Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 11 March 2008

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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 This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cade Metz (February 6, 2008). "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'". The Register.

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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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

Archives

June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged) November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2)

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)

Good point, Francis. The criticism is mostly from the 70's and early 80's. That paragraph can be easily fixed, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, the version I defend didn't have that flaw. So I conclude you agree I revert to that version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean of the lead? Can you place a diff here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article is the diff that removed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.. You can add this to an appropriate place of the lead, if that will help: Rawat attracted controversy for what has been considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, but note that ref codes without content can only be used if a ref with a same name and with content is on the page, see Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the refs are correct as these are used already elsewhere. See the ref section, which has no errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I checked them: the last two didn't work: other references with the same name and no content depended on them to have content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will wikignome these and add provide the refs here so that these can be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I *had* already filled them with content on the Prem Rawat article (the content that was there in the sentence I had to remove in order not to double content in the lead). I'm not the one leaving behind me semi-disabled references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to *ref 7 - "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" ] 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)

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

The Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

I think you shouldn't have reverted without consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:57, 4 March 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.

I can see the whole sentence being removed.Momento (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

This Mishler?

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

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

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

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

Balyogeshwar

... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare – Sant Ji is currently not a redirect, but the "Sant" tradition is still explained in the article, so no problem there.

See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change

The idea is that if someone types a word in the search box, say "Balyogeshwar", that then the Misplaced Pages:principle of least surprise should apply, and not: why am I directed to this page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that currently one of the footnotes contains: "Balyogeshwar and his brother have ...":

1. Quoted from a 1992 publication (Prem Rawat was 25 at the time - "child"?);
2. 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)

Removed this uncited inclusion.Momento (talk) 22:07, 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)

References should appear at the end of the sentence. Thanks.Momento (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. Misplaced Pages:Footnotes is on my watchlist now for quite some time, since I wrote its initial version. Such requirement has never been part of the style recommendations included in that guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 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)

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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 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.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

PS. I have deleted my heading which you think was unnecessarily loud.PatW (talk) 16:38, 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)

For Jossi's commitment to not edit the page, see the link in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Declaration of intent. I want to express again I appreciate Jossi for that. It was no easy call on his part, I'm convinced of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, I see that "Balyogeshwar" has been added, but not " Sant Ji Maharaj". Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession says that it was the name used by Rawat in 1966. It seems easy to simply list former names. Will Beback NS (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it. Msalt (talk) 23:36, 20 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.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right Francis. We'll note that in the lede.Momento (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

(examples I already gave above:)

• Here's an example of no differentiation in the lead section: Pontius Pilate's wife
• Here's one with lots of differentiation in the lead section: William III of England

For my views:

• "(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;
• "Sant Ji", not necessarily: Sant is explained in the article, and "Ji" is a recognisable part of his name already explicited in the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Could you provide a source for that claim please?Momento (talk) 00:32, 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)

Jossi, do you support Momento unilaterally deleting "Sant Ji" despite this discussion? Does anyone support Momento's edit? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, as proposed above, we could list his childhood names in the "Childhood" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 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, (this might come as a shock) "There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. " (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity) --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:32, 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)

As said above: the material is not contentious, unless for POINTy reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If Momento believes that it is incorrect then it should be removed from Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession too the and the redirect should be deleted. If there are no objections I'll do so myself. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "contentious" Francis. To be removed it just needs to be "unsourced".Momento (talk) 00:39, 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

(my bolding) If the material is not contentious, just removing it is no more nor less than causing disruption. And it has to stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Your disruption has to stop, that's all I'm saying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:27, 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)

That's correct Will. The succession sentence implies that Prem Rawat was known as "Sant Ji" not "Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 00:42, 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. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{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'm OK with John Brauns' version of the intro - which I think is my last version of the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006 )

These petty discussions based on thin air should've stopped by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) updated book references 12:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

It should be added. The source is available above somewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 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)

So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 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)

There is no consensus about the position of these names. Not a big deal, IMO, but lets call it as it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Sant Ji. Seems to be a popular nickname... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you endorse Momento's deletion of this sourced material name from the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 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)

So will Momento delete the name again if it's added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 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)

The way Balyogeshwar is bolded in the Lede, alongside with Maharaji, is rather misleading, as Maharaji is for some decades now state of things, while Balyogeshwar really isn't, and enough people know that, too. So it appears to me as a piece of, albeit highly literate, ignorance and should be changed, there have been enough suggestions in the incredible discussion above. I would put both child names - Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji - into the childhood section, where they VERY OBVIOUSLY belong, but I hate being reprimanded again for a revert...--Rainer P. (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Putting a name by which he is only known in India in the lede is illogical.Momento (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The name Balyogeshwar is bolded because it's a redirect to this article. Does anyone object to my adding "Sant Ji Maharaj" as proposed above? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK in the childhood section, along with Balyogeshwar, see above extremely extensive discussion--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks awkward in the lede. Remember, the prefix "Bal" in Hindi means "Child" (doesn't it?), as in "Bal Bhagwan Ji" and Balyogeshwar. It really does not fit a 50-year old person. Neither is Satpal Rawat referred to as Bal Bhagwan Ji any more, except in a historic context. And your source Mangalwadi mentions the name only to differenciate Prem R. from his also mentioned brother, which was a plausible issue in their young years. And I find it hard to understand, why this seems to be so hard to realize, and it's not even really contentious per POV, so what's the motive for so stubbornly defending the deficient status quo, when it's so easy to improve?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:14, 7 March 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)

Thanks, but that information is already available at the Elan Vital and the Divine Light Mission articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayen466 13:03, 29 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)

Having said that, I acknowledge that the articles of association do mention "church". Thanks JHB. Armeisen (talk) 22:27, 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)

What this has to do with this article? If you have sources that describe this as Elan Vital staus as controversial, please provide them and add some text to the Elan Vital article. Otherwise, please do not use these pages to advocate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 14:39, 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)

I wrote this in the article (end of second paragraph of Prem Rawat#Reception:

In the 21st century, The Prem Rawat Foundation, not profiling itself as a church or religion-related organisation, does not report on adherents or followers, but publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website.

Does that need additional references? (Note, above below on this page I created a section that visualises footnote content on this talk page) If it needs additional references, can someone give a hand? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 5 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.

I think every assertion in it is reliably sourced and relevant. How can we improve it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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?) Jayen466 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's looks better to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Better, but still misses the point about the water reservoir, and the use of the heliport by the Fire dept. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me research the heliport again. There's quite a bit of detail about it but I think we can summarize it in a sentnce. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 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? Jayen466 02:51, 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.

I'm sure other editors understand what happened at the end of the DLM better than I. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is consistent with other sources, Will (what is NASP?). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"North American Sponsorship Program". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

There may be other sources which describe the transition differently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Opps! lol! I stand corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I was just responding to Momento's questioning. If a better source exists then we can use that instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 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.

That appears to be sourced to Gross. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"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.

OK, it went over a sentence. Perhaps Jayen466 can improve it. I think it covers the stuff Jossi wanted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 22:14, 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. Jayen466 22:37, 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)

LA is the subject's home town. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

So it would naturally follow that we should have a section on natural childbirth!Momento (talk) 08:29, 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 October 1970, 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)

It'll take more than one short sentence. If the house were trivial it wouldn't be mentioned so often in news reports. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Le's see what Jaen can come up with. His word smithing may be helpful here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 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)

What's our source for "security issues" and the 1979 fire? Why are we deleting other sourced info? Can you explain the changes? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 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)

Will, why don't you create a separate article about the notable house?Momento (talk) 08:47, 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.

Can you explain your other changes as well, please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

As i said, "security" is fine with me. Why did you remove "Anacapa View Estates"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 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)

Sorry - I don't have access to every piece of data at every moment. Is "Neverland" an address of Micheal Jackson? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:07, 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

What's our source that contradicts these and says it's an address? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Up to you and others, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 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)

In fact, George Bush's address is not given in his article and the address of Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster is given as Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. The equivalent Malibu, California, USA. I guess that settles that.Momento (talk) 01:00, 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)

I'm not confusing anything. I followed your link to Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster article and there was no mention of his residence. But you've proved my point, Eaton Hall (Cheshire), the (White House and Prairie Chapel Ranch, have their own articles because they are all notable buildings. Rawat's isn't. Momento (talk) 10:42, 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.

If someone has the page cite for Peace is Possible that'd help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Why don't you show us the articles and we can see what is written.Momento (talk) 11:39, 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.) Jayen466 12:03, 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. Jayen466 11:49, 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.

Any objections to this text? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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). Jayen466 12:38, 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)

Hang on Momento, source coming in a mo. Jayen466 17:17, 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. Jayen466 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a trade off.Momento (talk) 17:32, 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. Jayen466 17:42, 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. Jayen466 18:09, 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? Jayen466 18:19, 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)

Looks great, with the added bonus of addressing the limit on permitted landings. I am for implementation (unless someone has a good source asserting that DLM definitely remained responsible for the payments – though even so, the wording suggested above still would cover this). Jayen466 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Version proposed above, now with revised citations -- pls check:

• 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.

Unless I've overlooked something, we still need to indicate a source for "4-acre", and a source for the DLM having been the purchaser (wasn't that in Melton?). Jayen466 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton says " Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved".The LA Times 1/12/79 says - "In 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate as the residence for its youthful leader etc". Unless anyone can find a source that says the DLM sold it to someone else, DLM is the one paying it off.Momento (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Have inserted the LAT cite mentioning DLM above. Jayen466 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are sources saying that the DLM made the down payment and mortgage payments. There are also later sources that say the property belongs to Seva Corp. I haven't seen anything in the news about a transfer. The information is in public, primary sources but unless it's reported in a secondary source we shouldn't report it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article "Guru's Heliport Backed as Fire Aid", Los Angeles Times 25 March 1982, ROBERT W STEWART, pp. WS1, WS14 has the following quote: "According to Linda S Gross, a San Diego attorney who represents the applicant, the property is owned by Anacapa View Estates, which in turn is a legally registered fictitious name for the Seva Corp. of Nevada." See also

Jayen466 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without more information it's hard to know if Seva is a part of DLM/EV, or if title to the property was transfered from DLM to Seva. It would be unsupported OR/SYN to assume that DLM continued to hold title or needed to be paid unless we can find a source that says so. We know that Melton says the NASP was created to pay for the property and the subject's travel expenses. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 5 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:

1. Multiple WP:OR violations - much editorializing, and unattributed opinions;
2. Multiple WP:SYN violations, use of several sources to forward novel syntheses of these opinions
3. Use of unreliable sources such as an anarchist magazine
4. 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)

reg. 4. I think that Nik Wright stopped the overreliance on Dowton which is a good thing. Andries (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A good thing? Overreliance? Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 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)

I never said that. Andries (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Andries (talk) 15:27, 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)

I meant to say that in certain aspects Nik Wrights version was an improvement. Andries (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Me and several other editors here beg to differ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 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)

Agreed.Momento (talk) 16:54, 4 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)

It says the early eighties, Pat, not early in 1980. Abandon this futility. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 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.

Perhaps there's a better way to summarize those statements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

We should add that reference to the article. Does it also say that this happened in the early 1980s? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 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)

I've always understood "divine" to mean "of or from God", as such I believe we are all divine.Momento (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked you if you believe Rawat is uniquely divine, so you didn't answer my question.--John Brauns (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We're all unique John.Momento (talk) 10:58, 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 people's 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)

John, personally I have no idea what Prem Rawat's house looks like, and Jossi has been chiefly representing the Misplaced Pages view in this debate, but I take your point. A lot of nonsense has been sincerely proposed by editors who "weren't there", picked up from so-called reliable sources, that could easily be quashed by anyone who WAS there. The idea that the expression Lord of the Universe was a serious form of address to Prem Rawat rather than a silly term from someone's Catholic upbringing, and the expression forgiveness blessing spring to mind. Nonsense and red herrings, both. I think we can all be more aware of these things, from both points of view, and help each other make the article more truly neutral. Regarding my current view of the subject, meine Gesinnung (Rainer, in this context I would say "underlying feelings", though I know it isn't quite right) I will try to oblige tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Die Gesinnung, taken literally, basically means something like a fairly consistent way your senses work, rather than an emotional or cognitive condition (OR).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Senses? Not really, I think, in English "senses" are more physical. More an ethos, isn't it? Anyway, let's leave it as intriguingly untranslatable. So, in deliberate defiance of Wikipedias's guidelines re Article Talk Pages and assuming good faith rather than suspecting game playing on behalf of John, here is the way I see the subject.

Q. Is Prem Rawat like Jesus to me?

A. No. Small children often talk about their "imaginary friend". If they continue with this fantasy into adolescence it can become disturbing. Adults who talk this way are downright creepy. Yet this is the basis of most religions. Jesus, Krishna, Mohammud, Buddha and God him/herself seem to me like imaginary friends. I am not impressed by them. I am impressed by Prem Rawat.

Q. Do I consider Prem Rawat "uniquely divine"?

A. "Divine" is one of those words. Someone might say that divinity is incompatible with mortality. Or they might say the opposite, that since we are all creations of God, we all must be divine. Watching Prem Rawat's videos for many years I have seen that he shows certain consistent qualities. He speaks with kindness and humour about human life. He has an understated clarity of perception. He consoles and empowers those who listen to him. He is patient and without spite. He overcomes failure and mockery and does not become embittered. These are desirable qualities for me in my life, and practising the techniques helps me to progress towards them. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There can't be many COIs greater than believing the subject to be divine, so I think the question is fair enough. Of course, other editors are free to refuse to answer or offer up obfuscating answers. --Simon D M (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever believe Rawat was like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna? There are many reliable sources that state he presented himself, and was worshipped by his followers, as divine. If you didn't, what did you make of those, like me, who did?--John Brauns (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A good and fair question, I think. I was raised as an atheist, I never went to Sunday School or had any religious education. I still don't have much respect for these otherworldly figures, it seems to me that the world would be a nicer place if they had stuck to their carpentry and charioteering and left people alone to develop their natural kindness. I did bow to Maharaji, as we all did, because I liked and respected him for the very positive changes he and Knowledge had made in my life, and because it seemed like the thing to do. I doubt that I would have thought of doing that by myself. These days when I see him I just wave and smile at him, and he waves and smiles back. It is way better. The Holy-Joe premies who had a Sunday School approach to Knowledge made me feel uncomfortable. Some of them are still around, and they still make me feel that way. Have I answered you? Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 7 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)

I have no problem with giving 1RR a try. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 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)

Protection has expired. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The NikWright2 addition has to be revered as a matter of priority. It violates numerous BLP policies.Momento (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Janice Rowe already did. In the same edit,

• "San Ji" was added in the intro;
• Will's cleanup of ISBN tags was annihilated;
• 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)

Jossi, abstain from making judgements on that. It would be technically a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 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)

Easy, Momento. Seek consensus, it works better and is less problematic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 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)

1RR probation in effect

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

Better than making even one revert is first seeking consensus for contentious edits. When we feel the need to revert let's honestly label our edits as "reverts". This probeation won't solve any of the disputes about this topic. To get resolution the steps proposed in dispute resolution should be followed by involved editors. Mediation is one possible step, but many of the simpler steps are also helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles currently in the Category:Prem Rawat (as of the start of the probation) are:

1. Prem Rawat
2. Template:Prem Rawat
3. List of Prem Rawat-related topics
4. Rennie Davis
5. Divine Light Mission
6. Divine United Organization
7. Elan Vital (organization)
8. Ron Geaves
9. Hans Ji Maharaj
10. Lord of the Universe (documentary)
11. Sacred Journeys (book)
12. Soul Rush (book)
13. Teachings of Prem Rawat
14. The Prem Rawat Foundation
15. Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book)

Cirt (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Visualisation of talk page footnotes

Some of the quotes and examples used on this talk page use footnotes, they are visualised here:

Contentious edits

"despite rising mistrust of cults."?. This is a headline from the LA Times but no evidence is put forward in the article. It is a beat up and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Momento (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which aprt you think is unsupported - the continued support for Rawat or the "rising mistrust of cults". Both are supported in the article, which was written in the wake of the Jonestown mass suicide. The article specifically details how people inside and outside the DLM were concerned or even frightened by the group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect. - does it really say emotional experience in these sources? Can somebody, who really has these books, please look it up? Just to make sure, that this erroneous cliché (OR) comes from those sources, and not from Wiki-editors. Andries?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything in Derks and van der Lans that support the quote but Barret says "The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best described as practical mysticism". Again, Barret doesn't criticize followers, he says the "movement was sometimes criticized". And I can't see any basis for the claim "emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect". Leaving out the previous sentence ("The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma,) also distorts the meaning as the following sentence talks about "this" stressing, referring to the previous sentence. I'll add some material.Momento (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, "written the wake of the Jonestown mass suicide". Guilt by association. Just like interviewing people who work in very tall buildings after "9/11". Typical tabloid. The LA Times has written dozens of articles about Rawat, to only take just one quote from one article and ignore all the other material that the LA Times has written is a "conjectural interpretation". The LA Times is a newspaper, not a peer reviewed academic paper and to use it to make a general comment on the opinion of entire country is simplistic. It is also far too US centric and LA centric, did the rest of the world have a "rising mistrust of cults" in 1979? The headline says it all "Malibu Guru", LA's own. Momento (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not "tabloid" or "gossip" to say that the Jonestown mass suicide colored the perception of new religious movements. It is a fact, amply documented by reliable sources both in general and specifically in regard to DLM. Your "tall buildings" comparison is not apt, because the safety of tall buildingers per se was the least important element of 9/11 for most people. However, an article about national security issues in the United States in this decade would be highly distorted if it did not mention that 9/11 colored the perceptions of Americans concerning terrorism and civil liberties. In the same way, pretending that Jonestown did not shape people's reactions to other new religious movements is a heavy distortion. It doesn't matter whether or not it was ever fair to compare DLM and the People's Temple, just as it doesn't matter whether the threat that resulted in 9/11 justifies warrantless wiretapping. That there is a connection in peoples' reactions is verifiable and encyclopedic. Msalt (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to take an article that is based on interviewing half a dozen people in a small town in America and put in an encyclopedia as if it is a world wide opinion. Since the article calls Rawat "Malibu Guru" and the article canvases the opinion of Malibu residents, we need to change the quote to "despite rising mistrust of cults in Malibu" or remove it entirely.Momento (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Malibu is not just a "small town in America". It is the adopted home town of the subject and incidentally one of the most culturally prominent places in the current age. The subject's neighbors were interviewed and expressed nervousness and fear about the possibility of a repeat of the Jonestown tragedy as did the subject's leading follower. Neighboring Topanga Canyon had already been the site of a previous cult-related killing. Personally, I think the subject has disposed himself well in transitioning from the 1970s to the current time. He was once lumped with leaders and groups that have come to worse ends since then. Based on clear and reliable sourcing, it's correct to say that the atmosphere in the U.S. towards unusual spiritual sects changed after Jonestown, that the subject's organization and presentation changed partly in reaction, and that the subject and his organization have survived without any notable scandals. The criticisms of the subject (greed, vapidness) are relatively minor compared to those of many other spiritual leaders, living or dead, of the modern era. Also, due to financial difficulties (see below) the group may have had to retrench regardless of the anti-cult movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The LATimes article is fine. I don't see anything wrong in the way LATimes reporter Mark Forster wrote the article. He interviewed premies in Malibu, the home of Rawat who said things to Forster that were typical premie comments at the time. He quoted from a reliable source about what Bob Mishler said in his UPI interview about DLM/Rawat. He interviewed residents of the Malibu community to get their opinions about the subject. Then he contacted DLM's spokesperson, Joe Anctil, in Denver for comments, which Joe Anctil took full advantage of by responding to Forster -- Anctil is quoted in the article. Forster even offered to give Rawat an interview but was told that Rawat doesn't talk to the press anymore. I think that Forster used all of the basic principles of newspaper reporting and covered his bases professionally by using credible sources and providing the view of various people who were in some way connected with Prem Rawat at the time. California residents were particularly disturbed and concerned by the Jonestown Massacre because Jones's was based in San Francisco. Articles in newspapers like the LATimes are not printed in a vacuum at the whim of a reporter, but go through fact-checking and source checking in order to avoid legal problems. The article provides quite an accurate snapshot of 1979 America's concern about cults post-Jonestown. Given that the LATimes is a very reliable source, and the article itself is well-sourced and doesn’t distort the facts, I don't think any complaints about the article are warranted. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the article says that the US following has fallen, it is clear that it is the Malibu following that "Malibu guru has maintained". As for fact checking, they couldn't even get the year he arrived right and credit him with two children in 1974 when he had none.Momento (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A difference in Rawat's arrival year is minor and may be correct if the reporter is referring to when Rawat arrived in the U.S. The article isn't about that subject, it's about concern about a cult leader's influence on young people. But, what's interesting is Anctil's spin on Rawat's lack of leadership of premies because at the same time Actil spoke to the LATimes's reporter in early January, 1979, the Denver DLM IHQ was gearing up to move to Miami Beach in early 1979 with Maharaji, including Anctil, who ran the premie travel agency AITTA, which was conveniently located in an adjoining office space to DLM headquarters on Alton Rd., Miami Beach. By April, 1979 I was transferred to Miami to work at DECA, of which Rawat had total power and control, including over the hundreds of DLM ashram premies who by summer, 1979 had been transferred from their local communities around the world. And thousands of community premies from around the country and world migrated to Miami.

The article also gives a lot of well-deserved credibiilty to Bob Mishler, who clearly wasn't willing to, and didn't, criticize Maharaji when he left the cult in 1977, but after the Jonestown Massacre Bob did feel compelled to speak out about his concerns surrounding Maharaji's behavior. It's a pity Mishler is now dead and can't respond to the likes of Cagan who has her own hagiographic spin on things and never even interveiwed Rawat for the book which is a biography of the guy. So it's a bit humorous for me to read about Anctil, DLM's public relations person's "spin" about the extent of Rawat's leadership control over premies, when every single thing related to that B707 project was commanded by him and I know this for a fact because I worked in the Design/Engineering Depts. where Maharaji spend the vast majority of his time at DECA every single day, and from which all his orders for the jet flowed. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

May I bring the problematic word emotional back to attention? If it cannot be sourced properly, it must be deleted. Subjective is definitely not emotional. In a public interview with Martha Robbles Prem Rawat stated clearly, that the experience of Knowledge has nothing to do with emotions. So the criticism section has to be more precise at this point, as to not accidentally add OR to what appears as a quote. If nobody can clarify, I will delete after a decent term.

BTW: The Reception section is now highly unbalanced. On one side there are quantities, mere numbers, but criticism is elaborated qualitatively. This may be a consequence of the observation that the many content students are not as viciferous as the few detractors, who have an axe to grind. But it gives a distorted overall picture, and there will never be consensus about that. Thoughts?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a discussion of the "reception" deserves a separate thread. See #Reception Section below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, thank you. I place a copy of the edit there.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article and How to Solve it

A majoritarian approach to an approved version has prevailed without the questions about the inadequacies of this article being addresses. For all the hyperbole that was ranged against the recent major edit, not a single editor who opposed the edit addressed either of the two fundamental problems that that edit was concerned with – the problem of structure and the inadequate range of references. What the majority of editors seem to want is the least worst option that maintains their preferred take on NPOV content, and are clinging on to it like a security blanket.

Lets be clear – following The Register article the Misplaced Pages community decided that the Prem Rawat article was not adequate – a revert was made, not on the basis that the revert version was good but that it was a ‘less worse’ place to start from. And even that version was 99.9% the creation of three editors who now persistently oppose change.

The current structure is problematic because it does not allow a more reasoned use of the available references, additionally it ossifies the false conflation of, on the one had Rawat the individual and on the other the history of Rawat’s movement.

Core References

There are six academic references that have been written contemporaneously with, or are based on, first hand study of the conditions and events surrounding Rawat’s life. These are:

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji Sociological Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Summer, 1978), pp. 157-164. Online copy - http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/w_absurd.htm

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin From “the gates of Eden” to “day of the locust” ,Journal Theory and Society ISSN 0304-2421 (Print) 1573-7853 (Online) Issue Volume 3, Number 1 / March, 1976

Downton, James. Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission, (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5. Online extracts -

Galanter, Marc. CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion Oxford University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-195-12370-0 Online extracts - http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/galanter.html

Galanter M, Buckley P, Deutsch A, Rabkin R, Rabkin J. Large Group Influence for Decreased Drug Use: Findings from Two Contemporary Religious Sects American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Vol 7. 1980 Abstract online -

Price, Maeve The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 1979 online copy -

In addition there is Jeanne Messer’s first hand account published in an academic journal Guru Maharaj, Ji and the Divine Light Mission. The New Religious Consciousness, Bellah, Robert and Glock, Charles (Eds.) pp. 52-72 University of California Press (1976) Online copy -

And there is also Stephen Kent’s observational analysis From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era Stephen A. Kent

Other academic works fall into two categories – first there are those comprised of desk based research and analysis, and there are those which a merely cataloguing (encyclopedification) existing published sources. Of the former Pylarzyk’s is perhaps the most comprehensive work but Dupertuis, Derks & Lans (Lans & Derks), Haan, Hummel, Juergensmeyer and Rife all provide valuable reference material. Geaves work is compromised by his failure to acknowledge within the body of his work, his own very direct role in the Rawat movement. The encyclopaedists present a range of problems; errors are frequently repeated from one to another, and the prejudice of original sources is in some circumstances taken as defining fact without any valid reference, Barret’s and Chryssides’ work for instance appears to be very much be ‘after Geaves’ and Hunt seems to be making it up as he goes along. The chronology of the encyclopaedists is often at variance with the work of researchers and with media reports.

Research

Björkqvist.KWorld-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin Encounter with India: studies in neohinduism N. Holm (ed.), (pp. 79-99) - Turku, Finland. Åbo Akademi University Press. Copy online -

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

Dupertuis, Lucy Gwyn Company of truth : meditation and sacralized interaction among Western followers of an Indian Guru Thesis (Ph.D. in Sociology) -- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1983 . Bibliography: leaves 335-342 How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. (1986): University of Guam Copy online -

Haan, WimDe missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. (Dutch language) ISBN 90-242-2341-5 Copy online -

Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans. Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308 Haan, Wim De missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. (Dutch language) ISBN 90-242-2341-5 Copy online Hummel, ReinhartIndische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-170-05609-3 Juergensmeyer, Mark 'Radhasoami Reality', Princeton Paperbacks ISBN 0-691-01092-7

Kranenborg, Reender Dr. Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen ("Eastern faith movements in the West") (1982) (Dutch language) ISBN 90-210-4965-1 Lans, Jan van der and Frans Derks Premies Versus Sannyasins originally published in Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements, X/2 (June 1986) Copy online -

David Rife Shabdism in North America Paper presented at the American Academy of Religion's Western Region Conference, Stanford University, March 26, 1982 Copy online -

Given this wealth of material, it is incomprehensible why these sources are not used widely within the article. I have attempted through one edit to move the article in a direction that is academically rich. Reliance upon encyclopaedists in preference to definitive researchers is perverse, but if that is what the majority of editors are insisting upon then I can see no way forward. I suggest editors consider the above sources and then propose how these are to be used, given that my proposed approach is not acceptable to the majority, some other formulation is clearly required. For detailed criticism of the encyclopaedists with which I concur see -

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, most, if not all these sources have been used in this and related articles such as Teachings of Prem Rawat, and Divine Light Mission. If there are specific aspects of these sources that have not been used and that could improve this or related articles, you will need to propose them one at a time. Blanket assertions such as Barret, Hunt, Chryssides, following "Geaves, or making it up as they go along, and "encyclopaedists"(sic) being somehow unreliable, will not do, sorry. For a list of all sources used in this article, see Prem_Rawat#References ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, then, Jossi -- do you accept all of these as reliable sources for this article? There are several I don't see on the /Scholars subpage, e.g. Price, Bjorkvist, Rife, Dupertuis, Haan and Kranenborg. Can we add them to the scholars page? I think a consensus set of sources would go a long way toward settling this page down. Msalt (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also no need to spam-link to the anti-Rawat sites when the material you refer to is already available in a sandbox here at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. Any further attempts to spamlink should be considered disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not consider adding links to talk pages in good faith to be disruptive. If it moves the discussion towards consensus it's helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If the material referred is already available on-wiki, there is no reason to link-spam this page, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The linked page contains commentary that I don't see here. I don't see the harm in linking to it. I don't see any personal attacks on individual WP editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy is clear = " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NikWright2 just listed a dozen scholarly articles, so what does your comment about "unsourced or poorly sourced" have to do with his list? Msalt (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about linking to the anti Rawat websites as in here ], ] ]] and ]. These sites are full of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Just because it links to a page that has "sourced material" from a "reliable scholar" is no excuse. I could set of a web site with 99 pages of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" and have one page of "Gordon Melton" to link to. Having a few pages of "sourced material" in a sea of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" doesn't remove the need to follow BLP policy on "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" and "external links".Momento (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your comments properly. Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing. These links go directly to reproductions of scholarly articles (except the third, where your link is mistaken. I think you may have put HTM instead of HTML.)There is no added material at all. They don't even have links to anything on those pages except a bibliography. I see nothing unsourced or poorly sourced -- in fact, the only things ON those pages are reliable sources. You aren't even claiming that these are not reliable sources. It looks like you simply object to any source that is critical of Rawat. That has no basis in BLP. In any case, why don't we just add the full text of each to the /Scholars sandbox, and then we won't need these links? Msalt (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the page that says "Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing". The pages linked are part of sites that violate BLP. And, in fact, Galanter and Downton are not critical of Rawat. Why don't you add the full text to the scholars page and that will certainly save us linking to sites that violate BLP.Momento (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Gladly -- . "Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: ... tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Misplaced Pages conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst." Msalt (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've didn't know this.Momento (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a good policy. The whole thing is worth reading. Msalt (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All relevant issues seem to have been covered by other editors so I will not respond to any of the individual points made above . I do note that Jossi, Momento and Rumiton have approached this yet again in what looks like a "no surrender" mode. Msalt's suggestion that In any case, why don't we just add the full text of each to the /Scholars sandbox, and then we won't need these links? seems eminently sensible. I remain unconvinced that the article can be improved without a major edit to effect essential structural change but I look forward to other editors creating text that introduces a greater breadth of references. Despite claims to the contrary I had, and have, no interest in editwaring. I will not for the present make any edits to the article and I will not comment here until other editors present new text that introduces an increased range of academic references. My draft article remains at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources for anyone who may find it useful, and at the risk of being accused further of 'spamming' I do believe the criticism at is relevant. I did consider copying it to my sandbox to reference here, but it is an independent criticism of Misplaced Pages and surely it is right to acknowledge that.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong discussion

Aside from links and indents, are there any comments on the material Nik posted above - #What is wrong with this article and How to Solve it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jossi said it all, we need to look at the individual suggested edits. A problem I have with blanket-accepting the proposed sources is that many of them, particularly the Dutch scholars, are prominent members of Protestant churches, writing for their own congregations in language intended to affirm the Christian world view. It is to be expected that they will find the Sant Mat philosophy offensive and idolatrous. A comparable example might be to quote the opinion of Pope Benedict in an article on Communism, or the opinion of the President of China on the Dalai Lama. They may well make some valid points, but you would expect them to have a biased and unencyclopedic understanding of the subject. I also would like this article to find some stability, and to pay respect, as far as possible, to all those whose lives have been affected by Prem Rawat. Accepting sources like these will only inflame the situation. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the first of the sources, Worshiping the Absurd, by Foss and Larkin. Its main thrust is to analyse the state of mind of the followers of Rawat, and how their attachment to him, in the authors' view, solved the psychological dilemma they found themselves in when the sixties' youth movement fizzled out. Some attention is also paid to DLM structures mimicking some of the same structures that the counterculture had judged to be inimical to people's well-being. Apart from some general references to Rawat's contradictory behaviour, held by followers to reflect the contradictory nature of the world in general, I did not really find anything that in my view would make a key contribution to the biographical part of this article. I could imagine the sections "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?" and "Social Causality and Truth Within: Grace and Lila" to be used for the criticism sections here and in the articles on DLM and Prem Rawat's teachings, as part of the round-up of published criticism, but with clear attribution (i.e. naming the authors). Any views? Jayen466 14:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, Jayen, the Prem Rawat article had no mention of the fact that Millenium '73 was in many ways a major failure until I added facts from Foss and Larkin piece (since fleshed out with other sources.) So it already has made a major contribution to the biographical part of the article. In fact, excerpts from Foss and Larkin were already on the /Scholars subpage here, though for some reason the material about Millenium '73 was left out.

I will fill in that and other gaps there and add other scholarly articles as suggested, as time permits. As I've said, having a common base of high quality sources available to us all will be an excellent starting point for building consensus. Msalt (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted. :-) I had not really registered that this information was not in the article, so well done for noticing and adding it. Jayen466 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Endeavors can only fail by not achieving their goals. Millenium '73 failed to make money, but that was never an expectation. A free-admission program cannot make money. Regarding attendance, I think if Prem Rawat himself said "the goal of this event is to have 100 000 people here", then it could be seen as a failure, as only 20 000 - 35 000 showed up, but I don't think he did that. The expectations of arriving ETs and the levitating stuff are symptomatic of the 70s in America (have we all forgotten how truly weird they were?) and not connected with Prem Rawat's stated aims at all. Rumiton (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to their opinions. For the article, we can add the subject's opinion that he was pleased with the event and the press reports that it met the low end of attendance predictions, didn't live up to the earthshattering hype, and left the groups deeply in debt. If there are other opinions in reliable sources we should add those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the "earth-shattering hype" was largely a grassroots phenomenon. Unless a very good source links Prem Rawat with the out-there predictions, they have no place in an article about him, except perhaps tangentially. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We should assume that the subject's spokespersons, including Rennie Davis, were speaking for him. Even if a reporter finds a random follower and asks them for a quote that's still an indication of how the event was perceived by the subject's followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re quoting the spokespersons, I can certainly see that as being a normal assumption, but we have to remember the subject's age and background. When Millenium '73 happened he was still only 15, an adolescent. This is an extraordinary story, and ordinary standards can not be rigidly applied. Here was an Indian boy, still learning English, coming from a traditional Sant family and entering a foreign world, trying to bring the best of his upbringing and understanding with him. I recall there were many adults around who were happy to explain to the world what Prem Rawat meant to say. Some of them were, frankly, unrepentant hippies and drug-crazed lunatics. Comments made by attendees can certainly be mentioned in the article, providing their remarks are in broad agreement with reputable sources. (See preceding sentence.) Rumiton (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While the story is remarkable Misplaced Pages has so many extraordinary stories that there's a certain ordinariness to them. In this case, the subject had been declared the "Perfect Master" several years earlier, and just six months later he would be declared an adult and get married. In any case, if we have sources that say his spokesmen weren't speaking for him then we can add that bit. The nature of his following is also interesting though that may be an organizational issue better suited for the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No WillBeBack, we can't assume "the subject's spokespersons were speaking for him" all the time. When asked by a reporter at Millennium - Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you? Rawat answered - Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?" Momento (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so then we can use that source to say that reporters questioned the contradictions between what Rawat and his spokesmen were saying. If I've been reading them correctly, it appears that followers, including spokesman Davis, were saying that Rawat was God, while Rawat was saying that he wasn't God. There may have been other contradictions as well. Let's see what the sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, now. Sometimes Goom Rodgie said that he wasn't God, but that his Knowledge was God. The song medley called "Arti" includes the line "Satguru IS eternal Knowledge." Sometimes Goom Rodgie went on for quite a while describing the powers of Guru Maharaj Ji. In 1984 (highly relevant, here) George Orwell defined "doublethink" as:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

In fact, society, in general, regards Prem Rawat (appropriately) as a cult leader. This article does not reflect that fact. Prem Rawat is a controversial figure. This article does not reflect that fact. In fact, if you go here: http://prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/ and browse posts, you can learn quite a lot. The premie axis here would tell you that this is a "hate site." In fact, it's a recovery site for cult casualties. There is actually one ex-premie there who probably hates Prem Rawat. She was so dedicated that she always set a place for him at her table in case he turned up. When she figured out that he was deceiving her, she never recovered. Since premies were told not to tell each other about their own experiences, and since some things were kept secret, we're all in a process of self-discovery there. Wowest (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of "society" has never heard of Prem Rawat, positively or negatively. Prem Rawat didn't write Arti, it is sung by millions in India today, has been for a very long time, and describes the traditional Guru-Shishya relationship which is considered the basis of spiritual progress for Hindus. I believe if you care for the person you describe, you might recommend that she seek professional help. The secrets you describe did not exist. There is no "doublethink." What there is, is a difficulty in putting into words an experience that language did not evolve to describe, especially the English language. Stop ranting. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section

The reception section was edited to summarize the Randi source as follows: "To James Randi, Rawat was an overweight teenager." In my opinion, this is a trivializing and highly distorting bit of synthesis. There is no way you could read Randi's piece -- available in its entirety -- and find that to be a fair summary. Furthermore, it distorts the source in a way that is insulting to Prem Rawat. I propose the following as a better summary:

"To James Randi, Rawat's 'Knowledge' consists of four simple 'sensory illusions.' "

Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole Randi article is an insult. In 1993, a jury found that Randi's claim regarding Eldon Byrd was defamatory. In 1990, Uri Geller sued Randi over statements Randi had made, the judge ruled Geller's favor. No serious encyclopedia or scholar would include any of Randi's comments.Momento (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Randi makes a living out of that kind of stuff... and the weight of his opinion is questionable, in particular as relating to he flippant manner in which he writes about such subjects. If we use that source at all, your proposed wording could go in the article Teachings of Prem Rawat, although we will placing his opinion alongside respected scholar's and I am not so sure that is a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stated on more than one occasion that I consider Randi to be a less than ideal source, which I would like to see replaced. In the meantime though, I strongly feel that the "overweight teenager" edit was highly distorting as well as derogatory to Prem Rawat. I welcome anyone who can do the work to find a better summary of the criticism of Rawat, and think it would be a wonderful mark of good faith if someone like Ruminton or Momento did. In the meantime, though, after a bit of time for more input, I will probably follow Jossi's (sort of) recommendation as incremental progress. At least this version is more substantive. Msalt (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If Randi is a less than ideal source, why don't you demonstrate your good faith and remove him. BLP policy is clear - "Be very firm about the use of high quality references".Momento (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MSalt, thanks for posting the link to Randi's writing, which I had not read in its entirety before. It is libellous garbage and sensationalist, tabloidal gossip, written contemptuously towards both Prem Rawat and his students. There is my revert for the day. Rumiton (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As for a summary of criticism of Rawat. There are two main criticisms. One is that his teachings are simplistic and lacking in "intellectual content". Scholars who make this criticism are demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of Rawat's roots. Most scholars claim Rawat's teaching come from the Sant school in India and Sants "dismiss all religious ritual and dogma and instead emphasize the possibility of a direct experience of God, whom they claim "dwells in the heart". They express their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value". Criticizing Rawat for teaching a "direct subjective" experience instead of a "dogma", is like Christians criticizing Muslims for not eating pork. The second criticism is Rawat leads a "sumptuous lifestyle". This criticism is usually made by Christian scholars who are woefully ignorant of the guru/disciple role and their own Christian teachings. The same criticism was made about Jesus when Mary Magdalen was washing his feet with expensive oil, Jesus replied "the poor will be with you always, but I won't".Momento (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and remember who was that critic? Judas Iscariot, of course, of all people...--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I added more highly reliable sources, as requested, and a couple of important details about the Millenium '73 event. I am also concerned that the long paragraph about whether Rawat considered himself divine or not disrupts this narrative. I am moving it to the reception section. Msalt (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reception section is now highly unbalanced. On one side there are quantities, mere numbers, but criticism is elaborated qualitatively. This may be a consequence of the observation that the many content students are not as vociferous as the few detractors, who have an axe to grind. But it gives a distorted overall picture, and there will never be consensus about that. Thoughts?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is pretty short and the critical material appears limited to a short paragraph that mostly deals with Mischler. Since Mischler's involvement and comments were in the 1970s, it would make sense to deal with them chronologically. I think we can expand the coverage of Mischler slightly to actually describe his criticisms neutrally. The material in that section should be overviews of the person. The movement is covered in the DLM/EV/TPRF articles, so detailed membership numbers should be in those articles along with any criticism or praise directed at them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Will. Reception is not a Criticism section, and I prefer having contrasting views presented throughout the article, not lumped into one section anyway. I certainly don't agree with Rainer P. that it is imbalanced against Rawat. And I think we CAN reach consensus, as we have been steadily doing to great effect just lately. I have a concern that the quote about Mishler's criticism having no effect is an example of WP:SYN synthesis, finding a source to make an argument. It is presented as a refutation of Mishler that his criticism didn't hurt the movement. By the way, Momento,

I have some material in Peace is Possible about Mishler.Momento (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Peace is Possible is not a reliable source and by consensus is being used only for non-controversial points. I kinda doubt that anything about Mishler will fall into that category. We have set a very high standard for sources on this page, and should be consistent. Msalt (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, Msalt, the reception paragraph has in fact changed now, with Randi and the like gone, and it does not look so imbalanced any more. But then it does not have much left, or never had, that might legitimately be called "Reception". It sounds more like "Numbers", and this unwieldy Mishler bit should bit dumped somewhere else. I mean, at least Randi somehow has an independent notability of his own, while Mishler (and some vocal others) derive a certain dubious notability exclusively from their former connection to Rawat, and therefore should not be valued too high as a source. And again, you must not balance quantities (like numbers) against qualities (like judgement). The reception section should IMO reflect the characteristics of overall reactions to Rawat in a neutral way, considering developments over time as well as the polarity and the ratio of students vs. detractors, as well as the conspicuous difference between populistic media reactions and scientific appraisal. Now that would be interesting. Still not agree?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving India section

I am concerned that the section titled "Leaving India" presents a highly imbalanced view of the "Millenium '73" festival, minimizing the failure of the occasion drastically. I am adding the following text paraphrased from the Foss & Larkin article, which has already been accepted here as a reliable source. "Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people (as well as extra-terrestrials) would attend, actual attendance was no more than 35,000, incurring a debt of over $1 million." Msalt (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"extra-terrestials"? lol! I think that there are many other sources that address the "Millenium" attendance, and the losses incurred. We ought to present all these competing viewpoints, not only Foss.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is no secret that the Mission has overspent in its brief history and has run up some monumental debts. The guru's millennium celebration at the Houston Astrodome in 1972 left the group sadly in arrears in making payments on debts it incurred at that time. Anctil says at one time the Mission owed more than $650,000 but had been able by late 1976, to reduce that debt to $80,000. Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke.All Gods Children, ISBN 0801966205

After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs.J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145

I would suggest you summarize these sources, and remove the comment about "extra-terrestrials"... Foos & Larkins got the numbers wrong as well as that silly factoid.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the book "All God's Children" scholarly? Amazon.com describes it as a "mass market paperback." Melton, while accepted here by consensus, is a tertiary source which is always less favored than a secondary source such as Foss and Larkin. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V policy says - "Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources". An exceptional claim is a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" or "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs". If such sources are not available, the material should not be included". You'll need to find some corroborative sources for "extra-terrestrials, $1 million and 35,000 attendees". I have reverted this undiscussed "exceptional claim" until Msalt can come up with some support for it.Momento (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, do you approve of this wiki-lawyering? (and unilateral reversion of a reliably sourced statment?) Msalt (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, you unilaterally inserted it without discussion and WP:VER says it shouldn't be included.Momento (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, all editors involved in this page have added material unilaterally without prior discussion. Are you saying that what you, I, and everyone else has done is no longer acceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a discussion section for this single sentence before I added it to this article, and was working toward a consensus improved version with Jossi when you reverted it on a very thin pretext, Momento. I am going to modify it based on Jossi's suggestions, adding additional references though I don't think "All Gods Children" has been shown to be reliable yet. It does not appear to be a scholarly source. I am sticking to either scholarly sources or top-level mainstream news sources, mostly the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which by the consensus on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard are reliable. Here is my reworded version -- suggestions always welcome (as opposed to wikilawyered reverts). I am leaving the part about extraterrestials off for now, to be discussed below. The first fragment I plan to append to the previous sentence:

"designed to usher in “a thousand years of peace.” Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people would attend the free event, actual attendance was estimated at 25,000 by followers and 10,000 by police. The Mission incurred a debt estimated variously from $600,000 to over $1 million as a result, severely damaging its finances. Msalt (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of finding the best source, you need " high-quality reliable sources", that corroborate F & L's claim that "Mission officials predicted".Momento (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt: I think you got the quote pretty much right the way you had it. Prem Rawat's prize spokesman, Rennie Davis (of the Chicago Conspiracy Trial), ran around the country during the summer of 1973, repeatedly making the same specific claims, in city after city, that (1) 144,000 people would be at the Astrodome, (2) A huge mothership would descend over the Astrodome and lift the structure, with all inside, off the planet. The further embellishment was sometimes added that, at the same time, a massive earthquake along a newly discovered fault would destroy New York City. This was undoubtedly documented in many well-regarded newspapers, but I don't have time to go to the university to look through microfilms this week. But, yes, someone would have to be present to operate the space craft, so the "extra-terrestrials" claim appears to be valid. Since this particular claim, while totally accurate, reflects badly on the Guru, you can expect the "premie axis" of Momento, Rumiton and Jossi to attempt to whitewash it, which is just what they have been doing here, and to call it "defamatory," or "exceptional," which it clearly is not, since it's the simple, unvarnished truth.

Wowest (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I googled Rennie Davis and 144,000 and got one hit. Wowest talking on the anti-Rawat forum.Momento (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't surprising. I may be the only cult critic here who actually talked to Rennie Davis during 1973, and there was no Internet at that time. Since Prem Rawat is such a relatively minor figure, one would not expect much about him on the Internet from 35 years ago. Wowest (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, though, Momento, I just Googled 144000 Houston "Rennie Davis" and got three hits -- an article by Francine du Plexis Gray from the New York Review of Books dated December 13, 1973 and an article by Ken Kelley from Ramparts, February 1974, both preserved on ex-premie.org at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/nyrb7374.htm and http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/overthehill.htm as well as a quotation from Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=vnAk9WefhfwC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=144000+Houston+%22Rennie+Davis%22&source=web&ots=Od7_VpsdvY&sig=tvG0duO6eUdRsUjDdERE_vydSd8&hl=en#PPA64,M1

Wowest (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Loved the bit about the Venutians.Momento (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say that 100,000 attendees were predicted and that only 20,000 appeared. There's a source referencing the expectation of UFOs arriving, and even one saying the remaing 80,000 seats were purportedly filled with invisible spirits. There are also sources for the debt after the event. This is perhaps the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S., so we should get this right. Let's see what the sources, aside from those already cited, say:

• His followers say they expect anywhere from 20,000 to 135,000 people in Houston for the Thursday through Saturday "millenniiim '73" at which Maharaj Ji promises to offer a practical way to bring peace to the world. Thirty chartered jetliners will lift the Guru's followers in from all over the world for the festival which 400 staff members of the Divine Light Mission have been working on since summer.
  • "Throngs To Seek 'Peace'", AP EXPRESS/NEWS—Sunday, November 4, 1973
• It has budgeted $500,000, and expects to spend twice that, for a three-day climax to the guru's world tour in November, "Millenium 73." The mission has rented the Houston Astrodome for $75,000 and booked 35,000 beds in hotel rooms. To help finance the convocation, disciples have been visiting 400 millionaires. Each receives a lush, vinyl-covered looseleaf notebook as a fund raising proposal.
  • "The guru who minds his mother" Malcome N. Carter, AP THE STARS AND STRIPES, November 4, 1973
• The fact that he has found an audience, albeit a small one--early promises that 100,000 devotees would be on parade in Houston were hasitly decalred inopterative when only 20,000 actually appeared--suggests that the search for peace, both individual and collective, beguin in the 1960s, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
  • "Houston's Version of Peace in Our Time" GREGG KILDAY, Los Angeles Times Nov 25, 1973 pg. S18
• When word was passed that extraterrestrial creatures in U.F.O.'s would be visiting the Astrodome, it was Bal Bhagwan Ji who said, "If you see any, just give them some of our literature." A space was left in the Astrodome parking lot in case any flying saucers wished to land.
  • "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, New York Times, December 9, 1973
• The Devine Light Mission Inc., church of the Guru Maharaj Ji, has been sued by the Astrohall Stadium Corp, which claims the misions owes it $14,500 in unpaid rent...Joe Anctil, spokesman for the Denver-based mission, said the church has tried to pay $14,500 amount by monthly installments of $3,000.
  • "Guru's church sued for unpaid rent" AP
• In fact, "Millenium '73" turned out to be a bust. Contrary to expectations of some communicants, the Astrodome did not take off into outer space. On a more practical level, the cost of the event was estimated at $1 million, and it attracted an audience of fewer than 20,000.
  • "TV: Meditating on Young Guru and His Followers" John J. O'Connor, New York Times, February 25, 1974
• A Houston photographer and film producer said Wednesday that the Divine Light Mission, headed by the 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, still owes him $22,000 for a film produced last year. A spokesman for the mission disputed the producer's allegation...Producer Don MrClendon said he has received nothing but negative responses to his claims that the mission still owes him money for the film. However, Carole Grcenberg the mission's director of information services, said McCIendon actually owes the mission $3,000 in unreturned overpayments. She called McCiendon's accusations "unjustified" and "completely unwarranted."
  • "$22,000 From Guru Still Sought", AP CORPUS CHRISTI TIMES, Thurs., May 30, 1974
• Beneath the spiritual bliss of the guru Maharaj Ji's Denver-based Divine Light Mission lie more than $300,000 in unpaid bills and a never ending fund drive, according to the guru's former financial analyst...Meanwhile, other mission bills go unpaid. For example, Millenium '73, the mission's huge festival at the Astrodome, was paid for only after mission equipment and files were repossessed....He said donations, averaging $100.000 a month at the height of the guru's 1973 recruitment, now struggle to reach $40,000. The deficit, according to Garson, has resulted in a form of check kiting where checks are written on funds not necessarily available at the time.
  • "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, UPI, March 23, 1975, Lincoln, Neb., Sunday Journal and Star
• DENVER (AP) - His organization claimed 6 million followers when Guru Maharaj Ji was 15...That was four years ago, and times have changed. The faithful now number 1.2 million, according to a spokesman for his Divine Light Mission. Donations have fallen off and the Church is retrenching. Its printing business is gone and some of the property in Denver and other American cities has been sold. The lease has been dropped on the computer that once kept track of the pudgy teen-ager's following. Some of the more extravagant claims about the guru's divinity also have been dropped. Once, Maharaj Ji was known as "Lord of the Universe" and "Perfect Master" to his devotees. Now, Joe Anctil, the 43-year old spokesman for the guru, describes him as "the point of inspiration for all of us." ...As devotees moved out of ashrams, their weekly paychecks, previously turned over to the guru's treasury, were missed. Donations fell from more than 1100,000 a month to 70 per cent of that, although Anctil said 3,000 regular donors remain. The declining income forced a decision to change operations.
  • "Declining donations dim Divine Light Mission" AP Nov. 22, 1976
• In 1973, the mission sponsored a festival designed to attract 100,000 faithful and signal 1,000 years of peace. Only 20,000 showed up and the group felt it was being portrayed poorly in the media.
  • "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults" MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979; pg. 3
• The same year, the Guru Maharaj Ji rented the Houston Astrodome for a rally, setting aside parking-lot space for flying saucers. They didn't show. So didn't 80,000 of the up-to-100,000 people the 15-year old Perfect Master had expected.
  • "A LOOK BACK AT THE '70S" HENRY ALLEN, Los Angeles Times Dec 16, 1979; pg. K30

These are just excerpts from a portion of the sources covering "Millenium '73". Based on a reasonable evaluation of weight it may deserve a section of its own. The last reference is a testament to the event's overall cultural significance - it was included in a review of the decade of the 1970s. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the extraterrestrials claim should be taken with a pinch of salt. We are talking the early seventies here, a time when I believe flowery language, interspersed with "man ...", was pretty common, including among the demographic herein concerned, I suspect. At any rate, if one of Rawat's family suggested that "If you see any , just give them some of our literature" and people left a space in the parking lot (!) for UFOs, this to me has more philosophical affinity with Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure than with the Book of Revelation. We shouldn't make it sound like the latter. Jayen466 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right. "Leaving space for the flying saucers" may have been a euphemism for a large open area in the parking lot caused by too-few attendees. Nonetheless, it seems to have been a meme for the event. Let me see if I can find any other sources that mention it.

Also: this splurge of new references is a byproduct of a few hours at the library. As I offered before, if any editor would like copies of the originals I'd be happy to send them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four reliable sources attesting to the extraterrestrials claim. I can understand why the claim would be embarrassing today, but I don't see any evidence to counter this strong evidence that the clain was made. Does anyone have any? Or do you have a different reason than sourcing for not including this? Msalt (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the sources say that Rawat made the claim, or instructed others to make it? Jayen466 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember the hype, though I did not attend the event. I would be very surprised if any reputable source attributes any of it to Prem Rawat. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never, ever, heard Prem Rawat speak of "invisible beings", "extra-terrestrials", or any other such nutty ideas. As for the sources above, taken together with the scholarly sources, simply requires saying that there were expectations of 100,000 people; only 35,000 (or 20,000) attended; that it was covered in the media; that the DLM lost 600,000 USD, and that the organization suffered a setback because of all that (there is a source saying teh Rawat was pleased with the event.) Note, that as it pertains to this biography, that is all is needed. This affected the DLM, refers to the DLM, and refers to his adherents, so expanding on this can be done at Divine Light Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you around the subject in 1973? That appears to be the relevant year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. Until we see clear evidence that Rawat himself discussed extraterrestrials, I think the wise move (given BLP) is to leave it out. Note, I have seen at least one reliable source quote Rawat directly that the Astrodome would be levitated during the event (another popular meme of the time, cf levitating the Pentagon), but again, these kinds of colorful details should require something more emphatic. Personally, I think even if it was undeniable that Rawat threw out such a claim in passing, say we had film of him predicting levitation in a heated moment of rhetoric, it might well be still inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. On the other hand, if he had made a big point of it, then it would certainly belong. Msalt (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lord of the Universe" -- I am removing the claim that this documentary is satirical -- the only source given (IMDB) says nothing of the sort, so it clearly constitutes OR. I am also adding an article about the documentary from the LA Times, which notes the evenhandedness of the film. It's a more reliable source than a website like IMDB. Msalt (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the movie site listed as ref 29 has it listed in the genre of comedy/parody, satire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an obvious satire. 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have very high standards for sources in this article. To be consistent, I will remove the "All Movie Guide Website" since it is unsigned, lists no sources, and shares many of the other flaws that external websites have been criticised for here. We have no way to know that anyone connected with the website has even watched the movie. It is far less reliable than a contemporary review in the Los Angeles Times. I will look for additional quality sources as well.

This documentary actually has a sigificant place in the history of film, in that it was one of the first to use the (then-new) portability and inexpensiveness of video to photograph in ways that would be impractical on film, yet was produced with (then-unheard of) high production value for video. It is firmly in the cinema verite movement; any humor (or pathos) in the film would by design come from the subject, not the filmmakers. The LA Times compliments the film for its even-handedness. Msalt (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The cover of the LOTU claims that Rawat said that Asrtrodome was going to levitate but there is no evidence of him saying anything about it in the video other than some person saying "I would like to bet anyone who wishes to make some 'green energy' that by November 15, the Houston Astrodome will physically separate from the planet which we call Earth and will fly". In other words, a beat up. As for the idea that Millennium was "perhaps the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S.", not by a long shot. But Millennium was undoubtedly the "most important single event of Rawat's mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji's live's in the U.S". BBJ is widely credited with organizing Millennium and trying to duplicate the million person march to Delhi Gate. In early '74 Rawat asked them to leave his house and they went back to India, never to be reconciled again. In April 74 Rawat became an emancipated minor and was about to have legal and financial independence.Momento (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Millenium '73 generated enormous publicity for the subject. If it isn't "the most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S." then what is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, now. I have no idea why Momento brought up that phrase -- it's not in the Rawat article. There are many reliable sources for the prediction that Millenium '73 would be the most important event in all of human history, not just Rawat's life. I don't recall off the top of my head though whether that was attributed to Rawat, Rennie Davis (who seemed to be handling most publicity for Rawawt at that time) or to an unnamed spokesperson for the DLM. I know that none of the sources attributed it to Bal Bhagwan Ji; I would have remembered that. But in any case, we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's discuss it only if and when someone wants to add it to the article. Msalt (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rawat actually said that the anniversary of his guru's birth was the most significant event in human history, Millennium was just a celebration of his guru's birthday.Momento (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Momento was not able to justify this statement here, and edited it into the article anyway without support, I am removing it from the article. In his edit he adds Melton as a cite. The problems with that are 1) Melton never says it was "just" a celebration of Rawat's father's birthday 2) Melton is a lesser quality, tertiary source -- none of the many other, higher quality sources (so many that Jossi complained) agree 3) it fails common sense. Shri Hans has a birthday every year, but Millenium '73 was a singular event 4) we have another source saying that the occasion was Rawat's 16th birthday, the day after Millenium '73. but there is no solid source for any of these. 5) it's not relevant to the article or to the significance of Millenium '73. Momento himself has already complained of too much detail abou the event, and this is the weakest link. Msalt (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a self-published source (which could be used in the context of this article): can anyone still get hold of "A Festival for the Whole World" from the Special Millenium '73 Edition of the Divine Times, page 2? From a copy of its (probable) content (A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI - Bonn, Germany - September 31, 1973): "As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is it relevant whether the event was related to Shri Hans Ji's birthday or not? The Mission did not promote it as such - the 1,000 years of peace and a plan for peace were the reasons given by DLM spokespeople -- it was not mentioned in any of the accounts of the events themselves, and none of the major effects of the event in terms of publicity, finances, etc. are related to Shri Hans' birthday. As your source notes, there were 5 birthday celebrations before Millenium '73, none of which have been found notable, and presumably there have been 35 since, again with no significance. Msalt (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is inferred from sources (not the other way around) of course.

Anyway, the 1970 "Peace Bomb", which eventually got into the Guinness Book of Records, was also one of these commemorations of Rawat's father (yes, it's all in a footnote currently in the article).

I'm not saying any of this is notable per se, only: if the appropriate sources are presented, there's no impediment to include such info in the Prem Rawat article as far as I'm concerned: at least it gives a view of what Rawat's approach was to the event. If Rawat commented on the anticipation of extraterrestials, and it is recorded in something we consider a reliable source, of course we'd include it too: this is Rawat's bio after all: insight in how this person thinks (or: thought at the time) is generally welcomed as article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if Rawat neither commented on the stage setting at the event, neither on anticipation of extraterrestials, but on the link with the previous commemorations of Hans Ji Maharaj, then the third of these information bits seems the most essential for the Prem Rawat article to me. (all assuming this is what is actually reflected in the reliable sources which I'm not sure about yet) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence that he did yet, and not that important anyway. Many notable figures don't comment on the things that make them notable, or wish the press and public would discuss an aspect of their life more to their liking. And it doesn't matter if Rawat commented on his staging; he was the one being staged! It was how he was presented, at the moment in his life when the eyes of the world were most upon him, because he and his organization called on everyone to look at him. Clearly lots of thought was given to how he was presented. Msalt (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that this is an article on Prem Rawat in the first place, if he describes the annual commemoration of his father as "the most Holy and significant event in human history", then this is something noteworthy for Prem Rawat, it gives an insight in his stated priorities at the time (again, if the quoted source appears to be authentic). (Side-note:) As this is about Rawat's stated priorities (which is primary source material) we'd always record it in Misplaced Pages without further interpretation (unless reliable secondary sources would provide such interpretation), per WP:PSTS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle I don't see a problem with giving both sides -- the way the press saw it, and the way he saw it, based on primary sources. Jayen466 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, of course (might have given the wrong impression). The only point I tried to make was that, for instance, the Prem Rawat article would quite naturally try to give insight in Prem Rawat, and (for instance) the Lord of the Universe article insight in what the makers of that film tried to do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that was understood; after all, you brought the primary source. Jayen466 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand why my sourced reference to the fact that Millennium 73 was a traditional celebration of Rawat's guru was reverted. It is far more important than a "56 piece rock band". It again demonstrates the problem with going "populist". If a dozen newspapers don't mention it, we ignore a scholar that does.Melton is clear "After a spectacular beginning in North America, the Mission suffered a major setback in November 1973 It rented the Houston Astrodome for “Millennium 73,” an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji’s father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity". I want to put it back in.Momento (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your single, tertiary source does not deserve equal weight with to a dozen better sources that don't consider that fact significant, however important it may be to you as a devotee. Read your own quote from Melton again -- can you honestly tell me that the most important detail in that quote is the birthday? Vs. 1,000 years of peace and prosperity and major setback? Even Melton mentions it only in passing.

We are discussing the turning point of Rawat's entire career. What does the fact that it fell on his father's birthday contribute to our understanding of this event? There were 6 Shri Hans birthdays before, and 35 since. Both logic and our sources indicate that the birthdayness was not significant. In fact, I am not clear why we talk about his father's birthday two paragraphs earlier in the article, either. Msalt (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there was a pattern, for a while, for major events (like the Peace Bomb and the Astrodome) to be scheduled around the birthday of his father (and guru). Since it is mentioned by a scholar, I don't see any problem with mentioning it here in the article; it reflects the internal logic of the movement and the esteem that his father, as the proximate source of Knowledge, enjoyed. That is of interest, arguably more so than the number of members in the rock group that played. Jayen466 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that Millennium was the "turning point of Rawat's entire career" is 100% OR. Some would argue that far more important was his break from his family and/or later dropping the Indian traditions. Aren't the sources given, primary sources. They are the first hand accounts of reporters?Momento (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. 2 of the 3 sources are scholarly, both by your favorite source Melton in fact. The third is a "Look Back At the 1970s" in the Los Angeles Times, which found it one of the signal events of the entire decade. Msalt (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I hope you will agree that using 26 indents so that the line vanishes altogether and becomes unreadable is Wikipediality gone mad. Here we are back at the margin. Accuse me of disruption if you will. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. There's no need for bitterness. Indenting is not complicated. When you reply to someone, you indent from their comment, so the flow of discussion is clear. When you reframe the discussion or start a new topic, going back to the margin is better than indenting, because again it's clear. On rare occasions like this one, a conversation continues long enough that the indenting gets silly. At that point, people usually make a brief comments such as "(Out-denting)" as good communication in good faith. It's all of form of courtesy and a way of showing that we are paying attention to each other. Msalt (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Jayen and Francis don't have a problem with including the fact that Millennium was also the celebration of his guru's birth day and we have a good source and it is not contentious and no other source disagrees with it. I will wait 24 hours for any new info and put it back in.Momento (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of consensus. But I want to continue the discussion below, reframed in terms of notability. Msalt (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Millenium 73 coincided with Prem Rawat's decision no longer to seek the media's help in his work of promulgating Knowledge. So it was the biggest thing they got to know about. In the 1970s there were 2 events after Millenium, in 78 and 79, held in Florida that were longer (over 10 days I think) and attracted quite a few more people, and were, as intended, unreported on. There have been innumerable small and middle sized events all over the world since then, as well as huge Indian events that have attracted hundreds of thousands. I know and agree that we don't have secondary sources to tell us about them, I am just explaining why that is. FYI. And that is why some find the article's focus on Millenium irritating. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in general I like your approach here. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of coverage of later events - A) Secret or unreported events are inherently non-notable. If things are secret there are no sources accessible to readers for verification. There's just no way we can cover on the many things the subject does that haven't been reported in reliable sources. B) There is a suggestion that the problems with Millenium '73 exacerbated the growing rift between the subject and his family. Certainly many things of note happened in a short period of time. While the subject's emancipation, marriage, home puchase, U.S. citizenship, etc. are all important and covered in the press, the Millenium '73 event was promised, by the subject himself as well as by followers, to have a global and historic impact. Though the subject's marriage may have had a greater effect on his life, the '73 event is still more notable than his marriage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is an excellent point, and is why this business about Shri Hans' birthday -- which is obviously not a huge deal -- is nagging at me.

First, why is it so important to you, Rumiton (and Momento)? I have a sense that there is some great significance to these birthdays, but no one is saying publicly what it is. If father's birthdays hold a crucial importance to Rawat, then maybe we should spell out what that is instead of constantly hinting about it. Secondly, even if it is important to Rawat or his followers, why is it notable to the general public? I can find several sources that Millenium '73 ended on a Saturday, and maybe that's Rawat's day of rest or something, but it needs to matter to the broader public or it doesn't belong in the article. What does the birthday add to our understanding of this event? What makes it notable? Msalt (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever since his guru died Rawat held an event around 8th November to celebrate his guru's birthday. If there hadn't been a tradition for an event in November, Millennium would never have occurred. Leaving out this important info suggests that Millennium was a one off event of unique significance to Rawat, it wasn't. He always had a multi day festival on those dates. The Millennium part of the deal was Rawat's mother and brother's attempt to create a Western version of the Peace Bomb and it failed. It may be necessary to include sources that describe Bal Bhagwan Ji's role in organizing Millennium. Rawat had very little to do with it.Momento (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the "most important single event of the subject's life in the U.S"? You'd have to ask Rawat that but Millennium sure wasn't it. I would say marriage and children, splitting from his mother and eldest brother, learning to fly etc. would all rate higher for him. Millennium was just one of literally hundreds of events he's talked and there hasn't really been a high point because he's been doing it for 40 years.Momento (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we can't ask the subject (that would be OR) we have to rely on our reliable sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. Based on the amount of coverage received, the festival appears far more important than the other events you mention. While some organization details may belong in DLM, there's plenty of reporting on the subject's appearance at the festival that should be reflected in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have been considered important by the media but not by scholars. That's the problem with giving importance to what the media thinks is important.Momento (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was considered important by the media, it was likely because it had some importance/relevance/interest to people at the time, scholarly or not, and should probably be included, unless of course, it was in the LA Times :) Maelefique (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly considered important by scholars, several of whom mention this event as a major turning point in Rawat's career. Several are cited in the article as it now stands. Msalt (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton, who appears to be the gold standard, includes a substantial metnion in a 343-word biographical sketch:

• Through the mid-1970s the rapidly developing movement ran into trouble, beginning with its inability to fill the Houston Astrodome in a highly publicized event, Millennium 73.
  • "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

A slightly longer, 471-word article has a longer mention:

• The movement's early growth phase began to spiral down in November 1973 with "Millennium 73," a gathering at the Houston Astrodome that failed to attract enough people to pay the Astrodome's rental fee. The fiasco also attracted attacks against Maharaj Ji's followers by the anti-cult movement.
  • "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

Also mentioned prominently in other scholarly pieces, at least one of which depicts it as a turning point in the history of the movement:

• Most of the devotees with whom we spoke reported a significant drop in the number of people receiving knowledge starting from late 1973. This created a condition of financial strain which became critical when Millennium '73, an all-out extravaganza held in the Houston Astrodome where Guru Maharaj Ji was crowned "Lord of the Universe," proved to be an economic flop. Financial problems forced DLM to close their national headquarters located in a downtown Denver office building which housed their state-of-the-art communication, publication, and media operations and which employed several hundred persons. DLM underwent significant organizational and ideological transformations. It no longer projected itself as a movement that would include all of humanity in its membership.
  • "New Religious Movements Turn to Worldly Success", KIRPAL SINGH KHALSA, JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION,
• The Divine Light Mission achieved prominence in 1973-74, receiving a substantial amount of coverage in the print and electronic media. Its festival in November 1973 — called Millennium-'?3 — was held in the Houston Astrodome and was the youth culture event of the year. It received coverage by local, national and international press and was the subject of a documentary shown on the public television network.
  • "Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation Of Social Causality Among The Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji", Daniel A. Foss, Ralph W. Larkin, Sociological Analysis, 1978, 39, 2:157-164

So it appears that scholars also consider it noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and that can be covered in the Divine Light Mission article with a short summary here. All what can/needs to be reported is repeated on all these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best we can split up information between this article and DLM since in the U.S. the DLM was synonymous with the subject. There are a couple of sources that deal extensively with the subeject at the festival - a NYT article and another I can't recall that reported on his press conference. Details about the financial problems should go to DLM, with just a summary here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this event was highly notable -- scholarly source Foss and Larkin called it "the youth culture event of 1973" -- and sources indicate that this event was the peak of Rawat's fame (to date), at least in the United States. It was pivotal in the history of both Rawat himself and the organization, and so deserves a prominent place in each article. The only question I have is whether there should be an article for the event itself. For now though I think it's best to focus on its description here and in the DLM article. Msalt (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read Sophia Colliers chapter 12 "Millennium Fever]] in her book Soul Rush. She gives an interesting insider's view of the time leading up to the Millennium program. She's already used as a source in this article. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the inserted phrase "for people who want peace", as the edit is POV pushing and constitutes WP:SYN. Rawat and the DLM promoted this event with them most dramatic hyperbole, according to our most reliable sources, which is exactly why the event became notable (and failed); this edit finds one source (out of many) that seems to downplay that, and gives it undue weight. Instead, I am inserting the more common phrase used by DLM spokespeople, "the most significant event in human history", which gives a better sense of the stakes set by those involved anyway, and is amply documented by many reliable sources. Msalt (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Positive Bias

"Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle." Does not amount to criticism, you find more than one line on articles about even the most laudable people. If four sources of criticism are here presently three books and an articles, a section or a page on criticism is certainly achievable. It is clear this article is Heavily biased , ~60kB and only ~20 words of criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.217.206 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, there is a criticism section. If you can improve it by adding encyclopedic quality material from reputable sources, please do so. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The organizations, here, have apparently always had disparate public and private teachings. Public teachings include statements like "I am not God. My Knowledge is God.... I am just a humble servant of God." Private teachings were promulgated by deniable "premie rumors" and by the lyrics of a song medley called "Arti" which was sung to a picture of the guru in ashrams and premie houses twice a day, in English and/or Hindi, to the light of a ghee wick candle. Private teachings include "Sat Guru gives true Knowledge. Sat Guru is eternal Knowledge. (Arti)" One of the universal "premie rumors" is the statement that "the mind is Satan." This is to some extent documented by a quotation from the Guru's mother, published in 1973, "All my son wants is your fickle, human mind," and by the Guru's printed "Commandment" "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." The Guru was pushing premies to get divorces, give him all of their money and worldly possessions, and move into ashrams several years after he and his mother fired each other, so, again, a balanced article would state that he lived an extravagant lifestyle while demanding poverty on the part of his devotees. It would also point out that when he later closed the ashrams, he did not give any of the residents their money back.

Wowest (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All unsourced, and your usual personal reminiscences, Wowest. Is this disruptive editing? Pretty close, I would say. Rumiton (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? That's absurd. Many current and ex-devotees of Rawat have shared their inside knowledge on this Talk page, and I welcome it (provided the writers are reasonably concise and not filibustering.) Obviously it can't be used in the article, since it's OR, but I think it's helpful, for example, in determining whether we are giving undue weight. Msalt (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not absurd. This is not "inside knowledge." Look at the above contribution point by point and you will find nothing but a quite savage collection of rumours, allegations and gossip. It advances the neutrality of this article not at all. I honestly am starting to wonder if you understand the difference. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All those thing can be proved by reading old 'Divine Times' satsangs, None of those points are 'rumours, allegations and gossip' in fact it seems you are the one trying to mislead. You are fond of threatening us (without good reason) to cease and desist from saying what happened. I won't say the same to you. I don't need to. I am simply too pleased to observe that present company seem to be able to see through your accusations with remarkable equanimity and fairness.PatW (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, with all respect I can muster, you are mistaken. These "testimonies" are totally unacceptable. Or do you want current students to start commenting here about their wonmderful and positive experiences? What is undue weight, it to allow these people to use these pages to disparage the subject of this article, bait other editors, and disrupt the editing process or the discussions we re engaging in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not looking for "testimonies" or filibusters from either side. But devotees (including yourself) as well as ex-devotees have filled in knowledge that I or other uninvolved editors could not possibly be expected to have, and I welcome it all. That does not mean that I accept or approve of the speeches that Momento and PatW launch into, of course.

But in the example at hand, Wowest is describing a difference in external vs. internal pronouncements that is exactly to the point. I certainly don't take it as face value, I welcome rejoinder by others with similar experience, and of course it can't be used in the article itself. But I hardly consider it "disruptive editing", any more than it was disruptive editing for you to share your experience in I welcome all good faith information. Msalt (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good faith information? The mind boggles. Look at it, as I said, point by point.

Private teachings were promulgated by deniable "premie rumors... Is Wowest saying Prem Rawat went around starting "premie rumours" that contradicted his public speeches? There were and less often now, still are premie rumours, most of them were and are absurd. Unless Wowest can prove Prem Rawat starts them he should keep silent on the subject.

...and by the lyrics of a song medley called "Arti" which was sung to a picture of the guru in ashrams and premie houses twice a day, in English and/or Hindi, to the light of a ghee wick candle. Arti is an entirely traditional Hindu devotion to the Guru, performed morning and evening by millions. I have heard it myself sung by the Ganga River, complete with ghee candles. Prem Rawat did not make it up. It is one of the Indian "trappings" he did away with in the early 80s.

One of the universal "premie rumors" is the statement that "the mind is Satan." This is to some extent documented by a quotation from the Guru's mother, published in 1973, "All my son wants is your fickle, human mind," and by the Guru's printed "Commandment" "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." Satan is a Christian concept which Prem Rawat has never used. He certainly did say "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." A different thing altogether.

The Guru was pushing premies to get divorces, give him all of their money and worldly possessions... Really? Who says so? I know plenty of people who had money and were married then (my own parents, for goodness sake) and still are and do, and consider themselves premies.

...and move into ashrams several years after he and his mother fired each other, so, again, a balanced article would state that he lived an extravagant lifestyle while demanding poverty on the part of his devotees. Nonsense. He never "demanded poverty" of anyone. Only ashram premies lived without personal possessions, which was the traditional Indian way of escaping from the burdens of "wordly" responsibility. Another thing he got rid of in about 1983.

It would also point out that when he later closed the ashrams, he did not give any of the residents their money back. He didn't have it. According to sources, the ashrams internationally never achieved more than self-sufficiency. All the money they provided and more was spent on running them. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you may be right, but I'm going to assume you're a pretty busy guy and you've just missed the larger point here. Rumiton seems somewhat bent on deliberately ignoring it. The point here, referred to by Wowest, made by 129.11.217.206 is that the article is not balanced. I'm not claiming or debating any scientific method here, but this seems a simple enough test; I looked up the first article I could think of for someone who is/was known for their good works. Mother Teresa came to mind. The article there is about 4361 words long. It has criticisms totalling 504 words, for a percentage of 11.5% of the article. That seems reasonable to me, along with the fact that it's already received a WP:GA stamp. Compare that to this article, we have currently 2508 words, and 119 in criticism, leading to 4.7% of the article. Perhaps you, as somewhat of an authority on the matter, would like to contribute to this section for balance, or because of your COI maybe you could just steer me in the right direction to reputable sources that accurately criticize Prem Rawat? Maelefique (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no section on "Criticism" per se and there is substantial material on the article already related to setbacks, family split, and other such issues. All the sources that we have discovered over the years, are available in Prem Rawat#References. I would argue that per policy, an article should not have neither a positive nor a negative bias, rather, Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and I believe we are getting there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, again, you're right (about not wanting to have a bias), and again, missing the point. There is no criticism section in this article, yet even an article on Mother Teresa, which has already passed the test for WP:GA has a criticism section, and it's twice as long (as a percentage of the article) than what is written in this article. To suggest that criticism is covered because he had setbacks and a family split is nonsensical at best, at worst, it's a deliberate attempt to impede the progress of this article. Your suggestion that an article would have some kind of bias if it included a criticism section is equally ridiculous, as per Pope_Benedict_XVI, another article that has passed WP:GA, it also has a criticism section. In fact, it only takes a moment to think that idea through, without a criticism section, you are *clearly* advocating a positive-only bias to this article. If that's the case, ok, fine, but please don't pretend otherwise. Secondly, I asked for your help in finding sources we could find acceptable for this article, regarding valid criticisms, and you point me to Prem_Rawat#References?? A little disingenuous, obviously not helpful, and a little insulting. If you ask me how to change the oil in your car, would you expect me to merely toss you the construction guide for your vehicle? Even if I had a pretty good idea of what you were asking, and I also knew where you could probably find it?Maelefique (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, current students are welcome to come here and discuss these things. In fact if you look on my user page you will see Tim Hain has done exactly that. He distinctly doesn't share your views. You mock the intelligence of all these neutral editors by suggesting they can't (with a little investigation of their own) arrive at sensible conclusions- unless they are protected from hearing testimonies from former followers. (By you and Wiki Lawyering) You and Ruminton's constant push is to limit information. Bring on your student friends and let's see if they have different accounts. Fortunately it's not that hard for sensible impartial people to discern who is telling the truth. It just takes reading between the lines. You and your little group are plainly the ONLY ones who don't want all the information bought to the table for analysis and discussion. What does that tell us?PatW (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It tell us that there are some people here that want to use this as a discussion forum, and others that are interested in developing articles. Misplaced Pages is not a social network platform: it is a communiy of people interested in editing an encyclopdia. You can have your "discussions" and "testimonies" in your talk page, or your blog. But not here, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's right that this isn't a general purpose discussion forum - all discussion here should be focused on improving the article. Comments which include personal knowledge or recollections, such as "I never heard him say that" or "That matches what I remember", are appropriate and helpful. The main thing is to avoid discussing the subject without reference to the article, or posting anything that's a clear BLP violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at. Thank you. Msalt (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this back-slapping over 'understanding the definition of what constitutes relevant discussion' a little insulting, since it is conspicuously aimed at people like myself as if I/we don't 'get' what is appropriate to discuss and in what manner to do so. I assure you I do 'get it' (and have for a long time) and find these condescending 'reminders' from Jossi in particular most unwelcome. Jossi in his usual passive/aggressive manner has actively discouraged people from posting relevant information and their personal experiences and he is still doing that! (see above) He has long held such discussion to be inadmissible and enforced that view as best as his 'position' has allowed. Since we are all agreed that discussion should refer to the article and be germane to that, perhaps Jossi and his like-minded editors could stop chiming in with these irrelevant objections when all I/we have ever done IS supply personal experiences and point towards other factual information relevant to the article (as you recognise is perfectly helpful). God help us if we try to actually edit! Does anyone realise how hostile it feels to have been so consistently resisted for so long and subjected to such repeated fanatical 'WikiLawyering'? To be honest Will, Msalt and Jayen's much more dispassionate way of dealing with this aggressive buffoonery is SO welcome. For the first time I am quite happy to take a back seat while they do an admirable and intelligent job of untangling the impenetrable barrier of nonsense surrounding this subject.PatW (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Teachings Section

Now that I've read a bit more about Rawat, I find the teachings section a bit bland. It doesn't really capture what is unique about him, in my opinion, and so I'd like to suggest two major points that seem to be distinctive and exactly the kind of summary info a good encyclopedia article would contain. I have a bunch of sources, but at this point I'm more interested in working out a consensus summary that every one can agree on. I don't think there is any reason that this would need to be a point of contention. The points are:

1. It seems that a major innovation of Rawat was offering a direct sensory experience of transcendence as captured in the four elements of the Knowledge, as opposed to the more abstract transcendance offered by other religions and spiritual philosophies. A couple of quotes struck me along these lines -- one devotee told a writer “Our Knowledge is not a religion, but an experience.” And Rennie Davis quoted Rawat as saying "“Don’t believe me unless you have proof”.

This is not only a fascinating contrast with the other-worldliness of most religions (and answer to criticisms of them), but it goes a long way to explaining why this teaching would be so popular at that time in world history, a time when many were reclaiming direct experience over highly refined abstraction.

2. The concept of lila, which I understand to be "divine play" or "joking". It seems that many of the contradictions of Rawat that outsiders so quickly jumped on, were seen by many insiders as a form of lila, a joke that they were in on and the outsiders didn't get. This is a big part of what the Foss and Larkin article is about.

It seems to me that even a quick teaching section should include these, and that the article would be much richer and deeper yet NPOV. Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "innovation" was in bringing Raj Yoga, which had been honoured in India for centuries, to the west and giving it freely to non-Hindus. Rumiton (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The direct experience aspects is already covered in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. As for the concept of "lila" that was a remnant from Indian connotations that was referred to during the 70's. It is not part of Prem Rawat's teachings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Jossi you are trying to draw attention away from Rawat's past teachings. It WAS a part of Rawat's teachings in as much as he frequently spoke of 'Lila' in his satsangs. PatW (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lila means "dance" in Hindi. It is a reference from Hinduism to Krishna dancing and playing with the Gopis, the milkmaids who were Krishna's closest devotees. It is just another of the Indian ideas that Prem Rawat left behind when he internationalised things in about 1982... today of historic interest only. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have several sources on the importance of lila in Rawat's teaching, from the highest quality scholars and journalists. Do you have any sources that it is no longer used? Otherwise this would be OR. Msalt (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, you asked for the perspective of involved people, in other words, OR. It would be very unlikely that a scholar looking at Prem Rawat's work today would remark on what had disappeared. They would just describe what currently is. Lila is not. Rumiton (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I do welcome that perspective. However, I have also consistently said that that perspective can't be used directly in the article. We have several highly reliable sources saying that "lila" was a very important concept in the early 1970s, and none saying that it stopped. It seems like, to accurately capture Rawat's teaching, we should address this change, perhaps in the Westernization section if, as was said here, the exit of lila as a key concept is part of that development. But we do need a reliable source. Msalt (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the vanishing of the idea of "lila", that life is a play with the master, is kind of key. I never thought about it. Anyway, I doubt that we will find a source to tell us so. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree, Jossi, that the direct experience is a notable aspect of Rawat's teachings? In all good faith, I find it a unique and interesting aspect that belongs in a teaching section here. Do you have any objection to me attempting to reword the section to include it? Msalt (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Teachings of Prem Rawat, which is the main article on the subject. If needed, a mention about the direct experience aspects described by the sources availabe, could be used in the summary here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another notable fact is that Rawat has never charged people to learn the techniques. Hearing about Knowledge, materials to understand and prepare, and receiving the techniques are all free. Rawat receives no money from these activities and gave away the royalties to his talks to Elan Vital. People complain that followers have given him money, but it's a bit like eating a meal at a free restaurant where you can pay what you think it's worth or contribute to keep the place running for others.Momento (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a 3rd party source saying that there's no charge? I seem to recall reading something about compulsory tithes, though that may have been for people living in ashrams. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction here. The point I'm suggesting is a description of the teachings themselves. Whether DLM or Elan Vital charges for Knowledge is an administrative detail that is probably best discussed in connection with the various controversies over money, allegedly opulent lifestyle, etc. and not in the teachings section. Msalt (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article on the teachings, a summary of which resides here. As for the no charge for teachings, I think that it is an important distinction and could be covered in the teachings article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both points. It does belong in the teachings article but I don't think it belongs in the short summary of Rawat's teachings in this article. Rather, I think that here, it logically belongs with other discussions of him and money, whereever we put that (Reception?). Msalt (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposal is interesting, Msalt; it might add historical perspective. On the other hand, I understand Jossi's concern (if I have understood it correctly) that historical aspects should not outweigh his present message. Other views? Jayen466 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen. Unless I'm misreading him, I think Jossi made that point only about lila; as far as I can tell, Knowledge remains rooted in the same four direct experiences. Am I wrong? Msalt (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We used to have two article: Past teachings of Prem Rawat and Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Now the former redirects to Divine Light Mission, and the latter goes to this article. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have all teaching, past and current, in teachings of Prem Rawat. I'd be simple to have a section for each. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Both these should be redirected to Teachings of Prem Rawat, as the article covers these aspects. As for a source that the technioques are taught free of charge, we have self-published sources such as this, and this. I will check if I can find some secondary sources. Regarding the ashrams, people were asked to give their possessions on joining one, so tithes would not have applied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one: Guru Maharaj Ji's group does not charge for the courses or the teaching of the techniques of "knowledge." Stoner & Parker, All God's Children. p.10 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source for "Teachings":

In the Divine Light Mission, the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, they must gain knowledge, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.

The movement that originally started as the Divine Light Mission is now reformed in its beliefs and teachings. Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian religious concepts such as reincarnation or heaven. The emphasis is in present-tense experience of life in the here and now.

Maharaj ji teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life.

— Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. p.278-279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The same source can be used in addition to others for number of adherents, given: Outside of India, at the time of this writing , Elan Vital claims seventy-five thousand followers in the rest of the world. p.279 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I moved the discussion of whether Rawat is divine to this section, where it fits more logically. Also, I am going to change the following line because it implies that scholars are endorsing the view that only Rawat can provide the keys to his meditation techniques, which is POV at best and certainly not what the scholars say:

"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques to which only he has the keys".

You could say something like "techniques to which he CLAIMS only he has the keys" but I think it's more encyclopedic just to describe the techniques. Hence

"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques (Light, Music, Nectar and Word)."

This is much closer to what the sources say. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit I describe in the preceding paragraphs got caught up in Janice Rowe's blind revert. I plan to reinstate it. Any discussion? To be honest, the text as it stands is a contentious, poorly sourced item under the terms of BLP, so I should probably not even wait, but I prefer to work with consensus. Msalt (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't fit there. What is the logic? The teachings are unrelated to these claims. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted several unrelated edits with a misleading edit summary. This looks quite a bit like edit-warring, especially since you removed the POV tag ] from this article -- the subject of earlier edit warring -- without Talk comment or even an edit summary earlier today. Please self-revert and, if you continue to feel that this move of a paragraph is incorrect, revert only that single edit. Thank you.

As for your objection to moving the paragraph, please explain yourself. The paragraph in question is a discussion of whether Rawat claims divinity. Clearly that is an aspect of his spiritual teaching. Why do you think it better belongs in a section titled "Leaving India"? Msalt (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that whatever purported claims of divinity have been described, these are most definitively not part of PR's teachings. What makes you believe that it is? The Teachings section is a WP:SUMMARY of the main article Teachings of Prem Rawat, I do not see anything there that relates to the subject you want to include in that section.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of Teachings of Prem Rawat. While certainly that is a good article to inform the current section, it should stand on its own. Every major spiritual teacher is faced with the question of their divinity -- e.g. Jesus -- and their position on the issue is clearly part of their teachings. Rawat's answer to reporter's questions about divinity were all elements of his teachings -- the divine is in each of us, etc.

Why do you think that this paragraph belongs in a personal narrative of his teenage years titled "Leaving India"? If someone has a better location, perhaps reception, I'm all ears. (That was actually my first suggestion on the Talk page.) But it clearly does not belong in Leaving India. Msalt (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUMMARY. The "Teachings" section is a summary of Teachings of Prem Rawat. Saying that you are not editing that article, is not an excuse. If you want to expand that article, do so, and after that the summary can be tweaked to include new material. If you read the teachings article, there is already material about divinitu within, etc. Feel free to edit some of that stuff into the summary here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, very interesting and helpful. Given that, you're absolutely right, the paragraph shouldn't be moved into teaching until and unless it can be synchronized with the other article. However, it also clearly does not belong in "Leaving India." Unless anyone objects, I will go back to my original idea and move it into Reception. Msalt (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here's another idea. The "Westernization" section already contains a discussion about Rawat reducing the "Perfect Master" language with its deistic overtones. Would it be better to move the controversy over Rawat's deity (or lack thereof) to that section? These two sections really present two different viewpoints that might be better merged. The one currently in Leaving India seems to say "some said he claimed Godness, but he didn't really, but you can't stop those devotees, can you?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The Westernization section seems to be saying "OK, he was kind of Goddish in the Indian phase but dropped that during Westernization." (again, paraphrasing). Can we reconcile those and put them all in Westernization? I think that makes the most sense, now that I look at it. Msalt (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That may work, although I suppose how it will read. Care to try that "merge" here in talk first? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's a big change with a lot of subjective choices in it. Actually, I was hoping someone else might tackle it (here). Don't want to hog the conversation. Jayen? Msalt (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Will have a go. Will try to incorporate the van der Lans/Derks bit as well. Jayen466 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Msalt (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One of Momento's sudden burst of undiscussed edits inserted the phrase "taught to him by his guru" into the first sentence of this section. "Guru" is original research; the only source we have says his "father." Furthermore, even if you could show that Shri Hans had a guru relationship with his son at age 6, it is confusing to the reader to use that term instead of the plain meaning of "father". As we're saying that Shri Hans taught him Knowledge in these very words, the reader can easily pick up that meaning as appropriate. But if you say "guru", no reader could be expected to understand that to mean his father. I also fixed the placement and citations for that phrase. Msalt (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the phrase "collectively known as Knowledge" to that first sentence as well, to make it clear that the term refers to those meditation techniques. Otherwise, the reference to Knowledge with a capital K in the last paragraph of this section is confusing. Also, I'm fine with Momento's move of the teachings criticisms to this section, as long as that doesn't ruin it as a WP:SUMMARY per Jossi's comments, but s/he placed it in the middle of the narrative of the development of Rawat's teachings (ie "1) R started as this. 2) critics say.... 3) Then R changed to that". I'm going to move #2 after #3 to keep that narrative clear. Msalt (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Ji Maharaj was both Rawat's father and guru. To cover all angles, we could say "father and guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj". Anyone have a scholarly source to hand that states the SHJM was PR's spiritual mentor? I think there should be plenty. Jayen466 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me from reading the sources at hand that Hans was Prem's guru. He taught him knowledge, but this can be (and has been) portrayed as a father passing on the family's profession to his son. I have yet to see the word guru used to describe that relationship in print anywhere except this article and talk page, and I'm not comfortable adding it without reliable sources. Otherwise, it seems to be an OR claim of legitimacy for Rawat. Also, guru is a very loaded word, in some ways similar to "cult" in having negative connotations for some, and (unlike cult) very positive connotations for others. Mentor is a much more neutral word -- I have no trouble with that. But, aren't fathers expected to mentor their children? Msalt (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt: There is an overwhelming number of scholarly sources that describe Hans Ji Maharaj as Prem's guru. I can dig these if you want, bit some of these are already included in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The current order of teachings is illogical. The criticism of "lacking in intellectual content, and as emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect" needs to follow immediately after the description of Sant teaching because that is what the scholars are criticizing. Separating it with a comment about how Rawat's teaching has evolved implies that the criticism may refer to that.Momento (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true, Momento. I have Melton right in front of me ("Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults"). He discusses Sant teaching on p. 220 in his "Beliefs and Practices" section, but the "lacking in substance" comment comes two pages later under "Controversy", a section which does not mention Sant at all. The current order is very clear: 1) R started here 2) then he moved there. 3) the result has been criticized 4) practitioners describe it like this. You seem to be trying to make the argument that any criticism of Rawat's teaching is obsolete, because he has changed it since the criticisms. But the sources don't say that, and you can add it without it being OR or synthesis. Msalt (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it doesn't go - 1) R started here 2) then he moved there. 3) the result has been criticized 4) practitioners describe it like this. Kent's criticism is from 74, Premies Versus Sannyasins by Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks doesn't contain that criticism, Barret talks of DLM days. The other sources have no English translations. I have added Hunt to explain the 80s transition. So now the criticism belongs before the 80s.Momento (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP we should pay special attention to WP:RSUE - "use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of sufficient quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher". The non-English sources given are not suitable.Momento (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you are constructing an argument that the criticisms of Rawat are only applicable to his early teachings. This is not in any source we have, so it constitutes original research. The sources don't even say that the substance of his teachings changed, just that they were stripped of Indian referents. Furthermore, your argument about foreign language sources is overstated. The policy does not say at all they are unsuitable. I will look for additional English sources in any case.

You're right that the Van der Lans and Derks paper doesn't criticise his content. It probably got dislocated from its original location in the heavy editing of this article. It does however make the interesting point that pre- and post-1975 convertees to Rawat are very different groups. This might help add substance to the Westernization section. Msalt (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that if the criticisms are made in the 70s, they do refer to his earlier teachings. Generally made by Christian scholars who had no understanding of Sant methods.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an argument, alright, but it is YOUR argument. Only sources can make arguments, not editors. That's the point of WP:OR. Msalt (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (reinserted after deletion by other user)Msalt (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Convertees to Rawat"? lol! I am a Jew and remain a Jew... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec, @Momento:) Here you start to mix up things: language of a source does not relate to its reliability: for BLP there is no difference, for WP:V there's a double recommendation, again not presuming that a foreign language would be an indication relating to reliability, and even less that this part of the WP:V policy has greater or lesser importance for BLP's: (1) if the English source says the same and has comparable reliability as the foreign-language one, use the English source; (2) if after that the foreign-language one is still part of the picture, make sure English readers can understand, and all readers can check (in simple words: provide the quote you're relying on in the original language, and add a translation).

Re. (1): we're back at the problem that there is an insatiable hunger for additional sources proofing and re-proofing the same content for editors like Momento, for the instances where such editors don't like the content. This has to stop. If it doesn't, we keep the foreign-language sources too. Secondly, Momento's OR is that there is no criticism worth mentioning after the first half of the seventies. So, the Dutch sources are also needed, they provide info not provided by the English sources apparently (unless someone is hoaxing us).

Re. (2): we created /scholars with several translations, now checked by multiple eyes, and continuing to be available, and open for further checking. For instance Schnabel is available on-line now (in Dutch), so all can check whether the excerpts presented by Andries a year ago are correctly copied (you don't even need to understand Dutch for it). The translations can be checked, etc. Schnabel's credentials can be checked, etc. There is no BLP issue.

In short, "Since this is a BLP we should pay special attention to WP:RSUE" is rubbish (1) RSUE should always get proper attention, not more nor less than for non-BLP topics; (2) RSUE was given proper attention. That was my first involvement in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In not sure what your issue is Francis but since three out of four sources are in Dutch without translation and two do not mention the criticism they are supposed to support, we obviously have a problem. Let's concentrate on fixing the problem, not shooting the messenger.Momento (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added two more English sources. Francis, perhaps you could add english translations of the relevant quotes to the footnotes themselves? I think that would amply satisfy WP:RSUE. Momento, the fact that you only challenge sources for criticisms of Rawat does undermine your credibility on these points. Can anyone explain to me, for example, what this reference (currently #38, at the end of the Leaving India section) is?

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

What the heck kind of reference is "Reporter at Montrose, Colorado"? Can anyone fix this, or should we just delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we used to have:

• "According to Maharaj Ji, all evil should be attributed to the mind indicat the same obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds DLM’s concept of mind refers primarily to a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust."
  • Attributed to: Lans, Jan van der and Dr. Frans Derks, Premies Versus Sannyasins in “Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements”, X/2 (June 1986).
  • In the mean while the article is on-line, and the link is given in the article: http://www.dci.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599:premies-versus-sannyasins&catid=163&Itemid=36

So, I don't know why the Van der Lans & Derks footnote was moved around in the article just now, and linked to a sentence where it is no reference for... --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual content

I was pondering about the framing of "lack of intellectual content" as a criticism. Is it? If we are to mention these opinions, we ought to counterpoint them with the fact that Prem Rawat has always focused on an direct experience, a feeling, which he often refers as "very, very simple". Is that bad? Good? It does not matter. Rather than frame these opinions as criticism, these should be framed as opinions and attribute these opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Peace Bomb, do we have a transcript?

I'm hesitant to go ahead and assume that the text of "The Peace Bomb" as shown at prem-rawat-bio.org and at ex-premie.org is correct, do we have another source for the full transcript of this speech, or reason to believe these sources are not 100% accurate on this particular issue? Maelefique (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I accept that within the strict rules Misplaced Pages enforces for BLPs, my site, ex-premie.org, may not be used as a source, the information on the site is accurate, and any transcripts of Rawat's speeches are taken word for word from Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission publications. The content may not be welcome to Jossi, but since taking over the site in 2001, I have included on the home page a request for Elan Vital or Rawat (or anyone else) to correct any inaccuracies, and to date the only contact I have had from Elan Vital is an unsuccessful claim for copyright infringement. In that claim, the page with the Peace Bomb address was included in the list of pages in Elan Vital's complaint. --John Brauns (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That satsang was given in Hindi at India Gate, and all what is available is some translations that have been published in the past. I will check if I can find any sources on the subject. As for the site you are linking to, please don't. That site contains numerous BLP violations and commentary that is most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The only mention I found (but I am sure must be others as well, I think from Hummel) is this:

"In 1969 Maharaj Ji sent the first disciple to the West. In the next year he held a speech for an audience of thousands of people in Delhi. This speech became known as 'the peace bomb' and was the start of the great mission to the West."

— (free translation of Dutch original) Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen ("Eastern Faith Movements in the West") (Dutch language) ISBN 90-210-4965-1 p.64

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummel only quotes some brief phrases. I can translate them if you like. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears our own Wikiquote has some (translated!) excerpts too, here: Wikiquote:Prem Rawat#1970s --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Only use quotes by Rawat that appear in scholarly articles please to avoid yet another quote war. Kranenborg quoted some of the Peace Bomb satsang. Andries (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blind revert

I'd hope that editors of this article could be more careful than this edit. While the editor says she is changing one item, in fact she's reverting a series of edits including those that she presumably doesn't object to, or at least isn't giving an explanation for reverting. That type of activity is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this blind revert was not an accident, but rather a misleading edit summary. When I asked her on her Talk page to self-revert the mass reversion and focus on individual edits, she replied "I disagree with your edits. It's that simple." ] Also, as I noted in the Teachings section of this page, she earlier today reverted the POV tag -- the subject of an earlier edit war -- without talk page discussion or even an edit summary. ] Msalt (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since editor Janice Rowe has not justified her removal of the NPOV tag, and didn't even acknowledge what she was doing in her edit summary, I am reverting that removal. Whether the tag belongs her or not, this is not the way to remove it. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but the tag clearly says "Do not remove unless the dispute has been resolved", and I think it's safe to say that the dispute over this article's POV has not been resolved. Msalt (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is subject to special probation. If the editor refuses to explain the edit then it may be time to invoke it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If we want to avoid edit wars, we should encourage users to do one a edit at a time, wait to see if there are objections and then do the next edit. Making multiple edits in rapid succession, may also be not helpful. Reverts of such edits are a way to express disagreement, and if done within 1RR, it may be a valid behavior in that context. Let's help each other, and go slow for a change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, that's not an appropriate method of editing. By making discrete edits Msalt made it easy for any to object to or even revert a single edit. Reverting a whole series of edits just because an editor disagrees with one is not a valid form of expressing disagreement. You make it sound as if blind reverting is a good thing, while everything in WP says that even one revert of good faith editing is not helpful. Deleting an NPOV tag without any discussion or edit summary, as Janice Rowe has just done, is not a helpful way to edit a contentious article either. I won't report Janice Rowe for this, but if the behavior repeats then it'll be necessary to invoke the probation rules. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me express a concern here (which was expressed as well by others at WP:AN). One of the pitfalls of 1RR probation is that unless we are careful, we will be applying double standards: A person making an edit, could be as tendentious as a person reverting that edit. 1RR is there to protect the process by allowing the expression of disagreement by issuing a revert, while disallowing an escalating edit war. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, Jossi. Do you consider my edits tendentious? You certainly imply so in defending Janice Rowe. I have discussed these edits on Talk and frequently shaped them to your own personal suggestions. Please explain why a single edit reverting several, with a misleading edit summary and refusal to discuss on Talk (still), would ever be valid. Why not revert each individual edit? Msalt (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not implying that, Msalt. All I am saying is that rapid-fire editing is not conducive to consensus building, and in an article under 1RR probation, a very bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing in the probation terms that say editors have to make tiny edits and then wait for approval before amking another tiny edit. The disruption here is from an editor who blindly reverted edits that she didn't even disapprove of, that she didn't describe or explain, and that she won't discuss. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks Jossi. I have been frustrated by rapid-fire edits by other editors before, so that makes sense. I will continue to address each of those edits here in Talk, and to move more deliberately. However, I do not think any of that justifies Janice Rowe's edit warring or refusal to discuss. I resisted the temptation to blind revert Momento's many rapid fire edits. Msalt (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you wrote yesterday that rapid-fire editing "is not conducive to consensus building, and in an article under 1RR probation, a very bad idea" and that wholesale reverts of such edits may be a valid way to express disagreement. Does your statement apply to Momento? S/he just made 7 undiscussed edits in a very short period of time. Msalt (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with adding context and improving logic and readability? I added "taught to him by his guru" to the sentence on techniques, moved the criticism of teaching to the teaching section, added a Wikilink for Collier and removed a student newspaper as a source. Four actual edits in an hour. Jayen466 made 4 edits in 20 minutes without complaint. I'm getting the impression you are singling me out for criticism. The other day you told me "Please indent your comments properly. Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing" and yet you've done exactly the same above.Momento (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Jayen466 is uniformly measured, cooperative and working toward consensus. If you edited that way, I would invite you to make edits the way I recently invited Jayen. You made 3 edits between 7:10 and 7:13, and another 3 between 6:39 and 6:43. That's 6 in 7 minutes, only 1 minor. As for indenting, that's to reply to someone. I undented because I was starting a new thread, not replying to anyone. Here, replying to you, I indented and added an extra one so as not to obscure Will Beback's edit. See the difference? Msalt (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that making small, well-identified edits is a problem. What concerns me more are edits that involve more than one issue, or are poorly-labelled. This pair of edits is an example: . It would have been much better to have moved the material, and then made the content changes rather than doing so in one edit which makes it had to distinguish the differences. I don't see how changing "banal" to "lacking in intellectual content", improves readability. I urge editors to make smaller edits.

Once again you have wrongly accused me. I didn't do anything to "banal". I urge you to be more careful..Momento (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just my point - it's hard to follow what you've done when you simultaneously move a section and edit it. Now that you mention it, I see you've moved the word down and attributed it: "Kent described a Rawat talk as banal." Unfortunately, readers will be wondering who "Kent" is. Since Kent is not a household name it's not helpful to attribute a criticims to a mysterious, one-named person. Either we should introduce him with a full name and some info (Stephen A. Kent is notable enough for an article) or just say "one writer" has called the subject "banal". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the revert, why was properly soourced material removed? BLP doesn't prohibit the use of student newspapers, and the newspaper of a major university may be considered as reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". A student newspaper isn't a high quality reference.Momento (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"A student newspaper isn't a high quality reference." -- FALSE!

 There was an error in the citation, however, which I'll fix 
 when I put it back.

The Daily Californian is an independent, student-run newspaper published by the Independent Berkeley Students Publishing Company, Inc. The newspaper serves the UC Berkeley campus and its surrounding community, publishing Monday through Friday during the academic year and twice a week during the summer. Established in 1871, The Daily Californian is one of the oldest newspapers on the West Coast and one of the oldest college newspapers in the country. Daily Cal staffers have the unique opportunity of gaining daily metro news experience in the lively city of Berkeley. The newspaper has consistently covered the city and its institutions since its establishment, allowing student journalists to report on campus as well as city news. The Daily Cal also operates Best of Berkeley, a city guide and local arts Web site for the city of Berkeley.

One of the few campus newspapers in the country that is completely independent from the university it covers, the Daily Cal supports itself entirely from advertising revenue and does not receive equipment resources or any form of financial support from the university or the Associated Students of the University of California. The only independent campus newspaper in the UC system, the Daily Cal is run entirely by current or recently-graduated UC Berkeley students, and the majority of the business division of the newspaper is student-operated as well.

The Daily Cal earned its independence in 1971 and publishes with the name, The Daily Californian, pursuant of a licensing agreement with the UC Board of Regents. The move towards independence was initiated after the university administration attempted to fire three editors because of a controversial editorial regarding People's Park, a university-owned lot in the Southside neighborhood of Berkeley that became an unplanned park for locals.

So, there you have it! It gained its independence as a result of People's Park, arguably the most holy and significant event in human history (It sure wasn't Millennium '73)! Wowest (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The The Daily Californian has won numerous awards, and the reportere of this specific article has gone on to become a staff reporter for the L.A. Times. This newspaper appears to be a "high quality reference", especially compared to the one-book Mighty River Press. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a poorly written, poorly researched, beat up that doesn't even attempt to hide its bias.Momento (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sound like opinions. What assertions in the article are objectively incorrect? Are sources unreliable when we disagree with their reporting? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Head of Elan Vital". Wrong. "began Divine Light Mission in the 1970s when he was 13 years old". Wrong. "Since 1990, Rawat has reworked his image. Divine Light Mission has been replaced by the charitable organization Elan Vital". Wrong. And pretty much all the rest is ex-devotee's opinion.Momento (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, at the time there wasn't a Misplaced Pages article on Prem Rawat yet, leave alone a reliable one. ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And there never will be a reliable one if we rely on tabloids.Momento (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this ad-hoc quote from the students' newspaper was out of place. The event was not notable, except to the university where Rawat spoke, and neither was the quoted person "Jai Satchianand". Jayen466 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the text added was the best use of that source. However there are very few reports on the subject during the past 20 years. While the event itself is non-notable, it does give a window into current thinking by and about the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Jayen466 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "give a window into current thinking by and about the subject" in any shape or form. The headline says it all "Campus Speaker Criticized by Ex-Devotees".It only presents the view of Joe Whalen, a prominent ex-premie. And where is the "current thinking by the subject"? It's getting to the point when we may have to review to current practice of taking newspaper articles that suit a POV and giving them undue weight.Momento (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A student newspaper a RS? You have got to be kidding. There was another article on next day: . Should we use this to assert that "Rawat emphasize the importance of recognizing one's innate desire to be happy."? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Student newspapers should not be either refused blindly as sources or accepted blindly. Jossi, you yourself have many times stressed the importance of context in judging sources, and you are correct. In this case, an award-winning, independent college newspaper and a reporter who went on to be an LA Times reporter, I think it is prima facie a very reliable source. I haven't looked at the particular article though.

Scholars and the best newspapers in world can have bad days or stretches (eg Judith Miller's reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for the New York Times). Those flaws make her articles unreliable, but not the newspaper. Hunter Thompson is hardly a reliable source, but "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" is taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, a classic in the history of journalism. Etc. Msalt (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there are three substantial errors in the article, we can conclude the reporter is unreliable. Since the reporter didn't give EV right of reply, we can conclude the reporter is biased. Since the reporter now works for the LA Times, we can conclude they are unlikely to improve.Momento (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think we are reaching the limits of newspaper journalism here. This is where accuracy starts to get flaky – I was looking at Collier's (an ex-premie's) book just now, following Pat's link, and in one place she says, And, as I noticed on Soul Rush, anytime the premies started to sound dumb or crazy, on went the TV lights, to the pad went the pencils. No journalist could either resist or make sense of this odd story of foolish utopians whose leader appeared to be nothing more than a fat Indian kid in a Rolls. "And didn't he have an ulcer?" was one reporter's last question to me at the end of the third evening. One news story caused me great personal embarrassment. It was written by the woman from the Village Voice who had seemed so sweet on Soul Rush. The things I had told her, hoping to explain how fanaticism and genuine spirituality coexisted in our movement, were misquoted. Other remarks, which I had made jokingly and in high spirits, she presented as my serious beliefs. I am afraid this is all too true, and typical of newspaper journalism. Even Wowest, who introduced the section IIRC, opined on this page that the Premie "clearly conned the shorts off of the reporter". What is to be gained by inserting something like this as an earnest, bona fide reflection of R. teaching? And we might as well quote the following day's article then that Jossi located, which for the most part sounds like the event was a full success ... Even serious scholars are contradicting each other on aspects of this subject, to the point of stupefaction. If we add to that the throwaway lines of journalists who have done an afternoon's research, and want to score an easy shot rather than to increase understanding, then I do fear we are heading for a morass. Jayen466 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, if I knew how to do it I would give you half a barn star.Momento (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the thought that counts. :-) Cheers, Jayen466 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular desire to see this particular student newspaper story in this article, but I do object to the argument that student newspapers per se are unreliable, and the Daily Californian is one of the best. Perhaps we should talk about sources generally. Momento, Rumiton and Jossi have been very strict about sources that ever critique Rawat, while not holding other sources to the same standards, in my opinion. (It's likely that Momento would immediately remove any source like "Peace is Possible" or "All Gods Children" claiming BLP if they were used to critique Rawat.) Under those circumstances, I'm not inclined to let stand a blanket denunciation of any type of potentially reliable source. Msalt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, surely it's clear to you that DC article was very unprofessional. It was sensationalist and biased. But more importantly the DC had two articles on Rawat in two days, one was critical and inserted into the article, the other was more positive and ignored. I don't believe either are suitable for a BLP and certainly not one without the other. I would object if someone had inserted the second article as "In 2003 Rawat was greeted with a standing ovation and loud cheers at UC Berkeley". Cherry picking quotes to suit a POV is not acceptable, positive or negative, and should be challenged.Momento (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How wrong?

From:Momento (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (above)

"Head of Elan Vital". Wrong. O.K. -- HOW wrong? He certainly looks like it. It's named for him.

"began Divine Light Mission in the 1970s when he was 13 years old". Wrong. Once again, HOW wrong? Divine Light Mission USA was started then, wasn't it? Or, did Shri Hans ever come to the U.S. and start it?

"Since 1990, Rawat has reworked his image." Looks pretty true from here...

"Divine Light Mission has been replaced by the charitable organization Elan Vital". Wrong. That's how it looks to most people. Exactly how wrong is it? It's the new tax-exempt organization that pays for Prem Rawat's airplane, isn't it? Same as the old organization?

"And pretty much all the rest is ex-devotee's opinion." True -- but that's the purpose of the inclusion, isn't it? This article, as a whole, reads like an ad (or more like an infomercial) for a meditation course. There are no balancing opinions, and there are plenty of contrary opinions to go around. Compare it with the article on J. Krishnamurti. As we all (should) know, Krishnamurti was originally presented by Western devotees as some kind of Buddha. According to the article, he rejected that mantle in his 30's, right? In the interpretation of events most favorable to Prem Rawat, he did the same thing, and at a somewhat younger age, but without taking responsibility for past representations of him. As we all know (or should know), in the field of sociology of religion, many of the "scholars" are compromised as a result of money and other gifts they accepted from the cults they purport to be studying. So, for the most part, their opinions are more cult propaganda.

What's needed is a balancing opinion, but balancing opinions are rejected by the premies present because the critics are former premies or ministers of religion or scholars at religious institutions, as far as I can see. On Teaching of Prem Rawat, we just saw quotations from two books combined into one sentence attributed to the less-academic book, didn't we? That isn't balance. Wowest (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much information

Aren't we getting a little carried away with "The event featured spectacular staging and a 56-piece rock band". I'm thinking of challenging its relevance.Momento (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not, and I strongly object to you making such an edit. This event was a pivotal event in the life and career of Rawat, and the style of the event was a major part in the massive publicity (including award-winning national television program) that it brought to Rawat. This is all documented by a large number of both scholarly and high quality mainstream journalistic sources. One scholar calls it "the youth culture event of 1973;" another calls it "the turning point" for Rawat and the DLM. Yet given all that, it has only a single paragraph in this article. This is highly relevant. Msalt (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that placing 12 references (!) for the same material is a bit over the top, in particular when the sources say more or less the same. The Mission incurred a debt estimated variously from $600,000 to over $1 million as a result, severely damaging its finances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the section was deleted by Momento whose edit summary said "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources" ], and he just announced plans to delete part of this section again on yet another pretext. I am trying in good faith to meet the frequent and often contradictory objections, mostly by that one editor, to anything s/he perceives as critical of the article subject. It would be helpful if you could say a word or two to restrain that editor, who clearly follows your lead.

Also, the sources document the entire paragraph, not just the debt. Would you prefer allocating the sources between the individual points (attendance vs. debt, for example?) I will look for cites that merely repeat the others and try to delete a few. Msalt (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an overkill. All what sources are for is to verify the material. If there are 20 sources that assert the same thing and there are no competing viewpoints, pick a couple (the best or more representative) and dismiss the others. If the sources diverge considerably, we present the competing viewpoints, attributing the opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're not addressing Msalt's point on the contradictory demands: Momento deletes if there's not a truckload of high quality references (and if s/he thinks it's not all to the glorification of our article's subject), and still then objects expansion of the text in the body of the article; you object to "too many references", but equally don't support the expansion of the text in the body of the article, covered by those sources. If demands remain thus contradictory, and nobody can sort it out with Momento and you, I'd recommend to keep it "as is" in the article, and defend that version. We're nobody's subordinates answering to every contradictory, and after a time somewhat gratuitous, request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're the one who asked for more sources. "I think that there are many other sources that address the "Millenium" attendance, and the losses incurred. We ought to present all these competing viewpoints, not only Foss." ] On top of which, Momento added one of those references just recently! I will remove it (since, as an encyclopedia, it is an inferior tertiary source) as well as the less informative newspaper accounts, leaving the scholarly and superior journalistic citations. Msalt (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. I also redistributed the sources to the individual sentences of the paragraph. Better? Msalt (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

2000s Section

The paragraph about the Prem Rawat Foundation is, in my opinion, too long. It currently reads:

In 2001, The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) was founded as a Public Charitable Organization, 
largely for the production and distribution of materials promoting Rawat's message. TPRF also 
funds worldwide humanitarian efforts, providing food, water and medical help to war-torn and 
impoverished areas. In 2007 after an evaluation by the Better Business Bureau, TPRF became a 
Recommended Charity of the Wise Giving Alliance.

I recommend cutting the final sentence about certification by the Wise Giving Alliance. This detail is fine in the article about TPRF but too much detail for this article. Msalt (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the Prem Rawat article we'd rather concentrate on the article subject's relation to that organisation, e.g.: was Rawat a founding member? Has he ever commented on the organisation, or defined what it means to him? etc. References on this can come from primary sources (if reliable, not unduly self-serving etc), but preferably secondary sources: do we have any?

Note that there's something about the organisation in the "Reception" section: as the sentence there on TPRF is only about "we're not able to get info on the reception of Prem Rawat via that organisation", that sentence can be removed there as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in the Web archive that may be useful, as it explains this issue: . I would argue that saying that a foundation that carries the subject's name, and the fact that the P. Rawat promotes and spearheads humanitarian activities of the foundation , cannot be included in this article, is absurd. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the first of the links suggested by Jossi ( http://web.archive.org/web/20030618195430/www.tprf.org/pr_letter.htm ), we could write something like "Rawat sees TPRF as an instrument to propagate his message of peace" with a reference to that source, but then I'm reluctant to do sourcing to primary sources that are no longer available except through web archive. For me (but I'm happy to hear others' opinions) that's just below what we can do notability-wise. Do we have any other repository (book, non-archive webpage, press report,...) that contains this info?
• The second link does not offer the kind of info I suggested any more (meaning: insight of how Prem Rawat sees and/or relates to TPRF), at least I didn't find any, and even if on that page, seems rather like a page that rotates messages, not knowing whether a report found there would still be available in the foreseeable future). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The second link includes links to reports of appearances of Prem Rawat at events organized by the foundation in partnerships with NGOs, and the role of P Rawat on some of the major initiatives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said (1) this doesn't explain how Rawat relates to TPRF; (2) we're not sure if such reports would be still reachable via the site in a few months. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But maybe I'm not looking at the right ones of these reports, if you feel like you can of course propose a text for the article, and how you would present its reference(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be misunderstood here. I am certainly NOT proposing that we remove all reference to TPRF; all I'm proposing to do is to remove the third sentence about its certification, which I think is more appropriate in the article on the Foundation. Now that it's pointed out to me, I think the sentence in the lede about the foundation should be moved out of there and merged in with the paragraph on it in the 2000s Section. Fair enough? Msalt (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be OK. What we need is a short summary of what the Foundation is and does. As for the lead, I think it is important, albeit a recent development. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will remove just that third sentence in the 2000s section, and will leave the sentence in the lede pending further discussion. Do any other editors have thoughts on the matter? Msalt (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to get the full context, the intro also contains this sentence:

• In 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to contribute to global humanitarian efforts and to promote his message, which is now available throughout the world via print, TV, cable and satellite.

Since we're talking about the TPRF here, I'll note that the article on it has no secondary sources to establish the foundation's notability. Likewise the Divine United Organization. Those articles may be deleted unless we can find some 3rd-party sources. If so the sourced content would probably be merged to the EV and DLM articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Why would you delete The Prem Rawat Foundation article exactly? There are sources provided. See also WP:COMPANY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a discussion for another page - I was just alerting folks, here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. The Foundation has been referred in scholarly sources, as well as in secondary sources such as the Red Cross, and Rotary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

??? You started the discussion here, Will, not me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was just a side announcement. Let's not get distracted. This thread concerns the TPRF material in this article. Since we have (at the moment) an article about the organization we don't need to give a lot of details about it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing readers of this article and neutral editors may not know is that unusually for charitable foundations bearing the name of wealthy living people, the Prem Rawat Foundation does not appear to receive any endowment from its founder. The foundation's website says it is funded from those who appreciate Rawat's message, and from the sale of materials. It goes out of its way to stress that Rawat receives nothing from the foundation (cf. the Gates foundation). Is this worth including in the article so that readers don't get the wrong impression? --John Brauns (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the subject didn't fund the organization, and doesn't serve on its board, then the foundation appears to be more like a tribute to him than an activity of his. If we can find any sources which describe his relationship to the foundation, or his activities on its behalf, then that would help make the connection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's not directly involved, then I would suggest that we add the phrase "was established in his honor". I would also be much more skeptical of including the sentence about the foundation in the lede of the article about Rawat. At that point, the 2000s Section would probably cover it. I had the impression that this was one of his main personal activities in recent years. Msalt (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "was established in his honor" - TPRF appears to be a "Reception" topic after all, but differently from what is about it in the "Reception" section currently... --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The foundation stated purpose as described in the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Charity Report says of the foundation's charter: Stated Purpose: "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat;...to support, fund, and promote humanitarian initiatives for the relief of physical hunger and thirst through practical and tangible means; and to provide relief to natural disaster victims worldwide". I would argue that to do that (e.g. disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat) they must have ownership and assignment of ownership of the intellectual property related to these, meaning that they must have the agreement of P Rawat to carry the foundations' stated purpose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good argument, but like many good arguments it's original research. The subject may have assigned his copyrights to the group. Or the foundation may be buying his works. Without a source saying so we don't know. It's certainly possible that he's agreed to be honored, in the same way that one agrees to receive an honorary degree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's original research; it's an argument, in the same way that the claim that the foundation was set up in his honour is an argument. In the latter case, it is argument based on speculation. There is certainly no evidence that it was set up in his honour. Rather, the stated aim of the foundation is to support the work of P.Rawat. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, then this should be the status quo. Armeisen (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, "they must have ownership and assignment of ownership of the intellectual property related to these" is NOT implied by TPRF's stated purposes. Not any more than that a publicity agent necesserily owns intellectual rights of the artist (firm,...) he promotes. If I would have a bookshop and sell books, and above that, promote the books I sell, and disseminate flyers on the books I've got on offer, none of this implies I would own IP of anything I sell, promote, disseminate, etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi, that was the kind of info I was looking for (as primary source material that is eligible for sourcing in the article). However, the link doesn't provide much info on Rawat's involvement in the organisation (or is he one of the four unmentioned members of the board? - is that "public knowledge", and if so, is there a source for it?) - lacking much involvement of Rawat himself, I think Msalt has a point that the Prem Rawat article shouldn't elaborate too much on TPRF (i.e., mention it but thus far this doesn't appear a key aspect of Rawat's bio - a "Reception" topic and that's about it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any big secret about TPRF's board -- I found it in one click, starting from tprf.org (click Foundation) ] Rawat is not on it. Msalt (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

see insert above Francis Armeisen (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source (my highlight): "Vita - Tsunami: Fondazione Prem Rawat dona 150mila dollari". Retrieved 2008-03-07. {{cite web}}: Text "PAM Italia - Notizie - PAM nei media" ignored (help). Italian: Un assegno di 150.000 dollari e' stato donato da Prem Rawat (fondatore della omonima Fondazione) a Francesco Strippoli, consigliere del direttore esecutivo del Programma alimentare mondiale, come sostegno all'impegno del Pam nel fornire assistenza alimentare alle persone colpite dallo tsunami in Indonesia. Which clearly states that Prem Rawat is the founder of the foundation of the same name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but this still leaves the question: was he a/the founder of TPRF or not? The Italian article seems to suggest he is "fondatore della omonima Fondazione" (eng. "founder of the Foundation named after him"). Isn't there a (public) charter or whatever the official document is named that lists the founder(s) of TPRF? (I mean, something like listing five names for the WMF, which makes among others J. Wales a "founder" of the WMF) --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This indentation stuff is getting cumbersome to read so I'm not going to indent on this one to follow the conversation. My apologies if it seems disruptive to anyone. Just becasue the foundation is named after him doesn't mean he founded it. If Prem Rawat isn't named on The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) incorporation documents in California, doesn't sit on the board of directors, didn't fund the foundation at its inception in the state of California, then he's not the founder. It's as simple as black and white and it doesn't matter what somebody in another country says, or even it it says that on TPRF, because if its not true, then TPRF is misleading the public. A good example of this is the Dalai Lama Foundation which was founded with his endorsement and guidance and in his name, but isn't attached to him in any other way. Here's the webpage about that: Dalai Lama Foundation. I see no similar page on TPRF explaining Rawat's role in that foundation as with the Dalai Lama. See the article on the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama under the "social stances" section where his association with that foundation is also very well explained with sources. I think for that reason it's questionable whether or not TPRF should even be mentioned or have its own article if it's only connection to Rawat is that its named after him. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. The foundation was founded by Prem Rawat, and he is referred as such by independent sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Francis. The original discussion of the foundation is three sentences long. That is hardly excessive. I don't know where one finds articles of association in the U.S., but they would tell what part Maharaji played. Certainly the website lists the members of the board, but I am not sure that that reference has credibility in Misplaced Pages; certainly, I would not be arguing for it if there was disagreement. But if there are public documents that attest that the purpose of the foundation is to promote the humanitarian and other work of P. Rawat, then references to the foundation in this article are valid. If the foundation is a significant, if not the primary, vehicle for his work, then it's mention here is perfectly valid. Armeisen (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See below, I agree with what's currently in the 2000s section. But somehow we started discussing what is in the Lead section and in the Reception section about TPRF too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we not mention the foundation in this article. I think the only issues are 1) does a sentence about the foundation belong in the lede of the article, when the extent of his personal involvement is not clear, and 2) whether the phrase "in his honor" should be added to "was established". Possibly there may be a third issue about whether he grants TPRF free use of his writings or licenses them for some kind of royalty. That was hinted at in the conversation. At this point, the evidence seems a bit vague on all 3 points. Msalt (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what we say in the article about TPRF is fine now, not over-long, and relevant; relevant because it's the distributor of his works. We don't say anything that we don't know is verifiable. Jayen466 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it belongs in the lede, too? Msalt (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayen. I might recast what is in the Reception section about TPRF though, with what I learned here (depends on whether Rawat is "founder" or TPRF was founded in his honour). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation, which he founded, provides nutritious food and clean water…etc Rumiton (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all the numbers in Reception really belong to the corresponding articles about the movement(s), so to that extent I also feel TPRF is out of place there (it does not represent Elan Vital, but Rawat, if I understand correctly). Jayen466 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay in the lede. Definitely relevant as the distributor of his works; mentioning the charity work is perhaps less essential in the lede, but okay by me too. Jayen466 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jayen is correct here. Having the item in the Reception section is not really appropriate. The sentence The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is not a church or religion-related organisation, does not report on adherents or followers, but publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website. is written in a way that suggests that it is in some way remiss for not reporting on its followers, when it was never set up, as the previous phrase states, as an organisation which would have adherents or followers. There's nothing to follow. It could be replaced with The Prem Rawat Foundation publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website. If the sentence is to remain in this section, then I propose it be changed.

By the way, I was a bit intrigued by the use of the word lede here. It may be a Misplaced Pages thing, but it is not a word in Webster's Collegiate dictionary, nor the Australian standard Macquarie. I don't know what it means. Armeisen (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, Amersein. Lede = WP:LEAD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Misplaced Pages:Lead section, don't know whether "lede" is newspeak or something, I always say "lead section". --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Newspeak indeed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a journo word. Pronounced "lid". Now you have it all. Rumiton (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Didn't mean to confuse anyone. Just thought that was the appropriate word. "Lead" by itself can be to lead someone, its past tense, a heavy toxic metal, or an electrical wire. Lede only means one thing - the first paragraph of an article.Msalt (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not crazy, it's a valid Misplaced Pages Word. WP:LEAD says "The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Misplaced Pages article is the section before the first heading." Msalt (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduced somewhat more than a year ago --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the statements above are validated here:

 http://www.uark.edu/~kshurlds/FOJ/HW2.html

AND it isn't in the Merriam Webster Collegiate. Wowest (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a balancing R/S reference from the 2000's, so I tossed it in. Otherwise, this thing still reads like an advertisement for a meditation course. Wowest (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis. I thought that section was getting a bit too long, and that seemed like a logical place to break it into pieces small enough to edit. Wowest (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowest, I gotta admire your gall. I just noticed on History that you tried to insert a bogus quote from a bogus premie (JaiSatChitAnand) into the article ("We all got a past, man.") Made me laugh after a rough work day, whether you intended to or not. Thanks anyway. Rumiton (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a real quote, Rumiton, and obviously a real premie, although he clearly conned the shorts off of the reporter. Wowest (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious, though, Rumiton. Something is wrong with the "premie's" name, and, of course, we took opposing sides on the source of that. you do strike me as the most-nearly-honest current premie on this page, or at least you present yourself that way. Wowest (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming of age section

This part of the article now reads like something an analyst jotted down while a schizophrenic patient "expressed". Very stream of consciousness. Anyone mind if I try to rearrange the ideas for clarity and continuity? You may, of course, scrutinise my efforts with hawklike intensity. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would mind, especially if you take a ranting reads like something an analyst jotted down while a schizophrenic patient "expressed", as point of departure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a rant, Francis, just my feeble attempt at humor. Should have known better, I suppose. But read it anew for yourself. The ideas do not follow each other in any logical order. I think they could, and it would much improve the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order is OK with me. Then only the end of the second paragraph is not following the logic of the order. There are two Downton phrases I'm not sure about whether they rather belong to 1974 (immediately after the rupture with his mother), or 1979 (publication date of Downton's book). These phrases are:

• "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed" - currently in first paragraph (1974), and
• "Staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80" - currently in last paragraph (1979).

I'd appreciate page number for both claims, that is, where in the book does this come from? In the narration of which period? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that above #Reliable sources - L.A. Times and N.Y. Times and #Malibu house, proposed text are most of the time about the second paragraph of the "Coming of age" section. And the section was rewritten as a result of that. Don't want you to inadvertently ignore ongoing discussion on the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the flow has gone. Partly because the paragraph on the house spans an eight-year period. Always difficult to decide whether to group things by topic or report everything strictly chronologically. Jayen466 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the distrust floating around this page, let's start with drafts on this Talk page or a sandbox for any major rewrites of sections, OK? Jossi suggested this for the divinity subject (and of course Jayen466 is working on that), and I think it's a good way to move forward. Msalt (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Divinity

Below an excerpt from an interview with Mishler (after his split from Rawat), who talks about the meaning of this Divinity and how Rawat presented himself. I think it may be useful for editors here to know, just for perspective.

Bob: When he first arrived, his message was that he knew the truth and that the truth was within each and every individual. He sometimes used to talk about that truth, whether you called it God or something else, as the perfect energy within each individual. He said that this was something he could reveal to everyone. That, in fact, was his purpose. He was called a perfect master because he had mastered something that was perfect; presumably this perfect energy inside us which was responsible for life. In revealing that to other people, he was revealing the only thing which could claim to be perfection, the primordial energy of the universe.

He would essentially ask people to come to him and ask for this knowledge, which would be freely given. The only thing that was required was the sincerity on the part of the individual asking. If you would ask sincerely, not just because you wanted to do it out of curiosity, but because you really wanted to know the truth about life, then he would have this knowledge revealed to you. Actually, he never really did any of the initiating himself; there was always one of his disciples to do that. These disciples at that time were called Mahatmas. In the beginning years, they were all Indians as well.

He billed himself as a humble servant of God who was essentially in charge with the responsibility of revealing this knowledge to people by his father who was his guru. At the same time, although there were some people who would say, well, he has to be a god himself in order to be able to reveal God, he would always deny this. He would say : "I make no claims of this sort at all. What I am revealing - it is not even as if I am giving you something - is something that is there inside you. It is there inside everyone. By recognising it, by having it revealed to you and then by meditating on it, you can attain the peace that comes through knowing the truth. Once you have found peace within yourself, this is the way towards ultimate world peace".

As you note, this is very far removed from the Christian concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Still working on that draft version ... it is quite difficult, because it is entwined with so many aspects of his biography. Jayen466 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was puzzled for some time about the U-turn in 1976. Early 1976 saw an incipient Westernization, with ashram closures, while in late 1976, this policy was reversed, with Rawat reappearing in his Krishna costume and reopening the Ashrams. It seems that this was the point where Rawat, now 18, established his own authority, overriding Mishler, who was responsible for the previous policy. (Some of Nik's academic sources say as much.) Mishler quit shortly after. My current "building site" is here (it is nowhere near the shape it should be yet). Jayen466 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I think it is all difficult. Prem Rawat has always been an extraordinary person and a pragmatic one. He has been set (by his father) the goal of allowing as many people as possible internationally to come and receive Knowledge, and his methods are adaptable, they "turn on a dime" so to speak. Reading Hummel last night I was struck by the way Hummel appeared to be trying to discern some underlying and fixed plan behind the speech Prem Rawat gave at Delhi Gate (the "Peace Bomb.") As a native German speaker you may point out my error, but some of the expressions Hummel used would seem more appropriate applied to a military strategist. (Flucht nach vorn "move forward when under threat" usw). And he is writing about a 12 year-old boy. Nobody has ever known how to deal with him. Good luck to all of us. Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it doesn't help when different scholars claim to see diametrically opposite developments happening over the same time frame.

1. Downton writes, In 1971, premies had their commitments strengthened by surrender, with its underlying mechanisms of identification and conformity. By 1976, the Mission's leadership was apparently discouraging blind surrender. Where, in 1971, premies needed only to conform and obey their "Lord," by 1976 they were being asked to take responsibility to interpret, initiate, and act. ... As surrender and devotion were discarded, reliance shifted to the tangible benefits of practicing the Knowledge, of living within the premie community, and of participating more fully within the local areas. So according to him, in 1971 surrender was important, and by 1976, it was Knowledge.
2. Now here come van der Lans and Derks, asserting in the context of initiation that "Before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for "Knowledge" (in the sense Divine Light Mission uses this term); after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour in order to become a member." God help us indeed. Jayen466 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Taking the bull by the horns" is another translation. :-) Since we are doing words, there is more on the origin and usage of "lede" here. Jayen466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe the ashrams were reopened in 1976. Surely it was at least a couple of years later? Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Krishna appearance seems to have been on 20 December 1976, and "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 months' time." (Downton). Jayen466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Collier book 'Soul Rush" yet? It is most informative and has been quoted from many times here

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface Of course you can also get this book out of the library.

She says this: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.

Also this from Foss and Larkin 1978: 'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master:
"I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.)

Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' - relevant as Prem Rawat's teachings directly derived from his fathers :

My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.

Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.


If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry. 


One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother. 


The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee. 


One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.


When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '

 Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '

Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge."
(from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood.
(from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful.....



(from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.) Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible. (extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972.
Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:) PatW (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You left out an important part of the equation, PatW. Rawat explained during his first talks in the west that God was pure energy. In 1971 in Canada - "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". In 1971 in England - "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". South Africa in 1972 -"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose". And USA in 1972 " I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors". This is the basis of Rawat's teachings. Ignore this and it will never add up.Momento (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I left it out intentionally Momento as I knew you would be very quick to supply the 'I am not God' quotes.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Call me simple minded, but to me it looks like this all adds up to "Prem Rawat has made conflicting statements about whether he is divine." And we should craft something (as Jayen is doing) that gives a fair range of the conflicting statements. Msalt (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not in the least simple-minded. I had every faith that you would discern the truth of the matter as indeed anyone with the slightest approximation of intelligence would, reading a good cross section of materials and reports from the times.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is there conflict? God is energy, God created everything, everything is a manifestation of God therefore everything is "from or of God", God is in every human being, Knowledge allows you to know God within, the more you practice Knowledge the more God you experience, all humans are divine, the Guru is more divine because the Guru dedicates his life to serve God. According to the dictionary "divine" means "of or from God". Rawat has always been absolutely clear, we are all "divine".Momento (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle of quotes again? The battle of quotes?

People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.

— Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971

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

— Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972

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

— Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972

Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?

Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world.
Reporter: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?

Maharaj Ji: Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?

— Rolling Stone. The Seventies : A Tumultuous Decade Reconsidered. Boston: Little, Brown. pp. p.104. ISBN 0-316-81547-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

There are numerous archives in which this was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So what Jossi? We're discussing it again because you did not win your past arguments. This case is BY NO MEANS SHUT like you flatter yourself it is. Get used to the fact that no-one in the real world is gonna lie down and drop arguments because you bark at them to do so for your own self-important reasons. You live on a planet inhabited by others with different opinions than your own! If that has escaped your attention then you are surely in for a shock. Jossi, there is no battle of quotes. Do you realise how empty your argument appears in the face of all these quotes? The truth is plain obvious Prem Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth about his divinity. NB you premies are the only ones making the patently ridiculous suggestion (in the face of the evidence) that he didn't. Even I , as a confessed critic, willingly acknowledge he said he wasn't God or Divine. But your intelligence bizarrely doesn't seem to stretch to the capacity of understanding how he might have ALSO said he was God and divine. That makes you simple-minded NOT Msalt whose brain is obviously working perfectly well.PatW (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? I want that the general should sign some papers. I need not go to his office when he is sitting in my home. Is it necessary to go in his office when his is sitting in my home? When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there?"

Source:Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

Andries (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... which is consistent with Guru#Guru_and_God .... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God, at least in the Hindu/Guru context? That is not something that falls under common knowledge, and if you are going to separate his meaning into a different context, then at least, that context should be referenced. Maelefique (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already contains wording about this apparent contradiction, as sourced to scholars that studied the subject. In the quote above the young Prem Rawat does not say "I am greater than God", he is paraphrasing Kabir and Brahmananda. Big difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... and an often used remark ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God: You can't say that without explaining the background Jossi has just indicated. Otherwise, someone who has grown up in a Christian context has no chance of not misunderstanding what is meant; they will always see it as the ultimate hubris. Again, that is something where there is usually a sharp divide between scholars, who understand this background, and journalists, who don't. Jayen466 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, Jayen466, and it's an important one. However, I think it's one-sided and harsh to say that someone who has grown up in a Christian context must misunderstand this. We could just as easily say that it's impossible for a teacher from an Indian upbringing to understand what claims he was making as a religious leader in America. If we scale it back a bit and acknowledge that there is a cultural gap that is at least difficult for any of us to cross, we are beginning to make process. Humility is essential on both sides.

This is a crucial point because the main story of Rawat (in my opinion) is the story of Indian thought transplanted to America, and the effect that each had on the other. Both the appeal and criticism of Rawat's teaching can only be understood in that context. Rawat left India in part because his mother and others did not like the ways he became more American; his legal emancipation, move to America, marriage and citizenship were all potent symbol of his break with his homeland. The exotic nature of his teaching attracted some and repelled others, and the result led him to westernize, as we all agree.

So this controversy is very important, and it is crucial that we capture both sides, including the fact that many Americans (both devoteess and those who disliked him) understood him to be claiming divinity in a Western, Jesus-like manner, and that he has made statements that can be interpreted both ways. The best evidence from our sources seems to indicate that as a young man who must have been awed by the intensity of the response, he flirted a bit with letting Westerners take him to be a Western-type god, when they misunderstood for cultural reasons, then quickly realized the dangers involved and pulled back. I hope that we can find careful wording that captures the nuance of this, without going to immediate black and white judgements or defensive reactions against them by Rawat devotees.Msalt (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How we do this without engaging in original research, Msalt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Through good writing that captures the nuance of our sources and the complexity of the picture that they collectively create, rather than harnessing them to support our viewpoints and preconceptions. Letting it be what it is, and working hard to capture that ITness. Summarizing complex events so that they form a cohesive whole without synthesizing a new argument is the mystical goal of Misplaced Pages; there's no reductive formula for doing it, but you know it when you see it. Otherwise, we're just quoting other encylopedias, which unfortunately this article does far too often. Msalt (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We can and should state this without this without background information because as far as I know the sources did not mention the background information nor did Rawat himself gave this background information. Andries (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. We should throw away editorial judgment, make the article to be misleading, just to push a certain POV. Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, omitting the background as per the sources, is good editorial judgmenent, because Rawat himself is to blame for this. He never said something like, do not take so seriously what I say about myself because I am only quoting Kabir. If the article is misleading then it is only because Rawat's statements were misleading. Andries (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Andries.... Are we using this article to condemn the subject of the article? If that is your intention, please refresh your memory ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

How hypocritical of you Jossi to accuse Andries of trying to condemn the subject of the article when you have spent the most of the last few years of your life trying to apologise for the subject of the article here. Andries 'riposte to you was utterly valid since Rawat most definitely NEVER said anything to suggest that people should not take him seriously because he was 'quoting Kabir' or such absolute nonsense that your suggest. On the contrary he knew exactly how seriously people would take him and he played it to the hilt and apparently believed it himself. The innocence that others are trying with the best intentions to see simply was not there. Prem Rawat has never definitively told followers to stop worshipping him and this will become apparent to those who continue their investigations. I guarantee it. In fact I would stake my life on it.PatW (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I am only insisting that the sources are followed without giving background information that neither Rawat nor the sources gave. In other words what I am following WP:NOT#SOAP, so I do not understand your request that I refresh my memory in this respect. Andries (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story.

PatW (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to continue allowing the misuse of these pages for soapboxing?" How many times needs PatW be warned about the misuse of talk page discussions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Watts

"The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance" The source provided does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat. I checked Watts writings and found nothing related. Please be careful in using sources that describe other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is a long article in the New York Times describing Rawat in great detail. The relevant passage quotes Bal Bhagwan Ji as saying he is amazed by Rawat's succes in America. Then it goes on: "The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, 'The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.' "

On what do you base your statement that the source does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat? It seems very clear to me that it does, as the comment about fudge sundaes and the word "this" in connection to doctrine make clear. Msalt (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear Jossi may be correct. If Watts (who, btw, died in 1973) said this about Rawat, he probably meant it as praise; i.e. the emphasis would have been on "sacred", judging from my knowledge of Watts' oeuvre. He was rather anti-intellectual himself. Will dig into this a little. Jayen466 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a WP:REDFLAG I remember reading that Watts actually put some money up to help bring the young Prem Rawat to the US in 1971, and was quite supportive. I will dig into this as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here a related quote from Watts: Tao means basically "way", and so "course"; the course of nature. Lao-tzu said the way of the functioning of the tao is "so of itself"; that is to say it is spontaneous. Watch again what is going on. If you approach it with this wise ignorance, you will see that you are witnessing a happening. In other words, in this primal way of looking at things there is no difference between what you do, on the one hand, and what happens to you on the other. It is all the same process. Just as your thought happens, the car happens outside, and so the clouds and the stars. When a Westerner hears that he thinks this is some sort of fatalism or determinism, but that is because he still preserves in the back of his mind two illusions. One is that what is happening is happening to him, and therefore he is the victim of circumstances. But when you are in primal ignorance there is no you different from what is happening, and therefore it is not happening to you. It is just happening. So is "you", or what you call you, or what you will later call you. It is part of the happening, and you are part of the universe, although strictly speaking the universe has no parts. We only call certain features of the universe parts. However you can't disconnect them from the rest without causing them to be not only non-existent, but to never to have existed at all. To Watts, ignorance is a positive value; the NYT would have used his dictum sarcastically here, seeing a parallel. Jayen466 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Some journalists will do anything to have a "story" and sometime their ignorance of a subject pun intended) and their bias ( shows. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove it until and unless we can find the original reference, so to understand the context. Msalt (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Bal Bhagwan Ji Whaaat? I have that article and the cite is not made by that person, but by the journalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A space was left in the Astrodome parking lot in case any flying saucers wished to land. The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.. Journalism at its best? In any case, that cite cannot be attributed to Bal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The part about BBJ immediately precedes the flying saucer stuff, about which he is quoted. I left the UFOs out because it's a tangent that's inflammatory. Right before the UFOs, it's the paragraph starting with "The successful transpant of an Eastern guru movement...." BBJ says "I'm amazed... it's mighty.." I'm surprised you didn't see that. Did you think I was quoting BBJ quoting Watts? Not at all. I mentioned it only because you seemed to be implying that the Watts quote wasn't describing Prem Rawat.Msalt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about your OR Francis that the quote "applied to the intellectual content of Rawat's doctrine". Please self-revert.Momento (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR: The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as . As Alan Watts said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance." - but I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too, if that's what you prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because Watts uses the word "doctrine" and the reporter uses the word "doctrine" doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. That's your OR. Momento (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, that is an irrelevant argument. The reporter used a Watts quote to say something about Rawat's doctrine. Whether or not the reporter understood Watts is irrelevant. He meant to say something about Rawat. And in the article it is all attributed to NYT: the ideas the NYT has about Rawat's doctrine, and how the NYT uses a Watts quote to explain these ideas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis still has it wrong. That is an extrapolation that is not warranted by what the source says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an extrapolation, I made it less edgy, but if you like & as said, I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too. The colorful language using a simile of sorts is not something to be used against the NYT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an extrapolation, and the "colorful" language is just an example of poor reporting, NYT, or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we're back at trying to overrule generally acceptable reliable sources, because you don't like their content. No, not how Misplaced Pages's WP:V works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about like or dislike. It is about sound editorial judgment, which is always needed. Otherwise these policies mean nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "It is not about like or dislike" - if you say so. Re. "It is about sound editorial judgment" - true. The sound editorial judgement is required to not avoid the sharper criticism in order to get a distorted picture. BLP's should be written conservatively, this means also not avoiding criticism that is over a quarter of a century old, i.e. not giving a modern version that re-interprets conservative sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No guys, Alan Watts paid for Prem Rawat's ticket coming over to the US (google for "Alan Watts" "Maharaj Ji". He was not being critical of Rawat. The NYT is being critical of both Watts and Rawat here. Let's just take it out again. Jayen466 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

only the fudge sundaes simile then? Works for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Nicholas Cusanus that used first the term "sacred ignorance" Sacra autem ignorantia me instruit hoc, quod intellectui nihil videtur, esse maximum incomprehensibile Which roughly translates to "Only through sacred ignorance we can recognized that which appears nothing to the intellect to be the incomprehensible maximum". Clearly not a pejorative as misused by the journalist, but the contrary. I am still looking for Watts original quote to see in which context did he use it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about, but nil novi sub sole I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

;-) Jayen466 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipse dixit  :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

est pergamentum Jossius Minimus :-( PatW (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit], Francis, is WP:POINT and disruptive. Not being able to revert to your preferred version, all you do is bypass 1RR with that edit? Ridiculous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't prefer the version including Watts,

1. It might contain criticism of Watts (as pointed out by Jayen), which is hardly appropriate in a BLP on Rawat;
2. It amounts to complex sentences: a source says that a source says (and the like).
3. The simile used by the NYT enhances readability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis writes - I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about......Exactly, Francis. And of course Visa Versa. Where did this dumb suggestion that Rawat himself was speaking some sort of impenetrable mystical eastern language come from? Why Jossi and his ever-spinnning pals of course! Listen, I was there before Jossi and his mates even heard of Prem Rawat and I can tell you I was a fan of Eastern Mystics and religion since age 15 too - was quite widely read on Hinduism and Ramakrishna etc- and there's no doubt that Rawat too was well aquainted with Christian thought. For a start he went to Catholic School in Dehradun in India for goodness sake! This is all abject nonsense just to try and pretend that Indian 'God' is somehow a totally different thing to the Western one and Rawat was (as usual) completely misunderstood by dumb western followers who are entirely to blame for misrepresenting him. In name(s) maybe Indians have a different God. In nature I don't think so. One of the things that attracted me to Eastern religions, meditation and then Rawat was that it offered essentially a way to directly experience the Light, the God within. That was NOT some Hindu God or a Christian God but plain simple GOD one for all. And that understanding was shared by most western followers I can assure you.PatW (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the comment about fudge sundae. Three reasons. First, it is written in the present tense, implying that something from the 1970s still exists today. Second, the point about sources in Misplaced Pages is that they have to be expert, or in some way trained to make a judgment. WP: Sources says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There are no facts here, just opinions. Third, the article repeats the view in the previous sentence, that P. Rawat's talks were banal. We should not be returning to a situation where quotes are added to quotes, with the greatest number determining the winner. Armeisen (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article accurately reflect the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times? Also at the time the heathen masses were of course far more interested in his predilection for certain ice-creams than his spiritual message. So why not tell the story? Would you be opposed to quoting a favourable New York Times comment about Prem Rawat for the same reasons? eg. if it were 'an opinion'?PatW (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you a question? If his talks were so banal, why did you fall for it? Or is it that the only way to resolve your disaffection is to negate your own past? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Firstly I was primarily interested in receiving the knowledge and finding out for myself so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Secondly I was 17 and naive. Thirdly. I have never negated my past here or anywhere else. Quite the opposite in fact- resolution comes from accurately recalling and understanding the past which is why I object to revisionism.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You write such broad generalisations, Pat, that it is almost impossible to know where to start. You state the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times. First, there was no fact. Second, who were the great unwashed? I'm not sure whether they were P. Rawat's followers (who, it is often alleged, were hippies) or others. If the great unwashed perceived it as banal, then why did they follow him? From what Janice says, that must include you. I'm not sure that the so-called heathen masses were indeed interested in his eating ice-cream. I'm not sure they had any interest at all, then, and certainly not now. The story then, about ice-creams, may have been what attracted you at the time, Pat, but I don't think you can even pretend to align yourself with the general public.

By the way, Pat, I think I was there before Jossi. Still here, still enjoying. Armeisen (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'great unwashed and heathen masses' I meant the general public (as seen condescendingly by the enlightened few). I thought that was clear. I received Knowledge in 1974 aged 17. My comments about the NYT article are objective. I think that article predates my involvement. Not sure why I would not have been a member of the general public.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more Kent. He may have found Rawat's talk banal but his "companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, I consider Francis Schonken's "fudge sundae" edit deliberately "disruptive".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME OUT! (and undent.) This discussion is getting way overheated. Look, this started because Momento challenged the sources for the long-standing (and I don't think really debatable) statement that some people found Rawat's teaching as simplistic. We can quibble about sources, but does anyone serious dispute that such controversy existed? I don't think so.

So then I tried, in all good faith, to remedy the problem by adding a couple of English sources. (Momento objected to the sources being Dutch.) One of my additions stands. The other I didn't think through, for a variety of reasons -- Francis pointed out my indirect citation, Jayen and Jossi noted that I probably misunderstood Watts' very point (which is embarrassing, since I'm a fan of Watts), etc. I self-reverted.

Francis noticed in one of my explanations that the NYT reporter had said the same thing (simplistic). So s/he put it back in. No disruption, no need for emotion. Legitimate argument whether a New York Times reporter is qualified to say that, sure. But let's all relax a little bit here. (By the way, it was a feature in the Sunday NYT magazine, and they often have writers with real expertise on those, so the qualifications should be examined in context, as always.) Let's just find better sources and move on. OK? Friends again? Good! Msalt (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To keep us on track toward improving the article, I added the NYT article as a source for the intellectual criticism of Rawat (without quoting it on fudge sundaes or anything), added the word "simplistic" to "lacking intellectual substance" and broadened it from "scholars" to a more general survey of criticism, which is more encyclopedic. Msalt (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx, Msalt, works for me.

Just wanted to add a broader comment, while ideas like "this is an opinion (by the NYT), thus shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" have come up. I recommend a reading of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:ASF, which is one of its sections. In fact I'm going to give a rather large quote from that policy section here: I enjoyed re-reading it, and hope you all do too (just highlighting the word "opinion" a few times):

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Misplaced Pages is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. (...) A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.

Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I quite agree with this. But then come the disputes that arise when editors seek to exclude opinion because they deem it to be held by 'an insignificant minority'. (Not sure this is a particular contention over the NYT thing but it is a very commonly used reason for excluding opinion here.) I'd be interested to to know your understanding of that. PatW (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the way Msalt has now incorporated the NYT criticism. On the whole, I think it is more encyclopedic and NPOV to say that someone was dismissed or ridiculed, rather than – gleefully – repeating the dismissive or derisive statement verbatim, unless it has special notability. Jayen466 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Omitting the details of the criticism and ridiculing is not informative and hence not encyclopedic. At least the reader should be able to click on the mouse to see in the references the detailed criticisms. Andries (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is helpful if the interested reader can see the original quote, and have no objection to anyone adding the quote in the ref citation, but I still think it is unencyclopedic to have references to Rawat's being "fat" or "liking sundaes" in the body of the article. Can we agree to restrict that kind of thing to the ref quotes? Jayen466 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a guru who has a penchant for ice cream is extremely unusual and hence related to Rawat's notability. Andries (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream is a bit reductive, but clearly Rawat's lifestyle is unusual and notable for a spiritual leader from the Vedantic tradition. (Osho is another.) Nonetheless, we need to be careful to avoid some of these bits of color. They make for good and interesting writing but can easily introduce elements of judgement that don't belong. We can't tolerate that as much as newspapers, magazines and books can, but there is also a risk of missing key points. I think that including them in refs is an excellent compromise. Msalt (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure his lifestyle is unusual at all. Can you name any well-known guru, or religious leader of any denomination, who lives in poverty and discomfort? Jayen466 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree about the idea to provide the quotes in the ref. Jayen466 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to know that the current and previous popes both like(d) ice cream? I think gurus these days eat pretty much the same as everyone else. Jayen466 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. But has there ever been a guru who flies his own 707 when he's 23 years old? A guru who at 16 marries a 24 year old American? A guru who gives up being a guru?Momento (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Westernization

We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about that myself. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about adding word "meditation" before "techniques", for clarity? Msalt (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made it "techniques for inner exploration." Hope that does the job. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try for middle ground

Francis, I don't think edits like this one ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Misplaced Pages – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should explain what Lans and derks thought that the DLM or Rawat meant with the mind. Andries (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Jayen. This article used to be facts based on scholars opinion. When editors add stuff like "the mind is evil" or "Rawat is banal", it is clearly a cheap shot that needs to be reverted or rebutted. Since you can't revert this drivel, you have to add material to explain a comment taken out of context. As for middle ground, we don't want to end in the middle, we want to end up with the truth, Rawat is innocent until proven guilty>Momento (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly against these cheap shots. Apart from that, we don't have to make a judgment on Rawat; and the truth is also that some people have made these criticisms. I am not against including that criticism, as long as it is attributed, accurately represented, and the article does not identify with it. To that extent, Francis made sense above. Jayen466 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902#_note-41

Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, , because that really made more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry, forget I mentioned it. Jayen466 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention anything? - I already forgot. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. But FYI, my contention doesn't contradict yours. The only substantial changes in that year had been removing quite some scholarly sources, and adding multiple references to the Cagan book that had appeared in 2007 (which, as I think we agreed, is not a scholarly source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Francis. The version you reverted to, removed a completely re-written article based on peer reviews and GA feedback. The fact that you disagreed with that version, was no grounds for dismissing one and a half year of edits. In any case, that is behind us now. Let's focus on moving forward, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Francis reverted from was an article rewritten entirely by Momento, Rumiton, and yourself, Jossi while you took ownership of it and stonewalled myself and everyone else from making any substantive edits. I disagreed with many of Vassayana's suggestions but was ignored as was Andries and PatW. I never approved of it, agreed with it, including Vassyana's recommendations. The three of you essentially considered it a concensus when the three of you agreed, while ignoring everyone else. Stop revising history, please.

Getting back to the subject. Maharaji's major teachings included his frequent demonization of one's mind. That was his primary focus for many, many years: By receiving Knowledge and practicing meditation, listening to satsang, and doing service, premies would find happiness, inner peace, surrender and devotion to him, and therefore, all of life's answers would be found (without the mind chattering away in our heads). It's not up to editors to try to define and/or interpret what Rawat meant by "mind." I strongy discourage doing that. Just report what the sources say and trust readers to come to their own conclusions about the definition of "mind." That said, there are plenty of his quotes that represent the way Maharaji views a person's mind. Especially read "Mind, the Unseen Demon." Maharaji on "Mind". Sylviecyn (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the three original sources (those that were there before Momento's insertions), back to the end of the sentence where they were before Momento's insertions. I have no idea whether the two sources added by Momento are the most appropriate sources for the sentence he added (but since they're behind that sentence now, and Momento added them at the same time as that new sentence, I suppose so).

Please check.

As a side note, Hunt 2003 p. 116 and/or p. 117 is now reference in 5 footnotes, three with a quote of several sentences of those two pages. Those 5 footnotes are used in total 9 times as a reference. The edit by Momento mentioned by Msalt above also introduced one of these Hunt footnotes (without a quote in the footnote text). Could we maybe clean that up? I mean: make a single footnote out of that, used 9 times and with no more quoted text than necessary? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Momento banned to outer darkness? God knows how that could be done. How about banning Jossi too while we're at it? :-) Seriously though, what I would like to see is attention drawn to this article in a wider way. I think if enough neutral people arrive at the same conclusion as you, maybe Prem Rawat himself will step in and call off his servants from their naughty day and night activities. He might even give them something more constructive to do with all that time on their hands.PatW (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) PatW (talk)

19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a "neutral" editor, as we all bring our biases when we edit. The issue is not about being neutral, but about being able to edit with the principles of NPOV. Jaen, Will, Francis, Msalt, and all others have their biases, and have been forming opinions on the subject as they edit, and that it is natural. Some of them (my assessment) are better than others to remain impartial, and all of them as well as editors that have a close relationship with the subject be that pro, or con, can also contribute as long as they make efforts to comply with NPOV. At the end of the day, it is the collaboration of all involved, within a framework of respect and the buildup of consensus, that yields the results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow Jossi...Thank you SO much for that revelatory news. We really needed you to enlighten us about that (for the five millioneth time). So what do you think about last MSalts question then? I somehow think you might have missed his/her point.PatW (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This kind of behaviour from Jossi is not funny either. How can we stop this?

I just noticed that Jossi has performed his latest favorite little conjuring trick to remove things he doesn't like from this discussion. (See thread about three up from this entitled 'Divinity' where my text has been replaced with some horrible little brown box saying "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.") Can somebody help me out here? I really have had enough of this biased administrator stifling discussion with his paranoid beliefs about soapboxing. I came here not to soapbox but to raise objection to, draw attention to, and sensibly discuss all the inaccuracies that were obviously being presented here. Who the hell does Jossi think I'm 'soapboxing' to? Aren't we allowed to bring such things to the table for editors here to discuss? Above, I sought to draw attention to the fact that Rawat has not made any attempts to clarify which Hindu beliefs he no longer espouses as was patently germane to the thread/article. Jossi has this crazed fear about any thing hosted by that ex-premie.org website. Why? Can somebody please enlighten me as to why Misplaced Pages allows someone with such proven COI to wield authority here (of all places) like this? How can I undo his blasted magic trick to make things disappear like that?PatW (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case nobody saw what I wrote here it is again. Please read and tell me why this is 'soapboxing' or not permitted??-

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story. I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this.
Here's a good example-
"Would you please go through the whole list of Hindu concepts expressed in and taught in your own earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those of your family, your father and your mahatmas, and specifically separate those which you no longer hold any stock in from those you do? 
Would you please explain when and how you came to realize that these above-mentioned concepts were untrue?".....(From http://ex-premie.org/questions/y_revise_past.htm )

PatW (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views. That is not only not funny, but disruptive. You have received multiple warnings from different editors, and you are not listening: User_talk:PatW#No personal attacks - 2nd warning, User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3, User_talk:PatW#Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks. Any further disruption will be reported at WP:AN/I as per probation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the discussion Jossi last archived included any personal attacks. Please don't archive any more threads - we have a bot for that. If we need to deal with talk page disruption it'd be better to have an uninvolved admin do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The concern is not about NPA only, Will. It is about soapboxing and endless stream of comments and personal opinions, per WP:NOT#FORUM, which is BTW, policy. As I said above, any further such disruptions will be reported at WP:AN/I to be evaluated by uninvolved admins. Pat: Consider this the last warning ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warn away Jossi. What I will consider is that your warnings are inappropriate and a corruption of honest values and freedom of speech. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this.PatW (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi writes:You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views.

Who says I am asserting my views any more than you or anyone else? As a matter of fact I was presenting a perfectly innocent argument and pointing to other peoples expressed views that support my argument. All of which was quite appropriate to the articles discussion page. PatW (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into this. As it stands, I can count several AGF/civility violations, and repeated misuse of your user talk page and this article's talk page as a soap box. By asking for a block is a weak attempt to actually have Jossi block you out of spite -- which won't happen because I have much more faith and respect into Jossi not to do that -- hence why there is an open ANI case that you've been made aware of. As an uninvolved administrator, I am politely asking you to refrain from this line of unconstructive discourse, and to stop using various pages as a soapbox -- and to stop forum shopping for replies. seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to be polite but let me be clear about this. Do you really think that I am here to get personal attention or out of a more conscientious desire to draw to attention to counter-arguments to various edit proposals I consider important? I reject the appellation of 'attention whore' or whatever you said on that ANI page because I consider myself to be defending righteous public-spirited arguments in the face of quite considerable POV pushing here. Like I said which maybe I shouldn't have..I think that some of what has been asserted here under Jossi's watch amounts to lies. Sorry but that's my blunt perception and I partly blamed Jossi and of course our friend here Momento. I invited Jossi to 'bring on' uninvolved editors here not out of 'cockiness' but out of a sense of urgent necessity. I observe that actually there is some merit in pushing the boundaries here to get more neutral voices involved. If it wasn't for such historic rude opposition I don't think many neutral editors would have felt the need to check out this article. In short Jossi's negative publicity - however unwelcome- has done heaps of good for this article by drawing neutral attention and focussing the discussions more dispassionately and intelligently. Believe me, I would be delighted to get back to more civil tone. BTW What exactly is 'soapboxing' about referring to those things I just did? In short if I knew what definitively what 'soapboxing' was I might be able to stop doing it. And yes, I welcome your invitation for me to refrain from unconstructive discourse. PatW (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you seem to be saying you will not "get back to a more civil tone" until this article conforms to your idea of an "intelligent and dispassionate" discussion. Given the intense discussions that have taken place here, and the rigorous application to the discussion of rules and guidelines intended to achieve exactly those qualities, this may be not a good direction for you to be going in. I would take warnings from uninvolved admins very seriously. See WP:SOAP. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm prepared to moderate my tone - I said as much. All I was doing was questioning why what I said amounts to soapboxing. I really still don't understand this. ]I am not altogether impressed at the AN/I. Jossi took words which I believe I'd deleted straightaway (thinking the better of it) and included that as evidence of my incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong about this please but that is my vague recollection. How fair is that? Secondly my polite comments re-questioning Jossi's fairness over the above incident were immediately removed from Jimi Wales' page altogether. ]I think that is outrageous in this day and age. Thirdly only one of the editors in that jury actually looked in here to see the context of my argument. ]The others just rushed to judgement in what I thought a rather uncivilised free for all, except Will. I am in fact so distinctly depressed by the unfair trial atmosphere here that I am now seriously considering withdrawing altogether of my own free will. PatW (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Have you been talking about me on Jimmy Wales' page without telling me? That would be most uncivil. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. I thought I was talking to Jossi. Have re-worded.PatW (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I still feel like emphasising that getting this article to be fair and actually informative about the subject is going to take a lot of flexible thinking from all. We are not there yet. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the thread disappearing from Wales' Talk Page it just is right down the bottom.PatW (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Taxonomy

EV is (apparently appropriately) listed on List of groups referred to as cults. DLM certainly should be on that list, but has been deleted, inappropriately, IMHO, even though it no longer exists. There should be some further categorization of these groups, however. The term is used a bit too much to imply guilt by (free) association in the minds of any given group of cult critics. Maharaj Ji does not appear to be a Charles Manson or a David Miscavige, although I am not watching him very closely. I ignored him completely for around ten years, until I discovered these Misplaced Pages articles.

The Love Family and The Manson Family are/were LSD cults. LSD has a hypnotic effect, and people ... participating in the "sacrament" of LSD ... in the presence of Paul Erdman (a/k/a "Love Israel") learned that he was "greater than or equal to God," and that they had to give him all of their money. In the Manson Family, Manson was held as the returned Jesus. Well, we all know where that went. It was very difficult to deprogram someone out of the Love Family if they had been through the LSD "sacrament." Leslie Van Houten may have been effectively deprogrammed by other prisoners, but they are never, ever, ever going to let her out of prison, so it doesn't really matter.

DLM and the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation, contrariwise, could be referred to as "concentration" cults. In the Alamo cult, individuals were persuaded to think the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" during all waking hours. They were then shown selected Bible verses to convince them that if they stopped thinking this phrase, God would zap them into homosexuals who could not go to heaven. The unwitting self-hypnotic effect of the "meditation" left them in fear of leaving the cult property. Recruits were selected for proselytization based upon their apparent recent drug use. Full members lived in the commune and engaged in back-breaking physical labor, for which they never received a paycheck. Oh, yeah. They also had to turn over all of their money and possessions. Almost forgot that.

The (1973) DLM version was, essentially the same -- 24/7 concentration on your own breathing, pressure to live in an ashram (or, more frequently, a "premie house"), and subsequent indoctrination into the "non-beliefs." The first of these was the belief that you didn't have beliefs (or concepts or dogma), but knew things based upon your own experience. The next was that there was something wrong, demonic or Satanic about the "mind," which was not defined, based upon its resistance to this kind of "meditation." The next was that the guru was greater than or equal to God, which you believed, but also believed that you knew. In 1973, the organization was promoting the idea that the Millennium '73 event was, essentially, the Second Coming, that "Sache dabar ki jai" referred to the Guru and his Holy Family as "the Holy High Court of God," and that the mother and three brothers were "the four angels referred to in the Book of Revelation." That whole cluster of un-beliefs was attributed to Bal Bhagwan Ji in a legendary conversation with some guy called "Tiny." Anyway, by November, I, and everyone I knew, expected a flying saucer to remove the Astrodome from the planet, with all of us inside. Rennie Davis predicted 144000 of us. It was fairly easy to deprogram someone out of the Alamo cult or DLM. You only had to convince them to stop "Praising the Lord" or "meditating," and enough of their thinking ability was restored to see that they had been deceived and that believing in flying saucers and all that was a little bit off. Oh -- and the third page of the Ashram Application asked a lot of questions about things like trust funds and potential inheritances. One premie house I was living in became an "applicant ashram," and with the requirements for a positive cash flow from the house to DLM, everyone would have needed a pretty good-paying job to continue to live there. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman point out that the DLM mind control was particularly effective, and that they hadn't met former premies who had not been "appropriately deprogrammed." They didn't wait long enough. If you visit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org, you will find that very few of us were deprogrammed, and that the others took 20-25-30 years to think their way out of the trap, usually after reading the histories of other ex-premies online.

Now, I'm seeing that Goom Rodgie has apparently modified his earlier "agya" from "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name" to practicing the four techniques for a minimum of one hour a day. The "Music" as taught, unbalances the body's electrical field and impedes thinking. The "Word," as taught in the past (24/7), serves as a more severe mind control technique, similar to the "Jesus" mantram in the Alamo cult. The "Light" (as taught in 1973) has the potential to physically damage the eyes, but probably has some beneficial potential if practiced in a different manner. The "snot" technique seems to be harmless, unless you get your tongue caught in your sinuses somehow. I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but there is a Radha Soami image online (MRI, I believe), showing someone with his tongue all the way up there, which looks like it could result in suffocation. And, of course, there are other breath meditations, including one of the Vipasana techniques, which rely upon "bare attention" rather than forced concentration, and which are not normally practiced 24/7, even in a monastic environment. So "The Knowledge" could be modified into something harmless and possibly beneficial, but I see no evidence of that occurring as yet. . If there is no ongoing secret EV teaching to keep "meditating" 24/7 (and, as an outsider, now, I would have no way of evaluating that), then EV is no longer the same kind of cult DLM was. In fact, using the taxonomy of the 2nd edition of "Snapping," it would appear to be a "sect," now -- an unorthodox religious group with a pyramidal structure, which would have the potential of becoming a cult if the leader (or the group) became paranoid enough or if the group was attacked by outside society. . A lot of different things are lumped together under the rubric of "meditation." Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh a/k/a Osho cataloged hundreds of them in his multi-volume "Book of Secrets" a few years back. There was a caveat in the health benefits of meditation article here (whatever the correct name is) that benefits shown by scientific experiments to derive from Transcendental Meditation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques. Someone deleted that, and I think I remember who it was, but I'm not going to guess right now or look it up right now. . Not knowing how long Momento has been following Rawat, I don't know how disingenuous he is being in calling the "meditation" techniques "self exploration," or whatever the euphemism was. The intense concentration model from the early 1970's had the positive benefit of curing some (but not all) heroin addicts, but did not have the self-discovery benefits of, for example, Vipasana meditation practice supervised by an experienced teacher. That's another criticism of Rawat, of course -- no competent supervision of the meditators, and an apparent intent to completely suppress the mind, rather than remove emotional blockages discovered in meditation through forgiveness and other "skillful means." . By the same token, it seems disingenuous to call Rawat a "motivational speaker," when his entire message appears to be that he can give you "peace of mind" if he teaches you to meditate. A self-inflicted "software lobotomy" is not the kind of "peace" anyone in his right mind would be looking for, however, and given the 1973 attack on Pat Halley, it doesn't appear likely to eliminate all of the causes of war. . However, I wouldn't completely oppose a modification to indicate that Rawat currently describes himself as a "motivational speaker." That's certainly true, whether the description is accurate or not. Perhaps I'm advocating "weasel words," but that might be a reasonable compromise. . Anyway, the article as currently written, is generally referred to as a "whitewash" by former meditation students (who, through a kind of bait-and-switch wound up being devotees of the living God instead), and Jossi continues to use his cute little interpretation of BLP to stifle all criticism of Rawat.

Wowest (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowest, you seem to take the view that 35 years of NOT practising Knowledge or being in contact with Prem Rawat makes you an authority on the subject. Strange thinking to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, Rumiton. That was a fairly intelligent comment, and, of course, honest. On the other hand, opinions of ex-premies who left more recently are readily available. You know where.

Of course, I've had the benefit of inside information on other, similar cults from their former members. DLM had mind-control overkill, and, of course, I'm talking about DLM, which no longer exists. I've just been learning about your confidential "team trainings" and the top-secret DECA project from later ex-s. Fascinating stuff.

Wowest (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving India section

Shifted Time Magazine quote to here where it seems to fit in better. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Millenium, I am also having a problem with the words "as a result" which follow the statements about low turnout and financial loss. Since this was a free event, it would seem to me that there can be no connection between the attendance and the financial returns. As a source above says, the cause appears to be simple over-spending. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this Millennium sentence "Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people would attend the free event, actual attendance was estimated at 25,000 by followers and 10,000 by police." needs improvement. It is generally conceded that the attendance was around 20,000 by independent estimates, so claiming the followers claimed it was 25,000 and police claimed it 10,000 suggests dishonesty on behalf of the followers.Momento (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, Momento. Controversial events always have police attendance estimates which are far below organizer estimates. If you don't think Millennium '73 wasn't controversial, you just weren't there. Wowest (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, I'm talking about what many sources say.Momento (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obtained copies of NY Times and see several conflicting numbers as well as useful context added.Momento (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External links section

In attempt to move this article forward and sidestep the endless revert wars over ex-premie websites, I added the Rick Ross Institute page on Elan Vital/DLM, which discusses Mr. Rawat. It is simply a set of links to a) Rawat-linked organizations, such as Elan Vital and TPRF, and b) news stories and court documents relating to Rawat, EV or TPRF. I trust that we can all accept this as a more independent external link that does not violate BLP. It has been on the Divine Light Mission's Misplaced Pages page for some time without any objection that I could find. Msalt (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not an independent link, it is a commercial site that solicits business for Ross. And it does violate BLP, EL and RS. You should remove it immediately. Momento (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an acceptable link, IMO. Self-published site. Hardly used as a source in Misplaced Pages or as an external link. In very few cases the site is used as a convenience link (although there is no need in most cases, as sources are usually available from more direct/reputable sources) (see here, but never as a link in an external links section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL selfpublished pro cult is OK, anything critical doesn't fit your self manipulated guidelines 213.197.27.252 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

According to BLP, self published link by BLP subject is OK. Perhaps you'd like to remove this link since it violates BLP?Momento (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More independent, and, I thought, perhaps suitable as a compromise solution. However, upon closer scrutiny, I see the following potential problems: 1. Solicits donations from visitors. 2. Has an article on the opening of an enquiry by The Charity Commission, but does not report the outcome (which would appear to have exonerated EV – at least I cannot find any record of any negative outcome, and EV is still listed on the Charity Commission's website). 3. Has a Pennsylvania House Resolution indicating that an investigation of DLM and a number of other groups should be performed to see if there were any need for remedial legislation, but does not report the outcome (I am not aware such remedial legislation was deemed necessary in the end). 4. One half of the court documents (those involving Katz) are really just title pages, with as far as I can see no details available as to what the case was about, and what was the result. 5. In the other half of the court cases covered, the subject of this article is only mentioned in the most tangential manner (one appears to be a divorce case involving an ex-premie, in another a premie won unemployment benefit based on his First Amendment rights, in a third a defendant submitted that since he had committed his offences, he had become a better person due to his involvement in DLM and had seen the error of his ways). 6. Lastly we have the Register article on Misplaced Pages, hardly superior journalism.

A couple of academic studies are hosted on the site; that would be potentially useful, but the copyright situation appears doubtful. At least one of the articles hosted is for sale at JSTOR.org.

Bearing all the above points in mind, and having thought hard about it, I will take the link out for now, for the reasons above. Jayen466 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)