticism is something happening between June 1971 and Rawat's birthday in 1973, and happend in four cities (none of them in India, nor in the Netherlands - which is also incoherent with the references).
As I said, "non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment" - the criticism extended at least (!) from the mid seventies to the mid eighties, and originated in places not limited to "London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles" — that's what you have references for here, not for the 1971-1973 period nor for the criticism exclusively originating in the four mentioned cities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism. The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream. The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971. That's why the lede should structured the way I proposed.Momento (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism."
"The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream."
"The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971."
Even if all that is true, the criticism didn't stop there, did it? The references used in the article try to give a wider scope (both in time and in place), than just some superficialities when he first arrived in the west. So, it's still incorrect to use more profound references for what in the body of the lead text refers to a relatively short period of superficial criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Which criticism is superficial? The "lack of intellectual content in his teachings" or "leading a sumptuous lifestyle".Momento (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The quotes that back the sentence regarding "lack of intellectual content" and "materialistic lifestyle" all come from the 70s. Putting it after events that happened in 2001 make it look like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years when this criticism was limited to the 70s. It is important that lede accurately reflects the content of the article, unfortunately some editors have chosen to create a separate section called "Criticism" against Wiki guidelines. When this article is cleaned up, those criticisms and the sources will appear in the "Leaving India" and "Coming of Age" sections where they belong. I have rejigged the lede for greater accuracy and NPOV.Momento (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, you're repeating arguments that have been debunked above. And again, don't start a new talk page section about something that's discussed elsewhere, and even was an agreement (#Thousands of edits lost: "Thus, should include the main points of the criticism.", last sentence, nobody found anything unreasonable about that; and then a few sections lower, #Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references which debunked the argument entirely, nobody objecting) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Could the sentence be moved to after Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. as a suitable compromise? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I put it there for some time, until someone else moved it again to the last sentence of the section. So I propose to keep it there (last sentence of the lead, separate paragraph) until a new consensus where to put it (if any) emerges here on talk. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it about time that editors here start looking for some common ground and developing consensus by finding a compromise that all can live with, instead of reverting each other endlessly. I would hope that both Francis and Momento would agree with me on this. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't debunked any arguments Francis, you've just agreed with your own. If the sentence is moved from the chronologically correct 70s section of the lede, it should have "in the 70s". Suit yourself.Momento (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I intend to change Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle (lede) into: "Rawat has been criticized for his teachings and for his lifestyle", and leave the details to chapter "Reception". It makes the lede a better summary, and prevents derogatory allusions from appearing twice, resulting in unproportional weight. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea, e.g. changes focus from the teachings regarded as being too lightweight to them being erroneous (or whatnot); similar for lifestyle, unless you assume we want to add language regarding behaviour other than it being sumptuous (there is such other criticism; but thus far Wikipedians chose not to include it). And of course a Lead section contains content covered elsewhere in the article (only birth date & place, and alternative names are things that can be in a lead without being repeated in the rest of the article: the lead section is a summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. His Lifestyle being „sumptuous“ seems in fact to cover the main body of criticism regarding lifestyle. But a “lack of intellectual content” is in my perception not the main theme of general or academic appraisal of his teachings, rather it is a marginal – and certainly derogatory, to put it mildly – point of view. There used to be much more clamour about alleged claims of divinity, or being a heretic, or the techniques being detrimental or ineffective, or demanding personal devotion, or unsolved matters concerning succession and what not. I mean, lack of intellectual content is not typical for criticism of the teachings, so it should not be solely explicitely mentioned in the summary, when there was really a great variety of criticism with a quite different balance point. That’s why I still suggest the more general “…criticized for his teachings”, perhaps we could add: “…in various ways”, or, to be more specific, as it is said in “Reception”: “…emphasizing the supremacy of subjective experience over intellect” (sounds less POV. A little OR to share with you: I do admit I feel slightly offended by the “lack of intellectuality”, it makes students look like idiots). What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't mean to either. I put the change to discussion above, and nobody objecting or contributing for a week felt like consensus alright to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus.
Further, Schnabel is a viable source, shouldn't have been removed from the lead section. That your appreciation is "derogatory" is of no consequence: it is a reliable source. Further, “…in various ways” is weaseliness, not appropriate for the cited sources. Also, currently in the reception section there are more references about the intellectual content (I counted 6), than about the sumptuous lifestyle. The other criticism is still struggeling to get proper mention in the article, so referring to it in the lead section pre-emptively is not what lead sections exist for. If it is properly elaborated in the article, than we can see what we do with it in the lead. Currently, the main criticisms in the article are sumptuous lifestyle and lack of intellectual content. Both have appropriate references. These two should be mentioned in the lead, without weaseliness and with proper references. Your edit was a step backwards for the quality of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Resuming
The criticism sentence of the intro currently reads
Rawat was criticized in the 1970s for lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.
I bolded the part I object to, while it is not covered by the sources:
ref is a 1982 book, it nowhere limits the criticism to the 1970s.
ref is a 2003 book, I've not seen anyone who could explain how it is derived from this book this criticism is limited to the 1970s
ref is also a 2003 book, as far as I can tell deriving from it that the criticism was limited to the 1970s is an interpretation, somewhat OR-ish.
So I propose to remove the qualifier "in the 1970s" from that sentence, it is nowhere needed, while these criticisms were (as is also apparent from other sources) not something that stopped after the 70s. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is more wrong with the sentence.
ref Schabel writes - "Maharaj Ji's charismatic leadership is very effective, even if comparatively shallow." is hardly a "criticism".
ref Barret's comment that "The Divine Light movement used to be criticized for the devotion given to Maharaji, who was thought to live a life of luxury on the donations of his followers". Clearly date it to 70s possibly early 80s and contain "weasel words".
ref Hunt's comment " Over time,' critics have focused on' what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs."
Barret's and Hunt's comments contain enough "Weasel words" to be dismissed outright. Please read ] . Schnabel's "criticism" hardly merits a place in the article let alone the lede.
You were adamant the article was conforming to NPOV, with the sentence (and its references) included in the lead section the way it is , so I'm rejecting your argumentation above as "too weasely". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Mishler quote (doesn't really belong to the talk page section on the criticism phrase in the lead of the article)
This may be slightly off-topic, but I can't find any mention of Robert Mishler in this or any of the related articles. He is a former president of the DLM and made critical comments about the subject. Is there a reason he's not mentioned? ·:· Will Beback·:·18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was deleted because Momento found mentioning Mishler's criticism unencyclopedic. I disagreed among others because Mishler's criticism was mentioned in Melton's encyclopedia' of cults. Andries (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s. According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints — that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use — found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.
It is a redirect to the page. Again, Misplaced Pages is not a puzzle where average readers have to connect dots via information that is available elsewhere, or even worse by digging into diffs at Misplaced Pages (how to find diffs is not prerequired knowledge for being a reader of a Misplaced Pages article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We had a long section on the names and meanings of them (in the "Childhood" section), but it was agreed that it was not necessary.
In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar.
Note also that currently one of the footnotes contains: "Balyogeshwar and his brother have ...":
Quoted from a 1992 publication (Prem Rawat was 25 at the time - "child"?);
This is the only other mentioning of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article. How are average readers supposed to understand that sentence, if it would not be indicated in the article that Balyogeshwar == Prem Rawat? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposing the idea of including the quotation I placed above. I would argue that if it is useful, it should be placed in the Childhood section and not in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my remark (and insertion of the alternate name) is really purely usability/navigational/"principle of least surprise". Not knowing what to think that you guys appear to be able to make anything as simple as that into something that needs to be included in a POV-pushers agenda. THERE IS NO POV IN MENTIONING THE ALTERNATE NAME OF AN INCOMING LINK IN THE LEAD SECTION. We do it everywere: Pontius Pilate's wife has six alternate names in bold in the first sentence; William III of England has at least as many alternate names in the first three paragraphs of the intro; Erik Satie has two pen names in the third paragraph of the intro; Bolzano of course mentions "Bozen" (and 5 other alternatives) in the first sentence of the intro, etc. etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar can be sourced to Cagan's book. I still believe that it is better placed at the Childhood section, has he was called these names only for the first 8 years of his life. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have once again had to remove the uncited material about Balyogeshwar. This is a BLP Francis, you can't just include stuff because you like it.Momento (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The material is cited to a RS (in fact, a RS that was already in the article) ; (2) You removed, without discernable reason, material that had a reference. Then, you also left the referencing footnote in the first sentence, while it is unclear why this would be a reference for the phrase where it is now attached to <ref name="Mangalwadi"> does apparently not use "Guru Maharaj Ji" when referring to Prem Rawat: that source uses "Balyogeshwar" when referring to him. All of this amounts to some pretty disruptive editing on your part. (3) why on earth would it be a BLP to mention an incoming redirect in the lead section? (compare Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title: "The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.") --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Mangalwadi reference Francis. You haven't provided a source for your addition "less frequently".Momento (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't dispute the name then please don't delete the name. It's unhelpful to delete parts that you don't dispute. If the name is disputed then the redirect should be deleted too. If the reidrect is undisputed then it should be mentioned here. Alternate names are traditionally mentioned in the lede. ·:· Will Beback·:·11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Pay more attention to what I write. I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source. But where did the "less frequently" come from if not out of Francis's OR.Momento (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, disruptive editing on your part. You could have removed the few words you contested, without removing the part you didn't contest. And even less disruptive, you could simply have followed what the third paragraph of Misplaced Pages *policy* WP:V#Burden of evidence advises: "...editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". I do object, while you're obviously too interested in finding ways to game the system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What Francis said. If you don't like "less frequently" then take it out. It is completely unreasonable and contentious to remove the whole referenced phrase. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor is responsible for their edits. Francis should never have put "less frequently" in, it is complete OR. So I am not removing "the whole referenced phrase" since the "whole phrase is NOT referenced". I don't believe Balyogeshwar should be in the lede. One, suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR. Prem Rawat is his legal name and he has chosen to use Maharaji ( formerly Guru Maharaj ji) and continues to do so. And two, Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.Momento (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento -- uh, you just said yourself 3 paragraphs earlier that "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." You're way out on a limb here. Seriously, pick your battles. This is a tiny, non-controversial thing. Alternate names go in the lede. I'm glad you're discussing this here but what you are saying makes no sense. Msalt (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Balyogeshwar isn't alternative name. It's an historic title of little consequence. If you put in Balyogeshwar, you have to put in Sant Ji.Momento (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about "have to", but I personally think 'Sant Ji' should be listed too. Francis? As I've said, the lineage through the Sant tradition is (to me) fascinating and a perfect example of the kind of information an encyclopedia should provide -- like noting that the band The White Stripes derive from the blues tradition. One doesn't understand them nearly as well without knowing that. Msalt (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Names related to Rawat's Childhood may well come within the purview of WP:INDIA, excising these names because they are 'historic' and therefore of little consequence would seem at very least to go against the spirit of WP:INDIA and it is surely poor manners to remove the Indian titles from the lede without any reference to WP:INDIA.
Historic things are not of little consequence? Balyogeshwar=Iron lady? I understood that Balyogeshwar means 'Born Lord of Yogis' I can remember that much myself from 1975 when I asked what it meant. (By the way he was still called that well into the mid-seventies and still IS known by that title to many Indians who are naturally uninformed as to how he's changed his name since then. Also there are Indians here in the UK who call him that still! Shouldn't they be able to find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? Watching this debate from a distance (rather than being personally subject to Momento's simply puerile, tortuous logic for once) it's very obvious that he is an outrageously hostile editor who is simply mocking the intelligence of the incredibly patient other editors here. I really think it's way beyond time he was banned from this article . There has been such consistent and vociferous complaint already something surely needs to be done now. I would classify his obstructive comments here as aggressive 'filibustering'. Msalt, and others.. have you considered the possible abject futility of ploughing on with your corrections here as you are patiently doing? I worry about your future sanity when you take a well-earned break to return only to find that he has completely reverted the article to his taste. That's what he is waiting to do. Is there anything that can be done to protect your work? You may have noticed I have been terminally discouraged from making actual edits. That is not because I can't, it's because I am not prepared to let him mock my efforts any more than he has done already. How many people actually stick around here to make substantial sense of this article? My observation is that 90% have fled in frustration and that is basically because no-one has successfully banned Jossi, Momento and their POV pushing friends from acting as if they own and should control the information in this article. Isn't it the case that Jossi has successfully banned some rather eloquent ex-premie voices from here for far less crimes? What is so fair about that when he tolerates this degree of disruption , year in year out from Momento?PatW (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) You do not have to shout; (b) I have banned no one; (c) I cannot and have not exercised my admin privileges in this or any other article I have actively edited; (e) I have warned editor, including Momento in many occasions; (f) despite all the brouhaha no one has been able to provide any evidence of abuse in editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if it is true that you have banned no one then I unmitigatingly apologise. But please tell me by what process have people been banned? I understood that some ex-premies were banned? Is that untrue then?PatW (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember, no one has been banned. Maybe some editors had their editing privileges temporarily removed, for disruption, personal attacks, or edit warring, but that's all. And these remedies were implemented by uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
PatW, I certainly understand your frustration, but I think you undercut yourself with your anger and personal attacks. Above all, please do not lump Jossi in with Momento. I haven't been here that long but from what I've seen Jossi has been (with only brief exception) patient, thoughtful, and fair-minded. He has even borne arguably patronizing advice from this noob with good grace. I can't find a single edit he's made to the article in 2 weeks. His talk contributions are, yes, mostly to the pro-Rawat side but not exclusively and so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. The COI filing on him failed because no one could list edits or administrative actions that bore criticism. Your apology to him above was very nice, thanks for doing that.
People can and should get chastised, limited or even banned for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Only Momento has in my brief time here, and he earned it for disruptive editing. Thanks for not doing that. Clearly, he is taking actions that risk some kind of permanent ban. But your attacks are also inappropriate, and in any case aren't doing your cause any good.
And thanks for the compliment and warning (patience but have you considered the futility?). I think I understand the situation. It COULD all be reverted -- any work done on Misplaced Pages is like that. Then again, peace has broken out in Northern Ireland and Liberia, so you never know. I'm inspired by the Tibetan monks who spend hours making beautiful sand paintings and let them blow away in the wind. Don't you think the world is a better place for that? Otherwise, all one can do is build bunkers. Msalt (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A better analogy might be that the Tibetan Monks paintings are being trashed by someone before the wind blows them away and that there are quite a few people that want to see those paintings who are being deprived of the opportunity. I've slept on your last question and I wake up with these thoughts: There may be no virtue lost in fighting, but ultimately losing a righteous battle. It is certainly more desirable to win a righteous battle and wiser to only engage in fights where you know your strength and are sure of winning. I understand there is some value in simply arguing for right but I think there is even more value in winning your case. WP fascinates me in as much as it is almost an experiment in defining ethics by teamwork. WP sort of invites unethical people to abuse/game the system and then people publicly challenge them on it, really only appealing to their shame to withdraw, but not actually forcing them. Interesting experiment indeed. PatW (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it incredible that anyone would claim Rawat is known as Sant Ji in the lede. Sant Ji is an affectionate term used by many Indian teachers and used about Rawat when he was a child. Why not put in Prem as well? Or Guru Ji. Or Captain Rawat? For more than 30 years Rawat has used either his own name or the title Maharaji (Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji), this is the only "alternative name" we should include. Balyogeshwar is a Hindi description given by others when Rawat was a child, not an "alternative name". Since there is no reliable, verifiable source that claims Rawat is currently "known as" Sant JI" I have removed it. Momento (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, above you wrote:
Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.
I answered
The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Misplaced Pages article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident.
I don't see any objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names. All of these names are used as redirects to this article. If you don't want them in the lede then which section do you propose we put them in? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"(Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji)" can stay in, at a certain point in time he disavowed to be further called "Guru";
"Balyogeshwar" should definitely stay in the lead, too different from the other ones, too "principle of least surprise" when redirected here. That it is less used is referenceable, still not understanding the fuss Momento makes about it. In fact he recognised it himself: "suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR" - it is no OR to state it is used less frequently. Instead of nitpicking, you're better informed what would be the best source for that, but as far as I'm concerned it doesnt need a specific source, it's self-evident. It is not "contested", unless for POINTy reasons;
I still don't think that it belongs in the lead. But if there is consensus to have it there, I would argue that it would be best to list them in chronological order, giving emphasis to his most known names (See WP:MOS. My suggestion would be , as per other biographical articles:
Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, December 10, 1957 in Haridwar, India), also Maharaji (previously known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji,) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.
Incorrect, he's still known as "Balyogeshwar", although that's maybe not what he chose: "being known as" is not what one chooses for oneself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as this source is still widely available, and people can read it, he's still known under that name. That's not something that changes in a few years, as is also apparent here - this has nothing to do with the reliability of a source, someone is "known as", or he isn't. The lead of William III of England states this king is "known as" King Billy. Whether he liked it or not. And without a reference, because that's not contested. So stop the nitpicking on trivialities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This 1992 print refers to Divine Light Mission, clearly dating it to the 70s. And please don't use self published websites as sources, they are expressly prohibited by BLP policy.Momento (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The "objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names" is simple and logical. Prem Rawat is his name and he calls himself "Maharaji". Putting in a foreign language courtesy title (Blayogeshwar) and an affectionate childhood name is unnecessary.Momento (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, is it too hard for you to wait for a consensus before editing? If "Sant Ji" isn't a name that Rawat is known by then we should delete the redirect. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing it because it doesn't have a source. BLP policy is clear " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're just pasting quotes without even *reading* them:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately
The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". I don't know why I always have to be the one to point out the obvious, Misplaced Pages demands sources as per "Verifiable" - Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. AND "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". This is basic Misplaced Pages stuff. Momento (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The quote only speaks about contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced. And your disruption has to stop. Your other new quotes only confirm what I say (BTW, it goes all back to a Jimbo Wales quote, who qualifies the type of information eligible for instant removal thus: "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" ). E.g. (with my bolding): "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". There's no blanket approval to remove uncontentious, unchallenged, and unlikely to be challenged material. Removing such material is known as Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Even if there's no reference yet. And you're slowly but with determination running out of chances to prove that you're not a troll or some sort of vandal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Changing the structure of sentence to alter its meaning is completely unacceptable Francis. The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". Not "contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced". Why aren't we following the Verifiability policy which clearly states - "that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source". It is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, no source, no inclusion.Momento (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, please cool it, OK? Can we stick for a while to a decent and constructive debate? Progress is being made, and will be made if editors keep away from each other's throats. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Much of a do about nothing? He was called "Sant Ji" until 8 years of age. Then he was called "Balygeshwar" along side "Guru Maharaj Ji". (Some in India still recognize him as Balyogeshwar from the early days). Then he was called just "Maharaji". All these names can be explained and are supported by sources. Can we at least agree on that first? Then we can look for ways on how best to present the information. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The principle is under what name he should be recognisable from the outset of the article. I gave my preferences above. Whether one is more historically correct or not is not the point. The lead section is about recognition: am I at the right article?, etc for readers who are or who are not acquainted with the article's subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Source for "Sant Ji": H. W. Wilson Company, Current Biography Year Book, v.35. (1974), p. 21.
Source for "Balyogeshwar" Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone I know and trust has written to me telling me that in India Rawat's followers generally have never known him as Guru Maharaj Ji, as that is a title given to practically any guru in India, but they know him as Balyogeshwar. Of course this source can't be used in the article, but it does cast doubt on Jossi's claim that the name was only used when Rawat was a child. My vote, for what it's worth, is that the name should be included in the lede. --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh? I said above that in India, some still recognize him as Balyogeswar. You may have missed it. Nowadays he is known as "Maharaji" and "Shree Prem Rawat" in India. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to point out that there are older Indians here in the UK who still call Rawat 'Balyogeshwar'. Shouldn't older Indian people be catered for to easily find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? What's the big deal in making the association clear and in the lede? Isn't it logical and appropriate to state what a subjects name is and was before you launch into further commentary? Especially if those names were significantly popular or widespread, as Balyogeshwar clearly was?PatW (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is agreement that the name "Balyogeshwar" can be used, as there are sources that verify that information. The discussion, I believe, is where to have that information, and if it suitable for a the lead. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi do you ever read what I actually write before trotting out some knee jerk response which shows that you haven't? Read again and you'll see I was saying why I think his popular name(s) should be made clear first thing.PatW (talk)
I just got home from work and had to read 4460 new words of discussion just to keep up to date on everyone's opinion of one word of text. Rumiton (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what's so beautiful about this place. It's not just about the end goal it's about learning to enjoy the journey. The beauty lies in arriving at an ethical consensus by debate even if that means debating minutiae, sometimes ad nauseam. :-)PatW (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, Jossi has given us sources for the use of "Sant Ji", a name that you deleted from the article because it was unsourced. Could you please restore it now? ·:· Will Beback·:·21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with putting affectionate names from childhood in the article. And I'm wondering about putting foreign language names like Balyogeshwar in English Misplaced Pages.Momento (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A) We have sources that indicate it was the name he was called in childhood. B) We have no sources saying it was merely an "affectionate name". C) We use that name in other articles that include redirects to this article. D) Your personal preferences are not the sole determination of content. You're welcome to disagree, but deleting sourced material based on your personal preferences is inappropriate. Unless you can find a legitimate policy reaosn to exclude this name, and to delte it from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I am going to restore it. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has gone for long enough, and we have sources now. Can we find a compromise and add these names (Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar) to the "Childhood" section as a compromise? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento's objections don't appear to be about the placement of the names in the article, but about their inclusion anywhere. It's normal to include all names in the lede, but there's certainly room for flexibility in that regard. There appears to be doubt that the terms were limited to his childhood, so it's not ideal. Perhaps a better solution would be to mention the names in the lead and then explaining his names as they are applicable to the different time periods. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We're solidly on target for Lamest Edit Wars with this one, I'm afraid. Glad we agree on having the name. How about putting the alternate names in a separate second paragraph of the lede? Msalt (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede. Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977. Sant JI was an affectionate Hindi childhood name not used in 30 years. This is English Misplaced Pages or should we also write Prem Rawat in Hebrew for our Israeli readers..Momento (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, please stop filibustering, and start informing yourself; e.g.:
"Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977" – we have at least two books, as far as I can see published in the Western hemisphere, and I don't even know which of these would be from 1977:
Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus Revised edition (July 1992). Cornerstone Pr Chicago. ISBN 094089503X (this is the one currently in the article - note that there's a 1999 revised edition too )
Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006 )
Momento wrote: "I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede". Apparently "Guru Maharaj Ji" was also a temporary title. Are there any legitimate reasons to exclude these widely-used names from the intro? If not can we please agree on adding these names to the article? ·:· Will Beback·:·22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, only Momento has objected to including these alternate names in the article, though I seem to recall that Jossi may have suggested placing them later in the article. How about a second paragraph in the lede to the effect of "Throughout his career, Rawat has gone by the names "Guru Maharaji Ji", "Maharaji", "Sant Ji" and "Balyogeshwar" in addition to his given name." Msalt (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Indian people give their children long names, rather as Greek people do. Then later they add nicknames and sometimes titles. It all really doesn't matter, these days he goes by his passport name, Prem Rawat, and is addressed as Maharaji by people who have known him for a long time. I do, however, object to the phrase he has gone by... It sounds as if he were a stage act or minor criminal. These are nothing other than alternative forms of address, in a culture where this is often done and connotes nothing. Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sant Ji (section break)
As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).
As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Misplaced Pages on this person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sant Ji was an affectionate diminutive for Prem Rawat as a child, never used since. Sant is Hindi, roughly means "holy man." Ji is not a name, it is a mild honorific, like Mr in English, or San in Japanese. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, Guru Maharaj Ji referred to himself as "Sant Ji Maharaj" in many letters to premies over the years in the 70s, including after he was married at age 16, by virtue of signing those letters "Sant Ji Maharaj." These letters were published in "And It Is Divine," and "Divine Times" magazines in which he was listed as the "Supreme Editor in Chief." They were published in the United States out of DLM Headquarters in Denver, Colorado. Sant Ji was a moniker that Rawat commonly used when writing to his devotees, so he absolutely was known as "Sant ji Maharaj." Here's one that was published in "Divine Times" in Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974, in which he thanks premies for providing him and Durga Ji (Marolyn) with his home in Malibu, California (the same one in which he now resides): Thank You Letter, and here's the one inviting premies to Millennium: Millennium Letter. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I think, Sylvie. I had forgotten that Sant Ji signature, it was a long time ago. Still, in 1973 at 15 years old Prem Rawat WAS still a child, so my statement really holds. I doubt whether it has been used in the last 34 years, and it still seems profoundly irrelevant. I was right about Ji, wasn't I? Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just learned that James Randi was also known as Randall Zwinge. How should we deal with it? I think we need to say something like "James Randi, formerly known as Randall Zwinge, a former magician claims Rawat was fat and a fraud". Any thoughts?Momento (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My thought is that your sarcasm is not constructive. There is a consensus that the other names used for Rawat belong on the page, as a natural part of an encyclopedia. Readers should know that the names point to the same person. To take you comment seriously for a second, feel free to edit the James Randi page along the same principles. Msalt (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So we still don't have "Sant Ji" or "Sant Ji Maharaj" in the article. It's entirely verifiable. If the theory is that things which happened 34 years ago are irrelevant we can cut out half of the article. If past actions are legitimate material for biographies then we shold include past names too. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There may be consensus that the names might be appropriately added some where but there is no consensus that childhood names should appear in the lede.Momento (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Momento, please re-add the "Sant Ji" anme that you've inapproprately deleted. As for the position, there's no consensus moveing other names. ·:· Will Beback·:·03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the names should be added, and that we still need to find consensus about the best section in the article to place the names by which he was known as a child. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The odds are good that s/he will, in my opinion. But it's still correct to add it. I've suggested adding all of the alternate names in the second paragraph of the lede. Did I miss a reaction to that compromise? Or maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. Anyway, whaddya think? Msalt (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but I'm not the editor who's edit warring over this. Momento appears to be holding this article hostage to his preferences. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we still don't have any mention of "Sant Ji Maharaj". Current footnote 20 says: "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of processionists culminating in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering." I suggest we add to the text it references (in the "Childhood" section), "...then known as Sant Ji Maharaj..." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback·:·21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Note
On the face of the lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, malicious edits, and other behaviors, please note that my recusal from editing this article was voluntary, and that I am seriously considering resuming editing. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, please would you provide evidence/citations of:
lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, giving examples to support your case
malicious edits, indicating what you think might have been malicious about them
other behaviors, presumably implying that any behaviors are somehow suspect
I've tried to find something positive to be said about Mr Rawat in external sources not controlled by him. Are there any. This search gives over 1000 references. I couldn't find one that was positive that wasn't published by Mr Rawat or his followers, i.e. there is no one independent out there who doesn't believe there's something a bit iffy about this guy. Why doesn't the wikipedia article reflect all that general feeling out there about Mr Rawat? At the moment wikipedia is making a laughing stock of itself as per the informer article 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was doing a Google Book Search on "Prem Rawat" and on "Maharadji" yesterday. You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat positively in the preface or intro of their book. So, no, I don't think this attitude of "generally, nothing positive on Prem Rawat is available on the web unless controlled by him" should be supported. It is speculative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Francis, but I think we can use the word wrong, not just speculative. Your search of prefaces and intros is illustrative. A simple Google search for "Prem Rawat" gives 116 000 results. I note that about 90-95% appear positive, and the negatives clearly emanate from the same fairly small group of sites and people. No doubt none of this is directly usable by WP, but it shows that his message has been well received by many, and I hope we will find a way to acknowledge that. (I have temporarily shelved my plan to produce a trimmed back version. Maybe we can get this thing to work.) Rumiton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Finally some evidence of the divine nature of The Knowledge, allowing you to discern rapidly from 116,000 links the proportion of which are favorable. Bravo Rumiton, you are a wonder! Keep up your great work here in wikipedia. You will be rewarded. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The above statement by 147.114.226.172 stands out for its disingenuousness. Including the term "Evening Standard" in the search string ensures the tabloid article by the paper of the same name appears in the results. Of course the results will be negative, that's what tabloids are all about. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Frankly, the disingenuousness of the post simply led me to ignore it. But good point on the 'evening standard" search term. Anon user, if there really is so much negative material on Rawat, why not simply find the really solid ones -- top notch journalists, academics and books -- and bring them to our attention? Msalt (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Evening Standard internet search showed the most recent press coverage of Prem Rawat. The Evening Standard is cited here in wikipedia in relation to criticism of another living person, Ken Livingstone. Presumably to cite such a link should also be ignored. After all, no one is claiming that Ken Livingstone is a living saint. Should we not consider the nature of the stories published in the press, rather than ignore them on the basis of implied ad hominem attacks against the professional journalists whose jobs depend on not writing defamatory material? Why is an Evening Standard citation acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia in relation to Ken Livingstons but not in relation to Prem Rawat? I think we should be told.84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding: "You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat
positively in the preface or intro of their book."
You misspelled "Maharaj Ji" in your post, so I hope you didn't in your
search. Prior to 1973, when referring to "Guru Maharaj Ji," most
American authors meant Satuguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba Maharaj. Until the
middle of 1973, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature referred to Prem
as "Balyogeshwar, boy guru." The "Inner Tennis," books are dedicated to
Prem. "Be Here Now" is dedicated to Neem Karoli Baba, but it just says
"Guru Maharaj Ji." For that reason, I also think it is important to
keep "Balyogeshwar" prominent at the top of the article.
Wowest (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Google Books search returns a manageable number of links. Let's see how many books there are that are not published by Rawat's outlets and not written by devotees who give him a dedication. That will narrow the field further. Then we will start to see just how much disinterested material there is on the goodness of Mr Rawat's message. Would such a survey be useful? 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic Headings
One of the unfortunate consequences of the inheritance of an overly hagiographic approach to this article is that unencyclopaedic headings have constrained the internal logic of the article. While the sources may be open to criticism I still think that User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources offers a better overall structure.
Certainly the current Headings: Leaving India, Coming of Age, and Westernization are wholly imbalanced. The headings suggest entirely personal events in the first two cases while the third relates entirely to a claimed change in the supposed 'teaching', but throughout the material concerns Rawat’s career as a Guru and the events that affected the structure of organisations – rather in the way that a family business might be affected in other circumstances. If this article is to be balanced, NPOV and comprehensive, the various threads need to be separated out and justified on the basis of evidence. Personally I would like to start re-writing whole sections – but perhaps some of the newer editors could first take another look at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources and indicate what they feel is not right with that approach.
God, yes I see and agree totally. It's funny how familiarity with the article's general look over the years has eroded my better judgement. Looking at that heading 'Coming of Age' I see it is dripping with respect. It implies some sort of stateliness or something. I guess I just got used to it but this is essentially the sort of tone I've objected to all along. Even in my premie days I would have been embarrassed at such public pomposity. It's simply looks so out of place in an encyclopaedia. Imagine if this was an article about any other living person -The Pope? Mother Teresa? Kennedy? The Queen? Nelson Mandela? John Travolta? Do you think any of these people would be comfortable about having stages of their lives, separated out and described in such terms? I mean..Nelson Mandela....'Coming of Age'? Doesn't work for me? Can any editors here justify why Rawat deserves language which possibly only befits historic royalty? Essentially the facts about Rawat are framed in language which itself says: 'This man's whole life - from childhood on - is extremely significant'. To be honest the fact that Rawat is so plainly comfortable at being projected in such reverential terms in public strikes me as extraordinarily arrogance on his part. Who does he really think he is? Or like the song we used to sing in the 70's and the book by Charles Cameron was titled..'Who is Guru Maharaji?' This is obviously the question he thinks the world should be asking.PatW (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The headings make sense to me. The Pope's, Mandela's, Travolta's articles describe their chronology in terms of what they were doing at the time. Rawat's life can be divided into his "Chilhood" in India, "Leaving India" for the west. "Coming of Age" is a crucial turning point in Rawat's life, becoming an emancipated minor enabled him to marry and assume legal responsibility. Like wise "Westernization". Let's see what you can come up with.Momento (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard. Off the top of my head - 'Childhood' (1957-1974)' and 'Adulthood '1975 -Present Day' would be far more enclyclopaedic. Would prefer to see is headings that no way smack of 'momentousness' (no pun intended)PatW (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Imho, there's much to be said for the article structure proposed by Nik in User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources. I think it's better than the current section title sequence of the Prem Rawat article.
Over-all Nik's prose would also be a major improvement (style-wise) over the often confusing prose currently in the article. Just picking a small example I think illustrative:
Despite being only 16 Prem Rawat was able to marry without his mother’s permission having achieved emancipated minor status in California and in May 1974 he married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American followers. (User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources#SCHISM)
compared to
In April 1974, at the age of sixteen, Prem Rawat became an emancipated minor, and in May, married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American students. (Prem Rawat#Coming of age)
Nik's version indicates that becoming an "emancipated minor" was tied to the place where he lived, and imho reads more fluently than (for example): "In April 1974, and in May "
As remarks, regarding Nik's version (all of this imho):
Lead section less effective than current lead section of the Prem Rawat article (although also for that lead section I'm far from finished suggesting improvements);
We don't do section titles in capitals only, when there's no distinct reason (like for example widely understood acronym);
I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue). In English, Nik's version has too many concepts for one sentence and so is clumsy and garbled. And telling the reader where the decree was made (California) seems unnecessary to me. As I have said before, this is not a book we are writing. We need to get rid of words that are not earning their keep in the article. BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony. Good work will be required to repair that damage. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue)" – might be (I said: imho), but my mother tongue does not contain the word "Muttersprache", FYI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, I am getting the feeling that the nitpickings about minutiae such as a complain about "unencyclopedic headings", or should a name be in the lead and not in a section are just nonsense, or should a sentence be re-constructed is totally unhelpful. The discourse here is deteriorating badly.≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Er... You started the discussion on whether "a name be in the lead and not in a section" - I didn't even contribute to that part of the discussion above in #Balyogeshwar (I said it should be in the lead per Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title, I didn't say a word on whether or not it should be in a section, which was your part of the discussion from the moment you started it). So, what you're implying is that you're deliberately trying to deteriorate the discussion here, or did I misread what you just said?
With text now imported: Adolescence, Schism,Interegnum and Charismatic Leadership. This gives the first two sections as related to Rawat as Child and Adolescent, with subsequent sections relevant to his claim to notabality - i.e his career as guru etc. The new text significantly increases the range of references for a period that is crititical to the explanation of Rawat's history as guru and his role in his 'movement'.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this? Weeks of discussions for simple stuff, and then one person comes along and changes the article entirely without a word? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that you can "import" your sandbox article without discussion? Have you noticed how much time we have taken to discuss things as a name, or a house? I am sure you have, so making such unilateral massive changes is either a silly maneuver, or outright disruption. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice, Nik. Shows how much you care for building consensus. I find your last edit and edit warring to be most disruptive of one of the most basic tenets of this project. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony.":
Please don't mix topics on this talk page;
Please, NPA (WP:NPA), comment on content, not on contributor.
If you must know, notifying Momento would have been a breach of good manners, as he had said to me: "I consider your frequent posting on my talk page to be harassment. Stop it." . I was clear about not being able to post on Momento's talk page for that reason when I listed the WP:AN discussion, so anyone uninvolved could have picked that up. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs). For clear reasons, I wanted to avoid as long as possible to discuss Momento's behaviour on multiple pages, certainly not on talk pages that should be devoted to article writing, while not the topic of these pages: WP:AN, on the other hand, is an appropriate place to ask for guidance on such things.
I tried to merge the topic of Momento's behaviour with other related points at WP:AN, unsuccessfully, but anyway notified about such discussions at WP:AN via this talk page (#Notification), the moment an admin had suggested it would be best to notify. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Many here have requested that someone who knows the system better do something to officially reflect our objections to Momento's disruptiveness. I unreservedly support his action.
And..maybe you premies might want to do what would really good mannered for once (since your contrived versions of this article have come under public criticism) and just sit back, relax, watch and learn what a comparatively unbiased editor makes of all this. I'm fascinated to see.. aren't you?PatW (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no "comparatively unbiased" editors here, if this were a trial, no neutral jurors could be found. Your shameless exercise in guilt by association and other red herring type behaviours have seen to that, and now we have to live with it. We have no choice now but to keep contesting. Same old same-old. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruminton...Yes, of course no one's neutral but that's ok. And it's not what I said. What I meant was that there are distinctly 'comparatively un-biased editors' here now. A very helpful third category of person if you will- who are very useful in mediating this debate. In fact you might want to loosely look upon them as a jury in this contest. Ie. People who are neither 'followers' or 'ex-followers' of Prem Rawat. It's not rocket science. Also, I maintain that you are mistakenly reading 'guilt by association' into my having argued above (apparently successfully) that there were actual comparisons with the People's Temple and Rawat's power structures, in that both cases practised some top-level secrecy and beliefs in the divine authority of the leader. I denied your accusations already. I welcome you questioning my conscience because it's clear and I feel no shame thanks. You are absolutely correct that this article is contested. You simply seem to be in a sulk that you, Jossi and Momento are losing the almost total editorial control you're used to and which was widely perceived as inappropriate.PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I claim "comparatively unbiased", for reasons I explained elsewhere. I recommend to avoid the use of the word premie, when referring to other editors, while not helpful. I'm not calling anyone here a premature birth either, am I? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No Francis, that does not fly on the face of evidence. Compare your treatment of some editors here, and your treatment of others. Rather than come here and help mediate a difficult situation, you have chosen to take sides in the dispute and that is too bad. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, anyone who doesn't agree with you on the spot on each and every point is in an opposing camp. This divisive attitude won't fly. Rumiton's approach has much more nuance, e.g. "Francis, I have seen some encouraging signs of neutrality from you." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I also claim "comparatively unbiased", and see Will Beback, Cirt and Vassyana as others just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Without arguing your point about Francis, Jossi, do you agree? Rumiton's claim of no unbiased editors disturbs me, as it seems to imply that bias is the norm and acceptable, if not preferred. As I said earlier, I felt suspicion on arriving here because I did NOT have a conflict of interest that people could categorize me by, and that is in my opinion backwards and wrong. Msalt (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We all have our biases, Msalt. The moment we start actively editing an article, our biases tend to surface. Having said that, I think that it there is no problem with this issue, we are all human, after all. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback and I go long ways, and I respect him greatly as an editor. So I feel about Vassyana. As for Cirt, I would prefer not to comment. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the several reasons why this article became unbalanced was because it had been left alone by the wider Misplaced Pages community to factions with strongly opposing POVs. Andries (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Er..Francis...I should maybe tell you that Rawat's followers are proud to be called 'Premies'. It is not a derogatory term. I couldn't use it as such if I wanted which I don't. PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, what do you think is more disruptive to Wikipeda, coarse language on the talk page or blatant double standards in assessing sources? I think the latter. Andries (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
TThe answer is obvious. There are no excuses for personal attacks, Andries. A dispute about assessing a source, can be mediated, and resolved. A personal attack, cannot. Misplaced Pages is not a place to rant, voice, or express, our feelings, opinions, and emotions about follow editors, or about subjects covered in the encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Jossi, I have tried many, many dispute resolutions on this article and I received often no response. Mediation with Momento was tried but aborted partially because you successfully made attacks on my good faith. I am willing to file a request for comments every week because there are so many unresolved disputes and this may be in full accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. You dismissed independent comments in dispute resolution as misguided and supported Momento's divergence from this comments. Do you think dispute resolution will help when some editors continue to use blatant double standards? Only for a short time and a little bit, I think. Andries (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Andries, the failing of that mediation was your own. You know that very well, so does the Mediation Committee members that looked at the case. You cannot enter into mediation if you preempt it with a statement that you do not believe in its outcome and you want to go to Arbitration. Your words, not mine. First steps of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, informal mediation and mediation, are useful when there is good will and intention to find common ground and compromise related to content disputes. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not hear a content dispute, taking only on issues related to user conduct. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unhappily for you I've got the nerve to call a spade a spade and I've had quite enough of the arrogance, barbed comments and plain disdain towards ex-followers (and others) that has been dished out here over the years. I'd like to point out that your apparent COI, rule book-waving and Momento's long-term walking over people's edits is actually at the root of the mistrust and rude outbursts that happen here. I fully admit to occasionally chastising people in a cross manner. You should thank me for losing it sometimes...it gives you authoritarian types something substantial to jump up and down about. Let's make no mistake the baiting cuts both ways. And by the way, I am laughing that you think Francis is taking sides. That to me just shows how deeply cultified your thinking has become. No offense.PatW (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article relies on 9 references from Downton, from a total of just 84. As a contemporary reporter of the 1970 period Downton is undoubtedly valuable however his work on the Divine Light Mission was coloured by a very specific perspective, about which he was quite explicit –
^ Downton, Sacred Journeys. " From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge, or life force, more fully. This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age."
The problem which arises is that nowhere do the references place Rawat in a wider context of ‘gurus’ as defined by Downton (or anyone else), nor is there any explantion of what ‘deconditioning’ Rawat employed nor how that fit within Rawat’s teachings. These omissions would not matter except that these issues underlay Downton’s study and to not make them explicit within the article while relying so heavily on Downton as a source, risks an unacknowledged promotion of a Downtonesque POV. Some reduction in the number of Downton references is probably desirable and/or replacement/complementing with Foss & Larkin who carried out a 30 month study in the same decade.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective; check what the source is used for. (b) All sources are coloured by the bias of the author (Kent, Foss & Larking, Meltion, and the rest of them), so what? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
a) Jossi that is untrue, Downton's opinions are stated as fact even when there are scholars who disagree with him See here
I've reverted the edit for now, since it splits the two sentences sourced to Downton in a way that makes it hard for the reader to follow the narrative. Also, looking at , I don't think van der Lans/Derks claim to be in disagreement with Downton. It seems to me that in their timeline they focus on the family split around 1975, following which Hinduistic elements were dropped in favour of a focus on Rawat's personal role as a teacher or saviour. That point is already made 2 paragraphs higher up ("... took control of the Western DLM, and as its sole source of spiritual authority, encouraged students to leave the ashrams and to discard Indian customs and terminology"). The point about a move towards more messianic beliefs is made by Downton as well, but he dates it – perhaps more precisely – to late 1976, also backed up by other sources. Since Derks and van der Lans explicitly refer to Downton's narrative as an extensive description of the ideological changes that occurred, I reckoned that his is the more detailed chronicle of events. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Jayen46601:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I admit that Lans and Derks may not have written in clear contradiction to what Downton wrote in this respect, but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. Andries (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective
At present 11% of all references in this article are to one work by Downton, given the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. the potential for imbalance is obvious.
(b)All sources are coloured by the bias of the author. It is a falacy to present all biases as equal. In this context Downton's work was undertaken with a predisposition to present the activity of 'deconditioning' in an uncritical and even approving manner, in fact Downton's proposition borders on an exceptional claim as per WP:V .
but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. I agree with Jayen that Derks & Lans rely on Downton's chronology but their analysis is very different and makes a useful balance, though it needs careful inclusion. My suggested text at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources is
With his mother and eldest brother having no legal claim within the US, and with opposition from within the American organization neutralized, Prem Rawat was free to exercise the role of lone charismatic leader to the Western branch of the Divine Light Mission. The first evidence of assertion of his control came in late 1976 when a policy of ashram closures that had been begun earlier that year under Mishler’s influence was reversed, while at the same time moves towards democratisation within the DLM following were curtailed Devotionalism became an even greater aspect of Prem Rawat’s ‘teaching’ and the millenarian ideology of the early 1970s fell from use. As the single charismatic leader, unencumbered by competing family members or challenged by assertive officials Prem Rawat reprised, albeit in a north American context, the distinctive role of a Sant Mat Guru.
Membership of Prem Rawat’s following had begun to change from 1975, according to Derks and Lans pre 1975 followers had been attracted by DLM’s Hinduistic ideology which “offered them an opportunity to legitimate their already existing rejection of the Western utilitarian world view”, while after 1975 new members included those who “had been very religious in their preadolescent years.” Derks and Lans suggest that this preadolescent religiosity, primarily Christian had been lost in adolescence but refound in the ‘satsang’ of Divine Light Mission. The new followers came to see Prem Rawat and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience making Rawat much more important for them than he had been for many of the pre 1975 members.
Footnotes44^ Price,M. Ibid.
At the same time the stress on the community premie, which had led to what was now viewed as excessive democratization, which was strongly repudiated by Maharaj Ji at Frankfurt, has now been controlled by the simple device of blocking public communication channels upwards to the head office. For more than twelve months now, the national publication which carried letters from premies, often extremely critical of other premies and the head office, (but never of Maharaj Ji), has not been printed. Instead premies receive an exclusive diet of full transcripts of Maharaj Ji's satsang at various festivals across the world. Maharaj Ji made it known that he disliked his satsang to be edited and only extracts of it published. At present then, premies have neither a public platform for discussing the mission's policies nor a vehicle for receiving an interpreted policy via the mission's officials. Such a situation, though increasing Maharaj Ji's control over the movement, does so at the cost of expansion and middle-management confidence.
45^ Björkqvist, K Ibid.
During the latter half of the 70's, the movement clearly returned towards greater world-rejection, although perhaps not reaching the same level as in 1971-73. The millenarian ideology had lost its credibility owing to a slowdown in the expansion rate, and the millenarian jargon gradually disappeared completely. Emphasis was placed on devotion to the guru, ashram life was again encouraged, and satsang meetings were arranged every evening.
46^ DuPertuis, L. (1986): How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. University of Guam
Charisma in Sant Mat / Radhasoami / DLM tradition can best be understood in terms of darshan for which, according to Bharati, "absolutely no parallel" can be found "in any religious act in the West . . . " (1970:161, cited in Eck, 1981:5). Darshan means "sight" - of the deity or the guru who embodies him/her, usually for the purpose of imbibing his/her divine powers or grace (Babb, 1981; Eck:1981). It implies sight on a rich multiplicity of symbolic and spiritual levels which demonstrate a complex mix of doctrinal and mythic, perceptual and visionary, interactional and experiential dimensions in the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his or her followers.
47 ^ Downton, James V., Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission, (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 p199
"Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, in 1976, the vast majority viewed the guru primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration but his appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices.
48^ Downton, James V., Ibid.
"Signs of rededication both to Guru Maharaj Ji and the inner guru became quite apparent. Most of the premies who left the ashrams in the summer of 1976 began to return in 1977, when more than 600 signed up to enter the ashrams in just a few month's time.
49 ^ Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans. Ibid.
One of the characteristics of these new members is that they had been very religious in their preadolescent years. In those years their religiosity had been characterized by the experiential dimension; they had felt a warm personal relation with Jesus. But this religiosity had disappeared, partially because they had been taught by their religion teachers at secondary school to think in a rational way about religious matters. They lost their capacity for religious experiences, and as a result, the Christian religion lost its plausibility for them. In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood. They came to see Guru Maharaj Ji and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience. This made Guru Maharaj Ji much more important for them than he had been for the pre 1975 members.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Nik, I believe that is neither an untested nor unsupported proposition. The notion that man needs to be freed from his conditioning is indeed a practically universal theme among gurus of all colours. Just to give some examples of similar concepts in the teachings of various gurus, expressed in their own terms:
L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) tried to free people of "engrams" and the "reactive mind" to allow them to reclaim their psychological freedom and innate capabilities, to become "clear".
J. Krishnamurti: Knowledge Is Conditioning. Q: What do we mean by conditioning? JK: Can the brain ever be free from all the programmes it has received? Is it possible through watching the very activity of thought? This watchfulness makes the brain extraordinarily acute, sharp, clear? This clarity is freedom.
Gurdjieff insisted that unreformed man is a machine: ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK ABOUT DEATH DURING THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one’s own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die.
Idries Shah: "Once they realize that no prizes are being given for correct answers, they begin to see that their previous conditioning determines the way they are seeing the material in the stories. So, the second use of the stories is to provide a protected situation in which people can realize the extent of the conditionings in their ordinary lives. The third use comes later, rather like when you get the oil to the surface of a well after you burn of the gases. After we have burnt off the conditioning, we start getting completely new interpretations and reactions to stories."
Adi Da Samraj: "You are habituated to exercising yourself and being conditioned and identified with conditioning in the lower aspects of your appearance here. When Called to exercise yourself intelligently relative to your conditioning and to “consider” it, you tend to become rather silent, or you start babbling and rehearsing your insides, resorting to your conditioned subjectivity, as if that is all there is, as if intelligence has no functional capability, as if you have no greater experience, no greater disposition, no Revelation."
Nirmala Srivastava: "The truth which can be actualized after Self-Realisation is that you are not this body, this mind, this conditioning from the past, this ego, these emotions, but that you are the Pure Spirit."
Indeed it could be argued that similar ideas underlie many of the world religions' teachings as well. So I do not see Downton as biased here, simply scholarly. I don't see him as uncritically supportive, either, as his very next sentence quoted above indicates (Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age.).
Van der Lans and Derks, on the other hand, write from an explicitly Christian perspective. This is not a problem in terms of their being used as a source here, but their allegiance to a Christian POV should be borne in mind. -- Jayen46616:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayen you've done Downton's work for him - but we can not assume that those references you give would have been accetable to Downton and we are left with Downton's assertion but no context against which to test it, in contrast say to Galanter. Yes I think I know what Downton meant but his was a speculative work and it needs balancing in an article like this. Lans and Derks religious allegiance is irrelevant because it does not form the basis for the hypothesis of their paper, which is concerned with group stratification. The criticism you note in Downton is of course criticism of the followers, and by extension excuses (in Downton's terms) the failure of Rawat as a Guru. The criticism is self serving (to Downton) because it leaves his proposition intact - I would describe this as very much not scholarly. But the need is for balancing references which is what I've suggested.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As a Professor of Sociology working in this field, I am sure that James V. Downton would have known a lot more about these matters than me. I think that he simply did not consider it so relevant to his present context as to go further into it. As for Derks' and van der Lans' assertion that "In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood." (= i.e. that they revived an aspect of their childhood connection to Jesus), this appears to me like it could be somewhat coloured by their Christian POV. I am not sure you would find the same statement in non-Christian sources. But okay, that was their view. Jayen46619:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think that Derks and Lans was a Christian source? They described converts to the DLM in a tradionally Christian society. Andries (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayen what Downton may or may not have considered relevant is not at issue - if the source doesn't provide the material it ain't possible to imply it. Downton's book fails on this basis, irrespective of his exalted status as a Professor. It's not a matter that Downton is wrong in his proposition regarding what 'gurus do', it's that there is no context in the book in which to place Rawat in respect of Downton's proposition. As Andries points out Derks and Lans proposition regarding premies connection to Jesus in childhood, is related to the express statement that converts to Rawat had a Christian background with Derks and Lans proposition follows from observation, and the observation is contained in one context. By contrast Downton observes something in Rawatism and then claims that as proof of a proposition, the context for which extends beyond Rawatism. I hope you grasp the logical differences in the two cases.
I am sorry, I can't follow your argument. I fail to see the significance of the sentence This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. What he is saying there is not anything extraordinary or controversial. Why should the presence of this sentence affect his suitability as a source? And why should we want to claim to know better? Isn't it simply our job to reflect the sources?
Re Derks and van der Lans' Christian viewpoint, this is mentioned and sourced in . (Also see Jan van der Lans; Frans Derks is the President of KSGV.) If an author writing about another religion has a specific allegiance to a Christian viewpoint, it may (or may not, depending on editors' consensus) be appropriate to identify the source as a Christian one where Christian beliefs enter into the argument. Same if an Islamic scholar writes about Christian beliefs and contrasts or compares them with his own faith; if such an author were quoted in an article about aspects of Christianity, then I would expect the source to be identified as an Islamic one. Cheers, Jayen46619:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that one of the books that Jan van der Lans (not Derks) wrote was commissioned by the KSGV (Catholic org.), but the one that I quoted here in this thread was not, and written both by Derks and Van der Lans. Andries (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had gotten my wires crossed there at first; but since Derks is the president of the KSGV and Jan van der Lans studied in a Christian monastery and then became an academic at a Catholic university (according to our article on him), I submit it does not make much difference. -- Jayen46600:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
From van der Lans' obituary: He had part-time appointments in the psychology department and the theological faculty of the Catholic University of Nijmegen, and although his work was certainly not without theological preferences and bias, he presented himself at both institutions as an empirically oriented psychologist.Jayen46601:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
But clearly Jan van der Lans and Derks tried to write neutrally and their articles were published in on topic scholarly magazines (Update) or University press (Mercer university press). Andries (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read one of their articles since then, I agree that it is neutral and scholarly. What set my alarm bells off was the apparent idea that Rawat had somehow usurped the feelings that Premies had for Jesus in their childhood. This seemed potentially self-serving, coming from a Christian theologian, who might see an emotional attachment to Jesus as somehow more proper than an attachment to another figure. But on the evidence of what I have read so far, I have no objection to their being used as just another scholarly source like all the others. Jayen46623:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons
Much of the edit warring on this article has revolved around disputes over the requirements of the WP:BLP. Perhaps it will help us move forward if we come to basic agreement on some of the issues involved. To quote the policy:
From lede: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
From Reliable Sources section: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material (see below)."
Two issues immediately come to mind:
1) Is all criticism "derogatory"? If not, how do we distinguish "fair" criticism from derogation?
2) Is the immediate deletion provision limited to "contentious" material?
I don't have any opinion on the first, except a gut feeling that criticism properly sourced is not by definition derogatory. I would love to hear the opinion of others though.
On the second question though, I think I can shed some light. In the Balyogeshwar section above, Momento accused Francis of changing the structure of that key sentence of the BLP policy quoted above to change its meaning, and argued "The sentence reads 'unsourced' OR 'poorly sourced contentious material'. Not 'contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced'. "
I believe this is not correct. After the initial paragraph, the BLP policy spells the policy out in greater detail. And the section specifically entitled "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" reads as follows:
"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."
That seems to settle the issue by making it clear that the immediate deletion policy applies specifically to contentious material. Agreed? Msalt (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all criticism is derogatory, Msalt. NPOV ask us to present significant viewpoints that are published by reputable sources, and BLP asks us to be most cautious in our evaluation of sources and external links. The issue that has been argued, is that linking to a self-published source that contains derogatory material, conjectural interpretation of sources, and hat does not meet WP:V is a violation of Misplaced Pages content policies. There is also the issue of undue weight that needs to be taken into account in this context, as it relates to sources and viewpoints presented. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Jossi. Very helpful. I guess I'm still unclear what is derogatory vs. what is critical but not derogatory. Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms. How do we distinguish self-published websites (or are all websites self-published by nature? Is it connection to a journal or periodical?) How can we tell if those criticisms are derogatory or verifiable but unpleasant truth?
Also, you mention conjectural interpretation of sources. That seems common, even to verifiable sources. For example, that allegedly "speculative sentence" by Miller. It seems only right to ignore such conjecture and not quote it, but must we throw out the entire source for such a common act? Msalt (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Msalt is talking about two different but complimentary paragraphs here. The first is a paragraph about the importance of references/sources, the second is about contentious material.
The first paragraph begins with "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". High quality references/sources is all about ensuring verifiability and eliminating original research because the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. The "reference/source" paragraph gives two examples of material that should be deleted immediately on references/sources grounds. The first material to be deleted is any "unsourced" material i.e. it has no sources at all and this is fundamental policy and the second material to be deleted is "poorly sourced contentious material" i.e. it has inferior sources and might be OK if the material itself wasn't contentious. Either of those situations should be corrected in any case but since this is a BLP they should "removed immediately and without discussion". Jimbo Wales provides the following comment in the Verifiability policy - "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". There is no suggestion that the material needs to be contentious to be "aggressively removed", only that it is not sourced.
The second paragraph concerns "contentious material" and describes three types of "contentious material" that should be removed. And they are - "unsourced contentious material", contentious material that "relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability" and contentious material that is "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". You'll note that this paragraph instructs editors to remove "contentious material" if it "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". In other words, you can cite all the sources you like but if the editor makes "a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph" is should be removed.
Thank you, Momento, for a very clear and detailed analysis. That's quite helpful. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion, agreeing or not? I have to say that I read the two sections and just don't see the distinction you do. Not that unsourced items are OK, but it's a matter of application. No one expects a reference every 5 words, yet sometimes the discussion here has been reduced to that level. In many cases, references already used on the article in fact document the "unsourced" points -- in other words, they are actually sourced but just not cited. It doesn't make sense to me that in a case like that, Jimbo Wales would want the uncontentious item aggressively removed without discussion. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A respected expert who writes that "Pavarotti was flat" is a criticism. An unknown who writes that "Pavarotti is fat" is being derogatory. The BBC Music website is published by a respected organization and may be a source for material on Pavarotti, a website created by an anonymous person is not.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And on the subject of "conjectural interpretation of sources", quoting Miller's opinion is fair. Misquoting a source is not. Remember this disgraceful example - Hunt's quote is - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions". Some editor's "conjectural interpretation" was "Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions". That is a conjectural interpretation on a massive scale.Momento (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Great to see some serious discussion on this issue. Regarding interpretation of words like "high" in "high quality sources" it seems to me that Misplaced Pages values reputation, and does so on the logical presumption that a source (which can include either a publisher, a writer, or the material they produce) who has worked hard to establish a reputation in a certain field can be expected to deliver neutral, high quality research. This is what makes their opinion valuable. "Self-published sources" are those without a carefully built-up reputation for neutrality, and in the worst cases may even have tried to achieve notability by the strength and consistency of their biases. Members of opposing religious groups and apostates, among others, fall into this category. Not all websites are self-published. Highly reputable sources often have websites, and the subjects of articles sometimes have their own, which are acceptable as sources with certain provisos. OTOH, forums and blogs which contain unknown and changing content are never acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
@Msalt: Your question about Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms. In these cases, rather than using the website as a source, you can explore the reputable sources listed there and assess their suitability for inclusion, as per arguments presented by Rumiton and Momento above, which is based on our content policies pof WP:V#SOurces, WP:BLP, and others. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Good call. I guess in this article, the question arises as to whether a web site such as I describe can be included as an external link. I don't really see anyone advocating the use of web sites like that as sources for contentious material in the article. Where we do use them, it seems to be for unchallenged items such as existence of the satellite broadcasts. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, such websites are not appropriate to be linked to. That is the opinion voiced by several editors here and in other noticeboards, an opinion that is based on WP:BLP and WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I thought you said earlier EL's containing criticism (if well and verifiably documented) were OK. Here you seem to say that the very existence of criticism makes a website inappropriate as an EL. Am I misreading your comments? Msalt (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Was just about to write the same sort of comment as Msalt's (but got ec'd). Msalt, indeed, in the external links section, we wouldn't provide links to dozens of webpages containing each separate aspect of what has already been covered in references. If a website is an acceptable summary of such material, we provide the single link. And we try to keep the external links section balanced too: it shouldn't give a disproportionate image of what's available on the web, in no direction. It is recommended in Misplaced Pages EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article: this also excludes to repeat sources that are used directly in the article again in the EL section (for instance, we wouldn't link to Melton sources, available online, in the external links section when they're already used as sources in the article) - a website that summarizes would be OK, even if it also contains material that are too much minutae compared to what we consider notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is recommended in Misplaced Pages EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article. Not really. Per WP:EL (my highlight): Misplaced Pages articles may include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).≈ jossi ≈(talk)19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the third paragraph of the lead section of WP:EL:
The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources.
Sure, but the EL guideline cannot trump policy. And if a site violates WP:BLP then the fact that it may contain material sourced to reliable sources, is moot. If there is such sourced material in that site, one can make a case for including that source, but we avoid linking to it. An extreme example to illustrate my point, the Stormfront website may have a list of sources or newspaper articles about an orthodox Jew that has committed a crime, but we do not link to it on that orthodox Jew's bio in WIkipedfia, do we? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion, thanks all. I think the reason we wouldn't link to the Stormfront would not be whether or not it included valid sources, , but because it is not reliable and is of course hate speech. (I've been on the other end of that exchange, having Stormfront or some page like that link to MY web page with a favorable comment, just because it criticised mainstream politicians. Yikes!)
I'm troubled by the idea that we can't link to a website unless it also meets BLP. Misplaced Pages imposes very strict standards on itself, for good reason, but some of these standards are not required for verifiability. For example, on this talk page Momento argued that we couldn't link to a site because it contained original research. That's a Misplaced Pages standard, but in fact it seems like original research is exactly what we seek from our sources (provided they are reliable.) Similary, we impose extremely strict standards on our BLPs, but I'm not sure it makes a website or book unreliable or unverifiable if it doesn't share those very strict standards. I'm not sure any websites on earth about Prem Rawat would meet a strict reading of BLP, other than one he published himself, and only then because self-published sites are granted exemption from some of these standards. Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your second paragraph, Msalt, this might clarify a bit: (aka the brainfart - no offense taken).
In short, we need secondary sources to establish notability; once notability (with all the connotations attached to it in Misplaced Pages context) is established, a topic can be included in the encyclopedia. Then, and only then, it can also be illustrated by a measured amount of primary sources. Thus, a two step approach. Compare WP:PSTS (policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be troubled, Msalt. It makes sense, it has been agred upon by other editors, as this is standard practice. From WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Questionable sources reads: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Also note that WP:SELFPUB self-published sources are acceptable on articles about themselves, with some caveats. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the specifics of the external links discussed. I created this section to try to reach some common ground on the broader policy issues, as a foundation for reaching consensus on specifics. The point that I'm not sure you've addressed, Jossi, is the gulf between the very strict requirements of BLP, and "questionable sources." In my opinion, very few of the acknowledged reliable sources would meet all of the requirements of BLP. But they don't have to, as long as they do NOT have a poor reputation for fact-checking, their views are NOT widely acknowledged as extremist, they are not promotional, and they do not rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
To take this away from the specifics of the case at hand, I would say that my own website "The Skeleton Closet" is a reliable source that does not meet BLP but would be valid as an external link. And indeed, it IS used as an external link by a number of Misplaced Pages pages. Everything I list comes from a reliable source, generally books or leading newspapers and magazines. I add some POV but the views are certainly not extremist, and they all rely heavily on well-documented facts. Original research is the perfect example-- perfectly acceptable, indeed welcomed in a reliable source but not acceptable in Misplaced Pages under BLP. Don't you think? Msalt (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You make me smile, Msalt. To continue with the good start you have made here, I think you are going to have to separate your Wiki editor self from your other, scandal reporting persona. I think you can do it, others have achieved cleavings like that without becoming terminally schizoid. I just had a look at your Skeleton site and found it to be an immaculate example of the kind of external link that Misplaced Pages must avoid like the Black Death. Case in point, chosen at random (and I never even heard of this chap) Gary Bauer: This righteous little guy took tens of thousands of dollars from the Moonies, dodged the draft and is alleged to be having an affair with a twenty-something woman, despite his marriage of 27 years. I should not even be quoting that in this public talk page, it breaks just about every Misplaced Pages rule there is, not just BLP. I am sure after the discussion so far you can see the problems for yourself. Not that there is not a place for Skeletons, and other websites like it. Misplaced Pages just isn't that place. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be WP:CIVIL in these discussions. Inflammatory language and belittling statements such as "I think you can do it" are not what this article needs at the moment. Content-wise, OK you've found a summary that is probably over-written. Sorry. But it is summarizing a detailed discussion of those criticisms that is supported by reliable sources with hyperlinks to each, on a non-partisan, public, signed and long-running web page, published by an organization and written by an editor who answers nearly every email and often corrects or improves content from those emails.
What exactly are you objecting to? The fact that the page summarizes criticisms? A bit of purple writing you managed to find? I think you continue to make the mistake of imposing Misplaced Pages's standards on every source mentioned on Misplaced Pages. Can you address the example of original research? Do you think we shouldn't link to any web site that contains OR? Msalt (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I appear to belittle, that was not my intention. I was just trying to say that putting some of our other pursuits behind us is crucial to a neutral Misplaced Pages result. eg, I was in the Australian military for a long time in a fairly senior career position, and in private I am a fierce defender of the Australian military record, and for that matter, Australia in general. Yet I hope and believe the Australian and US Navy articles I have edited have not reflected this. I have just tried to improve the focus on the issues at hand. And yes, I DO believe, especially in the case of a living person, that any place we send our readers to becomes a part of the article, and needs to be of just as high a quality as the article itself. If you or I were to become the subjects of a Misplaced Pages article (don't laugh, such things can happen) I believe we would become firmly of the same opinion. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have any difficulty separating the hats I wear as publisher of a website, and as Misplaced Pages editor, nor do I think I am being particularly defensive of your criticism (though I'm sure some would disagree.) The only reason I mention my site is that I think, as it happens, it is almost an ideal-typical example of the kind of website I am curious about -- well-documented and non-partisan yet critical. If it helps the hypothetical, imagine a similar but better website with all snark removed and the most impeccable sources possible, a sort of online encylcopedia of religious figures -- by Melton, if you like -- that summarizes criticisms of them from a meticulously fair witness POV. Say, a Snopes.com for criticism of spiritual teachers. Quality would not be the issue.
Do you think such a site would be permissible, or is the focus on criticism by itself disqualifying? And why would original research on such a site would make it less acceptable? Msalt (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The insurmountable problem is, who decides a website is "well-documented and non-partisan yet critical"? You? Me? Someone's ex? That's why "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.Momento (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, I'm not the least bit impressed by your endless recitation of policies and guidelines. But that troubles me not. What troubles me is your usurpation of consensus, where there is none – aided by dubious quotes of input by others, that did not establish consensus either. For instance you refer to a WP:ANI discussion. Here's the link to it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken. Six people participate. Three defend your stance. Three defend my stance. On each side *one* uninvolved. The arguments of Relata refero and of ThuranX (both on your side in this debate) were copied above to #By website. And rebutted (that is to say, Relata refero's was; ThuranX's is so full of unclear and unfounded depreciating comments that it is still waiting above for a clarification). And then you're building on this "hearsay" to make it sound as if this was some kind of unalterable "consensus" established above our heads. Will not do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus cannot trump policies, Francis, and my point is that linking to these sites breaches established policies and guidelines/ If there is a need to clarify policy and there is no agreement on how to apply it, then will need to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which I proposed a week ago. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Applies, explicitly, to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Extrapolation of ArbCom rulings beyond their original scope is discouraged (there are some comments by arbitrators about that, could look up the links if you need them). Anyway, from that same ruling: "It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)." So, again, I ask you to clarify what I asked above in #Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom decions are no case law, but they represent best practices and applications of policy. As I am not adding any links myself, your question is unnecessary harassment. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You added links to the talk page, still recently. The Sathya Sai Baba ruling you linked to explicitly states "...and talk pages". That the Sathya Sai Baba ruling (which is also a content ruling disfavoured by more recent arbitrators) does not apply was brought forward by me in your defense too. Nonetheless, I'm going to ask about your affiliation to Rawat-related websites whenever I think this pertains to the discussion at hand (I mean when the unclarity about it lingers above the discussion). Of course, you're free to answer or not. The insights you provided in the pages linked from my user talk page give no clear answer to the question I asked. So I feel free to ask too. And will take no anathema, or worse, on the issue. I mean, it would be better for us to learn from yourself what this is all about, than read distorted information about it on other websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Have I added external links to this page? If I had, it was in the context of sources requested by you or others. And I have asked you politely to stop asking questions that you should know better than not to ask. And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. I think you are crossing a line that you should not with that line of questioning. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
discuss the edits, and not the editor; also from WP:COI: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think if the article we were working on were George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, anonymous DomainsByProxy sites reporting hearsay would not even be considered as suitable external links for an encyclopedia, and I can't see why this article should be different. -- Jayen46622:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Frances, let me give you some hypothetical examples: If someone started an anonymous DomainsbyProxy website and wrote about you that you used to be an 'alcoholic' and that they carried you up the stairs of your home on various occasions, or if they allege that you smoked cannabis every night of the week in November 1983, isn't that Hearsay in United States law? As for anonymous websites making defamatory statements, I believe that GoDaddy.com and DomainsbyProxy will only reveal the identity of an anonymous online defamer if you can prove that the statements made about you are false. Now, how would you go about proving that such statements are false? What redress would you have? -- Jayen46623:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you welcome my input I thought I might add that as a reasonably earnest truth-seeking and ethical person I personally wanted to know about the veracity of those statements from Michael Dettmers and so arranged to meet him and ask for myself. I would make my own mind up. He told me personally all of those things and more, and importantly, that he was not afraid to stand by his words. In fact he said he welcomed Maharaji to sue him for defamation. Dettmers subsequently put his name to all the 'hearsay' he published on these websites. He personally told me that he knew Prem Rawat wouldn't sue him because essentially he was telling the truth. Make of it what you will. As far as I know, all those reports were made not on an anonymous website but on ex-premie.org and the ex-premie forum. Those are not anonymous Domainsby Poxy sites are they? And none of the people who made allegations mentioned above chose to be anonymous -quite the opposite. Sure these things have been denied by the organisations and are dismissed as hearsay but did they sue for defamation? Talking of redress, Jayen. Don't you think Rawat who has indeed sued critics who 'slipped up' and actually committed an offence, would not hesitate to sue these people if he had a case? He has had that option for legal redress as would anyone who was slandered publicly by known persons. PatW (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, thanks for making the enquiries. However, please try to see the bigger picture. You say that many of these statements attributed to Dettmers and Mishler on the anonymous, self-published website can be sourced to posts on ex-premie forums. If we accept information derived from such sources here, then it should be according to a principle that could equally find application in any other Misplaced Pages article on any other notable figure. We cannot make special rules specifically for this article. Now, internet forums, blogs and self-published websites are explicitly excluded as reliable sources according to present Misplaced Pages policy, especially so where the allegations made are derogatory or otherwise contentious. The same goes for first-hand personal knowledge – it is inadmissible as a source in Misplaced Pages. The standard is verifiability, not truth. And a forum post or a self-published website explicitly does not meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability criteria. What Dettmers says may very well be the truth. But would this be so in any case where an anonymous website repeats an allegation made by a person in an Internet forum? Most definitely not. I do not see how including such information, even as an External Link, could possibly be compatible with WP policies and guidelines. Try to think of the potential abuses that could and would occur if a principle were established that anonymously hosted renditions of allegations made in Internet forums qualified for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It just doesn't work. Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of repeating unpublished, personal recollections of a person. I know that it is very trying, but I am sure you can see the validity of the principle if you transpose it to the article on any other person than the one we are dealing with here. Best wishes, Jayen46614:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayen, I perfectly well understand this and have never sought to include this material here. I just don't quite understand the perception that ex-premie.org is anonymous or whether you are aware of the following. There is an interview with Mr Dettmers published on ex-premie.org Ex-premie.org published that interview with his permission. That is a quite separate thing to his forum posts of course. Why do say ex-premie.org is anonymous? Maybe it's a technical thing I'm unaware of but I thought that the people in charge were quite transparent about their identities. I have no idea where all this is going but I personally think that the rules are being wielded so literally and with Jossi's ever-present COI as such a major factor that a fair article simply cannot be achieved. IMHO This constant contesting ad nauseam can only be broken if some higher level Wiki consensus is brought to bear. I have no confidence to do anything other than sit in the wings and hope that this happens. Frankly as long as Jossi's 'clarity' about WP rules is enforced everybody is apparently impotent and wasting their wisdom. I like a debate where consensus can be reached but that is plainly not in Jossi's equation. PatW (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How many warnings need to be issued to you by how many editors, for you to stop making such comments? FYI, there is no "high-level consensus". This is it, and as painful and tedious as it may be, that is the way it works. There are no shortcuts to WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pat, I was referring to the anonymous registration of one of the websites (www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/). If some of the material hosted there, or in the ex-premie forum, is taken from another source, and that source can be considered reliable, then the material could be included. A source doesn't become unreliable by being quoted on a website that is unreliable. It's just that you would look up and quote the source directly then. Jayen46602:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The argument was rebutted above, at #By website. Note that you're making statements, that are in no way anonymous, seem like they're anonymous. Distortion of information. And rebutted, while referenced in the source to material published elsewhere (in sources found reliable enough to act as references *until this day* in the Prem Rawat article), with name and everything to it. No, straw man argument, and again, starting the same argument, that was already discussed in another section and rebutted, apparently not according to your liking there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, if you want to contest it, do so above, then we can see whether your doubts match up to the arguments already provided. I really dislike this method of running away from a discussion when you run out of arguments, and start a new one in a new spot, proposing the same arguments as if nothing had been said yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the end it starts to amount to some sort of trolling.
Don't be surprised that I reiterate my argument, again, that you should probably be disqualified from taking part in the decision of which EL's are listed in the Prem Rawat article. You have a professional interest in Rawat-related websites. You don't want to clarify how profound that interest is, but from all we know it is professional. You don't get to decide on the representation of your competitors' websites in Misplaced Pages. No amount of forumshopping, wikilawyering on BLP, NPA and other policies/guidelines, etc can alleviate that situation, unless you're prepared to clarify the situation and we take it from there.
My understanding is that DMCA compliance and OCILLA enable a copyright owner or trademark holder to effect removal of infringing information from a website. However, this does not lift the anonymity of the website owner. The owner has to comply, otherwise the ISP takes down their site, but their identity is not revealed to the complainant. As far as I know, DMCA and OCILLA have no application when it comes to taking down defamatory, as opposed to infringing, material. Taking down defamatory material and having the identity of an anonymous defamer revealed is, from what I have read, a fairly complicated process. The first problem is that courts are reluctant to assume jurisdiction, since by definition, the location of the anonymous website owner is unknown. If, for example, it should turn out that they are abroad, the court may find that they started a proceeding that falls outside their competence. The other difficulty, already alluded to earlier, is that the plaintiff must be able to prove conclusively that the information given is factually wrong (the interests of the complainant are balanced against the right to free and anonymous speech on the Internet). Delivering such proof may involve considerable difficulty, especially where the allegations made are of a personal nature and/or concern events which occurred some time ago and were not subject to any public record. In addition, there is the fact that any attempt to take legal measures will also involve publicity, which will ensure that the allegations gain much wider currency than they otherwise would. In such a case, it is possible to win the lawsuit but still lose the battle, since, to put it simply, mud sticks. For example, I can remember several cases where celebrities were accused of sex crimes; even in those cases where it was subsequently found that the accusation was malicious or unfounded, what the public remembers is the association with a sex crime. Jayen46618:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I ask again, to consider the next step of dispute resolution, if we can find no agreement on the application of WP:BLP and WP:EL to these anonymous sites. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is missing information from that edit, as per the source (my highlight):
The 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, the Indian-born "perfect master" who claims six million devotees worldwide, has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday. Land and buildings purchased there for $400,000 will also serve as the West Coast headquarters for the young guru's movement, known as the Divine Light Mission.
There's a lot of information in that article that isn't included here. I've added that it was announced to be the WC DLM HQ. The article also says the DLM's monthly income was $300,000, split between donations and investment income, lists the number of U.S. followers as 50,000, and gives a defence of his spiritual message despite his lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What an un-encyclopedic addition! What relevance does it have? BLP policy is clear "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". The short answer is that it has no relevance, it is undue weight, it is poorly sourced contentious material. I'm removing it according to BLP policy.Momento (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of a newspaper.Momento (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A reference from one of the leading newspapers in the United States is "extremely poorly sourced"? That's rdiciculous and your deletion of properly sourced material is disruptive. I call on Jossi, an involved admin, to render his opinion of whether the L.A. Times is an inappropriate source for Misplaced Pages, and if it is then why a non-scholarly biography is considered reliable. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, religious scholars and sociologist are more interested in describing beliefs and practices than describing property transfers. A newspaper is a better source for this kind of information than scholarly sources. Andries (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that the argument should be on the basis of "poorly sourced", Will. The question is, "is the purchase of a house encyclopedic, or not?" What do you think? Are there other BLPs in which a purchase of a house is featured? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The Arnold Schwartzenegger wikipedia article cites the Los Angeles Times in relation to his alleged sexual misconduct. That is presumably encyclopedic because people are interested in reading about it in the encyclopedia, just as they might be interested in a less notorious person's mysterious property portfolio. The reason why this is encyclopedic in this context is that once people become celebrities then such facts become interesting - the more so if accompanied by efforts of some to hide the information. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Before we get to that question, first let's deal with WP:V and WP:RS. Momento says that the Los Angeles Times is an "extremely poor source". and that material referencing it is "poorly sourced". Is it a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback·:·04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends on context, Will. A source can be reliable in one context and unreliable on another. The usability of sources are to be assessed together with other criteria such as NPOV, undue weight, and BLP policies. Read the lead of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What Prem Rawat or anybody else pays for a house is irrelevant to the article. The article is about Prem Rawat, not about what house he bought and how much he paid for it. The article is about Rawat's significance, not his living situation. Armeisen (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Per the Los Angeles Times: "West Coast headquarters for the DLM" were run out of Prem Rawat's home. This is relevant to this article, as it is notable that the Divine Light Mission was run out of his home. Thus the house that he bought and how much he paid for it can be seen as funding for DLM at the same time as his own use, and is relevant, discussed in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, and should be mentioned in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Plus the fact that major news sources such as the Associated Press, Reuters, etc., often report on the purchases of expensive homes by public figures and celebrities. It certainly is relevant to their lifestyle, and, if able to be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, is relevant to articles on notable public figures. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not relevant to this article. What evidence is there that DLM was run out of his home? Did DLM exist when he bought this home? I think not. Where did the author get the information? It's just rubbish that someone wanted to use to sell newspapers. For all your criticism of the "brainwashed" followers of Rawat, you are certainly naive when it comes to what appear in newspapers. I'm a follower of Prem Rawat, and a critic of the "truthfulness" of the media. Some of you people seem to believe that whatever anyone writes in a newspaper must be correct. And I suppose you all fall down and genuflect when George W. Bush talks about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or do you have some other agenda in this debate? Armeisen (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a framework for discussing this question. On the one hand, this is not in any way a violation of BLP. On the other hand, that does not mean it belongs in the article, per Jossi's point. The important comparison, I think, is other speaker/authors of note, whether religious, spiritual, or secular. Can we agree on that?
Let me elaborate. This is not a BLP issue, which means Momento that you are not justified in unilateral provocative deletions exempt from 3RR. There is nothing derogatory; purchase of a major property is a sign of success, though of course it suggests affluence if not wealth (which Rawat has never denied or apologized for, as near as I can tell.) It is clearly notable; the property itself is notable, whoever purchases it. If launching a satellite distribution network is notable, then certainly purchasing a major property as DLM headquarters is too, esp. in a narrative depicting that year as a time of difficulty (the split from his family, loss of some followers, etc.) And the source is impeccable -- the Los Angeles Times does not falsify real estate deals, which are clearly documented in public records. Momento calls this contentious -- does anyone dispute that Rawat purchased this property?
Now, none of that means it belongs in the article necessarily, but it means we should discuss it under normal rules, with proper discussion, consensus, etc. not BLP-based "aggressive deletion."
Jossi's point is the key one, I think. As I've said before, the comparison should be other speaker authors such as Robert Bly, Tom Peters, and Deepak Chopra. (If anyone has better comparisons, please share.) I don't think we would list this deal for any of them. Then again, we don't list all the ups and downs of their careers the way we do with Rawat either.
I suggest that the best course would be trim the article down, paring much of the ups and downs, including this edit. But if we continue to keep all of that type of narration, I think this point belongs among it. I would shorten it, and make it a bit more NPOV, by saying something like "In 1974, the DLM purchased a secluded hilltop property in Malibu, CA for $400,000 as its West Coast headquarters. Prem Rawat and his wife have lived there since." It might make sense to combine this with the statement about him living in America since he became a naturalized citizen around the same time. There is a touch of criticism for wealthy living in it as it stands, which I think should be excised. Msalt (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The material in the L.A. Times article is sourced directly from the DLM. In the text that Jossi has transcribed it clearly says that the purchase was "announced". Many assertions, including the time spent in Pacific Palisades, the income of the DLM, the defense of his lifestyle, and the size of the group, are attributed to DLM officials. So this is not muckraking, it's reporting on an announcement by a notable public figure. Aside from the details of this report, I think it's important for us to establish whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A guru buying a house for himself in Malibu for USD 400,000 is quite unusual and relevant for his notability. Remember that Rawat was criticized for his lifestyleAndries (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"Secluded, hilltop property?" "Palatial, walled estate?" Check your browser. This is Misplaced Pages not the National Enquirer.Momento (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering how many times an editor can remove this contentious material, I'd like to draw your attention to the BLP policy that states - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". It is clear that in reducing two articles in the LA Times to two sentences Will Beback has made "a conjectural interpretation of a source".Momento (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, sometimes I get the impression that you read the policies and guidelines with the sole purpose of getting rid of statements that you do not like. Your twisting and misinterpretations of guidelines and policies seems to be endless. Andries (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The chief article cited is titled "Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area". The source is the L.A. Times which has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper. What is being conjectured or interpreted? That's an unreasonable and unsubstantiated claim. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have reduced a 379 word article to less than 20 words? Are you sure your summary accurately reflects the source? Are you sure it didn't say anything about 6 million devotees or security issues? Or even "Maharaj Ji has made a considerable impact among American youth"? Because if it does, you have deliberately distorted the source by cherry picking 5% of the article and ignoring the rest. And that is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" and we should all know what that means. That's why scholarly articles and papers from experts in their field are the preferred sources for a BLPs and not newspapers articles. And Francis, you have re-inserted it and "Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". Perhaps you might self revert?Momento (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't find your answer. (The best I can see is "Depends on context...") You've read the specific article in question so you know the context. Momento says that it's "extremely poorly sourced". Is the L.A. Times a reliable source? Or if you prefer to answer more narrowly, is the cited article a reliable source for the assertions drawn from it? ·:· Will Beback·:·22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the argument of "poorly sourced" does not apply here. What applies here is editorial judgment in relation to the encyclopedic value of such material, as well as what material is chosen to be cited from the material. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you don't agree or disagree with Momento's assertion that the material must be removed because it's "extremely poorly sourced"? You have no opinion abot whether the L.A. Times is a reliable source? OK, since I can't get a straight answer here I'll take this to the reliable sources noticeboard for an opinion. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I need to make my argument so that you accept it? I am not arguing that the LA Time is an unreliable source. I am not arguing that the material is "poorly sourced". I am arguing that editorial judgment about suitability of material, in the context of all other existing policies' needs top be exercised, in particular in BLPs. That is all. Clear now? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking you about your argument. I'm asking you a simple question. Is the L.A. Times a reliable source for this article? Momento has said "no" and has deleted all material sourced from there. Aside from the details being reported and their suitability, do you agree with him that it's an unacceptable source? I'd think you could answer that question sinceyou've ofered your opinions about numerous sources both on this page and on the WP:RS/N. But if you're too conflicted to answer I understand and I won't repeat it. I've posted the question to get an opinion from uninvolved edtors. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight) Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You're saying the LAT "can" be a reliable source, which doesn't address the question directly. I'm asking "is" the LAT a reliable source? It's a yes or no question. I won't press you on it any further. But if folks here start arguing that the LAT and NYT are unreliablee sources because they aren't scholarly while at the same time defending a non-scholarly biography then they'll give the appearance of a double standard. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What I am arguing, Will, is that it is not a yes or no question. There is no such a thing: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. That's all. 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
I said I won't press you in it, so I'll just point out that the specific context in this case is known so we should be able to make a determination. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Protected for one week.
I have protected this article for one week in the face of the simmering and apparently increasing edit warring going on here. I strongly suggest that you work out the content issues on this talk page, civilly. Nandesuka (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} This material should be removed ("An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’. Following an incident in which the young Rawat had a shaving foam ‘pie thrown in his face, the pie thrower, radical journalist Pat Halley was viciously attacked with a hammer by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji.") for the following reasons.
The only source provided is the magazine that employed Pat Halley, who threw the pie.
The source does not say "An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’". It is Nik Wright2's unsourced OR.
It goes against BLP Policy - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability".Thanks Momento (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The incident was reported by the Associated Press. They were careful enough to say that Haley told police that he was beaten by followers, but the AP doesn't make that assertion themselves. It also says that there were no arrests. When the protection is lifted we should make that distinction. I assume that the AP is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This happens when an editor bypasses consensus and discussions, makes a massive edit, enters into an edit war, and the page gets protected because of that. The page should not have been protected. If this is not disruption, Will, what is? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. If an editor makes a bold edit which is subsequently reverted, then does not revert again and discuss and seeks consensus without further revers, that is the preferred way, as you well know. Of course, if the material is a possible BLP violation, we apply the do no harm principle, and leave the material out while discussing and seeking consensus. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. It appears that the claim of "possible BLP" violations have been extended to the breaking point in this article. Removing the subject's childhood name, despite ample sources and consensus, and without any legitimate claim to a BLP violation, is an example of policy abuse. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have told you before Will BeBack, I removed the phrase "less frequently Balyogeshwar". Which was unsourced. I'm sure in time someone will correct the lede to say "and Balyogeshwar in India" because that's were the source comes from.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on, Will. I start doubting your ability to remain impartial here. How can you compare a silly editwar about a name, with the behavior by NikWright? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are too many silly edit wars going on here, including those the violate consensus. I'm not defending NikWright's behavior. I hope you're not defending Momento's. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Jossi, I would welcome mediation or other DR on any of these issues at any time. I'm unfamiliar with the process for initiating it, but welcome specific suggestions from you or any other experienced editor. So I'm certainly a "taker", but I'm not the one edit-warring. Msalt (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It may not seem like it to you, Jossi, but I think that to many, including myself, there IS an impression that you are defending Momento, for a couple of reasons. First, on this Talk page you are very quick to caution, chastise or disagree with others, but rarely seem to do so with Momento, even in the fact of very aggressive and unilateral behavior. Second, in the discussion over the Administrator's Noticeboard complaint, on several occasions you explicitly defended Momento , , , argued against sanctions on M. or rebutted the criticisms of M. , , . If you made any comments in that discussion that did not resist the criticism or sanctioning of Momento, I was unable to find them. When you have criticized Momento, like on M's talk page as you note, it has been very effective. I truly think that a few more words from you to Momento now and again would do wonders to calm this page -- more than any article protection could. Msalt (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you are so critical of me Msalt, perhaps we should revisit the first time you reverted me for deleting what you call "NPOV, sourced material". It began on Feb 15th when I added a to an uncited comment by Ellen Barker ]. I waited a further two days for the comment to be cited and when no cite was added I deleted it ] according to Wiki VER - "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". Within an hour you reverted my delete ]. Can you explain your actions. Because I'm getting bored explaining mine.Momento (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote Jossi, not interested, Momento. (I explained this particular edit in detail in the summary and on the Talk page 10 days ago. You must be the only person here who wants me to talk MORE. I feel like the long-winded uncle at a party, here.)
I don't mean to be critical of you at all, but of your recent editing style (as I am of PatW's arguing style, but not him.) Have you noticed that you are in the thick of nearly every edit war on this article? Common sense should tell you there's a message in there. I have a personal rule for myself -- if I meet three assholes in one day, I assume that I am the one being the asshole. If you're getting tired of explaining your actions, perhaps you should act less. No other editor makes nearly as many edits to this article as you do. Msalt (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, if the WP rules are so clear and not open to interpretation as you claim then I can only conclude that you think you are the only one here who's grasped their true meaning, cos no one has agreed with you so far. You seem to be the self-proclaimed Lawman here. I have no idea what 'mediation' really means but if it meant some other higher 'authority' people from Misplaced Pages sort of took over and let us plebs know what what the rules actually were I'd be delighted to accept their wisdom. Frankly I don't think you have many people who trust you and that's the problem. The trouble is even when unbiased people DO actually arrive you don't like their understanding of the rules and start accusing them of 'taking sides' with the dreaded critics, or of simply not knowing the meaning of WP guidelines as well as you. Don't you get it that you have demonstrated that you a) put your understanding way above others (isn't that arrogance?) and b) you are unwilling to move in the direction of consensus and are willing to rule the roost despite mistrust in your authority. Can I ask you a question Jossi? Imagine you were left to finish this article on your own or maybe with help from Momento (with your combined great understanding of the WP rules and with no contest) do you think it would be an unbiased article when you'd finished? Would you care to answer that straight please, without dodging the question?PatW (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm sorry if my question was too blunt. I understand that you will only enjoin polite discussion. I will try to keep it that way. Can I respectfully push you for an answer? Do you think you would make a better job of this article if you were left alone? If you simply want more neutral editors to come here and help you uphold and defend WP rules/guidelines would you please invite same to come here. It's slightly exasperating that when other editors do take an interest in this article you quickly disagree with their take on policy. It leaves us less WP savvy mimor editors quite confused. Can you see that? Where are the Wikki-wise people to back you up on all this? We are quite ready to learn.PatW (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi dear, looks as though you view making a response to a request for dialog from a self-confessed ex-premie who claims to be a member of a "hurt-group" as tantamount to fraternising with the enemy. You are very wise not to respond. Better fade away gently than go out with big stinking bang. (Sorry someone found the use of the word 'smelly' abusive in my earler comment that got deleted. But I meant it, and have amplified the point by using the word 'stinking' - probably more apposite in the circumstances. The more jossi wriggles the bigger the stink gets. He is, after all, Prem Rawat's press officer.Matt Stan (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Rationale for unprotecting
I wouldn't keep the article protected longer than necessary. Here's a reason: on this talk page we've been working hard on the content of the Prem Rawat article. There has also been some talk quite far from actually working on an improvement of the article text. Since the protection occurred, the balance is certainly shifting much more in the direction of "remotely (un)related talk" (PatW and others, I hope you can take a hint). Also for myself, I feel less incentive to work on article content under the current conditions: I've said I'm somewhat bored by the article's subject, and that writing a good article is enough incentive for me - discussing without being able to implement agreed improvement, or without being able to try out rewordings has just a little too little incentive for me now. So, I'd like unprotection could be considered on such grounds.
With that rationale I don't want in any way to cast a doubt on the protecting admin's decision. It was the right thing to do. And probably also, unprotecting without being sure that Nik (and Janice, etc) won't repeat the trick would not be a good idea either. Just offering my thoughts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to take your hint Francis but I humbly predict that eventually you'll see that what you now consider "remotely (un)related talk" is in fact extremely germane to this article. Please look briefly at my Talk discussion page near the bottom 'Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks' where I explain my behaviour to Jossi and Willbeback (who is also critical of my approach)PatW (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
I'm sure every one agrees that Nik Wright2's addition of 12,000 bytes of undiscussed material is unacceptable. I suggest we demonstrate our commitment to proper editing behavior by asking that this page be un-protected and that Nik agrees not to edit for a week.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This page was protected globally for a reason. I think there are others besides Nik Wright2 editing disruptively. Msalt (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone except one, perhaps. What Nik Wright did was fine by me. I'm sure everyone agrees that not everyone agrees with Momento, who is perhaps making unwaranted assumptions about what everyone agrees about, agreed? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles are always protected on the "wrong version". There've been a lot of "silly edit wars" on this article. Why don't we resolve some of those before we worry about removing the page protection. ·:· Will Beback·:·01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I read Nik's edit in its entirety and only a couple of small passages are problematic. Look, guys, may I remind you that the POV-pushing on this page was so bad that it attracted media attention (the recent Register article). I would have thought that that spotlight would have ended it. But, judging from the comments on this talk page, the blatent POV-pushing is still going on. The fact that Will had to take an LATimes article on how much Rawat paid for his house to the reliable sources noticeboard is ridiculous. Will appears to be on the right track here to help make this article NPOV. Some of you need to follow his lead. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not if the edit by that user is problematic or not. The issue is that the user bypassed discussions by taking an unilateral approach, and on top of that he edit-warred, while other editors had the common sense to work in developing consensus. That is "blatent" (sic) disruption. As for the article your refer to, you from all people should know the anti-Misplaced Pages slant of that journalist, who has attacked Misplaced Pages, its aims, its processes, its editors, and its founder, and to bring this to this page is most disingenuous of you. Or is it that you believe that I belong to "the Misplaced Pages elite", that I belong to the cabal of "uber-admins", and that Misplaced Pages policy is shaped by individuals? Utter nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". This used to be one of the most meticulously sourced articles in Wiki. Every important fact was either undisputed or sourced from academic works. Now we have the LA Times, the Fifth Estate and the Rushton Daily Leader. I guess some editors approach is that the proper response to the Register beat up is to become more like The Register and less like an encyclopedia. Looking forward to the ads Momento (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The L.A. Times article doesn't actually indicate who purchased the residence. A better phrasing would be:
In November of 1974 he moved into a secluded home in Malibu, California that was purchased for $400,000.
I'd think that the local paper would be a better source for real estate deals than a book about cults. However I don't see any real dispute between Melton and the L.A. Times on this issue. Just because we use award-winning newspapers for sources doesn't mean the article can't be meticulously sourced. Scholarly books don't necessarily represent all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback·:·07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin correctly pointed out on the noticeboard that if two reliable sources contradict each other, and this may not actually be the case here, you can just include information from both with explanations. So, there's evidently no reason to be arguing anymore here over this information from this particular source. I'm sure that solves the issue here, right? I mean, there's no COI issues going on here that would prevent someone from agreeing with this, right Jossi? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Right jossi? (I feel ought to show my hand here. I contend that if I want jossi not to answer some question then all I have to do is ask it because he has decided that I am not worth answering. This provides me with some leverage that I hope I can use to help rid wikipedia of the unwanted bias provided here by Mr Rawat's marketing professional, namely jossi. A marketing man's silence speaks loads.) 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is correct, IMO. We should include all significant points of view, even if they disagree. Or, as Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." ·:· Will Beback·:·07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback, please note that previous version contained and abundance of opposing statements between sources. Then Vassyana criticized the article for lack of balance, because of that. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To Cla68. Please don't "remind" us about ideas we may strongly disagree with. The Register article you refer to used the strong adherence to Misplaced Pages principles previously on this article as an excuse for a paid journalist to earn himself some money and fame by doing a Misplaced Pages-bashing article. ALL the allegations he raised have been debunked. All of them. This article is now about 100 times as biased as it was a month ago, and Nik Wright2's contributions are largely to blame for it. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is the swing of the pendulum between opposing factions. The more unscrupulous faction in reverting etc. seems to win. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's winning here Andries I think. Succeed in producing an unbalanced article certainly has the appearance of failure because this is a public space and people are not so stupid.PatW (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So Ruminto, Jossi has said above he's not interested in answering a straight question. Perhaps you will. You say you disagree with all the criticism aimed at this article. How would you propose to proceed towards fair balance? By having only the team of followers finish the article? (a situation that was approximated as you say a month ago). How fair would that be? Listen, I don't want to see an article full of unsubstantial hearsay etc. any more than you. I really don't! I have school age kids who use WP regularly and they deserve a trustworthy resource. This is about fairness and so, as relatively unbiased people have pointed out, there needs to be some give from followers who seem entrenched in a highly defensive posture, maybe because they are feeling the pressure of existing criticism -whether for right or wrong. I happen to think my report above (that was censored) was actually quite on topic. I reported about how someone who publicly questioned Rawat was quickly censored. Immediately someone called VivK cast this as a typical example of inappropriate violation of Prem Rawat and followers rights by critics. What I object to is that the same predisposition towards censorship (not including critical information or reports that have disrespectful tone etc) is demonstrated here. Where do critics have a right to a voice? Not even here via reputable sources like the LA Times apparently. I think that it would be a disaster if the article was dominated by any opposing factions. That is why I so welcome and will stand aside for non-factional editors here. I strongly feel that your attempts to control and reinterpret information here border heavily on a more sinister attempt to distort truth and throttle freedom of speech. The game Jossi and I are playing is that of 'not editing' to demonstrate some good faith in that direction. I question the sincerity of Jossi in this respect since his comments to Nick above "Guess which will be the first edits to go" etc plainly indicate that he can affect change here quite easily just by backing up edits he approves of (done by Momento etc.) I openly confess that my presence here is more or less to raise objections to this dynamic. Discussing the edits has become an almost futile pursuit because frankly you guys are so intransigent. You are basically saying 'you might as well leave us followers to it because we are the only ones who a) know and follow the WP rules and b) who are capable of fairly representing Prem Rawat. Don't you see how unfair that looks? PatW (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, it would be great if you could just write down your thoughts in a sincere and simple way. I always get the impression you are trying to impress someone with the high dudgeon of your writing, and it only makes a thoughtful reply more difficult. I think the thrust of your question is What would I like to see this article look like? First, as a practising premie, I have never been happy with it in any of its forms. It has never reflected the reality of my last 36 years as a student of Maharaji's. It does not describe the dimension of heart feeling that the experience of Knowledge gives to my life, nor the role Maharaji has played in making that a reality. It makes no measure of how many others have had a similar experience. It also has not properly acknowledged the turbulence of the early years, when guru-worship, vegetarianism, renunciation, asceticism and the whole suffocating cloud of Indiana were imported and presented to us by a 12 year-old who could not have been expected to know better, aided by a bunch of adults who could have been so expected. I would like it if this article could look at the extraordinary growth that has taken place, from the first culturally doomed western offshoot of Hinduism into the rich resource for inward encouragement that it now is, and if it could find a way to acknowledge that through these changes Prem Rawat has remained a master to his students, but in the friendliest and most benevolent sense. To Misplaced Pages, my views are irrelevant, since we do not yet have sources that tell us about these things. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said; although I find it hard to believe that none of the numerous academic studies available should have found space to represent this point of view, which IMO belongs in this article as much as any criticism. Basically, if I read an article related to a religion or a new religious movement in Misplaced Pages, I would like to be able to gain a rough understanding of its internal logic, of what moves its members, of why the movement and its founder represent such an inspiration to them, what the founder's teachings consist of, and how this teaching is applied by its adherents. Academic studies usually attempt to address this in a (more or less) neutral manner, newspapers don't.
In my view, the present version by Nik has taken us further away from an NPOV article. The narrative is garbled, repetitive (we now have the foot kissing twice!), confusing, goes off at numerous tangents, all the while missing the heart of the phenomenon in multiple ways. Just looking at the time line from "Interegnum" (sic) onwards, we go from 1975 (before/after) to late 1976 back to 1975 (before/after) to early 1976 to late 1976. Even after triple reading it is difficult for the reader to get any sense of the developments and changes that ocurred. In an age of religious diversity, Misplaced Pages can do better than that.
Rawat's teachings should be covered in more detail, based on academic sources, with some relevant quotes from him. Criticism, wealth issues, ridiculing statements etc. should in my view be kept out of the main narrative and reviewed under Reception, along with reception of the teaching among his followers. Jayen46617:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, it is perfectly valid to indicate that, for some (though no one will say quite how many, which is suspicious), the 'drug' that Mr Rawat's message provides, is jolly nice, as you have found. A more detached viewpoint might be that the incredibly nice Mr Rawat has hit upon a means of supporting himself that relies upon very strict control of information about the ways in which he operates. The Prem Rawat article surely should be about the man himself and how he operates rather than about how his techniques are perceived by acolytes. The Prem Rawat article need merely mention in passing that there are an unspecified (though it would seem, diminishing) number of people who are passionate supporters, willingly giving up material possessions to help him promulgate his message and, by some mysterious and unspecified means, enabling him to keep on practising flying himself about without having to pay personally for the fuel. It should also mention that there are other people who absolutely hate what he is up to, believing that it can destroy families and lives. The issue seems to be that if any validity is provided to the antis, then the pros feel slighted, and their masters feel threatened because it might put people off 'promising to keep in touch', thereby reducing revenues to Prem Rawat's money collecting apparatuses. Is there any reason why genuine seekers after truth shouldn't be given the opportunity to make up their own minds, heeding, if they want, the global warning of the antis and thereby, some might hope, incidentally reducing the global warming caused by the erstwhile guru? There will always be gullible people, but wikipedia is one place where facts can be presented such that the gullible are reasonably protected if they bother to read what's written.147.114.226.172 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, you are playing animal balloons with other people's words again. I cast no such thing you attributed to me, merely presented what actually happened at Alexandra Palace to allow any sane observer to note how laughingly corrupt your version of that woman's offensive interruption of that (otherwise extremely inspiring) event was. Try and get it, what part of the word 'offensive' don't you understand? Your response to Rumi above clearly indicates that you believe PR's entire life is dedicated to keeping his income flow happening. That is corrupt thinking in its saddest form, the lack of understanding about money in your own life experience is frightening to the 'detached' observer, seriously scary. Unless that is, you are drunk, or joking about Prem's reasons for travelling more miles in a year than you do in a decade, just to talk to people, most of whom have none of your precious money to give him.
However, I agree with our masked highbrow intellect below, I too fail to see how any self respecting academic would bother to analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages ??? I can only wild guess how profound and deep one must be to come up with such a peircing and penetrating point as that. To those with less anger and self importance clogging up their digestive system Prem Rawat's teachings are about as intellectual as a wild stallion galloping across a prairie. The mainstream media can be a source of meaningful information about a galloping horse? How about being there watching the animal, how about being ON it? And you pompously judge others as brainwashed! You who are so terrified of the agents of the evil Dark One. What a childish, pointless conversation you are having with yourself user number 147 .VivK (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone asked why on earth any self-respecting academic would bother to consider and analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages, particularly if the few serious commentators who have looked into the matter have declared that the so-called teaching is devoid of intellectual content anyway. I imagine most academics would have better things to do and would find it hard to obtain funding for such fruitless studies. Therefore the mainstream media are effectively the only source from which to glean any meaningful information that might help inform people people of what Mr Rawat is really about. The way the devotees operate to control information here in this 'free' resource in wikipedia shows just how much they are themselves brainwashed and the presence of their marketing professional, jossi, how vulnerable their business model is to the truth.147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's not entirely fair. There is a wealth of academic studies: ; to say that newspapers are the only source available for use here seems far off the mark. Jayen46617:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
VivK and Ruminton both talk about the insights and wonderful feelings that come from Rawats teachings. Please remember that I have practised his Knowledge sincerely since age 17 and also spoke in such gushing terms and do not deny any of it. My criticisms are much more down to earth and I think that is also what 147 was driving at. I don't think his reservations or suspicions are about the nature of the experience (visa vi your 'galloping horse' simile). In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics. Should they simply cast these doubts aside or can you help them see why such things are irrelevant or ill-founded? Followers should maybe not expect the uninitiated public to appreciate or necessarily accept the wondrous nature of the experience on your word. Your being cross at people for asking questions that are disrespectful of Rawat (in your view) itself smacks of religious intolerance. There has to be a balance between religion demanding respect from society/Wikipedia, and society/Wikipedia demanding transparency from religion. You want Prem Rawat to be treated with same respect here that you accord him then let the well-documented criticisms be aired here and face them. Provide the answers. Why be afraid? Jayen rightly wants the followers perspective aired here. Yes people want to know what's so great about his teachings. They also want to be aware of the main criticisms of him so as to get a balanced picture. Lets aim for that shall we? PatW (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PatW, you write as if you speak for "the ordinary person" ("In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics.") But there are many "ordinary people" who do not have those doubts. No-one is asking that people cast doubts aside. Clearly, you have not enjoyed Knowledge (so why didn't you stop practising a long time ago?) so there is no problem. Put it aside and move on. But many people enjoy knowledge, and are not "brainwashed". You claim to have practised knowledge, yet you still believe that such practise has something to do with religion. I suggest to you that many people who practise knowledge would laugh at that claim, and would wonder at your claim of "religion". I've practised knowledge since I was 22, and that was a long time ago. I know that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I'm happy that anyone be made aware of the fact that some people haven't enjoyed knowledge, and have found it unhelpful. But because knowledge was not right for you, doesn't mean that it is not right for others. You want people to disrespect knowledge and Rawat because you do. I want people to respect Rawat if they benefit from his teaching. Armeisen (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Who do you think you are to patronisingly tell me to 'put aside' my criticisms of Prem Rawat, No I won't and neither will many other people. I object to your putting down my experience (even though you have absolutely NO idea about my personal experiences) apparently because you simply cannot entertain that other option which is that there could be just a little substance to people's criticisms. If people who practice knowledge or Rawat himself laugh at the suggestion that their practices are religious fine. Scholars of new religions often actually note how one of the very things that characterise new religions and their leaders is their insistence that they are nothing to do with religion. They suggest that the explanation for this phenomena is that the leaders are keen to disassociate from their roots so as to better establish their own autonomy. To me that is exactly what Rawat has done and is doing. The explanation I was given as a new premie in 1974 was that 'Jesus, Buddha, Krishna,Mohammed did not preach religion' their subsequent followers wrongly later turned it into one. And that Rawat, as a similar 'Master' was not preaching religion but revealing a direct experience. We were told that only a living 'Perfect Master' can show you the living religion and that religion without the living Master was dead. That's what we were told and that's what the followers of Rawat's father were also told and what most followers of most Sant Mat tradition adherents were told. 'Religion thus becomes almost a dirty word. However it was subsequently quite clear to me (and obviously many others) that there were many religious aspects to the whole thing (ie beliefs and adherence to tenets that Jossi denies). Rawat may have gradually got rid of the appearance that there are no beliefs or suggestions made to followers about who he is or what he experience of knowledge is but I don't personally think that amounts to it not being a form of religion ie. a new style religion. One category that Rawat currently does not deny is that he is some kind of 'Master' (having gradually dropped the former 'Perfect Master bit). Also there are promissary commitments made to Rawat regarding the practice of knowledge. What this seems to be all about is the reluctance of Rawat or followers to be categorised. I agree that the best balance would be to accurately report the characterisation of Rawat by scholars and also report Rawats denials.PatW (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
References calling DLM or Elan Vital a religious movement are legion. The techniques had their origin in a religious tradition. So the view that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion would seem to be a minority view – fine to mention it in the article – but you cannot reasonably expect EV's description as a religious movement to be banished from the article, much less so the talk page. Jayen46600:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to Jayen's comments, Elan Vital, the organisation that has supported Rawat's work for the past 36 years, is registered as a church in the US. --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether references calling those organisations a religion are "legion" or not is irrelevant. The chaplain ("Black Will") at the school I attended had this wonderful saying: "Every since the crucifixion of Christ, the majority have been in the wrong." Not necessarily accurate, of course, but of relevance here. I would suggest to you that the religions had their origins in the techniques; that is, the techniques preceded religion. How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? Do you know how many people practise knowledge? I'm sure that the majority would support the statement that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I don't recall asking for anything to be banned. No evidence for that, Jayen. Would be good not to attribute claims to me that I have not made; it only undermines your credibility as an editor. Armeisen (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? I believe it to be a minority view (at least) in the published sources that we are required to reflect here. Personally, I have no problem understanding that it isn't religious to you, or doesn't feel "religious"; to you it is a practical and empirical part of your life. Jayen46601:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
DLM and Elan Vital have been described as New religious movements. Elan Vital in its FAQ, states that it the practice of Knowledge is compatible with all religions (Maharaji's Knowledge is compatible with and independent of any lifestyle, culture, religion, or belief system). Prem Rawat himself says that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. These viewpoints are presented already in the respective articles, as well as their legal status. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, there is a process to register as a religion (which brings substantial benefits on taxes and protection from government interference.) If John Braun's statement is true, that would seem to settle the question. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that we would need a reliable source for what is obviously a controversial point.
Otherwise, accepted reliable sources call EV a "new religious movement" as Jossi says. Denials by Rawat or EV could be added to contrast that (if self-published) but I think it would be wrong to remove such a reliably sourced description. Perhaps it should be tied to the narrative of Westernization. EG " Elan Vital is described by Melton and others as a "new religious movement" (cites), though Prem Rawat has said that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. (cite)" Fair compromise? Msalt (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to know how Melton defines "a new religious movement". It sounds good to say it, but someone who has access to the books should be able to tell us how Melton describes a religious movement. I believe too that there is quite a distinction between a "religious movement" and a "religion". Again, it will depend on how it is described/defined. So could someone enlighten us? Armeisen (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To my way of thinking, a religion involves a set of tenets to which adherents subscribe; that is, a belief system. However, if religion is seen to be "the quest for the values of the ideal life", or "the manifestation of such feeling in conduct or life", (Macquarie Dictionary), then I guess Maharaji's work is covered in that kind of general description (as distinct from definition). In my experience, Knowledge is compatible with all religions, without being one. In that respect, I am in agreement with you, Jossi. Armeisen (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but as Jossi once told me it is not our way of thinking that count here. I'm glad you seem to agree then that Maharaji's work falls fairly into the dictionary definition of a 'religion' ie. belief, in, recognition of, or an awakened sense if, a higher unseen controlling powers: rites or .worship (NB. annually held Guru Puja (Puja='worship' yes?). The only possible reason you can object to it being described that way is because you don't like being lumped in with other religions I guess. Your argument about being compatible with other religions without being one is interesting. Have you considered the possibility that maybe, (since we've categorically established that it IS a religion by definition) Knowledge is compatible with all religions and is also one itself? Also please note that your worries maybe unsubstantiated since of course all different religions are in fact different but are still called 'religions'. So Rawat's is just a nice 'different' religion. Is that an acceptable situation or does he deserve a dictionary category all of his own because he's so clearly distinct to all English speaking people? Do you think that an encyclopedia should lean towards broad categories that everyone understands or towards cryptic ones thought up by religious groups who want to be in another category? I mean what category do you guys think Prem Rawat would like to be? Does Humanitarian Leader perhaps work for you? How does that sit with all his past teachings and the way he was perceived? PatW (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to be enlightened as to the distinction between a religion and a new religious movement in this context I suggest you read 'Radhasoami Reality' by Mark Jurgensmeyer.
A religion has connotations of orthodoxy and general acceptance. A 'new religious movement' is essentially almost always an offshoot of an earlier religion as Rawat absolutely undeniably is. Even Jossi will confirm (as author of PR's earlier website) that Rawat himself endorsed the belief that he was the latest of a series of 'living masters' that descend from very particular and named illustrious Sikh Gurus like Guru Nanak etc. The exact lineage that Prem Rawat claimed (possibly wishfully imho) is well documented and I suggest that it could be very helpful to reference it here. Thoughts Msalt, Francis, Jayen et al? Rawat's own wording on his site was 'This is the history thus far' or words to that effect, and there followed a named list of his predecessors including of course his father, Swarupanand and others.. Jossi would you like to provide the exact lineage he claimed on his site? Why was that list removed? That would maybe answer this question once and for all. If you provide this information you may also need to inform readers that there are a number of other Gurus who contest the authenticity of thse claims. However of course we also have Premie scholar of religion Ron Geaves' published list of Rawat's claimed hagiographic family tree to refer to also if need be. Anyone like to see that?] (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Armeisen, do you accept now that Rawat is a master in a line of gurus that stem from the Sikh tradition? If so can you accept that he has religious roots? Third question, would you agree that Sikhism is generally correctly categorised as a a religion? Forth - do you now understand that Rawat has undeniable religious roots? Fifth - how likely or sensible would it be that someone who's entire teachings stem from a religion has 'nothing to do with religion? Can you answer those questions please?PatW (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, in spite of so many polite requests, you are still writing in those same strident, self righteous tones that tell us you believe you are the only honest, wise and clear-thinking editor around here. This style clearly suits the anti-Rawat websites in which it evolved, but it is in no way conducive to arriving at a mature consensus for this article. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I object to the insinuation that my writing style has evolved in anti-Rawat websites. I was a self-righteous honest, wise, clear-thinking writer since childhood.PatW (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So far, Pat W, all you have done is to say that Prem Rawat traced his lineage back to some Sikh person. But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets. You stated that you practised knowledge for many years. Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I don't accept that any of your statements have any veracity. You state that you don't believe he has any links; a bit contradictory. So what are his teachings that you refer to? That God is within each human being? That peace lies within each human being? That having peace is essential to a human being. That human beings love joy, don't enjoy discomfort. I guess if you want to call that religion, then that is fine by me. Armeisen (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with what you say Armeisen. I think the unedifying tussle somewhere above regarding how many of Prem Rawat's names and titles should appear in the lede show how wilfully obtuse single words can be, when applied to this subject. It gets worse with words like religion and religious. I made some enquiries a few months ago and found the following, not official information, but I believe a good description of the situation.
1. Elan Vital is an organisation that facilitates people coming together to celebrate an inner experience. As each country has differing organisational laws, Elan Vital is set up differently in different countries.
2. The Divine Light Mission was registered in 1971 by then student/follower/devotee of Prem Rawat's, Bob Mishler. It later changed its name to Elan Vital. The 501(c)(3) status of Elan Vital in the US is based on its acceptance in the US as a "church", which is defined something like "a coming together of 2 or more people to worship a higher power" (exact wording not found, but can be if needed.)
3. Elan Vital is not a religion.
4. There is no membership in Elan Vital. It is run mainly by a small number of volunteers.
Ruminton. In this matter I am self-righteous. Sorry! I also humbly :-) believe that I am honest and reasonably clear-thinking and wise in some respects. I also invite you all to prove me wrong so I question the relative clear-thinking of some people's arguments here including that of Armeisen who, in case you hadn't noticed, has utterly failed to connect the dots as I believe most sensible people will agree. I kind of rest my case. Finally, despite all this bleating about incivility, we've been having this debate for years - it is described above as 'heated' and we're always being rude and then apologising and so on - I'd call that an acceptable equilibrium. So getting back to the article, do you agree that it would may be helpful to inform readers that Prem Rawat claims to be part of the lineage that he does? Or is that now something you also want to hide because you've decided it makes him look too religious?PatW (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if my questions have too much of a cross-examining tone everybody. Please understand that I myself will happily reply to all hard questions in full (You know I am naturally pompous and verbose - any excuse to waffle on). I simply do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Also remember I am trying to win arguments here - I want to get to the point and the traditional way to do that is to have a debate that is formed of clear questions and clear replies. Hence the stark questions. Big hugs all round? :-)PatW (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Armeisen writes: But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets.
What about the ashram rules? Weren't they tenets?
Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me.
No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. Here's a list of some similarities between Prem Rawat and Radhasoami/Advait Mat/Sant Mat:
The singing of 'Arti' in front of an altar with guru's picture on
The belief in a line of 'Perfect Masters' or 'Satgurus' who are incarnations of God etc.
The singing of bhajans
Darshan (kissing of the feet etc)
Devotion to the Master
Satsang
Service (Seva)
Meditation (Assayanas) the 4 techniques which are historically the same as his predecessors and other Sant (Light) Gurus.
The DLM motto 'Work is Worship' Same as at Dayalbagh (Sikh city in India founded by Radhasoami guru also reported to have initiated Rawats father)
Here's some quotes from Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)? Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)'
Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own website as follows:
Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand jo Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)
There is no doubt that any scrutiny of the language of Swarupanand Ji, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and the early discourses of his son Maharaji will demonstrate the usage of the (above) four metaphors (The experience of the divine was veiled in various images of light, sound,nectar and finally the Word or Name of God) and other terminology associated with the language of the mediaeval nirguna sants, particularly Nanak and Kabir.(NB. Nanak and Kabir were both famous Sikh Gurus I think)
The rest of Geaves paper is devoted to how Rawat has made something new and brilliant out of all this. Something that evidently perplexes his contemporary scholars somewhat but which you are all very keen to emphasise. So if Elan Vital is not a religion, would you accept that it is an offshoot of a religion? Personally I think it plausibly deceptive to argue otherwise.PatW (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also notice that Jossi is responsible for the Wiki entry on Advait Mat which he is careful to describe only as 'a cluster of movements in northern India which perceive themselves to be ::originating from Totapuri (d.1866)' How informative is that? Or can I be more blunt and say 'uninformative' for his not even using the obviously appropriate adjective 'religious movement'. It must be very exhausting having to tiptoe around this subject so carefully because of Prem Rawat's organisations sensitivities. I'm sure the followers of Advait Mat around the world would be quite proud to be described as a 'religion' or even 'the offshoot of a religion'. Interestingly of course Prem Rawat himself was not even shy about proclaiming this connection either. Why are you?PatW (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No. A tenet is a principle, dogma or doctrine (OED.) Ashram rules were optional Indian renunciate lifestyle rules, which some accepted as personally useful to them and others did not go anywhere near. Probably more of the latter. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved your response. Please don't post stuff in the middle of my text. It's confusing. There was a doctrine or creed and it was sung morning and night in Rawats ashrams as he advocated in the rule book. Also Rawat strongly recommended that people wanted to serve him and who were available should surrender their llves to him in the Ashram. I heard him say that. Maybe you missed that bit. Lucky you. Don't rewrite other people's history though please. It's highly offensive. If this isn't a doctrine I'd like to know what is:
Arti (as sung to Prem Rawat or his picture on an altar whilst waving 'arti tray of burning ghee)
Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji
Your glory fills the world
Protector of the weary and the weak
You bring the death of attachment
You bring the mind true detachment
Save us from the ocean deep
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Creator, Preserver, Destroyer
Bow their heads and pray to You
All bow and pray to You
Scriptures sing Your glory
Heaveny hosts sing Your praises
Your virtues are ever true
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity
never bring you knowledge of the soul
will never reveal your soul
without the grace of satguru
without the Knowledge of Satguru
rites and rituals never reach the goal
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
In the river of bondage to maya
All are swept out to sea
All are sinking in the depths of the sea
Guru's boat is the holy name
Guru's ship is the holy word
In seconds he has set us free
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
In the river of bondage to maya
All are swept out to sea
All are sinking in the depths of the sea
Guru's boat is the holy name
Guru's ship is the holy word
In seconds he has set us free
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Anger, desire, attachments
Rob us of eternal life
Take away our heavenly life
Satguru gives us true Knowledge
Satguru is eternal Knowledge
The sword that kills our problem life
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Religions harp their own glories
Call to follow their own path
Welcome me to follow their own way
The essence of all was revealed
The seed of all was revealed
I walk on the true way today
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Nectar from Satguru's feet is
Holy and it cleans us of our sins
So sacred in cleaning us of sin
When he speaks, darkness flies away
When he speaks, darkness cannot stay
Doubts removed, new life then begins
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Mine, Thine, Wealth, Health
Give them to the lotus feet of love
Give them to the lotus feet of the Lord
Give yourself to Satguru
Sacrifice yourself to Satguru
Be united with the blissful Truth
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Bible, Gita, the Koran
Sing the glory of Your Name
They all sing the glory of Your Name
Angels sing Your great glory
Heavenly hosts sing Your praises
They find no end to Your fame
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Desires have robbed me and left me
Trapped in the darkness of the night
Yes, they've trapped me in the darkness of the night
Guru gives holy Name and Light
Guru gives Holy Name and Sight
Cross the ocean by His Love and Light
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Many past forms you have taken
Now we have come in your control
Again You have come to save the soul
In this time of darkness
To lead Your devotees from darkness
You have come as Hansa the pure soul
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Come to the shelter of Guru's grace
Come with your heart and your soul
Bring Him your heart and your soul
Cross the worldly ocean
Cross it by your devotion
And attain the supreme goal
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji
Your glory fills the world
Protector of the weary and the weak
You bring the death of attachment
You bring the mind true detachment
Save us from the ocean deep
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev
PatW (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much more of this I need to post to jog your memory and to prove a point. But in the Ashram we had to sing this to his picture every morning and night. And at festivals he sat there (wearing the costume of Lord Krishna) while it was sung to him by 1000's. NB. He didn't join as it was plainly addressed to him and he was facing us. Anybody now in ANY doubt WHATSOEVER that this was a religious offshoot with doctrines?? Come on let's have some answers.
Meditation begins in the form of our master, Adoration begins at the feet of our lord, Concentration begins in the words of our master, Liberation begins in the grace of our lord.
You are my mother and you are my father , you are my brother and you are my friend , you are riches, you are wisdom, You are my all, my lord to me. You are riches, You are wisdom, You are my all, my Lord to me.
Guru Maharaj Ji, my life is within You , From You I was born and to You now I go, Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless, This heart of mine aches to be one with You, Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless, This heart of mine aches to be one with You.
Wherever I look, Your face is before me Your golden Love melts all my troubles away, I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow , Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play , I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow , Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play
Oh wondrous Lord, my Guru Mahraj Ji , Your grace is a river which flows on and on, You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing, Let me come home find my rest at Your feet, You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing, Let me come home find my rest at Your feet
Our Lord is the maker of all things created, He keeps them and brings them, all home to his word, Our Lord is the superior power in person, I bow down before such a wonderful Lord.
(at which point everyone would fall flat on their faces - that 'well-know Indian Greeting' right Ruminton?) PatW (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Responsibility
Returning to this page after a 48 hour absence is an excellent reminder of all that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. The screeching from Jossi would be embarrassing enough if delivered by a spoilt eight year old, from a fifty year old man it is plain worrying, and from one of Misplaced Pages’s most active administrators it is an outright demonstration that there is one rule for the elect and another for the ‘non belongers’.
This article has been a POV sewer for years, the only thing that will rescue it is the rapid addition of a multiplicity of new references. Cleaning out POV phraseology is the work of moments, it just requires intelligent editing, but getting the references resolved is what is needed and that takes research effort, my edit is a major boost to that end.
It is untrue to say that what I was proposing was undiscussed, and it is absurd to work on the basis that because someone doesn’t respond over the course of a week when intentions have been clearly raised, that the discussion has not included the non respondents. It is even more absurd to propose a process where the existing failed structure of an article has to remain intact while there are endless arguments over every word. The structure of this article is wrong and multiple sections need rewriting as contiguous elements if there is to be any hope that a semblance of chronological integrity is to be achieved.
Momento – who has been throwing his dummy out of the pram ever since the Cade Metz article shone a light on this particular cess pit – suggests I should agree to not edit for a week. I have a different suggestion which is that the editors who oversaw the creation of an article so embarrassing to Misplaced Pages that it has to be wholly reworked, should be banned from this article and its talk page for one month – Jossi, Momento and Rumiton are entirely responsible and should get out of the way so that others can repair the damage. On that basis I’d be more than happy to agree to take a month’s sabbatical.
Finally for anyone who finds my contribution here distasteful, you may find it instructive to note why I am on Misplaced Pages at all. It was entirely down to Jossi including a link in the Rawat article to a site which contained defamatory material about me; I spent months of futile effort attempting to get the Wikiocracy to give me, a private citizen, the same protection as the anointed get under BLP – and in the end it was only down to my vocal participation on this talk page that persuaded a disinterested editor to do the decent thing. Having spent months going through the puerile promotional whitewash that passed for a biography of Rawat I was eventually persuaded I could do a better job than what was here for most of the last three years, and I’ve not yet changed my mind.
--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to propose such restrictions, use the appropriate methods, go ahead. Whatever your opinion of this article, of me, or Misplaced Pages, or of its processes, you can simply cannot walk in here and do whatever you want to do. You will have to follow process, you will have to discuss your edits. If people do not respond to your proposals, assume they have no traction. You will not edit-war. You will have to seek consensus. You will have to pursue dispute resolution. I am not going anywhere, Nik. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll support Jossi here. Whilst you, Nik, and your group attempt to deride the good work of Prem Rawat, then there will be others who will challenge you. You claim some kind of grand NPOV status, but that claim is nonsense. As Jossi says, consensus is the way to proceed. I'm not going away either. Armeisen (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This article obviously has many biased editors. However if Misplaced Pages banned all biased editors there's wouldn't be any editors at all. The key is that editors, whatever their biases, must edit in a neutral manner. One technique for ensuring that you are editing neutrally is to 'write for the "enemy"'. In other words, edit as if you were someone with an opposite viewpoint. Editors who can't leave their biases at the doorstep should not be encyclopedia editors. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, I think your observation above is important, and I hope it doesn't get lost in the general shrillness created by too many people trying to "win". If an article does not emerge that accommodates all sides and provides a mature overview we will be here forever. I am not going away either, but I planned my retirement differently. Rumiton (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to consider something like this, but only when the Nik version is reverted in its entirety. A compromise of three per week might be better. Armeisen (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If, after seeking consenus, we revert to a differnt version then that's good and ordinary. It'll be up to a consensus of editors. Single edits like Nik's probably wouldn't qualify. ·:· Will Beback·:·12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Two long time editor/administrators of high standing, who have different viewpoints on this page, have suggested 1RR probation for the good of the article. I find it very disturbing that Armeisen, Momento, and Rumiton -- all acknowledged followers of Rawat -- seem to be making their agreement conditional on getting their way over reverting Nik's edit, rather than seeking consensus.
I say that as someone also upset with Nik's edit; I expect it to be either reverted or substantially altered (by consensus) fairly quickly. This isn't about the merits of the edit; it's about "my way or we keep edit-warring", which is kind of the gist of the problem here. Can you three reconsider your statements and think about agreeing to join consensus, whereever it leads us? Msalt (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably, an 1RR regimen will never work and it would ensure that NikWright2's version will remain. Because after I revert back to the version before NikWright2's, an anti-Rawat editor will revert it back. Editors Wowest, John Brauns, Andries, NikWright2 and SylvieCyn are regular posters on the anti-Rawat forum. And add the anon posters and I calculate the odds of NikWright2's version being reverted at about 3 to 1 against. And let's no forget the anti-Momento editors. I think before we hang our hopes on consensus, we should try following Wiki policy. If we did that NikWright2's edit would be reverted and edits would not be decided by a vote but by the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages.Momento (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear then -- you are rejecting a search for consensus and the Jossi/Will BeBack 1RR proposal for this page, in favor of what you consider to be clear Misplaced Pages policy. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm not rejecting the search for consensus but this 1RR proposal is the opposite of consensus. Consensus means everyone has a share in the outcome but the 1RR system is about majority rule. According to you there are three pro-Rawat editors ( Armeisen, Momento, and Rumiton). And since John Brauns, Andries, NikWright2 and SylvieCyn all post on the anti-Rawat forum, let's count them as anti-Rawat. So that means that an anti-Rawat group has 4 votes and a pro group has 3 votes. How can you achieve a general agreement when a losing vote is 42%? We're miles better off enforcing Misplaced Pages rules.Momento (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop referring to myself and others as "the anti-Rawat group" Momento. It's not helpful We are not a group working together operating with an agenda as you imply and as Jossi has stated in the past. The extent of ex-premies being a "group" is that people discuss their involvement with Prem Rawat on a discussion forum and there's nothing nefarious about it. Not that it's anyone's business.
Additionally, please note that none of the editors you named above who post on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum has ever tried to conceal it. Quite the contrary. It's a public forum, completely transparent, and all the people you named above do post there using their real names, myself included. Being critical of Prem Rawat doesn't render someone as unable to think rationally and logically about issues presented here. In fact the only reason I've made posts here recently has only been to attempt to clear up incorrect information that some people have been trying to peddle here as fact. That's it. I'd also like to mention that Andries has not been a regular poster on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum for a very long time. I even checked the stat page there to be sure, and Andries has only made seven brief posts on that forum in seven months. I'd hardly call that being a "regular, not that that is anyone's business. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Momento understands the proposal. All Misplaced Pages rules would still be in force. The only change is that just one revert per day would be allowed instead of three. It doesn't change the mix of editors and viewpoints, and I don't see how it would do anything beyond slowing the revert wars that have plagued this article. 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
Momento, I don't think you understand the nature of consensus. It has nothing to do with voting between factions, nor does it require that every single person agree. It starts with finding common ground in facts and policies, and builds from there. WP:Consensus is well worth reading. One key part says
"When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, the normal WP rules are not in place. Under normal circumstances NikWright2's undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes of badly written OR would be speedily reverted and he would be cautioned. Look at the effort you have made to discipline me for taking out a sentence. And what about the BLP policy that says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy." Momento (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think that rules have been broken then I suggest you seek remedial action at WP:AN or through dispute resolution. However NikWright2 claims that his changes were thoroughly discussed, and they were reverted, so both of your concerns seem to have been addressed. I also note that Jossi encourages users to "BRD", which is just what Nik did. Regarding you own deletions of sourced material, the material was not in violation of BLP and your actions were against consensus. I've repeatedly asked you if you'd revert again if the information is restored. You've also revert warred over an "NPOV" tag. You can still revert war if you choose, but you'll be limited to one a day instead of three. Why is that a problem? ·:· Will Beback·:·22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRD means be bold, wait for a revert and then don't revert, but discuss. Nick did not follow BRD, Will. He was bold, he was reverted, and he reverted back to his version without discussion. That is 'edit warring, upon which the page was protected. Check the page history. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If some folks weren't so quick to revert then this page wouldn't be protected now. Is Momento the only involved editor who'd opposing the 1RR proposal? ·:· Will Beback·:·00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What Nik did was not WP:BRD, but WP:BRRR :). Both Francis and Momento and opposing the 1RR probation, but may not be relevant as it is uninvolved editors that will decide. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Between the 8th of February (when Nik Wright2 made first comment on this page this year) and the 26th of February (when Nik Wright2 inserted 10,000 bytes of material) there have been over 1500 comments made by more than a dozen editors on this page of which Nik Wright2 has made 16. Four appeared in the "Peace is Possible" section, four appeared the "did donations made Rawat rich" section, 3 appeared in the "Downton" section and one each in the "Balyogeshwar", "Organization", "Headings", "References" and "External Links" sections. So Will Beback, could you point out to us all where the insertion of 10,000 bytes of material was " thoroughly discussed"?Momento (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources - L.A. Times and N.Y. Times
The clear consensus at WP:RS/N#Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat is that the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times are definitively reliable and relevant sources regardless of context. In the 1970s and 1980s the subject received considerable attention from the mainstream media. These sources along with others are important representatives of contemporary jounalistic coverage of a prominent public person. WP:NPOV calls on us to include all significant viewpoints so we must include theirs. To that end, I've searched archives and found some 76 articles from the L.A. Times and 22 in the N.Y. Times that are relevant to this subject's biography. I'd be happy to send copies of these articles to other editors who request them by email, in accord with fair use exemptions of the copyright laws and good scholarly practice. ·:· Will Beback·:·09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you're not going to insert a sentence from each one, so how about giving us a synopsis of a theme or a year.Momento (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
These are reliable sources with notable points of view. We'll include them as need be. I've often said that the role of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I hope that's what we're all aiming for. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though with some caveats. The reliability of newspapers is not high in this area. (I could cite academic sources that say so, quite explicitly.) Much is misreported, misrepresented, or portrayed in a manner likely to elicit maximum reader interest. An example from my recent experience in German Misplaced Pages: numerous German top-quality, national newspapers state, time and again, that Scientology does not have the status of a religious or ideological community in Germany, but is a purely commercial enterprise. (This is indeed the opinion of the German government.) However, the German courts have many times held otherwise, with most decisions either explicitly leaving the question open, or taking a clear stance in favour of according Scientology such status.
A briefing for German members of parliament, available online on the German parliament website and compiled by the parliament's Scientific Services division, reviews the situation in detail, lists court decisions going this way and that, and describes the situation as "contested" and "unresolved". Whereas newspapers often present the situation as a clear-cut case, citing one particular decision that went the other way.
Now, people deriving their knowledge from newspapers alone turn up on the German Scientology talk page at regular intervals. They demand that it be made clearer in the article that Scientology is a purely commercial organisation that has been denied recognition as a religious movement and that the article is not a fair representation of POVs. What to do? I would argue that in such a situation an encyclopedia has to give preference to the more reliable source. It is not just a question of verifiably summarising what various reputable sources have, on average, said. And if readers experience cognitive dissonance because the article does not reflect what they have read in the papers, then IMO that is a good thing, and not an NPOV failing. Jayen46618:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a clear consensus, Will Be Back. A consensus is when everyone agrees. The context is important. Just because the newspaper has won Pulitzer Prizes (generally they are given to journalists, not newspapers) doesn't mean that everything they report is of substance. Take Rawat's house, for instance. A search should show what was paid for it. Another search should show that it was the registered address of DLM, if indeed it was. If the journalist used some other source, then that needs to be stated.
Then there is the question of relevance. Of what relevance is the price of a house or a piece of land? None. If the article is about Prem Rawat, then it should be about him, if he is notable enough to have an entry in Misplaced Pages. It's what he is doing that is important. Armeisen (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. There are many valid viewpoints. The fact is that this property has been the subject of numerous contemporary news reports. These concern three broad topics: the price and general opulence of the property; the presence of Prem Rawat and his following in the Malibu community; and the helicopter permit. I think that the topic of the subject's tenure in Malibu can be developed in a responsible manner. It's just one aspect of many covered by local and national newspapers. ·:· Will Beback·:·11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting .If I am correct here you are saying that information about Prem Rawat's family home is one of three broad topics you would like to include in the article. Is there no mention of his work in the LA Times ? Balius (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant. I wrote that those are three topic concerning the Prem Rawat living in Malibu that have been covered by the L.A. Times. My point is that there are many dimensions to his residence there. As for the overall coverage of the subject in that newspaper, there are other topics as well. If you like I'd be happy to send you the complete file. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly is the relevance of where Rawat lives? Why isn't the house he lived in as a child included. And the one he stayed in when he first visited England. I know the anti-Rawat crew believe that a guru should live in a cave but isn't living in a house so normal as to be unimportant?Momento (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Asceticism (or at least material modesty) is a honored ideal for a Hindu or Sant Mat guru. The fact that he completetly diverged from this ideal is very relevant for his notability. Andries (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should point out that Prem Rawat has never practised or advocated renunciation, and that in this respect he diverges from traditional Hinduism? Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The L.A. Times covers more that his residence, but his residence has been the topic of considerable coverage. If it's relevant to mention that he has a pilot's license then it's relevant to say he has a heliport in his front yard. If he's promoted asceticism among his followers then it's relevant to note his own living circumstances. If he's using the property as a headquarters for his organization then that's relevant too. If there's a reliable source that has written extensively about the subject childhood home paper then we should consider summarizing that material. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you say that Ruminton? That is just a straight out plain as a pikestaff lie! You know as well as I that Rawat advocated renunciation to the hilt. What do you think his ashrams were? And I get reprimanded for calling this stuff lies?! Are you just trying to bait people here like me who gave their lives in ashrams? That is not at all funny.PatW (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1978 Rawat joked to the 100(0)'s of ashram premies in Kissimmee Florida saying that "the only tie you have with your parents is the one they gave you for Christmas" - doesn't that imply he expect some renunciation? Like : No sex- Being a vegetatrian - no careers -no seeing your parents -and you are SO wrong to weasely insinuate that everyone did this because they wanted to. SO damn wrong. Rawat yelled and yelled at us about obedience and that was a major factor for many young earnest people blinded by their sincerity and devotion. Obedience meant obeying rules whether you liked them or not. Sure we just thought it would be best to do as he said. But I for one bitterly resent the things I was told I should give up - like that girl at Alexander Palace who wanted to know why Rawat had allowed his Instructors to go around passing on his authoritarian dictates (she was told to give up her place at Oxford) and was reprimanded by HIM for wanting a 'pissing contest' ! PatW (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, Pat. At the end of 1976, with his birthday celebration in Atlantic City, NJ, Rawat dressed up in his Krishna costume which signaled to his followers a resurgence of acknowledging his divinity as Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master. I went to that Atlantic City program. Rawat's strong demands for surrender and devotion to him were taught (often yelled and screamed) by himself in large events and also repeated by his own agents, Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas all over the United States, UK, and Europe. This period ushered in an era of renewed commitment and devotion to Rawat by his devotees and many people entered and reentered the ashram as a result. Obedience to Maharaji was in the form of following his agya or his commands to premies. But, we don't have to argue about the blatant whitewashing going on in this talk page about this issue, all one has to do is point to Prem Rawat's own words, because Rawat said himself that he wrote the ashram manual. He wasn’t shy about saying that, either.
The ashrams in the United States were more organized during the time period 1976 through 1982, than ever before in the history of DLM/EV. Ashram residents lived in what were considered "Divine Light Mission" ashrams, a life of renunciation that included poverty, chastity, and obedience. What's more, this issue has been argued on these talk pages many times before and now the subject is being trotted out not by using subtle whitewashing, but baldfaced lies. This revision of the history of Rawat’s life can be maddening because I know exactly what was going on during the late seventies and early 80s in this NRM. I worked closely with Prem Rawat in 1979 and 1980 as one of his secretaries in the Design Department where a Boeing 707 was being reconfigured inside and out to becomehis his first executive jet. The project was called DECA (Design and Engineering Corporation of America) in Miami Beach, and the vast majority of the hundreds of unpaid workers there were ashram residents who were transferred from their communities to Florida. I spoke to Rawat and saw him several times per day at DECA. One of the reasons that his wealth is such an issue is that that jet, which he had total control over, from design to use, was fitted with top of the line everything, from ebony laminated woodworking, custom designed seating, and a gold-plated toilet. I was there for the design of the toilet, saw it being manufactured and saw it after it was installed on the B707. After that I worked part-time at DLM headquarters, then located on Alton Rd., Miami Beach briefly in 1980, which had moved from Denver, CO to Miami Beach because Rawat moved his base of operations there during the jet project. Rawat lived in Miami Beach during that time, had all of his luxury autos shipped to the DECA complex and even his favorite premie band had a recording studio on the DECA premises. He also held his Initiator Development Programs on the premises in the satsang hall on site.
Btw, each and every person seeking to "receive Knowledge, known as “aspirants” were stringently vetted by Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas prior to being selected to receive the techniques, from at elast 1975 through the mid-80s. This requirement applied to all aspirants, not just those who wanted to move into a DLM ashram. In the Knowledge session, this vow was required to be taken by everyone before being shown the meditation techniques. One simply didn't get to into a Knowledge Session to receive Knowledge without the understanding of who Guru Maharaj Ji is, i.e., the Perfect Master, the Lord, etc.
Knowledge Vow
Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your lotus feet.
I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.
Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.
Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledge.
Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the kingdom of heaven within inside of me.
Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.
I will obey you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.
I will keep in contact with you through my devotional love, satsang,meditation and service.
Yes, I sat in on many Knowledge giving sessions where this vow was required from aspirants in the late 70's. For those who want to play down the sterner side of Rawat's demands please note the promise to "obey you implicitly" was required. Hardly an encouragement to take it or leave it!PatW (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel I am being shrieked at again. I think the only way I can approach a dialogue with you is to apply the "PatW factor." This will be a multiplier of about 0.2. Whatever you say I shall assume you meant only one fifth of it. Your "plain as a pikestaff lie" defeats my new system somewhat, as I don't know what a "plain as a pikestaff lie" is, but I shall translate it as "exaggeration." I was in the ashram for about 4 years, and generally it was a positive experience. Certainly no one "yelled at me" wooops, new system, "spoke persuadingly" to me to go there. I wanted to, it felt like the right thing to do. I never made a lifetime commitment, nor was asked to, nor would I have if I had been asked. Most of the people I knew were not in it, and would not have wanted to be. I don't believe they felt discriminated against. If there are sources who claim Prem Rawat applied pressure to some people to live that way, then the article can certainly refer to them. I was not at the Alexander Palace and neither were you. We have 2 witnesses who describe what happened very differently. I will keep an open mind about it. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is already covered with Rawat "left his more ascetic life behind and does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Local and national newspapers have covered many aspects of the subject. His residence has been a recurring issue. Many other topics are as well. Let's just summarize what's in the sources. ·:· Will Beback·:·11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Over reliance on newspaper sources is not a good thing, in particular were there are abundant scholarly sources on the subject. If there is a specific aspect that was covered in a newspaper and not covered in scholarly sources, we need to ask ourselves why, and make an assessment in a per case basis about the suitability for inclusion of that material. If there is agreement about adding a source, it needs to be done within the context of the rest of the article's text, and with respect to undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Over-reliance on any source or type of source, including scholarly articles, is not a good thing. Misplaced Pages policy clearly supports representing a broad variety of different viewpoints and reliable sources. Academic articles are not simply superior versions of newspaper and magazine articles; they have different focuses (foci?) and methods and cover different subjects. And scholarly articles have one major disadvantage -- they are far less accessible to Wiki editors and the general public who might want to verify the sources of a Misplaced Pages article, or simply look them up for more information. Msalt (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Msalt, without wishing to open a can of worms as to whether this site is a reliable site, whether it can be used as a convenience link or not etc., there seems to be a collection of related academic studies available here. Jayen46612:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree Jossi. I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. The house issue highlights this approach. Dr Melton, a religious scholar, says Rawat moved into a house in Malibu in 1974. The LA Times adds the cost and describes it as a "mansion" and a "palatial walled estate". Melton's approach of supply the facts is suitable for an encyclopedia, the LA Times adds some gossip that is suitable for a tabloid. This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists to describe Rawat's life and work and still reached 60,000 bytes. Are we going to simply add more material from newspapers until we get to 100,000 bytes? Or, worse still, are peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists going to be removed to make way for material from newspapers?Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, Momento. There is no such a thing as a blanket agreement of types of sources, be these scholarly or from newspapers. When new sources are forthcoming editors will assess each one in the context of what is going to be used for, and work towards forming consensus in that regard. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus at WP:RSN appears to be that these two newspapers are reliable unless a specific case can be made for their unreliability. There's no need to assess them every time we use them unless we have some special information that calls their reliability into question. We had a situation above where I asked if the L.A. Times was reliable in a specific context and was unable to get an answer one way or the other. Rather than spending time arguing over the obvious let's just acknowlege that these are reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was more - why use the LA Times to say Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974 when Melton says it in a neutral, non-tabloid way. Same with Randi, why use a source that describes someone as "an overweight teenage guru"? If someone referred to Aretha Franklin as a "fat old singer" decent people would be outraged. Momento (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for an opinion on the use of the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times on WP:RSN and the overwhelming view there is that those are reliable sources, regardless of context, with a few exceptions (op-eds, etc). The L.A. Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat. There's no legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of the reporting. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and their use is deprecated. I'm sure that for theological issues covered by scholarly source are better, when available. I don't think we should remove sources, but rather add more. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"The LA Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat"? It doesn't say that at all, it quotes "Los Angeles information director John Berzner". As for adding more sources, we've been down that route before with predictable results. This article was once 100,000 bytes long. Momento (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The article starts, "The 16-year old Guru Maharaj Ji...has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday." Who do you suppose made the announcement? Mother Theresa? It appears to me to to have been made by Prem Rawat's spokespersons. Regardless of who made the announcement, the report on it is published in a reliable source. I'm sure we'll be able to keep this article a reasonable length while still including all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it was made by a spokesperson. As we have additional information from a scholar about that house, we ought to use it and assess if there is additional info provided by the LAT that is suitable/encyclopedic. If the latter, and if there are competing viewpoints (scholar vs newspaper) we ought to note that. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A source that is peer reviewed and written by an expert in the field would be a good start. Not written by someone who uses phrases like "juvenile judge".Momento (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you may not have much experience with other articles on Misplaced Pages, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the contents of this encyclopedia are not referenced from peer reviewed works written by experts in their field. I have no idea what the "juvenile judge" reference concerns. ·:· Will Beback·:·01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, you may not have much experience with BLP policy but it says - "Be very firm about the use of high quality reference". And WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available".Momento (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, your refusal to consider the two leading newspapers in the U.S. to be reliable sources is unhelpful. Deleting material sourced from the L.A Times calling it "extremely poorly sourced" gives appearance of acting without regard to normal standards in order to push a POV. No one responding at WP:RSN thinks that it is an in adequate source, and no one here agrees with you. You are acting against consensus and that is disruptive. Please get with the program and stop deleting properly sourced information. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never said they weren't reliable sources, Will Beback. I have said that in the case of Rawat moving to Malibu, Melton is a more reliable source and the LA Times material was "gossip". As for removing properly sourced material, being properly sourced doesn't automatically include access to the article, it must also be relevant, unbiased, not contain weasel phrases, not be undue weight, imply guilt be association etc. Can I put this in as context for the $400,000 house gossip, it is properly sourced to James V. Downton, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder - "Many of the luxuries surrounding America's new gurus are gifts from their followers. Guru Maharaj Ji is not alone among the new gurus who are surrounded by material comforts. A casual glance at the lifestyles of other gurus in America does not turn up any signs of poverty. This raises an obvious question: Why is it gurus insist on their followers becoming detached from the material world, while they seem to be completely immersed in it? Detachment means losing dependence to students of eastern thought. A guru may be surrounded with material luxuries, they believe, and not depend on them in the least for his peace and happiness. Trungpa, Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, has expressed this idea: "Then, of course, the next step is giving away one's possessions. But this is not necessarily connected to austerity. It does not mean that you should not own anything at all or that you should give away what you have immediately. You could have a great wealth and many possessions and you could even enjoy them and like having them and probably you have a personal interest in them-like a child's toy, or adult's toy for that matter. It isn't a question of not seeing the value of possessions, the point is that it should be equally easy to give them away." The western mind tends to see this as a rationalization of self-indulgent behavior. Yet, while many people feel gurus have accumulated more than their share of wealth, their followers believe they are getting no more than what they deserve. From the premie point of view, for instance, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulent lifestyle seems in harmony with their view of him as the Lord. They want him to live like the king that they feel he is. Idealizing him as they do, they are more than happy to supply him with luxuries. From this perspective, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulence can be understood as a natural outgrowth of his followers' need to idealize him and to set him at a sufficiently great distance so that beliefs in his extraordinary powers are preserved. In short, premies have a stake in maintaining his luxurious way of living. The fact is that followers, not leaders, are the chief obstacles to equality, for followers need to elevate the leader so they have an ideal to strive toward. This point of view may seem strange, yet, if we look at other spiritual movements across the country, we find other followers elevating their gurus to a high spiritual status and surrounding them with material goods. While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' need to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe. It is difficult to understand the motives behind Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle, just as it is impossible to know whether he is, as premies believe, an authentic saint. I have thought about this issue a great deal and have come to the conclusion that there is no way of knowing, by objective measures, whether the guru is authentic or not. That can only be determined subjectively, for, as one premie told me, "You can only see Guru Maharaj Ji with your heart." Instead of considering the guru's motives and authenticity, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask whether his followers have benefited from their relationship to him and what impact his efforts are having on our society"Momento (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you repeatedly said that the material was poorly sourced: "...it is poorly sourced contentious material." and "Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar." However if you've now come to realize that the L.A. Times is a relaible source, and you won't remove material referencing it on account of it being "poorly sourced" then this problem is resolved.
Regarding the "opulence" factor, you seem to be saying that it is appropriate and normal for followers to maintain their guru in a lavish lifestyle. If it is normal and appropriate then why are you censoring any reference to the details of that lifestyle. If it's a good thing for followers to provide luxury then they should be proud of the guru's home, jet, cars, and other amenities. Osho's followers were proud to have provided their teacher with dozens of Rolls Royces. There's no need to hide this important aspect of the guru-follower relationship. And it certainly isn't "gossip" to report an announcement from the subject's spokespersons. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As stated above and in the link you provided, I removed it because "it has no relevance, it is undue weight, it is poorly sourced contentious material". Did the guru's spokespersons say the house was worth $400,000? I don't think so. In fact, none of the spokespersons even said Rawat bought it. And yes, it is so appropriate, normal and traditional for followers to maintain their guru and with over a million followers, many in the west, it should come as no surprise that Rawat would live a life of luxury and good luck to him. But this was already covered in this article that at the age of 16 Rawat was already "financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". To then additionally insert that he lived in an expensive house and to describe that expensive house as "a walled estate" and "palatial" is irrelevant and undue weight and gossip. But you're missing the point. Do you think it's necessary, relevant or encyclopedic to add "1974 he bought a $400,000" into an article about a successful racing car driver, brain surgeon or playwrite.Momento (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the L.A. Times is not a reliable source for local real estate transactions? If so you're alone in that belief. Property transactions are recorded in public records. There's no reason whatsoever to assert that this material is "poorly sourced". ·:· Will Beback·:·23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not and have never said that the LA Times is not a reliable source, I've always known that. What I said was, the material was "poorly sourced" or sourced "in a way or at a level that is considered inadequate". That is, given that the house purchase was already covered by Melton, you chose "poorly" to include the less reliable contentious and gossipy LA Times version of events. Did the guru's spokespersons say the house was worth $400,000? I don't think so. In fact, none of the spokespersons even said Rawat bought it. Melton says it was bought by followers. In addition, as stated above and in the link you provided, I also removed it because "it has no relevance, it is undue weight".Momento (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your logic. You admit that the L.A. Times is a reliable source. The assertions in the material I posted are all taken directly from that newspaper with no interpretation or synthesis. The assertsions are not disputed by any other sources. How can the material have been "poorly sourced" if the source is reliable? ·:· Will Beback·:·00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the sources disagree inasmuch as the LA Times says, in the headline (and only in the headline), the sixteen-year-old Rawat bought the house himself, while Melton says it was his followers. While I can't speak to what the actual facts in the case are, I submit that this is precisely the sort of thing that newspapers sometimes muddle. If I have followed things correctly, the title of the article is "Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", while the actual body of the article says "The 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji ... has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday. Land and buildings purchased there ..." The latter sounds compatible with Melton's version. It sounds like the land and buildings were purchased by people not explicitly mentioned. So to me, a plausible explanation is that the editor looked for a short, snappy headline -- "Maharaj Ji buys" would, for a newspaper, be an acceptable shorthand for "Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission buys" or "Maharaj Ji's followers buy him", which, while more precise, would not have fitted the same space in the same font size. And in this way the nicer details of the matter sometimes get lost in headlinese. A scholar has no need to make short headlines that grab the eye's attention. My instinct is to go with Melton here. Of course, a third source would be welcome. Jayen46601:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also a significant difference between buying a $400,000 home for a single person, and buying a $400,000 headquarters for what at the time was presumably quite a large organisation, with accommodation for Rawat included in this. Again, this is a nice detail that the LA Times saw no need to reflect in its headline; as an attention grabber, it works better if the first impression is that this outrageously expensive property serves merely as a personal residence. The body of the article corrects the matter, but by that time, the emotional impact on the reader -- with potential shades of envy, indignation, etc. -- has already been actualised. It's newspaper psychology. Again, this is something that scholars eschew in their work, and that an encyclopedia can likewise well do without. Melton's is a sober account; this, on the other hand, uses some of the same newspaper psychology. Can you see what I mean, Will? -- Jayen466 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC
I certainly agree that healines are the least reliable part of a newspaper article. If I understand correctly, they've often been written by someone other than the journalist. Regaridng he ownership, see below for other LAT reports. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Third source (weak) as to who bought the house: "By 1974, Prem Rawat was living in a luxury property, at Malibu Beach, California, this mansion was apparently in the ownership of DLM Inc. although following the financial restructuring of 1975/6 it came to be owned by SEVA Corporation of America." Fourth source, also weak (this is the one Momento refers to, I believe): "In 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four-acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate as the residence for its youthful leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children." (Note that he did not have two children in 1974, at age 16; another example of newspaper inaccuracy). -- Jayen46602:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times may generally be a reliable source but that doesn't mean everything in the LAT is true. The 1974 LAT article says Rawat bought the house for $400,000. A 1979 LAT article says the DLM bought the house for $500,000. Obviously one is untrue and possibly both. You say "The assertions in the material I posted are all taken directly from that newspaper with no interpretation or synthesis"is not true. I can write this from the same article - "Guru Maharaj Ji moved into a secluded house in Malibu with his new bride following security concerns. The guru who has made a considerable impact among American youth since first visiting LA in 1971 claims 50,000 followers in the US and 3,000 in LA County alone. Some people have criticized Maharaj Ji for luxurious living but Berzner says that Maharaj Ji has left behind the traditional image of spiritual sages to be more relevant to a technological age and his spiritual insights should not be disregarded because of his lifestyle". Two completely different synthesis' or interpretations of the same source. And both would fall foul of WP:BLP because they are a "conjectural interpretations of a source". BLP policy says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source".Momento (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On Apr 10, 1976 the L.A. Times reported on the financial situation of the subject and the DLM. At that time someone named Joe Anctil said that the house belonged to the mission and was worth $554,000. He also said the Denver house was worth $86,000, and that Prem Rawat personally owned a Rolls Royce, a two Mercedes Benz, and some motorcycles, while the mission owned a $22,800 Jensen. The annual income of the DLM was said to be #3.78 million and there are further details about how that was raised and spent. Also of interest is the statement that the DLM does not consider itself a religion except for tax purposes. On Mar 25, 1982 the Times has Linda Gross saying that the house belongs to Seva Coprt. of Nevada, doing business as Anacapa View Estates. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Joe Anctil used to be the public relations person for Divine Light Mission, so if he's quoted in any articles, Anctil was speaking to the press in an official capacity as DLM's spokesperson, although to tell you the truth I don't remember his exact title at the moment. Anctil was the "go to" person at DLM for the press. Hope this helps. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, for clarification, during the time period 70s through 1983 when DLM became Elan Vital, DLM in the U.S. was considered Divine Light Mission International, often called "IHQ," or "International Headquarters." This applied to the Denver, CO, location/offices, then later the Miami Beach location/offices when it was moved to Florida. IHQ was considered the flagship for all other DLM organizations worldwide, although I don't know anything about Elan Vital's structure in that regard after the name change. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no contradiction. The difference between ownership being held by Rawat or by some organization under his control isn't significant. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You really are grasping at straws. Misplaced Pages doesn't care what you think, if sources contradict each other it is unacceptable for you to chose which ever source suits you.Momento (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not picking the sources that suit me, I'm picking the reliable sources we have that cover this issue. As it happens, there's not significant dispute here between sources. Both the L.A. Times and Melton have reported that the house was bought by DLM. If they disagreed then the right solution would be to report the disagreement. As for the matter of the purchase price, we can give the later figure or both. Here's the text I propose: Moved down to new section
There's nothing conjectural about summarizing one set of points versus another. If you think that your statement contains important points I left out then let's merge the two. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, summarizing one set of points versus another, is the definition of a "conjectural" interpretation, which is to - "form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information". You claimed you summarized the source, in fact, you summarized 10% of the source. The most you can ever do with the LA Times is read every single article they've ever written about Rawat and make one summary of what the LAT said. Picking out one or two articles that prove your POV or, even worse, picking out a few sentences from some articles is "forming an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information". This is why we have relied on what scholars say. The LAT can't even get the ownership, price and occupants of a house correct. As for your idea of adding my "conjectural interpretation" to your "conjectural interpretation", I think you've missed the point, there shouldn't be any in Misplaced Pages.Momento (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You are in the wrong when you say accuse me of trying to "prove" me "POV". I don't think I've been trying to prove any POV, as I've only made a few edits to this article. If you'd like to investigate editors trying to advance POVs then I'd suggest that there are better places to start. As for the reporting, there's no contradictions. It isn't a contradiction to report in 1971 that Rawat is in London and in 1982 that he is in Malibu. Things change. The house may have been moved between businesses, or the Seva may be a subsidiary of DLM/EV. Your attempts to discard an entire reliable source is not helpful. If you insist on deleting material sourced from respectablepapers as being "poorly sourced", even after the uinput from WP:RSN, then other steps in dispute resolution should be taken. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is a contradiction to say the same house was bought on the same day for $400,000 and $500,000 or that it was bought by Rawat and by DLM and by followers?Momento (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the later reporting is probably more accurate. The L.A. Times' articles never say that Prem Rawat bought the house, though one headline does. A subsequent interview with a DLM spokesman makes it clear that the DLM bought the house and paid the mortgage. I don't see any dispute over that, nor about the other info you deleted, such as the date of purchase. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You'd say " later reporting is probably more accurate". Are you saying the material you sourced from the reliable LA Times was wrong? Perhaps now you can see why peer reviewed scholastic sources are preferable.Momento (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That policy tells us that articles should use "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and includes "mainstream newspapers" among the "most reliable sources". It's a no-brainer that the L.A. Times and New York Times qualify. If Momento keeps insisting that they are not, and keeps deleting material from them as being "poorly sourced", then he is acting disruptively. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) The answer to that question (as well as the answer to the question of "what is suitable"), depends on context, overall length of article, and other factors. I would argue that discussion will be needed for specific cases, when these two aspects are not necessarily obvious. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
With regard to my discussion with Rumiton and VivK above. I have posted a response from a current follower of Prem Rawat (who was at the Alexander Palace meeting referred to above) called Tim Hain here: Letter from Tim Hain in response to VivK (and Ruminton) I thought it best to put it on my Talk Page rather than in here.PatW (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept all of the versions of whatever happened as sincere personal recollections. For a time in my job in the military I did accident investigations and came upon this stuff almost daily, people astonished and outraged that their sincere description of something they witnessed was being contradicted by a colleague. It is just the way memory works, and it is why we need neutral sources to get things in perspective. There probably are none for this and many other occurrences, so we are going to need a lot of applied effort to push this article into neutral territory. If some editors continue to try to "win" by making emotional ambit claims and vilifying the opposition their efforts are not going to be helpful. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
DLM/EV Articles of Incorporation
For anyone interested, I've posted on my talk page the relevant extracts from the DLM/EV Articles of incorporation which prove that DLM/EV has always had, and continues to have, a religious purpose.--John Brauns (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is, of course, a distinct difference between a "church" and "religious purpose". Your original claim, John, was that Prem Rawat had set up a "church". If you can't see the difference between a "church" and "religious purpose", then a cursory look at a dictionary or something similar should make the difference clear. Armeisen (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The DLM/EV Articles of Incorporation must state its status as a religion (in the state of Colorado, its place of incorporation) in order to retain it's legal church status with the Federal goverment. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)3, Elan Vital, formerly named DLM, is a non-profit organization, designated as a “church.” Therefore, legally, Elan Vital is a church and must to follow the IRS code in order to retain that status. See IRS Church Definition. But, not all 501(c)3 non-profits, such as The Prem Rawat Foundation, have a "church" designation. This "church" designation exempts a religious organization from paying taxes on its income in the U.S. while additionally being exempt from filing annual tax returns with the IRS. In other words, it is legally able to keep it’s financial dealings as private as any other church and religion, e.g., as the Catholic church does. All other 501(c)3 organizations must file annual returns under the law. You will never see any annual financial reports from Elan Vital made public because of their "church" status. The only d/b/a of Elan Vital is Visions International, which also enjoys the same church status, thus is able to operate without disclosing its financial information to the government or the public.
What makes this issue so very unique and controversial for Prem Rawat is that despite the fact that Elan Vital is a legal church in the U.S. enjoying all of the tax benefits that all other church and religious organization enjoy, it claims to have no membership, but only contributors. Having membership is one of the definitions of "church" as defined by the IRS. Moreover, since 1972, DLM/EV has been supporting and promulgating the work of Prem Rawat while receiving this benefit as a “church,” yet Prem Rawat claims he doesn't teach or offer any religious, spiritual instruction, or any religious doctrine or message. That is why Elan Vital's status is extremely controversial. Elan Vital claims no membership rolls, no place of worship, no clergy, no doctrines, and even eschews any connection to its leader, Prem Rawat. A skeptic might ask, "If Elan Vital claims it's not a religion or a church, then why are they legally able retain that IRS tax exemption and privacy protection? If Elan Vital states it has no membership, places of worship, or religious doctrines as other IRS-legal churches do, then who/what exactly is Elan Vital except its five employees and board of directors? If Prem Rawat does not teach a religious doctrine and spirituality, then why has Elan Vital been allowed to retain this this tax benefit for almost four decades while the non-religious Prem Rawat benefits from its support?” Hope this explains a bit about the controversy. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you ask, the relevance is that Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital has been supporting Prem Rawat's "work" for nearly 40 years. Prem Rawat is the subject of this article and those organizations wouldn't even exist were it not for Prem Rawat being, well, Prem Rawat, needing their financial support. And while I'm responding to you, I do question the necessity of having separate articles each for Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital when they are one and the same corporation. Prem Rawat is not notable enough or known to the English-speaking public enough to warrant either or both. But, I'm not POV pushing, advocating, or anything else of the kind. I'm simply stating the facts of the matter as they relate to the legal status of DLM/EV in the U.S. Prem Rawat claims he doesn't teach a religious or spiritual doctrine, yet he enjoys all the benefits of the financial support for his "work" of a legal church in the U.S., of which he once was named as it's "Chief Minister." Gimme a break here and stop being such a Hall monitor all the time Jossi. Thanks, and best wishes to you, too, Jossi. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are changing the subject. You are advocating for a purported "controversy" related to Elan Vital no-profit status, but that "controversy" is on your head only. If there are sources that describe that as a controversy, we can use them, otherwise you are mis-using these pages. And if you do not like my comments about attempting to keep this page focused on meaningful discussions, there is nothing I can do about it. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Prem Rawat's Roots and Lineage.
Is there any reason why Prem Rawat's self-proclaimed lineage might not be easily discovered here in an appropriate place? Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat) Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)' states the following interesting information for those who maybe are curious to know what the actual Indian roots of Prem Rawat's teachings are. (So as they can make their own minds up about how far removed he has become from those teachings).
Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:
Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)
The article at present provides no lead as to the roots of his teachings whatsoever. Isn't that a glaring omission? - only a link to this: "In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion. Disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization essential to his future role as teacher."PatW (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere a link to this information. I've looked. Please be clear exactly where I can read that 'Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own' ( I think it's important that on this occasion Prem Rawat's personal claims are reported) and the list I quoted above. I don't even see this information on the Teachings page. Maybe I've missed it.PatW (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat for someone who as you claim was a dedicated student for many years you surely recall the concept of the importance of a living teacher. Parampara is difficult to establish. Several scholars believe that Prem Rawat is from the Sant Mat or Rhada Soami tradition. Greaves is of the opinion that he is connected to the Advait Mat and Sant tradition.Although both emphasize the necessity of a living teacher. Its interesting that the latter have always appeared to break the conventional mold and create their own path after succession. Personally I have not seen enough evidence from either viewpoint to have a definitive answer to this. One thing I think we can be sure is that a very young Prem received it from his father. Much more of what we can add to this article needs to be verifiable. Have you any scholarly sources regards any of this that could be added?Balius (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Ron Geaves is a scholarly source albeit controversial and a follower of Prem Rawat of course. However on the matter of lineage his research is as good as any except he is very keen to associate Rawat with certain forks of the lineage (as is Prem Rawat himself). I don't think that further 'verifiability' is necessary since the subject himself (Prem Rawat) published the above on his own website and Geaves has confirmed that in a publication. It's extremely typical of 'offshoots' of movements to believe and proclaim they are the exclusive 'legitimate' inheritors of the title and favour certain lineage paths. Scholars unanimously agree on this. In fact in the Advait Mat movement there plainly was (if you read their books and look at the birth and death days of the Gurus ) plenty of movement for Satgurus to coexist ie there were sometimes more than one. Also they interestingly don't all stress the importance of one living teacher and some of the Gurus seem to be perceived as sort of lesser or greater 'incarnations' if that makes sense. It's also clear that Gurus are hsitorically fond of associating themselves with past highly respected masters although they might almost as well find association with crooked ones! (since the actual links are so tenuous and wishful thinking). My own reading and investigation (out of personal curiosity) have led me to agree that Shri Hans (clearly Rawat's father and Guru) was initiated most likely by Swarupanand of Advait Mat (not Radhasoami's Swarupanand). However the Param Hans Advait Mat 'history book' disputes that he was the chosen successor suggesting that Swarupanand passed the guru mantle on to one Vairaganand. There are followers of this line active today. I've had correspondence with Mark Jurgensmeyers understudy David Lane who has written extensively on Sant Mat and Radhasaomi and Advait Mat. In his research with Jurgensmeyer (for the book Radhasoami Reality) he apparently met and spoke with various old Indian people who remembered Shri Hans. He is quite clear about the unreliability of information in India but said that he was told that Shi Hans had also been initiated by Sawan Singh of Radhasoami (prior to meeting Swarupanand of Advait mat) and was also booted out of ashrams for some perceived impropriety with women! That was most likely more to do with his more liberal attitude to women compared to the stricter general views that would have prevailed. Another situation that is not really clear in this article is the typical situation repeated in Prem Rawat's 'succession' where there is dispute over who is the rightful inheritor of the Guru title. Is it clear for example that his own brother (Satpal) has started his own 'offshoot' movement essentially claiming he is the rightful successor to the Guru title. Rawat may be the only valid living master in some people's views but there is an interesting pattern that certainly offers some prosaic explanations and food for thought about these beliefs. As such I think an encyclopedia should make such information available so that people can make up their own minds about how plausible the concept of these 'living masters' is.PatW (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have also read the Advait Mat book. Rather than the Advait Mat book disputing Hans as the chosen successor there is no mention of him at all. Its interesting to note that Vairaganand soon became incapacitated and had a short tenure as head of the Math. David Lane's story about Shri Hans being kicked out of Rhadasoami cannot be verified. I think you find that David Lane has written extensively on Rhadasoami and Sant Mat. Advait Mat is not his area of expertise. The philosophy surrounding them are very different. This could be a subject for another Wiki article I don't know if it adds greatly to this articleBalius (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No you're right, I also couldn't find any mention of Shri Hans which may be a measure of their desire to dissociate from him. Who knows? It could be because Swarup did only appoint Vairaganand. Unlike followers of both offshoots I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other. David Lane knows quite a bit about Advait Mat but has not written much you're right. My impressions are that there a lot of similarities between all these groups. I've also read enough to conclude that these myriad religious groups and their petty Lords are not something I need to take remotely seriously. However they are worthy of some brief acknowledgement as the movements that spawned Prem Rawat, Ekankar, and a bunch of other Guru movements which bore me to death now frankly. I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article and belongs elsewhere. However I think that Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site are an important indicator to the reader that Rawat does acknowledge very particular roots that he feels possibly stretch back till 1780. that's it really.PatW (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Some thoughts:
These lineages are all within Sikh tradition, right? (correct me if I'm wrong). The only mention of a relation to Sikh tradition is currently in footnote 88 (Melton - the Sikh tradition is also at least mentioned in the sources listed in footnote 92 an 96). So, I suppose mentioning the Sikh tradition as Prem Rawat's background is something worth mentioning in the body of the article text, probably in the Prem Rawat#Childhood section. Any thoughts?
Re. "Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site": is this still currently on a Prem Rawat website? I mean, I'm in doubt whether this is notable enough to mention in the Prem Rawat article when the self-published source itself would no longer be existing (when it could be included per WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves if not contentious etc - but it appears to be contentious), and if the only still available copies of such self-published content are trivial web-copies published by organisations like webarchive that have no other reliability claims as re-publisher than that they once found that content on the web. Please provide a link if still on a Rawat-related website, and we take it from there.
What Rawat said on his site is not controversial. In fact I was not suggesting to use that defunct site or another internet site. Fact is that scholar Ron Geaves, who is used liberally throughout the article already, published an academic paper in 2006 with what I reported above (in italics) written verbatim. I have his paper in my hand. What controversy are you talking about? There is none. And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently. Are you suggesting that because Rawat no longer expresses that belief anywhere that is paramount to a denial or that means he's changed his mind about his roots? And that it is contentious as a result? If so you might as well say that because Rawat has changed his teachings we shouldn't mention his former teachings. PatW (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Or do you think that Ron Geaves (being a follower himself) is so controversial that we shouldn't use him? Again if so we have to decide whether all the other entries in the article that refer to his papers are controversial. What's the consensus?PatW (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Pat, you're making a mess, and apparently don't read comments by others:
You write "I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other", well, if it's a matter of "speculation", then it's contentious.
You also write "And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently." - Since Melton says it belongs to Sikh tradition, and you seem to indicate someone else suggests it doesn't (but do you have any source for that?), then, of course, it is "contentious". In such case we don't use the self-published source.
Re. "Are you suggesting that ", well no, I didn't suggest any of the sort. I said: probably the lineage info lacks notability for the Prem Rawat article. And you seemed to agree to that: "I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article". So why create mess and suggest difference of opinion for an aspect where there is none? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but I've absolutely read all the comments. What I think are speculative are the long dead Gurus claims about their lineage. I'm not suggesting we go into my speculations. However Rawat himself apparently believes in this stuff so why shouldn't we report his speculation which is perfectly well supported by Geaves? Rawats belief that he is a Satguru is arguably contentious and arguably speculative but we report that here don't we? Now if you'd read Armeseins comments to me above you would know that he drew into question my natural conclusion (which you apparently share) that the movements were broadly Sikh. He said: Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I wrote back: No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. In short I looked into this a bit further and found that the Sikh thing is a little tenuous. OK? And you also misread me completely about what I actually distinguished as being notable to include on this matter here. That is - not a load of blather about lineage from unreliable, contentious sources, or Sikhs, but a succinct reference to Prem Rawat's uncontested belief about his roots as in that list he gives us. That is palpably interesting to anyone wanting to know what line of illustrious gurus he thinks he descends from. Whether he's right or not, or scholars are arguing about it is immaterial. Yes? Please understand that I am not in the least bit trying to make a mess.PatW (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
More confusion, and mixing of topics. Armeisen didn't refer to lineage, nor background of where Prem Rawat grew up. He referred to practice of the adherents of Prem Rawat (and probably Prem Rawat's own attitude too). Melton (et. al.) say that the related movements were Westernised (e.g. " one Sant Mat group which had separated itself from the tradition in India enjoyed great success in the West in the 1970s as the Divine Light Mission " INTRODUCTION: SIKH/SANT MAT GROUPS, my bolding). No contradiction with Armeisen's comments on the practices in the movements. Melton also says "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji." (which is in the footnote linked to above). This is completely unrelated to whether or not any Sikhism survived in the Western DLM/Elan Vital/... movements many years after Hans Maharaj Ji died.
And *please give the actual reference to where Prem Rawat says what*... if it's no longer available as a reliable source, we're not going to pretend it is. We're not going to say "according to Prem Rawat" unless the source is either verifiably Prem Rawat, or is a reliable source claiming that it is Prem Rawat's opinion (indirect evidence as in "a source under Rawat's control" is not going to push us to OR in claiming "Geaves said it, thus this is what Rawat said"). Even when the source is Prem Rawat himself without intermediary, and the source is still available, Misplaced Pages is not going to publish it if it's contentious, if we're following our own rules. So, please get informed about the rules, in this case WP:V. Even if Geaves said it (whether or not attributing it to Rawat), and he's a reliable source, we'd still need to be sure it's notable: probably not, as reliable source Melton says "... had separated itself from the tradition in India" - in that case mentioning the Sikh/... traditions Rawat's movements had separated from is probably enough, without going in to the details of their presumed, but not so very relevant, lineage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No it's not enough. Here's why: This article is not primarily about Rawat's movement (or it's separation from it's roots)- it's about him- Prem Rawat the man. Wouldn't you agree that his beliefs are a prime ingredient in his notability since his teachings derive from his beliefs about himself being a Perfect Master?PatW (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I read Melton, see quotes above, thank you. Whether or not Melton is the ultimate source on this (seeing Sant Mat as a tradition related to Sikhism) I don't know, but in general I read Melton as I would read any RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There are historical connections between Sant Mat and Sikhism, Francis. Guru Nanak and others in the Sikh parampara, are shared by Sant Mat, but that is where all connections start and end. Do you think that is needed to have an explanation of Sant Mat and Sikhims in this article? ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sikhism and Sant Mat have been associated with each other for a number of different reasons. These include their common location and period of origin. Melton, Gordon J. (Ed.) Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, p.1129 ISBN 1576077616. (both evolved in the Punjab region of India and in the same period) ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the situation as I see it. If there is a consensus that it's too un-notable I'll give way to that. Reputable scholars and authors Melton and Jurgensmeyer both have generalised that Guru Maharaji was influenced by Sikhism. Quote from 'Radhasoami Reality' Princeton The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami". (Sikh) More recently, scholars including David Lane and Ron Geaves have said that, more specifically, the movement from which he derives is Advait Mat and that has some variants in practice, and different guru lineage from the Sikh Radhasoami movements. The Advait Mat group have a published hagiography of their lineage going back to Totapuri which is essentially the same that Rawat and Geaves claim - except that the Advait Mat group omit Rawat's father from their book because they dispute his 'accession'. Prem Rawat had a personal website (which Jossi authored for him) a few years ago where the 'lineage' (not entirely 'presumed' I hasten to add) was published. Rawat said there "This is the history thus far" and there followed the exact 'tree' that Geaves went on later in 2006 to publish in his academic paper.Here it is in small part: The only thing I consider notable to this article is that Prem Rawat and Geaves both have sought to clarify the highly obscure roots of this movement by presenting us with a nice little 'family tree' to think about. Why if they are so 'separate from the tradition in India' would they bother to do this still? I think that is because 'sensible' people do not believe that a movement like this (whose meditation techniques, songs, other practices are plainly still essentially old Indian etc. etc.) has separated at all. So they ask questions because they can see that the same experience/techniques are presented simply in a way that is more palatable to westerners. So some of those curious people obviously ask Rawat more about his Indian roots and this 'family tree' is his answer to them. Is it not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to a provide these people with some answers or clues as to where they can find this information?PatW (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No no I seem haunted by Sikh! Sorry I just read that there were some close ties and comparisons with Radhasoami but I do get the difference. Well a little anyway. PatW (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I just don't see this lineage as belonging in this article, especially if folks are arguing that he is a a non-religious speaker/author. Too much detail. It only matters is he is a religious master claiming a tradition. Again, compare similar authors -- you might mention that, say, Keynes was influenced by Thorstein Veblen, or Bly by Jung, but even then it would be one line about one or two intellectual influences. Msalt (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
He clearly started his career as a religious master who inherited his father's status, and was claiming his tradition. When he westernized, he appears to have sort of or at least partially "resigned" from that claim, though I have seen evidence from reliable sources that would disagree on whether that was a sincere change or a strategic shift to lower his profile.
Either way, my personal opinion is that the details as discussed in this section of the Talk page are miles too detailed for his article. Comparable authors simply don't have their sources described that much. I think a quick paragraph in the teachings section that references Sant Mat, Radhasoami, Advait Mat and Sikhism, briefly noting disputes and linking to the Misplaced Pages articles on those subjects should cover it pretty well. Msalt (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. My experience is that he is a religious master (what kind of master is he then?) and has as recently as 2006 claimed a tradition. I was taught by him that becoming a Perfect Master (or Satguru) was not a matter of influence as you say, but of a mystical transference of power and authority that manifest as a distinct lineage. There's tons of evidence of this. The fact that 'folks are arguing that he is a a non-religious speaker/author' is quite disingenuous. Do you think a Guru is not a religious master? - especially one who has compared himself to Jesus and Krishna? Why should an encyclopedia collude in covering up his past?PatW (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Parampara is a new concept to me. I'd never heard about it before this talk page section. (Well, it is in one of the footnotes of the Prem Rawat article I'd never very well understood, and again the term there was not linked to the article we have on it). Anyhow, the closest simile I'm more acquainted to is Translatio imperii, almost litterally "mystical transference of power and authority" (I wrote most of the lead section of that article, including the reference to Le Goff) - but that's rather about worldly power rooted in a spiritual/religious concept, in a Western medieval context. Yeah, parampara looks a bit medieval to my Western eyes, sorry about that. Still can't get why more modern people can get worked up about such ideas, but they do, and if they do verifiably in reliable sources we can report about it. What I learn from my (only vaguely related) "simile" is that the distinction made by Pat, the "religious" vector vs the "worldly" vector is maybe not all that important: in a medieval thinking these weren't separated. Parampara is a very old concept, dating from the time when here in the West translatio imperii still mattered, but I'm reluctant to see a self-contradiction in it from the part of Prem Rawat and his historiographers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been around for decades and have never heard of "parampara" before today. It just is not a part of what he offers. I think the article could mention that there appears to be a lineage, but like most lineages, it is disputed. Would you be happy with that, Pat? Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), Prem Rawat, and the spiritual leaders of his country of origin, usually belonged to the top caste of the Indian caste system, so there's both your link to "worldly power and/or wealth" belonging to the package, and to an approach that from a Western viewpoint is somewhat medieval. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I will not exactly "correct" you, but there is way more to it. In India the fact that Prem Rawat teaches the inner techniques to everyone who asks seems to be a major problem for orthodox Hindus, and probably also for Sant Mat people (though I am not sure about this.) They believe only Brahmins should learn the techniques, no one lower and certainly not non-Hindu westerners without any caste. I noticed once when an instructor who had also been an instructor with Prem Rawat's father was having a massage that he had a large, healed injury to his back. He told me an orthodox Hindu threw a brick at him as he was leaving a hall after a speech by Prem Rawat's father. I asked why, and he mentioned this issue. Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We've established there is no contention about the Geaves reference to Rawat's claims. So I would like to move this debate back on to why it would in fact be a considerable omission not to include reference to Rawat's own beliefs about his 'Masterly' lineage. I would like to ask the neutral editors here one question: Why, if it is important to describe Ron Hubbard's beliefs about science fiction and aliens,] is it suddenly not important to describe a self-proclaimed Perfect Master's beliefs about how and where his Knowledge came down to him? PatW (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever teaching lineage Rawat claims should be in the teaching article. I think Rawat would say that his lineage begins with his father.Momento (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What you think is surely irrelevant. I repeat that this was on Prem Rawat's personal website authored by our own Jossi Fresco and also is reported by Ron Geaves. Plainly we should write something less opinionated and clear than stopping at Swarupanand.
Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:
Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)
I suggest something like:
Prem Rawat has claimed from childhood that he was the latest in a lineage of 'Living Perfect Masters' (with reference). In 200? (whatever the date was) he described the history of his lineage from Shri Totapuri Maharaji (1780-1866) to his father and own Guru, Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966).
Jossi please would you tell us when this website last had this info please?PatW (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The accused Indian gent was a prominent and active Mahatma (Great Soul) of Prem Rawat, empowered by him to impart Rawat's knowledge all over the world. This mahatma abused Rawat's trust and allegedly sexually abused some kids at some sort of school for followers children. There is no mention of it here because as Ruminton says Rawat himself was not found responsible or guilty in any way. Rawat has however received criticism from ex-premies and the abused children themselves for the way he dealt with the matter. Ruminton warns that you should be wary that your questioning the matter here is paramount to suggesting Rawat himself is guilty. I beg to disagree.PatW (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand there were some newspaper (for clarity: might be rather tabloid) stories about this (for clarity: about a presumed *follower* of Prem Rawat, and as Pat said, *not* implicating the subject of the Prem Rawat article). But I agree to both Rumiton and Pat, this has no place in the article on Prem Rawat. We're not reporting on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in the article on Jesus Christ either, and these scandals were far more notable and extended than the news paper reporting on the allegedly offending follower of Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear..I am not sure a) whether there are legitimate sources b) whether criticisms about the way Rawat handled the matter should be included in a 'criticism' section. I am too uninformed to argue about this- so I won't.PatW (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked WillBeback top block user 147.114.226.172 ] who I believe is a sockpuppets related to 147.114.226.173],147.114.226.174] and 147.114.226.175], who have all edited on Rawat or related articles and been blocked numerous times for vandalism.Momento (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Progress
I think the ban on editing has produced good results.
I'd like to propose that we extend it for another week BUT in all fairness we should revert NikWright2's massive edit.Momento (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the protection has been helpful and that it should stay in place while outstanidng issues are resolved. Of course it's protected on the wrong version - it always is. Regarding outstanding issues, do you, Momento, have any furher objection to editors adding the subject's other names or do we still need to discuss that further? If those are added after protection is lifted will you revert them again? ·:· Will Beback·:·18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
NikWright2's version mentions aspects that I was unaware of and in some ways it is an improvement over the old version with its over reliance on Downton and under reliance on e.g. Derks/Van der Lans, and Foss/Larkin. It also treats the question of Rawat's leadership better. Andries (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to create a draft page in order to merge the best parts of both versions? That could be a productive way of making progress while the page is protected. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Momento. I find the present version by Nik more unsatisfactory than the version it replaced: the time line is difficult to follow; the alleged hammer attack incident is out of place; so is the duplicated description of the foot kissing by his family; quotes from people such as the Chicago 7 belong in the Reception section, if considered notable, rather than the main part of the article. That is not to say that parts of Nik's version could not be integrated. I think that creating a draft page might prove useful. BRD is very well; we have had B, now let us move to R, and then to D. Jayen46623:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We've been through the "R" already. Time for discussion. I haven't compared the versions and don't have any opinion about them myself. But it's logical to use the best parts of both drafts, combining them into a cohesive whole. I agree that quotes about the subject may be best in the "reception" section, unless we prefer to put them into chronological order (which I tend to prefer when practical). Since the lead should simply summarize the key points of the article, there's not need to put quotes there. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted here. My proposal is to revert Nik Wright2's undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes of material and protect that article why these discussion continue.Momento (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many problems with Nik's edit, (besides the fact that it was a massive edit with little or not discussion. Some material may be useful, such as new sources that have not been used that are of same or better quality of other sources used, but that's all. I will take sometime tonight to de-construct that edit. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Malibu house, proposed text
In November of 1974 he moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California that was purchased by the DLM for $400,000. The DLM, which also paid the mortgage, announced that it would serve as the West Coast headquarters for the DLM. Rawat reportedly moved to Malibu from the neighboring Pacific Palisades seeking more seclusion for himself, his family and his entourage. The property, called "Anacapa View Estates", has been described as a "palatial, walled estate" and a "lavish hilltop estate." The presence of Rawat's followers in Malibu and the installation of a controversial heliport on the property caused concerns among neighbors. After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s, he created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the home. By 1998 the property was valued at $15 million.
What is missing is the fact that the heliport was allowed to be built, based on an agreement with the Fire department, related to having built a massing water storage facility in the property to combat fires. Also, IMO, it is too lengthy in comparison with other material already in the article. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it could do with being shorter (proposal below). That the DLM paid the mortgage would seem to follow naturally from the fact that they bought the property and does not need separate mention. Rawat did not have a family when he moved there, only a wife.
In November 1974, seeking more seclusion for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. The presence of Rawat's followers in Malibu and the installation of a heliport on the property caused concerns among neighbors. After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
If any of the facts are contested, please let's hear about it. (Certainly some statements in these newspaper accounts, like that he married "a woman twice his age", are not factually correct; they were 16 and 24, weren't they?) Jayen46600:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid nothing can save this edit. "After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s"?!?! Incredible Will! Religious scholars Hunt, Geaves, Barret, Melton and Messer are going to be beating a path to your door to find out where you unearthed this gem from.Momento (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that DLM changed its name to Elan Vital and is still associated with Rawat, this sentence did seem rather odd. What about the first three sentences? Can we live with those? Jayen46602:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the source for the NASP:
In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji began a process of disbanding the mission and its local ashrams. He dropped the remaining Indian cultural trappings, began to call himself simply Maharaj, and, adopting an extremely low profile, chose to relate to his followers on a one-to-one basis. He created the North American Sponsorship Program to raise financial support for his home in Malibu and his many travels.
FYI, here's the source I used for the break-up of the DLM:
In the late 1970s the Divine Light Mission had also become the target of the anticult movement, and members were subjected to deprogramming in an attempt to break their allegiance to Maharaj and the group. In the early 1980s Maharaj responded to the problem by disbanding the mission, closing all of the ashrams, and reorganizing his following as merely informal students of his teachings. He has assumed a low profile and largely dropped out of public sight. He spends most of his time traveling the world speaking to his followers.
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
That is consistent with Melton, Hunt and others. I would prefer to rely on these scholarly sources, rather than a tertiary source such as Gale. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)04:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand, Jossi. Melton seems to be the most widely accepted source here, by you as much as anyone. Yet every thing of his cited in this article, that I've seen, is some kind of encyclopedia -- a tertiary source. In fact, Melton is the editor of this book you're objecting to!! Msalt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd also quote this report, quoting "Maharaji's attornery, Linda Gorss":
Maharaji's need for more flights "has to do with a change in circumstances", Gross said. Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spend time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light Mission and settled full time at his Malibu estate.
"seeking more seclusion..." is slanted, and implies the subject is somehow a fugitive, an insinuation at odds with his highly public lifestyle and travel. "Seeking privacy..." might be better, though the whole section seems absurdly over-focused on a long ago triviality. Rumiton (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The source says:
The move to Malibu in part was to find more secluded surrounding for the guru, his wife, and entourage. Non-members sometimes would seek out Maharaj Ji at odd hours, including one who stood outside the house at 2 a.m. one night yelling, "Maharaj Ji! Maharaj Ji!" Spokesmen, citing security reasons, would not disclose the exact location of the new property.
So we're taking "secluded" straight from the source. It looks to me like security was more the concern than privacy, but "secluded" covers both which is why it's a good term. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What kind of a source is that? Seems close to sensationalism and tabloidism to me. Who were the "non-members" and what were they non-members of? How does the author know what happened at 2 a.m? Was he there? He is clearly repeating a rumour. Reputable sources do not make unsubstantiable claims like that. This is totally slanted stuff and deserves no place in an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that the journalist is repeating what he was told by the spokeman. Anyway, it doesn't matter what his source is. The L.A. Times is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole issue about the house, secluded, palatial, helicopter etc is irrelevant. Melton says all an encyclopedia needs to say "Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974. All the rest is undue weight and gossip. Can you imagine any other Misplaced Pages BLP containing info about a supposed dispute with neighbors? Tabloid indeed!Momento (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that we're not permitted to include anything in Misplaced Pages that hasn't been written by Melton. As it happens the size and opulence of the house has been commented on repeatedly. A picture says a thousand words, so maybe a photo of the house would allow us to use less text? ;) ·:· Will Beback·:·05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't seem to be saying anything, I'm stating very clearly that all this trivia is unacceptable in any encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you have a record of deciding that things are trivia, and then deleting sourced material. I suppose if this were an article about OSHO you'd insist that his Rolls-Royces were trivial gossip too. While you have made a huge number of edits to this article it doesn't belong to you. Please don't exert ownership. You're not in a position of deciding what is and is not allowable. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Osho's Rolls Royces were mentioned in peer reviewed academic articles and they did constitute a deliberate demonstration of devotion from his students. Rawat's house on the other hand is his private residence.Momento (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A helipad sentence:
In 1981 Rawat began work on a helipad on the property without first obtaining proper permits. He was eventually given permission for six flights per year on condition that he build and maintain a 50,000 gallon water tank for use by water-dropping helicopters during fires. He successfully had the limit raised to 12 flights per year but an increase to 36 flights per year was rejected in 1985.
Proposal with shortened helipad section below. Can we live with putting "privacy" instead of "seclusion"? Still seems like an adequate summary to me, given that there were night-time disturbances according to the LA Times. Also now "scaling down of DLM" rather than "break with DLM". I took out the neighbors' concerns, since these only arose later, after the Jim Jones tragedy; prior to that, one of the LA Times articles said, neighbors didn't care, because he was just one of many celebrities in the area. Revision:
In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million. Jayen46622:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jaen. That will be OK with me at this time. Let's just hope that the article will not grow too much with information that may be borderline. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the LA Times article "Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use", "Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spent time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said." Our article last had him moving to Miami in 1979 and never returning. Jayen46622:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
They moved to Miami after fires in Malibu damaged the house (PIP page 220). He was there until at least 1982, I'll see if I can find when they moved back.Momento (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it did but are you seriously thinking this is going in the article? It's irrelevant, undue weight and gossip.Momento (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A) Jossi asked for it. B) It's not gossip. None of it is rumors. Many public hearings were held on the permits required and it was a major issue in the community. C) So far as I can tell, as many articles were written about the heliports in the early 1980s as about any other aspect of the subject. It may not be his claim to fame, but it did bring him considerable attention. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
LA is not the center of the universe and applying for a helipad is irrelevant to his notability.05:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento (talk • contribs)
Put another way, Malibu is the home of the "Lord of the Universe". So it is, in a sense, the center of the universe. Or at least the capital. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So what? Are you suggesting that if the LA Times reported that his daughter had a 21st birthday party we should put it in the article?Momento (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Times did run a short piece on the subject's first Father's Day. What seemed to impress the reporter most was that 1000 followers showed up with just 24-hours notice. There aren't many homes that can handled a 1000-person party. Earlier it ran a piece on his first child's birth, noting that it was natural, held at home (in Malibu) and that the subject assisted. Those were all remarkable facts at the time. They do give insight to the subject as a family man and tend to refute the claims by family members that he was a playboy. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you to write that one. Regarding the heliport, a quick check reveals that this is the only helipad at a private residence in southern Los Angeles County (the mostly-empty northern part has some large ranches). L.A. County is home to the most billionaires of any county in the U.S. None of those 42 billionaires, nor the thousands of mere millionaires, has a helipad on their home, even though many of them undoubtedly own helicopters. Now these aren't sources I'd use for the article. But it does demonstrate that this heliport is unique. ·:· Will Beback·:·09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Rawat must have friends in high places or have an impeccable flying record. But that's a tiny accomplishment, why mention it? At 13 he led the biggest procession in history. Been there, done that. --- "Roads in the Capital spilled over with 1,000,000 processionists, men, women and children marched from Indra Prasha Estate to the India Gate lawn. People had come from all over the country and belonged to several religions. A few Europeans dressed in white were also in the procession." Guinness Book of World Records, 1970 ---Momento (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't add it to the article, but an official in the county government went on leave following questions about special help he'd given certain individuals (including the subject) with their planning issues. As for the march, I'm not sure why we don't mention that - it sounds notable. 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
An estimated 1 million people participated in what is considered the largest march in the history of New Delhi, India, on 8 October1970, in commemoration of Hans Ji Maharaj, lead by his son Maharaji (now Prem Rawat), who was 12 years old at the time.
As I said before, I have no problems with adding a short sentence about the house, per the sources. Jaen did a good job of trimming it, may be he can now add something about the heliport and be done with it. The only concern I have is that the article can become this mishmash of information, some of which is encyclopedic and some trivial, but we shall see what happens as we move forward. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the house any more notable than flying your own 707 around the world at 25 years of age? Should we put that back in?Momento (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, this article ballooned out to 100,000 bytes. This 1RR policy suggests no penalty for adding stuff, just a penalty for removing. Can I suggest at this early stage that we limit this article to 60,000 bytes. That way editors will have to decide and explain why something is so important to put in that something needed to be taken out.Momento (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The house is more notable because it's been noted more often. Yes, his ownership of a jet has been noted often as well, as has his ownership of dozens of cars. By contrast, his teaching are mostly noted by only his followers and some academics. I'm sure that some editors here would wish for the subject to be known most widely as a brilliant speaker on spiritual matters, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The fact is that people are sometimes best known for matters that seem trivial to some. We need to take our cue from reliable sources, both scholars and journalists, to determine what about this (or any) subject is notable. I don't think that arbitrary limits are helpful. We have many 100,000 byte articles - if it grows too large we can split off parts. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm... I beg to differ. Some aspects of a public people's life get press coverage, but that does not mean that it is related to their notability and/or that it is useful material for a Misplaced Pages article. This over-reverence for WP:RS concerns me quite a bit. When looking at material for articles we need to take these four content policies into account as a whole: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. The fact that there is some material available in a source considered reliable, does not mean that it is automatically acceptable. Otherwise we would have the need for one policy only (WP:V), and that is certainly not the case. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's natural that followers drawn to a teacher because of his message will think that his message is what's most important about him. It's also natural that people who just sit at home and read their newspapers will think that the person is notable for they read. A complete biography needs to address all notable aspects of a subject. The subject is not notable for being born in India, for having a wife, for having moved to the U.S., etc, yet we report these facts because they are important elements of his biography. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding policies, WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. Not just those included in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, not just those included in authorized biographies, not just those preferred by proponents or opponents. I'm sure that some editors of Michael Jackson believe that his notability is due to his singing, and that we shouldn't include anything about his non-musical activities. But objective editors would acknowledge that there are many elements to the subject's notability, that when people think/talk/write about Jackson they don't limit themselves to covering his music. And vice versa, there's more to Jackson than Neverland. However we couldn't write about him without mentionining Thriller and Neverland. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree also. Will says the house is "more notable because it's been noted more often" than, by contrast, his teaching which "are mostly noted by only his followers and some academics". But the house, cars, plane etc are only notable because they are associated with Rawat. Has there ever been an article about the house that doesn't mention Rawat? I think Will trying to move this article to a more tabloid style. Rather than concentrate on the subject of the article and what makes him notable i.e. being a guru/teacher for 40 years, Will seems to want to take the emphasis away from Rawat the teacher and his teachings and place it on peripheral stuff, houses, helicopters etc. The LA Times is read by more people than Downton's "Sacred Journeys" so we should pay more attention to the LA Times and what it writes about.Momento (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You've misquoted, or misunderstood me. I was contrasting his home to his jet, in answer to your question whether it was more notable than his house. I'm not seeking to move this article to a "more tabloid style" - I'm not quite sure what that is. What I am trying to do is include facts that have been reported on repeatedly by notable, reliable sources. If you'd like me to describe what I think you are trying to do with articel I could, but I don't think that's a productive use of our time. Le'ts get back to the material at hand. Here's Jayen's draft:
In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
If there are any factual mistakes then let's fix them. Otherwise I assume it is appropriate for inclusion in the article once protection has been lifted. ·:· Will Beback·:·05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is either undue weight or you're looking to have a 1,000,000 byte article. And what about the rest of the 1974 article - "Guru Maharaj Ji moved into a secluded house in Malibu with his new bride following security concerns. The guru who has made a considerable impact among American youth since first visiting LA in 1971 claims 50,000 followers in the US and 3,000 in LA County alone. Some people have criticized Maharaj Ji for luxurious living but Berzner says that Maharaj Ji has left behind the traditional image of spiritual sages to be more relevant to a technological age and his spiritual insights should not be disregarded because of his lifestyle". Will, you seem to have decided to tell a story and are finding the sources to prove it but leaving out what doesn't suit, so please don't assume you can include it. Momento (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The question isbn't about undue weight, or your arbitrary length limit. The question is whether anything here is improperly sourced. You haven't mentioned anything so I assume there aren't any assertions in this text that you disagree with.
As for my motivation - shall we discuss your motivation too? I'll start - I did the research and found a lot of material on this subject that wasn't mentioned in the article. For example, the lack of any mention of Mishler. ·:· Will Beback·:·06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you and Rumiton do not have a veto over items in this article, no matter how much you post on Talk. The current version has been negotiated and improved at length by many editors, and the only objections are vague claims of undue weight or "tabloid style" by editors with admitted COI. That is not a valid reason to delete properly sourced text. Msalt (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gee Msalt, if I don't use the talk page you say I'm not seeking consensus and when I do use the talk page you say I'm seeking a veto. Please tell me how I can satisfy you. And Will, I also have done some research and there is much that I could add but this is an encyclopedia not an attic. How about - "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, was damaged by the 1979 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". Agreed?Momento (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not about satisfying any one user, including you or me, it's about working together, seeking consensus, to create a neutral and informative article. (By coincidence, that's the best way to satisfy me.) Yes, deleting material without comment in a very contested page is a bad idea. Contesting every possible issue at great length is also bad. If you'd like to see a good model of Talk discussion, check out the Laozi page which Jossi, Vassyana and I have been editing recently.
The way you proposed text here and are negotiating is an excellent development. One thought -- and this is something I am sometimes guilty of too -- when we're emotionally invested in an article, for whatever reason, it's easy to fall into thinking that we personally have to comment on every contentious issue. It's helpful sometimes to let others speak up and carry the load for a while. Otherwise, it looks like we think we might own an article. That's what my comment about veto was about, it seemed like you felt you were the judge we needed to satisfy. I understand you might feel the same way about me, given your "how can I satisfy you?" comment. I apologize if I give that impression, and will take it as a good occasion to take a breath. Msalt (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll look it up, but I recall that the house was included in a report on a different fire in which it was threatened. I'd also cite that story as yet another example of the notability of the property. In a compendium report on wildfires in Southern California, it was one of the only properties indentified individually. ·:· Will Beback·:·08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Security issues is one of the bits you left out of the 1974 article. The 1979 fire damage is covered in Peace is Possible and presumably in the reliable LA Times. You have deleted so much from the articles to make your synopsis, it's hard to tell what you mean. Momento (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be snide. IIRC, the source didn't say "security" but I suppose that term could be inferred from the circumstance. The source did say "seclusion" or "secluded". Someone else wanted it to be "privacy". I'm not sure why we can't just use the word from the source, but if you guys think "privacy" or security" are better words that's fine with me.
I don't know what you mean by "deleted so much from the article in your synopsis" - we can't include every word in every source. It's the purpose of an ecyclopedia to compile and summarize material.
What you explain as "we can't include every word in every source. It's the purpose of an ecyclopedia to compile and summarize material", I call "conjectural interpretation" as in WP:BLP - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source". That is, you "summarize" what you want from a source and ignore the rest. As for your comment " the source didn't say "security" ", I suggest you re-read the reliable LA Times, particularly the sentence - "Spokesmen, citing security reasons, would not disclose the exact location of the new property".Momento (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing two issues here. Every editor MUST take part of a source and discard the rest. Otherwise we could just copy and paste the article, in clear copyright violation. The BLP policy says to look at WP:OR for more on conjectural interpretation. The section at point appears to be WP:SYN, and this section of the OR lede: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I don't see any sign that Will BeBack is conjecturing or using this source to say something not clearly meant by the source, nor do I see you even making any case that he has done that. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No what you said was "the source didn't say security" and it did, you were wrong. Why did I remove "Anacapa View Estates", please look at BLP, particularly "Misplaced Pages articles should not include addresses".Momento (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Neverland was a name Jackson gave to his property . Other examples are The Ponderosa and Gracelands. Anacapa View Estates is a specific address indentifying locale . Momento was quite correct to remove it in mop. Balius (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not an address. An address would be something like 1500 Anacapa View Lane. This is the name of the property, as shown by relaible sources. For example, I've already cited aboce this text: "Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates..." Another article says:
Until last spring, Maharji was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, said Linda Gross, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents him.
"Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1
It is an address, Will. Many properties in that area do not have a street number. (you can check Google Maps, or any other mapping app online) ≈ jossi ≈(talk)21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A) We have sources that say it's the name of the property. B) Google maps is a poor source for the existence of street addresses. C) A street address does exist for the property, according to FAA records. D) Google maps has no trouble finding that address. E) Many other properties nominally located on the same street have addresses. F) The property is composed of several lots, at least one of which has an address on an interescting street. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an address and that's that. Next you'll be saying that we can say "it's the big house next up the hill to number 14 Mockingbird Lane" and since we don't say it's number, it's not an address.Momento (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Momento, Will could not have been more detailed or persuasive in his points. No offense, but "It's an address and that's that" is absurd as a response. Next you'll be saying "Yes it is! Is so! IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS." Ancapa View Estates doesn't even make sense as an address. Why would the address of one house have "Estates" (plural) in it? Many articles refer to the city or district that a well known person lives in -- Hollwyood, Brentwood, Jackson Heights, etc. No one considers that to be an address. Msalt (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A city or district is an entirely different matter to a house name. There are hundreds of houses in Malibu but only one "Anacapa View Estates". Just like there are thousands of houses in Washington but only one "White House". BLP policy is clear - Misplaced Pages articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". "Anacapa View Estates" is contact information. Our responsibility is to follow BLP policy not to try and circumvent it and not to propose or make edits in the expectation that other editors will fix any mistakes. BLP should be written conservatively.Momento (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we apply a do no harm? It seems to me that the address of a LP is a delicate matter, and the wording for that material will not suffer if we exclude the address or what seems to be the address. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
E/C Yes, there's only one "White House", and only one "Neverland". Is including the names of those properties in biographies a violation of BLP? I don't think so and I think our articles on George W. Bush and Michael Jackson would be much poorer if we didn't include the names of their most notable residences. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that if you type Neverland on google maps, you get Jackson's house. Again, I would request that it is considered omitting the address, as per "do not harm". ≈ jossi ≈(talk)23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
But is listing the name of an estate in habited by a public figure an automatic BLP violation? Is the listing of Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster's country house a BLP violation too? Certainly many people would like to harm George W. Bush - so should we delete "White House" from his bio? Google leads us right to it. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not claiming a BLP violation, Will. What I am requesting is to consider omitting the address per do no harm, given the fact that the name of the estate is actually an address. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I have made my arguments already, and it is unnecessary to repeat them.It is up to you and others here to decide if it would be OK to omit the address or not. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my sources that show the name isn't an address and that the proerty has a normal street address. You haven't provided a source calling it an address. If you and Momento are going to say that it's an address just because you both call it an address then our standards for sourcing are being thrown out the window. What harm are we doing by re-publishing a name already published numerous times? ·:· Will Beback·:·00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're wise to step back from this one. That leaves only one editor who is insisting that well-sourced, NPOV, material cannot be included. I hope we can get consensus on this minor point without further disruption or personal remarks. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's settled if we follow their example. You're confusing the Duke's birthplace with his reseindences, at least one of which is listed by name, Eaton Hall (Cheshire). As for Bush, article on G.W. Bush lists his official residence, the (White House. His private residence, Prairie Chapel Ranch, ia mantioned in several other articles, including one about his daughter. The summer home of G.H.W. Bush is also listed, Walker's Point. So if you're fine with following those examples then we should be done arguing over this text. ·:· Will Beback·:·06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Now we're just going in circles. No one is contesting that the material is accurate, verifiable, or NPOV. The mentioning of named estates is obviously not a BLP violation because the information is included in the bios of numerous prominent individuals. Wwe've gone over the notability issue many times before and have shown that it a noted property with a unique facility. Etc., etc. Let's avoid going over the same ground again and again, and try to make some progress instead.
Here's the text we've got so far, including the additions by Momento.
In November 1974, seeking more privacy and security for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. The property was damaged in a 1979 fire. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
I think this is the one, you've got the chronology wrong. - "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, was damaged by the 1979 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the approval of the heliport came before the 1979 fire. That's why inserting the fire as the main action doesn't make sense. The 1979 fire came midway in the chronology. Also, you mention "fires" in your draft - was it damaged by more than one fire? Also, you omit the name of he estate despite sourced evidence of its notability. Otherwise that draft is pretty good. ·:· Will Beback·:·11:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
One article is online here ("Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use", about half-way down); this mentions the estate's name and dates the first helicopter landings permission to 1980. The other article is here. (These are convenience links, with the usual caveats, rather than LA Times originals.) Jayen46612:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that entering "Anacapa View Estates Malibu California" in Google Earth locates the property. Google Earth also locates "Neverland Ranch Santa Barbara" (in addition, in the article on Neverland Ranch we give its precise street address), and it also locates George Bush's ranch by entering "Prairie Chapel Ranch Crawford TX". Bill Gates' house is identified by its exact geographical coordinates, as well as its street address. So this is clearly not without precedent. However, I am not sure I agree with all of these precedents! Some feel a bit over-eager and potentially invasive. As for this case here, I think the benefits of having the name of Rawat's property in the article are marginal. I don't think I would insist on it. If people are interested, I reckon they can google this information, or find it in the biography. Jayen46611:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 makes some good points. One of them is that the names of prominent estates are routinely included in their inhabitant's bios. The identification of the property with the subject is easily verifiable. It's neutral. But is it invasive? That's a problem with subjects who once were celebrities but now wish for more privacy. Google Earth reminds us that none of us has the privacy we might wish for (even sovereign nations have had their secrets revealed). Nonetheless, in the interests of peace and consensus, I wouldn't object to deleting the estate's name even though it's well-sourced and relevant as part of trying to minimize the verbiage and stay scrupulously correct. That leaves us with:
In November 1974, seeking more privacy and security for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. The property was damaged in a 1979 fire. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
How about this for the first sentence: In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage following security concerns, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California.
I think we still need to insert a source that the property was purchased by DLM. Plus the Cagan cite for the fire damage. We should retain some sort of reference that there was a controversy around the helipad (which the above version does, and an earlier proposal didn't). Jayen46612:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found the word "controversy" or any suggestion of controversy in the LA Times article re the helicopter. Unless someone provides a source for this claim I am going to have to remove under BLP policy. The 1978 Mailbu fires material provides two benefits - it explains why Rawat & Co moved to Miami in early 1979 and also makes sense of why he would put emergency water at the heliport. Logically and chronologically, the "fire" comes between the house purchase and the emergency water. Therefore - "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property was damaged by the 1978 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". In the meantime, I will shift "the fire" material to its correct logical and chronological place.Momento (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy to wait Jayen, I have altered the second mention of the house to insert the "fire material" in the correct place. I have left "controversy" awaiting a source. Is anyone going to be brave enough to remove the duplicate material?Momento (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
First: LA Times 1985/7/7 Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use: "Maharaji-the professional name now used by Prem Pal Singh Rawat, formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji-can continue descending from the skies to his landing pad 12 times a year, the annual limit imposed for five years in April, 1983. Six landings were originally allowed in 1980 because Maharaji agreed to install a 45,000-gallon emergency water storage and pumping system that would be available to county Fire Department helicopters." The way I understood the sources, the installation of water storage was not to protect his own property, but a condition for his being allowed to use the helipad -- it was felt the helipad should serve some public benefit as well. More on the original controversy around the helipad to follow. Jayen46617:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Second: (these are all convenience links, with the usual caveats): It appears some of the residents were upset about the potential noise pollution caused by the helicopter, as well as the permission for this helipad setting a precedent for others. It sounds plausible to me. Jayen46617:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Many development applications are opposed but it's hardly a controversy. And the fact that Rawat was allowed to build the heliport is evidence that the authorities decided that his application was fair and the objections over ruled. So claiming it was a "controversy" is not only an overstatement, it suggests that Rawat did something wrong when in fact he didn't. Momento (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
From one of the above articles: "The guru has taken out full page advertisements in local newspapers to try to placate residents' groups which vigorously oppose the heliport, saying it not only creates noise but is an unnecessary hazard." I think this means it was in the public eye to a sufficient degree, at any rate more than ordinary planning issues, to make it notable. Even The Times in the UK had an article about it. It does not imply that he did anything wrong; after all, a compromise agreement was reached to everyone's satisfaction, and we say that. Jayen46618:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the strength of the word "controversial" that I object to. It is a disagreement with neighbors over a development application and it isn't significant enough to warrant a sentence in an encyclopedia. I wonder why we are even including the helicopter business in the article. If everyone thinks the heliport is important, I think it would be better to stick with the facts - Rawat was able to build a helipad on the property after agreeing to supply it with emergency water storage and give the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies.Momento (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The page number in Cagan's book for the fire in Malibu p219-220: Judy Osborne recalls Maharaji asking the staff to leave immediately. "He didn’t want any heroics," she comments, “even though this was his home and everything that he had was in there.” His concern was for their safety. "The fire came but it blew right over the house," she remembers. "All the trees were burned, and so were the grass, the shrubs, and the hills around there. And then there was the soot. Everything in the house was filthy from soot."Maharaji and his family stayed with his brother, Raja Ji, for a while, and then within a few months, they relocated to Miami while the Malibu house was being repaired.≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we could quote the text you gave above in the reference as small text, though perhaps not strictly necessary for such a minor issue. On the other hand, it explains the move to Miami. Any views? Jayen46618:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no reasonable arguments for excluding the name of Rawat's Malibu property, "Anacapa View Estates." The name has been published in reliable sources many times; the name of the residence is a matter of public record, based on the helipad approval by public officials; and the helipad is designated for public use by publicly funded firefighters in fire emergencies. The name of this estate is even more public than, say, Bill Gates's home or any other public figure's home based on it's unique situation of having the helipad with the conditions set forth by public approval process for the helipad. "Anacapa View Estates" is not the street address of Rawat's home, it's the "name" of his residence. Using it is not a violabion of BLP, therefore it should be included. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we're still wordsmithing this I've posted the text here with some changes:
In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage following security concerns, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM for $400,000, the property also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage for use by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in emergencies and by limiting the number of permitted flights. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
I changed "the 1978 Malibu fires" to "a 1978 brush fire", since there was only one and it was obviously in Malibu. However the text isn't quite right when it says "Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage..." There were really two issues. The first was the original construction of the heliport without getting permits from CalTrans and the Coastal Commission. That was resolved by adding the water tank. The other controversy was about the requests to increase the number of permitted flights from the original six to twelve and then to 36. That controversy was not resolved by the water tank. The first request for an increase was granted and the second was denied. I'd say the sentence could by made more accurate by adding to the end, "and by limiting the number of permitted flights". It would be inaccurate to say that the heliport was built in response to the fire - the first application for it was submitted in 1977. Also the NASP was set up to pay for the property, nto to help the DLM pay for the property, according to the source. As for the word "controversial", it was cited in the first draft I posted at the top of this section. Here's the reference:
One person he helped was the Guru Maharaj Ji, head of the Divine Light Mission, in his successful bid to oopbtain a conditional use permit to build a controversial helipad on his Malibu estate. The religious group obtained a one-year trial despite intense opposition from some homeowners when Deane Dana, the new 4th District supervisor, led the board in granting the permit.
"Interest Conflicts: Planning- Door Open to abuses?" VICTOR MERINA Los Angeles Times; Jul 22, 1981, pg. A11
Here's an earlier reference:
The county Board of Supervisors Thursday approved a one-year trial for a controversial helipad at the Malibu estate of Maharaj Ji, spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission sect. Gary Hoffman, president of the West Malibu Homeowners Assn., called the board's action "ridiculous" in the face of community opposition. In August, 1979, the county Regional Plannng Commission denied Maharaj Ji's application for a conditional use permit for 180 landings a year. In appealling that decision to the supervisors, Ji reduced the number of flights to six a year.
"1-Year Trial OKd for Sect's Helipad" Los Angeles Times May 22, 1981; pg. F6
I'd also note the headline of one article. "Maharaj Ji's Helicopter Plans Stir Furor" Jan 17, 1980. "Furor" isn't quite the same as "controversy", I'd argue it's more intense. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Issues with Nik's "edit"
I read the material copied by Nik from his sandbox and found so may problems with it that I can only summarize on broad strokes what is wrong with it:
Multiple WP:OR violations - much editorializing, and unattributed opinions;
Multiple WP:SYN violations, use of several sources to forward novel syntheses of these opinions
Use of unreliable sources such as an anarchist magazine
Multiple citations and quoted text from one source (Foss & Larkin) and Pilarzyk at the expense of other scholarly opinions available in a multiplicity of sources
The only useful thing about this edit is that a new source was found (Björkqvist), that could be used to augment other scholarly studies already used in the article.
If Nik wants to improve the article, he should work alongside others discussing a few additions at the time, in the same manner that other editors are doing here (see discussions above), so that his edits can be assessed by all involved and consensus found. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Between the 8th of February (when Nik Wright2 made first comment on this page this year) and the 26th of February (when Nik Wright2 inserted 10,000 bytes of material) there have been over 1500 comments made by more than a dozen editors on this page of which Nik Wright2 has made 16. Four appeared in the "Peace is Possible" section, four appeared the "did donations made Rawat rich" section, 3 appeared in the "Downton" section and one each in the "Balyogeshwar", "Organization", "Headings", "References" and "External Links" sections. Could anyone point out where the insertion of 10,000 bytes of material was " thoroughly discussed"?Momento (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If the additions had the effect of improving the article none of the above would be relevant. They do not improve it, they make it thoroughly worse on every level. If there is anything there that provides new insight, let's keep it and ditch the rest. Rumiton (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary Rumiton, it wouldn't matter if NikWright2 was Shakespeare and he'd found the Rosetta stone, an undiscussed edit of 10,000 bytes is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So much reliance on Dowton while (nearly) excluding Lans/Derks and Foss and Larkin who had somewhat differing views is undue weight to Downton. Andries (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If in your opinion Downton was over-represented, over-representing Foss & Larkin is the solution? You do to make sense. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You did say it. Read your own words. If editors bring new sources or new material from existing sources, these can be discussed. There are many sources that discuss Prem's leadership issues. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nik Wright's version decreased the references to Downton from 10 to 11, so you may be you can explain your statement that his version goes the "expense of other scholarly opinions". What is the harm of citing Foss/Larkin, Pilarzyk more than the previous verion? Andries (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am puzzled by your comment. Please read my comments at the start of the thread. This "edit" suffers from a lots of problems, and if Nik, you, or anyone else wants to propose additions, do the same as other are doing here. Argue for inclusion, discuss and gain consensus. There is no other way, and you should know this by now, Andries. You are no newbie. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I only request that you explain one point of your objections to Nik Wright's version. I explained my view on Nik't version. Andries (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that it is appropriate to use long portions of quoted text of one source? I am unwilling to consider Nik's "edit" in this way. He needs to self-revert and engage in discussions, period. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I admit that long quotes are poor style. Would point 4 of your objection to Nik's rewrite be dealtwith if the long quote is changed to a shorter attributed statement? Andries (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it will not. As said befor by me and others in this page, we ought to review small portions at a time, and reach consensus. Nik's "edit" is irreparable as it stands. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The pre Nik article uses Downton as a source seven times out 88 cites. That reflects Downton's unique position as the only scholar who actually wrote a book about Rawat and his followers.Momento (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Nik's "edit" is irreparable as it stands"...Jossi. I agree. The tone of the rest of the article, though it arguably gives an incomplete and imperfect picture of the subject, is consistent, even-tempered and encyclopedic. Nik's highly editorialised and POV-drenched addition cannot be reconciled with it. The addition needs to come out before we can evaluate the points it raises, then represent them properly in an increasingly neutral article. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"In the early 1980s... Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru".
This is really not true. There is a video from summer 1980 on Google where Rawat's own words completely negate this and also enumerate, for example, the amount of ashram members in Europe, and his attitude to these things. I am posting a precis of his words here because I feel that editors who are not familiar with the historic facts should have some irrefutable perspective/information other than is presented here. Many feel this article uses selective quotes to play down the Hinduistic/Avatarist nature of his teachings well into the eighties and beyond.
Here is the link to a Google Video of Prem Rawat, in a talk with ashram premies (his followers who lead a monastic lifestyle-Recorded in Rome, Italy June 25th, 1980.)
Here's my precis (it's an hour and a half long):
"There is a very big difference between you accepting/choosing to be in an Ashram - it's not your own wish and will...it's a gift that given to premies by Guru Maharaji...to have a chance to dedicate and devote this life...Ashram means 'shelter'...we need the shelter of Guru Maharaji from this world...One of the basic things of an ashram is to dedicate your life, to devote your life...truly...what is the motive..our understanding of GM has to be there." (Talks about stuff you don't do in ashram like watching a movie..eating ice cream cones..how it's a waste of time..becomes an ordeal for "This Mind".) " What has to happen? When it rains a lot of drops fall which never become a part of that ocean - then there are some drops who fall in one particular place who will definitely get to the ocean. Where do we fall? - Initiators are taught in the 'Candidate Program' to be nobody (indicates this is run by him personally)..they have to lose themselves completely. And they haven't. "What is a premie in this day and age and since ever a human being was created?" "A premie is not just someone who has received Knowledge" "The definition is one who has received the gift that GM has bestowed upon that being, practises that gift, has that love, has that faith and has surrendered in his heart towards towards Maharaji, towards the living master of this day." "To be in an Ashram is not a joke..not everyone's gonna be in the Ashram..very few people in fact...it could be everyone of you sitting here." "What is the purpose of the Ashram? How does it fit into the propagation. "Look..whenever Guru Maharaji is going to come into this world... and has... and will..and by his grace will keep coming again and again and again - because it's not guaranteed either..he can skip a turn and that'll be the devastation of this entire planet!" "Then there will be those devotees who undoubtedly want to dedicate and devote this life - would like to hand him the reins of this life..not everybody's gonna be able to do it. A few can do it. For those few devotees who want to give this life one single purpose..Satsang, Service and Meditation..Ashram is for those people. "Guru Maharaji himself..that power himself does take a human form so that you can relate for every individual human being"
"GM has given you that opportunity to be his premies in this day and age" "Mind just brushes it off" Time is coming when Ashrams are becoming what they're supposed to be..that holy environment ..maintained by you..your responsibility..no games." "We've had enough of the games" "The season for skating over the ice is over" "We have to wake up and arise" "To gear up to the consciousness to have the first Public Program"
(Talks about how GM is the "only solution to bring peace to the world".) Who's gonna take care of all these aspirants? "in which way will these people be able to come and see what we are preaching, what this knowledge does in one's life?" "Will ashrams demonstrate that?" 36:00 "We have to understand that what we have to do is what GM wants us to do not what our stupid mind tells us to do" "If our faith in GM isn't there then the mind is gonna win every single time" ..."All the joking around has to stop and the deep commitment has to happen"...."How is propagatation going to happen?" " More than anything else by everybody being ready to obey Maharaji's Agya (orders)" "A beautiful opportunity has been given to you..you've got to somehow quit listening to your mind" "When you get up and say (after singing Arti) 'Bole Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai'... mean it." "When you sing Arti mean it."
Second Half:
"How many Ashrams are there in England? There are between 46-70 in the great United Kingdom" "How many of you want to be Initiators" "How many of you have sent in an application?" "You know it's really incredible. This year the whole picture is changing." "It's not all a piece of cake..Initiators make a lot of mistakes...they're in a peculiar position...they're not solid as a rock..we had an acute shortage.right now there an 'IDP' (Initiator Development Program) program that's been going on 14 months." (This took place in Malibu and was directly overseen by Prem Rawat). "There's different stages of surrender" "How do you surrender to GM?" "let go of your ego, your mind, most important that something that's inside of you that's you..your concept of you...to let it go.. Surrender is a chain reaction..Satsang, Service, Meditation has to happen" "What does SSM bring..love and faith in GM." "understanding this is where I need to be" "then slowly I can let go of myself". "If my faith isn't there I can't surrender to GM" "(when I am surrendered) my heart that has been pouncing in the ways of the world will be docked at GMs feet. Then that will be my salvation".
"Someday with GM's grace there'll be ashrams everywhere." "There has to be a necessity..then yes I can see there will be good reason" "Everybody wants to be in the nice ashram..with the nice view...all that has to go away....we have to learn a little humbleness..to be that little humble..if we can have that ...GM's grace..be worthy of that..have that love..SSM...that will carry us.." 1:13:10 "Not to get into relationships, not to get into ego trips, but to stay in that space, with GM" "In the coming years , I am trying to work at this, to upgrade the living standards" (Talks about plans to make ashrams centres for propagation). How many Ashrams premies in the UK? 340? How many Germany? Heil! Huh? 120. From Scandinavia? 60 And Italy? 53. France? 170. Spanish? About 50... Portugal? About 60. Greece? Austria? Israel? Egypt? Yugoslavia, (inaudible answers) How many ashrams are ready for inspection? (laughter) The white glove treatment!"
I personally have limited time to join in here from now on due to work pressure - there is another link to a video on the same subject (ashrams) from june 1979 Lingfield UK here PatW (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think your foot got in the way of your shooting again, Pat. The article says in effect, "Prem Rawat changed things in the early eighties" and you say "No, he didn't. Look, this is from 1980!" I hope that was a genuine mistake, and not a deliberate fiddling with the dates in the hope that no one would notice. The speech here, while not acceptable as a source, also supports the statements made in the article that the ashram rules were not for anyone who wanted to receive Knowledge, but only for those who wanted a far higher level of commitment. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The way it reads it looks as if he swept 'his divine status as guru' away circa early 1980. I would argue that he didn't and even now has not completely - isn't it true that many followers still sing Arti to him and perceive him very much as they did then? Also, (as I say on Google) and you point out, in this video he does almost try to put people off the heavy Ashram commitment (I was there by the way) but on the other hand presents it as the greatest opportunity for premies. I personally think that many people suffered huge dilemmas of conscience about this and that has never been addressed - hence a lot of the criticism he receives today from premies who were very devoted at the time. This article leans terribly heavily towards playing down Rawat's advocation of the ashram imho. Why you yourself even argued the other day here that Rawat never advocated a monastic order! That is why editors should be aware of the facts no matter if it is not acceptable as a source. Basically you are for some reason apparently keen to paint a particularly inaccurate picture. Several impartial editors have told me they value some reports of personal experience as , presumably, it helps them see the whole story. Of course I'm not fiddling with the dates. As a matter of fact, Rawat continued very much advocating the ashrams (whilst trying to purge them of 'hangers on') until 1983 when, as is reported, he very suddenly shut them. So I don't dispute the ashram dates, just the insinuation that he dropped his 'divine status as guru'. That is absurd and you must know it.PatW (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So I take it you do think "In the early 1980s Prem Rawat abandoned his almost divine status as guru". Thank you, but I disagree. It'd be nice if we could have less of this 'Cease and Desist' tone here and just hear out each others points.PatW (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, I'm having trouble finding our source for this assertion:
In the early 1980s, the Hindu traditions and religious parables that had been prominent in Prem Rawat's teachings were abandoned as obstacles to a wider western acceptance of his message, and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. Formerly considered the "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru". Spiritual growth was no longer attained by the grace of the guru, but from the teachings and their benefit to individuals.
Here are the two ciations being used to reference that assertion:
The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. He has occasionally referred to the existence of the two gods—the one created by humankind and the one which creates humankind. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion. It is not clear whether it is possible to receive Knowledge from anyone other than Maharaji. He claims only to encourage people to "experience the present reality of life now." Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs."
Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8
Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated and to make his presentation acceptable to all the various cultural settings in which followers live. He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles.
Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of American Religions.
Agreed. Saying that he has abandoned his almost divine status is a very strong and contentious point. In fact, it can be seen as detrimental to Rawat, both by lowering his status and indicating a certain cynical manipulation of his own image. It certainly should not be included without a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 says - "Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru.Now, the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and its benefit to the individual adherents to his movement. Maharaji also dismantled the structure of ashrams (communal homes)".Momento (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I know it is very true that our personal testimonies are not WP:RS here but in the talk pages we are free to express our personal opinions within limits. I have no problem in saying that as a follower of Prem Rawat I believed he was the incarnation of God with a capital 'O' and 'D'. I think it would help these discussions if you, Rumiton, Jossi and any other premies here, would answer a simple question so that we know your position - do you believe Prem Rawat has a unique divine status, at this moment in history? Yes or No? --John Brauns (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
in the talk pages we are free to express our personal opinions within limits. Sorry but no. These pages have been abused lately with too much chatter unrelated to improving the article. Those who want to discuss personal opinions on the subject, or present their personal testimonies, beliefs, or disbeliefs, should do that in their talk pages, or better off-wiki. Any attempts to convert theis page into a WP:NOT#FORUM, will be vigorously opposed, as it is detrimental to an orderly debate about improving this article. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This talk section is about beliefs in Rawat's divinity, and how to express those beliefs in the article. I think it would help other editors if they knew whether you, Rumiton and Momento still believe that Rawat is in some way uniquely divine, as many premies did in the 70s. I don't want to start a long debate - just a simple declaration of your beliefs would be fine. --John Brauns (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we make a blacklist of suspicious editors, administrated by John? With people redbaiting each other? It would make things so much clearer!--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That list may have been drawn up a long time ago. John is a self confessed apostate of Prem Rawat's teachings. Someone who it appears believed Rawat was uniquely divine.Whatever that means, I expect he no longer holds that believe. I don't think follow editors will be particularly helped by Rumiton and Momento making a declaration on this matter. Our focus needs to be on a creating a Wiki article
Balius (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you’re right. I was just trying to be ironic. Being German, with a history of Gestapo and Staatssicherheitsdienst in my veins, I just allowed myself a little idiosyncrasy regarding anybody trying to systematically snoop on peoples’ Gesinnung (hard to translate that one. Perhaps “innermost disposition” or “attitude”) for propaganda purposes.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to make myself clearer. I understand and accept that this article needs to be based on reliable sources, but the discussions on this page are often about what content from those sources to include and what weight should be given to differing views. I am suggesting that we can use another source, not to directly reference, but to cross-check the academic sources against. That source is the premies and ex-premies who contribute here. I'll give a banal example - a while back there was a discussion about the picture of Rawat's malibu house. The picture was rightly excluded because of copyright considerations, but part of that debate was whether it actually was his house. Now Jossi could have immediately confirmed that it was as he has been there many times, but for some reason he chose not to. Now this business of Rawat abandoning his divine status can be clarified by the premies and ex-premies who post here, so that the right balance can be achieved in the article. I have given my view, and I see no reason why others who lived through those times cannot give theirs. BTW, 'uniquely divine' is something like Jesus Christ for Christians.--John Brauns (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Serious issue
As you may know protection of this page has ended. But WillBeback has objected to unprotecting it because he says, I (Momento) "haven't said if I'll accept the compromise on the names, and we're still debating details about the text on the residence". In other words, Will Beback wants to lock out all editors until I agree to his "compromise on the names" and "the text on the residence". So much for consensus, Will.Momento (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that assuming good faith is a policy, not a suggestion. The page was protected due to revert warring. If editors here are willing to constrain their reverts, to discuss changes and seek consensus, then editing here would be much easier. I've suggested that protection be maintained pending the approval (or rejection) of Jossi's proposal for 1RR. I realize that not everyone on this page thinks that it will help. However the revert-warring is undoubtedly counter-productive so we should try to do what we can to avoid it. Mediation is another step in dispute resolution that needs to be be given a sincere try. Rather than focusing on differences, or deleting paragraphs when we disagree only with a single word, let's try to find points of agreement and seek to minimize disputes. ·:· Will Beback·:·11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does "constraining out reverts" mean accepting a highly editorialised and biased version that was foisted on us without consensus? Apart from that, I agree that too much ink has been wasted on trivialities. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Under 1RR, every editor has permission to revert once per day. Reverting even one time a day isn't a right, it's just an allowance. The enforecement is handled by uninvolved admins. Only two types of content may be removed beyond XRR limits - clear BLP violations and clear vandalism. I emphasize clear. While one editor may consider an edit to be "highly editorialised and biased', another may see it as necessary balance. Rather than playing to the extremes let's all try to make edits that will be acceptable to every reasonable editor. ·:· Will Beback·:·12:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Momento understands the nature of concensus. I think the 1RR is an excellent move forward on this article in order to reduce any disruption in the editing of the article text itself. If anything, 1RR requires editors to discuss edits prior to reverting text in the article, thereby finding concensus among editors before reverting, and I think it's a very good idea. Long overdue, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just reread the article. It is now repetitive, incoherent and self-contradictory, and packed with pseudo-intellectual pomposity ("interregnum", for God's sake?) It is by far the worst article of several hundred I have helped develop. It will take many hours of hard work to make it even readable. And we are going to do this at the rate of one disputed edit per day? I think the only way is to revert to a pre-Nik Wright version that at least made sense, and discuss future changes from that point. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The $400,000 was re-introduced two times, in two consecutive paragraphs (+ twice in the footnotes);
along with some other undiscussed and/or questionable material;
I've already removed the "protected" tag (technically a revert), which means that I couldn't even correct Janice's typos for the next week if Jossi would have it his way. So, 1RR/week - no thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem now is that any editors who want this article to be logical and readable cannot undo the duplications fort fear of being seen as "reverters".Momento (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal was changed to 1RR per day, not per week. And restoring a fix (such as the ISBN numbers) will not be considered a revert in any case. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that 1RR does not mean one edit per day. It means reverting another user's edit. The deletion of the duplicated material about the house, would not be technically a revert. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
For a violation of the probation to be considered, an editor needs to go to WP:AN/I and report the violation. I would argue that anyone doing that, should be mindful of WP:POINT. I would be very surprised if an editor here will go to ANI to report 1RR probation violation on such edits; and if an editor does, I will be very surprised in an uninvolved admin will apply a block on the basis of such report. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Stranger things have happened, Jossi. I haven't made any reverts. I have re-arranged the house material to improve chronology, so I could remove the duplicate material but I'm waiting to see if anyone can provide a source for the "helicopter controversy". I will use my revert to delete it if it is unsourced. Mind you removing "unsourced" material in a BLP isn't limited by the 1RR.Momento (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Jossi, abstain from making jugements on that, you've no clue what an uninvolved admin would do. Or would you consider such admin "uninvolved" yet "subject to your advise"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh? I have been an admin for several years, and I can tell you that in cases in which 1RR probations have been enforced, these issues are resolved quite easily. Admins can see through WP:POINT quite easily. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Bolded uninvolved in my comment above. An uninvolved admin, having to take a decision about something s/he knows little could as well concentrate on the objective side of the technical revert. I have no clue, you have no clue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the main point of my comment above was the dubious quality of Janice's single edit, it tried to do too much at once (major revert + several additions/changes). Incremental improvements are generally better. If 1RR (or the prospect thereof) leads to people favouring large, multi-faceted edits, that's generally a step backwards (unless for the geniuses among us that succeed in getting multiple things right all at once). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Schnabel, Tussen stigma en charisma ("Between stigma and charisma"), 1982. Ch. IV, p. 99:
de intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji.
the intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji.
Cite error: The named reference Kent2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975
^ Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8"
Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982 "Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission—Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands. As Jim Jones convincingly demonstrated, the health of a cult group can depend on the stability of the leader. Mishler and Hand revealed aspects of life inside the mission that frightened the Deitzes. In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."
Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook pp.144-5 "However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner , the former president of the Mission who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."
The "Sant" term is derived from the Sanskritsat (सद) (truth, reality) has overlapping usages, its root meaning being "one who knows the truth" or "one who has experienced Ultimate Reality". It differs from the false cognate "Saint" as it is often translated. The term Sant has taken on the more general ethical meaning of "good person", but is assigned specifically to the poet-sants of medieval India. Schomer, Karine, The Sant Tradition in Perspective, in Sant Mat: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India in Schomer K. and McLeod W.H. (Eds.), pp.22-3, ISBN 0-9612208-0-5 According to Rigopoulos, (page 404) the word Sant is generally used for the bhakti saint poets of the Marathi and Hindi speaking areas.
Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis
Cite error: The named reference Mangalwadi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cagan, A. Peace is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press -ISBN -10: 0-9788694-9-4
Hadden, Religions of the World, pp.428"The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher ." 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you...'
james V.Downton -Sacred journeys: The conversion of young Americans to Divine Light Mission (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5
"Teean-Age Guru's Sect Grooses $3.78 Million" Los Angeles Times; Apr 10, 1976, pg. A27
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Landings", JUDY PASTERNAK Los Angeles Times; Jul 7, 1985, pg. WS1
"Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" MARK FORSTER, Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979 pg. 3
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" MARK FORSTER, Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979 pg. 3
"Interest Conflicts: Planning- Door Open to abuses?" VICTOR MERINA Los Angeles Times; Jul 22, 1981, pg. A11
"Supervisors to Rehear Guru Helistop Request", JACK BIRKINSHAW, Los Angeles Times, Apr 26, 1981; pg. WS1
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
""FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998,
"Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Landings", JUDY PASTERNAK Los Angeles Times; Jul 7, 1985, pg. WS1
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" MARK FORSTER, Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979 pg. 3
"Interest Conflicts: Planning-Door Open to abuses?" VICTOR MERINA Los Angeles Times; Jul 22, 1981, pg. A11
"Supervisors to Rehear Guru Helistop Request", JACK BIRKINSHAW, Los Angeles Times, Apr 26, 1981; pg. WS1
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
"Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Landings" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times; Jul 7, 1985; pg. WS1
"Guru Wins OK From Caltrans for Helicopter Pad" ROBERT W STEWART., Los Angeles Times Jun 3, 1982; pg. WS15
"Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Landings" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times; Jul 7, 1985; pg. WS1
^ "Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Landings", JUDY PASTERNAK Los Angeles Times; Jul 7, 1985, pg. WS1
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
"Interest Conflicts: Planning- Door Open to abuses?" VICTOR MERINA Los Angeles Times; Jul 22, 1981, pg. A11
Navbharat Times, 10 November1970 (from Hindi original) "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of procession; it culminated in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering"
Hindustan Times, 9 November1970 (English) "Roads in the Capital spilled over with a 1,000,000 processionists, men, women and children marched from Indra Prasha Estate to the India Gate lawn."
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"FORMER GURU ON A DIFFERENT MISSION", Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
"Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", JOHN DART, Los Angeles Times, Nov 27, 1974; pg. B2
Cagan, A. Peace is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press. ISBN 0-9788694-9-4, pp. 219–220
"MALIBU Metamorphosis Is Hollywood's Haven Growing Into Just Another Miami Beach", NIKKI FINKE , Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1989
"Guru Maharaj Ji." Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
"Fomer guru on a different mission, Rebecca Jones, Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 1998
