Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:10, 31 January 2007

India Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

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.

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 July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged)

A MATTER OF CONCERN

Text moved to User_talk:Gstaker ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied to you in your talk page at User_talk:Gstaker I would encourage other editors to respond in user Gstaker talk page, rather than here. Let's keep this page to discuss the article. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, jossi. I am taking time out to fully examine the guidelines you have provide, and other Misplaced Pages material. --Gstaker 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Named Critic of Prem Rawat

Text moved to User_talk:Nik Wright2

Proposed additions

Main article (criticism)

The Elan Vital organisation has published an affidavit which claims to identify members of an active 'critics' group of Ex premies. Of those named one - Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html. Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists but commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat: http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ and http://prem-rawat-critique.org/

Criticism Article

Elan Vital, in an FAQ article about opposition to Prem Rawat and his message, claims that there is a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Prem Rawat, his students, and their organisation. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations.[24

Of those named one, Nick (sic) Wright has written a response to the affidavit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html Wright (writing on the Discussion page of this article) rejects any notion that an organised 'Hate Group' of former followers of Rawat exists and commends two sources which he considers broadly representative of his views of Prem Rawat. http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ and http://prem-rawat-critique.org/

Nik WrightNik Wright2 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chat rooms and sites such as these are not reliable sources for Misplaced Pages, and Nick Wright is not a notable person that warrants an inclusion of his name in this article. (no disrepect intended see Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the affidavit in question, it was not "published" by Elan Vital, it is a court record. In any case, we are not linking to that affidavit from any of the articles (and if it is it should be removed) as court papers, unless referred to by a published secondary sources, cannot be included in Misplaced Pages articles. Based on these principles, if I recall correctly, mention of these affidavits as well as accusations of "hate group" have been all removed from these articles. I see no reason to change that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked this and and related article and there are no links to the affidavit you refer to. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A Named Critic of Prem Rawat

http://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat

24 ^ Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey leads to:

http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm

which carries http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf

Whether this link is removed or not there are numerous other links to Elan Vital all which interlink with the general claims about ex premies and specifically identifying me. I didn't ask for this notability - it's been conferred upon me by Misplaced Pages linking to Elan Vital. The resolution is an either or - either all the Elan Vital links on wikipedia go - or the links I've referenced come in. If you you want to play a game of officious bureaucracy that's up to you, it's familiar territory for me so I guess we'll find out just what wikipedia is made of. If you want to discuss form of words fine - but the issue of links is not debatable given that my involvement is purely because of previous choices made by wikipedia editors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As said above, there is no direct link to that affidavit as an affidavit is a primary source about a third-party and as such, cannot be linked from this article per Misplaced Pages content policies. Note that the affidavit was made by a third-party and not by Elan Vital, so any complaints you may have about statements that include your name should be made to that third-party, and not here. Elan Vital is a related organization so links to it are relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

For those contributing for the first time, please note that these pages are not a discussion forum, or a place to engage in discussions about our opinions, personal experiences, personal problems, legal disputes, etc. Talk pages are exclusively designed to discuss the article, and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I intend to move I have moved personal material and other comments not related specifically to this article, from this talk page to the respective user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Please fix the introduction to this article so that it clearly states who this person is and what he does. Proper encyclopedia articles do not begin with "John Doe was born on August 15, 1963." and then proceed into a narrative of the person's life. —Centrx→talk • 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding a sentence, like "He is a teacher of four meditation techniquest that he calls Knowledge.". It is difficult to be precise because both Rawat and his followers (who edit here too) prefer to be vague. Andries 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"four meditation techniquest" is meaningless to the general reader. It has to be something like religious or spiritual leader or teacher. —Centrx→talk • 11:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He was described as a leader (de facto, de jure, figure head) of a new religious movement (Divine Light Mission) in scholarly sources, but he changed his presentation significantly and has now become rather obscure. I do not know how he is described now. Andries 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "has now become obscure." You can read what notable people have said about him in the last couple of years at . We had a discussion about the lead a few weeks back, and we reached no consensus on how to describe Prem Rawat in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And as a result of the lack of concensus the lead is still vague and lousy, as repeated complaints from non-involved contributors, like user:Centrx prove. Andries 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The current lead is not the best, I agree, but it is neither vague nor "lousy". It is too long, for one. We have agreement that the lead needs work, and we have agreement that we need to redo it. We also agree that first we wanted to address points raised by editors before we get to work on the lead. Nevertheless, we could resume the conversation about the lead now, if that would be fruitful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So much for consensus, Andries. Why is that that you refuse to seek consensus and continue to assert your ideas rather than reach agreement with other editors? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we will never reach consensus so the article will always remain in a poor state. I think it is better to make edits that clearly make improve the article even if there is no consensus regarding the exact wording. Andries 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

My edits clearly addressed the objections raised by Pjacobi and Centrx. If you disagree with them please try to explain why and please do not attack the edits only by referring to the lack of consensus. Thanks. Andries 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That response is disingenuous, Andries, and avoids addressing the fact that we had agree to a certain process, which you obviously wish to ignore. Pjacobi and Cetrx provided input that we need to fix the lead, and we agreed to do so. There is no disagreement on that. You could have made a proposal for that addition, and we could have discussed it, but you chose, yet again, to act unilaterally. In my view, you do not define a person for what he was 20 or 30 years ago, in the first line of a biography's lead, but, rather, for what he is. You can mention what he was, later on as it was done in the previous version of the lead, before your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no reputable sources for what he is now, because he is too obscure now so we have to write what he was. Andries 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And also why not introduce the Knowledge by saying that they are four mediation techniques? Why being so unnecessarily vague? Why do you think that my edit in this respect made the article worse? Andries 17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, your reply contradicts Misplaced Pages generally accepted practices. The first sentence should describe why a person is notable and it is fine to describe him what s/he was when s/he was still notable. See e.g. Jimmy Carter. Andries 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

<<<<outdent (ed conflict) I would also kindly ask that you refrain for making overly positive judgments about your own edits. If these edits improve the article or not, is for the consensus of other editors to make. My view, for example, is that your last few edits do not improve the article, whatsoever. I also do not have such a pessimistic view as you do. I believe that collaboration between editors of opposing views, can produce good results, if there is goodwill and a shared interest in improving the article. Now, if you believe that there is no possibility of reaching consensus, then I would suggest that you do not participate in editing this article. You cannot assert your lack of confidence inthe ciollaborative editing process, by trumping consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Centrx voiced more or less the same objection as Pjacobi on 28 Aug. so how long do you think that it takes to reach consensus on the exact wording? Facts show that my pessimism is justified. Yes, I will continue to show this kind of editing behavior in the future too, because I think I have very good reasons for it. Andries 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User Centrx and Pjacobi raised concerns, and these can be addressed, if there the willingness to do so. Your attitude does not bode well, and I would suggest that you show some interest in collaborating with others, rather that asserting your own views whatever your reasons. As you well know, attitudes such as the one you are exhibiting only result in edit wars and accomplish absolutely nothing. So, please do not complain when edit wars ensue. Just remember who decided to act unilaterally and bypass the need to seek consensus when that happens. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Pjacobi and Centrx whether they think that my edit was an improvement. Andries 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I do not collaborate with others is completely untrue. I welcome discussions on the merit of my edits, but I oppose reverts and objections to my edits merely by referring to the lack of concensus because I think that that will not or hardly improve the article. Andries 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again we see Andries trying to insert his anti Prem Rawat bias into this article. Inserting PR "was described as the leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM), a now defunct new religious movement" is disgraceful. Why not put "was described as living in Miami " or "was described as one of the greatest representatives of the peace movement in the world". I am going to apply to have Andries banned from editing this article.Momento 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I wrote that because

1. because a very short summary was repeatedly requested by independent non-involved editors such as Centrx and Pjacobi.

2. It was backed up by several reputable source

3. It was and is the only thing for which he was notable.

I think my wording was very neutral and factual. Please try to get me banned from the article, because I think this article needs more eye-balls. Andries 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your actions speak louder than your voice, Andries. You have not given a chance to discuss this, and decided, based on your lack of trust of the collaborative nature of this project and the need for consensus, to act unilaterally. We had an agreement to work on the lead and to make it better and shorter. You do not seem to want that, and are acting as if you were a neutral editor, which it is obviously not the case. Pjacobi and Centrx made very good observations, that we can address as editors interested in this article. I invite you to discuss edits, rather than act unilaterally. If you find yourself reverted because you chose not to engage in discussions, do not be surprised. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I have extensively explained my edits and given detailed rebuttals to your sparse and not very well motivated objections. I hope that you can show that you are sincerely interested in improving the article and constructive collobaration by discussing the quality of the edits. I have shown already that I am. Andries 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did I make this agreement? I think you misremember. Andries 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note that in the recent peer review, the issue of the lead was also raised, so there were other eyeballs that addressed that point. I am positive that with a less confrontational attitude, the lead can be improved upon. And of course, I continue to disagree with your assessment of notability, for reasons already expressed several times in other discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only notice that you do not address the quality of my edits but merely refert to procedures. Andries 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree about the lack of current notability then please explain why he received much more media coverage in the past then now? This is also described by Hunt whose writing you yourself copied here. Andries 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Notablity is by no means just measured by press coverage in the West, Andries. He had a status of "celebrity" when he arrived to the West as a 13-year-old guru, and the media attention was based on that fact. As you probably know, he was interviewed by Rajiv Mehrotra on his weekly talk show on Doordarshan just a few months ago. (FYI, Maholtra is the equivalent of Larry King in India.) If he was not notable, as you assert, he would not have been interviewed. by Mehrotra There are many more indications of notability besides that, unrelated to the 70's, that you can read in the article. This opinion that Prem Rawat was only notable in the 70's is one of a litany of asserttions made by detractors that you may have been listening too much to, given your association with them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And if he was still notable how come that there is in most cases not a single newspaper article about him when he speaks in a certain place or country? It used to be different. Andries 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure it was different then. The media frenzy around a 13-year-old boy guru is no longer warranted. 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento, to answer your question.

Why not put a. "was described as living in Miami " or b. "was described as one of the greatest representatives of the peace movement in the world".

ad a. because that did not make him notable

ad b. because I do not have multiple scholarly sources for this statement and even if it can be sourced then it strikes me a subjective and hence not suitable in the lead section.

Andries 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not remember to have agreed to have the lead untouched. Tgubler agreed with this. Not me. It seems that you try to remind me of an agreement that I never made. Andries 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No one agreed to leave the lead untouched. Theres is agreement by all involved and non-involved editors that the lead needs improving. I am sure that it can be worked out, if we apply ourselves to do this. I would suggest that we refer to the WP:LEAD guideline when evaluating this. As for your last deletion, I would argue that it is a pertinent statement that gives the necessary context. If the intention is to inform readers, why not to afford them the content necessary to understand such statement? Now, if the intention is to shock, that is better left to sensationalist tabloids. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, and it is our responsibility as editors to provide context when needed. 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that context is needed by reputable sources. The context is that Rawat never gave this context, so it should not be in the article. Elan Vital does not qualify as a reputable source for this article because it is formally unrelated to this article. Nevertheless, it may qualify as reputable source for organizational issues, but it is certainly not a reputable source for general statements about gurus, India, and Hinduism. The statement that "Gurus is greater than God" is a common statement in India voiced by Elan Vital is untrue. Andries 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not a reliable source for information about Hinduism. There is no disagreement there. But my argument is that it is a statement by a related organization explaining their view that that is a common statement in India. We are not asserting that it is true, or that is false. Only that that is Elan Vital's view in respect to statements that were made 30 odd years ago. BTW, I disagree that it is untrue. I know from personal experience that statements such as these are commonly made in India, particularly in the Northern parts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of the reply by Prem Rawat "Guru is greater than God" was not intended to shock but I included it to correct selective quoting that downplayed his responsibility of the faith of his followers in his divinity. Andries 23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What selective quoting do you refer to? I only see one quotation there and that is that one.All others were moved to the footnotes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the description of denials of his divinity that he gave in the media when asked. When asked in other places he did not give such denials. See e.g. here from the book the Living Mastery written by Guru Maharaj Ji

Q:Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God-consciousness?

A:Yes. I am permanently in God-consciousness.

Q:Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth?

A:You yourself must realize the truth.

And further from (from a question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972

Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?

Maharaji: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter).

She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.

Andries 10:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be different if the DLM had given this context more or less at the time when he said it, but now it seems like retrospective apologist unscholarly untrue assertion voiced by his fan club to explain away an embarassing past. Andries 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of these are your ungrounded opinions, that are of absolutely no consequence to this article. Rather than reply to your opinions with mine, and bust talk-page discipline in the process by converting this page into a discussion forum, I kindly ask you to keep your assessments to yourself. These comments are not helpful, unless you consider the obvious anti-Rawat bias that you espouse to be useful in assessing your edits and intentions for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t •

@ 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that my assesment and classification of Elan Vital's statement that gurus is greater than God is commonplace is of no consequence to this article. My comment was on topic. Such statements by Elan Vital about general aspects of gurus and Hinduism should have no place in this article. Andries 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A clearer rebuttal from the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" is "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk".

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 2, 1971. Can we use this?Momento 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because it will lead to a quote war that we have seen before. The quote that you want to insert seems to contradict Rawat's repeatedly voiced faith in avatara. This quote seems to me quote mining and when others with an opposing POV quote mine too then the quotes in the articles will become endless. Scholarly summaries of his teachings are fine and may be quotes selected by scholars, but highly selective quotes from his many teachings and speeches cannot be used for this article. Andries 08:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, he Rawat seems to contradict this quote in his peace bomb satsang where he expressed faith in the concept of avatara as can be read hereunder.

"In the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord says that whenever religion becomes corrupted and evil increases, He takes a human body and manifests in this world to destroy evil and to protect His devotees. All of you must know very well what is happening to religion and Knowledge in the materialistic age. All the time, the latest models are being built, the latest fashions are being designed. Day by day men are striving to improve the quality and appearance of their inventions. And today I have to say with sorrow that the Knowledge which was once firmly established in this land of India has been slowly disappearing. But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and then manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world."

Andries 11:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death in many previous discussions, and I do not see the benefit if doing another pass at that. You speak of selective quotes to push a certain interpretation, but you do yet the same thing here. The same satsang ends with: That can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. So, let's not get into OR and try to assert our opinions (to which, of course we are entitled to). We have plenty of scholarly sources that refers to the divinity aspects, that we are using in the article already. The chronological set of quotes at Wikiquote makes a good effort of providing an insight into the evolution of the presentation of Prem Rawat's message. Let's stay within the boundaries of a biographical account of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is doesn't seem to contradict, it absolutely contradicts your incorrect interpretatiion. And "The Ruston Daily Leader" isn't a scholarly publication? Could you remove the quote you inserted Andries or will I do it?Momento 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because that is a media publication too. Then we should remove all media publications. Andries 20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of the media seems a good idea to me. Their contribution to this article is often biased and inaccurate. Since the subject is claims of "divinity", it is only fitting that PRs frequent and unambiguous denial should be represented.Momento 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any scholarly source that denied that Prem Rawat made personal claims of divinity. Andries 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even though he denied being "God" publicly many times, most "scholars" choose to omit it. Instead, they say he made claims of "divinity" and in its strictest sense, divine means associated with or derived from God (: the divine right of kings). It doesn't mean "is god". So PRs claims of "divinity" amount to him saying something like - a true Guru's legitimacy derives from his "association" with God or that what he gives "derives" from God. Claims of "divinity" have nothing to do with claiming to be God. Therefore we must take care not to confuse the issue.Momento 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For Andries' benefit, the following comment should help to clarify the meaning of the term "Lord of the universe" and the way in which the term was used in the 1970s.
The term is meaningless. There was never any generally understood definition. It was a vague term of endearment, perhaps invented by someone who had read too much science fiction. In his 1972 answer to the question you cite above, he appears to equate the expression with the hindi term "satguru" (true guru). You should take the following factors into account: 1. There is no generally accepted definition of the term. 2. A scholarly article or discussion cannot be based on meaningless terms. 3. At the time of the interview, Prem Rawat had been in the West only a short time. His command of English left a lot to be desired. 4. He never announced that he was the Lord of the Universe. --Gstaker 04:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To me the term Lord of the Universe sounds like an exact translation of Jagannath. Andries 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As his followers often used the term and as it was used regularly in the press (I have 40 such references in press articles I have collected) and as I recall the DLM even produced a movie by that name starring the young Prem Rawat and there was a TV documentary made about him with that title, it seems particularly appropriate for this article. While a definitive definition of exactly what it means could never achieve consensus there is little doubt that the general meaning was instantly recognisable to anyone. Tgubler 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. PR described himself in the 70s and 80s as a "Perfect Master", "Guru Maharaji" and "Satguru". If he wanted to describe himself as "Jagannath", "God" or "His Supreme Radiance", he would have. "Lord of the Universe". "Boy Guru", "Child God" are what other people have called him.Momento 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This Article

I've taken a few more weeks to do further research in the newspaper archives to ensure I haven't been accepting sources that aren't verifiable and might disagree with the most reputable sections of the press. I now have around 300 articles dealing with Prem Rawat from newspapers of record such as the New York Times and the Times of London, the Wire Services: Associated Press and United Press International and other papers of repute such as the Guardian, The Washington Post, the Australian, der Spiegel, the Los Angeles Times, the Brisbane Courier Mail, the Melbourne Age and even the tabloids such as the Daily Mail.

The information and views these newspapers published in these articles about Prem Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji and Maharaji are in complete harmony and agreement through the decades and across the continents. They also agree with the nearly 50 magazine articles published in a range of magazines from Time and Newsweek to Ramparts to Rolling Stone, Playboy and People of which I have copies. The research of Stephen Kent in the archives of the U.S. alternative press of the 1970's shows it was only slightly different to the mainstream press, being harsher in it's criticisms. I have only begun my search of the academic journals but the articles I have already read, while different in tone and emphasis, also agree with the the newspaper and magazine articles. I have copies of the following books, some only in electronic format, most in hard copy:

Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? - Charles Cameron (ed) Sacred Journeys - James V. Downton, Jr. From Slogans To Mantras - Stephen Kent CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion - Marc Galanter All God's Children THE CULT EXPERIENCE - Carrol Stoner and Jo Anne Parke Baba: Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Yogi - Rampuri Cults: What Parents Should Know - Joan Carol Ross, Michael D. Langone The Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia - edited by Margaret Smith and David Crossley Between Dark and Dark - David Lovejoy Soul Rush - Sophie Collier The Living Master - Prem Rawat Holi 78 - Guru Maharaji Hans Yog Prakash - Shri Hans Ji Maharaj Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - editor, C. L. Tandon

Their stories, told in much greater detail and including some direct academic research of the members of Divine Light Mission, support the picture in the press and magazines and the academic articles. I also have photocopied pages dealing with Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital from various Dictionaries and Encyclopedias of Religions, Cults and NRMs that I have found in major state libraries and the National Library of Australia. While I am anxious to hear of any further resources dealing with the career of Prem Rawat, even those that are not suitable to be used in Misplaced Pages, I believe I already have adequate information to say that this article does not portray the same career of Prem Rawat's as do these sources.

I now intend to begin improving those sections of the article I raised a few weeks ago with better verifiable sources. Unfortunately there are at least 3 editors here who may consider these edits to protray Prem Rawat's life differently to the way they would like. However, I have not made up these sources, they are the verifiable, reputable sources that this encyclopedia's policies call for. To simplify matter I will make edits directly and if there is any controversy we can discuss and improve as we go along. If anyone has prior objections I am hapy to hear from them. Tgubler 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said several times, this article is too long. I will generally support editing that reduces the length. I will not support substituting facts with opinion, no matter how learned. And I certainly will not support editing without prior discussion on this page.Momento 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already posted the sections I consider need changing and I have discussed the Wiki policies that need to be adhered to. There is much in this article that does not come from appropriate sources and when we remove that the article will be shortened not that I think it is necessarily too long. While Rawat himself is unimportant and a minor guru his story is interesting as being one of the most ridiculed and controversial of the 1970's gurus and so deserves more length than it otherwise might. Please remember that our opinions are not appropriate as sources of Wiki articles. Poorly sourced controversial material from followers or critics of Prem Rawat has no place here. Tgubler 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(a) There is not material in this article that is not properly sourced as per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If there is, please point it out so that it can addressed; (b) Please keep your opinions of the subject to yourself, unless your intentions are to provoke, that is; and (c) Just in case you forgot that very basic premise, the decision of what needs to be included in the article is a decision that will need to be made by the consensus of editors and not yours alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento, there is no such rule that new additions first have to be discussed. Andries 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a rule Andries. Please refrain from distorting my comments.Momento 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You do behave as if there is such a rule when you revert new additions with the only justification that they were undiscussed. Andries 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are not new to Misplaced Pages and I am sure thta you understand the importance of discussions and consensus, in particular in articles bout which there are string opinions. If you do not believe that discussions and consensus are important, please let everybody know, so at least we know were you stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When you read the talk page incl. the archives it will be clear that I have extensively discussed edits and the article. However in correspondence with the generally accepted practice of Misplaced Pages I do not have to discuss new additions to this article that were never discussed before and I will not do so. I will discuss substantical re-structuring of the article before I make it. I do not consider it constructive to have extensive discussions about editing procedures for this article. Andries 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, you may chose to take that route, but do not be surprised when your edits are challenged. This article is not a new article, and it had had the input on many editors over more that two and a half years. Of course, if new relevant material is found it could be added, if it adds anything of substance to the article, is not a duplicate of existing material, and enhances the article. That is were consensus is needed. You may not consider seeking consensus to be constructive, and again, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tgubler: I welcome your effort in researching material, but note that research has been already performed by many editors. Most, if not all the sources that you describe, have been used in this and other related articles. Also, note that you have reaised 20 points a few weeks ago, but for some reason, you have not chosen to continue these discussions. If you chose not to discuss your edits, and act unilaterally, do not be surprised if your edits are challenged. You may want to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, in case you have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note that most if not all of the books you mention as sources, are all from known "anti-cult" protagonists, some of which are quite controversial. There are many other sources that refer to the DLM and Prem Rawat, that are more neutral and accurate sources: These include: Andrew Kopkind, Charles H. Lippy, John Bassett McCleary, Ruth Prince and David Riches, Bryan R. Wilson, Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch, Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, George D. Chryssides, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Sandra S. Frankiel, James Lewis, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, in your search for material that denigrates PR, you don't seem to have a problem combing through some obscure article written by some obscure religious bigot with a degree in psychology. But when it comes to reading the instructions pertaining to the use of this web site you DO seem to be visually challenged.

Go to the top of this page. In one of those baby-poo brown boxes you will see this: "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."

You will also see this: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." --Gstaker 14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS FARCE

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you an accurate assessment of The New Revised Version of an article on Prem Rawat.

AND SO IT CAME TO PASS that an article in a formerly reputable on-line encyclopedia was rewritten by an unemployed former bricklayer who gets his jollies by adding a daily dose of toxic diatribe to an on-line Hate Group forum.

Reduced to the level of gutter journalism usually associated with Pix, People and The Age, the article suffered a painful metamorphosis, emerging as a repository of tabloid dross scoured from publications featuring articles which are only marginally more credible than graffiti scrawled on a toilet wall.

TABLOID ARTICLES and LITIGATION Driven by the need for circulation and sales, tabloids and gossip magazines see Prem Rawat and EV as easy targets - subjects for sensational articles containing criticism that falls way outside the boundaries of reason and rationality. Journalist, John Macgregor, wrote a long, defamatory article about PR that was published in at least three Australian tabloids. Macgregor now refutes his own article and has apologized for writing it. So much for tabloid credibility.

To date, EV and PR have shown no interest in suing for defamation. That could very easily change. Its time that EV and PR started giving serious consideration to litigation. Well founded defamation suits have the potential to generate much needed income. --Gstaker 11:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gstalker, please Misplaced Pages:No legal threats ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

As there are new editors involved, that may not be fully aware of how this project works, I would like to re-assert the importance of civility, no personal attacks, the need for consensus, the understanding of what Misplaced Pages is not, and the importance of abiding by our content policies of neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you jossi. It seems that GStaker has no understanding of Wiki policies. He seems to be mistaking his personal views for the source material on which Biographies of Living Persons must be based. It would undoubtedly be better for you to help him as he will possibly be insulted by a former bricklayer attempting to teach him Misplaced Pages policies.Tgubler 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, we do not bite the newbies. I have explained Gstaker applicable policies and placed a warning on his talk page. That would really help is if you make an effort to avoid taunting and provoking by using this page to describe your negative opinion of the subject of this article, given the obviously very difficult situation you find yourself after having admitted in an affidavit that you were involved in stealing computer data "for the purpose of harassing and harming Prem Rawat and his students". So, keep it cool, discuss the article but not the subject, and be aware that you are in a very precarious situation as it pertains to contributing to this and related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that stating a negative opinion was taunting or provoking. I am as cool as a cucumber that is in the refrigerator and I'd prefer that you stop making comments about my supposed state of mind. I am not in a difficult situation. I have never admitted "stealing computer data". I have admitted signing a false affidavit under pressure I considered to be blackmail. However, that was 3 years ago. I haven't thought about that in years. But I'm glad you've brought it up. If you consider that this invalidates any possible editing I do on this article or any others then you should immediately bring it to the attention of the appropriate Wiki officers and have a ruling made.

I note that a series of newspaper articles about Prem Rawat have been posted on http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/. Should there be any question in any editor's mind about the verifiability of any newspaper articles I quote then they can relieve such stress by a quick look there.

As there ahve been complaints about the introducitno to this articles I suggest we should edit it and it seems to me that firstly we should use a similar introduction to those in the reputable encylopedias of religions, cults and new religious movements currently available. While I am sure we wish to improve upon their articles it seems to be a good start to do something similar based upon reputable, verfifiable sources that are not original research or based upon the subject's representatives contentious and self-serving, unverifiable sources. Tgubler 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ask some neutral administrators to look into your situation. As for the article's lead, see WP:LEAD. First, we should attempt to resolve the issues raised by you and others, and then when we have accomplished that we can attempt to develop a lead that summarizes the article in the best manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What would also help is rather than making the same statements about "contentious and self-serving unverifibale sources" repeatedly, that you point these out so that they can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Both editors here have acknowledged prior involvements with and interest in the subject. Let's take that as a given and avoid making any further personal remarks. Antagonistic off-wiki remarks aren't helpful either. I don't think this article is unreasonably long (4600 words excluding footnotes). Note that it's part of a set, Category:Prem Rawat, that also includes Criticism of Prem Rawat. That article was created to avoid unbalancing this article with verifiable criticisms. Otherwise the usual Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines apply, as mentioned above. If COI editors find consensus on the talk page for new or altered material then there shouldn't be a problem. If TG (or anyone else) has specific proposals for changing the intro then let's see what common ground we can find. -Will Beback · † · 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Will for your intervention. TGubler has raised 20 points of concern about the article and the proposal on the table is that we take one at the time, and try to to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction. Once these points have been addressed we can easily undertake revising the lead to the article, that we all have agreed needs tightening as per WP:LEAD. There is no doubt that it will not be an easy task, but I am confident that with a lot of patience, and if editors engage in constructive discussions and avoid making negative statements on or off wiki about other editors or about the subject of the article, enough good will can be created that we can take contributions in good faith and end up with a better article we can all feel proud about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is good that we got that out of the way. I will commence the edits shortly once I finish ensuring the sources I use are available for any editors to verify quickly and easily on-line. However I would also like to point out that as well as adding and changing various points there does appear to me to be much positive poorly sourced statements about Prem Rawat in this article and possibly some editors have not realised this because their own original research into Prem Rawat's "Knowledge" has given them unWiki-ish opinions of his life. Tgubler 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see that you have understood the advise given to you about your conflict of interest. See your User talk page and the comments made here by Will: You need to make your contributions to the talk page and seek consensus and not edit the article directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think that TGubler has a conflict of interest and he is free to edit this article. Andries 11:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree all you want, Andries, and no one will be surprised that you do. But you may have missed the warning given by Jayjg (who is an ArbCOm member) in Tgubler talks page. If needed be, I can ask additional neutral administrators to comment, but after seeing the comments by Will and Jay, I do not see it as necessary. Nevertheless, he can contribute to this article by way of the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And an extra reminder not to make any type of assessments or comments on other editors motives or understanding. You will be ill advised to continue making these type of statements, given your situation and the advise given to you by neutral administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi and Will for your input and advice. It seems that my honest and plainly stated expression of concern has created a degree of controversy. I did not come here with the intention of disrupting proceedings. Frankly, given the current state of PR articles after 2 years of editing, I do not share your faith in Misplaced Pages's processes, however, I will endeavor to follow to the rules, such as they are. Hopefully, something acceptable will emerge. --Gstaker 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see VictorO has inserted "to people living in ashrams". Whilst I agree that the previous quote was wrong, what is our policy regarding incorrect but well sourced material?:Momento 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We can choose not to use well-sourced material, but if it is used then it is not allowed to distort it. Andries 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the original inaccurate quote was inserted by you Andries, maybe you should take it out?Momento 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So Much To Learn About Wiki policies

and so little time to keep up even with this discussion page let alone the numerous linked pages. However the discussion on sources here is particularly interesting and it has brought to my attention the need to have a discussion and possibly a ruling on much of the unsourced and poorly sourced material on these and related pages.

As a simple statement of fact, without any intention to "taunt" other editors as jossi mistakenly accused me of before, Prem Rawat's career based on the reputable, verifiable sources is a simple one of exceptional claims made by and for him in the early 70's, an ephemeral success in attracting devotees, the loss of most of his followers, an increasing emphasis in the late 70's on personal devotion to him by his remaining followers and then the closing down of his organisations and public proselytisation, the Eastern "trappings" were jettisoned, the change of name to Elan Vital and obscurity. Later mentions of him in the reputable press talk of him as one of the 70's controversial gurus with a remnant following.

Much of the Wiki pages relating too Prem Rawat seems to me to contravene the policies for Biographies of Living Persons, especially those sections quoted below. I also note that Jimbo Wales feels so strongly about this removal of unsourced material, positive or negative, that the 3 reverts rule does not apply. Naturally this would impact on these pages so greatly that I'd like to discuss it first. I will be away from a computer for the next 4 days but look forward to jossi's thoughts.

Firstly, Prem Rawat is a living and controversial person about whom exceptional claims are made that Wiki requires has exceptional evidence to verify it. Evidence about Prem Rawt's attributes and life that is sourced from the subject or a representative of said subject (ie TPRF, EV, etc) needs to meet certain standards else it should be immediately removed.

It seems to me that any claims that Prem Rawat can reveal inner peace or is attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace emanting from himself or his representatives (ie organisations dedicated to promoting his teachings or his "students" that do not meet the exceptional claims require exceptional evidence policies should be immediately removed. I haven't read or heard anything like this in any reputable Australian media. Is Prem Rawat being written about in the NY or London Times and I'm missing it out here in Queensland?

I'm wondering if maybe I'm not reading these policies correctly and I'd enjoy hearing some feedback and criticism. I don't want to create any controversy on Wiki if I'm mistaking the underlying situation and Wiki policies.

Main article: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Unsourced or poorly sourced questionable material, whether negative or positive, in articles about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

   * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
   * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
   * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character,
     embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously
     defended.
   * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the
     prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly
     careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

Using the subject as a source

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

   * It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
   * It is relevant to the person's notability;
   * It is not contentious;
   * It is not unduly self-serving;
   * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgubler (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you have a lot to learn about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, given your analysis above in which you selectively cite from some policies and some guidelines. I could selectively cite from policies to counter your assessment, but I will not do that. See Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering to get a glimpse of what I mean.

As said many times before, if you have any specific concerns that you want addressed (besides the 20 points you made a few weeks ago) let's hear them. The ensuing discussions may give you a chance to learn about how WP content policies are applied.

Before you consider removing any material from this or other articles based on your current understanding of policies and guidelines, note that each and every piece of text in this article is properly and meticulously sourced and in compliance with Misplaced Pages content policies. If you see any text that is not, I am sure that all involved editors would want to know so that it can be promptly addressed.

Lastly, and as expressed several times before, I would appreciate it if you discuss the article rather than the subject and refrain from using these pages to express your opinions of the subject. (a) We do not care about the opinions held by editors; (b) It does not help bettering the article; and (c) It does not create a conducive environment for editing. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tgubler wrote "It seems to me that any claims that Prem Rawat can reveal inner peace or is attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace emanting from himself or his representatives (ie organisations dedicated to promoting his teachings or his "students" that do not meet the exceptional claims require exceptional evidence policies should be immediately removed". Quite so. But there are no claims "that PR can reveal inner peace", nor that PR is " attracting record numbers of new followers or is a respected or renowned international teacher of peace".Momento 03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mishler

It is clear that Mishler's comments are "exceptional", that is "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". Mishler's claim that "he proposed to Maharaji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God and to live only off his own tax-free gifts instead of income from the missions", is directly contradicted by several quotes from PR in Wiki quotes. Mishler's claim that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol", is not supported by any other source. And since "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to biographies of living people", Mishler's comments should be removed for this reason alone. But in addition Wiki policy also comments about the "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view". Furthermore, under the subject of corroboration, Wiki says that if "The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination". And on the "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability". For all these reasons I am going to remove Mishler's comments from this article. It is obvious that they should never have been included in this article since they are exceptional, sensationalist claims without any corroboration by a biased source from 30 years ago who is not alive to discuss them. Mishler's sensationalist comments have been inserted in this article by members of the anti PR group, "The Ex-premies" with the sole intention of discrediting PR and promoting their POV.Momento 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be a lot more than well sourced, Andries. Momento 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that Mishler's comments are exceptional claims. Rawat was worshipped as divine being which he encouraged by many statements. Mishler's comments are in correspondence with that. I do not agree that Mishler's comments regarding alcohol use are uncorroborated. They are corroborated by Donner, Dettmers and the book by Sophia Collier. If the sources is old then the year should be mentioned so the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. The entry does not state or suggest that the comments that Mishler made then are still valid. Andries 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims are exceptional because only Mishler makes them and therefore they are "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". Your opinion on Donner and Dettmers is original research and Sophia Collier does not say PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". Mishler is a biased, uncorroborated source and therefore unacceptable in a biography of a living person. Mishler's claim that "he proposed to Maharaji to tell his followers plainly that he was not God" is in complete contrast to existing comments by PR. Here are four from Wiki quotes that directly contradict Mishler -

1: What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk. Electricity cannot give light. Only the bulb gives light, but electricity has to be put through the wire for the bulb to give light. It's power. Power cannot do anything; it has to be put through a medium. Yes? Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 2, 1971 2: People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy. Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971 3: When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 - Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge 4 :Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc. Rawat could not of been clearer. Mishler is clearly making his strory up. Wiki policy is that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages".Momento 10:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We have gone to this ad nauseam. Several religious scholars, like J. Gordon Melton, Reender Kranenborg, Reinhart Hummel, and Jan van der Lans and Frans Derks wrote that Rawat made claims of divinity. I have not found a religious scholar who denied that Rawat made claims of divinity. Read for example the statements by J. Gordon Melton, Reender Kranenborg, Reinhart Hummel, and Jan van der Lans, and David V. Barrett about this issue. I continue to disagree. Andries 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From the article Blinded by the Light by John Macgregor that appeared ppeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated September 21, 2002.

"The indefatigable Jim Heller tracked down Michael Dettmers, who'd managed Maharaji's assets, personal affairs and "presentation to the world" from 1975 till 1987. "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

Andries 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, Macgregor has sworn an affadavit which says - Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and/or the volunteer entities were cult like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. The implications are absolutely false and unfounded.Momento 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And even if my opinion about the sources are original research (which I tend to disagree with to a great extent), so what. It is the right and the duty of contributors to make good editorial choices. Original research in the article is not allowed, but personal opinions about the reputability of sources is okay. Andries 10:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of "divinity" which means "of, from, or like God or a god". It doesn't mean "god". Mishler's claim is unique and not supported by Melton etc. John Macgregor has legally recanted his article. And your obligation as an editor is to ignore your anti PR bias and recognise that Mishler's comments are sensationalist, biased, unsupported and questionable and therefore not suitable for a biography of living person.Momento 11:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a notice at the Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard about what I see as Momento's inappropriate repeated removal of sourced material from the talk page. Andries 08:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

...and despite the discussion there, and the excellent arguments made about the poor quality of the source and the selective quoting, you have re-inserted that material 17 times in this and other article. Do you thing that editwarring will resolve this? Highly unlikely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also peculiar, Andries, that you do not assist in reverting material that is not compliant, such as the recent reverts I had to perform. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editor, Edison (talk · contribs) who commented, was not exactly impressed by the "excellent arguments about the poor quality of the source and the selective quoting" and supported inclusion. Andries 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

...because he did not address the main point raised, that was never the reputability of the Washington Post as a source, but the selective quoting to avoid shattering the credibility of these statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your complaints that I selectively quoted are completely unjusstified because I have repeatedly offered to quote more from the Washington Post. Andries 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Edison commented after we had already discussed the selective quoting from the Washington Post, so he could have addressed that if s/he wanted. Andries 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the contention, Andries. When taken as a whole, these statements are in violation of WP:BLP, as these are poorly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All is sourced to a reputable source i.e. the Washington Post. How does it suddenly violate BLP when all is sourced to a reputable source? A reputable source does not suddenly becomes completely disreputable only because it contains a statement that one editor considers implausible. I often selectively cite sources i.e. writing down statements that I consider plausible and corroborated while omitting statements that I believe are uncorroborated. If I cannot cite corroborated statements from reputable sources that also contain statements that I consider uncorroborated or implausible then I have no reputable sources to cite from. Andries 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you are making a fundamental mistake. The source isn't the Washington Post, the source of the claims is Mishler. The WP quotes Mishler, it hasn't made its own investigation or corroborated Mishler. If the WP quotes a factory worker saying "This is a slave labor camp", it does not mean a) the WP is a slave labor camp or b) that the WP has determined that the factory is a slave labor camp. Quoting someone does not give legitimacy to the claim in any shape or form.Momento 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Elan Vital as a source

Since Elan Vital says - "In Australia, Elan Vital is a non-profit organisation that promotes Maharaji ’s message, coordinates events at which he speaks and provides information and materials" it is entirely appropriate that it makes comments and can be quoted regarding anti-Maharaji activities. In the same way Apple Computers can talk about and for Steve Jobs and be used as a source of material when writing about Steve Jobs.Momento 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's a simple, factual description which deosn't make any POV claims. If it said "fastest growing", "oldest", "biggest", etc. then those assertions would require independent sources, or be couched as "claimed"/"stated". -Will Beback · † · 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Will, the text in the article is "In an FAQ article about opposition to Maharaji and his message, Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them related to their illegal activities and motivations, and characterizes them as a 'hate group." This is clearly NOT a 'simple, factual description that is not making any POV claims'. The Elan Vital website is filled with inaccurate statements and downright lies in support of the image of Prem Rawat. This is why it is not a reputable source for this article. --John Brauns 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very different type of text than suggested above. It is the opinion of the subject (or his organization). Elan Vital is a legitimate source for the currect opinions of the subject. So long as they are attributed to the organization and characterized as opinions they should be permitted. -Will Beback · † · 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, apart from quotes from Rawat on Elan Vital's site, the opinions of the authors of the content on Elan Vital's sites do not appear to be those of the subject. In fact, all the FAQ's on EV's sites are anonymously written. The problem, Will, is that all contrary anti-Rawat opinions that are not backed up by 'reputable sources' have been expunged from Misplaced Pages. I accept that my site (ex-premie.org), and Dr. Mike Finch's site (mikefinch.com), may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's requirements for sources for biographies for living people, but to allow Elan Vital's anonymous opinions to be included in this and other articles, without balancing those opinions, seems to be against natural justice, and will clearly not help in reaching a NPOV article. I would appreciate advice on how to deal with this. --John Brauns 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Prem Rawat, not Mike Finch or John Brauns. Elan Vital is the organisation created by Prem Rawat to promote his message and as such has every reason to be a source for this article.Momento 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, Criticism of Prem Rawat is about the views of Mike Finch, John Brauns, and other critics. Some of this dispute seems to center on the appearance that criticism isn't being allowed. Perhaps the solution isn't in this article, but in the other. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is also a web site that is critical of the critics of Prem Rawat (http://www.one-reality.net/). So where do you stop? I can't really understand why there is a criticism section (Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin don't have them). I can only conclude that anti PR editors have insisted on them.Momento 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymously written? All FAQs that I have read in hundreds of sites do not have a "specific" author, but are considered to be the official viewpoint of the owner of the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

John, are the assertions that you'd like to source to other websites opinions or facts? Jossi, what's your advice? -Will Beback · † · 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Will, the assertions on my and other critical sites, are better corroborated than most reputable newspaper articles, but as I said, I accept that these sites may be unsuitable for Wiki BLP articles. Maybe this illustrates a weakness in Misplaced Pages guidelines, where an 'official' organisation supporting a notable living person can be quoted in that person's biography, but non-notable criticism cannot. --John Brauns 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My advise has been all the time that as per WP:RS, "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", a short mention of the material about the FAQ on "opposition" could be included here, at the Criticism article, or better, at the Elan Vital (organization) article. In the past we had a long section on this, coupled with rebuttals sourced to non-reliable sources. The compromise reached after a very long debate, was to remove all material and keep just a short sentence about the FAQ of Elan Vital without getting into details. I think that it is a good compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, surely you agree that presenting one side of a controversial debate, without allowing the other side a single word in reply, cannot be considered a 'good compromise'. I think a good compromise, complying with Misplaced Pages BLP guidelines, is to only allow sources that neutral observers can agree are unbiased sources. I am willing to agree that ex-premie.org and other anti-Rawat sites should not be used as sources for these articles, if sites controlled by Rawat's supporters are also excluded. Then the Rawat articles will be a true reflection of what the neutral public sees. Do you agree? --John Brauns 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood how Misplaced Pages works, John. The viewpoints of an organization can be described in an article about that organization, as these are indeed, "significant" (otherwise we should not have an article about that organization in Misplaced Pages). The criticism of notable scholars, can also be included as these are significant viewpoints as well. You speak of "two sides" of a controversial debate, but that is only your assessment as a detractor, in which you consider your opinion to be one side of the debate and the website of an organization that exist in various countries, that publishes materials, engages in humanitarian activities, organizes volunteer activities for hundreds of thousands of people in 82 countries to be the "other side" of the debate. But that is not necessarily the case. It has been already established in previous discussion in these pages that the opinions expressed in the various websites you own are the opinion of a few individuals. That does not make these few individuals "the other side" of a controversial debate. Don't get me wrong, please: you and others have their right to express your opinions (and you do!) in your personal webpages, and chatrooms and other fora, but these opinions would not be usable in Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I didn't follow the previous discussion, but although it might have been claimed that Rawat's critics are a 'few individuals', it certainly hasn't been established. If Misplaced Pages allowed links to http://ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm which contains a comprehensive library of press articles on Rawat, or the over 100 personal testimonies on ex-premie.org, or the over 400 ex-premies who have posted over the years on the forums, or the library of quotes and videos of Rawat that Elan Vital try to suppress, then it would be established that the ex-premie view of Rawat is the mainstream view. But I recognise I have to play by the rules if I want be in the game. So, Jossi, you accept that links to an organisation's website are appropriate to show the opinions of that organisation. This article is about Prem Rawat, who has no official relationship to Elan Vital, so do you agree that links to Elan Vital should be removed from this article, and from all articles except that for Elan Vital? Also, since you state that ex-premies are NOT significant, do you agree that links to Elan Vital's opinions should exclude links to their opinions on ex-premies?--John Brauns 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't mislead you Will Beback. The sentence I quoted above comes from the Elan Vital website and I quoted it to confirm that EV does provide information about Prem Rawat. As John Bruans points out this article says that Elan Vital claims etc. which characterizes their comments as opinions.Momento 10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I wrote above "I can't really understand why there is a criticism section (Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin don't have them). I can only conclude that anti PR editors have insisted on it". And I have just realised what an anomaly this is. Virtually every person, activity or idea has detractors, it is to be expected. To hold one view is implicitly a rejection of others. Most of the scholarly criticism of PR seems to come from old studies by obscure Catholic scholars! What a surprise! And to take Will Beback's point, why isn't there a section "Praise of Prem Rawat". Since most critics already appear in the article elsewhere, perhaps we should link to them there and not have a "Criticism of Prem Rawat": section at all.Momento 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, Momento, and as such it does not contain elements such as "praise of Prem Rawat", beyond these honors and acknowledgments forwarded by notable people. Encyclopedic articles contain significant viewpoints, as editors have contributed to this article in the belief that what is included in the article are indeed significant viewpoints, based on sources deemed reputable. This, of course, include whatever criticism has been forwarded, if that criticism is well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point but the articles on the Maharishi and Shri Chimnoy don't have a criticism section although plenty of criticism is available on the net. I would rather call any scholarly reviews "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" rather than "criticism" as this allows for the inclusion of the many scholarly reviews that are not critical. As it stands there is no mention of scholarly reviews that are not critical and that to me is biased.Momento 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I agree with you that not only should the criticism section of this article be removed, but that the 'Criticism of Prem Rawat' article should be combined with the Prem Rawat article without specifying whether any piece of information is critical or not. The article should just quote reputable sources without any value judgement. I disagree that references to such reputable sources should be identified as 'further reading' - further to what? Non-reputable sources? I'm not up for the merge, but if anyone is, and they will ensure that all scholarly and other reliable sources are retained, then I would support just one article. --John Brauns 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Further reading" means "if you would like to read further about this subject". What ever the subhead, the first sentence could be "Over the years Prem Rawat has been mentioned in articles and books by many religious and social scholars. Authors and texts are listed in chronological order - Aardvark (Dictionary of Beliefs & Religions, pp.145 - 1973) Abercrombie (Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428 - 1973) etc. I am not interested in listing the miriad of newspaper and magazine articles that vary from the reasonable to the absurd.Momento 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, surely you agree that the entire article should be sourced from scholarly or other reliable sources, not just the content you envisage linking to in the sub-section you envisage. Are you suggesting that any well-sourced critical content be totally removed apart from a reference in 'Further reading'? --John Brauns 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather call any scholarly reviews "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" rather than "criticism" as this allows for the inclusion of the many scholarly reviews that are not critical. As it stands there is no mention of scholarly reviews that are not critical and that to me is biased.Momento 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you are missing my point. If you have a section called "scholarly reviews" or "further reading" what would be the source of the rest of the article? --John Brauns 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article remains as is, a neutral collection of undisputable facts. My point is that the "opinion" or "criticism" section is inherently biased since it only contains negative opinions from scholars. Space should also be given to non-negative scholars. But since there are so many sources it would be necessary to limit them to brief references and links where availabel.Momento 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I also support merging the two articles. I also want note that Jossi's support for inclusion of contents making critical remarks about third parties from the formally unrelated organization Elan Vital while at the same time support for exclusion of material from the Washington Post strikes me as having double standards in assessing the reputability of sources. The statement sourced to Elan Vital about Prem Rawat's critics violates WP:RS#Self-published_sources on the following points.

• not contentious;
• about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

Andries 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can spare us your assessments of other editors, unless you want to encourage editors to comment on your motives. As for a merger, we have attempted this in the past and failed miserably. We could try again, I guess. As for the EV stuff, note that I have removed the contentious text from it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly Opinion

It is clear that the "Criticism" section is inherently biased. Allowing only negative opinion violates too many Wiki policies to count. I suggest we rename it "Scholarly Opinion" and list all "Scholarly Opinion" in alphabetical order with references and links if possible. Jossi, do you have a list of "Scholarly Opinion"?Momento 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, if the criticism article becomes "Scholarly Opinion" with references to scholarly sources, what would be the sources for the main article, non-scholarly opinion? There should one article which should be an objective well-sourced account of the facts about Rawat's life, with no value judgements on those facts either way. --John Brauns 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As Jossi says, the article is made up of a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources.It is, with the exception of the "criticism" section, entirely factual with little bits of grammar to link it all together. The "Criticism" section is unique because it is the only section where we alllow opinion to be stated. And currently, the only opinion we allow to be stated is "criticism". This is clearly unfair but rather than increase the size of the article by inserted all the "positive" scholarly opinion, we should just list all the "scholarly" references and links and let the reader make up their own mind rather than only presenting the critical information.Momento 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the article we have now, meticulously sourced to a multiplicity of scholarly sources, books, journals and online resources. A criticism section is OK, as many other articles do have these in BLPs, providing that the critical viewpoints are in compliance with WP:BLP. There is a discussion about a re-evaluation of a possible merger of the separate criticism article into this one, at that article's talk page.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an embarassing fact. I Googled "Criticism of" to see how many people have "Criticism of" articles. 9,740 hits appeared and I looked at the first 1000. It appears less than 10 people have "Criticism of" articles in Misplaced Pages. Ones I saw were FDR, George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ted Stevens and Prem Rawat. A search in Wiki of "criticism on a single topic or concept" comes up with just 5 lucky people George Lucas, Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Pope John-Paul II and Prem Rawat. Conclusion - it is obviously not a mainstream Wiki occurance to have "criticism of" articles but rather a ruse by which people set up a "Criticism of" article to create a negative impression and give them a place to vent their criticism that would not be allowed on a BLP. This article is clealry an abuse of Misplaced Pages in order to attack Prem Rawat. I am delinking it from the Prem Rawat article immediately until this issue is addressed and resolved. I expect this article will be removed and the "Criticsm of" section in the PR BLP to be renamed "Scholarly opinion" and include all scholalry opinion not just negative opinion.Momento 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, it was Jossi that created and set up the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Sylviecyn 10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Announcement

User:Nik_Wright2 has opened a mediation page at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Prem Rawat Named Critic. I have volunteered to be the mediator.TheRingess 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this case. There was no resolution.TheRingess (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying up

I have begun tidying this article prior to merging, many small changes to improve readability. But it is hampered by the random insertion of "scholalry opinion" which interrupts the narrative without providing much useful information.Momento 04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Tidying" can be good, but is there a consensus for a merger? -Will Beback · † · 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe such a discussion is underway over here. I personally don't think a merger is the proper thing to do, and I describe (ramble on) my reasons for this opinion. I think it would be most helpful if you and other interested editors also lent your thoughts to the discussion. Mael-Num 08:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge or delete, I don't care. But having a special "Criticism of" article about Prem Rawat is biased.Momento 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, and not to divide the debate into a sprawl across multiple talk pages...but could you briefly summarize why you feel this? I am genuinely curious. And please, be candid. Mael-Num 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Vexatious editing

I have already corrected Melton's quote several times and twice Mael-Num has changed it back. Melton's quote is - "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji" not " Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage", as Mael-Num keeps insisting. M-N compounds their editing error with a comment that I should "Read the excerpt. A Christian minister isn't claiming that some Guru is a god. He's recognizing Rawat's claims and beliefs about himself" is an unwarranted attack on my editing and clearly intended to put me off editing this article.Momento 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I must urge you to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, even if you feel emotionally charged about the materials in an article. To correct you, your selective quote omits the information which validates my edit (and invalidates yours)

"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

To restate for emphasis "Maharaj Ji...claims to be a Perfect Master". Clearly the claim is not Melton's, but rather Rawat's, as I have described. Mael-Num 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No one disputes that Rawat claimed to be a "Perfect Master", it is stated loud and clear in the second paragraph of the article. That's not the issue. It is your repeated insistance that Melton said that "Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage". Rawat has never claimed it and Melton has never claimed he did. You're the only person in the entire world who says that Melton said Rawat "claimed a Sant Mat lineage". Melton said "Hans Maharaji claimed a Sant Mat lineage", he doesn't say that Rawat claimed it. The original sentence, which I did not insert, has been in existence for months said - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, believed that Rawat comes from a Sant Mat lineage and claimed him to be a "Perfect Master", an embodiment of God on earth". It is obviously incorrect. So on January 13th I changed it to - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, believed that Rawat comes from a Sant Mat lineage in which a "Perfect Master" is an embodiment of God on earth". Which accurately paraphrases Melton's quote, since it is already established in the second paragraph of this article that Rawat considers himself to be a "Perfect Master" and therefore Melton's comment that Rawat claims to be a Perfect master is redundant. On 17th Jan you changed the sentence to read - "J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, noted that Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage in which a "Perfect Master" is believed to be an embodiment of God on earth". Since Melton didn't say Rawat claimed a "Sant Mat lineage", I changed it back the same day. You changed it back on the 18th, again saying that Melton "noted that Rawat claimed a Sant Mat lineage". Which Melton never said. And so, once again I changed it back, 18th Jan. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first started editing these articles but as they said in some James Bond movie - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action".Momento 07:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the actual verbatim quote from Melton, for comparison? Smee 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I gave the verbatim quote above, and again here:

"In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

Mael-Num 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And is there an available full citation and/or hyperlink for the above verbatim quote? Smee 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

To my knowledge, there is no hyperlink. What I copy-pasted is the full text found in the footnotes at the end of the main article, and the citation listed is Gordon Melton, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, pp.142.

Also, allow me to deconstruct Momento's phrasing to explain my edit:

"J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, believed that Rawat comes from a Sant Mat lineage in which a "Perfect Master" is an embodiment of God on earth."

Which can be interpreted as saying "a United Methodist minister believed that Rawat is an embodiment of God on earth." The use of the word "claims" isn't redundant, it's clarifying who believes what. It's extremely unlikely that a Christian Minister would think that Rawat is God, but the way you rephrased in your edit is ambiguous. I'm trying to reduce the ambiguity. If you can think of another way of doing that, by all means change it. But to even vaguely say that Melton thought that any Sant Mat leaders was God is a distortion. Mael-Num 09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What an absurd, self serving interpretation. Melton couldn't be clearer, he believed PR came from a Sant Mat lineage, and in Sant Mat, the Perfect Master is an embodiment of God. There is nothing to suggest Melton thought PR was an embodiment of God, let alone God. But that's not the point of my edits. My pioint is the M-N has consistently stated that Melton says that "Rawat claims a Sant Mat lineage".Momento 12:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And M-N latest edit is extraordinary. "Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration". Suggests that Melton says that Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master (true), and also claims to be " an embodiment of God on earth" (false) and claims to be "a fitting object of worship and veneration (false)". Sorry times up.Momento 12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That should be easy to fix. Something along the lines of:

"J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar and United Methodist minister, wrote that Hans Ji Maharaj, his father, claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Melton compares him with other Sant Mat leaders and asserts that Maharaj Ji claims to be "an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi's clarification here. Smee 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

That sounds good. Well done. Mael-Num 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Merger

• User:Francis Schonken, I must admit, has done an admirable job with the merger. I think it works fine, and everything has been blended nicely in an NPOV manner. I am glad that a neutral uninvolved editor was able to be bold and step up to the task. Smee 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Thanks Francis. Just note that your edit summary referred to Misplaced Pages:Criticism, that is is not a guideline, and that there are situations in which splitting an article as per Misplaced Pages:Content forking is admissible and not necessarily a POV forks. Nonetheless, it seems that the merger is gaining acceptance. There are a few little problems:

• The scholarly opinions section only lists a few of these scholars, and mainly the critics or critical aspects of non-critics such as Hunt and others. We need to add a short paragraph of each of the scholars. I have access to most of these sources and will provide some text soon.
• Win Haam does not qualify as a "scholar", so it may need to be moved to a subsection "Other", or something like that.
• The reference about "primogeniture" should be deleted as per previous discussion.
• The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.
• There is duplicated material due to the merger.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haan's article was published in a scholarly magazine. I suggest renaming the section into "scholarly sources" or something like that. Andries 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be adding full text material in a sandbox @ Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, so that editors can add the most relevant material to the article under the scholar's heading. Once we have done that we can delete the sandbox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh...where was the consensus for this move? Mael-Num 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There was none. I think the neutral uninvolved editor was utilizing WP:BOLD. Smee 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Bold he was. And credit where it's due, he did a fine job of it. I'm just a little concerned that the opinions of the criticism article may have been marginalized, having gone from a full-blown separate article to a set of sub-headings buried two sections deep. Mael-Num 04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could be. Smee 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm happy that the truely awful "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article is gone but this article has now blown out to a bloated 87 kb. Largely because the merge added 20 kb of cricism to a 67 kb article, overwhelming it's NPOV. We could of course add another 40 kb of "positive" content but since this article is already way too big, the best approach is to treat "critical" scholars the same as other scholars, and that is to simply name them without highlighting their comments to suit a particular POV. I will do this.Momento 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously "Criticism in the Media" is a bias and rather than put 20 kb of "positive media" in as balance, as can be found on the TPRF website, I have removed it as well.Momento 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are still several instances in this article where scholar's opinions have been inserted, often inappropriately, to bolster a particular POV. Also there are still a few biased sections and headlines. I'm happy to remove them. We should soon have a factual, well sourced, NPOV article which should remain stable.Momento 07:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The basic organization should either be chronological or per subject. It should not be per POV, scholarly or otherwise. Andries 08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I put the scholars in alphabetical order. Therefore there is no POV or bias,Momento 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Grouping information in a logical way (i.e. that this subset of people hold a common opinion) isn't bias. This smacks of lawyering. Mael-Num 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is bias when you don't include any other subset.Momento 09:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, as stated below. Let's try to keep this discussion in one place, shall we? Mael-Num 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go! Obviously it didn't take long for the partisans to stomp forward their agendas. After a hitherto non-participatory editor boldly merged the criticism article with this one, despite there being more objection to such a move than for it on the talk page, and the fact that the criticism page has thus far survived over 2 years of efforts to have it deleted or merged, now we have people removing the criticism entirely because they claim that the main article is now too long. Well, the article is too long, and we should fork off the criticism, or it isn't and we keep it here. But understand this : the criticism stays. Try me. Mael-Num 08:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ultimatum. It's ironic that my treating of all scholars equally is seen by you as having a "partisan agenda". As opposed to your agenda which is to only include "critical" academic articles.Momento 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to refrain from personal attacks. I have never suggested only critical opinion (on the contrary, I support it). However, a campaign to marginalize critical opinion is a serious thing. And unlike your defamatory claim, it has substance as evidenced by your actions. Mael-Num 09:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Didn't you just refer to me as "the partisans to stomp forward their agendas".Momento 09:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you just identify yourself as a partisan? Mael-Num 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You described as "partisans" the "non-participatory editor (who) merged the criticism article with this one (Francis Schonken) and "people removing the criticism entirely" because they claim that the main article is now too long (Momento). PS I didn't remove the opinions of the "critical" scholars because the article is too long. I removed them because only showing "critical" opinions is biased.Momento 11:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance and publicly to User:Francis Schonken for any offense that my strong words may cause, but understand that this ostensibly good faith move may ultimately cause a number of problems. ] 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At last Mael-Num has raised their true colors. You say the article is "pro-Rawat", please discuss.Momento 09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An article that discusses a subject is implicitly "pro-subject" because it gives voice to the character and qualities of the subject. It is only natural that, in order to maintain a balanced perspective (i.e. NPOV), that you give at least some voice to any significant qualities that may run counter to the subject. That is why, in an article on evolution, or creationism, or string theory, or Wal-Mart, or Mother Theresa it is most fair to give voice to theories, ideas, or criticisms that run counter to the subject at hand. Mael-Num 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that every Wiki article is biased in favor of the subject? Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, pedophilia, murder? And as for "significant qualities that may run counter to the subject"? Significant? Six scholars in over 40 years come up with "materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable" of whom four are associated with Catholic universities? But more telling about your attitude to this article is that you don't try to make it better by removing the repetition created by the merge, you put it straight back in. I'm reverting until someone can find an intelligent argument why only negative scholars are quoted in this article.Momento 11:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. You clearly cannot follow the meaning of my response, and you therefore attempt to dismiss it out of hand by claiming it is an unintelligent response. Indeed, someone has shown their true colors. Mael-Num 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that user Francis Schonken is one of the hundreds of other Dutch speaking contributors to the English Misplaced Pages who can easily spot inaccuracies in translations. Andries 12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See also my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. --Francis Schonken 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it some time, Mael. If it does not work, we can always split it back. Rather than making this page a battleground, there is a lot that needs to be done now that the merger has taken place.

1. Rename the section to "Scholarly opinions" , or similar, as per Andries suggestion (let's leave Hann's discussion for later)
2. The reference about "primogeniture" should be deleted as per previous discussion.
3. The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.
4. There is duplicated material due to the merger that needs to be cleaned up. That will clear up some needed space
5. I have stared adding source material to Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars that need to summarized and add the to "Scholarly opinions"

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

3. The "Other criticism" section are really a collection of links. These would be better served at the EL section.

Crossing out number three cuz I moved that one, as per Jossi's suggestion. What remains in that section is no longer a "collection of links", and could be expanded upon. Smee 16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Barret

Somebody added a Barret's quote to "other criticism". A) I do not know why it cannot be added to the scholarly sources, as was pursusing a Ph.D. in Sociology of New Religions in 1991. If Hann is there, Barret should also be there; and B) given the material that I made available at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Barret, the quote added seems to me to be selectively picked. Barret wrote an entire chapter on the subject. I would suggest adding some of the more pertinent quotes to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Barrett had a degree when his quoted book was published in 2001 nor was Barrett's book published by a scholarly journal or something like that, unlike Haan's article, Also, it is true that Barrett is quoted selectively in the criticism section where criticism and its rebuttals should be quoted. Andries 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"David V. Barrett has been a teacher of Religious Studies and English, a computer programmer and intelligence analyst for the British and American governments, and a journalist. He has been a full-time freelance writer since 1991. As an author he now researches and writes mainly on religious and esoteric subjects. In 1997 he began working on a Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics, studying new religious movements; he is a frequent speaker on this subject at conferences, and on radio and television. One of his previous books, Secret Societies (Blandford 1997), is a detailed study of movements with esoteric beliefs through the ages, including the Gnostics, Cathars, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians and Freemasons. Between them, his various books have so far been published in thirteen languages and seventeen countries. Barrett is a regular book critic; his work has appeared in newspapers and magazines, including the TLS, Independent, Literary Review, New Scientist, New Statesman & Society, Spectator, City Limits, Fortean Times, Catholic Herald, Gnosis, and British Book News, among many others. He has contributed to several specialist encyclopaedias, and is frequently consulted by publishers and by other writers. He edited Vector, the critical journal of the British Science Fiction Association, for 25 issues from 1985 to 1989. He was chairman of the 1990 Milford Writers' Conference. From 1992 to 1995 he was administrator and chairman of the judges of the Arthur C. Clarke Award for science fiction. He is also the reviews editor for Lexcentrics, the website for fans of cryptic crosswords, word games, and the amusing oddities of the English Language."

See also http://www.thenewbelievers.com/The%20author.htm

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

We should be cautious with sources and attribute the cites to the sources rather than asserting these as facts. The edit "Prem Rawat claimed that she was "an incarnation" of the Hindu goddess Durga", is mistaken. For NPOV and ATTm, it shoud read "In 1974, Rawat married his then 24-year-old secretary. According to Thomson's Gale Biography Resource Center, "Maharaj (sic) married his 24-year-old secretary, whom he described as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Just note that this is a very reputable secondary source. Smee 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Maybe. I am not disputing that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note that the name "Durga Ji" was given to his wife by Prem Rawat when they married. That does not mean that he believed she was an incarnation of anyone... ) Most probably a mistake by Thomson Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for your new assertion? Please note that I have provided direct quoting as to the Thomson Gale entry, for comparison. They clearly state that he believed she was an incarnation of the Hindu Goddess Durga. Smee 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

As you know, it is difficult to find a source that says "Prem Rawat did not believe his wife was an incarnation of a goddess"... But we can certainky find sources that describes her given name as "Durga Ji". There is a new biographical book about Prem Rawat, that is now in the top 50 at Amazon.com . By looking at the table of contents, hopefully we will find new material there . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it is possible that both are true? That he believed her to be the incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga, and also had her change her name to Durga Ji, in honor of this belief that he held? Smee 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I can only give you my opinion, Smee. I do not think even for a moment that PR believed that his wife was a re-incarnation of anyone. I am saying this on the basis of his many addresses (that Hindus find blasphemous, BTW) in which he always speaks of having one lifetime, and in which he dismisses the concept of re-incarnation. But again, that is only an opinion from someone that has heard hundreds of his addresses over the years. Let's leave it at this and discuss the article instead. You can email me if you want to talk about this further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he changed his public image of his personal belief system since his marriage, and that that was what he believed and asserted to be true in 1974... Smee 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

An opinion as good as any.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If an idea is verified and substantiated by a number of independent sources, "opinion" is a bit of a misnomer. Mael-Num 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

references and footnotes

For those new at this article, please note that the separation of footnotes and references (in which the footnotes are based) was done as a response to a peer review of this article. Please keep as is. Thanks. peer review 1 archive, and peer review 2 archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This last edit dispute about the location of the sister links is, what can I say? Silly? I will appreciate if editors assume good faith rather than looking for "POV pushing" in all edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One could say the same about POV pushing for yourself. Don't be so quick to judge the motivations of others. Smee 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure. If we can all do that, that would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. "separation of footnotes and references (...) was done as a response to a peer review of this article. (...) peer review 1 archive, and peer review 2 archive." - I had a quick glance at both peer reviews, and couldn't find the recommendation. Could you be more precise?

Whatever the ideal or goal you're working towards, currently the list of numbered footnotes contains a host of references (in the meaning of WP:CITE, WP:V, etc). A few dozen *references* were added by the merger from the criticism article. A section title should reflect the content of a section (wikipedians are generally not in the business of window-dressing). I'm going to try another solution, hope you like it. --Francis Schonken 09:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done is to move all biblio refs to the appropriate format as the refs that came from the merged article are not in the same format as all the other refs. It is tedious work (I did all the others a few months ago), but I will do this once the article stabilizes a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jossi's talkpage

Don't make it appear as if Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource are "Official websites of Prem Rawat" Regarding your edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=102026795

The visible layout, once the page is saved, makes it appear as if the Sister Project templates belong to the section titled "Official websites of Prem Rawat"

I already remarked that twice in an edit summary:

• sorry for the layout but the interwiki-templates should not appear along the "Official websites" links
• Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not.

Again, I'm not completely happy with my solution to that problem. Likewise, I could live with Smeelgova's solution , without feeling anything near to enthousiasm about it. But the solution where the sister project templates appear in the "Official websites of Prem Rawat" section is quite unacceptable. Whatever the unwritten or written rules you refer to, please use your creativity or whatever, but don't make it appear as if some Wikimedia projects are associated with "Official websites of Prem Rawat". --Francis Schonken 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I may have missed these comments. Usually sister links go at the bottom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Check my edit, and let me know if it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Francis Schonken version above, of Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not. Smee 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

First, please note that was not my intention. Please WP:AGF. And second, please note my last edit in which I removed the title "official sites", as per usage in other comparable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a comparable site that uses the convention of "Official sites" and, by the way, has a lot more critical links in its external links section. Sylvia Browne. I propose we add some more critical links, for balance. I will do so. Smee 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Some of the links you added, Smee, violate WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If "some" of the links violate WP:EL, then remove those that do, and keep those that do not. Smee 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Wiki policy

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. Only allowing the expansion of "critic's material" is clearly a breach of Wiki policy.Momento 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As are attempts by individuals to remove as much criticism as possible from a subject in which they have had direct experiences. Smee 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all Wiki editors to follow Wiki policy and that means "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one".Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your apparent inability to understand the written English word disqualifies you as a valid interpreter of wikipedia rules. I'd strongly urge you to leave the reading comprehension to your fellow editors. Mael-Num 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for interpretaion M-N, Wiki policy is very clear.Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good, then we agree. Stop reinterpreting the policies to suit your POV despite every other editor involved telling you that what you're doing is wrong. Mael-Num 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice of listening to editors or listening to Wiki policy - Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view - I'll choose Wiki policy every time.Momento 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the bias or malice? It appears to exist only between your ears. Mael-Num 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The bias occurs when editors take "critical" comments from half a dozen scholars, give them headings and expand their opinions into paragraphs whilst allowing 20 other scholars only their name.Momento 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, it is inherantly necessary to offer significant critical commentary in an article on a subject. To do otherwise is to not tell the whole story. The examples I gave before of String Theory and Mother Theresa (among several others) support this. Or to put it a different way, are you saying that no critical opinion of any source should exist anywhere in Misplaced Pages? Mael-Num 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this an extraordinary claim?

"Rawat married his then 24-year-old secretary claimed that she was 'an incarnation' of the Hindu goddess Durga."

This doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim. Does it seem unlikely that he would be unfamiliar with that particular mythological figure, or that he wasn't in the habit of proclaiming divinity left and right in the 1970's (because there is extraordinary evidence of that). Or is it more likely that a small number of people who are concerned with the perception of Rawat would prefer that this unfortunate detail be omitted? Mael-Num 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, it's an "exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources" because it is a "report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". Rawat has always maintained that people only have one life and has never expressed a belief in re-incarnation. No other scholar has mentioned it and they would have if re-incarnation was something thhat he promoted. Therefore it is an exceptional claim that needs "exceptional sources".Momento 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incarnation doesn't imply reincarnation. The concepts are distinct. Mael-Num 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incarnation is reincarnation if the incarnated has previously existed.Momento 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any indication of the claim that this person is twice-incarnated? Mael-Num 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now,if no one miinds, I am going to remove the redundant passage about Rawat getting married in 1974.Momento 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I mind. How is it redundant? Mael-Num 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there were two paragraphs that discussed the marriage of Rwat in 1974. If you compare the edits you will see I have removed one.Momento 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And please, stop with the nicety of asking if something is okay, and waiting all of nine minutes before forging ahead and doing what you please when there is clearly opposition to it. Mael-Num 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So you oppose deleting duplicate lisdts and redundant paragraphs?Momento 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the information is redundant. Are you sure that this is the case? It looks like he married two diffent people. One was 24 and a secretary and one was 25 and a flight attendant. People remarry, and I'm not familiar with the details outside of what I have read. Mael-Num 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is legal in Amercia to marry two people in the one year. A new biogaphy about Rawat "Peace is Possible" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978869494?ie=UTF8&tag=mightyriverpress-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0978869494) has just been released and that will clarify whether Johnson was 24 or 25, a secretary or a flight attendent.Momento 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's legal in America to marry a new person every day of the week, provided your previous marriage is somehow ended. It's a pretty liberal place like that. Mael-Num 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the two marriages is a little more prosiac. Smeelova added a new paragraph without realising the subject was already covered.Momento 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring accomplishes nothing

... besides earning you a temporary loss of your editing privileges. Victor, and Mael: I have reported your violation of WP:3RR policy at WP:AN/3RR. Sometimes the only way editors learn is the hard way. In the future, revert only once if you must and then discuss in talk and seek consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of WP:3RR if someone is removing vandalism. I resent the implication that I am willfully violating rules when 2 other admins have agreed that I didn't do anything wrong. Throughout the alleged "edit war" I was calling for discussion to no avail. I even went to users' talk pages to attempt to reason. No responses were made. I did the right thing, and experienced wikipedians (admins) acknowledged that. Mael-Num 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You were not removing vandalism, you were editwarring. Please continue the conversation at WP:AN/3RR were your case ie being reviewed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed my argument over and over again in the talk pages. Essentially, it is against Wiki policy for editors to give undue influence to one side of a story and ignore the other. Twenty five scholars have written about Rawat and yet some editors insist on giving six critical scholars headline status and a full paragraph to expound on critical comments whilst 19 non-negative scholars are reduced to just their names. That is unacceptable editorial bias and unacceptable to Misplaced Pages.Momento 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't bias. If you feel that those people need to have more said of their writings, then your remedy is obvious. Write about them. Mael-Num 03:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you, Mael? I have provided material that you can add, at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. Show us that you are not biased. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not my feeling that those people are underepresented. Why are you accusing me of bias? Mael-Num 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me understand, Mael. Are you saying that Barret, Hunt, Geaves, Downton, Chryssides, and others are not under represented? I would encourage you to read the text in the article and compare it with the text I made available at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, and then present a good argument rather than saying "Is not my feeling". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know them, so I don't know. I certainly don't think that everyone who's ever said anything ever about PR ("Hey, he's got a really nice hat!") needs to be recorded here. I do think that an article about any significantly controversial topic should have some time spent exploring the controversy. I do think that attempts to mask, marginalize, obfuscate, or silence such controversy are wrong (possibly stemming from my American idealism) and academically dishonest. Most people think Mother Theresa was a saint, but a small minority think that she was a terrible person with a penchant for schadenfreude. The former group would very likely love to silence the latter, but it is their right to have their small voice of criticism heard, and our responsibility to protect that voice (so long as they can back their claims up).

Rawat isn't "significantly contraversial". He may have been the subject of a lot of media interest in the 70s but that was largely because of his age. There has been hardly any interest in the 80s, 90's and this decade and no contraversy. The majority of criticism of Rawat came from tabloid media and Christian scholars from the 70s.Momento 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the extensive references and information given on the subject clearly show that there is at least some controversy. Mael-Num 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you could get that impression but look at the Stephen Hunt article at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. It has 700 words about Rawat and about 20 words about what critics say and yet Hunt was listed as a "Scholarly Critic". Dig a bit deeper M-N, you'll find that there is very little controversy about Rawat except for the media and Christian beat ups of the 70s.Momento 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As related to the above comments, Momento said essentially that we're ignoring 19 out of 25 scholars' writings. I responded "Hey...rather than delete the other 6, start writing about the 19". As it wasn't my complaint to begin with, it's kinda weird that you would tell me how to fix it. Even stranger that you would level a claim of bias against me. Now that I've fully explained my position, and I feel that it is a position that you as an admin must necessarily agree with, I think I am due an apology. But I won't hold my breath. Mael-Num 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not claim that you are biased, Mael. I said: "show us that you are not biased" by adding material to the article to improve upon it. As for Mother Teresa, I have edited that article quite a bit. Yes, there are three notable people (although I would argue that some of them aren't) that make terrible accusations against Teresa, and these are listed as such in the article with proper attention to WP:NPOV#undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, "show us that you are not biased" assumes that I have something to show, with the implication being bias. Thus, you have accused me of bias, despite your backpeddling now through semantics. No loss because, as I said, I'm not holding my breath waiting.

As for the MT bit, there's only three people in the entire world that have something bad to say about her? That blows my mind because if it were only three people out of about six billion, I'm sure I'd have never heard of it (and no, I've never read the WP article). Anyway, as you can see from experience with the article, my point about the need to allow for critical commentary is necessary has been made. Even for people as respected as Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II or subjects as seemingly certain as gravity. Mael-Num 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ammended to three notable people. Point taken. There's probably more out there though (heck, I saw at least a couple on Penn and Teller's show and I bet they didn't book everyone in the world). Anyway, and more importantly...are we in agreement on what is responsible in this case?Mael-Num 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In that show, Christopher Hitchens was there, the most notable Teresa critic. In Misplaced Pages we only report on significant viewpoints made by notable people, present them if they are published in reliable an verifiable publications, and attribute their viewpoints to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember him, and he brought a good amount of scotch and cigarettes. There were other sources on the subject, too. I don't want to diverge into a discussion on Bullshit!, but in my opinion, they seem to do a good amount of research for their presentations. And as you can see, the Misplaced Pages article on their show also has a criticism section. All I'm saying is that this article should have one too. Mael-Num 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Any significant viewpoints by notable people, published in verifiable and reliable sources, be these critical or not, should be included in this article as per WP:NPOV (within the caveats of WP:BLP). I have tried to provide material (and I will continue to do so) at

Also, as a possible remedy, you may want to consider going here and reporting this article to the BLP noticeboard if you truly think that the WP:BLP rules are being violated. It will ensure that additional eyes are brought in to investigate and weigh all parties' claims. Mael-Num 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Geaves

Hey, am I violating any copy-rights by offering a scanner-copy .pdf-file of Ron Geave's article From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond to genuinely interested editors? The original is expensive and protected against copying and forewarding, so I figure not too many people have really read it. Maybe that's why Ron Geaves is not mentioned among the "scholarly opinions", or is he? He has certainly more to say on the matter than some of the redundant mainstream bores that are being given space among the scholars and critics. Please help me with this problem, and, if it's legally o.k. and you want a copy, leave me your e-mail-address, and I'll be happy to serve.--Rainer P. 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Reiner, Welcome back. I may have a OCRed version of that document that I could place at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars for a while until we manage to summarize and add to the article. I will let you know If I find the text version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Added excerpts from this paper to Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Geaves. Of interest is Geaves' response to Foss and Larkin's paper mentioned in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me please also turn your (and any interested editor's) attention to a very knowledgeable and more recent article by Ron Geaves: "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)", 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. This one I cannot even print once, but only read it on screen, and it is certainly worth reading, at http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/002geaves . I have placed it among Bibliographical references.--Rainer P. 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will read and see if I can come up with some useful excerpts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A quote from Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view

Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Article structure has:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

This is also an issue that should be addressed after the merge of the separate criticism article. Since I'm no expert in anything related to Prem Rawat, I couldn't do much more than grouping the positive aspects of "reception" (followers/practitioners, reception, media appearances) with the critical aspects as subsections of the same Prem Rawat#Reception section, in a first step. "Reception" sections (grouping positive and negative reactions to the topic) are not a problem. (PS: if the article is ever split again, the split should not again be "criticism" against the rest, but "Reception of Prem Rawat", grouping positive and negative reception, would be an option).

But the present "Reception" section of the article is still divided in positive and negative reception subtopics. These should be merged. E.g. "Media attention" would be a viable subtopic of "Reception" describing notable/verifiable media coverages and media appearances of Prem Rawat, *without sectioning off* positive media attention given to Prem Rawat from negative. A chronological order of notable media appearances and coverage would, e.g., be much more preferable. --Francis Schonken 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. I would argue that throughout the article (before the "criticism" article merger) efforts were made to intertwine all elements positive and negative, such as in the succession aspects, the family split, etc. Now that the merge has been completed, we should evaluate how to integrate that material in the best way possible. Note that many biographies of living people in WP, have "criticism" sections, in which the chronology of the person's life is separate from specific controversies. See Mother Teresa, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama., and that the wording on the guideline Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Article structure includes a passage from the policy of WP:NPOV that reads:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.

I would argue that the passage above is the one more pertinent to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know about this ambiguity, and tried to solve it once, naming it "currently the most problematic part of the WP:NPOV policy", here: Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 024#Problem with examples in "Fairness and sympathetic tone"

Without wanting to appeal the least bit to Jimbo's authority here (I wouldn't dare), I'd like to point you to the quotes in the Misplaced Pages:Criticism#See also section, including:

it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

If we take this quote for its content, and not for who said it, and maybe call it the "troll magnet argument", then I'd say the troll magnet argument is something that has come up more recently than when WP:NPOV was originally written (and effectively calls for a rewrite of that paragraph of WP:NPOV).

Anyway, I'll probably never be a main contributor to the Prem Rawat article, so this is really something to sort out among the "main contributors", or at least, say, among those who have the article on their watchlist, whether it would be best in the current context to follow the ancient policy level mode of operation, or the newer, based-in-current-practice, idea.

I'd like to suggest to you all to try to imagine what would work best in the long run, in terms of stability of the article, avoidance of edit-warring, keeping as many contributors in as possible (instead of having to ask they'd be temporarily removed from the system), etc.

I'd also not take other articles as example, unless you're likewise sure they're NPOV, stable, well-referenced etc (even having gone through FA is no warranty: e.g. Igor Stravinsky was on main page FA not so long ago, and shortly after it was listed as highly undersourced). --Francis Schonken 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Francis. Yes, sometimes Criticism sections become troll/POV magnets. There is a lively debate going on at Misplaced Pages:Criticism about this very subject, that maybe other editors here will want to take a look at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a subtle re-writing the article with the intention of improving its readability. Keeping all the indisputable facts but without the constant distraction of random editors inserting the POV throughout the article. In the past, you couldn't discuss a period of Rawat's life without being inundated with pro and con quotes from scholars until the section was an unreadable and unwieldy mess. On the point of the "Reception" headline, I didn't understand your itention or meaning and now that I do it think it seems a little odd. Anyway thanks for your help and advice Francis, your bold merge was a great help.Momento 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable argument, Francis, but I don't think I agree with all of it. I know that when I read an article on a subject that I am new to, and I hear a number of claims about that subject all coming from a certain point of view, I instinctively will seek out counter-claims. For example, if reading about some hypothetical pollution control bill whose article offers only positive implications of the impact of the bill, I might start to think, "Isn't there anyone who thinks this is a bad idea?" Let's call these sort of readers "naturally skeptical". I think it is helpful for articles to be structured in such a way to allow them to easily find counter-claims by grouping them under a subject header, rather than forcing them to hunt-and-peck through the whole text of the article to find what they are looking for. I suggest that this is the reason for such an article layout. There may be drawbacks, as you say, in possible interpretations and contextual implications of such a "pro-" and "con-" format, but the ease with which such information can be found outweighs these possible drawbacks, as ease of research is one of the primary goals of an encylopedia. Mael-Num 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would invite you Mael, to make your arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Criticism where this is being discussed as we speak. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying Up

I have removed generic Wiki links to dates, countries and common items as they are not necessary for the reader and the blue type disturbs the readability. Added some of Stephen J Hunt's article and removed badly quoted material from or about Thomson/Max Webber.Momento 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please for dates follow the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates, in particular Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day, in order for readers' date preferences to work properly. --Francis Schonken 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that every date should be linked so that if something happened on April 1, 2006 a rerader can be directed to April 1 and 2006. I just clicked on 10 December from the first senetnce of this article and got a very brief list of things that happened on 10 December but not Rawat's birth.Momento 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the MoS guideline please, and if you want to dispute it, do so at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): you'd get enough company there. But currently, that's how it works, see also readers' date preferences at meta. --Francis Schonken 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about it but it seems a bit redundant. Anyone that wants to know what happened on December 10 can search December 10. Why link it? Very few articles seem to follow this practice. I'll go to the MoS talk page and see what's happening.Momento 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please apply the MoS/date preferences *as is*. Even if you would like to argue about it (which you say you don't, and for which the Prem Rawat talk page would not be the right venue anyhow), the MoS has to be applied until it changes. --Francis Schonken 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento: One link to a specific date is OK, but not multiple. For example: the first instance of December 10, 1957 should be wikilinked. Years, on their own, should be also linked only once (the first instance). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, no, that's not what WP:MOSDATE says:

• December 10, 1957 should always be linked thus: ], ] even if it's 10 times on the same page, per WP:MOSDATE#Dates containing a month and a day (note after discussion below: there *are* three exceptions to that rule discussed in that MoS section, none of which apply to Momento's changes, nor cover Jossi's reading above);
• There's no rule that "Years, on their own, should be linked only once (the first instance)": not linking a solitary year (that is a year without both day and month being present) can be OK too for a first mentioning of a year on a page, per WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates (the official guideline on the point of solitary year linking is "we agreed to disagree", several non-compatible principles can be taken into account). --Francis Schonken 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. In any case, MOSDATE is just a suggestion. I am sure you are aware that there are thens of thousands of articles does not follow these guidelines. Nevertheless, rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars? We can expand on Barrett, Geaves, Hunt and all the others. That would be a better use of our time. When he article is stable, we can then proceed and do the cosmetic changes needed to comply with MOS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated some stuff from Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars into the Prem Rawat article this morning (a short excerpt of the Schnabel translation I had been working on with Andries);

Don't go around de-linking dates, certainly not the full dates: so I suppose your remark is rather directed at Momento who thought that at this point in time the "cosmetic" de-linking not covered by MoS was what was needed. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I disagree with your interpretation of MOSDATE. We could discuss this a Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I only contend you know MOSDATE less well than I do, there's nothing wrong with my description above. Indeed, I can't recall having encountered you often in the multiple discussions I was involved in at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). That's no problem, one can't know it all, nor even be interested in it all (personally I curse the day I got interested in WP:MOSDATE). But rather first read WP:MOSDATE#Dates containing a month and a day and WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates (and related stuff) before criticising my interpretation of these MoS sections. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read these. And I am not "criticizing" your interpretation, only disagreeing with it. What I read is that "the date should almost always be linked". "Should almost always" is not "should always". And these guidelines are to be applied with common sense rather as than static, hard rules.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, "almost" always, but WP:MOSDATE#Dates containing a month and a day lists the exceptions (bolding added):

There are some exceptions to the rule that dates with a month and a day should always be linked:

• Using the date formatting feature in section headers or links to them complicates section linking, see date formatting.
• On disambiguation pages, only the disambiguated articles should be linked, not explanatory text.
• Within a quotation, the date should appear to all readers as it did in the source of the quotation.

Since "second occurence on the same page" is none of the exceptions listed in the MoS, and since the MoS is clear that "should always be linked" applies apart from the listed exceptions, I abbreviated to "always" above, as a response to your questionable interpretation of the MoS page.

Again, your comment above

Nevertheless, rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars?

rather applies to Momento than to me. --Francis Schonken 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. you are right. If you want we can discuss these issues at the style guide talk page. My point is that as said in the lead: "like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another." (my highlight). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars?" Momento made some minutae edits, which made the Prem Rawat page less conforming to the MoS. That's not the way ahead. There's nothing to discuss at the style guide talk page regarding that observation that only concerns the Prem Rawat page. --Francis Schonken 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement, Francis. My invitation to discuss at MOS talk page was related to the multiple linking of same date again and again in an article (not this article). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, no, I still think you should withdraw your incorrect summary of non-existing guidance ("One link to a specific date is OK, but not multiple. For example: the first instance of December 10, 1957 should be wikilinked. Years, on their own, should be also linked only once (the first instance).") above. It muddied the waters, diverted focus to what was not at hand, and steered for an unneccessary deviation from MoS guidance. --Francis Schonken 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be the cause of disruption but Wiki policy is "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them". It is clearly unnecessary to link 10 December (as in the first sentence of this article) when all it leads to is a small list of birthdays (but not Rawat's), deaths and events. It provides no further info for the reader about Rawat. I can understand linking 11 September in an article about terrorisism but linking dates that provide no further info about the subject is surely a time to apply common sense not rules. "Misplaced Pages has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing".Momento 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, WP:IAR should be used cautiously. I have added info at December 10 and at 1957. Readers may find interesting to see which other notable individuals were born in that year or date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(@ Momento:) Again, making date preferences work has nothing to do with the content of the date article you're linking to. Visiting Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would show anyone that a technical solution for making date preferences work *without* making a link to a date article is sought for. It doesn't exist yet, so the current guidance stays in place, until the moment it exists.

Anyway, it would be bad habit to have "17 December 1999", formatted with the day before the month, in one place of an article and "January 5, 1968", with the day after the month, in another place of the same article (note that I tricked date preferences in the linked date: what you'd see would otherwise depend on the date preferences you chose in your preferences settings, and then I couldn't make my point clear) --Francis Schonken 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki software is clever enough to display both ] as December 10 and ] as 10 December, based on date preferences set by users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you mean. The point is: when some full dates are linked, while others are not, you may get an inconsistent layout throughout a page, depending on date preferences settings of the user who sees the page. So, apart from listed exceptions, all full dates should be linked: the day should be linked together with the month, and the year that is part of the full date should be linked separately. There's no exception for specific editors that want to edit on their most cherished pages. --Francis Schonken 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating material

I have incorporated material from the sandbox, for Hunt, Downton, Geaves and Barret, that hope are acceptable to other editors. There is more work to do, but I will wait to hear any comments before moving any further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi. two things. A friend has sent me a preview copy of the Andrea Cagan biography "Peace is Possible" about Prem Rawat. Can I quote from it as it is not yet in general release? And second, it seems to me that we agreed to not have a special "Criticism" section about Rawat but rather incorporate any worthwhile criticism in the artcle. I am not comfortable that scholars like Hunt are headlined in a "Criticism" section when he doesn't express a criticism at all but rather notes that there are critics.Momento 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cagan's book, I would say wait until you get a copy of the book, as "preview copies" or galleys are sometimes quite different from the final edition, and text and page numbers could have changed by the time the book is printed. We need page numbers and exact quotes for verifiability. As for the section name, it is called now "Scholarly opinions and criticism", not "Criticism". I am not 100% happy with this, but for now I would concentrate in incorporating more scholarly material and then see how we can improve/structure the article better, based on the material we have. One step at a time, Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time in the last couple of days to help contribute. I did a tiny bit of copy-editing, and I have a suggestion for whomever contributed the Kent information. The part about, "treats elsehwere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s" should probably be expanded. It's well and good to say that he talks about it, but what does he say? Is there more information in the sandbox? And on that subject, where is it (and any talk pages) located? Thanks in advance. Mael-Num 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, if I am not mistaken, was the one that made available material from Kent's book. Maybe you can ask him to provide more material. If he does not have it, I can always check my local University library, but that will take time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Andries can give us the exact text that he used for his citation. I just found this:

In 1974, when Stephen Kent was a 22-year-old hippie, he found himself in a packed house listening to a teen-aged guru that Rennie Davis hailed as the "Perfect Master." Davis, who had been one of the New Left's most prominent and gifted leaders, came dressed in a business suit, along with the guru's entire male entourage. Kent was flabbergasted by the enthusiastic reaction of his peers for this young guru, whose message Kent found "banal" and whose delivery seemed "amateurish"

What I am finding is that Kent made a few blunders in that book, including making the assertion that wearing business suits were part of the Divine Light Mission liturgies (!) and that the mission maintained that women should be subservient to men (!!!). The work is available online (payment required) here: . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope editors have enough integrity to recognise Kent is not a reliable source.Momento 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not say so, Momento. First, I am not 100% certain of the above blunders as I do not have a copy of the book, and second, even if he made those blunders there is nothing we can do about it, besides listing them. Kent is a sociologist and his book seem to be a treatise of how the radical youth of the 70's became attracted to Eastern philosophies and the like. I would be more concerned about giving proper context to the comments he made about young Prem Rawat, than anything else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, what do you mean by "Kent made a few blunders in that book, including making the assertion that wearing business suits were part of the Divine Light Mission liturgies"? Mael-Num 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little snippet from Kent's website about Melton - "One of the issues that Krebs and I raised about Melton was that he and co-editor James R. Lewis apparently received money from the group, Church Universal and Triumphant, to conduct a study of it, but did not inform readers of the study about this financial arrangement until Melton mentioned it in his rebuttal to our initial article (Kent and Krebs, 1999: 23; Melton, 1999: 17). From our perspective, researchers getting money from a group to conduct a study on it have an obligation to inform readers of this kind of financial arrangement".Momento 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Kent does not like Melton much.... they are at opposing sides of the political spectrum as it pertains to the study of new religious movements. Let's focus on the article, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if Andries can provide us with some text from the book. If he can't, a trip to the library! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of quotes in lead

I object to the use of one selective quote from 1971 in the lead. It would be more appropriate to leave such quotes to the article's body where context can be given for reader's benefit. When that was added? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved that new text to the appropriate chronology in the lead, as well as removed the quote. Please note that the "guru is greater than god" quote is still available in the 1970s section of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Added by Andries in early Oct it but it used to be in the 70's section where it would belong but Francis moved it up. It is a quotes that needs context.Momento 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is still in the 70s section. I only removed it from the lead. I would suggest we keep the lead for a later stage, when we have completed incorporating all the scholarly material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any corroboration that Rawat described his wife as "an incarnation of Durga Ji". I have heard that he refered to her as Durga Ji, as an affectionate Indian name, much as his brothers have proper names and "title" type names.Momento 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a short bio of Prem Rawat at Thomson Gale that says that, so we are attributing the blunder to Thomson Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to find a reliable source that says that upon his marriage, PR gave his wife the Hindi name "Durga Ji", and place alongside the attributed text from Thomson Gale, for reader's benefit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Thompson Gale quote about the Millenium festival is wrongly quoted. It doesn't say "the event" ran into trouble, but the "rapidly developing movement". I'm inclined to remove it entirely as it has no relevance to the Millenium festival.Momento 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full text of the Thomson Gale entry? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I just noticed the discrepancy. I am not happy with the "Durga Ji" quote. It is either a nick name or a mistake. In either case it shouldn't be in the article. Reincarnation has never been a part of Rawat's teaching as far as any other scholars report. I think editors have a responsibility to consider the big picture rather than play up an obvious mistake.Momento 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved with this article for some time and knowing a considerable amount about Rawat's teachings, I'm removing the Durga Ji quote because it is obviously incorrect.Momento 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Momento, but there are some policies that advise us against that. The issue is not what is true, but what is verifiable. Thomson Gale's obvious mistake, is verifiable as it is published by them. We could write to Thomson Gale and inform them of their mistake, but unfortunately we will need to keep the mistake it in the article, unless there is consensus from all involved editors that the information is incorrect and not worth including. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Jossi but the alternative is to add even more matreial to the article to correct the mistake. I could add the whole of Hunt's article since it is verifiable and lots more beside but I don't think it would make a better article. But in the interests of a better article I'm invoking "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." If another editor wants to insert what two editors believe is a mistake, I'll argue with them. Until then common sense says "leave it out".Momento 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Found this in Andrea Cagan's book - "At the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, he gave his new wife a new name — Durga Ji, an Indian goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy". Also found new info about 707 in Cagan's book and replaced uncited misinformation.Momento 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence

"According to an article in the 1979 Sociological Review, immediately after his marriage, Maharaj Ji gained financial independence from his mother and family through the generosity of his devotees, and these contributions allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire". Is a very poor paraphrase of the quote it cites. It suggests that the marriage preceeded financial independence and somehow caused it but Price didn't write that at all.Momento 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure re-visited

Why had the article been re-organized per POV instead of per era or per subject, in spite of Francis and my objections against such an organization? Andries 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not such re-organization, Andries. The current version follows the merge done a few days ago. We are still collecting and adding scholarly material. When that is done (or if there are any editors that want to start sooner) the plan is to move material to appropriate subject-related sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Jossi. There seem to be three criticisms - divinity, lack of substance and wealth. All three are mentioned in the main body of the article. Divinity is already expanded on, given context and Rawat's reply stated. It seems complete to me. Lack of substance is mentioned but no reply. There is a great deal of material of Rawat saying that his teaching are about the experience of Knowledge not a theory which should be attached to the lack of substance criticism. Wealth is mentioned and expanded on but no reply. There is material of Rawat explaining his attitude to wealth and quite a bit in the Cagan book. I'll try to find something.Momento 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything about Mael-Num's ridiculous sock puppet claim?Momento 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Melton's comment - "However, at the heart of Maharaji's teachings lies the simplest message that the human quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning inward to discover a constant source of contentment and joy within. This message is supported by four techniques, together known as Konwledge, which provide the practical application that allow the practitioner the possibility of the experience spoken about by Maharaji" - is a great balance for the "lack of substance" claims. Momento 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Melton wrote that. I think it is Geaves. Andries 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could very well be. I will check next time I am at the library. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague intro?

If at all, it is too long. As per WP:LEAD, it needs to be summarized in "between one and four paragraphs long". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty in the first sectiion that is adequately covered further down. It may take a little to get the contents and flow correct but I will try to look at it today.Momento 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the intro is vague. This has been repeatedly asserted by several uninvolved editors. I had fixed it but I was reverted. Andries 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, Andries. The intro was contested on the basis of being too verbose and Pjacobi made some suggestions that did not reached consensus. There was no agreement reached on how to re-write it, besides completing the article before attempting to do so. Here is the last discussion Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_21#Section_zero. We can, of course, resume the discussion to create a more solid intro for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, and after re-reading the current lead, I can only see the need for shortening it. All material contained is properly sources as per WP:LEAD and otherwise it looks fine to me. If there are other concerns, it will be good if these are expressed so that it can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced it to four paras, easier than I first thought. I can't see making it smaller but there may need to be some small adjustments.Momento 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But we have lost some good material regarding his pilot licenses and other (the last para on the previous entry). Consider restoring these under a new section labeled "Personal". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the criticism summary, that is needed as per WP:LEAD. Consider restoring it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we put the pilot licences in the DECA section (I couldn't find much material in the previous version). And the only notable critism was "divinity" which I left in.Momento 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add a new section named "Personal" and place the last para of the previous lead there. Regarding the criticism summary, I would restore it, as it will be otherwise seen as non-compliant with WP:LEAD and surely initiate an edit war. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD says "notable controversies", the only minor contraversy was the "family split" and possibly "divinty" which I left in. As for a "criticism summary" the WP:LEAD only refers to "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism" when discussing concepts or ideas. I cannot sdee anything in WP:LEAD that suggests a "criticism summary". In four paragraphs it would huugely outweight its significance.Momento 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, You even removed the DLM from the lead. The only reason why Rawat was and is notable is because he was the leader of the DLM. I will give a revert, possibly partial. I am aware that you probably do not agree about the cause of his notability but we have discussed this extensively without coming any closer. I also disagree with you about removing other points of criticisms. Andries 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Momento makes a good argument about "notable controversies" and I disagree that PR's notability is related to being the "leader of the DLM" as you assert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you disagree, based on what I see as completely unconvincing arguments. I do not think that it makes sense to repeat this discussion. Andries 21:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You can always chose not to discuss. That is your prerogative as an editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. An editor makes a comment that the intro does not conform with WP:LEAD. In response, Momento attempts to make the lead compliant as per the request. You, in turn, Andries, chose (a) not to discuss; (b) not to make an attempt to build upon Momento's attempt; and (c) revert without making an effort to fix the problem. In my view, that is a very improper way to ago about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC

Omitting the one fact from the intro that makes Rawat notable i.e. his fomer leadership of the DLM deserves an immediate revert. It is like moving from the intro of Jimmy Carter that he was the president of the USA. Andries 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "...is a spiritual leader" as a stop-gap; I do not know who this person is and if I recall correctly, "spiritual leader" was contentious the last time. Notice: "Dan Rather is the former longtime anchor for the CBS Evening News...", "William Shakespeare was an English poet and playwright...". Encyclopedia articles do not begin "Prem Rawat was born on December 10...". Overall, introductions are not narrative summaries of a person's life from start to finish. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help but Andries thinks that this article muust conform to his POV. Rawat may have been a "spiritual leader" in India 30 years ago but, according to Hunt, in the 80s he changed the style of his message and relinquished the the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices. As Melton & Patridge write "Maharaji himself does not conform to any stereotype of a religious or spiritual leader". The only consistant thread running through Rawat's life from aged 4 to today is speaking and teaching about inner peace. I will replace "spiritual leader".Momento 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the removal of the term spritual leader though I admit that I do not have a source for it. May be you could add the {{fact}} tag for the term. Again, Melton did not write this. I suspect it is Geaves. Andries 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right Andries, you don't like the removal of a recently added, non sourced description of Rawat that is directly contradicted in a scholarly article? What criteria should we use, your POV?Momento 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have removed the para about receiving Knowledge, his father and DLM because what is notable about Rawat is not becoming "leader" of an obscure Indian organisation but coming to the West as a 13 year old and talking about inner peace.Momento 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He was notable because he came to the West as the leader of the DLM. Andries 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, regarding the term spiritual leader, you are misreading the entry by the unknown writer (possibly Chryssides or Geaves) in the book edited by Partridge that states

"Maharaji himself does not conform to any stereotype of a religious or spiritual leader".

This is not a denial that he was religious or spiritual leader only that he is not a stereotypical one. Andries 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Andries. And so we wouldn't want to describe him as a "spiritual leader" because he doesn't conform to any stereotype of one. And Rawat was "the leader of the DLM" for 5 years before he became notable in the West. Being "the leader of the DLM" doesn't make you notable, being a 13 year old drawing thousands of listeners is what make you notable.Momento 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not insist on retainging the term "spiritual leader". I only wrote that I did not like its removal. Andries 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that there is some truth in it, though I do not think that this success can be separated from his leadership of the DLM. Andries 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Think about it. He lost control of the DLM India in 74 and DLM in the west was disbanded in the 80s but Rawat has continued to travel the world talking and teaching about inner-peace and still does so. Rawat's success is all Rawat's, and DLM was nothing without him and became nothing when he abandoned it.Momento 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you even removed the term Perfect Master from the summary. Another fact that made him notable. I will revert. I sincerely cannot understand your edits. Andries 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Perfect master" "Satguru", "Sant JI" " Balyogeshwar" "his father" "DLM" can all be discussed in the article. There is no room in the lead for it. Rawat is the famous one, not "Perfect Master". Change it back Andries I can't be bothered.Momento 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the title Perfect Master and the fact that he was the de jure leader of the DLM are important aspects of his notability. I will revert removals of these facts from the lead. Andries 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

His father was "Perfect Master" and "leader of the DLM" so how come Rawat is notable and his father isn't. There can only be one conclusion Andries, and that is that being "Perfect Master" and "leader of the DLM" doesn't make you notable, but being a 13 year old drawing thousands of listeners is what makes you notable. Being a "Perfect Master" and "DLM" are incidental and only known because of Rawat. There was no DLM or talk of a "Perfect Master" until Rawat. And when it comes to reducing this over long lead, Rawat is 100 times more important than a defunct organisation and an obsolete title.Momento 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I will file a request for comments because I continue to disagree. Andries 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have redone the lead according to WP:LEAD. I have included "Perfect Master" and "Satguru", not because they make him notable but because the article needs to explain how he became a "speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace". I need to reconnect the links to Perfect Master and satguru but haven't time now.Momento 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead is vaguer than ever. Andries 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead inaccurately stated that he talked about peace. As I had already stated some time ago, sources (Kranenborg 1982) say that peace was just one of the subjects that the he talked about. He also talked about surrender to the guru and other subjects. I will edit in. I have changed it into "he talked among other about peace otherwise the lead is one-sided bordering on misleading. Andries 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you write "addressing people among others". What does this mean?Momento 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The grammar may have been flawed, but I meant to say that he not only talk about peace but also about other subjects, as backed up by both primary sources (Rawat's speeches) and secondary sources (descriptions of his talks by scholars). Andries 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right Andries, in forty years he's talked about dogs and cats, joy and love, in and out but what is the consistent topic for 40 years? The answer is "peace" Andries and you can't deny it.Momento 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit that Rawat has always talked about peace, but omitting from the lead the other subjects that he talked about is one-sided and misleading. Andries 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give us another topic he has mentioned in every talk for the last 40 years?Momento 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And all the Dutch? Are we trying to help readers or baffle them.Momento 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the reference for the four meditation techniques. I have already provided a translation of this. Andries

And Kranenborg? Isn't he the one who called Rawat's talk the "Peace Bomb"?Momento 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the many things that Kranenborg wrote. Andries 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits you are making to the lead does not not address the concerns raised. Important information ha been removed from it, and in exchange, information that is better suited for the article's body where context can be given to readers is being added. The result of these edits is most unsatisfactory, to say the least:

• The use of editorializing such as "though" to assert a counterpoint is unacceptable editorializing. The use of a specific source (Kraneborg's) to "support" the statement about the technique being four, is unnecessary: There is a full article about the subject and a full section in this article in which sources have been provided.

• There is also duplication of material in the first two sentences.

• The quote "guru is greater that God" is selective. The second part of that quote is missing. This is misleading, and it has been placed there a a way to poisoning the well for readers.

• There is material unsupported by sources regarding leased aircrafts (that is not mentioned in the article either.

• Important and sourced material was deleted from the article, regarding PR licenses as a pilot, american citizenship and other. A section named "Personal" sholud be added to contain that important material that weas lost

In summary, this lead is more of a mess than it was ever before, and I state my disappointment with the result. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that the word "though" regarding his claims of divinity in interviews is editorializing. I removed it. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kranenborg, I felt I had to add him to provide a reference for the statement that Techniques of Knowledge are four meditation techniques to avoid being vague. I do not understand why you think that Kranenborg is unnecessary. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there are already three or four other sources provided for that (Melton, Hunt, Chryssides and others). That is just a lame attempt to push once more your favorite Dutch scholar's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Describing the Techniques of Knowledge in the lead as four meditation techniques was a necessary neutral, factual clarification. The complaint by several uninvolved users was vagueness which I fixed some extent with my edit. Kranenborg was the easiest reference for me, because I know the reference quite well, but if you object to Kranenborg then I will replace it with somebody else who says more or less the same if I can find. Andries 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a source for that. See Prem_Rawat#_note-3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadden does not say that there are four meditation techniques. Kranenborg does (when his lengthy quote is summarized). Again, I have no problem to replace the reference to Kranenborg, but I think that the lead must mention that the techniques of knowledge are four meditation techniques for reasons already stated. Andries 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then use this: Prem_Rawat#_ref-45 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the quote "Guru is greater than God" is selective, but we have to be because there is little place. If reader are interested they can check with a click in the references for the complete context, so I do not see a problem. What I added was an improvement to the one-sided information about denial of divinity in the interviews. Talk about selective. I suggest removing all the interview stuff from the leac. Andries 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? That was not one-sided. You just add that to poison the pill for reader by selectively quoting. You have done that in the past, and you continue doing so. . At least have the decency to admit it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, pointing only to denials of divinity when Rawat also said in an interview "guru is greater God" is one-sided. I correct this. Again, I have no problem to remove this quote from the lead as long as it is done together with the denials of divinity. I do not know why you want to e-mail me, but my answers to you will probably be a mere repetitions of the arguments that I have already made here. Andries 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with some of your other complaints, but I do not feel responsible, becaue it was Momemento who changed the other aspects of the lead. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are as responsible as Momento, with your constant editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have mail, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would suggest these fixes to the first two paragraphs: removing dup material, grammar fixes, wikilink to Techniques of K, and staying close to the source (initiation, rather than revealing):

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957), also called Maharaji, formerly called Guru Maharaj Ji, has been a speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace for over 40 years, and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so.He calls this method "Knowledge" that consists of four meditation techniques.Rawat describes it as a way to take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".

At the age of six, he was initiated in the techniques of "Knowledge" by his father and succeeded him when he died in 1966, being accepted by his father's followers as their satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) or "Perfect Master" at his father's funeral. He thereby became the recognized leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) that was started by his father and began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent.

The last to paras still need work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paras are good enough. Here are the last tw -

In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention. Some of the media referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru" and some reported claims of divinity which Rawat always denied. In 1972 he began touring the world talking about inner peace and teaching Knowledge. His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift and Rawat's mother and his eldest brother Satya Pal Singh (Satpal) returned to India. Rawat remained in the West and in the 1980s he changed the style of his message and relinquished the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices.Rawat continued to tour extensively in the 1980s and 1990s, most often at the controls of a series of executive jets leased for his use. According to The Prem Rawat Foundation which he established in 2001, Rawat promotes a means to achieve a lifelong, individual experience of inner peace, and that he believes that "it is only by individuals finding peace for themselves can the world be at peace". Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace, and has, through the Prem Rawat Foundation, spearheaded various humanitarian initiatives.

I would like to bring readers up to date by including the number of people and events Rawat spoke to in 2006. Do you know where to find it.Momento 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the edit proposed for first to paras. If not agreeable to involved editors, please revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this article after a week, I think that there has been some strong effort made to improving the readability and content. Kudos to all.

Here are a few suggestions I would like to make. In composing a lead, it is appropriate to include information that will appear later in the article, where it will be discussed in greater depth. To this end, it would be fine to have the lead be a little redundant with respect to the rest of the article, because the common thinking and the very reason why we have leads is that people aren't going to read the whole article (sad, but true). So, assuming a reader has a short attention span and will only read a few paragraphs, you want to summarize the rest of the article as faithfully and succinctly as possible. As the lead is now, it appears to have been chopped up, revised, re-revised, added on to, and revised once more. It has a lot of random facts, but no real "flow". I would suggest someone just start from scratch. Set up a sandbox and write a new version, and try to include a sampling from every section of the article (including the reception section, which is noticably lacking). I would do this myself, but I feel I am a pretty crummy writer.

Another suggestion to consider in rewriting (or future revision) is to fix sentences that read like this:

"Some of the media referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru" and some reported claims of divinity which Rawat always denied."

Yes, that's right. A single sentence with five references. That's averaging about 4 words per cite. It must be some sort of world's record. I can't even tell what some of these references are, being that they are talk shows or something. The ones I can follow (Time magazine, for example) have nothing to do with a claim of divinity or Rawat's denial. Why is it there? I don't know, but its placement is an error. I am not totally familiar with Wiki's style policies, but I think it's best to avoid having a pile-up of references at the end of a sentence. I'd recommend going with one (or two) of the most reliable sources, and attempting to place sources where they are most pertinent. For example, the Time article mentioned is more relevant to the previous sentence "In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention." The cite should be placed there. References of an inferior quality (for example, a television show from 1973 that is difficult or impossible to independently locate and confirm) should be omitted if there are other, better (more researchable/reliable) references to the same idea.

I'll try to tidy up in a bit, and I'll even take a crack at a possible rewrite. Most importantly, I'd like to hear some feedback on these ideas. Am I making sense on these points? Mael-Num 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some tiding up will be needed after the last re-shuffle. I would suggest to wait and see if the current version (word wise) is acceptable to other editors, and then proceed with the cleanup of refs (which I agree that 5 references for one sentence is exaggerated). I would do this with caution, though, so as to not to lose any of the refs that editors have made efforts to research and find. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a re-write ( 19:52, 27 January 2007 Momento) but it was immediately reverted by Andries, who continued to revert and then started inserting additional material. As for "divinity" claims Rawat made fun of people who thought a human could be God in his first talks in the west (see Wiki quotes) but anti PR editors like to trot it out.Momento 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AAAH! Enough with the "divinity" stuff! Talk about it elsewhere, but don't have it creep into every freakin' discussion on this page! We're talking about how to make the lead better. Debates as to divinity would belong elsewhere in the article anyway. Mael-Num 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But Mael-Num, it was you who brought it up. Look, up above, in your previous post.Momento 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The word "divinity" was in a quote, but it has 100% of nothing to do with the validity of any such claims or any related debate. That, sir, is a straw man argument. Again, take it elsewhere. Mael-Num 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

M-N you spent 14 lines discussing the "divinty" sentence. I was pointing out why it existed and why it has so many poor cites. And giving you a little history gratis.Momento 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend you stop counting lines and start reading them for content. It would have made no difference if the sentence was about Rawat's divinity or his favorite ice cream, the point was about citation. You, in turn, used that one word as an opportunity to give your position on the subject. This discussion is, again, getting off topic. Contribute constructively, please. Mael-Num 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mael, could please keep the tone down and a bit less strong, please? It would make the discussions more useful and less stressful. Thanks for your cooperation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Okay, sure. Momento, please don't contentiously use straw man arguments to launch into a debate regarding Rawat's "divine status". That wasn't the purpose behind or the meaning of my quote, above, and it may completely derail what could otherwise be a meaningful discussion. Mael-Num 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Another suggestion for streamlining the lead: no quotes. They just don't belong there. Summarize what is being said, and do it briefly. If you think a quote belongs in the article, put it after the lead. Mael-Num 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about Prem Rawat, I think a quote from him is most apppropriate.Momento 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just not in the lead. Mael-Num 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is untrue that Rawat has always denied claims of divinity. He affirmed in one interview to be the Lord of the Universe. And saying that "guru is greater than God" may not be a literal claim of divinity, but it shows clearly why the status of his claim was and is quite ambiguous, even when the quote is read in full context. Andries 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Reinhart Hummel, Jan van der Lans, J. Gordon Melton, and Reender Kranenborg asserted that Rawat made claims of divinity and there is no scholar that I know of that denies that Rawat made claims of divinity. Andries 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We have the sources for that, and these are presented as needed. But what is discussed is the fact that he explicitly denied these claims in the interviews he gave to the media. We have been through this so many times that it is getting boring, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Rawat said things to the effect that "I am god-like" or "I am an instrument of God's will", but didn't actually claim to be God, there is a subtle difference there. The oft-quoted "Guru > God" thing implies a distinction there, as I see it, because he's not saying "Guru = God". All the same, if he has made claims of special divine insight or knowledge or powers or whatever, and later retracted these, then there's also a subtle difference in this. It's not that he never claimed these attributes, it is the case that he claimed them, and later recanted. It's important to give the whole story. Mael-Num 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Jossi is saying that Rawat never claimed to be divine, and Andries is saying that Rawat, in the past, implied divine attributes. The questions at hand are:

1) Which is it?

2) Is there proof?

Mael-Num 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that, Mael. I said that PR denied these claims in the interviews he gave to the media in the 70s. The problem, Mael is that the concept of "God" is very different in Judeo-Christian tradition, as in the Eastern tradition such as in Hiduism. I would prefer not to get involved in this type of discussions in these talk pages. If you want you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to explain in further detail what you mean, please, feel free to describe these differences at length in my talk page. I'd like to know more so that I can have a better understanding and perspective on this issue. Mael-Num 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And, not to be contentious, but if PR was denying claims of divinity back in the 70's, isn't that the same thing as his never claiming to be divine? Or do you mean that he was retracting claims that he was previously making? I just want to know so that I understand the whole story. Mael-Num 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, but Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. If you want to know PR's story, you are welcome to read a new biography that was just published last week: . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate for you to talk to me about your take on events on my talk page. That's certainly what it's there for, and if you've got the time and the inclination, I'd really like it if you did just that. But in any case, all I'm asking is for you to clarify what you mean. Did Rawat

A) always deny claims of divinity made by others, going back as far as the 70's?

B) in the 70's deny claims of divinity that he previously had made himself at an earlier time?

The wording you used before was ambiguous, and I wanted to understand the "whole story" of what you were saying. Mael-Num 10:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to explore some good material available in WP, such as Guru (in particular the section about Guru#Guru_and_God, as well as Guru-shishya_tradition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that you don't want to clarify your own words? Mael-Num 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying, Mael, is that I want to keep talk-page discipline and avoid making this page a discussion forum to discuss our opinions on the subject. As I said before, if you want to learn more about PR, you can explore some of the resources available. See for example a chronological listing of quotes by PR at Wikiquote (in which you can appreciate the evolution of PR's way of presenting his message), and the full text of a recent address at Wikisource. Get started there, and if you have any further questions you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Talk page discipline" has nothing to do with it. I'm not starting a discussion group. I am asking you specifically what your words meant. As I have stated a few times now, the wording is ambiguous. Please clarify your words. Mael-Num 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you desist. If there is anything that you need clarified related to this article, ask me and I will oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)I'm asking for you to clarify what you mean. Did Rawat

A) always deny claims of divinity (made by others, related to Rawat), going back as far as the 70's?

B) in the 70's deny claims of divinity that he previously had made about himself?

The wording you used before was ambiguous, and I wanted to understand the "whole story" of what you were saying. Mael-Num 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, M-N, you'd be better advised to base your editing on reliable facts rather than others editors opinions. You ought to buy the new biography on Rawat by Andrea Cagan. It will answer many of your questions.Momento 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I base my edits on reliable facts. Does that mean I shouldn't ask for clarification? Mael-Num 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the point, Jossi might be wrong. You investigate then you decide.Momento 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Jossi might be mistaken. But I can't tell what he means~ That's the point. =)Mael-Num 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given Jossi's inability (or unwillingness) to clarify his words, and the discussion of the subject going on here, I think the case is that Rawat earlier in his career made numerous claims to divinity, both implied and overt, and as time went on he denied these claims and redefined his image. As that is certainly one possible interpretation of Jossi's words, I must conclude that he concurs with this assessment. I don't think, under these circumstances, that it would be inappropriate to include reliable statements to this effect, as the consensus agrees this is accurate. Mael-Num 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are overstepping here, Mael. Please refrain from interpreting "my words", as this is neither needed, nor useful. I remind you yet again that this is not a discussion forum about the subject of this article and that in Misplaced Pages ,editor's consensus of opinion cannot trump Misplaced Pages content policies. Find a reputable source that asserts what you say and it can added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're not assuming good faith here, Jossi. It's not only useful, but mandatory that every person interprets another's words, otherwise they obviously have no meaning. Are you implying that I am deliberately distorting your words? No, of course you couldn't possibly be, because you must assume good faith, and I have given you more than ample opportunity to clarify. As you have responded here, and still have not rebutted my conclusions, I must further conclude your implicit agreement with my words. Also, I appreciate your vigilant reminders as to random and unrelated wikipedia guidelines and policies. We're sure to never devolve into a discussion group with one such as you around! Kudos. Mael-Num 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you, yet again, for the nth time, to please focus on discussing this article. I absolutely do not agree with your words, and I do not care to discuss the subject of this article, but only the article itself and ways to improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show, for the 1st time, where I am not discussing the article. Thanks. Mael-Num 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a confusion over claiming to be God and claiming to be divine. He has never claimed to be God but has always claimed that he and every human being is divine.Momento 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no confusion, at least on my part. Rawat has not said, for example "When people are gathered together, God is there." He has said that "when Guru is here, God is here", and that he is "the highest manifestation of God", and that he is the singular "perfect master". He makes a clear distinction between the sort of divinity that he believes is present in himself ("the highest") and the sort of "imperfect" divinity that is present in others. He further associates his own sort of divinity with God as being "All-Powerful" and "greater than God". He doesn't describe others in this way. So, no Momento, there's no confusion or ambiguity about these statements. He claims to be at least on par with God, if not better than him. Pretty definite talk, that. Mael-Num 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested to you to read the quotes at Wikiquote in which PR speaks of God through the different years. And I ask you again, to refrain from using this page to discuss the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your claims that this is happening, I think the only non-article based discussion is happening on my talk page. And perhaps in your imagination. =) Mael-Num 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not engage in discussions about the subject of this article, not with you and not with anyone else, and no matter what subterfuges you will use to draw me into discussions in this page, you will not succeed. If others want to engage in discussions in your talk page, have fun. But not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Subterfuge, eh? That sounds like you are accusing me of something quite unpleasant. In case you are not familiar with this, please read WP:NPA. Mael-Num 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No Mael, no. You keep misinterpreting me. I was speaking of an argumentative subterfuge called doublespeak argument, such as saying that because I did not answer you, I then agree with your position. These fallacies, such as begging the question, Ignoratio elenchi and similar, are "subterfuges" used in debates. As this page is not a page for such debates, I ask you to refrain from attempting to engage me on these, as they will be ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've now outright falsely accused me of "argumentative subterfuge", I don't think my words were a misrepresentation in the least. Also, as one can plainly see, none of these rhetorical fallacies that you are accusing me of fit the style of reasoning given in my assesment in the least. Given these facts, I'd urge you to consult both a mirror and the article on the strawman argument. In any case, I have as little interest in trading barbs with you as I do in further continuing this argument. As you've already said, if a reliable source on the subject can be found, it should be added, and that's good enough. Mael-Num 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you are not familiar with this, please read Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Rewrite

Per the discussion here, I've attempted a somewhat major revision of the lead. I've tried to crystallize a lot of the rambling details, and added a couple where they were lacking. Hopefully this version will find favor as an easier read that gives a brief and broad, though not very deep, treatment of Rawat. Mael-Num 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I stopped counting the mistakes you inserted after 4. Let alone the bad writing.Reverted.Momento 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I'd recommend you start counting and discussing them here. And please, don't attack my writing. It's poor form, and I'm a sensitive person. Mael-Num 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I can show you 4 factual errors, will you admit that you don't have the editing skills to improve on this article and leave it alone?Momento 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd request. Why don't you work to improve the article, and let that be a reward in itself? Mael-Num 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Goring, Dictionary of Beliefs & Religions, pp.145
2. "Prem Rawat's quotes @ Wikiquote". 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-03. Birthday Celebrations, Prem Nagar (Haridwar), August 21 1962 as published in "Hansadesh" magazine, Issue 1, Mahesh Kare, January 1963
3. Barrett 2001, page 327
   "At the heart of Elan Vital is this Knowledge — loosely, the joy of true self-knowledge. The Knowledge includes four meditation techniques; these have some similarities in other Sant-Mat-derived movements, and may derive originally from surat shab yoga."
4. Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428
   "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hansji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher , 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you... What you are looking for is inside of you.'"
5. Beit-Hallahami, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults, pp. 85
   "When the founder died in 1966, the eight-year old Pretap stood up at the funeral to announce his ascent to the throne and became the movement's recognized leader. Maharaj Ji was considered satguru, or the Perfect Master."
6. Melton, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, pp.141-2 entry Divine Light Mission
   "Just six years after the founding of the Mission, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj was succeeded by his younger son Prem Pal Singh Rawat, who was eight when he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji had been recognized as spiritually adept, even within the circle of the Holy Family, as Shri Hans' family was called. He had been initiated at the age of six He assumed the role of Perfect Master at his father's funeral by telling the disciples who had gathered. Though officially the autocratic leader of the Mission, because of Maharaji's age authority was shared by the whole family."
7. U. S. Department of the Army, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups, pp.11-5
   "Following his death, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji, as the next Perfect Master and thereby he assumed head of Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father. Since that time, Guru Maharaj Ji has inspired a world wide movement and the Mission is active in 55 countries."
8. Hinnellsm The Penguin Dictionary of Religions, pp. 451
   "Sant Mat concepts and practices include Anukul Thakur, Maharaj-ji -the so-called "boy guru" - who led the Divine Light Mission - and John Roger Hinkins, who led a spiritual movement in Southern California. "
9. Cite error: The named reference LevineRM2000 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference TomorrowShow1973 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Cite error: The named reference Time1972 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Cite error: The named reference Time1975 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics