Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 17 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) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34)

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)

Balyogeshwar (continued)

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)

"Balyogeshwar" should be included in the lede for convenience in further research. Until the middle of 1973, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Prem Rawat as "Balyogeshwar: Boy Guru." I believe this was done to avoid confusing him with Baba Ram Das's more famous guru, also called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and more formally known as "Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba." Wowest (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why in the lede, on equal footing with the current denomination from decades? When it's only a historic (1973!) bit? In a way it derogates the current notability of the subject (unintentionally, I presume).It goes together well with the dominant backward orientation of the article and some of its editors, but contrasts with all the quality research that has been visibly put into it. Researchers would find it just as easly, if it were put into the childhood section, wouldn't they?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep Balyogeshwar in the lede, but to add "in his childhood" instead of "in India". I think it is correct that the name can only be used about a child, because of the prefix Bal- (which means child), but on the other hand, he was a very prominent figure, playing an adult role in his childhood. There is a 1973 article by Khushwant Singh in the New York Times which uses the name Balyogeshwar to refer to him ("Balyogeshwar, the Child God ... Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar."). So the name has enough notability to be in the lede IMO; it was not only used in his family, as a term of endearment, but was the name under which he was known for several years as the leader of the DLM movement. Jayen466 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An agreeable compromise, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no: it is still in a sentence after "known as..." He was known as Balyogeshwar far beyond his childhood, proven by sources (there are many more in Google Book Search, which not necessarily lists all sources either, e.g. this 1996 University of Chicago book). We don't need to qualify any of this: there are books published in the US in the late 20th century favoring Balyogeshwar over any of the other names he is known by, so why would we provide elaborations that are neither accurate, nor applying brevity expected from lead sections.

And again this is becoming all a bit childish (pun intended), he was known under that name, and mentioning that is all that is needed per Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title for the lead section. If you want to reiterate any of this with a broader scope in the article, no problem for me, I said I didn't comment on that yet (and probably won't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it sounds as if he were called both Maharaji and Balyogeshwar in his childhood, when really these names belong to not even contingent different stages of his evolution. There must have been a decade or more between the use of these names. Suggestions to make this plain?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put a comma in in the hope that that helps. As for the contiguousness of the names, note the above from Singh's 1973 article: Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar. Jayen466 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India, is a speaker".Momento (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to stick by what the words mean. Balyogeshwar means, literally, a "child master of yoga" or, given that he is male, "boy master of yoga". As such, the name is specifically, and explicitly to those who speak the language, a honorific for a child. It is natural for books covering the events of his childhood (and especially those written by Western writers unfamiliar with Hindi) to refer to him by the name he was then, as a child, known by. I very much doubt that there would be Hindi sources referring to him as Balyogeshwar, except in the historical sense, after, say, 1975. Jayen466 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The translation I had from a Sanskrit scholar was (Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis.) Prem Rawat was known in India under that specific name when he was 8 years of age. Later on people referred to him as Guru Maharaji, or simply Maharaj ji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See Macdonnell Sanskrit dictionary: "yogesvara (p. 247) m. lord of mystic power; adept in magic." (yoga = union, connection, etc.; isvara = ruler, lord, prince, king.) From the same dictionary: "bala (p. 193) a. young, not yet full-grown; recently risen (sun), early (rays), new, crescent (moon); childish, puerile, foolish; m. child, boy; minor (under sixteen years of age)." Hope that helps. Jayen466 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one might add that "Lord of the Universe" is a literal translation of yogesvara, i.e. balyogeshwar without the prefix bal(a)- (= child, minor). Again, it should be noted that universe here does not relate to the external universe, galaxies etc., but to the actual etymological meaning of universe as "all turned into one", i.e. the inner experience of union (yoga), or non-duality. Something not many commentators would seem to have understood. Jayen466 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this commentator certainly didn't know that. Fascinating, thank you. On the other hand, it points out the pitfalls of using foreign language words anywhere in any Pedia article, including names and titles. They attract POVers as honey does bears, and extensive explanations and footnotes don't really solve the problem. On balance, while I don't think it is very important, I think Balyogeshwar should be left out altogether as being one small detail too many. To me a lot of the subtext of this article and the controversy that has arisen concerns the value and difficulties that arise when a foreign culture/religion is swallowed without first chewing it. The job is already difficult enough. Rumiton (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating indeed. Thanks Jaen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 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)

Please do not remove sourced material without discussion. On March 6th you rewrote the Millennium section and inserted that Millennium '73 was - designed to usher in "a thousand years of peace" - and gave NY Times sources including Eleanor Blau. What Blau actually wrote was that Millennium '73 was said - to herald "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". I included the missing words and you deleted the whole sentence saying that I'm POV pushing. On the contrary I'm completing Blau's comment that you chose to omit. And FYI, the official phrase for Millennium '73 as per "The Lord of the Universe" video title sequence is "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". "The most significant event in human history" was originally used by Rawat to describe his guru's birthday which he celebrated every since 1967 on the 8th of November. They are separate things that happened on the same day; one describes Millennium '73, the other describes the festival that has happened every year since Rawat's father died. I have reverted.Momento (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There were bumper stickers with this wording "peace for those who want it", they are mentioned in at least one contemporaneous press account ("Astrodome Loses Beer Odor to Mystic Incense", LAT 9 Nov 73). So I think it is historically correct. I also found a press mention that this was the annual Hans Jayanti (birthday) celebration, held for the first time not in India, but in the US (ref added). Jayen466 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you delete and add material 10 timess every single day, usually with no discussion; your lectures about discussion are not persuasive.

I will follow Jayen's comment, but note that Momento was not satisfied with that and added another long phrase justifying the slogan. Again, unencyclopedic detail added for the purpose of making Momento's spiritual teacher look better. I am open to discussion but plan to remove it. Msalt (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Msalt I have made less than 20 edits in the last week, so by my calculation that's less than 3 a day, way fewer than Jayen and half as many as Francis. As for the Millennium addition, it is undoubtedly more important and "encyclopedic" than "The event featured spectacular staging and a 56-piece rock band".Momento (talk) 06:47, 16 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)

I added some more information about the teachings, and fixed bias on the introduction. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Money

When it always touches me as somewhat gossipy, how much space in the article is given to the subject's apparent wealth, I wonder why the fact that he teaches free of charge, and always has, is nowhere mentioned. To my understanding it certainly bears more notability than all this discreetly invidious subtext about house and debts and such. I imagine that a serious reader might use WP with a wish to not get fed mostly superficial mainstream attitudes, no matter how extensively published. Could editors agree on mentioning and properly sourcing this item in the Teaching section?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find something.Momento (talk) 12:35, 16 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)

Not really. Meditation is a neutral description used by nearly all of our reliable sources. "Inner exploration" is POV cheerleading, and has no meaning to the average reader. Msalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in fact I agree. The word meditation had already been used, so I stuck in inner exploration while I tried to think of a synonym. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Msalt. "Inner exploration" sounds like science fiction. "Meditation techniques" sounds better to me.Momento (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands this section now has Rawat giving up his "divine status" twice. Jayen, you seem good at smoothing chronology, perhaps you can give it a tidy up.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems he kind of did give it up twice. The first time was around 1975, when premies did their own American-style magazine, did Human Potential-type groups and so forth, and left the Ashrams to get jobs; but then Rawat encouraged devotion again, and the whole thing took a step back, it seems; so it took a few years, and then the Indian-type devotion was finally given up for good. Sound near the mark? Jayen466 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the westernization section deal from 1980 until 1999 and during that period he gave it up once and for all in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 03:40, 12 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)

 Done – for the time being I kept the full Hunt text as found on /scholars in the single footnote, while it is difficult to see what he said about which period when singling off sentences. But I agree the text in the Hunt footnote can be shortened now, keeping only what we actually need. Note that Hunt doesn't go in any detail that the transformation (which he supposes to have started somewhere resulting from the Millennium '73 experience, continuing up to the early 80s Elan Vital name change) in fact went in several stages (for which we have other sources, like Downton). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 12 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)

The attendance figures are taken directly from the most contemporary reliable source, and most accurately reflect the attendance. Later stories, especially in encyclopedias where space is limited, sometimes said "about 20,000" to save space, but that is less accurate. The different attendance estimates don't suggest anything; they are a statement of fact. Police estimates invariably are smaller than those of event organizers. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the claims of each. We don't need to do the thinking for readers; that's exactly what OR is.

Also, it doesn't matter if YOU have a problem with the words "as a result". That is what several reliable sources say, and your arguments to the contrary are OR. If you want to know why, DLM accepts contributions, and highly publicized successful events bring donations both immediately and over the long run. The event was a failure (sources use words like "fiasco" but I chose more neutral ones) and the expected contributions didn't materialize. It's not rocket science. Msalt (talk) 17:35, 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)

Where in Misplaced Pages policy does it say that external links may not solicit donations? If we follow that standard, we must also remove the link to Maharaji.net -- "The Foundation's activities are primarily supported by the ongoing generosity of appreciative individuals. Anyone can offer financial support to The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is a publicly supported charitable and educational organization. Contributions by U.S. taxpayers are deductible for income, gift, and estate taxes. For more information, please visit the How to Help page or the HelpDesk." (from the FAQ page ).

Most of the arguments here are specious at best, and many strong suggest POV pushing. I offered this link as a compromise, since I found it on a different Prem Rawat page. If those who are so eager to delete are in good faith, I challenge them to describe -- in general terms -- how ANY page that contains material critical of Prem Rawat would be acceptable to you. What standards, etc.?

Self-published? No, it's published by the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey.

Not external linked elsewhere in Misplaced Pages? That's how I FOUND the site, as I told you. Obviously it was, and from a Prem Rawat-related article that Jossi, Rumiton and Momento actively edit, until Jayen removed the link today.

It doesn't have every possible follow-up to every link it makes? That's an impossibly and unreasonably high standard.

BLP allows external links to self-published sites? I don't believe that's true. It positively recommends linking to an organization or person's OFFICIAL site, but that does not mean a blanket pass for self-published websites by the subject of an article, and even then only then when it's not unduly self-serving, etc. (As we've often discussed, standards for exteral sites are different than for sources, which I think you're conflating here, Momento.)

The only argument of all those above that seems to hold any water, in my humble opinion, is copyright. Does anyone have any evidence that rickross.com is violating copyright? Given that Mr. Ross is apparently a magnet for litigation, I doubt that his antagonists would sit idly by while he openly broke the law. What is Misplaced Pages's standard for sites where there is no indication, one way or the other, whether copyright has been violated or not? There is no indication that TPRF has licensed Prem Rawat's works, for that matter. Msalt (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The disclaimer on rickross.com however states "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored." I take this to mean that all copyrighted material has been put up without permission. There is certainly nothing on the site to indicate that such permission has been obtained, nor is there any acknowledgment of the copyright owners on the pages concerned. The onus, it appears, has rather been shifted to the copyright owners – "we are putting up your material without asking you, but will take it down if you discover our infringement and send us a corresponding request." That is not honorable.

As for critical sites that would be okay: A site hosting critical scholarly articles or books with the appropriate permissions of the copyright owner, and no other questionable material, would be welcome. I believe we can also, in principle, link to any notable public record court judgments involving the subject of the article (although there may be strong BLP-related concerns militating against that). A recognised, published expert's article made available on the writer's own website might be permissible. Press articles available on the publication's own website or hosted elsewhere with permission should be fine.

In general, I do object to a site that puts up allegations without bothering to find out if they were subsequently substantiated or not. It is the same as putting up a newspaper article saying that Craig Charles was accused of rape, or Matthew Kelly was accused of child abuse (such articles exist), without adding (or bothering to find out) that they were later acquitted of all charges (which they were). As an encyclopedia, we should not be in the business of propagating such allegations.

I took the trouble to review the court documents hosted on rickross.com and found that there was either no content whatsoever, except for a nondescript title page, or that the cases did not concern Rawat at all, making them worthless for present purposes, but yet creating the impression that there were court cases against him. Apart from that, I find the inclusion of a couple's divorce proceedings on the page, revealing the most intimate details of their private lives to the world at large for apparently no better reason than that one of them had been a premie in their twenties, years prior to the marriage, profoundly distasteful.

I don't know what the situation is with sites that solicit donations; perhaps that is fine. It is not an issue with Rawat's own official site, since we are obliged to link to that anyway and the usual caveats don't apply; even extremists' websites are linked to in the articles we have on them. Jayen466 07:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jayen466, thanks for answerig my question about external links, but you're the only editor removing links for whom I don't have any concerns about commitment to NPOV. Thank you for your continued level headed and fair editing. I am diligently lookly for external links that are clearly appropriate (besides the Daily Californian.) While I look, to lighten the mood, here is a nice link -- about Guru Maharaji and his controversial group of premies in Nigeria, where he lives. Msalt (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Spent some time in London in the seventies and studied marketing. Tut tut. Jayen466 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the copyrights. You've convinced me that Rickross.com doesn't meet the policy. (FYI, though, those court documents that you described as 'nondescript title pages" were the official notice of a denied appeal ("Certiorari denied"), and are actually quite important in legal terms to show that a case is not being appealed.)

Now, what evidence do we have that TPRF has licensed Prem Rawat's work? Again, we should apply the same standards. I see that they have put "(C) Prem Rawat" on one page but in fact, that's one of the oldest tricks used by websites that that illegally violate copyright. Msalt (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And it isn't just the page that is linked to that's important, it's the site. The Rick Ross site violates BLP, EL and RS.Momento (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four Daily Californian articles on Prem Rawat available online: How about we include those in the External links, in a section Newspaper coverage? I believe on balance, they are neutral, with praise for Rawat, the Ex-Premie view, a Correction by the paper, and Letters to the Editor in defense of Rawat included. I know it is not The New Yorker, or The New York Times, but these articles have the benefit of being available free online, and give a fair cross-section of opinion. Please give it your best consideration. Jayen466 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with giving one millimeter of leeway in this article is that someone will drive a truck through it. You may "believe on balance, they are neutral" but you are inviting every editor to add links to sites that they "believe on balance, are neutral". I think we all agree that a link to Rawat's site is 100% correct. let's leave it at that.Momento (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, with all due respect, I am looking here at the thin end of a very nasty wedge. This is not a "fair cross-section of opinion." You could not be expected to know this, but the following quote: "We all got a past, man. Maybe we didn't do some of the things he did, but he was able to do those things because he is the 'Perfect Master,'" said devotee Jai Satchianand. "And he loves me and would never lie to me" is ex-premie manipulation. Jai Satchitanand is the old Indian premie greeting, one of the many things Prem Rawat abandoned 25 years ago, and it is unknown to the current western generation. It is also a pen name used by one of the ex-premies on their forum. This is an attempt to make premies look credulous and gormless, and thereby make Knowledge look stultifying. That is the mindset we are up against. It is pretty easy to do that with a newspaper, as the journalist is grateful for some colour for his story and not too worried about checking his source. Apart from that, newspapers are generally about entertainment, emotional gratification rather than studied viewpoints, and their credibility varies with their different writers. The question we should be asking is, "Would I expect to find this in the Encyclopedia Brittanica?" If not, it has no place here either. Rumiton (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent compromise, Jayen. And with all due respect, I don't think Rumiton and Momento have the credibility to veto compromise proposals. In fact, these comments by Momento and Rumiton are their clearest statements yet that they will not accept any compromise whatsoever. Given that, their devotion to Prem Rawat and their clear POV-pushing on the issue, I think we need to move forward with reasonable compromises based on policy. Or should we let PatW and Sylviecn veto all our compromises as well? They clearly do not agree that "a link to Rawat's site is 100% correct." Msalt (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I know that quote is fake. And I know enough Hindi or Sanskrit to know what Jay Sat Chit Anand means. ;-) Just looking for a compromise solution, to get a greater variety of views reflected. But I understand your concern. If it don't float, it don't float, and we'll think of something else. Jayen466 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I'd like to know exactly how you "know" that the quote in the article is "fake?" Do you have evidence of that? If so, please by all means, provide it. Otherwise, I have to assume you're engaging in innuendo and actual defammation of the integrity of Martin Richard, who is the author of that DC article. Is this how Wikipedians are supposed to evaluate sources? Listen to innuendo and false accusations by premies about detractors? Btw, Joe Whalen, who was quoted in the article, was a premie that held several positions in DLM for many years that included Community Coordinator of some of the largest premie communities in the U.S., such as Washington, D.C., Miami, and San Francisco. He was a DLM ashram premie for ten years. He also worked for DLM and DECA (in the legal department) in Miami at the behest of the most prominent premies in charge at DLM. Btw, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a Berkeley, Calif. premie would present themselves to anyone, including a reporter with a fake name, and say the things that the person did. But, why is anyone speculating about this? It's a published article, still on the internet, why not contact the person who has the byline, Martin Richard, and ask him, instead of falling for all of this nasty innuendo? Sylviecyn (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate statement in Rumiton's post is the fact that "Jai Satchitanand" indeed, was a frequently used greeting between premies. There's nothing wrong with the Daily Californian article. Contrary to the premie belief-system promoted by Elan Vital in its FAQ about ex-premies being a "hate-group," the fact is that nobody manipulated the writer of the DC article (I wonder, exactly how one does that??!?!?). The premie depicted in the article was never to my knowledge a poster on the ex-premie forum and I was posting regularly when the article came out. Rumiton's post is sheer speculation without a shred of evidence, which I find highly offensive. This is not Encyclopedia Brittannica, the editors here are for the most part, anonymoous, and not experts on anything in particular as is the case with Brittannica. I find nothing wrong with Rick Ross's website per se. Ross did write an essay about Jossi Fresco after the Register article came in early February, based on his observations of Jossi's editing of Ross's wiki article. But strongly disagree with placing Ross's site in the article as an EL substitute to replace a link to any ex-premie sites. If anyone wants to know what other lies are being spread about on this talk page about ex-premies, feel free to ask on my talk page!  :( Sylviecyn (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So Syl, are you saying that Jai Satchitanand was this "premie's" real name? Or a likely pen-name for a premie? I don't think so. And how does one do that? Easy, just ring the reporter up and say, "Hey, I am a premie, let me tell you the truth about my Lord!" and the reporter is all ears and notebook, as Collier describes in her book. (Thank you for that, by the way, I found it to be a true and rather touching portrayal of the beauty and madness of the time. We did not have the presence of BB in Australia, but somehow some of the ideas drifted across the Pacific.) Anyway, the point is, I can't prove the quote was a hoax, though I am 100% sure it was, you cannot prove it was genuine, though you are equally sure of that. It is an anonymous quote and unacceptable in Misplaced Pages. Jayen has shown the Ross site to be extremely unreliable, too. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not 100% sure of anything and have no right to spread this Elan Vital gossip here. I strongly recommend that you stop spreading all of this unfounded innuendo about ex-premies and Martin Ricard. I don't know who "Jai-what's-his name" was anymore than do you. But, you are impuning the integrity of a student journalist, Martin Ricard. Stop doing that. Where's Jossi when a premie is using this talk page to disrupt editing, that's what I'd like to know!!!!! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an anonymous quote, Sylvie, and at face value a derogatory one against premies. That does not necessarily impugn the journalist who reported it. The standards of his profession are lower than encyclopedic standards. It just doesn't belong here. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, but I really don't want to get into a pissing match with you. You're implying that the reporter is too dumb and too gullible to check his sources, just as pro-Rawat editors do with all other members of the media, which Elan Vital claims are "manipulated" by ex-premies, while EV goes on to call ex-premies a hate-group. But, there are several other more recent articles that could be used, such as "Blinded by the Light" by John MacGregor, and the several articles published by the Bristol Post in Bristol, England, when Maharaji spoke there. The fact is that pro-Rawat editors have always tried to claim here how stupid and gullible all members of the press and media are, regardless of who they are and how reputable their news organizations may be. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with finding press articles to link to that would satisfy Rawat's supporters here is clearly shared by the Prem Rawat Foundation whose website has a section called 'Press Room' . This section consists of press releases issued by the Foundation and magazine articles all of which appear to be paid-for advertorials. It does not include a single independent press article. The fact is that all independent press articles about Rawat over the years have been critical of him which is why the Prem Rawat Foundation don't link to any, and none will satisfy the premie editors here. --John Brauns (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's an anonymous quote, Sylvie, and at face value a derogatory one against premies." Oh, nonsense, Momento. You're acting paranoid about this one. I don't see anything derogatory about it. Everyone has beliefs. Some people even believe that snot is God. (shrug) Beliefs are beliefs, and if a premie didn't trust his guru, I don't see how he would accept him as a guru. The quote appears to come from a premie who chose to be anonymous and clever about it. Trying to think about how the conversation would have gone, it would probably have been the last thing the premie said. REPORTER: Could I have your name? PREMIE: Jai Sat Chit Anand. REPORTER: How do you spell that? (and he got it wrong anyway, but only a premie would know that). Wowest (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wowest! How do you spell Rumiton? Momento (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I must apologize for insulting you in this way. I'll try not to do it again. Wowest (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80

Can anyone who has Downton tell me which year this happened? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The sense of independence expressed by Alan was the trend by the close of 1976. It was a contributing factor, I feel, in the exodus, of premies from the ashrams, the emphasis on the development of careers outside the Mission, the group dynamics phase, and the general lack of interest in propagation. "A quick look at Divine Light Mission today might lead one to believe that it is falling to pieces," Alan said that year. "In fact, Divine Light Mission, as we know it, may not exist too much longer. Premies are now leaving the ashrams in droves-officially, at the rate of 2 to 3 per day. That may not seem like much, but, at that rate all the ashrams will be empty by the end of the year. The staff in Denver was 250 just a couple of months ago. Now it is 80. Donations have dropped in half. Nobody knows for sure what is happening, why it is happening, or if we will weather the crisis." So it would seem to have been 1976. Jayen466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen. I will try to look at the time sequence of this ref tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

Could someone more clued-up than me have a look at what the archive bot is doing? The most recent archive is http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_31 but it is not accessible from the archive menu (the bottom link there leads to the older http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_30 ). Also, the numbering of archive pages goes 1, 3, 4 for no apparent reason that I can discern (2 is missing, even though each line clearly starts with a hash). Jayen466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot only makes the archives, but it does not update the archive links in this page. I have added Archive 31 to the list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Fairness and POV versus possible hidden agendas in editing articles about Prem Rawat

The Lede

Janice has made a change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement. The criticism of Rawat's teachings for being - simplistic, intellectually unremarkable etc - need context. And that context is - he gives "an emphasis of individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma" (Hunt). I think this is an important point as all Sant guru's took the same approach.Momento (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, can we please get a better word than "sumptuous". I don't know where it came from but it sounds "old english".Momento (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly "old" English, more like Edwardian. It survives, if at all, in the expression "a sumptuous repast", meaning an elaborate meal. You are right, of course. It is a silly word. Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

re. "change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement": failed to see the improvement while, again, references were severed from what they were actually referencing, and text inserted not covered by these references. Also deformation of the text covered by the actual references. See also edit summary of my revert of the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So fix it, instead of just deleting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Barrett passage would seem to be – "the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best described as practical mysticism." See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. That reasonably accurately covers what Janice wrote. If we lose the Schnabel reference, it fits. Quoting the "intellectually quite unremarkable" without context feels a bit mean; it is not an outright put-down in the source (also on the /scholars subpage), more part of a description of different teaching styles. What the author is saying is that the attraction to Rawat, or his charisma, did not derive from the intellectual presentation or impressiveness of his teaching, but from other factors or sources; there is no value judgment attached to that in the source; Schnabel concludes, "they, by the way, both have their own audience and their own function." Jayen466 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I realise I've just inadvertently refuted myself; to the extent that Schnabel compares teaching styles, the Schnabel reference actually does fit with Janice's edit presenting the comments as comments about his teaching. I think I quite liked the flow of Janice's edit to the lede. Jayen466 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did say it wasn't perfect. I might try to come up with something.Momento (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence isn't right. Schnabel describes Rawat as "the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji". Barret comments on his teachings.Momento (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• His interpretation of the knowledge is an experience rather than an intellectualization of the deity. (Stoner & Parke, 1977)
• Peace is not necessary in the mind; it is necessary in the heart. The mind and intellect cannot capture peace. They have a different function. (Prem Rawat, 2008

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Janice's edit to the lead was excellent, as it provided context. Francis' edit summary misses was rv last paragraph of intro. Don't know about Barret, but Schnabel wrote about the person, not the teachings. If that is the case, why are we referring to the teachings? If Schnabel wrote an opinion about the person in his Phd dissertation, is that opinion notable enough to be placed on the lead? Most certainly not. The scholarly opinion that is shared by scholars is that his teachings had nothing to do with intellect. I would strongly suggest to review that sentence and provide the necessary context. As it stands is misleading by missing the context.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraphs of Teachings section

I can see that Janice's additions to the teachings section were also deleted. Why? Where is the use of {{fact}} for material that may not be obviously sourced, Francis? That is not collaborative editing. Only contentious material needs to be removed without asking for references. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Text and sources to be re-added to Teachings section:

He is considered an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher. striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. Rawat claims that practicing Knowledge will allow the practitioner to experience self-understanding, calmness, peace and contentment. Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From Jossi's quote box above:

• Second and third sentence are still in the article (last paragraph of "Teachings" section), with two references each: is anything not quite in order with the references as they are now in the article?
• First sentence, only Ron Geaves as a reference: seems more like a Geaves opinion, than something Rawat is generally considered to be, so I'd be fine with:

  Ron Geaves considers Rawat to be an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher, striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge.

  Other thoughts?

General remark: Jossi you write "to be re-added to Teachings section": is that a suggestion where others can partake in whether or not we think this a good idea? If so, please use wording that is less a statement of fact like "to be re-added to Teachings section." I'm not yet convinced, convince me! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with attribution of text, if we do the same with all others. All others are also "opinions". We need to be consistent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to emphasise single opinion. For instance, if Van der Lans and Derks have an opinion in their book, which is not recurring in other sources, their name is mentioned. So either find other sources stating the same, or best to mention under the author's name imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions sourced to a single source could all be attributed. There are several in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept Geaves' articles as reliable sources, not at face value in any case. (I don't claim to be an expert). But he is a longtime devotee of Rawat, in fact one of the very first in the West. The two articles mentioned are published in obscure journals that none of our other sources are in; how much do we know about their reliability? And reading one of them "Globalisation, charisma, innovation and tradition", I see a pretty clear and strong POV and lots of opinion, but a dearth of sources and many factual errors. Pro-Rawat editors have held sources critical of Rawat on this page to extremely high standards; we need to hold pro-Rawat sources to those same standards. Msalt (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We are using Messer as a source, a sociologist that was a follower. We are using Dupertuis, a sociologist that was a follower. We are using Van der Lans, who was an evangelical protestant monk and a religious scholar. Ditto abour Kraneborg. Ditto about Melton. So, we are using as a source the Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester, who happens to be a follower. All these are valid, reputable, and verifiable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You, Momento and Rumiton have certainly argued that Van der Lans and Kranenborg should be scrutinized because of their faiths, and I think that's appropriate. Ditto the Larson encyclopedia. I certainly think the devotee writers should be scrutinized the same way. I don't have a side I want to win in this debate; I just want to see a neutral article.Especially when someone with a notable and undeclared biased is published only in a small, obscure journal, I think it's more than fair to question their objectivity, and to prefer sources without that bias, or to examine their work against a natural human tendency to favor their spiritual master. Dupertuis' article is full of ecstatic fawning over Rawat, dressed in a veneer of academic talk. I defy anyone to read it and tell me it's a level-headed objective scientific analysis. In law, sources like these are useful when they make statements against their interest, but discounted otherwise. Sounds like a good plan to me. Msalt (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You say you are not an expert, but you speak of "factual errors". Which ones, and on what basis you say that. Msalt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a pretty clear and strong POV and lots of opinion, but a dearth of sources Really? I have a copy of that paper. Below are the sources used for that paper: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is his bibliography, not his references. He had 14 footnotes in a long article; several were just his opinions, 4 quoted himself in other papers, roughly four quoted non-controversial points about the history of Sant Mat and Radhasaomi (sp?). I don't have it in front of me, but it's prett shaky. I will go through it for errors when I have more time. One right off hand -- he describes DLM being closed in the US, and EV being a separate organization.

I'm not saying he is unusable, but he has a clear bias, and in this paper does not conduct any research, and does not describe his own role clearly. Like many biased sources, I think he should be examined closely and taken with a grain of salt. For that matter, I would say the same thing about Foss and Larkin's article. I don't know of any anti-Rawat conflict of interest they have per se, but the tone of the "Absurdity" article betrays a clear anti-Rawat feeling that I think should cause us to pause before quoting it. Scholars are not prophets, and their words should not be treated as scripture the way it often is on this page. Msalt (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While you're pausing, how about this silliness - "Journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content"? Since when did journalists become experts on "intellectual content"? Momento (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section (continued)

Re. lifestyle epithet:

• Qualifications from first given source (Ruston Daily Leader),
  • (attributed to Rawat's mother, issued statement): despicable, nonspiritual
  • (attributed to Rawat's mother via sources close to Rajeshwari Devi): materialistic, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars
• Qualification from second given source (Hunt 2003): opulent

First we had "sumptuous" to sum that up; Jayen just changed to "luxurious"; my choice would still be "sumptuous" if confined to a single word (while "luxurious" doesn't quite capture the despicable and nonspiritual from his mother's official statement). When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the mother's epithets notable for the lede? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course not" - as in "statement of fact", etc, etc, ? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of course not", as an assessment grounded on understanding of what is notable for a lead of a Misplaced Pages article and what is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

His mother's assessment then seems quite relevant as "lead section" material to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lede should would be best if updated with the wording entered by Janice: Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect., sourced as per available sources, and followed by the "luxurious" lifestyle text. Or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jossi stop commandeering in "should be updated" style. It's all part of of your too forceful method of policing this page. I have my opinion on this issue, and don't voice it half as forceful as I think it: that is called wikiquette. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx. I've been thinking about Schnabel today, since I re-read the quotes we have from him on the /scholars#Schnabel 1982 page. I think we can do something with that in the Prem Rawat article, for instance the "Reception" section.

I'm not yet convinced by Janice's rewrite of the laste sentence of the Lede, and would anyway suggest improvements. Schnabel is, for instance, glued as a reference to something he didn't write. In that perspective I'd prefer to keep as is, unless we can find another compromise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just get rid of all the OR and quote Mata Ji directly? "Prem has been criticized, by his mother, as "non-spiritual," "materialistic" and "despicable." The "experience over intellect," doesn't quite capture the flavor, of the "teachings," either. "Praising direct experience of various bodily processes, which he refers to as 'God,' while, at the same time, demonizing the process of thinking" seems closer to what he's actually said. I'm sure relevant direct quotations are available online. Wowest (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata JI shouldn't be quoted at all. Rawat took legal action to escape her control in 1974 and in 1975 she made these remarks in India. She is a totally biased source. If there is any criticism of Rawat expressed in the lede, it can only be a summary of multiple, reliable sources, presented in context with balancing views.Momento (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji is an authoritative source to say the least, she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India. You're still confusing "I don't like" with Misplaced Pages's reliable source concept. Maybe also consider a reading of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Mata Ji, has the same status as an ex-wife. You need to read this - Neutrality and verifiability. A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article".Momento (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata JI's well known and obvious bias excludes her as per the above policy.Momento (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But Momento, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. There is a definite lack of balance in the article. Perhaps we should just add that is "well-known" that his mother despises him. Wowest (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento - your last point totally obfuscates the policy you refer to. This policy refers to the Misplaced Pages editor using words that more favorable or negative than is appropriate, not a source referred to in the article. You have attempted to apply this policy to the source referred to, not the Misplaced Pages editor. There is no requirement for the actual sources to be neutral; otherwise Misplaced Pages would have to remove every opinion referred to in an article.

Given that the status of the relationship of Rawat to his Mother is clearly described in the article, are you of the opinion that the way the reference has been described in the article is itself biased, regardless of any bias within the referred statement? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost got it - "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively... or given undue standing ...or be subject to other factors suggestive of bias". Clearer now?Momento (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"... leading an opulent lifestyle" would be fine by me, and is verbatim in Hunt. Hunt alone is IMO enough of a reference for this half of the sentence, the other one should go. Hunt describes what "critics have focused on"; this is notable for the lede. His mother's opinion is not, IMO, especially since she engaged in a bitter legal struggle with her son. On the other hand, we could expand the actual sentence covering the family split in the Coming of Age section as follows:

His marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother, who denounced him and returned to India with his two elder brothers.

NikWright2 had a more complete ref in his version that we could use to source the added "denounced him": Pilarzyk, Thomas Ibid.
"His mother claimed that Maharaj Ji, 'under the instigation of certain bad elements in the United States Divine Light Mission, has continuously disrespected my will by adopting a despicable, non-spiritual way of life.'" (Would have to look up what title ibid. actually stands for.) Any thoughts? Jayen466 23:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That must be from: Pilarzyk, Thomas, The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 23-43, who is citing wording from a press release issued by the mother's spokesperson when she returned to India for good after the rift. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji's criticism is of course notable; she was one of the leaders of the DLM at the time. Furthermore, it was a crucial controversy according to several of our sources, and the reasons are not hard to figure out. Prem Rawat was, obviously, breaking away from his family as he came of age. Devotees in America were strongly encouraged, if not outright required, to be celibate, vegetarian, and avoid alcohol and drugs. She charged that Rawat was eating meat, drinking and getting married, which can't have been happy news to many devotees. And I have never seen any source that denied any of these charges. We have many sources showing that, at this exact time, DLM lost half of its membership. Of course it belongs in the lead. Msalt (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Mata Ji became a critic of her son after apparently telling everyone he was a divine incarnation is notable. Details of her unhappiness are not; she clearly falls into the ex-spouse or disaffected family member category. Incidentally, in India establishing ashrams is considered philanthropic work, and they are pointed to with pride. But as I have tried to say before, the ashram rules were for those who wanted to live that way, not for all. Everyone in my ashram knew Prem Rawat was not an ashram premie, and when he got married the response was one of delight, except for one or two of the women who had rather seen themselves in that role. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the family split is important enough to be mentioned in the lede. But just like the split and what his mother said are not part of the "Teachings" or "Reception" section in the main article, they should not be part of the micro summary of criticism at the end of the lede. I'd rather see a brief mention of the split at the appropriate place in the chronology of the lede. Jayen466 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just need to point out for a second the absurdity of the arguments by Rumiton and Momento that Mata Ji was "biased", "a bitter family member", etc. and so is not a reliable source. She's not a source -- she's a key player in these events and her comments are notable. It doesn't even matter that she, Rawat and his brothers are related, ultimately. Our most reliable sources show that they controlled DLM together from 1966 until the court case was settled. They in effect formed a board of directors of the Maharaji movement, and split among public recriminations. And the details of her criticism are quite important. DLM came out of a generally ascetic tradition of Indian religion; scholars call it "renunciate", and Shri Hans fit into that. It was not generally clear from 1966 to 1973 where Prem Rawat stood on that, and after all he was a boy at first. As he came of age, coincident with his Westernization but starting a bit earlier, he chose to move away from a renunciate lifestyle, which is a huge development, esp. with his followers leading a renunciate life. Even outside of the ashrams, DLM was famous for cleaning up drug casualties, which is what all those studies in Downton about improving followers lives are about. So her charges against Prem Rawat -- which no one here is even trying to deny -- of drinkin alcohol, eating meat and becoming sexual are a crucial development. And that's why he lost half of the American DLM membership, and much higher percentage of the Indian following.

Perhaps there is some way to summarize his western choices, but I doubt it would save many words. No one objected to discussing a break with his mother over getting married, in the lede; "eating meat and drinkin alcohol" adds 5 words. Msalt (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about how renunciate this lifestyle was; at the risk of pointing out the obvious, his father, who founded DLM, was sexually active. Jayen466 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sri Hans was not a renunciate, but a householder. He married twice and had four children. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mata Ji, was a staunch Hindu, which Sri Hans was not... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. That kind of makes my point though; Mata Ji, one of the acknowledged leaders of DLM, favored a renunciate lifestyle (outside of marriage obviously), and as he grew Rawat chose otherwise. When they split, she denounced exactly that decision, and half of the American DLM quit. Seems extremely notable to me. Was Shri Hans vegetarian and teetotal?

Also, isn't it a violation of wikiettiquette to insert comments in the middle of someone else's comments? I don't think I've ever seen that done before. Is it alright if I move these four comments to the end of my initial comment? Msalt (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Msalt, violation indeed, but entirely unintentional. We do seem to write a lot here, sometimes my eyesight gets blurred. I have now reattached the end of your comment to its rightful beginning (I hope). Jayen466 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Mataji, it still does not quite make your point since, as a wife and mother, she was not a renunciate either. I think Shri Hans was unconventional; his accepting pupils of all castes was also unorthodox. I believe there would have been every expectation of Rawat to become a householder like his father. Still, marrying an American at sixteen would not have fitted those expectations. As for his father's vegetarianism, I don't know. His teaching incorporated Sikh elements; Sikhs are not required to be vegetarians. Jayen466 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Francis, it is incorrect to say that she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India. I would be surprised if she took anyone at all with her. The ebullient, spontaneous, clear-thinking and funny Maharaji, or his dour, Hindu Mum? It was a no-contest. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "she took the largest part of the DLM adherence (at the time) with her back to India", I didn't mean that litterally, of course, as if she had packed a few million adherents in her bags when flying to India. That's why I said "adherence", not "adherents". Indian DLM, led by her, and shortly afterwards Satpal, only lost support of Western DLM adherents, and (probably) a part of the Indian DLM (sources in Prem Rawat article). As the bulk of DLM supporters lived in India, she led a substantial organisation there, and I'm not going to nit-pick over whether she had the bulk or the smaller part of the 6 or 7 million original DLM adherents behind her. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, re "sumptuous", you had suggested "opulent" earlier, and I said above that was fine by me. I didn't hear anyone vigorously objecting, so there might be a possible consensus word there that we could all live with, especially since it is also used in the source. How about it? Jayen466 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Above I wrote:

When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources.

"opulent" without "materialistic" wouldn't do for me, since we're summarizing two sources here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "outrageously extravagant?" How about mentioning the gold toilet? How about mentioning the ashram premies wearing rags?Wowest (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent. Unless someone provides proper sources I will have to remove the sentence. In any case, the criticism of Rawat's teachings and his lifestyle are so minor, they don't belong in the Lede. The teachings criticism by Christian scholars and "journalists" belongs in teachings. And lifestyle is covered else where.Momento (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "I've already said that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent", true, neither of them necessarily includes possible teachings to a private audience. Schnabel and Kent probably rather referred to what Rawat said in public, and/or otherwise published for the public at large.

Re. "Unless someone provides proper sources I will have to remove the sentence" - I preferred to remove the disparity between the sentence and the sources.

Re. "In any case, the criticism of Rawat's teachings and his lifestyle are so minor, they don't belong in the Lede" – I haven't seen a reliable source contending that criticisms to Rawat's teachings and lifestyle are "minor", could you provide such source?

Re. "The teachings criticism by Christian scholars and "journalists" belongs in teachings", more or less the line of thought we've been following lately; Schnabel and Kent rather belong in "Reception" imho.

In general, the lead section is a summary of a summary (the body of the article being a tertiary source summary, the lead a summary of that summary). The criticism, at least its two most essential points, is as yet not overrepresented in the lead section imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. I have removed the unsourced sentence.Momento (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Francis's insertion of "unsourced contentious material" because he has failed to provide sources that support the summary. According to BLP policy, reverting unsourced material in a BLP is exempted from the revert policy. BLP policy says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, The three-revert (or one revert rule) rule does not apply to such removals".Momento (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread what I wrote. Please self-revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood exactly what you wrote. You wrote, that my conclusion that neither Schnabel or Kent referred to Rawat's teaching was "True".Momento (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I said "I preferred to remove the disparity between the sentence and the sources", which indeed I had done: – there was no BLP in the sentence you removed twice

Please .... No need to do this. I suggest restoring Janice's wording, as supported by Jaen as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Janice's wording was a step backwards, and don't agree to it. As is Momento's removal of the sentence he didn't like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I would rather do something else but Wiki policy says I "should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". I have queried it, Francis has admitted it, it has to go.Momento (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Francis has admitted it" – I did no such thing. Where do you get this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. I said "that Schnabel does not refer to Rawat's teachings and neither does Kent" and you said ", true, neither of them necessarily includes possible teachings to a private audience. Schnabel and Kent probably rather referred to what Rawat said in public, and/or otherwise published for the public at large". That's it Francis, over and out, using weasel words like "possible" and "probably" can't disguise the fact that Schnabel and Kent are not the source for your unverified, unsourced OR. Momento (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See above: "teachings" was no longer in the phrase you removed. Please leave your aggresive tone ("over and out" and the like) out of this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Francis, I noted your OR.Momento (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARC? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Hunt says that Rawat "does not personally eschew material possessions". Are you concerned that I used the word "because" as a bridge? If so I will change it to "Rawat does not personally reject material possessions and he has been criticized by some for leading an opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DLM in the lead

Re the lead, I just read this page without knowing the subject, and found it odd that the lead doesn't mention the Divine Light Mission at all, when it seems to be a key topic in the body of the article. I don't want to join in editing here since it seems quite hotly debated, but purely to provide context, how about adding He was formerly the leader of the Divine Light Mission. to the end of the first paragraph? From what I've read here thats (hopefully) an uncontentious statement. --Bazzargh (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bazzargh, I agree. I and to a lesser extent Sylviecn, have argued to include the DLM in the lead over and over. Jossi opposed mentioning the DLM in the lead and even accused me of disruption for re-opening the discussion about this on the talk. Andries (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I attempt to summarize some of the facts here, so that we can decide which of these can go in the lead section (as always: forgive any potential errors, which I tried to avoid, the wiki system allows to correct them easily):

• DLM was founded in India by Rawat's father (1960);
• A DLM organisation was founded in the US by Rawat's close supporters, defined as a church according to US law (1971), for a period of time having its headquarters at the same location (or close to it?) as where Rawat lived;
• That organisation was reformed on Rawat's instigation in the early 1980s, including a formal name change to Elan Vital (1983). Rawat became less involved in the organisation (or how should one describe this? I also don't know whether this should be qualified as over time, or whether a pivotal date could be given).
• In 2001 a new organisation was founded, this time by Rawat himself: TPRF.

There are other details (not in the article, so no lead section material I suppose), for instance there was also Visions International (distributor of promotional material) and/or other formally separate organisations; and for obvious reasons the name DLM wasn't used by Rawat's supporters in India after the family schism, leading to DUO as the name of the Indian Rawat-oriented group, later renamed to Raj Vidya Kender. Also other countries had DLM/Elan Vital/... organisations set up in in accordance with applicable local law.

Currently only #4 is mentioned in the lead section; #1 probably is not necessary in the lead section, but I'd favour some info on #2 and #3 being included in the lead. Seems more notable than the names of the four cities he first visited in the West and some other detail now given in the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

DLM was a part of Rawat's life for 6 years in India but I don't think he was ever legally in charge. And DLM existed for 10 years in the US and Elan Vital has been in existence for 25 years and it isn't mentioned. You can 't put everything in the Lede if you want it to read properly and conform to WIKI guidelines.Momento (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, we have been thru this, so many times and it will be clear that I find your arguments completely unconvincing. Rawat had his 15 minutes of fame while the DLM existed. It is like arguing that an article about Jimmy Carter should not mention in the lead that he was the president of the USA because that was so long ago. Scholarly sources that do not mention Elan Vital can be found easily. In contrast, scholarly sources that do not mention the Divine Light Mission are difficult to find. Andries (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Teachings section

Some text and sources for Sant Mat, from the article of the same name. (I have researched this subject quite in depth in the past)

The boundaries of the movement were likely not sectarian and were devoid of Brahmin concepts of caste and liturgy. The poet-sants expressed their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style in Hindi and other dialects such as Marathi. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value. They presented the idea that true religion was a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart".

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, the other portions that you tagged with {{cn}} are sourced to Galanter and Hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter seems to have gone missing as a footnoted source. Galanter is mentioned in the References section, but I'm not very sure which sentences he's a reference for. Could these sentences be indicated?

I caught up an error of something that indeed could be referenced to Hunt (if "early 80s" was removed, because then Hunt would not have been an appropriate source, he refers to Millennium '73 as the probable turning point, at least the start of it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Hunt is referring to the 1980's. BTW, Hunt is the most contemporary source of all sources (2003). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I read Hunt: he surmises "Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context.", where "this failure" refers to Millennium '73 in the previous paragraph. So you can't use Hunt to say "In the early 80s Rawat came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings" (it would be OR to assume that Hunt suggested that only after 10 years Rawat started to reflect on it: that is possible, but an OR extrapolation of a source). Nor can the provided Melton quote be used as a reference for the time assertion, as it doesn't give a time indication the way it is presented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter: It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Geaves: He is insistent that it is not the product of any one culture or the property of any religious tradition and that it can be practised by anyone. Consequently, Maharaji asserts that he is not teaching a religion and there are no particular rituals, sacred days, pilgrimages, sacred places, doctrines, scriptures or specific dress codes, dietary requirements or any other dimension associated with a religious lifestyle.

Foss & Larking: and to remain exclusively centered upon the only Truth, which lies within.

Hunt: The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter, just put him in. Page number reference would be welcome (and check whether I used the right book, and should not reference it to Levine).

Geaves: was in, is in, didn't change a word of the Geaves reference, although I think I conflated the Geaves reference containing a quote with the Geaves reference containing a completer book reference. The current text of the Geaves reference in the Teachings section is "He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques. The simple axiom, 'If you like it, practice it, if you don’t, try something else,' is applied on frequent occasions in his public discourses. Neither does Prem Rawat regard himself as an exemplary leader, a role often ascribed to religious founders." What you attribute to Geaves is in fact in footnote 93 attributed to Melton et. al.: "Rawat is insistent that it is not the product of any one culture or the property of any religious tradition and that it can be practiced by anyone. Consequently, Maharaji asserts that he is not teaching a religion and there are no particular rituals, sacred days, pilgrimages, sacred places, doctrines, scriptures or specific dress codes, dietary requirements or any other dimension associated with a religious lifestyle." Geaves or Melton (or both)?

Foss and Larkin: as a reference for what?

Hunt is used as a reference in the teachings section each and every word you quote. Hunt is used 5 times as a reference in the Teachings section. Enough? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is Geaves, in a book edited by Partridge, which contains a preface by Melton (Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421. Hence the confusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galanter's text is in page 20 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"one hour of practice" can be sourced to this WP:SELFPUB source ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That page on the Keys website has no author name, or is it understood that such sayings on these pages all derive from Rawat directly? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The author is The Prem Rawat Foundation, as per the copyright on the home page:. It can be attributed to the webiste? I will look for other sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So we can't use it for "Rawat advises students that for maximum benefit the techniques should be practised daily for at least one hour." It would be OR to suggest that Rawat is the only author of TPRF. I'd suggest to leave it out as we don't know who exactly suggests this (unless a more corroborative source turns up). --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation violation

Francis, you are breaching the 1RR probation. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Jossi#Re. "Drama" --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to

Really, a bit less wikilawyering would do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, Francis. When others revert is "rv vandalims", or "rv not discussed", etc. But when you revert is (ec) still more even distribution of referenced text/references; note that there is no big change, only putting references where they belong, + indicating where they are lacking). Why would you call an obvious 1RR violation to be an edit conflict? Beats me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point, Jossi. His edit summaries are too long? I'm more concerned by the missing, cryptic or misleading edit summaries given by Janice Rowe, Momento, etc. "Too many changes to be able to follow them"? ie, I'm confused so I'm going to revert a bunch of edits? And that's just fine with you? Msalt (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring this to AN/I, but I am keeping this diff. I would appreciate it if you are more cautious given the probation, that was set up for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, Momento reverted the same text twice in 10 minutes. and . Is there a reason you have not warned him for 1RR? There certainly appears to be a double standard in your administration here. Msalt (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis has already reported this to . In fact, I didn't revert twice, I removed material that Francis agreed was unsourced. Which, amazingly, Francis then reverted and then I used my one revert to remove the material.Momento (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of intellectual content"

Re 1rr violation by Momento. Claiming something is a BLP matter is insufficient, if challenged--you need to demonstrate why and how. How is this double sourced addition of a critical sentence a BLP violation? Please clarify. Lawrence § t/e 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis says that Schnabel and Kent support the claim that "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse", Scnabel compares Rawat to Osho and says that compared to Osho Rawat is "intellectually quite unremarkable". He doesn't mention Rawat's "public discourse", it is a comparative description. Therefore Francis's interpretation has no source. Kent describes a Rawat talk as "banal". "Banal" doesn't mean "lack of intellectual content". This is a BLP Lawrence, we have to "get it right".Momento (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an extreme of tortured logic in an attempt to stretch to BLP (and claim exemption from 1RR). I would call it wikilawyering. "Francis interpretation has no source" is simply false. "Momento doesn't like one of the sources " is more accurate, but does not justify a BLP deletion. Especially since the argument is specious. Schnabel doesn't have to use the exact same words as the article to be a source. He doesn't mention the phrase "public discourse"? What else would he be talking about? Rawat's private conversations with his wife? Banal <> lack of intellectual content? That's just wrong. Banal = trite or commonplace; intellectual = "possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, esp. to a high degree." Trite or commonplace ideas do not show a high degree of intellect or mental capacity. That's exactly what it means. Msalt (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let me think five minutes. The compromise I suggested is not quite going to work then. Jayen466 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would this be close enough to the sources, Momento?

Rawat's teaching style has been described as intellectually unremarkable and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect. He has been criticised for leading an opulent and materialistic lifestyle. Jayen466 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not close to the source. Schnabel doesn't say Rawat's "teaching style has been described as intellectually unremarkable". He says that compared to Osho, Rawat is " intellectually unremarkable". Mind you Rawat is 25 and Osho is 51.Momento (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)^3 Thanks for the effort, Jayen, but it doesn't work for me: Schnabel criticises Rawat, not teachings (from whoever the these teachings originate), and even less teaching style. Schnabel criticises "staging" if you want, but not "teaching style" (note, for Schnabel's "staging" criticism we'd need to elaborate first in Reception section, which I have every intention to do, as proposed on this page above - again, see /scholars#Schnabel 1982, it has some valuable material). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we would have to say "Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable", though to me the context in the source appears to be a comparison of the two as different types of charismatic leaders. Jayen466 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)^2 Would work, of course, but then again only for a single source: I think it is possible to make a phrase that can be referenced by both provided sources. In fact, the sentence you tampered with now too in the article works that way for me.

But I'd agree to "Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable and banal" (with both references) too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No! We would have to say "Schnabel described Rawat as "intellectually unremarkable" compared to "ever changing, intelligent" Osho.Momento (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Rawat, not Bhagwan (Osho). We have other sources in the article that make comparisons: generally I support the policy of not commenting on other subjects in the article on Rawat, so consequently, the parties with which Rawat is compared are excised from quoted text in such references, and even less do we mention them in the body of the article.

For clarity, lest someone would be tempted to deform what I actually said:

• sources making comparisons can be used for the Rawat article, and are currently used in this article;
• generally, we take out the parts of the sentences that comment on the other party with which a comparison is made, while this is Rawat's article, and not a board on which to stick interpretations of comparable and uncomparable other subjects. We do so unless the fact that such comparisons are made is "notable" in itself (i.e. enough coverage in reliable sources on the comparison), which would warrant a paragraph or section in both articles of the subjects being compared, and if very notable, both of these paragraphs or sections would link to a separate article on the topic of the comparison (example: Comparison of Java and C Sharp). No notability threshold has been reached for such treatments of a comparison imho, this would need more sources, so I'd stick to using such sources with the info on the other party excised. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, "his movement has sometimes been criticized for stressing emotional experience over intellect" (Barrett); that's as close to verbatim as possible then. Jayen466 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And then we would have to add " according to Christian scholars" but "in accord with Sant principles Rawat emphasizes a direct subjective experience over a body of dogma. It can't be done in the lede.Momento (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is an article about the person, not the movements (which have their own articles), so I'd keep that out of the lead section, there is already comparatively too much things like "practioners and movements are said to..." in the article now, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Schnabel particularly Christian? David V. Barrett appears to be summarising criticism generally; he does not appear to have any overriding Christian loyalties, or does he? Jayen466 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re. "Is Schnabel particularly Christian?" - nothing in the indicated resume that would indicate such thing: doctor in sociology, with a post-doctoral also related to sociology: no particular interest in religion or religious background mentioned in the resume. When I found a source, some time ago, that indicated several youngsters of Jewish background had become interested in Rawat, I received a response on this page that there was no relevance to it, it wasn't even to be considered as a fact. I'd suggest a similar approach regarding Schnabel. The only (and also afaik insignificant) "correlation" we have is that both Schnabel and Kent are not only scholars, but also both sociologists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis, I told Jossi and Rumiton many times that Schnabel is not a Christian but they simply do not believe me. Andries (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Schnabel is a "Christian". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Andries (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable and banal", is WP:SYN. Schnabel described him as such. Kent said that one talk he heard was banal in his opinion. The lack of intellectual content in Prem Rawat's talks is well documented and not necessarily negative. People here are trying to push a negative casting on his persona based on a single source in a Phd dissertation, and in the lead? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote -- what does it mean to preface a comment with "(ec)"? I see both Jossi and Francisc doing this but I have no idea what that signifies. Thx. Msalt (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Edit conflict. Sorry for the lingo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Glossary if you encounter such abbreviations that seem unclear on first sight. Or, for a sunnier side on this: WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you fine with the wording as it is now in the article, and could you cite another reference that refers to this lack of intellectual content in his talks? Because then we might be home dry here (if I understood Francis correctly that the version as is in the article is fine by him; we would just need a reference to address Momento's concern). Jayen466 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may work. I will look for other sources. Even Prem Rawat himself in his talks says that his teachings have nothing to do with intellect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's like quoting a Jew criticizing a Christian priest for eating pork in the lede of the article about the Christian priest. Rawat teaches people to have a direct experience not a theory. As such he will always be seen as lacking "intellectual content". I'm sure someone will be able to find a quote from a Catholic priest concerned about Rawat not referring to the "intellectual content" that permeates the papal view on virgin birth.Momento (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one come to understand the peace you are speaking of?
Peace is not necessary in the mind; it is necessary in the heart. The mind and intellect cannot capture peace. They have a different function. Peace, joy, and true happiness are not subjects for thought. They can only be felt. There is a feeling behind being alive. There are no explanations for it. It is the feeling that one has to get to—because that is where there is comfort, that is where there is joy, that is where there is satisfaction. It is in that feeling that we need to live our lives. Somehow, we think that we need an explanation of what peace is, but peace cannot be explained; it can only be felt.

— Prem Rawat

As you can see, saying "Rawat's public discourses have been described as lacking intellectual content" is misleading, unless you include the fact that Rawat himself does not claim that his discourses have something to do with intellect. We need context, which is missing now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not agree. The context is already there: the emphasis is on Knowledge. Andries (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Jayen to it.Momento (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and on top of that, what he says here is quite articulately put. :-) Jayen466 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not fine with it, for reasons I gave above. Note that Barret (specifically Barret, whose reference text is now included in this footnote: ) does not say anything about Rawat, he says: "...in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized..." – inappropriate reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break ("lack of intellectual content")

Don't you think Barrett is conflating the two? The very next sentence after the one you quoted speaks of the teaching: "... the movement was sometimes criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best be described as practical mysticism." Jayen466 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Don't you think Barrett is conflating the two?" - well you can't have it both ways: it's still very unclear to me how much Rawat associates himself with US DLM, later Elan Vital, and how much he dissociates himself from that organisation.

Authors deliberately or undeliberately conflating the two is not very helpful...

One of the very few examples of a source making the distinction between Rawat's approach and that of the practitioners that I could find: "Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age." (Downton - I'm not commenting on whether yes or no Downton puts the borderline in the right place here, I'm merely using this as an example of the type of distinction I'm looking for)

Anyway, unless we can see where the border is, that is: where Rawat's thoughts end, and where the movements and practitioners start to supply their own, we have to apply BLP-inspired caution:

• Sources supplied by these movements and practioners are not to be treated as third-party sources in a WP:V way, unless it is very clear that they provide an approach independent from Rawat.
• Where authors describe these movements and practitioners, on the other hand, these descriptions can not be taken for granted as being a description of Rawat, unless it is very clear that Rawat identifies with that aspect of the movement (so, you need a source saying the same about Rawat anyway).

"Having it both ways" is when one starts associating and dissociating Rawat with and from his followers based on content: a third party author says something nice about the movements, then interpreting as if something nice is said about Rawat, and conversely when such author says something less nice about the movements, then interpreting as if there's no link between Rawat and the movements. We have to apply the caution as explained above. Whether we, Wikipedians, think Barrett is conflating the two or not is irrelevant while that would be OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with Osho is obviously faulty. And Kent's "banal" opinion needs the context that he "was surprised that his companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received.".Momento (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to taking a phrase from some scholar without providing context and balance. The criticism of "Teaching" should never be in the lede because no space is given to provide the necessary context. And that context would be something to the effect that Rawat's teaching is deliberately anti-intellectual. The techniques of Knowledge are taught so that the individual can have their own personal subjective experience rather than theory and dogma.Momento (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; I have self-reverted now and taken the critique of his teaching out of the lede. Jayen466 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It is simply unfair to drop in one side of the story into the Lede and frustrate any attempt for balance. It is a complex issue that needs to be dealt with properly and that cannot happen in the lede. Thanks.Momento (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For the lead section:

Rawat has been described as intellectually unremarkable and his message as banal.

(although I agree with Msalt that "intellectually unremarkable" and "banal message" are in fact tautological, and I see no OR in: "Rawat's message has been described as intellectually unremarkable.", preferring the euphemistic "intellectually unremarkable" over the blunt "banal")

For the Reception section:

Sociologists described Rawat as intellectually quite unremarkable and his message as banal: Schnabel saw Rawat's charismatic leadership as staged to a certain degree, Kent was surprised that his companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received.

(so Kent no longer in the Teachings section) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. Using the lede to over represent the opinion of Schnabel or Kent (which is also out of context in which his opinion was made), is inappropriate, to the say the least. I would suggest to restore Janice's compromise version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "compromise version" - I don't understand? Janice is a one-sided editor, clearly in the pro-Rawat camp (I don't think I'm exaggerating here). Janice's edit wasn't discussed here before it was performed, no agreement or compromise was reached. I know of only one editor (pro-Rawat) who really defends it here on this talk page: I didn't even see Janice participate in any discussion of her last edit to the lead section. The edit was wrong on many levels as discussed above. What was your reason please to call this a compromise version? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, some comments on Janice's editing style, still on this page:

• "Janice Rowe's blind revert" (Msalt)
• "Deleting as Janice Rowe has just done, is not a helpful way to edit a contentious article either" (Will)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You call me a "pro-rawat editor", as if that was a terrible thing. You are obviously an "anti-rawat" editor and that isn't terrible either. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, on both accounts:

• I don't consider either being a pro-Rawat or being a Rawat-critical editor as anything terrible, I work with both on the same level.
• I'm not an anti-Rawat editor, and because I am not I take offense.

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What does have anything with her version being a good compromise or not? Let me remind you that you recently asked to be judged by your edits, so do the same with others. Janice's version has merit, as expressed by several editors, and should be evaluated on its merit. BTW, you have not replied to my argument about giving Kent's opinion (a passing comment in a preface of a book), and Schanbel's (a Phd dissertation that has hardly been cited by scholars), undue representation in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, again, I don't see any merits in Janices recent edit to the lead section, and I explained why. It is no compromise by far, and you don't even begin to explain why you think it is.

Re. Kent & Schnabel: they undoubtedly gave their opinion on the subject of the article, many others commenting on intellectual content were in fact commenting on other persons (practitioners, organisations, movements, etc) for which Prem Rawat is not the sole representative, even often not the representative at all, so such comments on people or groups that are not identifiable with Rawat himself don't quite belong in the lead of an article on Rawat. Some of it could, as far as I'm concerned, even be removed from the body of the article (as I wrote above). When we write an article about Von Karajan, we don't write in the lead section "his public was sometimes criticised for coughing during the concerts" or "the orchestra he conducted was criticised for (whatever)". Similarly, when we write an article on Rawat, we don't write in the lead section "...the movement was sometime criticized..." (Barret), or something derived from that.

Kent and Schnabel are also both respectable sources: Schnabel had written 75 articles since he had become a sociologist in 1973: the book we're talking about here is his thesis in 1982 (when he became a doctor in medicine). It was published as a book, by an author who was already a scholar for a decade. At least in intent it was written to advise the government of the Netherlands on their policies w.r.t. NRMs (whether that materialised I don't know) . Kent's book has all characteristics of a reliable source: he studied and wrote about Rawat's movements in the book, so he has a broader perspective, but we concentrate on what he said about the person here.

On the other hand I don't think we're giving undue weight to the criticism on Rawat in the lead section: criticism on the topic of Rawat's intellectual content has been published by non-scholars, non-experts, self-publication and/or without making clear whether they actually commented on the subject of this article, or something related to him but not Rawat himself: none of this is usable as a source for Misplaced Pages in this context, but the criticism exists and is well-documented. So, for the sources that meet Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria without hesitation (or should I say: despite the nit-picking on irrelevant characteristics), they should be given a fair representation, and that is imho in the lead section too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, is completely wrong reg. Paul Schnabel's influential disstertation. Schnabel is one of the Netherlands' most influential sociologists. Andries (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

about Schnabel's dissertationAndries (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ICSA? Really? give us a break. RE:Schabel: I only find five citations for Schnabel's dissertation Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid (which was written in Dutch and never translated, to English, wonder why?), and despite the long straw man argument by Francis (I never argued that Schnabel cannot be used in the article), the fact is that the lead should be a good summary of the article, and not a place to assert or over-represent the opinions of specific people. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. (WP:LEAD). Kent makes a passing comment on the preface of a book, and mis quoting him without the surrounding text, is well, what's the word? Nitpicking? I would argue that the lead needs an expansion of the teachings aspects that are widely described in multiple sources, indicating wide consensus of sources, rather than highlight Schnabel, Kent, or even Hunt or Downton for that matter. I think we have discussed this already quite enough. If there is no intention for accepting a compromise, such as the one made by Janice, I would argue that we need a new proposal (or eventually take this to mediation.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, again you assert Janice's text as a compromise, without even an attempt at reasoning why it would be. There is no reasoning, you've made that much clear, just an attempt at hammering "compromise" "compromise" "compromise"... And you're the only one: Janice has a pro-Rawat slant, and that was clear from her edits, including the one you refer to here. If you can't explain why it would be a compromise, what middle position it expresses or whatever that would make others help to see that your compromise qualification is more than a PR-stunt, why would we then start thinking about it as if it were a compromise. It is not. I think I showed that a good compromise is always acceptable to me, and I have negotiated many here, and in the archives before I helped implementing them.

I do think Lawrence's last version of the intro is a more than acceptable compromise: he was an uninvolved party that intervened. I have kept other criticisms (inserted or proposed by Rawat critics) out of the intro, so I really think I'm going for the middle ground here, a version that should be acceptable by critics as not glossing over criticism, and by pro-Rawat editors likewise as no more criticism than reflecting its importance according to reliable, published sources, that is: only two points of the miriad of criticisms documented on the subject.

So again, please explain why you would think Janice's version a compromise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is why. Lawerence's edit Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse. Janice's edit Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect.. My argument is that in the former, we are framing this as "criticism", when the lack of intellectual content is not necessarily a negative, but the contrary. In the latter, we make the necessary counterpoint, of the undisputed emphasis of direct experience vs. intellect (which by the way, it could be argued is pervasive in Eastern teachings.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the anti-cult website ICSA is written by a Dutch anti-anti-cult writer, Richard Singelenberg, who wrote that Schnabel's dissertation was influential. So it will be clear that I do not understand why I should give you a break regarding the ICSA. Andries (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose to take the ICSA discussion elsewhere, it has no bearing on the Prem Rawat article as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(sorry if this seems contradictory with what I wrote just above) The ICSA discussion is interesting nonetheless. It's about difference in approach between Belgium and the Netherlands (in Singelenberg's approach framed in the more recent discussions within the European Union). (sidenote and FYI, I'm the Belgian here, Andries from the Netherlands). I started thinking about it and found this (via Misplaced Pages's Cults and governments article): The Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults‘ report to the Belgian Parliament from 1997 in its 6th chapter, p. 106, there is:

6. L’approche des Pays-Bas Le 26 juin 1980, la commission de la Santé publique de la Deuxième Chambre a décidé de créer une sous-commission «sectes» chargée d’étudier les activités des organisations sectaires aux Pays-Bas et ses conséquences pour les individus visés par de telles pratiques, d’une part, et d’évaluer l’assistance sociale apportée sur le plan de la santé mentale de la population, d’autre part. Cette enquête, qui a duré quatre ans, s’est conclue par le dépôt, le 17 mai 1984, d’un rapport intitulé : « Overheid en nieuwe religieuze bewegingen » (Doc. n° 16635, n° 4, session 1983-1984). (followed by a description of the content of the report)

6. De Nederlandse benadering Op 26 juni 1980 heeft de commissie voor de Volksgezondheid van de Tweede Kamer besloten een subcommissie « sekten » in te stellen, belast met het onderzoek naar de activiteiten van de sektarische organisaties in Nederland en de gevolgen daarvan voor de individuen op wie soortgelijke praktijken zijn gericht enerzijds en met de evaluatie van de maatschappelijke hulpverlening die aan de bevolking wordt verstrekt inzake geestelijke gezondheid anderzijds. Dat onderzoek heeft vier jaar in beslag genomen en werd afgerond met de indiening, op 17 mei 1984, van een verslag met als opschrift « Overheid en nieuwe religieuze bewegingen » (Stuk nr 16635, nr 4, zitting 1983-1984). (followed by a description of the content of the report)

The summary of that report can be read in the PDF linked above (that is if your French or Dutch is not too rusty). What struck me is that the conclusions of the Dutch governemental report (as described in the Belgian governemental report) are almost word for word taken from Schnabel's "Stellingen" as published in the 1982 version of his book. It's almost unthinkable the Dutch parliamentary commission would not have used Schnabel's book. I'd be very happy if anyone could find more info on this. (but as I said we need not necessarily discuss this on this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociologists described Rawat as intellectually quite unremarkable and his message as banal, is a violation of WP:SYN and an over generalization. (a) It reads as if all sociologists said that, when in fact was only Schnabel; (b) Kent did not describe the "message" as banal, but he referred to a single address that he heard. This is becoming tedious and silly, and close to WP:TE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Context, and NPOV writing 101:

Stephen A. Kent, in the preface of his book From Slogans to Mantras, describes his disappointment in hearing what he considered to be a poorly delivered and banal message by Rawat in 1974. Paul Schnabel wrote in his PhD. dissertation in 1982 that Rawat's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma, and that in comparison with Osho, Rawat was less of a charismatic leader and intellectually unremarkable.

• Stays close to the source without editorializing
• Provides the necessary context and dates
• Provides wikilinks to these authors and other relevant articles

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Less of a charismatic leader" is wrong. Schnabel described both Maharaji and Rajneesh/Bhagwan as pure examples of charismatic leaders. Andries (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that Rawat tours 'extensively'?

In the lede, it says "Rawat continues to tour extensively". The source given for this is Cagan's book. However, according to the Prem Rawat Foundation owned website, contact-info.org, Rawat only attended 20 events in 2007, and has attended none so far this year with only one announced for April. I propose that the word 'extensively' is replaced with 'regularly', and that the source is changed to http://www.contact-info.org/previous_events.cfm. --John Brauns (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

These are not all the events he attended. Let me find links to other sources for these other events. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other appearances in 2007: Parliament House (Sept 2007), Trieste (Nov 2007) , London (June 2007) , Italian Senate (Rome, April 2007) , Argentina Senate (Buenos Aires, Feb 2007) . By my count in the last two years in average, he appeared and spoke at least once every other week (approx 56 appearances in 24 months). Having said that, I have no problems in using "Rawat continues to tour regularly", as "extensively" is a value judgment (some may see that as extensive, some not.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. I'll put it in if not already done. It does sound like he has slowed down a bit in the last couple of years. It's very encouraging to see such a cordial and cooperative improvement worked out by John Brauns and Jossi!! Msalt (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi and myself agree about many things regarding this article! --John Brauns (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism

I came across this article via the Random Article feature and checked the claim that virtually all of the criticism of Rawat comes from one source. This was easily checked via Google. There is considerable criticism of Rawat. Whether it's true or fair is another matter entirely, but to say it does not exist would be flat-out inaccurate. As well, there is considerable material online accusing him of being a typical cult leader. Again, he may or may not be, and I neither know nor care, but it should be mentioned and I have done so in my edit. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a Biography of a Living Person and you must provide reliable sources for any material used. Your edit is unsourced and doesn't belong in the Lede in any case, so it's coming out.Momento (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, true, there are many sources that describe the Divine Light Mission as a cult, but I never insisted on mentioning the word here because the word has many meanings and hence is not very informative. In addition, it take quite a lot of effort to retain well-sourced material here, because of the presence of Momento who tend to remove everything that they do not like, claiming that they follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in this respect. Andries (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read the edit carefully. The mention of "cult" is not in the "lede". The other paragraph that I removed is nowehere near the opening paragraph. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "cult" is much too polemic to be used and there would never be concensus among editors to include it. However, I see nothing wrong with using "new religious movement," because Rawat is the leader of the new religious movement DLM/EV, according to the majority of scholars of new religious movements that have written about him. Just because Rawat's name is no longer legally attached to the his supporting organizations doesn't mean he doesn't lead the organization symbolically and spiritually, and were it not for Prem Rawat's 40 year career, which lends him the notability to even warrant an article on Misplaced Pages and so many related ones, such organizations would not even exist. It's a glaring omission in the lead to not state this. I think that's why the first paragraph in the lead has always been so problematic here over the years and remains a tortured text that sidesteps this fact. Rawat isn't just some private individual who happens to be a "speaker about inner peace" and a "teacher of four meditation techniques." Moreover, DLM/Elan Vital are listed separately in List of new religious movements so how is it that Rawat's role as it's leader is omitted in this article? During the 70s, Guru Maharaj Ji was listed as DLM's "Chief Minister." Therefore, it makes no logical sense to distance him from the organizations in the lead. Rawat doesn't work in a vacuum, which is what this article implies. The lead should read "Prem Rawat is the leader of the new religious movement Elan Vital, formerly known as Divine Light Mission..." Btw, I don't see this as a critical statement, but rather as a factual statement. See how this is handled in Sun Myung Moon. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Visualisation of footnotes

(please keep this section lower on the page than any footnotes that are to be visualised)

"He alone holds the keys to these techniques."

I plan to remove this statement for several reasons:

1) Violates WP:SUMMARY, since it's not in Teachings of Prem Rawat

2) Simply not true. Rawat's brother has a foundation set up to teach them. His father and his father's guru (who was not succeeded by Shri Hans) taught them, and undoubtedly taught others, who taught others, etc. Rawat had a thousand or more mahatmas who taught the technqiue and according to the Teachings page, left the DLM or were dismissed at the split with DLM India in 1974. Rawat even uses a DVD to train them now.

3) Poorly sourced. The first says that some premies believe this, not that it's true; the second is by Prem Rawat himself, so unduly self-serving if he actually says that and I don't see from the reference that he actually does.

4) Not encyclopedic; it clearly serves to promote Rawat and borders on salesmanship.

Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that was added by User:Andries, and also re-added to the Teachings article by him diff. See recent discussion here: Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#To which he alone holds the keys?, so you may want to discuss that with Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 1 untrue it is there

ad 2. all taught by direct representatives of Maharaji, so true

ad 3. Sourced at the moment Prive Maeve only, but Melton says more or less the same, so not poorly sources at all

ad 4. disagree. You can interpret this positively as well as negatively.

Andries (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 3: it would be helpful if you could indicate which Melton (book, page number and/or quote...), so that this source can be added too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 3. "At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj.." from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1986; Andries (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Andries -- to address your 4 responses to my points--

1) It's only on the Teachings page because YOU added it two days ago!! I guess, technically that satisfies WP:Summary but all of these same problems with the statement apply there as well. We should remove the statement there as well.

2) Direct representatives of Maharaji? No. I think we all agree that his brother SatPal is NOT a direct representative of Prem Rawat; they split in an acrimonious lawsuit in 1975 and run competing organizations. I also noted that a thousand mahatmas no longer under Prem Rawat are in India, knowing these techniques to teach, ditto disciples of Sapuranand, (sp?) etc. None are direct representatives of Prem Rawat.

3) Maeve Price is quoting devotees' beliefs, not saying it's true. Melton in fact proves my point; I'm surprised you cite him. In the 1992 edition of that same encyclopedia, the full quote is this: "At initiation, an instructor (formerly called a mahatma), the personal representative of Maharaji Ji, introduces new members to four yogic techniques, all of which are quite common within Sant Mat circles, though equally unknown to the average person, even to the average Indian." In fact Melton himself goes on to describe the four techniques in detail! It does not build confidence in your position that you quoted Melton in such an abbreviated, unrepresentative manner even after a polite request for details on that source.

4) I don't follow you. You think promotion and salesmanship for Rawat is positive? Not on Misplaced Pages it isn't. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Msalt (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 2. irrelevant, no longer connected to Rawat. What is important Rawat's claim that either he or his direct representative are necessary for success in meditation

ad 3. No, I do not think so, if you read it well

ad 4. Stating this is not salesmanship, but only highlighting a remarkable and I believe essential trait of Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital~.

Andries (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ad 4. Suppose that Microsoft claimed that there were no other parties for Operating systems, not just claiming that they supply the best operating systems. Even though e.g. Linux is available. That would be strange and remarkable and iif mentioned in reputable sources should be mentioned in the article Microsoft. It does not have to be interpreted as mere salesmanship. It can also be interpreted as something negative, depending on your outlook. Andries (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As I discussed with Andries on my talk page, I believe he is making a very different point that what appears in the article(s), at least to my eyes, and I am hard pressed to see how the nuance of his point can be captured without becoming advocacy either for or against Rawat. My opinion is that it is better left alone. If anything, we should add a comment in the article noting that Rawat is teaching Knowledge, which is also taught by many Indian teachers (as Melton says). Msalt (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "noting that Rawat is teaching Knowledge, which is also taught by many Indian teachers (as Melton says)" is a not quite right. Many gurus do teach knowledge but Rawat is the one who is teaching "Knowledge".Momento (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

May be I am making a very somewhat different point on your talk page as here. But if the reputable sources come somewhat near to my observations and opinions then I propose using the statements in the sources and not omitting them, only because the nuance of what I say cannot be grasped by merely relying on the sources. Andries (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And what if the reputable sources don't come "somewhat near to your observations and opinions", Andries? Do you then propose not using "the statements in the sources"?Momento (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How often have you see me arguing for removing statement that are sourced to reputable sources that I do not like or agree with? Very rarely or never. The same cannot be said about you. Andries (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Andries, I was discussing your edit proposal, not you.Momento (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

IRR

Francis Schonken, you appear to have reverted twice in a few minutes. Please self revert.Momento (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is *really* difficult to make revisions with the long footnotes. The markup is atrocious. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection and RFAR

I've asked this page to be protected because of the slow edit wars now, 1rr has failed. You all should file RFAR and ASAP. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been initiated: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Prem Rawat --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Sylviecyn not listed as an involved party please? Or John Brauns for that matter? PatW (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• John has been added by Jossi in the mean while.
• I'll ask Sylviecyn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the protocol of proceedings like this. Are those of us named as involved parties expected to comment on the request for arbitration? I see that some but not all have. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, proceedings thus far are only on whether or not the case gets accepted by the ArbCom. Seems like it is going to be, so "unless there are further developments" (as the appointed clerck noted) it will get accepted tonight. Only if you want to influence that (e.g. make really, really sure they accept, or alternatively want to try to prevent it gets accepted) comments are not necessary. When the case opens, you'll have the opportunity to present "evidence" and/or propose ideas in the "workshop". (example of an "evidence" page of a recently opened case; example of a "workshop" page of the same recently opened case - see also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that is very helpful. I was reading the statements on there and it almost looked as is participants felt a need to declare where they stood. I'll wait for the arbitration itself. Msalt (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lede, Reception, and a footnote...

The last sentence in the lede refers to the criticism of Rawat's extravangant lifestyle, somehow the section of the article this is summarizing seems to have been edited out, we need to re-include that somehow/somewhere. Secondly, the last sentence of the Reception section doesn't quite make sense, as it says he was no less charismatic, and yet unremarkable, these 2 phrases seem at odds with each other in the same sentence. At the very least, it's unclear whether that's a criticism, or a praise, or both. Thirdly (and yes, I could have broken this up into 3 sections!) I think the footnote on the Time article is incorrect, according to my sources, the article in Time, entitled "Junior Guru" was from Nov. 27, not Nov.2, 1972. Comments? Maelefique (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I almost hate to bring this up again, but...(but it seems we have some time for discussion right now anyway!)

Regarding the Time article, and referring to our sentence in the PR article, we currently have "in November 1972, Time Magazine reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship" and what Time said was "The Maharaj Ji's mother and three older brothers literally worship him, kissing his "lotus feet" whenever they are in his presence". Our version seems to imply it was done once to demonstrate something, possibly to their Western audience, however the Time article says that they did it every time they saw him. That is a big difference of context, and I know we talked about this sentence before, and I didn't have a problem with it then, and on the grounds that were given, I still don't. However, on looking at this more closely, I see this major contextual difference that I did not notice earlier. The argument given before was that the phrase "whenever they are in his presence" was not needed, as it is difficult to kiss one's feet if they are not present. That's true, however, by removing that phrase you also remove the fact that this was done continually. The current wording does not reflect that, and certainly skews and reduces it's meaning/significance. Maelefique (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including the phrase "whenever they are in his presence." It's reported in a reliable source and is indeed, factual concerning Rawat's family. If editors don't like the term "presence" I don't see any problem with using, "everytime they were with him," or something to that effect. Well spotted! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics