Misplaced Pages

Talk:Prem Rawat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:41, 29 February 2008 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →Allegations of child abuse← Previous edit Revision as of 16:43, 29 February 2008 edit undoJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits →Allegations of child abuse: if no one will do it, I willNext edit →
Line 2,233: Line 2,233:
:: ''Sikhism and Sant Mat have been associated with each other for a number of different reasons. These include their common location and period of origin.'' Melton, Gordon J. (Ed.) ''Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices'', p.1129 ISBN 1576077616. (both evolved in the ] region of India and in the same period) ] <small>]</small> 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC) :: ''Sikhism and Sant Mat have been associated with each other for a number of different reasons. These include their common location and period of origin.'' Melton, Gordon J. (Ed.) ''Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices'', p.1129 ISBN 1576077616. (both evolved in the ] region of India and in the same period) ] <small>]</small> 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


==Allegations of child abuse== ==Allegations==


Why is there no mention in this article about these allegations? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Why is there no mention in this article about these allegations? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 16:43, 29 February 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
Former good article nomineePrem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Archive
Archives
  1. June 2004 – July 2004
  2. July 2004 – July 2004 (1)
  3. July 2004 – July 2004 (2)
  4. July 2004 – August 2004
  5. August 2004 – August 2004 (1)
  6. August 2004 – August 2004 (2)
  7. September 2004 – September 2004 (1)
  8. September 2004 – September 2004 (2)
  9. September 2004 – September 2004 (3)
  10. October 2004 – October 2004
  11. October 2004 – April 2005
  12. June 2005 – August 2005
  13. August 2005 – October 2005
  14. October 2005 – February 2006
  15. February 2006 – March 2006
  16. March 2006 – April 2006
  17. April 2006 – April 2006
  18. April 2006 – May 2006
  19. May 2006 –
  20. July 2006 – September 2006
  21. September 2006 – November 2006
    Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (page merged)
  22. November 2006 – January 2007
  23. January 2007 – March 2007
  24. March 2007 – May 2007
  25. May 2007 – July 2007
  26. July 2007 – October 2007
  27. October 2007 — December 2007
  28. December 2007 — February 2008
  29. February 2008
  30. February 2008 (2)

Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section:

In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.

My concern:

  • ref 4 is a 1982 Dutch book: not clear whether it links in time or in place to any of the four places mentioned as being visited when in June 1971 Rawat left India?
  • (ref 5 is a 2001 book, as its title refers to the "late Vietnam war era" this might link to the media attention when visiting Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971.)
  • ref 6 is from 1975. Although published in the USA (The Ruston Daily Leader) the criticism originated in fact in India, from Rawat's mother. The sentence where this reference is added jostles with that: "Rawat left India", visited four places far from India "where he was criticised " - and then follows a criticism originating in India... no, not OK, bad style. (bolding was added)
  • ref 7 is from 2003, and is apparently not written from a seventies perspective (e.g. "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added)
  • (ref 8 is from 1997. As it is from a dictionary, and no text is quoted directly, place/time might be in order here)

Far from wanting that ref 4, 6 and 7 be removed I just want to point out that it is a non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment to make it seem (in the intro of the article) as if the criticism only extends to his speaking tour to London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971 (mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro), and, also suggested, no later then when he turned 16 in 1973 (3rd paragraph of the Intro). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Francis. The criticism is mostly from the 70's and early 80's. That paragraph can be easily fixed, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, the version I defend didn't have that flaw. So I conclude you agree I revert to that version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean of the lead? Can you place a diff here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your last edit to the article is the diff that removed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.. You can add this to an appropriate place of the lead, if that will help: Rawat attracted controversy for what has been considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, but note that ref codes without content can only be used if a ref with a same name and with content is on the page, see Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked all the refs are correct as these are used already elsewhere. See the ref section, which has no errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I checked them: the last two didn't work: other references with the same name and no content depended on them to have content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I will wikignome these and add provide the refs here so that these can be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Here: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I *had* already filled them with content on the Prem Rawat article (the content that was there in the sentence I had to remove in order not to double content in the lead). I'm not the one leaving behind me semi-disabled references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards to *ref 7 - "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" ] so it is pre 1983. So 4 out of 5 references are pre 1983 (Goring being unknown). Making it's placement the "His teachings became more universal, and less Indian, and in the early 1980s" sentence inappropriate. Since we are already talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're back to place/time incoherencies with your reverts:

In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized by some for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle. Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide. When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. (bolding added)

Rawat turned 16 in 1973. The sentence before that, so before turning 16, "Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring ". Before making his home in the U.S. and the ensuing touring, "Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message". Before that (still according to the timeline now proposed in the intro of the article) he visited four cities outside India, "where he was criticised ". So, the text of the intro still implies that criticism is something happening between June 1971 and Rawat's birthday in 1973, and happend in four cities (none of them in India, nor in the Netherlands - which is also incoherent with the references).
As I said, "non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment" - the criticism extended at least (!) from the mid seventies to the mid eighties, and originated in places not limited to "London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles" — that's what you have references for here, not for the 1971-1973 period nor for the criticism exclusively originating in the four mentioned cities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism. The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream. The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971. That's why the lede should structured the way I proposed.Momento (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism."
"The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream."
"The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971."
Even if all that is true, the criticism didn't stop there, did it? The references used in the article try to give a wider scope (both in time and in place), than just some superficialities when he first arrived in the west. So, it's still incorrect to use more profound references for what in the body of the lead text refers to a relatively short period of superficial criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Which criticism is superficial? The "lack of intellectual content in his teachings" or "leading a sumptuous lifestyle".Momento (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream"; "he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971" --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lede

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

Sorry, no, you're repeating arguments that have been debunked above. And again, don't start a new talk page section about something that's discussed elsewhere, and even was an agreement (#Thousands of edits lost: "Thus, should include the main points of the criticism.", last sentence, nobody found anything unreasonable about that; and then a few sections lower, #Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references which debunked the argument entirely, nobody objecting) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Could the sentence be moved to after Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. as a suitable compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I put it there for some time, until someone else moved it again to the last sentence of the section. So I propose to keep it there (last sentence of the lead, separate paragraph) until a new consensus where to put it (if any) emerges here on talk. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Or is it time to request a full protection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence that starts In June 1971, Rawat left India could benefit by saying that he was 13 years old at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I intend to change Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle (lede) into: "Rawat has been criticized for his teachings and for his lifestyle", and leave the details to chapter "Reception". It makes the lede a better summary, and prevents derogatory allusions from appearing twice, resulting in unproportional weight. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea, e.g. changes focus from the teachings regarded as being too lightweight to them being erroneous (or whatnot); similar for lifestyle, unless you assume we want to add language regarding behaviour other than it being sumptuous (there is such other criticism; but thus far Wikipedians chose not to include it). And of course a Lead section contains content covered elsewhere in the article (only birth date & place, and alternative names are things that can be in a lead without being repeated in the rest of the article: the lead section is a summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. His Lifestyle being „sumptuous“ seems in fact to cover the main body of criticism regarding lifestyle. But a “lack of intellectual content” is in my perception not the main theme of general or academic appraisal of his teachings, rather it is a marginal – and certainly derogatory, to put it mildly – point of view. There used to be much more clamour about alleged claims of divinity, or being a heretic, or the techniques being detrimental or ineffective, or demanding personal devotion, or unsolved matters concerning succession and what not. I mean, lack of intellectual content is not typical for criticism of the teachings, so it should not be solely explicitely mentioned in the summary, when there was really a great variety of criticism with a quite different balance point. That’s why I still suggest the more general “…criticized for his teachings”, perhaps we could add: “…in various ways”, or, to be more specific, as it is said in “Reception”: “…emphasizing the supremacy of subjective experience over intellect” (sounds less POV. A little OR to share with you: I do admit I feel slightly offended by the “lack of intellectuality”, it makes students look like idiots). What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Resuming

The criticism sentence of the intro currently reads

Rawat was criticized in the 1970s for lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.

I bolded the part I object to, while it is not covered by the sources:

  • ref is a 1982 book, it nowhere limits the criticism to the 1970s.
  • ref is a 2003 book, I've not seen anyone who could explain how it is derived from this book this criticism is limited to the 1970s
  • ref is also a 2003 book, as far as I can tell deriving from it that the criticism was limited to the 1970s is an interpretation, somewhat OR-ish.

So I propose to remove the qualifier "in the 1970s" from that sentence, it is nowhere needed, while these criticisms were (as is also apparent from other sources) not something that stopped after the 70s. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more wrong with the sentence.

  • ref Schabel writes - "Maharaj Ji's charismatic leadership is very effective, even if comparatively shallow." is hardly a "criticism".
  • ref Barret's comment that "The Divine Light movement used to be criticized for the devotion given to Maharaji, who was thought to live a life of luxury on the donations of his followers". Clearly date it to 70s possibly early 80s and contain "weasel words".
  • ref Hunt's comment " Over time,' critics have focused on' what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs."
Barret's and Hunt's comments contain enough "Weasel words" to be dismissed outright. Please read ] . Schnabel's "criticism" hardly merits a place in the article let alone the lede.
I can see the whole sentence being removed.Momento (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You were adamant the article was conforming to NPOV, with the sentence (and its references) included in the lead section the way it is , so I'm rejecting your argumentation above as "too weasely". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mishler quote (doesn't really belong to the talk page section on the criticism phrase in the lead of the article)

This may be slightly off-topic, but I can't find any mention of Robert Mishler in this or any of the related articles. He is a former president of the DLM and made critical comments about the subject. Is there a reason he's not mentioned? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted because Momento found mentioning Mishler's criticism unencyclopedic. I disagreed among others because Mishler's criticism was mentioned in Melton's encyclopedia' of cults. Andries (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I mention him because I was just reading an L.A. Times article from 1979 that quotes him extensively. The Times is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This Mishler?

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

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

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

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

External links section...

I've grouped all EL discussions --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all those links official websites of Prem Rawat as stated? Most appear to be independent. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "official" is but they are operated by people or organizations that have permission to use Rawat's speeches.Momento (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But not run by him. Maybe that sub title is not really required? It seems to be a hold over from when there was another section of links. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right.Momento (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

... contain links that are in contradiction with Misplaced Pages:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly which prong the links are in contradiction with? I don't see any contradiction with the stated guidelines. Simply claiming that the links are in contradiction with Misplaced Pages Policy is not adequate. Onefinalstep (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you are continually deleting my external link submission?

On the External Links page of Misplaced Pages under the subsection “Links to be Considered” of section “What to Link” you will find that “sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources” are permissible.

Moreover, the sites I am attempting to link to, which Momento continues to arbitrarily delete (have you sent him a warning yet jossi?), can arguably be said to be reliable sources in their own right. The two sites have documentation on many of their claims, and hold themselves out for contact by the users of the sites. Under the section of “reliable sources” Misplaced Pages states that “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.” However … the section goes on to state that “Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.”

So first, it is debatable whether or not the sites are reliable. I say they most certainly are. Unless there is a valid argument from Momento to the contrary, why should they be omitted? Secondly, even if I am wrong about their reliability based on “verifiability” of the facts they present (which I contest), they should still be considered “reliable sources” by the definition of the Misplaced Pages guidelines I quoted above due to their value in presenting viewpoints and criticisms of the subject at hand, especially due to the religious nature of the subject. Onefinalstep (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: it's a guideline, not a policy, and it contains the words normally and should. It's also not very clear. I have no idea what the first sentence, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. means.
In any case, the person who dinged the link should explain why, preferrably without c&p'ing a link to a guideline. After all, if the link did violate the guideline, it'd be nice to know why so the "error" isn't repeated. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The external links to the other sites have been deleted, simply because they do not follow Misplaced Pages BLP policy, which is quite clear: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Whilst I have rarely agreed with Andries in the past, this item is not a matter of argument, the links simply violate the criteria that Misplaced Pages requires. Armeisen (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs)

The sites are not poorly sourced. I guess everyone needs to make their own judgment on that though. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, although it should have come from someone else. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By website

Prem Rawat's official website
'Maharaji', Prem Rawat's personal website. Available in 16 languages.
Voice of Maharaji
Excerpts from recent addresses
Ex-premie.org
Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is a cult Website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat
  • I'd keep that one in the article. Contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. I'd limit the sentence describing this website to "website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat". The "cult claim" is too detaillistic: it is treated on one of the pages linked from the main page of that site, but that's a too limited angle on that website for Misplaced Pages's description imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is fine. The link is appropriate because it leads to a site which is maintained by former followers who obviously have some serious issues with the organization. They have loads of sources for their claim on the site, and they hold themselves out for contact. I can't comprehend why people are trying to argue this is not relevant. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Misplaced Pages:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Prem-Rawat-critique.org
Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing the mass of criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations
  • I'd keep that one in too. Also contains a broad scope of information on Prem Rawat. But I'd turn down the language with which the site is announced: "mass of criticism" is a view that we do not need to underline. "Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations" would do better I think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are right here too. Perhaps the "mass of criticism" is too much (although I think it's accurate). Onefinalstep (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Misplaced Pages:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no BLP problem: the material of this website isn't used in the article; I don't know how the weasely wording confounding "material used" and "external links (without using the material)" came in WP:EL, but again, taken literally there is no problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Remains to be demonstrated that Ex-premie.org is either a "questionable source" (why/how would it be?); or a "source of dubious value" (why/how would it be?); or "not high quality" (please demonstrate quality); or "not in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies" (which is again weasely wording - but again, demonstrate it); or that it is a "blog or personal web page" (also, to be demonstrated) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Register article
'Lord of the Universe' Article detailing about Prem and the controversy of conflict of interest in Misplaced Pages.
prem-rawat-maharaji.info
Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource
  • Would like to know whether others would think this a useful resource. It appears as such to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This site violates BLP. The policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies". This site is an derogatory and uses unreliable OR to defame Rawat. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy? I'm removing it immediately.Momento (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, Momento. The statement "if derogatory, should not be used" applies to "questionable sources or sources of dubious value," and we aren't talking about any questionable sources or sources of dubious value. I've been on a few pages there, today, as a result of this discussion, and I can't find anything that isn't true. If it's true, it isn't defamatory. The site requests anyone finding inaccurate material to notify them so that it can be removed. What inaccuracies have you warned them about, Momento? This is really a question of criticism of a flawed product or service by dissatisfied consumers. There have been serious quality control issues in the past. Different "mahatmas" gave different instructions. After ten months of dedicated practice, I assure you that the techniques, as presented to me, are harmful both by themselves and because they distract aspirants from other "meditation" techniques which actually do have more value for most people, but I'm not proposing to list myself as an expert for the article -- just for this discussion. This has nothing to do with BLP. There are hundreds of practices labeled "meditation," many of them cataloged in The Book of Secrets by Rajneesh, some of which have specific benefits in specific situations. Potential consumers have a right to be warned about the dangers of Rawatism. Such a warning is extremely valuable to people seeking beneficial practices. It keeps them from reinventing the wheel. Wowest (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The home page of this website says:

          The authors of this website have gone to great efforts to create an objective and broad-ranging account of Prem Rawat and his movement. It is not our intention to attack him or his followers, or in any way restrict their right of religious freedom. Rather these pages provide a point of reference for both journalists and those who are interested in the activities and philosophy of Mr. Rawat and the organizations that support and promote him.

          Is any of this demonstrably wrong? If so, please: "The authors welcome corrections to any inaccuracies that may have inadvertently been applied to the website's content", there's contact information available on the website, to send such proposed corrections to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. The vast majority of this site is self published OR that isn't verifiable. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. It is unacceptable in terms of OR, Verifiability and BLP. And it is alsoderogatory. I'll let Msalt remove it, he seems to know what he's doing.Momento (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the compliment! I haven't had time to look at it, and I need some sleep. Bsides, it looks like you deleted it already. But I do want to mention something about original research, Momento. You've criticized a couple of websites for having OR. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, that's precisely what we look for in our Verifiable sources. The whole point is that WE don't do original research, but rely on strong external sources. They do the OR so we don't have to. Msalt (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
            • On the contrary, your accusation of OR seems quite out of line. I just took a random page of that website: http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=23 After the intro on that page:
              1. 1st paragraph: no references, but general info (which can also be found in the Misplaced Pages Prem Rawat article, Prem Rawat#Childhood)
              2. 2nd paragraph: content referenced to Elan Vital
              3. 3rd paragraph and 4-paragraph quote: referenced to Academic specialist in the 'Rhadasoami tradition' Professor David Lane of California State University.
              4. 1st paragraph after the quote: referenced to former US Divine Light Mission President, Bob Mishler
              5. next paragraph: referenced to Prem Rawat himself; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                • I've just remembered, BLP Policy sats : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". That means every editor is obliged to remove this link. So I have.Momento (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • And where is your demonstration that this is "questionable", or whatever derogatory statement you're making? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • Do you really believe that a self-published anonymously written website become a "reliable source" by including a few quotes from real scholars? Find me a "reliable" and "verifiable source" for this derogatory claim "Rawat's right-hand men in the sixteen years between 1971 and 1987 were Bob Mishler and Michael Dettmers both have described him as an 'alcoholic' giving descriptions of carrying him up the stairs unconscious, after a night's heavy drinking at his home. Both detailed Rawat's abusive rages when under the influence of alcohol.".Momento (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Seems perfectly in line with:

                        Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982: " In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."

                        --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • How about this "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued." ].Momento (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • The source was Michael Dettmers. There's no problem linking to a website that is a publisher of something Michael Dettmers said. Afaik Misplaced Pages does not use that bit of information. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this website further, I fail to see how or why it's a BLP violation to link to it. Anything contentious appears sourced. It's clearly an indepth, notable, and independent source not under Rawat's control. We are perfectly within our bounds to link to a source like this, that I can see. Lawrence § t/e 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, the site owners remain anonymous: Could I sue the site owners like I could sue a publisher for publishing defamatory information? If the answer to the question is no (and I think it is), then that means the site does not have enough encyclopedic standing to be used as an external link. The reason being that whoever posts the information is not in practice prepared to vouch for its accuracy; if the same information could be found in a printed book, with a named publisher and author, it would be a different matter. -- Jayen466 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The website appears DMCA compliant (which includes OCILLA), (, see June 2005 entries on that page) which means you could sue the site owners.

It also appears to vouch for its accuracy (see same page , July 28th, 2005 entry). Sorry, no problem there. And the Internic link mentioned above, also shows adresses and other means to contact the site owners, if you're not satisfied by the e-mail addresses provided by the website itself . Sorry, really, no problem there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion on the Admin Noticeboard was archived ] two independent editors had the following to say about theprem-rawat-maharaji.info link.
I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So I'm removing it. BLP policy is clear - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material".Momento (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

W.r.t. Relata refero's and ThuranX's considerations:

  • Who runs this website? — see above: the website is DMCA compliant, the people running it are answering concerns (I gave the link that proves it).
  • Does it have some form of editorial control? – yes, see above and previous question.
  • What is its reputation for fact-checking? – appears OK, see above, I gave the link.
  • Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? – don't know, not a RS requirement (also: circular reasoning: of course this source has been quoted in multiple sources: whether or not these other sources are RS is independent of whether this source is a RS).
  • There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. – rebutted, see above.
  • the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained – not sure whether ThuranX was looking at the same source: didn't see no 'interviews' on the source we're talking about, could you point me to one?
  • random information attributed to the persons mentioned. – cheap thrill, does this need an answer?
  • He doesn't state when he talked to them, – unclear remark.
  • some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy – still not knowing what you're talking about, "'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy"?
  • ...the rest of ThuranX's conclusions appear to be based on his/her own original research, and can be waived as such.

Still, no BLP infringement demonstrated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be surprised about Francis position on this. By Francis arguments there is no such a thing as an anonymous website. The site is anonymous which does not allow the verification of authorship, there mo editorial control of fact checking that is known of; contains essay-type material nd other non-notable commentary, ; it is unverifiable. Contains material the violates BLP. Basically, exactly the type of site we should not link per Misplaced Pages:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people. Still no compliance with policy has been demonstrated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No idea why you keep linking to places that contain no definition of "questionable sources or sources of dubious value", is it perhaps in order to hide that there is no such requirement about non-anonimity for what Misplaced Pages regards as acceptable sources? If the source contains only content that is not attributed to other sources I'd agree, you'd have point. But in this case as I demonstrated above this website is quite clear of its sources, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence. Also, there is no such thing as "verification of authorship" imposed by WP:V (or any other content policy). Note that this website lists the sources for its content (whether persons or publications), I'm sure in much more detail than Cagan does – what more to ask?
There is editorial control and fact checking, as I demonstrated above. If you're not reading any of it, that's your problem not mine.
"contains essay-type material nd other non-notable commentary" – your OR, again, not worth rebutting. Even if it would contain "essay-type material", what's your problem? Misplaced Pages can (and does amply) use essays (and what looks likes them) as reference material.
"it is unverifiable" – WP:V nowhere speaks that we're in the business of verification of any external source. No OR, remember, and "verifiability, not truth", which *also* means we're not in the business of establishing the truth of external sources. Misplaced Pages's content should be verifiable against external sources. These external sources should be reliable, among several other criteria required from such sources, per Misplaced Pages's guidance. The verifiability of such external sources themselves is however no part of such criteria used by Misplaced Pages: it's simply none or our business.
"Contains material the violates BLP" – no it doesn't. Strictly speaking, that's even nonsense what you're saying there. BLP is an in-Misplaced Pages criterion. The external source itself can neither "adhere" to it nor "violate" it. It uses its own criteria, and that's not for us to decide. What we decide on is whether we link to it or not. In order to link to it, we check against our in-Misplaced Pages criteria whether the source is eligible for such use. And then there's no WP:BLP violation when linking to it.
Note also I don't have to "prove" there's no OR on that website, even with OR on it it can be a perfectly admissable external link. Note that WP:NOR does not even reject primary sources for sourcing content on Misplaced Pages, and even less secondary sources containing OR. As it happens, I've not really seen OR being published by that website, seen the abundant citations of external references on that site. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that we all have eloquently presented their arguments about this, and we have to agree to disagree. The only way to resolve this, would be to seek additional input from non-involved editors, such as the two editors that commented already at WP:ANI via WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's about content, not eloquence. I know you meant no harm, yet I'm declining the compliment for that reason. If anyone has content to add, please feel free. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I am not an expert on the policy here. I would be very curious to hear you answer the following question: can a BLP EVER link to a website that criticizes the subject of the article? It looks like you might say no, and Francis clearly says yes, and has detailed why he thinks this website qualifies. If you think it can, could you provide an example of an acceptable but critical website, either for Rawat or for any other living person? I think this would go a long way toward clarifying this issue. Thanks, Msalt (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. You can have a link to a critical site of the subject of the article, with the provisos explained in WP:EL, and WP:BLP namely: (a) links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.; (b) any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research; (c) Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (questionable sources: See Misplaced Pages:V#Questionable_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.). For example, see Criticism_of_George_W._Bush#External_links for appropriate ELs in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ThuranX did not yet clarify his/her comments, do we still need to wait?
  2. Ad Jossi's,
    • (a): neither a blog nor a personal webpage;
    • (b): not misleading, nor by factually inaccurate material, nor by unverifiable research;
    • (c):
      • fact-checking, appears OK, per above;
      • not widely acknowledged as extremist;
      • not promotional in nature;
      • not relying heavily on rumors;
      • not relying heavily on personal opinions - it does rely less on personal opinion than an average website on a religious or philosophical topic;
      • "Articles about such sources", not applicable to the context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is a personal web page, of an anonymous non-expert in the field
  2. Misleading and/or unverifiable opinion
  3. No fact checking that can be spoken of
  4. Relays on personal opinion, unsourced to reliably published material
We have covered that many times already, and we have opinions of uninvolved editors supporting these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "we have opinions supporting these arguments": Well, "opinions" is all we have, four opposing opinions in total:

  1. Opinions of "uninvolved editors", gathered through forum shopping:
    1. Relata refero's opinion: maybe not even totally "uninvolved" (Relata takes part in several discussions here, from before that WP:ANI opinion). Anyway, Relata's arguments were rebutted by me. If Relata thinks I was inefficient on the rebuttal, s/he's free to explain why.
    2. ThuranX's opinion was based on thoroughly unclear grounds. I asked ThuranX to clarify. Appears clarification is not forthcoming.
  2. Jossi's opinion: (1) flawed, should probably be rejected on COI grounds: I asked Jossi to clarify his situation w.r.t. the websites he doesn't object to be included in the EL section, since it was alleged he was their webmaster. No clarification seems to be forthcoming. (2) Jossi's actual arguments: rebutted. All he seems to be keeping to is an opinion in the face of evidence.
  3. Momento's opinion: well, indeed, opinion, no demonstrable policy conflict (as Momento alleged) however, that has been rebutted multiple times.

So, we're at opinions, and, for instance, wikipedia:consensus as a way to deal with opinions. And that page is policy too.

There are several supporting opinions, let's concentrate on these. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

dmoz search query
Prem Rawat, at Open Directory Project
  • I'm not in favour of keeping this one in: of the 17 links listed on that page only four are in English. Of these four, two have been rejected already, and two are under discussion here. Generally, it is to be avoided to link to a website that launches a search query (e.g. we don't link to a search query in Google books by way of external link), it sort of defeats the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I would enocurage editors to take the advice of User:Thatcher:

To the extent that prem-rawat-critique analyzes the wikipedia article, it might be useful as a guide for editors looking to improve the article, but it is certainly not a reliable source for use in the article itself. However, no surprises that an anti-Prem web site thinks the article is not negative enough. The next step is for someone to try and fix the articles on wikipedia, consistent with policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, undue weight, and so forth. Thatcher 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, these links violate WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links If editors believe that these constrains are not acceptable, they should bring these issues to WT:BLP first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we know you think the links are questionable sources. Lets have that discussion. But would you concede that assuming they are reliable sources they are not of dubious value? Onefinalstep (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued below #External links disputes --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links disputes

Links like these:

Keep getting added and deleted. Could editors please use this talk page to discuss which external links should be added or deleted rather than simply edit warring over them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have written many times on these pages and as I wrote in the edit summary, those links are in direct violation of BLP policy. Please make yourself familiar with BLP policy. It says - "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Further "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy".

I have pointed out this policy many times.Momento (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this getting anywhere between Momento and I. I think this needs to be fleshed out in exactly the same way the photo has; namely, by allowing a large number of people to comment on their worth for inclusion. I don't feel like laying out my same tired argument again in yet another external links thread. Jossi, since you know what the hell goes on with these types of disputes, would you mind making a suggestion (unrelated to whether the links should be kept) on how to resolve this? Onefinalstep (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording of WP:BLP is quite unambiguous, and editors have already discussed this (see Thatcher's comment above: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Discussion.) If there are still disputes, you may need to pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, these links are not reliable sources (per WP:RS). However information within them that are sourced from RS', will be suitable -- If it comes from RS'. Just like in any BLP. --Shot info (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Onefinalstep: please note that you are in violation of WP:3RR, that states that: The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.
  1. 05:57, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  2. 23:30, 10 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  3. 16:31, 11 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  4. 00:14, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
You may want to consider self-reverting to avoid getting dinged, and pursue dispute resolution instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the guy who keeps deleting them with no discussion? I mean, both Momento and I are at odds and are the only ones continually deleting/adding them ... I'll accept some sort of non biased intermediary, but until something is suggested why should I be the one to back down? Onefinalstep (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR is strange as you are using it anyway. It always is in favor of the first reverter. If I put something up, and momento deletes it, I will naturally reach my three reverts before he does. This is an arbitrary way of deciding if the links should stay up or not while the debate goes on.

Certain people keep saying that the links are to sites that are spam sites, blatant copyright infringements, or "questionable sources". I think we need to have a discussion on what exactly "questionable sources" means for ELs. The sites I want on the links section are not "questionable sources." They would be questionable sources if they held themselves out as something they are not. But the sites are very clear in what they are. If the links were to a page that purported to be an official page of Prem Rawat, and it was dubious that it in fact was an "official" page, then yes I would say this is a "questionable source." But these pretty well organized and run websites which don't seem unreliable. I might not use them as source material in an article, but only because they are secondary sources. But they do have their own documentation on their sites. The sites are on the same level of dubiousness as Misplaced Pages. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


A) External links are not the same as reliable sources. B) WP:BLP says that external links in biographies must comply with WP:EL. WP:EL says that we may not link to copyright violations or to spam sites. It makes further suggestions on which sites should not be linked, but it does not ban linking to them. If a compelling case can be made for linking to the sites then BLP does not prohibit them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, BLP also says: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if contentious, should not be used at all for content about living people, either as sources or via external links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please follow the wikilink in that text, for more info about what questionable sources are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2, chill out Jossi) Ah yes, apologies, I thought the links were being used as references, rather than just as a true "EL", however (as Jossi points out) BLP applies in BLP. Moral is, need a better link :-) --Shot info (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence from WP:BLP isn't clear. We're not using these links as a source, so they aren't "questionable sources". We aren't adding any information from them to the article, so I'm not sure that the sentence from BLP applies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is clear to me, Will. The wording speaks to the core of this debate. Maybe you want to take this to WT:BLP if not clear? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Back onto the merits of the particular ELs, given the general low quality of the existing ELs (which seem to just link to equally dubious quality ELs), I am of the opinion that a review of all the ELs is required. Because if some of the existing ELs stay, then those proposed have some validity - using "dubious" as a quality measure. Shot info (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This element of the WP:BLP appears to have been under frequent, and even recent, debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In any case, could proponents of the links stop re-adding them until there's a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the issue to the BLP noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#External links on Prem Rawat. Hopefully, outside comment will help resolve the issue. Vassyana (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the current links, as of this moment:

Of these, only the first appears to be the subject's official site. Some of the others are covered in articles on those specific topics (TPRF and Techniques of Knowledge). Others appear to be anonymous fan sites and blogs. In order to minimze the edit warring over external links, I propose that we delete all but the first one. Are there any reasons why we have to keep the rest of them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already proposed pairing down the EL section, but note that none of the sites are fansites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If they're not Prem Rawat's official sites then what are they? Who owns and runs the websites? If they belong to Elan Vital then they should be in the Elan Vital article (and maybe there already). I assumed that they are run by followers/students/practitioners, but if they are also owned by Rawat then we should say so. If they're not we should remove them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Will, thanks for starting yet a third (or fourth?) concurrent talk page section about the same links.

As far as I'm concerned the following should be kept:

  • Ex-Premie.org website of former followers who claim his movement is destructive
  • Prem Rawat Critique Website detailing criticism leveled against Prem Rawat and his following from various sources
    • Prem Rawat Critique Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations

...for reasons I gave above: #External links section... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And as far as I am concerned these should not be kept: Misplaced Pages:BLP#External_links and Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is bad English. Sorry. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ..." I understand. That means, don't put that material in the article. "Material ... solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value ... should not be used ... as an external link" is some sort of gibberish. An external link does not imply one uses the material. No material that is solely available via ex-premie.org or prem-rawat-critique.org is used. If the quoted sentence of that policy page isn't clear we're not required to second-guess about its "true" meaning, that would be OR.
Linking to many websites implies linking to a website that may have a blog, or a forum where people that are not "experts" in the discussed domain may take part. None of these links are RSs. Scott Adams' Blog (where anyone can post a reply, and which can contain some inane critique of Scott Adams) is linked from the external links section of the Scott Adams article. There is no BLP issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence reads quite clearly to me, Francis. I guess that we will have to agree to disagree, and request additional feedback from other editors. There is a thread at WP:BLP/N about this already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author, and that is why is permissible per WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "the Dilbert blog, is a blog by the author": no, more than 90% of that website are clueless rants, not by Scott Adams (and even less by Dilbert) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the "pro" sites have the appearance of blogs or self-published sites. In particular, http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ is formatted like a blog and has no ownership or authorship information that I can find. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That site, has a copyright message at the bottom right (© The Prem Rawat Foundation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't show up on my screen, but I'll take your word for it. Since we have an article about the Foundation, that link should be in that article. Prem Rawat doesn't own or even sit on the board of the Foundation so it appears to be an entirely independent entity. Who do the other websited belong to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is there ... just scroll all the way to the bottom, on the right sidebar. The Prem Rawat Foundation carries his name, and perform activities related to Prem Rawat under his auspices. Their 2006 audited annual report says Activities performed by the Foundation which promote and disseminate the speeches, writings, music, and art of Prem Rawat and support public forums and humanitarian initiatives. , so that may be grounds for inclusion. The other sites have information about their owners, you can check these if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what formal relationship exists between Rawat and the Foundation, if any. "Auspices" just means "kindly endorsement". Since we have an article on the TPRF why do we need to duplicate them here? Regarding the other sites, what do they add to this article and are they all of "high quality"? Gettig back to my proposal, I think we'd have more peace if we restricted the links to just the one official site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have commented on this issue just enough to make my point. I will leave this to others to comment as well. External links should be made available in accordance to Misplaced Pages:EL#What_should_be_linked and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you object ot removing all the sites except for the one official site of Prem Rawat? Does anyone else want to defend individual sites? If not then, for the future stability of this article, I think it'd be best to delete them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You could try it, Will, and see if it sticks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to get an explicit consensus first, but since you don't object and no one else does either I could take that as an implicit consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What's with http://contactinfo.net? This article isn't about the Elan Vital movement, so contacts among EV members appear off topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that site belongs to the "Elan Vital movement", but I agree that it is not needed here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the link to his personal site only, removing all others. This article is about Prem Rawat and is well-referenced. With an article of this quality, the external links section should include his official site, links to articles that could be used in the future as sources (ie they meet WP:RS, are on-topic, and provide unique information not already covered), and links to other media that meet the very highest quality criteria (links to video, audio, etc that record notable events, etc). --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, and some support, for deleting the additinal links I've gone ahead and done so. I hope that editors on all sides of this issue will find this to be an acceptable compromise and not edit war any more over them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to remove, sorry. The only one I'd tentatively allow to have removed is the contactinfo.net, it's more about the organisation than about the person. I was waiting till I could see any logic connecting to actual Misplaced Pages policies that would justify such removals. I don't see any in what Will, Jossi and others explained here. Also my vocal opposition was simply ignored in commentaries provided by Will, Jossi and others. It's not because you ignore it, that it isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy that I was involing was "consensus". In other words, we've got to find something we can all agree on. The external links section has been a battleground. As a compromise I suggested removing virtually all links. Now that youu've taken it on yourself to restore them you'r assuming responsibility for defending their presence. Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "please defend the addition of the links" - I did, above, I gave the link to the section where I did. For those external links not mentioned there, additionaly, I think we should have 5 to 10 external links, to the *best* available resources on Prem Rawat, where *best* means, not discriminating between links to websites that contain criticism or not. The guiding principle is rather: can you find useful information on Prem Rawat on the website.
Re. "The external links section has been a battleground." - I'm not impressed by those trying to make it a battleground. If you think the behaviour of those trying to make it into a battleground is unacceptable, e.g. RfC can be tried, otherwise, take to ArbCom, if other means to come to an agreement have been exhausted.
Re. "As a compromise I suggested ..." - I really cannot see how this is a "compromise", and even less, how this could be an acceptable compromise, in view of WP:NPOV.
Re. "Please say what info they contain that we don't have in this article already." - For example, sources listed at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm would on average count as RSses in Misplaced Pages, they contain information not yet in the article; http://www.voiceofmaharaji.info/ contains (at least, but there is more) the look and feel of the message Prem Rawat wants to spread, something that's hardly possible to capture in a tertiary source like Misplaced Pages (at least for copyright reasons). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two that seem particularly unnecessary:

This site is already linked from the article as a ciation, so there's no need to link it again the extrnal links section, plus we have multiple internal links pointing to a whole article on the topic.

This is just a subpage of the "Maharaji.net" offical site. As a side note, we also include an external link to it in the text which is frowned upon in WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I looking at the reverts in this section, it is obvious that there is no consensus forming about what to include and what to exclude. Unless we can find a suitable compromise that we can all live with, we will need to pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:MEDIATION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


WE don't need consensus, BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and I agree that some Websites have to be deleted. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I find it extraordinary that the is any doubt about the unsuitability of the anti-Rawat websites.Momento (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Prem Rawat Critique and Ex-Premie.org . With the edit war going on the need for them is greater as critique tend to get mutated into oblivion by some follower of Prem Rawat. Look at Reverend_Moon for another BLP with links to websites of critics. Epiteo (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've revived the discussion by website, above #By website --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no rebuttal to my assertion above that
Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I also see no rebuttal to my assertion above about Ex-Premie.org & Prem Rawat Critique, Should be deleted. Therefore I'll assume that no one disagrees.Momento (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there's been substantial discussion of those links and it would not be appropriate to say that there's any consensus, implicit or explicit, regarding them. Also, I notice that some user(s) is relying on a shifting IP to continue deleting the links in what appears to be an attempt to circumvent 3RR. If it continues I'll ask for the page to be semi-protected, and possibly also ask for a checkuser to see of it's being done by a registered user. It's very disruptive to edit war. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need consensus Will Beback. As an admin you should be familiar with BLP policy. And in the case of BLP, it says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". As yet no one has produced an argument why this article should be exempt from Misplaced Pages policy. In the meantime this article "must be written conservatively". I've have deleted the links in accordance with "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."Momento (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is it? You say above that you're going to delete because no one disgrees (which is certainly incorrect), then you say it doesn't matter if they disagree or not. Is it you who are deleting the links as an unregistered IP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Will Beback, I didn't say I am "going to delete because no one disagrees", I wrote "Should be deleted". Please do not puts words into my mouth. As an admin you have a responsibility to follow Misplaced Pages policy.Momento (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the big difference is between what I wrote and what you wrote, or why it matters. I suggest you work towards resolution rather than picking fights. It's the responsibility of every user to follow Misplaced Pages policy. You haven't answered my question - are you the user who has been deleting the links while logged out? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
First you incorrectly stated that I said that I was "going to delete" the link, when in fact I was making the same comment as you, that the link "should be deleted". And now you accuse me of picking fights because I object to your misrepresentation. And I'm not deleting the links as an unregistered IP?Momento (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you wrote that they "should be" deleted, then you deleted them. I said you wrote that you were going to delete them. Why are you picking a fight over that negligible "misrepresentation"? How does this bring us closer to resolution on this topic? I'm glad you're not the editor who's intentionally hiding his or her identity to delete material. I hope that every editor will act in a straighforward manner and bring their disagreements to talk pages rather than engaging in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not continue to misrepresent me. I wrote "should be deleted" at 23:22 ] when the link had already been deleted by another editor. And I did not delete the links until after you put them back in at 23:25 ]. Your continual and deliberate misrepresentation of my actions is a personal attack, see ]. Stop it. Do not characterize my correction of your misinformation as "picking a fight", it is an editor's duty to correct false and misleading claims. The link issue is resolved by application of BLP.Momento (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion of links to the critical websites under #By website above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

As this discussion has not led to a suitable compromise, I think that it is timely to seriously consider WP:MEDIATION, as the next step in dispute resolution. We could add the EL dispute, the Cagan book dispute and other items about which we have been unable to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)you do not participate,

I suggest that mediation is appropriate on this matter. I also suggest that it would be best if it were limited to people who are actively editing the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually was not interested in participating in the mediation, Will. I was merely making that suggestion. One concern with mediation is that some of the disputes revolve around to what several editors believe are violation of policies, and mediation may not be able to help with that. But it is a necessary step, I think, and it may help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Being new here, I can't tell if this is actually being mediated or not (or in some other sort of dispute resolution). Would someone please do the favor of emailing me or posting on my User Talk page is this is opened up in one of these forums? Thank you kindly. Msalt (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. If mediation is opened, you will be informed as an active editor. You can read about the process at WP:MEDIATION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith

≈ jossi ≈ has contacted me via wikipedia email, expressing the view that I am the owner or otherwise associated with one of the sites in question in this section. I have answered ≈ jossi ≈ publicly because I consider his claims to be fundamentally lacking in Good Faith WP:GF. For the record there is a single article authored by me about the writings of one academic who has written about Rawat on the particular website that is of concern to ≈ jossi ≈. I have posted my reply at User_talk:Jossi and copied at User:Nik_Wright2 --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, could you clarify your involvement in or relation (if any) to the websites listed in the "external links" section of the Prem Rawat article and/or under discussion here and/or subject to reverting in the article? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just looked at the last of the three external links and found it to contain anonymous allegations of illegality and immorality against the subject of this article and against other people. Links should be of the same encyclopedic standard as the Misplaced Pages mainspace articles. This link is not acceptable. Please discuss its removal. Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop creating new talk page sections about topics that *are* currently being discussed on this talk page. I already complained about this habit of someone starting a new talk page section when the person doesn't like the outcome of a previous, still active, one (#Talk page discipline). This is yet another example of the same.
See above...
...for the ongoing discussions on the "external links" topic. Please make sure you read what is on this page before writing the same for the nth time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Having one negative and only two positive links is a typical case of false balance. If at all a critical site has to be included, it should be straight cognizable that it represents a contentious small minority view, even if it is somewhat virtually inflated. Otherwise a lot more positive links should be provided.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The balance doesn't strike me as unfair. On the other hand your "it represents a contentious small minority view" appears as some sort of OR to me. Where did you get that information? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your claim itself would be OR. We can certainly include a critical link about a public media figure. It is no BLP violation. Lawrence § t/e 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not against having critical links, as long as BLP is respected. I objected to false balance. Active detractors number presumably less than 100, while there are 100,000s of happy active students. The fact of controversy should be mentioned, but then it is not such a central issue. It is conditional, like the shadow of an object, which can easily be longer than the object itself, depending on how low the lighting beam is set. In my understanding WP should be ambitious to discriminate and not give the conditional undue weight, but primarily aspire to inform on the unconditional, and leave more ephemeral noises to the press. I also believe BTW, that if you exposed Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedia to acclamation processes like WP does, they might lose a lot of their dignity.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Critical links of public figures may be welcome, but not those that carry defaming statements. Why?, because it Fails WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. . Fails Misplaced Pages:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people: In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies. Also: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. not to be linked. If you have a need to change the policy and established guidelines on the subject, do so at WT:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As explained again, there are no unsourced defaming statements. What defaming statements are you referring to? Please provide a specific example. Lawrence § t/e 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, you seem to have a misunderstanding about what sources are acceptable in a Misplaced Pages article about a living person. BLP Policy is explicit "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." The sites being discussed to don't provide reliable third-party sources, they rely on OR. Momento (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not repeat such allegations in talk page, as that would also be in violation of WP:BLP. Do you have email enabled? I can email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And your question does not address the lack of compliance with content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
E-mail is enabled. What evidence is there that this is a personal site? Also, did you see the section http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat#By_website that talks about this site? Are those your concerns? My primary concern is that this article is imbalanced still, and too many people with known or demonstrated bias to the cult/sect have undue control of influence here. That will be trimmed back. Lawrence § t/e 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have emailed you. Editors have been working to improve the article, and progress is being made. And what is new?, all editors have biases, but that does not stop us from wanting a good article, and influence edits in that direction. No different than editing Homeopathy, or any other subject about which there are strong POVs at play. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I'm just of the opinion that strong POVs need to forcibly placed in check, even if those with the POVs don't like it. Neutrality isn't something to negotiate on with POV pushing. POV pushers or strong POVs need to take a shot in the ideological mouth when they push too hard, and pushed to the side by the community whenever they come up, or else they'll end up with undue authority. Neutrality always comes before personal stakes, POVs, or wishes of any one of us. If some people get upset about that like on the homeopathy mess, or some of the editors here... c'est la vie. We're here to suck at the neutrality tit, not the tit of junk science or Prem Rawat. That's why I try to never touch articles I may be conflicted in, such as Judaism. I'll reply to your email on the specific points. Lawrence § t/e 15:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a Jew, and I have no problems editing articles on Judaism. I lived in Israel for many years, saw combat there as a soldier, and I have no problems in editing articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yes, we all have POVs, and yes, we can still put NPOV, V, BLP and NOR, before our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) should clarify what he means by articles that an editor may be "conflicted with" - whether this refers to "POV" or rather a conflict of interest? Cirt (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion on the Admin Noticeboard was archived ] two independent editors had the following to say about theprem-rawat-maharaji.info link.
I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So I'm removing it. BLP policy is clear - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material".Momento (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank yoou. I missed that discussion and the comments by uninvolved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Official"

Francis Schonken wrote: it's what the website says, no need for interpretation, see talk

Excuse me please, Francis, where exactly does it say this? I can't find it.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see above below #Talk page discipline
The answer to your question is above in #By website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, if I strain your nerve, but I have only limited time to busy myself with WP, and the discussion has recently made major leaps in the intervals, and it appears easier to communicate directly on a small circumscribed subject than being chased through miles of text - and then not even finding. Maybe my brain is getting a little old, and English is not my first language anyway, so I must ask your patience, not to trifle with me. Again, where does it say - on that website - that it is official? To my perception, the link-tag has been worded arbitrarily, hasn't it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the title tag:

  1. Open the page ( http://maharaji.net/index.html );
  2. Click "View → Page source" (or whatever the equivalent in the browser you're using) - you get to see the full HTML of the page. There, in the <HEAD>... section, you'll find

    <TITLE>Maharaji (Official site of Prem Rawat) </TITLE>

    The content of the title tag may be visible in your browser too, depending on which system & browser you're using, and settings. For me, for instance, it shows on the tabs of my Firefox.

Now, If you edit the Prem Rawat article, especially when reverting or deleting, or overwriting what others wrote I have little mercy, you'll have to read the relevant talk page sections. If you have no time, probably the best option would be to look for a less tense article, or wait till this article comes in calmer water. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, ja, thank you very much, I have it now. Still, I prefer not to be pushed out of the process, just for not being an unemployed know-it-all. After all, I'll try to increase modesty; and mercy is certainly something we all need.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very much "in the process" by taking note of the talk page, and contributing every once and a while as you do.
I didn't say "no mercy"... yes, at least a "little mercy" is what all of us deserve, toiling over this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed text (Randi)

I removed the following text (refs nowiki'd):

Skeptic James Randi described Rawat as the leader of the cult Divine Light Mission, and as an overweight teenage guru, who was addressed as “Lord of the Universe” by his devotees and who was driven in a Rolls-Royce or driving high-powered motorcycles.<ref>James Randi and Arthur C. Clarke 'An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural' New York: St Martin’s Griffin. ISBN 0-312-15119-5</ref>

James Randi is a debunker, not a journalist, sociologist, religious scholar or other such source. His opinions and claims about religious figures, unless related to debunking claims of observable phenomena, simply have no place in such articles. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting claim you've got there. For your statement to be true spiritualism has to not be a religion. Randi has enough profile that his comments are generaly worthy of note.Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If "enough profile" were sufficient, we'd have Oprah quotes populating thousands of topics. What good reasons are there to use Randi as a source? Vassyana (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
TV shows are difficult to cite. However it fills the time gap between J. Gordon Melton and David V Barret raher nicely.Geni 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It's like quoting from a book called "Indians who live in the west who I don't like".Momento (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidences?Geni 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that a book published by St. Martin's press and co-authored by Arthur C. Clarke isn't worth citing? Because you label Randi as a "debunker"? Even though he's not expressing an opinion, he's stating what he believes to be facts? If a professional "debunker" can't be trusted to get basic facts right, then presumably nothing that he says should be considered reliable. Is there a particular sentence of a policy or guideline that you're relying on for the basis of this removal?
In the absence of counter-evidence that this statement was clearly erroneous (e.g., a successful lawsuit, an apology, a printed correction), it's certainly (in my opinion) appropriate to leave the quote in - it is absolutely factually correct that Randi said this, and that he is a notable figure, and that this wasn't a casual off-hand remark, it was part of a book that a reputable publisher printed. (Exception to the prior sentence: perhaps Clarke should be added in?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The quote should be reinserted, AND the name of the book, because of the reasons above and that Randi's view is echoed by many mainstream media publications. --John Brauns (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You say "it should" but then choose to editwar rather than discuss. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, why do you describe my insertion of a reference from a notable respected figure as 'editwar'? The majority of the views in this discussion are for inclusion. It is for the minority to make a case for exclusion, before the entry is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no concept of "majority" or "minority" in Misplaced Pages. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Also, it may interest you to read WP:BRD, and adopt that behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • revert Revision as of 12:54, February 10, 2008
  • revert Revision as of 16:50, February 10, 2008
  • Your initial addition Revision as of 11:48, February 9, 2008
That is what we call in Misplaced Pages, edit warring ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The text was added, edited a few times, deleted, discussed here, and re-added. That's hardly an editwar. --John Brauns (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RR if you have any doubts about what I am saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Methinks WP:EW would be more appropriate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the Randi reference in general terms (Rawat has been described as a fraud -- cite Randi -- and as a cult leader -- in the Criticism section, moving Lawrence's insertion from the "Coming of Age" section. I generally prefer criticism to be "in-line" in the general article rather than in a separate criticism section, but the insertion was such a general blanket statement that it just read poorly. It look like it was air-dropped in. Also the section already has more detail on the same subject -- allegations of brainwashing and coercion. If we're going to have a general criticism section, then that is the place for such statements. I would like to see some further changes to that Criticism section -- notably, the Melton quote minimizing Mishler's significance seems quite POV and WP:SYN -- but I realize a LOT of work has been done on it already. I'd like to read through the subpage collecting different versions of the section, and look for other sources as well, before I jump in. Msalt (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I appreciate your intent, but have you noticed that we are now actually putting words into Randi's mouth? Because the Prem Rawat section of the book does not explicitly describe PR as a fraud. And as this page from the same book proves, inclusion in the book does not automatically mean that the relevant person is thereby marked as a fraud. Perhaps we should stick more closely to what Randi actually says, e.g. that he considers the teachings to be "based on sensory illusions" or that in his opinion only "the very naive" could be convinced of their merits. And long-term the whole Randi thing should be thrown out and replaced with something more solid. Cheers, -- Jayen466 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does Melton refers to PR as a "cult leader"? Have you read the source? As for your "jumping in", can you explain your sudden appearance in this article after a year of inactivity? There are several editors that have suddenly activate dormant accounts, and I find that puzzling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm sorry that you have been subjected to lots of unfounded personal attacks in all the controversies surrounding this page. That must suck, especially after all the work you've done for Misplaced Pages. However, demanding that I explain my editing here, as you just did, could easily be seen as a violation of WP:AGF, or an indication that you have a sense of ownership of this page.
I am fighting the instinct to justify my presence, and for now I think I will let my edit history and extensive and easily traceable involvement in online public forums over the last 15 years speak for itself. Honestly, it seems like this page is so watched over by both devotees and antagonistic ex-devotees of the subject that my LACK of a conflict of interest somehow makes me suspect!! I happen to think that this page needs MORE, not less, fresh blood to get past the bitter editing conflicts.
I don't have your long history on Misplaced Pages. Did I miss a policy that editors not involved in edit wars must justify their presence on a page? Msalt (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit history only shows one year lapse between your last edit, and editing this page. As for extensive and easily traceable involvement in online public forums over the last 15 years, please clarify. Yes, WP:AFG is worth mentioning. You may want to re-read it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Online history: A good starting point is that I was the co-host (with Howard Rheingold) of the Virtual Communities conference on the WELL in the early 1990s, and a stalwart there. I'm confident some people here remember me from those days. Since 1995 I have edited a political scandal web page called <a href="http:\\www.realchange.org">The Skeleton Closet</a>, which in some ways is wiki-like (non-partisan, sort of encyclopedic, I list all sources in footnotes) though very much my POV and single editor. I was heavily involved in alt.standup.comedy in the late 90s and early aughts, and lately have spent time at Metafilter as well. On all of these, I am known as msalt wherever possible, though on the WELL I was later Training as well. I think I put this all on my User page but I don't really remember, I'll check.
To be explicit regarding the hot issue of COI, lest anyone think I'm being coy, I will state outright: I have no knowledge of or experience with Prem Rawat, have not met or emailed anyone who is follower or ex-follower of his, have no strong feelings about him one way or the other. I'm an agnostic ex-Catholic with secular Taoist leanings. Have I passed the security check yet?
I am truly offended that you think you have the right to grill me here, and ask that you really consider the wisdom of this tack, and consider an apology. I answer your challenges under protest, only to remove any doubt anyone might have of my motives. I will never understand how you think your challenges here conform to WP:AGF. Msalt (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I extend an apology, and hope it is accepted. I am just concerned with a series of dormant accounts (I have counted five) that suddenly got activated, by users with a knowledge of WP policies, and given the circumstances, I have a difficult time to WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted and appreciated, of course. Like I said, I know you've taken a lot of hostile fire lately (or is the proper term "friendly" fire?). I realize my combination of confidence and limited experience is unusual, but hopefully my background explains that better. As for policies, well, I've learned it all in the last 10 days! I appreciate the links provided, and the clarity with which the policies are spelled out. I'm good at being analytical. As for why I'm here, now -- I love the Wiki project, have very limited time, and this is the second article where I've gotten fascinated by the Sisyphean task of trying to contribute in the midst of bitter edit wars (no offense, but...). The other was the Mark Foley page, which I came to through my political scandal website. And now, hopefully, everyone is happy to hear LESS about me again. Msalt (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, please stop. Not constructive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that several dormant accounts are suddenly active. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I could point you to another one. Did you hear me complain when I found out about that one a few days ago, although certainly belonging to one of the "camps"? Do you have any idea how *bored* we desinterested (read: uninterested) parties are with this former guru – although I only want to speak for myself? So now you have taken it upon yourself to start bickering in a way that could easily chase away those not thoroughly hardened in wiki dealings. Please. Everyone is welcome, and especially the desinterested ones should be made welcome, *especially* if they want to explain their edits on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, if this is not obvious to you, my concern is WP:GAME, and WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And you got your answer from the one you wanted to test. That's where you should have stopped, at least on this talk page. Indeed, dormant accounts have resurrected: as you already said you knew about more than one. The ones sharing your viewpoint weren't put to the same scrutiny by you. I consider that accidental. That's why I asked you to stop about it here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler about this, but I still feel queasy about the Randi passage "James Randi described Rawat as a fraud.", sourced to Randi's Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.

  1. Randi does not describe Rawat as a fraud in the Prem Rawat section of his book; our wording is OR. If we claim to be quoting Randi, we should stick more closely to what he actually says. At present, the only (tenuous) justification for our assertion that Randi calls Rawat a "fraud" is the fact that the word "fraud" occurs in the book's title ("... Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural"). But how do we know that "fraud" applies, and not "occult claim" for example? After all, Randi tries to demolish various "occult claims" in his section on Rawat. And his book also has an entry for Pythagoras, for whom neither "claim", nor "fraud", nor "hoax" seems applicable. I do admit the passage "He promised followers that they would “receive the knowledge” after a period of study and work, during which they donated all their income to him" is suggestive of an allegation of fraud, but perhaps then we should rather quote this verbatim, together with Randi's assertion that certain spiritual experiences promised by Rawat were in Randi's view nothing but sensory illusions. Then we can leave it to the reader to draw further inferences as to whether Randi considers Rawat a fraud, honestly deluded, lacking in scientific knowledge, or whatever.
  2. Randi mentions on his website that the online version of his book is different from the printed book. Having looked up the book on amazon.com, I can't find a reference to Maharaj Ji in the index, nor a reference to Guru Maharaji or Prem Rawat. This may be because of an error in the compilation of the book's index, or it may be because the section is only included in the online version of the book. (Unfortunately, amazon.com only offers "Look Inside" and not "Search Inside".) Does anyone here have a copy of the physical book? If the section is only present on Randi's website, our ref needs adjusting. If it's just an error in the compilation of the index, then this point is of course moot.
  3. The tone of Randi's article is jocular and dismissive, and the article itself very brief; as others have pointed out before, it is not really an ideal encyclopedic source. -- Jayen466 01:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Randi is not a great source, for reasons I've stated before (esp your first and third points.) He is there in the criticism section as a representation of the bulk of criticism of Rawat, which is also I think not accurate. Could you suggest a better summary with (obviously) good sources though? It's like Cagan, not a great source but probably acceptable as a stop-gap. I think part of the edit-warring here comes from people using appropriate WP policies to simply delete points they don't really want made, rather than find a better source or re-word the points. This obviously creates bitterness and is I think WP:GAME. It's important to distinguish shaky sources from points that shouldn't be in the article, whether sourced or not, and I've tried to do this.

The older sections of Criticism cited by CIRT and on the Criticism subpages probably contain, for example, several references that could be used for a statement like "Rawat and his following have been criticized as a cult." It seems like the general shape of a criticism section should include 1) cult allegations 2) criticism of his luxurious lifestyle and/or devotee donations and 3) criticisms by ex-devotees. At least, my passing look at many of the sources seems to show a consensus along those lines. It's on my to-do list but I won't have time for a couple of days probably. Msalt (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Photo

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I regrouped Photo threads, totalling 5 now, again. And will try to find a place where to invite an uninvolved admin to come to a conclusion for the IfD ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First Photo Thread

What was the reason for which the image of Prem's home in Malibu was deleted? I restored it. It is relevant to the section "21 century" as it is an image of the home in which the man resides at this time.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it amounts to an intrusion of privacy amongst other things. But I'm sure you know that.Momento (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way does the image of the house invade privacy?Onefinalstep (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is different. That photo does not pass the test of verifiablity. The site from you which copied it is not a reputable source for Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think you are wrong here. The picture's authenticity is verifiable. I think I will keep it up. Onefinalstep (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it not verifiable. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will verify it before I put it back up. Thanks. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Onefinalstep: The source you have used in your last edit, is not a valid source for Misplaced Pages, as it is a self-published source. See WP:V#Sources. Please remove it. As for the image, it needs to be verifiable to a reliable source as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
An L.A. Times article: "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1, includes a blurry photo of the house taken from a road leading to it. It doesn't look quite like the photo now in this article, but after 22 years it may have been remodeled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Beback ... yeah I thought about using that photo but I reconsidered based on the mood of the editors here. If they can't remove it because its "unverified" they will just say its not a good photo and take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely different house.Momento (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
How do we know that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of the presence of the heliport the address (and coordinates) of the property are available on several websites, so verifiability isn't really an issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter either way. Posting pictures of a house you claim is Rawat's house is an invasion of privacy.Momento (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2008 (UT)

Momento, anyone can look at anyone's house on Google Earth. You're just flailing as usual to HIDE the truth. Your unremitting commitment to HIDING the truth will surely backfire very badly. You horrible, HORRIBLE bunch of liars are all going to hopefully be revealed as the shameless dishonest, immoral brain-washed creeps you clearly are. You and Rawat are actually showing yourselves to be enemies of truth which is the diametric opposite of what you proclaim. I hope Misplaced Pages bosses have the integrity to see what a corrupting influence you represent and do something about it! You attitude disgusts me as you may have noticed. PatW (talk)

Pat, Jossi interprets your comment above (and other comments on this page) as a personal attack. See Please read WP:NPA if you're not aware. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, that was just a bit over the top. However, did Rawat sue the LA Times for publishing the picture? (that he would have lost is irrelevant) If not, there's nothing wrong with at least a link to the articles, especially in that it speaks to the criticism of Rawat that he lives a bit high on the hog. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Photo Thread

If Rawat was an architect, a photo of a house might be relevant to this article but he isn't. It is just an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Nor should editors link to any site that misleads the reader by use of unverifiable research. The majority of material in the anti Rawat sites is unverifiable research because "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added or linked to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. And the material on the anti sites has not been published by a reliable source. I'm surprised you didn't know this.Momento (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions peoples criticism or Rawats lifestyle. The image relevant because it highlights the luxurious property he lives in. The issue of privacy is more contentious, but if you can view the scene from public property I think it is acceptable. Maybe it would be helpful to look at Google Earths policy on privacy and private property? I can't really comment on the verifiability of the image.79.68.139.205 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the few new disputes on this article. Most other disputes can be found in the history of the article or the archives of the talk pages. Andries (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


There are many precedents for including a photo of a house in a biography, where:
a) The wealth of the person is relevant to the biographical article
b) the house is obviously opulent, and thus an appropriate illustrative symbol of wealth
c) the photographs are taken from a public view and show the house but not the person referred to or their family
d) the location and residency of the house is well known, publicly available information.
Consider Bill Gates' house, which is referred to from his biography. In my opinion, in both cases there is no privacy issue, due to c) and d) above.
The 'unverifiable research' argument is not applicable to a photograph, as it is factual material and not written research. My understanding is that the two criteria for the legitimacy of an image are copyright legality and verifiability. If a photograph has been verified to be of what is claimed in the caption, then by definition it is reliable information, regardless of source. Any dispute as to the copyright claim or status of an image should be handled as per the standard process, but separately from any question of verifiability of the claim of the image itself. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
To repeat what I said above, the location of the subject's house is easily verifiable due to the heliport. The heliport, and to a lesser extent the home, were discussed in several local newspaper stories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


From BLP = Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Also BLP says = Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. And that would include link, photos, clues etc that would achieve the same. And again BLP says - Misplaced Pages articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. Momento (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.
I don't see anyone proposing to include the street address. The fact that the subject lives in a "walled, palatial estate" called "Anacapa View Estates" has been published in a reliable, even stodgy newspaper, which even published photos of the mansion. The subject has, by his own actions (related to his heliport), brought the estate to public attention. The subject's lifestyle, including his residences, are a matter of notable criticism. Since the information is so widely available it doesns't look like we're divulging private info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The BLP page says all these details are OK as long as they've been published by a reliable secondary source. Have any reputable sources published similar images of this building?79.68.139.205 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this part of BLP sums it up - Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Misplaced Pages to become a primary source for that material. Has the photo of the house been published in a reliable source and has a reliable source identified it as Rawat's?Momento (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the title of the image to "This might be Prem Rawat's house" pending some confirmation that the house in the photo has been identified by a a reliable source as Rawat's.Momento (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a bad summary. Either the image is of his home, and the summary should reflect that, or it has not been verified as his home, and the image should be removed. How has this been verified as an image of his home?79.68.139.205 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you view this page, then switch to "satellite" view and zoom in, you will find an image of the same house. Press reports in a reliable source have verified that Prem Rawat's home is owned by Seva doing business as "Anacapa View Estates", and that there is a heliport (one of only a few in Malibu). The permit for the heliport has been the subject of government hearings and attendant press coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) here. And this latest edit by Momento (talk · contribs) appears to be a weasel wording attempt to avoid yet another disruptive revert, as opposed to removing the image, again. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, see edit summary in this subsequent edit, by Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I will remove it again if someone can't provide a reliable source for the claim that the house in the photo belongs to Rawat.Momento (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You actually cannot. You have heavily violated 3rr here. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that Momento is right about the pic of the house. It is probably unverified. I also think that the external links violate BLP. Andries (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain. A statement absent a reason is of no value: you need to explain why it is an issue. Momento's c&p and subsequent interpretation and extrapolation are outside of the codified version of BLP and are merely, at best, his opinion. "Probably unverified" has no meaning either -- it just seems like grasping at straws. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The house was verified through a LA times article. This is not an issue anymore. Onefinalstep (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an issue. The photograph may not be Prem Rawat's house. I've not seen the LA Times article, but even then, a newspaper article may or may not be accurate. It would depend a great deal on the reputation of the author. The photo should be deleted. It has no relevance to any discussion of what Rawat is on about. Armeisen (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times is not a reputable source?!!! I am at a loss with this article and its editors. The LA Times is one of the most influential news sources in the nation. This is not even debatable. If the LA times is not reputable enough then what is? Are you telling me that you, Armeisen, are going to pull something off Misplaced Pages when it is verified through the LA Times because you think the newspaper "might not be accurate?" If I follow your editing, I should be able to pull everything off this article that is cited simply because I think the source "might not be accurate". Regarding the author of the story ... if there is some reason to believe (e.g. because of an retraction, or correction by the newspaper) that the story was not accurate, you need to show the evidence. If something is substantiated by the LA Times, I would argue that the burden is on you to prove that the paper was wrong. The benefit of the doubt goes to the national daily, not you. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


One final step, you have reverted the article even though your reversion flies in the face of Misplaced Pages policy on BLP. I will revert it, as it is direct violation of that policy, as outlined above. Armeisen (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. I have continued to place three things in this article that deserve to be there. All of these things have been continually deleted with no comment by the deleter. I suggest that we get someone in here to mediate this situation. To continue to fight over this is exhausting.Onefinalstep (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the photo of house, having the internal map of the location is an intrusion of privacy. Removed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Taxed123#Your image removal at Prem Rawat, and of course the next section #Third Photo Thread. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Photo Thread

No one has provided a reliable source that claims that the house in the photo is owned by Rawat. BLP says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". And " The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material". So I'm going to remove it again and keep removing it until someone provides a reliable source that says that the house in the photo is owned by Rawat and I will apply to have any person who puts it back blocked. Momento (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento - the photo is being discussed for deletion (per the link in its caption). That discussion is where you should make the argument that this is a violation of WP:BLP. Or at the BLP noticeboard. This is the wrong place. And since the weight of opinion in the deletion discussion seems to be running (at the moment) in favor of keeping the image, I suggest that you work on building consensus in the deletion discussion based on your argument.
Also, in the future, if you want to provide further explanation for your edits on this talk page, please mention that you've done so in your edit summary. That way, other editors (like me) will be fully aware of your arguments. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a discussion about Fair use. And you should know that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space"Momento (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, a notice at WP:BLP/N may be not a bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done.Momento (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please ignore comments such as those below, that seem to be designed to bait you in reacting, Momento. Stay cool, OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we try to keep discussions of topics under their appropriate section? There are currently three threads running on the photo of the house, two on the kissing of the feet, and a couple on the external links. Also, if anyone is unaware the photo is getting alot of attention here and I think it's probably the best place to talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I don't personally believe the image meets NFCC per NFCC the only way the image can be included is if the house is discussed extensively in the article. A simple comment on him owning extensive property is not sufficient. Is there really justification for including extensive criticism of this specific property based on the sources and without violating undue? From what I can tell there isn't. He has been criticised due to the fact he owns a lot of expensive stuff including this house however this house is by no means the only nor necessarily the most significant of his properties considering he owns a lot of stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "From what you can tell" is the operative sentence here. The criticism on his lifestyle is being cut out day after day. I agree, the house looks strange when its just sitting on the criticism page with no criticism of his opulent lifestyle. But you have to view the fight over the photo in context of what is happening with the other battles over content. He does own other expensive stuff, but the mansion is the best symbol of how he lives. I would suggest putting a picture of his yacht in the criticism section, but I would like either or. I don't think we need to show every helicopter, boat, jet, mansion (on whatever continent) he has. Also, I think the same fight would erupt if we substituted the picture of the mansion with some other symbol of wealth. But the picture works well. We have had comments by people claiming that it spoke a thousand words to them just to see how this religious leader lives. Onefinalstep (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's exactly the point. I have no idea what's going on here and really I can't be bothered getting into this rather nasty image thing. But as the image is a NFCC image the only way you can include it is if there is justification because of resonably extensive commentry on the specific thing depicted in the article. Because this guy is so outrageously rich and owns an outrageously amount of expensive stuff there is absolutely no justification for including an NFCC image of his house. You could just as well include an image of his yatch, helicopter, jet whatever else he owns. Or just don't include any images and mention he owns an outrageous amount of stuff. It doesn't matter whether in your opinion this best depitcs his wealth since this is NOT an argument about whether or not we should depict his house but an argument about whether or not an NFCC image of his house is justified. NFCC requires an image be irreplacable and an image is not irreplacable when you can depict what it depicts with another image even if that image isn't quite as good as the image you are replacing. And in any case, you should include the NFCC house AFTER you have fixed up whatever other issues exist which mean you are hardly discussing the house at all. NFCC requires there be justification for including the picture of the house at this very moment not 3 months in the future when we've resolved what POV issues are currently unresolved. To put it another way... If and when we got a free image of his house then sure we can have a debate on simple principles about whether to include a picture of his house (well I probably won't be taking part since my primary concern here is NFCC but anyway...). But that isn't the case at the moment, this is a NFCC image and it needs to meet NFCC or be removed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo is currently discussed at Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg.

Until that discussion is at its end the IfD tag included in the image can't be removed (I'm sure there's a rule somewhere one shouldn't remove a delete tag during a delete discussion, while that is considered disruptive)

When some uninvolved admin closes the IfD discussion (I don't know when, and don't want to speculate), there's two possibilities: either the image is deleted, either it is kept. In the first case further discussion would be held at DRV (if any); In the second case, a discussion whether or not the image is suitable for the article can be held here or in some appropriate place.

Anyway, removing the image during discussion at IfD is not an option, for two reasons:

  • It would remove the IfD tag, with the link to the IfD discussion too, which is, as said above, disruptive.
  • As the image is "fair use" as long as it isn't deleted, it needs to be in an article per "fair use" rules. Now some of you smartasses might think it would be OK to remove the image from the article, and then have it speedied per CSD-I-don't-know-what-number. That would be disruptive too. Note that the speedy procedure was tried before IfD: as there was no consensus for CSD applicability, that is the reason that the only possible way for the deletion of this image is via reasonable discussion at IfD.

The least that would happen in the case of continued removals of the image from the Prem Rawat article is that I'd ask the IfD people to keep the discussion of this image at the IfD page open for a longer period, equal to the period it wasn't visible, or properly tagged here at the Prem Rawat article. I'd prefer not to go looking for the appropriate "disruption" tag for posting on whatever user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would agree with Francis, it's best to leave the image in for now. While I do think there are potentially BLP issues here, IMHO they aren't serious enough that people should remove the image from the article for now. I highly doubt the image will be deemed to meet NFCC anyway and would strongly suggest that editors let the IFD play out instead of worrying too much about BLP issues at this time Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy takes precedence over a debate about Fair Use which this photo fails. If we followed the above argument I could take a nude shot from a celebrities house and put it on their article and claim it must stay there why we debate Fair Use or other policy. No reliable party has confirmed the house in the photo is owned by Rawat so BLP is clear - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through some guidance, what I found thus far:
  • Nor BLP (in general) nor "libelous material" are CSD criteria;
  • BLP (in general) is not a 3RR exception;
  • "Libelous material" is a 3RR exception;
  • "Libelous material" hasn't been brought to the discussion of this photograph while it apparently doesn't apply.
Whether this is a BLP issue, is not proven yet. The IfD discussion is not limited to "fair use" discussion, you can bring any argument to that discussion you want, which I think you even did. The closing admin wil make his/her decision, and we take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, there are indeed reliable sources that say that the house is owned by a company for the use of Prem Rawat. If there is a problem with the sourcing then let's discuss it here rather than edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If Rawat isn't shown as the owner, you can't use it. It's that simple.Momento (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why that's the case. It's "his" house, identifed by reliable sources. The name on the deed is a secondary matter. Nowadys, most sensible people keep their major assets in a living trust that technically own the properties. But no one would seriously propose that the assets don't belong to them. OTOH if you can get a consensus of editor to agree that it isn't his house, despite the reliable sources to the contrary, then it would be a different matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP should not be taken as black and white. I consider BLP very serious, as my history shows, but this is clearly not a nude celebrity case. If someone posted a nude celebrity image then yes I probably would remove it on sight per BLP. However the BLP issues in this one are much less clear. I am satisfied that this is his house. Whether or not the information/sourcing we have is sufficient to satisfy BLP, I'm not sure. But the fact that this is his house means it's not such a serious issue as when someone posts an image with absolutely no evidence. Similarly if Prem Rawat had been a private figure I would be much less flexible, but he's not he's clearly a highly public figure. There may be other issues here relating to BLP but again all of the are not so serious as to require immediate removal. Instead, it is perfectly fine to leave it in for now. You are welcome to continue to discuss BLP issues. I personally am not going to bother because it's a pointless discussion. This image is almost definitely going to be deleted per NFCC and it's current inclusion is not so terrible as to require immediate removal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a citation saying it's "his" house"

  • The one-time "perfect master" of the Divine Light Mission has been denied permission from the county's Regional Planning Commission to triple the number of helicopter landings annually at his Malibu mountain-ridge estate...Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway...He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spent time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said.
    • "Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use;" JUDY PASTERNAK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jul 7, 1985. pg. 1
  • The argument centers on how many times each year the one-time guru can descend from the skies in a helicopter to a landing pad at his Malibu mountain-ridge estate, 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. Maharaji is seeking county permission to increase the number of landings to 36 each year, triple the number he is currently allowed. Until last spring, Maharaji was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, said Linda Gross, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents him. He and his family stayed there a few times a year, but they also spent time in Miami and abroad.
    • "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights; JUDY PASTERNAK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 11, 1985. pg. 1

There are two reliable sources that say the house is "his", that the house is called "Anacapa View Estates", and that it has a heliport. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Photo Thread

This photo will soon be deleted, in the meantime I am putting into into the "Personal" section where the text says Rawat lives in Malibu. It is vandalism and POV pushing to place this photo anywhere else.Momento (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not a good idea: you have strong ideas in the debate on the photo, you won't pay any attention to what others say, yet again you start a new talk page section about something that's already and still actively discussed in 3 or 4 sections above, and to all that you add the presumption, that pre-emptively you know what the closing admin will decide at Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg. That won't fly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, let's wait to see how that IfD will be closed. Arguments presented there are related to WP:FAIR and discussions about NPOV are unnecessary at the moment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, above in #Third Photo Thread, the discussions at IfD are not limited to (nor should they necessarily be limited to) the "fair use" aspect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why has the photo been removed yet again? I thought we'd agreed to let the IfD play out. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo (5)

The photo of the house needs to be removed. The count of independent editors (have not edited this article) is 8 to delete and 2 to keep.Momento (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The IfD will be closed soon, and the arguments there are compelling for deletion as the image fails WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The picture is not from Google as several editors have claimed, but from Microsoft, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's rules for images. So, delete. --John Brauns (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the IfD is still lingering. It would alleviate pressure if that procedure were concluded. Can't we find an uninvolved admin to close the procedure without further delay? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The IfD has been closed by Nangeduska. Decision: DELETED. He made the edit himself. I made a bit of a fool of myself by thinking he was another drive by deleter and reverting with a snippy edit summary. Dang, and I've been so good until then! Msalt (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's organisations

I propose to add a new section to the article giving some basic information on the organisations associated with Prem Rawat. For someone new to the subject, it now gives the impression one is supposed to know a lot of things before starting to read the article.

For every one of them, I'd like to see a short overview: how many people involved; when started; does it still exist or has it been renamed; what is the nature of Prem Rawat's involvement; are these official organisations, or informal designations?

These descriptions might work as summaries in a Misplaced Pages:Summary style aproach, which is good quality article writing.

Ashrams
"Ashram" is clearly a concept existing outside the context of Prem Rawat too (Prem Rawat isn't even mentioned at the Ashram article). How many of them associated with Prem Rawat were there, roughly, with how many members, with what evolution over time? Are there any statistics, external sources providing information on them etc?
I don't think anyone ever counted them, and they were opening and closing constantly. No source that I know of has attempted to give us this information. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Divine Light Mission
also basic statistics, and nature of Prem Rawat's involvement, linked to external sources would be welcomed. Was it completely merged to Elan Vital, or did it still continue as a separate organisation (until today, or until what time), after the merge to Elan Vital?
I believe the current text: In 1983 the downsized Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital, and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives describes the situation accurately. The DLM was registered by early devotees to assist in spreading the Knowledge. The focus was clearly on Prem Rawat, but he had no legal ability to control anything until he became an emancipated minor. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Elan Vital
apart from the kind of information suggested before, some explanation on where the name of this organisation came from would be welcomed.
AFAIK, Elan Vital means "spirit of life" or "life force." I have always presumed the name comes from the experience of practising the techniques, but I have seen no source report on it. Elan Vital has no members. Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Divine United Organization
currently unmentioned in Prem Rawat article, see below.
I think DUO was an attempt to Anglicise the Indian named organisation. The name never achieved much currency. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Raj Vidya Kender
currently only mentioned in an external link at the bottom of the page: if nothing of this organisation is explained in the article, I'm not sure why we should have a link to its website.
Perhaps we shouldn't. It isn't that important. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Prem Rawat Foundation
Same questions, also: were other organisations merged into this one?
See above. Again, TPRF has no members, it exists partly (or mostly) to materially assist Prem Rawat in spreading his message, but also to distribute aid to distressed global areas, largely by assisting existing aid organisations. I understand it was created anew from no pre-existing base.
You will understand my answers above are just "FYI." They are true to the best of my knowledge, but are not sourced. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give much more detail in the Prem Rawat article, and I know more detail can be obtained from the individual Misplaced Pages articles (that's how "summary style" works). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem in principle, but see the following on "debloating." I can see it all having to come out again. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of this.... Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here and there is wording about them in this article (teachings section). Same as the Elan Vital , and The Prem Rawat Foundation. These organizations are described and in the article already, do we need more?. Raj Vidya Kender link could be removed, if needed. I have not found published sources about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the Divine Light Mission article, the concept ashram isn't really explained (only that they were "established", "closed", "disputed", etc), nor is the word "ashram" in that article even a single time linked to the Misplaced Pages article ashram. I suppose the DLM article needs some serious debloating too, and provide actual factual information instead, e.g. what the difference is between a western ashram, and an ashram in India? Other factual information (as opposed to bloat) missing from that article are basic questions like, how many Prem-Rawat related ashrams were there? How many of them are there still in India? How many of them are there still of the variety connected to his brother and mother (which is DLM too, at least in India)? How many people were involved in ashrams over time? Basic statistics please.
Also, it would be better that Misplaced Pages is less an exercise in solving puzzles. You say "Ashrams are covered in the Divine Light Mission, which is linkd from here" - but how on earth are readers supposed to know in advance that from the Prem Rawat article they don't have to click the ashram link when they want to know more about what is unsatisfactorily explained in the paragraphs mentioning them, but instead have to navigate via the Divine Light Mission link (...to find there an article with also incomplete context, but no longer a link to the ashram article)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Maybe a brief lead at the start of a summary section, such as "A number of organizations have been associated with Prem Rawat over the years:", a quick description of each, with a Wikilink if applicable. I think this would be a great help for the reader just learning about Rawat to understand his history and works. Msalt (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. There is evident confusion and cross-referencing between Rawat and these organizations; Jossi, you as much as anyone have criticized editors for referring to him when a source describes one of these organizations. They all seem to be organized around him and his teachings, and he is the common threadbetween them. So a listing with a quick description or distinction between them would seem to be the essence of encyclopedicality. (is that a word?) Msalt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a more or less correct overview:

His first organizations were called Divine Light Mission (DLM) and Divine United Organization (DUO). Later in the eighties he started referring to himself as Maharaji and the various Divine Light Mission organizations were gradually replaced by entities with the name Elan Vital. Today he typically uses his given name, Prem Rawat, and his newest organization is called The Prem Rawat Foundation. In 1974 a legal battle saw him lose control of the Divine Light Mission in India to his mother and elder brother. With the loss of the Indian DLM, the promotional organization for Prem Rawat in India became Divine United Organization, which has now been renamed Raj Vidya Kender.

? (seems we need to mention the Divine United Organization too, currently unmentioned in the Prem Rawat article). And on the ashrams:

'mahatmas', were sent to support the western Divine Light Mission and a system of ashrams - houses where Rawat's followers lived communally in a Hindu style of monasticism - was instigated. in 1977 , the ashram system was reinvigorated after a period of apparent decline, a more restrictive set of rules were imposed and all of Rawat's followers were subject to stronger encouragement to enter the ashram system. In 1982 without prior warning, Prem Rawat announced that the Divine Light Mission ashrams would close, the closure programme was complete by the end of 1983. The DUO ashrams in India were treated separately and remain to this day as largely monastic in character.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. It is anonymous and unreliable, and should pot be used. Sources are provided in the respective articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether I used a reliable source is not the issue here. I asked whether it is a convenient summary, e.g. "ashrams - houses where Rawat's followers lived communally in a Hindu style of monasticism". If that's OK, then sure we'll be able to find sources for it. If it's uncontested in WP:V meaning then I see even less of a problem. Let's not seek problems where there are none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I may try and furnish some facts and figures about the Ashrams of Prem Rawat if I get time and I've tried before but crumpled under the weight of premie objection...so a forlorn job it would be. One thing for sure: I personally heard Rawat circa 1978 saying he considered Ashrams as "the backbone of his work". I have a cassette tape of him addressing ashram premies (I was there) in a side meeting to the main hall (Palazzo Del Sporti) in Rome saying that he wanted Ashrams in every major city of the world. Also I recall him saying that if you were single and your aspirations were to be his devotee then you should be planning to dedicate your life to him in his ashram. In same Rome meeting he said that we the assembled were the most important (premies) to him and gestured towards the main hall (where the mass of non-ashram premies awaited him in their thousands) indicating that we were comparatively way more important than them. At most large festivals around that time he held separate Ashram Meetings for ashram premies. There must have been thousands of people in ashrams since there were indeed ashrams in most major cities, and typically these would have, let's say 7-10 people or thereabouts. As I keep pointing out (if we'd been allowed by Jossi to use Divine Light Mission monthly mags from the time) there are tons and tons of verbatim 'Satsangs' from Rawat and others that quite clearly paint the correct picture about Ashrams. In this Rome tape most of the dialogue is Rawat making fun of the fawning premies and asking for 'co-ordinators' to update him on the numbers. It seemed important to him to know how many ashram premies there were in each country and to tease the ones who had made the most effort with promises of a visit to the desperation of those communities who didn't measure up in the numbers game.

There was an extremely intensive religious ashram revival period in 1977-8 when Rawat instructed his 'initiators' (in the UK that was Peter Ponton and Nick Seymour-Jones) to go and basically recruit for his ashrams. That's when I joined - the second Ashram wave. Rawat was the same age as I and adult enough to be making responsible decisions. This was not his mother or mahatmas or any western premies influence. One major criticism of Prem Rawat remains that he was extraordinarily emphatic and heavy about the importance (to him) of 'real' devotees being in these Ashrams and yet essentially did not show appropriate care or concern for those people as time went by and was cynical about their sacrifices. Personally I was delighted that in 1981 (or thereabouts) he disbanded what had become in some peoples view a 'failed experiment'. I really disapprove of the way current premies here (many of whom only came in on the mild tail end of this story) seem to want to play down Rawat's involvement in Ashrams and make it sound like it was something 'thrust upon him' by others. His past organisations (conveniently now transformed into some other entity) always seem to be implicated to be responsible for things that he actually was in charge of. That is not right in my book.PatW (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you (again) that this page is not a discussion forum to discuss the subject of the article? We should be trying to find sources to support material in the article rather than use these pages to voice our opinions on he subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's a little confusing because some people seem to welcome a little first hand information - possibly because it may help indicate which supportive material is missing. As has been demonstrated there is a rather hostile habit of premies here to repeatedly excise controversial information without proper consultation and 'as if they own the article'. That to me partly explains why it is missing. Also, as you well know, since 1980's there is very little academic resource on Prem Rawat apart from the one's that derive indirectly from him. (Like Ron Geaves or Cagan). Can you show me a published interview or commentary anywhere that is not reverential or influenced his organisation? For example where is there some source on his attitude towards Ashrams in 1980? I'd love to see that! The DLM magazines that perfectly illustrate what went on (and that are in public libraries) according to you cannot be quoted. There's very little left that is unbiased to refer to. That's why I am unconvinced that it is entirely out of place to make suggestions here as to what facts we might want to be finding supportive material for. If I were one of the neutral uninformed editors here I would be incredibly confused.PatW (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect, Hunt's material is from 2003. As for "first hand" accounts, this is not the place for these as unpublished material is not acceptable in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not incorrect. You misunderstood me. I said there was 'very little' information not 'none'. Ironically even Hunt himself says: deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs. which explains why there is the conspicuous absence of material I commented on. By the way why do you think Hunt uses the word 'deliberately'. Would you agree with that? If so why? PatW (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the information contained in Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains by U. S. Department of the Army, published 2001 by The Minerva Group, Inc. ISBN 0898756073 ? It contains an estimate of involved and of very active adherents. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The source is already used in the article, and the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's), despite that last edition of the handbook's publishing date. The author of that section is Gordon J. Melton, who we are already using as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If I recall, Momento had collected some sources related to membership and number of adherents, that were used at a acertin point in the article. My view, is that these numbers would be better placed on the appropriate article about the organizations mentioned in these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is listed in the references section, but I don't see where it would be actively used as a reference in the Prem Rawat article. The DLM article uses it as a reference, but neither article cites this source (or any other source) on number of adherents as far as I can see. Also "the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's)" is nowhere mentioned in Misplaced Pages articles as far as I found out, even less referenced. So, please provide the information, as correctly as possible, with appropriate sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What I meant, Francis, is that the handbook refers to the DLM when it was headquartered in Denver in late 1970's (check the source, and look at the page header). I will try and find the adherent number's sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A more up-to-date version of the handbook, is available here (entry on Elan Vital here). And here is a source that was used in the past: In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in the U.S. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a formulation to address the numbers: there are a number of sources with no consensus - so they all get quoted and the reader makes up their mind:

Levels of adherence to Prem Rawat have never been certain with the only consistent observations coming from the USA. Rudin & Rudin give a world wide following of 6 million prior to the family Schism of 1974, of which 50,000 were in the US; these figures had fallen to 1.2 million for Prem Rawat's personal worldwide following in 1980, of which just 15,000 were in the US.ref Rudin, James A. & Marcia R. Rudin. Prison or Paradise: The New Religious Cults; Fortress Press: Philadelphia (1980); pg. 63./refPetersen states that Prem Rawat claimed 7 million followers worldwide in 1973, with 60,000 in the US.ref Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing (1982); pg. 146./ref Melton & Moore suggest a US following of a mere 3,000 committed followers in 1982 out of some 50,000 who had been initiated into the Knowledge meditation. ref Melton, J. Gordon & Robert L. Moore. The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism. New York: The Pilgrim Press (1984 ); pg. 142.br / >The Divine Light Mission grew quickly in the early seventies but suffered a severe setback in 1973 . In the late seventies the Mission became a low-key organization and stopped its attempts at mass appeal. Recently, Maharaj Ji quietly moved to Miami. The Mission has reportedly initiated over 50,000 people, but only a few thousand remain the chain of ashrams that now dot the nation./ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik Wright2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

With that material I saw the chance of reforming the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section, see Prem Rawat#Reception. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jossi. Numbers in an organization should appear in that organizations article not this. That being said, the most recent figures I found are in In 1997, "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in the U.S..Momento (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

Francis, (a) you missed the most recent numbers, as per above. Second, we where discussing the possibility to have these numbers in the organization articles. I would argue that although being bold is good sometimes, I find very peculiar that we have a week's discussion on "Balyogeshwar", but only after a half-day discussions you choose to proceed without seeking consensus. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues with that edit:

  • Levels of adherence to Prem Rawat have never been certain with the only consistent observations coming from the USA. Unsourced original research, editorializing (never been certain according to whom?)
  • (probably largely outdated by the time these data were printed while in the book the organisation's headquarters are still indicated to be in Denver). More Original research - speculative editorializing

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the Edit in general; more academic sources, and a fair acknowledgement that those sources disagree. That said, I also agree with the two issues Jossi raises. On Melton, I think we should decide on this Talk page if it's reliable or not, and if so, present it straight; if not, remove it. The arguments about Denver and being outdated are clearly OR.
For the first line, how about this much simpler statement: "Estimates of the number of Prem Rawat's adherents vary." Msalt (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "Estimates of the number of Prem Rawat's adherents vary, and became less certain over time.<ref name="RR&P2000" />" for now.
Added the "Latter Day Saints" data, as suggested by Jossi (sorry, overlooked it, thought it was included in the string of references presented by Nik)
Re. the 2001 printed version: "the material is outdated (refers to the DLM in Denver, Colorado, late 1970's), despite that last edition of the handbook's publishing date" Maybe, could someone find the original publication (or authoring, data collection,...) date of the 2001 book? Is it 1993 as the RR&P2000 webpage seems to suggest? Or was the 1993 version of these data already updated compared to what appeared in print in 2001? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I love cheesy prose as much as anyone but not in an encyclopedia. Could someone write the "adherents" sentence into modern English.Momento (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, Francis. Great to see some consensus building, and genuine article improvement. (I have no idea what Momento is talking about, though.) Msalt (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks better now, and please do not copy paste things from Nik's text as it contains too much editorializing interspersed with sourced materials. As for the sentence "By 1993 it was no longer possible to obtain estimates from Rawat's organisations", that is a bit ORish. This from a previous version if the article (2006): According to the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat has, over the years, engaged over nine million people in 250 cities and fifty countries. They estimate slightly more than half a million have been taught the techniques since he came to the West, about 125,000 of this number between January 2000 and April 2004. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You've got a point. TPRF is however a charity, while Elan Vital (as a successor of US DLM) still a religion or church in the US, as far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. More info is needed (read... references), but I suppose listing members of a charity, as "adherents" or "followers" of Prem Rawat is not doing justice to the situation. But again, I'd follow sources when presented, and I'd help in the quest where I can.
In 1993 Melton et.al. were clear any quest for input from the thentime Rawat organisation(s) was in vain (the quote is in the footnote).
The source quoted above for the data up to 2004 ( http://tprf.org/about_annual.htm ) is no longer available (I mean: doesn't provide these data).
TPRF status reports for the years 2005 and 2006 are available from that link, but as far as I can see (after skimming through the 2006 report), don't provide data on people initiated in techniques: this is a public report on finances and activities of a charity. As such, of course, can also provide primary source material for an encyclopedia, but not in terms of adherents or followers of an inspiring person. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the link does not work, I will see if I can find that source and we can then resume this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
From web.archive.com:
* Between February 9 and March 25 (2002), Prem Rawat addressed audiences of more than 45,000 persons and more than 21,000 people were shown the techniques of Self-Knowledge. http://web.archive.org/web/20021012114933/tprf.org/about.htm
* Between February 22 and March 10 (2003), Prem Rawat addressed audiences of more than 45,000 persons and more than 25,000 people were shown the techniques of Self-Knowledge. http://web.archive.org/web/20020409091824/www.tprf.org/about.htm
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to understand the heading 'Reception', even though English is my first language. It is not a word that is not immediately clear without context, and thus in my opinion should be changed. I understand that in this context it refers to the use as in 'his speech was well received', referring to people's opinion of him. However, 'reception' is normally used as a specific reference to the beginning or arrival or something in this context, and not as a generic term. For example "reception upon arrival in America" would be an appropriate specific example that would use the word in its usual context. I don't think the word 'reception' is synonymous with 'acceptance' in this case. 'Acceptance' could be used (except that it may be perceived as as implying positive criticism and thus not be neutral) as it is a generic term that could apply throughout a 30 year period. 'Reception' just doesn't feel right for a section that details such a long period in time. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Reception history"? I've been asking for an alternative terminology from native English speakers, but none was suggested thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reception sections are used in many Misplaced Pages articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest 'Reputation' as a neutral term that encompasses the main areas of the section, including amount of following, and criticism. Or, perhaps "reputation and following" is better, on the grounds that it is broader phrase, without using the rather tabloid term 'popularity'.82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reputation seems too judgmental, focused on evaluation, while this section really could better be described as "Popularity" for the most part. Reception makes me think of a cocktail party after an event, but it does cover both meanings (popularity and evaluation.) If it's the term generally used for these sections, let's keep it. Msalt (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Premie

Currently, the premie disambiguation page explains more about the use of the designation "premie" than the Prem Rawat article (apart from figuring extensively in quoted footnote text), although that disambiguation page refers to the Prem Rawat article for this meaning of the term. There's also something that looks like a contradiction (but maybe isn't): the disambig page refers to premies as followers of Prem Rawat; the Prem Rawat article mentions the term only in connection with Prem Rawat's father ("...his father's followers (known as premies)", in the Childhood section).

Could we merge the "use of the term" information, currently on the disambig page, to the Prem Rawat article? Any objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem except article size. As part of becoming stable we will probably want to go for Good Article again, and almost certainly the reviewers will call for another debloating. We are not writing a book. The pendelum swings. Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"premies", comes from the sanskrit word "prem" that means "love". I will look for a reference. In India the term is widely used, but in the West is used rarely nowadays. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

During the 1960s Americans in India searching for spiritual guidance discovered the Mission and a few became initiates (i.e., “premies,” or “lovers of God”).

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"the Mission" being DLM in this context, according to the footnote, and not, for instance, The Mission. Anyways, thanks for the clarification, naively I thought "premies" derived from Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem is a very popular name in India. And yes, the mission here is the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Prem Rawat was known in India as a child as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar, and as Maharaji today. It is only recently (last 10 years or so) that people started referring to him by his passport name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, what page in Melton? there is already a reference to the DLM entry in Melton in the Prem Rawat article, saying it is p141-2 (not p14). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, p.141. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anyway, here is what is on the "Premie" disambig page:

* Premie, a student of Prem Rawat. The word was widely used amongst followers of Prem Rawat in western countries until the mid 1980s, and is still used informally. It is still in use in India and other Eastern countries.

Can someone help clean that out over there? The rest, the part about the use of the term should be referenced and in the Prem Rawat article imho. Can someone provide an adequate reference? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have duplicated the material. The second sentence starting with In the late 1960s, British followers in India invited him to visit the West refers to the same people as Melton's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what you say now is that "Americans in India" == "British followers in India". The difference seems a continent to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Both British and Americans visited India in the late 60's and found there the young Maharaji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, logical. But Melton didn't imply "followers from English-speaking countries around the world", or did he?
"British" visitors would be more prevalent at the time in India I suppose (in general), with India having been a British colony and all: is there any reason why Melton stresses "Americans", or is that only accidental because he (supposedly) was one himself? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cagan's book describe these early seekers, with names and nationalities: Americans, and British. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean I can adapt the sentence now quoted to Melton? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled on this yesterday:

The Divine Light Mission, which was Maharaji's organization was largely comprised of Jewish kids seeking truth and the reality of God

Was that indeed a common characteristic of followers of Rawat (Jewish background)? Or is that just this author's POV? Is there anything more to know about this from more scholarly sources (the book I quoted from is a primary source autobiography as far as I can tell), or is there nothing more to say about the (early) followers of Rawat than "American and British"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no way I can keep abreast of all these arguments and hold down my job, so I will just dip in when I feel I have something to contribute. Francis, I have seen some encouraging signs of neutrality from you. I believe you might be realising there could be more to Prem Rawat than what might commonly be assumed. What I would also like to see would be your developing your own "nose" for some of these sources. This one, for example. When people receive Knowledge there is no screening for race, religion or nationality. Mostly, their names are/were not even taken. No one can say which group the majority stemmed from. From my experience there were no more jewish looking or sounding premies than any other group, and a lot are represented. It looks to me that this author feels he/she has found a clever way to insult both premies and jews at the same time. Really not worth mentioning here. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the 'largely Jewish' reference was probably a false impression. The early western followers came from a wide cross-section of religious upbringings. No doubt though that they were seeking Truth and the reality of God. That was for sure.PatW (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar

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

It is a redirect to the page. Again, Misplaced Pages is not a puzzle where average readers have to connect dots via information that is available elsewhere, or even worse by digging into diffs at Misplaced Pages (how to find diffs is not prerequired knowledge for being a reader of a Misplaced Pages article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We had a long section on the names and meanings of them (in the "Childhood" section), but it was agreed that it was not necessary.

In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Compare – Sant Ji is currently not a redirect, but the "Sant" tradition is still explained in the article, so no problem there.
See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change
The idea is that if someone types a word in the search box, say "Balyogeshwar", that then the Misplaced Pages:principle of least surprise should apply, and not: why am I directed to this page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Note also that currently one of the footnotes contains: "Balyogeshwar and his brother have ...":
  1. Quoted from a 1992 publication (Prem Rawat was 25 at the time - "child"?);
  2. This is the only other mentioning of the word "Balyogeshwar" in the article. How are average readers supposed to understand that sentence, if it would not be indicated in the article that Balyogeshwar == Prem Rawat? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposing the idea of including the quotation I placed above. I would argue that if it is useful, it should be placed in the Childhood section and not in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark (and insertion of the alternate name) is really purely usability/navigational/"principle of least surprise". Not knowing what to think that you guys appear to be able to make anything as simple as that into something that needs to be included in a POV-pushers agenda. THERE IS NO POV IN MENTIONING THE ALTERNATE NAME OF AN INCOMING LINK IN THE LEAD SECTION. We do it everywere: Pontius Pilate's wife has six alternate names in bold in the first sentence; William III of England has at least as many alternate names in the first three paragraphs of the intro; Erik Satie has two pen names in the third paragraph of the intro; Bolzano of course mentions "Bozen" (and 5 other alternatives) in the first sentence of the intro, etc. etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed this uncited inclusion.Momento (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar can be sourced to Cagan's book. I still believe that it is better placed at the Childhood section, has he was called these names only for the first 8 years of his life. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have once again had to remove the uncited material about Balyogeshwar. This is a BLP Francis, you can't just include stuff because you like it.Momento (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The material is cited to a RS (in fact, a RS that was already in the article) ; (2) You removed, without discernable reason, material that had a reference. Then, you also left the referencing footnote in the first sentence, while it is unclear why this would be a reference for the phrase where it is now attached to <ref name="Mangalwadi"> does apparently not use "Guru Maharaj Ji" when referring to Prem Rawat: that source uses "Balyogeshwar" when referring to him. All of this amounts to some pretty disruptive editing on your part. (3) why on earth would it be a BLP to mention an incoming redirect in the lead section? (compare Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title: "The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.") --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
References should appear at the end of the sentence. Thanks.Momento (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no such requirement. Misplaced Pages:Footnotes is on my watchlist now for quite some time, since I wrote its initial version. Such requirement has never been part of the style recommendations included in that guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Mangalwadi reference Francis. You haven't provided a source for your addition "less frequently".Momento (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't dispute the name then please don't delete the name. It's unhelpful to delete parts that you don't dispute. If the name is disputed then the redirect should be deleted too. If the reidrect is undisputed then it should be mentioned here. Alternate names are traditionally mentioned in the lede. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Pay more attention to what I write. I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source. But where did the "less frequently" come from if not out of Francis's OR.Momento (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, disruptive editing on your part. You could have removed the few words you contested, without removing the part you didn't contest. And even less disruptive, you could simply have followed what the third paragraph of Misplaced Pages *policy* WP:V#Burden of evidence advises: "...editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". I do object, while you're obviously too interested in finding ways to game the system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What Francis said. If you don't like "less frequently" then take it out. It is completely unreasonable and contentious to remove the whole referenced phrase. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor is responsible for their edits. Francis should never have put "less frequently" in, it is complete OR. So I am not removing "the whole referenced phrase" since the "whole phrase is NOT referenced". I don't believe Balyogeshwar should be in the lede. One, suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR. Prem Rawat is his legal name and he has chosen to use Maharaji ( formerly Guru Maharaj ji) and continues to do so. And two, Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.Momento (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Misplaced Pages article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento -- uh, you just said yourself 3 paragraphs earlier that "I know Rawat was called Balyogeshwar and Mangalwadi provides a reliable and verifiable source." You're way out on a limb here. Seriously, pick your battles. This is a tiny, non-controversial thing. Alternate names go in the lede. I'm glad you're discussing this here but what you are saying makes no sense. Msalt (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Balyogeshwar isn't alternative name. It's an historic title of little consequence. If you put in Balyogeshwar, you have to put in Sant Ji.Momento (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about "have to", but I personally think 'Sant Ji' should be listed too. Francis? As I've said, the lineage through the Sant tradition is (to me) fascinating and a perfect example of the kind of information an encyclopedia should provide -- like noting that the band The White Stripes derive from the blues tradition. One doesn't understand them nearly as well without knowing that. Msalt (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Names related to Rawat's Childhood may well come within the purview of WP:INDIA, excising these names because they are 'historic' and therefore of little consequence would seem at very least to go against the spirit of WP:INDIA and it is surely poor manners to remove the Indian titles from the lede without any reference to WP:INDIA.

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


Historic things are not of little consequence? Balyogeshwar=Iron lady? I understood that Balyogeshwar means 'Born Lord of Yogis' I can remember that much myself from 1975 when I asked what it meant. (By the way he was still called that well into the mid-seventies and still IS known by that title to many Indians who are naturally uninformed as to how he's changed his name since then. Also there are Indians here in the UK who call him that still! Shouldn't they be able to find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? Watching this debate from a distance (rather than being personally subject to Momento's simply puerile, tortuous logic for once) it's very obvious that he is an outrageously hostile editor who is simply mocking the intelligence of the incredibly patient other editors here. I really think it's way beyond time he was banned from this article . There has been such consistent and vociferous complaint already something surely needs to be done now. I would classify his obstructive comments here as aggressive 'filibustering'. Msalt, and others.. have you considered the possible abject futility of ploughing on with your corrections here as you are patiently doing? I worry about your future sanity when you take a well-earned break to return only to find that he has completely reverted the article to his taste. That's what he is waiting to do. Is there anything that can be done to protect your work? You may have noticed I have been terminally discouraged from making actual edits. That is not because I can't, it's because I am not prepared to let him mock my efforts any more than he has done already. How many people actually stick around here to make substantial sense of this article? My observation is that 90% have fled in frustration and that is basically because no-one has successfully banned Jossi, Momento and their POV pushing friends from acting as if they own and should control the information in this article. Isn't it the case that Jossi has successfully banned some rather eloquent ex-premie voices from here for far less crimes? What is so fair about that when he tolerates this degree of disruption , year in year out from Momento?PatW (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) You do not have to shout; (b) I have banned no one; (c) I cannot and have not exercised my admin privileges in this or any other article I have actively edited; (e) I have warned editor, including Momento in many occasions; (f) despite all the brouhaha no one has been able to provide any evidence of abuse in editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK if it is true that you have banned no one then I unmitigatingly apologise. But please tell me by what process have people been banned? I understood that some ex-premies were banned? Is that untrue then?PatW (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have deleted my heading which you think was unnecessarily loud.PatW (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, no one has been banned. Maybe some editors had their editing privileges temporarily removed, for disruption, personal attacks, or edit warring, but that's all. And these remedies were implemented by uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
PatW, I certainly understand your frustration, but I think you undercut yourself with your anger and personal attacks. Above all, please do not lump Jossi in with Momento. I haven't been here that long but from what I've seen Jossi has been (with only brief exception) patient, thoughtful, and fair-minded. He has even borne arguably patronizing advice from this noob with good grace. I can't find a single edit he's made to the article in 2 weeks. His talk contributions are, yes, mostly to the pro-Rawat side but not exclusively and so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. The COI filing on him failed because no one could list edits or administrative actions that bore criticism. Your apology to him above was very nice, thanks for doing that.
People can and should get chastised, limited or even banned for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Only Momento has in my brief time here, and he earned it for disruptive editing. Thanks for not doing that. Clearly, he is taking actions that risk some kind of permanent ban. But your attacks are also inappropriate, and in any case aren't doing your cause any good.
And thanks for the compliment and warning (patience but have you considered the futility?). I think I understand the situation. It COULD all be reverted -- any work done on Misplaced Pages is like that. Then again, peace has broken out in Northern Ireland and Liberia, so you never know. I'm inspired by the Tibetan monks who spend hours making beautiful sand paintings and let them blow away in the wind. Don't you think the world is a better place for that? Otherwise, all one can do is build bunkers. Msalt (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A better analogy might be that the Tibetan Monks paintings are being trashed by someone before the wind blows them away and that there are quite a few people that want to see those paintings who are being deprived of the opportunity. I've slept on your last question and I wake up with these thoughts: There may be no virtue lost in fighting, but ultimately losing a righteous battle. It is certainly more desirable to win a righteous battle and wiser to only engage in fights where you know your strength and are sure of winning. I understand there is some value in simply arguing for right but I think there is even more value in winning your case. WP fascinates me in as much as it is almost an experiment in defining ethics by teamwork. WP sort of invites unethical people to abuse/game the system and then people publicly challenge them on it, really only appealing to their shame to withdraw, but not actually forcing them. Interesting experiment indeed. PatW (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
For Jossi's commitment to not edit the page, see the link in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Declaration of intent. I want to express again I appreciate Jossi for that. It was no easy call on his part, I'm convinced of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, I see that "Balyogeshwar" has been added, but not " Sant Ji Maharaj". Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession says that it was the name used by Rawat in 1966. It seems easy to simply list former names. Will Beback NS (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I added it. Msalt (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it incredible that anyone would claim Rawat is known as Sant Ji in the lede. Sant Ji is an affectionate term used by many Indian teachers and used about Rawat when he was a child. Why not put in Prem as well? Or Guru Ji. Or Captain Rawat? For more than 30 years Rawat has used either his own name or the title Maharaji (Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji), this is the only "alternative name" we should include. Balyogeshwar is a Hindi description given by others when Rawat was a child, not an "alternative name". Since there is no reliable, verifiable source that claims Rawat is currently "known as" Sant JI" I have removed it. Momento (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, above you wrote:

Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.

I answered

The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Misplaced Pages article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right Francis. We'll note that in the lede.Momento (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names. All of these names are used as redirects to this article. If you don't want them in the lede then which section do you propose we put them in? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(examples I already gave above:)
For my views:
  • "(Formerly Guru Maharaj Ji)" can stay in, at a certain point in time he disavowed to be further called "Guru";
  • "Balyogeshwar" should definitely stay in the lead, too different from the other ones, too "principle of least surprise" when redirected here. That it is less used is referenceable, still not understanding the fuss Momento makes about it. In fact he recognised it himself: "suggesting Balyogeshwar or Sant Ji is a name or title of similar importance as Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji or Maharaji is OR" - it is no OR to state it is used less frequently. Instead of nitpicking, you're better informed what would be the best source for that, but as far as I'm concerned it doesnt need a specific source, it's self-evident. It is not "contested", unless for POINTy reasons;
  • "Sant Ji", not necessarily: Sant is explained in the article, and "Ji" is a recognisable part of his name already explicited in the lead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think that it belongs in the lead. But if there is consensus to have it there, I would argue that it would be best to list them in chronological order, giving emphasis to his most known names (See WP:MOS. My suggestion would be , as per other biographical articles:

Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, December 10, 1957 in Haridwar, India), also Maharaji (previously known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji,) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, he's still known as "Balyogeshwar", although that's maybe not what he chose: "being known as" is not what one chooses for oneself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a source for that claim please?Momento (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as this source is still widely available, and people can read it, he's still known under that name. That's not something that changes in a few years, as is also apparent here - this has nothing to do with the reliability of a source, someone is "known as", or he isn't. The lead of William III of England states this king is "known as" King Billy. Whether he liked it or not. And without a reference, because that's not contested. So stop the nitpicking on trivialities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This 1992 print refers to Divine Light Mission, clearly dating it to the 70s. And please don't use self published websites as sources, they are expressly prohibited by BLP policy.Momento (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, do you support Momento unilaterally deleting "Sant Ji" despite this discussion? Does anyone support Momento's edit? Will Beback NS (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, as proposed above, we could list his childhood names in the "Childhood" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The "objective way of differentiating the relative importance of the names" is simple and logical. Prem Rawat is his name and he calls himself "Maharaji". Putting in a foreign language courtesy title (Blayogeshwar) and an affectionate childhood name is unnecessary.Momento (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, (this might come as a shock) "There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. " (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity) --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, is it too hard for you to wait for a consensus before editing? If "Sant Ji" isn't a name that Rawat is known by then we should delete the redirect. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing it because it doesn't have a source. BLP policy is clear " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As said above: the material is not contentious, unless for POINTy reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If Momento believes that it is incorrect then it should be removed from Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession too the and the redirect should be deleted. If there are no objections I'll do so myself. Will Beback NS (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be "contentious" Francis. To be removed it just needs to be "unsourced".Momento (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're just pasting quotes without even *reading* them:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately

(my bolding) If the material is not contentious, just removing it is no more nor less than causing disruption. And it has to stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". I don't know why I always have to be the one to point out the obvious, Misplaced Pages demands sources as per "Verifiable" - Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. AND "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". This is basic Misplaced Pages stuff. Momento (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The quote only speaks about contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced. And your disruption has to stop. Your other new quotes only confirm what I say (BTW, it goes all back to a Jimbo Wales quote, who qualifies the type of information eligible for instant removal thus: "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" ). E.g. (with my bolding): "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". There's no blanket approval to remove uncontentious, unchallenged, and unlikely to be challenged material. Removing such material is known as Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Even if there's no reference yet. And you're slowly but with determination running out of chances to prove that you're not a troll or some sort of vandal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Changing the structure of sentence to alter its meaning is completely unacceptable Francis. The sentence reads "unsourced" OR "poorly sourced contentious material". Not "contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced". Why aren't we following the Verifiability policy which clearly states - "that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source". It is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, no source, no inclusion.Momento (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Your disruption has to stop, that's all I'm saying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, please cool it, OK? Can we stick for a while to a decent and constructive debate? Progress is being made, and will be made if editors keep away from each other's throats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's correct Will. The succession sentence implies that Prem Rawat was known as "Sant Ji" not "Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing? He was called "Sant Ji" until 8 years of age. Then he was called "Balygeshwar" along side "Guru Maharaj Ji". (Some in India still recognize him as Balyogeshwar from the early days). Then he was called just "Maharaji". All these names can be explained and are supported by sources. Can we at least agree on that first? Then we can look for ways on how best to present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The principle is under what name he should be recognisable from the outset of the article. I gave my preferences above. Whether one is more historically correct or not is not the point. The lead section is about recognition: am I at the right article?, etc for readers who are or who are not acquainted with the article's subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Source for "Sant Ji": H. W. Wilson Company, Current Biography Year Book, v.35. (1974), p. 21.
  • Source for "Balyogeshwar" Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone I know and trust has written to me telling me that in India Rawat's followers generally have never known him as Guru Maharaj Ji, as that is a title given to practically any guru in India, but they know him as Balyogeshwar. Of course this source can't be used in the article, but it does cast doubt on Jossi's claim that the name was only used when Rawat was a child. My vote, for what it's worth, is that the name should be included in the lede. --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh? I said above that in India, some still recognize him as Balyogeswar. You may have missed it. Nowadays he is known as "Maharaji" and "Shree Prem Rawat" in India. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to point out that there are older Indians here in the UK who still call Rawat 'Balyogeshwar'. Shouldn't older Indian people be catered for to easily find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? What's the big deal in making the association clear and in the lede? Isn't it logical and appropriate to state what a subjects name is and was before you launch into further commentary? Especially if those names were significantly popular or widespread, as Balyogeshwar clearly was?PatW (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is agreement that the name "Balyogeshwar" can be used, as there are sources that verify that information. The discussion, I believe, is where to have that information, and if it suitable for a the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi do you ever read what I actually write before trotting out some knee jerk response which shows that you haven't? Read again and you'll see I was saying why I think his popular name(s) should be made clear first thing.PatW (talk)

I'm OK with John Brauns' version of the intro - which I think is my last version of the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got home from work and had to read 4460 new words of discussion just to keep up to date on everyone's opinion of one word of text. Rumiton (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what's so beautiful about this place. It's not just about the end goal it's about learning to enjoy the journey. The beauty lies in arriving at an ethical consensus by debate even if that means debating minutiae, sometimes ad nauseam.  :-)PatW (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, Jossi has given us sources for the use of "Sant Ji", a name that you deleted from the article because it was unsourced. Could you please restore it now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting affectionate names from childhood in the article. And I'm wondering about putting foreign language names like Balyogeshwar in English Misplaced Pages.Momento (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A) We have sources that indicate it was the name he was called in childhood. B) We have no sources saying it was merely an "affectionate name". C) We use that name in other articles that include redirects to this article. D) Your personal preferences are not the sole determination of content. You're welcome to disagree, but deleting sourced material based on your personal preferences is inappropriate. Unless you can find a legitimate policy reaosn to exclude this name, and to delte it from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I am going to restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has gone for long enough, and we have sources now. Can we find a compromise and add these names (Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar) to the "Childhood" section as a compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento's objections don't appear to be about the placement of the names in the article, but about their inclusion anywhere. It's normal to include all names in the lede, but there's certainly room for flexibility in that regard. There appears to be doubt that the terms were limited to his childhood, so it's not ideal. Perhaps a better solution would be to mention the names in the lead and then explaining his names as they are applicable to the different time periods. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We're solidly on target for Lamest Edit Wars with this one, I'm afraid. Glad we agree on having the name. How about putting the alternate names in a separate second paragraph of the lede? Msalt (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede. Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977. Sant JI was an affectionate Hindi childhood name not used in 30 years. This is English Misplaced Pages or should we also write Prem Rawat in Hebrew for our Israeli readers..Momento (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, please stop filibustering, and start informing yourself; e.g.:
  • "Balyogeswhar only appears in one book published in India in 1977" – we have at least two books, as far as I can see published in the Western hemisphere, and I don't even know which of these would be from 1977:
    • Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus Revised edition (July 1992). Cornerstone Pr Chicago. ISBN 094089503X (this is the one currently in the article - note that there's a 1999 revised edition too )
    • Aravamudan, Srinivas. Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language (Translation/Transnation). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. p.229. ISBN 0-691-11828-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006 )
These petty discussions based on thin air should've stopped by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) updated book references 12:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sant Ji (section break)

As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).

As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Misplaced Pages on this person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sant Ji was an affectionate diminutive for Prem Rawat as a child, never used since. Sant is Hindi, roughly means "holy man." Ji is not a name, it is a mild honorific, like Mr in English, or San in Japanese. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis, Guru Maharaj Ji referred to himself as "Sant Ji Maharaj" in many letters to premies over the years in the 70s, including after he was married at age 16, by virtue of signing those letters "Sant Ji Maharaj." These letters were published in "And It Is Divine," and "Divine Times" magazines in which he was listed as the "Supreme Editor in Chief." They were published in the United States out of DLM Headquarters in Denver, Colorado. Sant Ji was a moniker that Rawat commonly used when writing to his devotees, so he absolutely was known as "Sant ji Maharaj." Here's one that was published in "Divine Times" in Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974, in which he thanks premies for providing him and Durga Ji (Marolyn) with his home in Malibu, California (the same one in which he now resides): Thank You Letter, and here's the one inviting premies to Millennium: Millennium Letter. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I think, Sylvie. I had forgotten that Sant Ji signature, it was a long time ago. Still, in 1973 at 15 years old Prem Rawat WAS still a child, so my statement really holds. I doubt whether it has been used in the last 34 years, and it still seems profoundly irrelevant. I was right about Ji, wasn't I? Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just learned that James Randi was also known as Randall Zwinge. How should we deal with it? I think we need to say something like "James Randi, formerly known as Randall Zwinge, a former magician claims Rawat was fat and a fraud". Any thoughts?Momento (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My thought is that your sarcasm is not constructive. There is a consensus that the other names used for Rawat belong on the page, as a natural part of an encyclopedia. Readers should know that the names point to the same person. To take you comment seriously for a second, feel free to edit the James Randi page along the same principles. Msalt (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So we still don't have "Sant Ji" or "Sant Ji Maharaj" in the article. It's entirely verifiable. If the theory is that things which happened 34 years ago are irrelevant we can cut out half of the article. If past actions are legitimate material for biographies then we shold include past names too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be added. The source is available above somewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There may be consensus that the names might be appropriately added some where but there is no consensus that childhood names should appear in the lede.Momento (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Momento, please re-add the "Sant Ji" anme that you've inapproprately deleted. As for the position, there's no consensus moveing other names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus about the position of these names. Not a big deal, IMO, but lets call it as it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See Sant Ji. Seems to be a popular nickname... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you endorse Momento's deletion of this sourced material name from the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the names should be added, and that we still need to find consensus about the best section in the article to place the names by which he was known as a child. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So will Momento delete the name again if it's added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The odds are good that s/he will, in my opinion. But it's still correct to add it. I've suggested adding all of the alternate names in the second paragraph of the lede. Did I miss a reaction to that compromise? Or maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. Anyway, whaddya think? Msalt (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but I'm not the editor who's edit warring over this. Momento appears to be holding this article hostage to his preferences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Given recent press coverage of this article and the blatant conflicts of interests that have gone into its makeup, I believe the NPOV tag must remain on this article until unrelated editors, those who have not edited this article before and who are unrelated to Rawat, can throughly go over the article. Of course, their sockpuppetts may make that impossible. 216.114.82.56 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself an unrelated editor who had not edited this article before (as of what, Feb 15?), is unrelated to Rawat and is pretty thoroughly going over it. It's a lot of work. Instead of a drive-by tagging, why don't you roll up your sleeves and pitch in? Logging in is cool, too. Msalt (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's make one thing clear first: we don't write articles to please Cade Metz.
If Cade Metz thinks he can write a better article, he should just come over here and do it.
Cade Metz is not "The Truth" about Misplaced Pages, although he would probably like to think so.
Regarding your criteria of who can contribute to the Misplaced Pages article on Prem Rawat:
  1. Please provide a list of names of those who, in your view, are eligible to author the Misplaced Pages article on Rawat.
  2. I don't agree with your criterion "those who have not edited this article before" - this criterion also bears no relation to the idea of NPOV
  3. I don't agree with your criterion "those who are unrelated to Rawat" – again, no relation with NPOV.
If you can't indicate where the NPOV problem with the article content lies, please explain why we should maintain a tag on the article placed there by an anonymous? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done Francis. I have removed the tag.Momento (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that more impartial editors like you, Francis are here. But would you be here if there had been no Cade Metz article? Would anyone be here other than existing people with COI I wonder? By the way I know that followers here persistently cast critics as a tiny minority who are relatively insignificant etc. The fact remains that it has been the critics loud woes and frustrations with this article that clearly came to the attention of Cade Metz and goodness knows who else, so it is really thanks to them that this NPOV matter has been drawn into attention. There was clearly a problem with excessive COI as most of you recently enjoined editors must surely agree. As far as I know it was Rawat critic, Mike Finch's public criticisms of Jossi Fresco that came to wider attention and are at the root of this new-found interest in cleaning up this article. I would point out a) that Finch's public hitting back is apparently the direct result of frustrations right here with Jossi (Finch pioneered this article I believe) and b) That if there was no substance to his accusations then no-one would be interested. PatW (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "would you be here if there had been no Cade Metz article?" – I was here a year before Cade Metz wrote his article. I dropped out after about a week. Not that I'm the self-accusatory type, but I'm still a bit mad at myself that I dropped out then, and thus laid Misplaced Pages open to this assault on its reputation. I've come to the resolution not to drop out this time, until the Prem Rawat article is on a good track.
I'll give a bit more context. Cade Metz wrote (on p. 4 of his article):

Working in tandem with others, soon created a separate article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat," moved all Rawat criticisms to this new article, and eventually had it deleted.
"All critical material was moved to an article of its own: 'Criticism of Prem Rawat," says a senior admin. "Jossi created that, with the intent that it wouldn't over-burden the main article. But then that article was merged back into the main article and basically deleted. All that critical material was pretty much all deleted, so the current article bears very little resemblance to the article of two years ago. It's shorter, and it's all positive."

Well, I played a role there (I had first barely recognised that under Cade Metz's heavy gloss/distortion),
  1. "But then that article was merged back into the main article", I performed the merge (it was not until Jossi drew my attention to it that I remembered)
  2. I dropped out about a week later, but not until a basic integration of the criticism (in a "Reception" section, per Misplaced Pages:Criticism) had been performed.
  3. Note that in both edit summaries of the merge I had referred to Misplaced Pages:List of POV forks, a now deleted page. As far as I remember Jossi was a heavy supporter of that now deleted page, which aimed at doing away with virtually all "Criticism of..." pages. (But I'd need to see the edit history of that now deleted page to check whether my recollection is not erring here). Anyway whether Jossi supported or objected to the merge back into the Prem Rawat article, I can't recall any more. But he did create the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article
  4. Anyway, a year later the criticism was as good as gone from the Prem Rawat article. When I had left, Jossi, Momento, and Andries were the ones I remembered best as still editing the article. From what I understand afterwards Andries had vigorously tried to keep the criticism in, but was overruled time and again by Jossi, Momento and Rumiton. (Roles of others I'm not that informed about).
So, no, it's better to never let that happen again. I don't like Misplaced Pages getting bad press over something we're all responsible to avoid.
Pat, I don't know whether that answers your question, but I tried. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply so fully. That was considerate and not something that I'm used to. You seem to agree that bad press can actually be a wake up call.PatW (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's largely preferable to have good articles, and good press as a result of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that I also recognise that regarding the tiny part of the Cade Metz article I knew more about, when looking under the layer of varnish and distortion, Cade Metz was not too far from what had really happened – of course helped by an anonymous "senior admin" (whatever that may mean, and whoever it is, I don't know). I say that, knowing that Jimbo Wales' stock reaction to a Cade Metz article is: "thoroughly unreliable", but then of course Jimbo only can speak about what he is more informed about himself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite.PatW (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no such "excessive COI", PatW. This is what the closer of the COI case said:After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing;. Pat, I will not tolerate such type of observations in this talk page, particular after your insistence in using this page to cast aspersions on people here: You have been warned already, several times for personal attacks. If you want to initiate a debate about this issue, read the closer's statement and follow his advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attack Jossi. I think I was merely considering the facts and that this Metz publicity has drawn some attention to this article which is rather welcome and healthy. Are you seriously denying that COI hasn't caused problems here and that Mike Finch hasn't criticised you in the way I said? And BTW I am not pointing fingers at you in particular for your COI. You declared your COI as have I. Also my criticisms about Momento are hardly 'aspersions'. Consider the fact that our new friends have even described his behaviour as 'disruptive' and they seem to be models of patience (at least compared to me).PatW (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than engage in discussions about the editors, it would be best to invest our energies in discussing ways to improve the article. Some progress is being made already, and as far as I can see, Momento has already made changes in his previous behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But I also think PatW has a fair point that his mention of COI was not really a personal attack the way you describe it. When I read it, I assumed he was talking about Momento and Rumiton,. As you note, the proof of COI is in the pudding (of an editor's actions, to butcher a metaphor) and I don't think it's unfair to describe Momento in particular as someone who appears to be consistently editing in the service of a private interest rather than the Wiki project. Are we not allowed to point out that elephant in this room? Is there a different and better way to handle it? Msalt (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The proof of the non-NPOV nature of this article, if any be required, is that User:Momento removed the NPOV tag. In light of the Informer article mentioned at the top of this secion (which fortunately can't be edited by premies and will no doubt remain around until Mr Rawat's legal team has finished with it), Momento is one person not qualified to do that without reinforcing the suspicion, as intimated in that article, that the article is indeed a whitewash. What is needed is a proper analysis, including all points of view, of the evidence supporting the contention that Prem Rawat is a fraud, how he benefits from the contributions of his 'listeners', what his views are on the joys of flying around in a private jet whenever he feels like and the environmental 'benefits' of so doing, whether the organisations that he fronts are using wikipedia and paying to get people to contribute to wikipedia as part of their public relations tactics and, most importantly, whether Rawat's 'message' still operates to hypnotise people (as it did in the 70s) into becoming zombies as per the body of knowledge we have about the social damage that cults can cause. Note, I am remaining anonymous because I am fearful of retaliation otherwise from agents of Mr Rawat's empire in light of warnings received from various sources.147.114.226.172 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, User:Momento removing the NPOV tag is no "proof of the non-NPOV nature of this article". We need something more substantial than that to demonstrate a NPOV problem. Tag-warring is not a proof of anything w.r.t. the POV/NPOV state of the article. Note also that the article has undergone changes and improvements since Cade Metz wrote his article in "The Register". So his language does not longer apply to the current content of the article. "NPOV" is a content assessment, not a behaviour assessment of editors. For behaviour problems there are other things that can be done, for instance Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection (which was applied for some time shortly after Cade Metz' article was published).
Momento is also perfectly "qualified" to do what he did. In fact any editor is "qualified" to do such things. Whether it was wise to do so is another question. Edit-warring with an anonymous editor over cleanup templates is indeed quite unwise. Momento should at least have given an anonymous editor the time to explain him/herself. I tried to give that opportunity, but still, if you can't indicate where the content of the article lacks NPOV, and in what way, and nobody else provides a good argument on the article's bias, the tag should go.
Regarding the content remarks you give about the article, a nice start would be that you indicate in which reliable sources we can find the contentions you think that should need to be in the article. A lot of the discussion here is about the reliability of such sources. Like you, I think it would be better not to gloss over such information, and even less leave it out completely. But we must have sources of which everyone can say, we don't object to these sources being used for the content of the Prem Rawat article. The high-strung presentation of such data, as you proposed above, is in any case not a direction we would likely go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever merits your points have are lost in, and undercut by the obvious bias of your comments. Note the reasons people have given for not using existing anti-Rawat websites; no listed authors, intemperate tone, lack of objective evidence, etc. (There's more but I haven't had time to read those thrashes.) If you really want to advance the charges you make here, why don't you construct a fair-minded, carefully and reliably sourced presentation of them, either here on Misplaced Pages (please start in Talk) or on an outside webpage that can constitute a reliable source? Then we could move this argument forward. As it stands, if everything you say is true, then you are doing your opponents a great service by undercutting your own arguments. Msalt (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing Anons tag.Momento (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am once again removing Anons tag as per ].Momento (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't removed the tag. Let some other editor follow policy.Momento (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the restraint, Momento. I don't really understand the significance of these tags, so I am reluctant to remove it myself. It's pretty clear that the Anon poster doesn't have much of a case for the tag. Does anyone here think it's a good idea? How do we judge when an article deserves a tag like this? Msalt (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What disappoints me is that it is clear from ] and ] that the anon editor doesn't act in good faith and yet the tag remains. If I , on the other hand, remove it, or unsourced material, Francis claims I'm a vandal.Momento (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration. However, I think those of us who watch this page closely are in danger of losing perspective by having an accelerated clock. You know what I mean? If I check this page 5 times in a day ,and the tag is still there, it seems like it's taking forever for progress. But it's still just part of a day. I'm restraining myself on this one too because I just don't understand the significance of these tags. but I'm sure someone will come along soon enough and either remove it or explain what the standards are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you follow the links? According to ] "ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". It seems several editors are happy that anything critical of Rawat can stay even if it violates policy. Feel free to remove that tag Msalt.Momento (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An "NPOV tag" isn't a critical comment. Judging by this talk page, there appears to be substantial disagreement over the neutrality of the article. Edit warring over POV tags is extremely bad form. Rather then worrying about the tag let's focus on settling disputes over the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the NPOV was inserted by 147.114.226.174 ], a known IP of ZoeCroydon, shouldn't we follow the directive and ensure that "all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". Seems clear to me. Does anyone disagree?Momento (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If I read the page correctly, that IP is used by many users. If that's the only reason to remove the NPOV tag then consider it added by me, on account of numerous active disputes being discussed on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not follow that link, Momento, and I apologize for missing it. However, unless I'm mistaken, the NPOV tag was inserted by a different IP: 216.114.82.30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=192871221&oldid=192870842). We don't know for sure that 147.114.226.174 is only ZoeCroydon: the User Talk page says it belongs to National Westminster Bank PLC in New York, and the behavior (one comment) is nothing like the modus operandi described on the "Suspected SockPuppets" page you cited. Also there is no obvious connection from 147.114.226.174 to 216.114.82.30, an IP for Palm Beach Community College.
In any case, Will Beback has seconded the NPOV tag so it doesn't really matter. Let's fix the page. Msalt (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are mistaken, the NPOV tag was added by 147.114.226.174 ] as is clear here ]. Since no one disputes that 147.114.226.174 is listed on Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of ZoeCroydon and the instructions are that "all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". I'm removing that tag in accordance with those instructions. WillBeback can put his own NPOV tag on.Momento (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your evidence that the edit is "by him", as the page you cite requires? I gave you good reasons to think it is not, which you ignored before editing against consensus. Msalt (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This page ] says "ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". And there on the page is a list of IP numbers including User:147.114.226.174. Since sock puppets often use unsigned IP addresses to perpetrate their vandalism, the best Misplaced Pages admin can do is list those anon IP addresses that have been used and state that ""all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight". If an innocent editor is using a disruptive anon IP address, they are advised to create an account if they don't want to be blocked. Despite being blocked on several occasions and advised to set up account, User:147.114.226.174 ] continues to post anonymously and engage in disruptive editing. If you have a problem with the stance taken by the people who investigated ZoeCroydon, you should take it up with them.Momento (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You aren't answering the key question; what is your evidence that the edit you cite is "by him", as the policy you quote requires? It does not say "all edits by anyone at these IP addresses should immediately be reverted." In fact, it lists characteristics of ZoeCroydon edits, so that editors can identify them. Nothing in it is remotely like adding an NPOV tag to an article. Here is the full text:
"Having exhausted the community's patience as discussed here, ZoeCroydon is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages and all edits by him, including those from IPs, are to be reverted on sight. Characteristics of his edits include the vandalism and trolling mentioned above, as well as repeatedly referring to false 'consensuses' that consist entirely of newly created socks and proxy IP addresses, claiming that higher authorities have been informed of abuse by other editors (including legal threats), posting personal information in edit summaries, and claiming that WP:AGF prohibits editors and admins from taking action against him."
You have no evidence that ZoeCroydon made that edit, and you've made no response to the evidence presented that suggests it was not ZoeCroydon. More to the point, you have reverted this NPOV tag 3 times in 3 days, and only once was it added by an IP associated with ZoeCroydon. This is compelling evidence that your edit is based on other reasons you are not being forthright about, and your insistence on the ZoeCroydon rule constitutes WP:GAME. I have to say, you have quite a knack for finding policies that you claim allow, and in fact require you to make unilateral edits against consensus. Please reconsider your approach. It is disrupting this article. Msalt (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag (section break)

I re-added the NPOV tag with this edit summary: "Re-adding NPOV tag for the EL issue, see Talk:Prem Rawat#External links section.... There's prominent criticism on Prem Rawat (as explained in Criticism section), EL's should reflect that for NPOV." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time you read the BLP policy that says - Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material.Momento (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The intrinsic value and gorgeous elegance of the stub

How about I go ahead and reduce this article to the bare minimum, strictly the bones, neither promotional nor critical. Then we can all get on with the lives we used to have. Huh? Can we? Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, in my humble opinion we have been collectively moving in that direction through a (slightly choppy but emerging) consensus. I've come in as one of several outside (uninvolved) editors to move that way, but I find it advisable to move a step at a time, explain what I'm going to do in advance wherever possible, discuss it at length and talk more after each individual move. I've written half of a novel in a week about these issues. Even so, I'm sure there are some who feel I'm moving too fast or unilaterally.
Given that you have been in the thick of these edit wars for some time and are clearly identified with one side, I humbly suggest that it would be a terrible idea for you to unilaterally rewrite the whole page with a line and a half of advance notice. I think it would destroy everything we have accomplished here lately, and lead some to think that such destruction was your aim. Msalt (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Msalt.
For Rumiton, there's always the possibility to follow the technique explained in Misplaced Pages:Subpages#Allowed uses, point 6 in order to present your proposed rewrite. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I really like that idea. Rumiton, I would enjoy seeing (on a separate page) a draft of what you have in mind. It may be great. but let's move a little deliberately here. Msalt (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you, Momento, Jossi, Rainer P and I all go and get on with our lives and let more neutral editors do whatever they feel is best here? Now that would be the perfect solution! Hey, if you guys drop it I'll go too. That's a promise! PatW (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article has lately altogether been improved in neutrality, even if it will take some more work. And I can say I am persistently learning about how to write an encyclopedic article, and I even find working role models here and there for civil manners. So, even if we might not ever reach a final agreement over the article, it is a very rewarding experience for me, and I feel a surprising growing relatedness to all you fellow editors out there, no matter under what flag. So, let's not drop it, but accept the challenge. That seems to be the life at least I wish to have. Cheerio!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Rainer, it is nice that you are having a constructive experience here, but after 12 months of this I find much more fascinating things are beckoning me. I will start work on the dramatically reduced example tomorrow. Deliberately. Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this. But then there are signs that Eds. Francis Schonken and Msalt are really motivated to improve the article, and they will probably face a lot of the load you tried to carry, after getting familiar with its unique mental environment. And remember: "Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach." -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)--Rainer P. (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I respect you as an opponent in argument enough not to attempt to disguise my moderate pleasure at how you appear to be retreating in defeat and attempting some sort of 'Parthian shot'. I would discourage you from wasting further time developing any personalised model for a minimal article though of course you are at liberty to do so. This article is now being shaped, as it always should have been, by the 'emerging consensus' that MSalt talks about. If you don't find this process fascinating then it may be better indeed to turn your attention to the more 'fascinating things that beckon'. I wonder what they could be? :-) PatW (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculative sentence?

I have removed the text 'According to religious historian Timothy Miller, "...he may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker."' This is without meaning - we could equally have replaced it with '... he may now be reaching fewer listeners than ever...'. I personally would bet on the latter! --John Brauns (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit says "removal of speculative sentence". But as far as I can see is sourced to an historian in a published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. You cannot do that, and spare us the sarcasm. This is disruptive and unhelpful. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt the sentence is well sourced - I am just saying it has no meaning or value. If Miller is saying he may be reaching more listeners he is equally implying that he may be reaching fewer listeners. Don't you agree? BTW, there was no sarcasm in my post. --John Brauns (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(and for your information, he is reaching millions of people, more than ever before, through television programming in all continents. ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jossi, this is disallowed as not RS. --John Brauns (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would encourage to self-revert your deletion of an obviously verifiable and reliable published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I would encourage you to apply a little judgement to the content of the sources and ask yourself if it adds any substance to the article. I will leave my edit and allow my peers here to judge whether it should be reverted. --John Brauns (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You still have a chance to restore the deletion, and when you are at it, please correct the page number in the cite. It is page 364 and not 471. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And also consider that you should by not be editing this article either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Many times well-sourced claims have been removed Momenot and to a lesser extent by Rumiton (both often supported by Jossi), because Momento had labelled them as an "exceptional claim", "good editorial judgment", "minority claim", only sourced to one scholar, or sourced to multiple but biased Christian scholars. In most cases I objected to this. Let us not whimsically change the interpretation guidelines and policies as soon as the article threatens to get contents that some editors do not like. If we allow this once again, as has been allowed in the past, then article will again reflect the POV of the majority of the editors here which may diverge substantially from a NPOV article. So what is the editing principle interpreation of policy that we adapt? Let us choose one and stick to it consistentlty. Andries (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth shouldn't I edit this article? I have no conflict of interest. My interest on my website and my interest here is to help publicise the truth about Prem Rawat. The only difference is that on my website I can use first hand testimonies which are not allowed here.--John Brauns (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Answer: However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read that and disagree with it. I have read WP:COI and I am satisfied I have no conflict of interest in editing this article. --John Brauns (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you have more understanding of Misplaced Pages, than a respected and long time contributor to this project? Please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering the fact that nobody but YOU seems to have a COI here. The rest of us all have opinions, but none of us is being paid for them. You are reportedly paid to engage in public relations activities by Mr. Rawat. As far as I can tell, nobody else is paid, either to engage in such activities or to engage in activities opposing Mr.Rawat. Momento and Rumiton obviously act as if they believe that Goom Rodgie is the Lord of The Universe and as if they believe that it is therefore vitally important to prevent anyone else from finding that out about their secret beliefs, as it might dissuade the general public from "taking Knowledge," particularly if they realized that the Guru is in the habit of referring to himself in the third person as if he were omnipotent and omniscient. Wowest (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inviting Jossi again to answer the question I asked him above in #Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And I invite you to to take people like Wowest, PatW and all others abusing this page to account for blatant personal attacks.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, I suggest you answer that question. You're free to ignore whatever you think must be ignored, but I really think it would help the discussion on the external links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You hit me first Jossi WAAAAAAAA I want mmy MUMMYPatW (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, not helpful. Please concentrate on article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about whether John Brauns is supposed to be editing here or not. I have to say that I am sympathetic to this edit. The statement does in fact seem speculative. The source appears to be verifiable, though I can't say I've looked it up, but the very words of the quote show that the author really isn't sure and is, in fact speculating. (Like all good reliable sources, the author acknowledges the limits of their knowledge.)

The bigger point is that this article in general closely narrates the career of Prem Rawat in a "horse race" manner. I am sure there are other bio articles that list an individualsetbacks or major advance for the subject here or there. But are there any other bio articles that read so much like the narration of a prize fight? "Ooh, he took quite a shot there. But wait! He's back on his feet, and the crowd is going wild!" There's a sense to me of a narrator who is rooting for the subject in the manner of a biopic. This particular line says 2 things: 1) he's more of a secular speaker than religious figure now (which has already been said, at some length, earlier in the article) and 2) that he is quite successful (which I'm not sure belongs.) Is there some general standard we can apply to distinguish statements that belong in a bio from those that are too positive (and hence imbalanced, or become cheerleading)? Msalt (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Misplaced Pages:Consensus;
  2. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view;
  3. Misplaced Pages:Coatrack (this is a good one I just stumbled upon, I'm discovering it together with you) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To me the statement looks like somewhat in this vein: "He went by airplane <ref>This means he will probably have arrived there in less than half the time than when doing the itinerary by car, according to talk show host XYZ.</ref>", i.e. a somewhat redundant bit of information. Support John Brauns on this one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Will all due respect I can muster, your arguments do not fly on the face of facts, and the seeming application of double standards is perplexing. An historian makes a statement about how changes on Rawat's presentation may be the reason he may be reaching more listeners than ever before, and you decide that it is speculation? And when another author, describes a speech of Rawat as banal, that is not speculation? What is going on here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain, Jossi. When someone says something 'may be' true they are speculating. If you look at what you wrote the words 'may be' are included twice, so this is what is called speculation. Don't thank me, I'm just glad to help.--John Brauns (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe what you need is to read the material surrounding that text in Miller's book to understand the context, and why it is a useful piece of information. I will copy the text and place here for discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here it is:

During the 1980's, Maharaj Ji began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission and eventually stepped down as a "Perfect Master". He continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher, and established a minimal organization called Elan Vital to receive contributions. He may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of public speaker, and his religious movement is essentially defunct. Miller, Timothy (1995). America's alternative religions. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press. pp. p. 374. ISBN 0-7914-2397-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Please explain why this material is not encyclopedic and not worthy of inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was appended after this sentence:

1999 saw the commencement of regular satellite broadcasts to North America and other countries. According to religious historian Timothy Miller, "...he may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker."<ref>Miller, America's Alternative Religions, pp.474</ref> (my bolding)

OR, & SYN as it happens. the "" (1995!) has no relation to the 1999 commencement of regular satellite broadcasts. So, indeed: speculation (although I didn't use the word "speculation" yet: I said "redundant bit of information"). Note that the reference doesn't include the publication date of Miller. Again the article is being made into a puzzle, while the date of publication of the quote only appears in a different section, after the footnotes.

Indeed, one can ask oneself why the most speculative sentence (the one containing the "may") was chosen from the Miller 1995 source? E.g.

  • "established a organization to receive contributions." is more affirmative, aka less speculative;
  • Why stop the quote before: ", and his religious movement is essentially defunct."? That's also more affirmative, less weasely and speculative.

I conclude some serious revamping has been going on:

  • Gave the impression Miller confirmed something Miller in 1995 didn't even allude to (1999 broadcasts);
  • The most speculative sentence of the Miller source was chosen, where less speculative sentences on other content abound.

John, good catch. Apparently I'm only starting to see how bad the 2007 rewrite of this article has been. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote, Jossi. Very helpful. I have to say that the full quote left me with a pretty different impression than its use in the article did. Francis spells out why pretty thoroughly. We should be able to rewrite it all more NPOV. I remain concerned that the "more successful than ever" part amounts to cheerleading, esp. as presented.
Not everything a reliable source says is itself reliable or appropriate for the article. It's very common for both good journalism and scholarly articles to end with a speculation like "This development may prove to be the beginning of a new era in blah blah", or the current example, but I don't think those statements belong in articles, no matter how impressive the source is. Msalt (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The full quote provides the necessary context to extract a good summary that can improve the "Westernization" section. Go for it! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh man... I provided the full cite, so use it to improve the article instead of congratulating a deletion of a source that is verifiable and usable. So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That was what I was intending. It looks like a good source on the "donations", for which we were looking for a good source. Anyone objects? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a good source in the section Westernization, as it presents the transition from previously assigned religious trappings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the source claimed Rawat 'stepped down as Perfect Master', when all he did was drop the use of the word 'perfect', I would not describe him as a 'good source'. Rawat certainly never 'stepped down' from anything. --John Brauns (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, your opinion against that of a reputable historian. You need to re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I was there, and Rawat never stepped down as 'Perfect Master'. I appreciate that my testimony cannot be used in this article, but I do have the right to comment on the reliability of other sources based on my personal knowledge. --John Brauns (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence discussed needs to be restored based on the source provided. These are the type of edits that makes an article NPOV, not endless discussions about a name or about a heading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossl, thanks for your comment. Now you start complaining so much and so strongly about a well-sourced sentence being removed, but you often supported and only very rarly objected to the removal by Momenton of dozens of well-sourced sentences. I hope that you start behaving less partisan and more constructively here. Andries (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Andries, most talk-page discussions revolve around the subject of assessing sources, how these are used, and how these fit within the overall context of an article. In discussions we try and gauge consensus on these matters, and if no common ground is found, we seek dispute resolution. So, yes, I may have argued for exclusion or rewording of certain texts and sources, and that is within what is expected of editors. No different here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's you use and used in your assements of sources strong double standards and hence they are not very helpful. This is one of the reasons why the article became unbalanced. Andries (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Look in the mirror, Andries. Yes, we all tend in some way or another to prefer some sources and dismiss others. And we there is no agreement, we pursue in good faith, the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, John's edit may be mistaken, but he was only following the reasoning often used by Momento who was often supported by you. Momento often used his personal assessments of statements to exclude it from Misplaced Pages by dismissing a reputable source as a "minority view", "exceptional claim" etc. Fact is that when Rawat spoke for the first since a long time in the Netherlands (the Hague) a few years ago there was not a single dutch newspaper that paid attention to it. It is well documented that the DLM and Maharaji in quite a lot of sources (among others Encarta) used to famous. So it will be clear that I agree with John that Miller's statement is misguided. Andries (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

On the face of the lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, malicious edits, and other behaviors, please note that my recusal from editing this article was voluntary, and that I am seriously considering resuming editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please would you provide evidence/citations of:

  • lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, giving examples to support your case
  • malicious edits, indicating what you think might have been malicious about them
  • other behaviors, presumably implying that any behaviors are somehow suspect

147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find something positive to be said about Mr Rawat in external sources not controlled by him. Are there any. This search gives over 1000 references. I couldn't find one that was positive that wasn't published by Mr Rawat or his followers, i.e. there is no one independent out there who doesn't believe there's something a bit iffy about this guy. Why doesn't the wikipedia article reflect all that general feeling out there about Mr Rawat? At the moment wikipedia is making a laughing stock of itself as per the informer article 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was doing a Google Book Search on "Prem Rawat" and on "Maharadji" yesterday. You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat positively in the preface or intro of their book. So, no, I don't think this attitude of "generally, nothing positive on Prem Rawat is available on the web unless controlled by him" should be supported. It is speculative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Francis, but I think we can use the word wrong, not just speculative. Your search of prefaces and intros is illustrative. A simple Google search for "Prem Rawat" gives 116 000 results. I note that about 90-95% appear positive, and the negatives clearly emanate from the same fairly small group of sites and people. No doubt none of this is directly usable by WP, but it shows that his message has been well received by many, and I hope we will find a way to acknowledge that. (I have temporarily shelved my plan to produce a trimmed back version. Maybe we can get this thing to work.) Rumiton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Finally some evidence of the divine nature of The Knowledge, allowing you to discern rapidly from 116,000 links the proportion of which are favorable. Bravo Rumiton, you are a wonder! Keep up your great work here in wikipedia. You will be rewarded. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The above statement by 147.114.226.172 stands out for its disingenuousness. Including the term "Evening Standard" in the search string ensures the tabloid article by the paper of the same name appears in the results. Of course the results will be negative, that's what tabloids are all about. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Frankly, the disingenuousness of the post simply led me to ignore it. But good point on the 'evening standard" search term. Anon user, if there really is so much negative material on Rawat, why not simply find the really solid ones -- top notch journalists, academics and books -- and bring them to our attention? Msalt (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Evening Standard internet search showed the most recent press coverage of Prem Rawat. The Evening Standard is cited here in wikipedia in relation to criticism of another living person, Ken Livingstone. Presumably to cite such a link should also be ignored. After all, no one is claiming that Ken Livingstone is a living saint. Should we not consider the nature of the stories published in the press, rather than ignore them on the basis of implied ad hominem attacks against the professional journalists whose jobs depend on not writing defamatory material? Why is an Evening Standard citation acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia in relation to Ken Livingstons but not in relation to Prem Rawat? I think we should be told.84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 
Regarding: "You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat   
positively in the preface or intro of their book."
You misspelled "Maharaj Ji" in your post, so I hope you didn't in your 
search.  Prior to 1973, when referring to "Guru Maharaj Ji," most 
American authors meant Satuguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba Maharaj. Until the
middle of 1973, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature referred to Prem 
as "Balyogeshwar, boy guru." The "Inner Tennis," books are dedicated to
Prem. "Be Here Now" is dedicated to Neem Karoli Baba, but it just says 
"Guru Maharaj Ji." For that reason, I also think it is important to 
keep "Balyogeshwar" prominent at the top of the article. 
Wowest (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Google Books search returns a manageable number of links. Let's see how many books there are that are not published by Rawat's outlets and not written by devotees who give him a dedication. That will narrow the field further. Then we will start to see just how much disinterested material there is on the goodness of Mr Rawat's message. Would such a survey be useful? 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects are relevant

Let's take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Spirituality#Scope:

This WikiProject aims to promote better coordination, content distribution, balance and cross-referencing among pages covering topics of spirituality, as well as pages on topics that can be compared or contracted with spirituality. All of these articles should be placed within the Category:Spirituality or one of its subcategories.

Most certainly relevant. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism is also highly relevant, due to the skepticism surrounding Rawat's claimed benefits from his secretive "Techniques of Knowledge". Cirt (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If the "Skepticism" project tag is applied due to the teachings of Rawat then it would be more appropriate to add it to the teachings of Prem Rawat article. Rawat himself has little or nothing to do with skepticism that I can see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have yet to find a published source that forwards any kind of skepticism surrounding Rawat's claimed benefits from his secretive "Techniques of Knowledge". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article history

See the Article history box. There is some interesting info that has since mysteriously gone missing from this article, see versions 25 October 2006, 12 November 2006, (as of the 2 prior peer reviews), and 10 March 2007, (as of the failed GA Review, done by Vassyana (talk · contribs).) Cirt (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, please spare us from puzzles and riddles, what specific "missing" information do you want us to be looking at in these older versions of the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I just gave it a quick glance over as I was setting up the "article history" box uptop on the talk page, and noticed a very different presentation of the criticism sect, and the info in there. I'll have to go over those older versions in more detail later to see what was censored out of them over the years. Also, there is some missing info here regarding litigation history, litigious nature of related organizations/companies, etc. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, most litigation was only sourced to primary sources with the exception of the John McGregor case, so that is why it was omitted. Andries (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic Headings

One of the unfortunate consequences of the inheritance of an overly hagiographic approach to this article is that unencyclopaedic headings have constrained the internal logic of the article. While the sources may be open to criticism I still think that User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources offers a better overall structure.

Certainly the current Headings: Leaving India, Coming of Age, and Westernization are wholly imbalanced. The headings suggest entirely personal events in the first two cases while the third relates entirely to a claimed change in the supposed 'teaching', but throughout the material concerns Rawat’s career as a Guru and the events that affected the structure of organisations – rather in the way that a family business might be affected in other circumstances. If this article is to be balanced, NPOV and comprehensive, the various threads need to be separated out and justified on the basis of evidence. Personally I would like to start re-writing whole sections – but perhaps some of the newer editors could first take another look at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources and indicate what they feel is not right with that approach.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

God, yes I see and agree totally. It's funny how familiarity with the article's general look over the years has eroded my better judgement. Looking at that heading 'Coming of Age' I see it is dripping with respect. It implies some sort of stateliness or something. I guess I just got used to it but this is essentially the sort of tone I've objected to all along. Even in my premie days I would have been embarrassed at such public pomposity. It's simply looks so out of place in an encyclopaedia. Imagine if this was an article about any other living person -The Pope? Mother Teresa? Kennedy? The Queen? Nelson Mandela? John Travolta? Do you think any of these people would be comfortable about having stages of their lives, separated out and described in such terms? I mean..Nelson Mandela....'Coming of Age'? Doesn't work for me? Can any editors here justify why Rawat deserves language which possibly only befits historic royalty? Essentially the facts about Rawat are framed in language which itself says: 'This man's whole life - from childhood on - is extremely significant'. To be honest the fact that Rawat is so plainly comfortable at being projected in such reverential terms in public strikes me as extraordinarily arrogance on his part. Who does he really think he is? Or like the song we used to sing in the 70's and the book by Charles Cameron was titled..'Who is Guru Maharaji?' This is obviously the question he thinks the world should be asking.PatW (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The headings make sense to me. The Pope's, Mandela's, Travolta's articles describe their chronology in terms of what they were doing at the time. Rawat's life can be divided into his "Chilhood" in India, "Leaving India" for the west. "Coming of Age" is a crucial turning point in Rawat's life, becoming an emancipated minor enabled him to marry and assume legal responsibility. Like wise "Westernization". Let's see what you can come up with.Momento (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard. Off the top of my head - 'Childhood' (1957-1974)' and 'Adulthood '1975 -Present Day' would be far more enclyclopaedic. Would prefer to see is headings that no way smack of 'momentousness' (no pun intended)PatW (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Imho, there's much to be said for the article structure proposed by Nik in User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources. I think it's better than the current section title sequence of the Prem Rawat article.
Over-all Nik's prose would also be a major improvement (style-wise) over the often confusing prose currently in the article. Just picking a small example I think illustrative:

Despite being only 16 Prem Rawat was able to marry without his mother’s permission having achieved emancipated minor status in California and in May 1974 he married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American followers. (User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources#SCHISM)

compared to

In April 1974, at the age of sixteen, Prem Rawat became an emancipated minor, and in May, married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American students. (Prem Rawat#Coming of age)

Nik's version indicates that becoming an "emancipated minor" was tied to the place where he lived, and imho reads more fluently than (for example): "In April 1974, and in May "
As remarks, regarding Nik's version (all of this imho):
  • Lead section less effective than current lead section of the Prem Rawat article (although also for that lead section I'm far from finished suggesting improvements);
  • We don't do section titles in capitals only, when there's no distinct reason (like for example widely understood acronym);
  • Needs wikification;
  • No EL section (but that's a separate debate).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue). In English, Nik's version has too many concepts for one sentence and so is clumsy and garbled. And telling the reader where the decree was made (California) seems unnecessary to me. As I have said before, this is not a book we are writing. We need to get rid of words that are not earning their keep in the article. BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony. Good work will be required to repair that damage. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue)" – might be (I said: imho), but my mother tongue does not contain the word "Muttersprache", FYI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am getting the feeling that the nitpickings about minutiae such as a complain about "unencyclopedic headings", or should a name be in the lead and not in a section are just nonsense, or should a sentence be re-constructed is totally unhelpful. The discourse here is deteriorating badly.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Er... You started the discussion on whether "a name be in the lead and not in a section" - I didn't even contribute to that part of the discussion above in #Balyogeshwar (I said it should be in the lead per Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title, I didn't say a word on whether or not it should be in a section, which was your part of the discussion from the moment you started it). So, what you're implying is that you're deliberately trying to deteriorate the discussion here, or did I misread what you just said?
Admittedly WP:MoS issues are of secondary importance, but progress there is not to be scorned either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New Section headings

With text now imported: Adolescence, Schism,Interegnum and Charismatic Leadership. This gives the first two sections as related to Rawat as Child and Adolescent, with subsequent sections relevant to his claim to notabality - i.e his career as guru etc. The new text significantly increases the range of references for a period that is crititical to the explanation of Rawat's history as guru and his role in his 'movement'. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this? Weeks of discussions for simple stuff, and then one person comes along and changes the article entirely without a word? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If actually read the discussions you see that there has been much discussion. You reversion was unwarranted. Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Unencyclopaedic_Headings

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I did read that, and I didn't find "much discussion". Janice Rowe (talk)

Do you seriously believe that you can "import" your sandbox article without discussion? Have you noticed how much time we have taken to discuss things as a name, or a house? I am sure you have, so making such unilateral massive changes is either a silly maneuver, or outright disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice, Nik. Shows how much you care for building consensus. I find your last edit and edit warring to be most disruptive of one of the most basic tenets of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only your massive edit was not discussed, it includes extraordinary levels of original research and editorializing of sources. Guess what will be the first edit after the protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other topic

Re. "BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony.":
  • Please don't mix topics on this talk page;
  • Please, NPA (WP:NPA), comment on content, not on contributor.
  • If you must know, notifying Momento would have been a breach of good manners, as he had said to me: "I consider your frequent posting on my talk page to be harassment. Stop it." . I was clear about not being able to post on Momento's talk page for that reason when I listed the WP:AN discussion, so anyone uninvolved could have picked that up. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs). For clear reasons, I wanted to avoid as long as possible to discuss Momento's behaviour on multiple pages, certainly not on talk pages that should be devoted to article writing, while not the topic of these pages: WP:AN, on the other hand, is an appropriate place to ask for guidance on such things.
  • I tried to merge the topic of Momento's behaviour with other related points at WP:AN, unsuccessfully, but anyway notified about such discussions at WP:AN via this talk page (#Notification), the moment an admin had suggested it would be best to notify. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Many here have requested that someone who knows the system better do something to officially reflect our objections to Momento's disruptiveness. I unreservedly support his action. And..maybe you premies might want to do what would really good mannered for once (since your contrived versions of this article have come under public criticism) and just sit back, relax, watch and learn what a comparatively unbiased editor makes of all this. I'm fascinated to see.. aren't you?PatW (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no "comparatively unbiased" editors here, if this were a trial, no neutral jurors could be found. Your shameless exercise in guilt by association and other red herring type behaviours have seen to that, and now we have to live with it. We have no choice now but to keep contesting. Same old same-old. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruminton...Yes, of course no one's neutral but that's ok. And it's not what I said. What I meant was that there are distinctly 'comparatively un-biased editors' here now. A very helpful third category of person if you will- who are very useful in mediating this debate. In fact you might want to loosely look upon them as a jury in this contest. Ie. People who are neither 'followers' or 'ex-followers' of Prem Rawat. It's not rocket science. Also, I maintain that you are mistakenly reading 'guilt by association' into my having argued above (apparently successfully) that there were actual comparisons with the People's Temple and Rawat's power structures, in that both cases practised some top-level secrecy and beliefs in the divine authority of the leader. I denied your accusations already. I welcome you questioning my conscience because it's clear and I feel no shame thanks. You are absolutely correct that this article is contested. You simply seem to be in a sulk that you, Jossi and Momento are losing the almost total editorial control you're used to and which was widely perceived as inappropriate.PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I claim "comparatively unbiased", for reasons I explained elsewhere. I recommend to avoid the use of the word premie, when referring to other editors, while not helpful. I'm not calling anyone here a premature birth either, am I? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No Francis, that does not fly on the face of evidence. Compare your treatment of some editors here, and your treatment of others. Rather than come here and help mediate a difficult situation, you have chosen to take sides in the dispute and that is too bad. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, anyone who doesn't agree with you on the spot on each and every point is in an opposing camp. This divisive attitude won't fly. Rumiton's approach has much more nuance, e.g. "Francis, I have seen some encouraging signs of neutrality from you." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I also claim "comparatively unbiased", and see Will Beback, Cirt and Vassyana as others just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Without arguing your point about Francis, Jossi, do you agree? Rumiton's claim of no unbiased editors disturbs me, as it seems to imply that bias is the norm and acceptable, if not preferred. As I said earlier, I felt suspicion on arriving here because I did NOT have a conflict of interest that people could categorize me by, and that is in my opinion backwards and wrong. Msalt (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We all have our biases, Msalt. The moment we start actively editing an article, our biases tend to surface. Having said that, I think that it there is no problem with this issue, we are all human, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback and I go long ways, and I respect him greatly as an editor. So I feel about Vassyana. As for Cirt, I would prefer not to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the several reasons why this article became unbalanced was because it had been left alone by the wider Misplaced Pages community to factions with strongly opposing POVs. Andries (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Er..Francis...I should maybe tell you that Rawat's followers are proud to be called 'Premies'. It is not a derogatory term. I couldn't use it as such if I wanted which I don't. PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, not useful imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PatW, for a person that has abused this page, you have some chutzpah to come here and speak of disruption of others.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, what do you think is more disruptive to Wikipeda, coarse language on the talk page or blatant double standards in assessing sources? I think the latter. Andries (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
TThe answer is obvious. There are no excuses for personal attacks, Andries. A dispute about assessing a source, can be mediated, and resolved. A personal attack, cannot. Misplaced Pages is not a place to rant, voice, or express, our feelings, opinions, and emotions about follow editors, or about subjects covered in the encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Jossi, I have tried many, many dispute resolutions on this article and I received often no response. Mediation with Momento was tried but aborted partially because you successfully made attacks on my good faith. I am willing to file a request for comments every week because there are so many unresolved disputes and this may be in full accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. You dismissed independent comments in dispute resolution as misguided and supported Momento's divergence from this comments. Do you think dispute resolution will help when some editors continue to use blatant double standards? Only for a short time and a little bit, I think. Andries (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Andries, the failing of that mediation was your own. You know that very well, so does the Mediation Committee members that looked at the case. You cannot enter into mediation if you preempt it with a statement that you do not believe in its outcome and you want to go to Arbitration. Your words, not mine. First steps of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, informal mediation and mediation, are useful when there is good will and intention to find common ground and compromise related to content disputes. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not hear a content dispute, taking only on issues related to user conduct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unhappily for you I've got the nerve to call a spade a spade and I've had quite enough of the arrogance, barbed comments and plain disdain towards ex-followers (and others) that has been dished out here over the years. I'd like to point out that your apparent COI, rule book-waving and Momento's long-term walking over people's edits is actually at the root of the mistrust and rude outbursts that happen here. I fully admit to occasionally chastising people in a cross manner. You should thank me for losing it sometimes...it gives you authoritarian types something substantial to jump up and down about. Let's make no mistake the baiting cuts both ways. And by the way, I am laughing that you think Francis is taking sides. That to me just shows how deeply cultified your thinking has become. No offense.PatW (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I chose not to respond, Pat. Not until you stop making such comments, and commit to not doing it again.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A Balanced Perspective

Off-topic comments - see WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

. We really need to get this thing in the proper perspective. . This whole mess was not, initially, Prem Rawat's fault. He inherited the family business. . Historically, he is an extraordinarily insignificant public figure. He was one of many "Messiahs" introduced during the waning years of the Nixon administration. What he did have, according to the second edition of Snapping, was a really effective mind-control program involving two of the four techniques he calls "Knowledge," practiced 24/7, coupled with living in a communal environment. With the ashrams closed and the meditation limited to an hour a day, he has followers engaged in a practice which is not particularly good for them, but which no longer generates the same degree of fanaticism we witnessed in the early 1970's. . So, now he's a self-proclaimed "motivational speaker" without a message, but with a few vestigal fanatic followers left over from the good old days. It's really questionable whether this article should exist on Misplaced Pages or not. He's so inconsequential. A number of more significant people and organizations have had their articles here deleted. Wowest (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And for balance, listen to what Prem Rawat has to say.Momento (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I listened to him recently on U-Tube. "Peace is possible" was the only thing he had to say which had any substance at all. Nothing was stated about how to attain peace, how to end conflict, how to end social injustice or anything of that sort. The rest of what he said, inconsequential as it was, was very sell said. He's an excellent rhetorician with no content to his message. Unfortunately, some of us are aware that when the speaks of "peace," he means "peace of mind," and that the "peace of mind" he speaks of is nothing anyone in his right mind would want. Wowest (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving India

The words "Frequently acting like the teenager that he was, Rawat was seen by some as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" have little meaning and no references. The words seem to suggest that Rawat should not have acted like a teenager, or that there was some problem with this. Who saw him as being unfit? Who saw him as immature? If these people did make such judgments, then it was because they had a set of criteria that they opined was the correct set of criteria to apply to a religious leader. So who were these great holders of the stamp of religious leadership? This sort of material doesn't have any place in this article. ] (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A guru is often jugded by the standards set by a tradition. (Reender Kranenborg 1984) In this case Rawat broke with the tradition of respectable behavior by the guru that his father has followed. Andries (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course people have criteria for judging a religious leader. It is too easy to say I am a religious leader with a new message. You cannot judge me, because I know how a religious leader should behave. Not you. Armeisen, you have to understand that I used to believe in your reasoning myself, but now I can no longer take it seriously. Andries (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, Armeisen. In WP:AWT, the guideline about avoiding "weasel words" It says - "Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. Additional "weasel" words sometimes allow a statement to be implied when it is no truer than its inverse and sometimes imply that the statement is more controversial than it is. The problem with weasel-worded statements isn't that they are false; the problem is that they are chosen to imply something which they do not say. And the statement you refer to uses "seen by some" which is an exact equivalent of ""some argue that..". You should leave it for a few days and if no one wants to argue with the WP:AWT and delete it.Momento (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We are only following what the soource (Melton) has stated. Melton does not get more specific than that. I can only see this as wikilawyering (or misinterpretation of policies) to get rid of yet another well-sourced statement that some editors do not like. Andries (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write the guideline Andries. But my understanding is that guidelines are a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.Momento (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But common sense is that a reputable source uses weasel words then it is difficult for Misplaced Pages to avoid weasel words. This is not a valid reason for deletion of a statement sourced to the reputable source. If the used source (Melton) had been more specific then Arrmeisen's complaint would be actionable. Now it is not. Andries (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Either weasel words are to be avoided or they're not. Why have an Avoid Weasel Words guideline if you first argument is, they didn't mean it. Melton knows exactly what he's doing. In what ever investigations Melton made, he, personally, didn't come to that conclusion but "some" did. If a religious scholar had come to that conclusion it may be note worthy and worth including in an encyclopedia. But he didn't, "some" did but he didn't. Classic weasel word, classic weasel statement.Momento (talk)
Momento, I hope that you are not serious when you argue that a statement sourced to a reputable soure should be removed only because the reputable source uses weasel words. I think this is a complete misinterpretation of guidelines and I have difficulty taking your argument seriously. Andries (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether we use weasel words or we choose to use the weasel words of others is academic, they are still weasel words and still to be avoided.Momento (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here Melton appears to be using weaseling as a defense. It does not invalidate him as a source, but we need to be careful with specific instances. We can't just take out this weaselry as he was deliberately hiding behind it, using it as a shelter against criticism of his own opinion, whatever that may be. Probably the whole sentence needs to be deleted. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem to be a very weak comment. It's almost as if he feels obliged to say something critical. Maybe it's because he's a Christian minister and thinks he needs to criticize anyone who advocates a non Christian life.Momento (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic comments - see WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The inexorable process of Rawat's followers moving to delete anything critical of the Master continues. They are just waiting for neutral editors to tire and then they'll revert. Imho this article has always been about whitewashing the past and distancing Rawat from anything that could implicate him in responsibility for his past teachings and demands from followers. And he apparently goes along with this protection. After all couldn't Rawat easily ask Jossi and Momento and other premies to back off here? Prem Rawat publicly ridiculed a friend of mine who was in 1978 told by his Instructor to give up her place at Oxford University in order to live in Rawats' ashram. When my friend asked Rawat about his part in this policy at a large meeting a few years ago, he crossly asked why she thought he had any responsibility in the matter and preferred to shift the blame back onto the instructor. He was plainly very annoyed that a 'real' question got through the 'expressions' of praise and gratitude that constituted most of the comments from the audience and which he routinely lapps up. My friend later said to me "The scales dropped from my eyes" and she realised in that moment that Rawat was anxious to shirk all responsibility for his actions with regard to ashrams and that his supposed care was more about preserving his 'impeccable' image than comforting those poor wounded souls who had given up their youthful lives, relationships, interests and careers to him, on his recommendation. A lot of current premies who witnessed this lady then have the 'roving' microphone abruptly switched off so she could not embarass Rawat further, had to swallow hard to suppress their consciences. That process of trying to distance Rawat from personal criticism continues here- to move it en-masse to other articles (as we have seen) - or to twist words to implicate that the ever-shifting 'premie' organisations were responsible for all mistakes. The consistent agenda of Rawats followers here appears to me to be to distance Rawat personally from criticism or accountability. My inevitable conclusion is that they are acting as his agents and that this policy comes from Rawat himself. But then probably later , in a bitter irony, I predict that Rawat will blame people like Jossi and Momento for messing up his public image.PatW (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrying on from jossi's comment below this one... Unfortunately, the 'story' above is a classic case of ex followers seizing on any opportunity to cast Prem Rawat in a bad light. I was three rows behind this woman at the event in Alexandra Palace, London, and clearly remember her highly accusatory and aggressive tone right from the get go. The moment she started talking the energy level in the place plumetted, it was palpable, there was nothing remotely ernest or sincere about her 'question'. She demanded that Prem R explain why he told the intructor to advise her not to go to University. Prem Rawat, knowing full well he had told the instructor no such thing, told her he was not going to involve himself in a pissing contest. She became more pushy and aggressive until, to the relief of everybody, the mic was removed from her grasp. It is documented that PR has endured this kind of ugly harrassment from his childhood, dissatisfied people with grudges desperate to blame the easiest target at hand. Regarding this page, which largely resembles a poor facsimile of a prizefight, at least Pat W has the courage to post his comments here in his name, but why on earth is the toxic bile of an anonymous ex-premie attack dog 147.144 allowed to stain these pages? No wonder this putrid writer cowers behind a mask, no-one would want to be associated with such a negative take - on anything. The comments from this person represent a state of mind one can only shudder to comprehend what it must be like to experience. But why aired here? Wake up editors.VivK (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop withe these type of comments? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. WIkipedia is not a discussion forum. Discuss the article and not the editors. Enough with this. Any more of it and I will ask at WP:AN/I to refactor them and move them to your talk page. Write a blog if you need to vent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What Jossi said. PatW, you have knowledge of this subject that would be valuable to keep in the mix here, but you have to behave. You are acting like you want to get kicked out of here, to claim marytrdom or who knows why. Please stop. Msalt (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right that the idea of being kicked out has a certain appealing feel of relief to it, but not so as I can claim martyrdom thanks. I'm afraid it's just prosaic frustration and strong feelings about the subject. Apologies all round.PatW (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Downton wrote that part of the conversion was the inability to voice criticism of Rawat. I think that this should be added to the reception section. Andries (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Melton's source can and should be used, but it needs to be summarized in a manner that is attributed to the source, and not asserted as a fact. Staying close to the source and attributing opinions to those that hold them is NPOV writing 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but, with regard to the discussion removed by Jossi for being off-topic, can I reasonably continue this debate on my Talk page? The accusations of VivK rightly should be answered so I am forwarding his/her accusations to the lady who he is accusing of sincerity and disruption. I invite him to defend his accusations on my Talk Page here if that is ok: PatW (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Downton's Perspective

Currently the article relies on 9 references from Downton, from a total of just 84. As a contemporary reporter of the 1970 period Downton is undoubtedly valuable however his work on the Divine Light Mission was coloured by a very specific perspective, about which he was quite explicit –

^ Downton, Sacred Journeys. " From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge, or life force, more fully. This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age."

The problem which arises is that nowhere do the references place Rawat in a wider context of ‘gurus’ as defined by Downton (or anyone else), nor is there any explantion of what ‘deconditioning’ Rawat employed nor how that fit within Rawat’s teachings. These omissions would not matter except that these issues underlay Downton’s study and to not make them explicit within the article while relying so heavily on Downton as a source, risks an unacknowledged promotion of a Downtonesque POV. Some reduction in the number of Downton references is probably desirable and/or replacement/complementing with Foss & Larkin who carried out a 30 month study in the same decade. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective; check what the source is used for. (b) All sources are coloured by the bias of the author (Kent, Foss & Larking, Meltion, and the rest of them), so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
a) Jossi that is untrue, Downton's opinions are stated as fact even when there are scholars who disagree with him See here
b} agree
Andries (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit for now, since it splits the two sentences sourced to Downton in a way that makes it hard for the reader to follow the narrative. Also, looking at , I don't think van der Lans/Derks claim to be in disagreement with Downton. It seems to me that in their timeline they focus on the family split around 1975, following which Hinduistic elements were dropped in favour of a focus on Rawat's personal role as a teacher or saviour. That point is already made 2 paragraphs higher up ("... took control of the Western DLM, and as its sole source of spiritual authority, encouraged students to leave the ashrams and to discard Indian customs and terminology"). The point about a move towards more messianic beliefs is made by Downton as well, but he dates it – perhaps more precisely – to late 1976, also backed up by other sources. Since Derks and van der Lans explicitly refer to Downton's narrative as an extensive description of the ideological changes that occurred, I reckoned that his is the more detailed chronicle of events. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Jayen466 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I admit that Lans and Derks may not have written in clear contradiction to what Downton wrote in this respect, but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. Andries (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective

At present 11% of all references in this article are to one work by Downton, given the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. the potential for imbalance is obvious. (b)All sources are coloured by the bias of the author. It is a falacy to present all biases as equal. In this context Downton's work was undertaken with a predisposition to present the activity of 'deconditioning' in an uncritical and even approving manner, in fact Downton's proposition borders on an exceptional claim as per WP:V . but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. I agree with Jayen that Derks & Lans rely on Downton's chronology but their analysis is very different and makes a useful balance, though it needs careful inclusion. My suggested text at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources is

With his mother and eldest brother having no legal claim within the US, and with opposition from within the American organization neutralized, Prem Rawat was free to exercise the role of lone charismatic leader to the Western branch of the Divine Light Mission. The first evidence of assertion of his control came in late 1976 when a policy of ashram closures that had been begun earlier that year under Mishler’s influence was reversed, while at the same time moves towards democratisation within the DLM following were curtailed Devotionalism became an even greater aspect of Prem Rawat’s ‘teaching’ and the millenarian ideology of the early 1970s fell from use. As the single charismatic leader, unencumbered by competing family members or challenged by assertive officials Prem Rawat reprised, albeit in a north American context, the distinctive role of a Sant Mat Guru.

Membership of Prem Rawat’s following had begun to change from 1975, according to Derks and Lans pre 1975 followers had been attracted by DLM’s Hinduistic ideology which “offered them an opportunity to legitimate their already existing rejection of the Western utilitarian world view”, while after 1975 new members included those who “had been very religious in their preadolescent years.” Derks and Lans suggest that this preadolescent religiosity, primarily Christian had been lost in adolescence but refound in the ‘satsang’ of Divine Light Mission. The new followers came to see Prem Rawat and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience making Rawat much more important for them than he had been for many of the pre 1975 members.

Footnotes 44^ Price,M. Ibid. At the same time the stress on the community premie, which had led to what was now viewed as excessive democratization, which was strongly repudiated by Maharaj Ji at Frankfurt, has now been controlled by the simple device of blocking public communication channels upwards to the head office. For more than twelve months now, the national publication which carried letters from premies, often extremely critical of other premies and the head office, (but never of Maharaj Ji), has not been printed. Instead premies receive an exclusive diet of full transcripts of Maharaj Ji's satsang at various festivals across the world. Maharaj Ji made it known that he disliked his satsang to be edited and only extracts of it published. At present then, premies have neither a public platform for discussing the mission's policies nor a vehicle for receiving an interpreted policy via the mission's officials. Such a situation, though increasing Maharaj Ji's control over the movement, does so at the cost of expansion and middle-management confidence. 45^ Björkqvist, K Ibid. During the latter half of the 70's, the movement clearly returned towards greater world-rejection, although perhaps not reaching the same level as in 1971-73. The millenarian ideology had lost its credibility owing to a slowdown in the expansion rate, and the millenarian jargon gradually disappeared completely. Emphasis was placed on devotion to the guru, ashram life was again encouraged, and satsang meetings were arranged every evening. 46^ DuPertuis, L. (1986): How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. University of Guam Charisma in Sant Mat / Radhasoami / DLM tradition can best be understood in terms of darshan for which, according to Bharati, "absolutely no parallel" can be found "in any religious act in the West . . . " (1970:161, cited in Eck, 1981:5). Darshan means "sight" - of the deity or the guru who embodies him/her, usually for the purpose of imbibing his/her divine powers or grace (Babb, 1981; Eck:1981). It implies sight on a rich multiplicity of symbolic and spiritual levels which demonstrate a complex mix of doctrinal and mythic, perceptual and visionary, interactional and experiential dimensions in the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his or her followers. 47 ^ Downton, James V., Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission, (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 p199 "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, in 1976, the vast majority viewed the guru primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration but his appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices. 48^ Downton, James V., Ibid. "Signs of rededication both to Guru Maharaj Ji and the inner guru became quite apparent. Most of the premies who left the ashrams in the summer of 1976 began to return in 1977, when more than 600 signed up to enter the ashrams in just a few month's time. 49 ^ Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans. Ibid. One of the characteristics of these new members is that they had been very religious in their preadolescent years. In those years their religiosity had been characterized by the experiential dimension; they had felt a warm personal relation with Jesus. But this religiosity had disappeared, partially because they had been taught by their religion teachers at secondary school to think in a rational way about religious matters. They lost their capacity for religious experiences, and as a result, the Christian religion lost its plausibility for them. In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood. They came to see Guru Maharaj Ji and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience. This made Guru Maharaj Ji much more important for them than he had been for the pre 1975 members. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Nik, I believe that is neither an untested nor unsupported proposition. The notion that man needs to be freed from his conditioning is indeed a practically universal theme among gurus of all colours. Just to give some examples of similar concepts in the teachings of various gurus, expressed in their own terms:
  1. L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) tried to free people of "engrams" and the "reactive mind" to allow them to reclaim their psychological freedom and innate capabilities, to become "clear".
  2. J. Krishnamurti: Knowledge Is Conditioning. Q: What do we mean by conditioning? JK: Can the brain ever be free from all the programmes it has received? Is it possible through watching the very activity of thought? This watchfulness makes the brain extraordinarily acute, sharp, clear? This clarity is freedom.
  3. Gurdjieff insisted that unreformed man is a machine: ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK ABOUT DEATH DURING THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one’s own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die.
  4. Idries Shah: "Once they realize that no prizes are being given for correct answers, they begin to see that their previous conditioning determines the way they are seeing the material in the stories. So, the second use of the stories is to provide a protected situation in which people can realize the extent of the conditionings in their ordinary lives. The third use comes later, rather like when you get the oil to the surface of a well after you burn of the gases. After we have burnt off the conditioning, we start getting completely new interpretations and reactions to stories."
  5. Adi Da Samraj: "You are habituated to exercising yourself and being conditioned and identified with conditioning in the lower aspects of your appearance here. When Called to exercise yourself intelligently relative to your conditioning and to “consider” it, you tend to become rather silent, or you start babbling and rehearsing your insides, resorting to your conditioned subjectivity, as if that is all there is, as if intelligence has no functional capability, as if you have no greater experience, no greater disposition, no Revelation."
  6. Nirmala Srivastava: "The truth which can be actualized after Self-Realisation is that you are not this body, this mind, this conditioning from the past, this ego, these emotions, but that you are the Pure Spirit."
Indeed it could be argued that similar ideas underlie many of the world religions' teachings as well. So I do not see Downton as biased here, simply scholarly. I don't see him as uncritically supportive, either, as his very next sentence quoted above indicates (Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age.).
Van der Lans and Derks, on the other hand, write from an explicitly Christian perspective. This is not a problem in terms of their being used as a source here, but their allegiance to a Christian POV should be borne in mind. -- Jayen466 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Where did Derks and Lans write from an explicitly Christian persoective? I think that you are mistaken. Andries (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayen you've done Downton's work for him - but we can not assume that those references you give would have been accetable to Downton and we are left with Downton's assertion but no context against which to test it, in contrast say to Galanter. Yes I think I know what Downton meant but his was a speculative work and it needs balancing in an article like this. Lans and Derks religious allegiance is irrelevant because it does not form the basis for the hypothesis of their paper, which is concerned with group stratification. The criticism you note in Downton is of course criticism of the followers, and by extension excuses (in Downton's terms) the failure of Rawat as a Guru. The criticism is self serving (to Downton) because it leaves his proposition intact - I would describe this as very much not scholarly. But the need is for balancing references which is what I've suggested. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As a Professor of Sociology working in this field, I am sure that James V. Downton would have known a lot more about these matters than me. I think that he simply did not consider it so relevant to his present context as to go further into it. As for Derks' and van der Lans' assertion that "In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood." (= i.e. that they revived an aspect of their childhood connection to Jesus), this appears to me like it could be somewhat coloured by their Christian POV. I am not sure you would find the same statement in non-Christian sources. But okay, that was their view. Jayen466 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think that Derks and Lans was a Christian source? They described converts to the DLM in a tradionally Christian society. Andries (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayen what Downton may or may not have considered relevant is not at issue - if the source doesn't provide the material it ain't possible to imply it. Downton's book fails on this basis, irrespective of his exalted status as a Professor. It's not a matter that Downton is wrong in his proposition regarding what 'gurus do', it's that there is no context in the book in which to place Rawat in respect of Downton's proposition. As Andries points out Derks and Lans proposition regarding premies connection to Jesus in childhood, is related to the express statement that converts to Rawat had a Christian background with Derks and Lans proposition follows from observation, and the observation is contained in one context. By contrast Downton observes something in Rawatism and then claims that as proof of a proposition, the context for which extends beyond Rawatism. I hope you grasp the logical differences in the two cases.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't follow your argument. I fail to see the significance of the sentence This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. What he is saying there is not anything extraordinary or controversial. Why should the presence of this sentence affect his suitability as a source? And why should we want to claim to know better? Isn't it simply our job to reflect the sources?
Re Derks and van der Lans' Christian viewpoint, this is mentioned and sourced in . (Also see Jan van der Lans; Frans Derks is the President of KSGV.) If an author writing about another religion has a specific allegiance to a Christian viewpoint, it may (or may not, depending on editors' consensus) be appropriate to identify the source as a Christian one where Christian beliefs enter into the argument. Same if an Islamic scholar writes about Christian beliefs and contrasts or compares them with his own faith; if such an author were quoted in an article about aspects of Christianity, then I would expect the source to be identified as an Islamic one. Cheers, Jayen466 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that one of the books that Jan van der Lans (not Derks) wrote was commissioned by the KSGV (Catholic org.), but the one that I quoted here in this thread was not, and written both by Derks and Van der Lans. Andries (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had gotten my wires crossed there at first; but since Derks is the president of the KSGV and Jan van der Lans studied in a Christian monastery and then became an academic at a Catholic university (according to our article on him), I submit it does not make much difference. -- Jayen466 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
From van der Lans' obituary: He had part-time appointments in the psychology department and the theological faculty of the Catholic University of Nijmegen, and although his work was certainly not without theological preferences and bias, he presented himself at both institutions as an empirically oriented psychologist. Jayen466 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons

Much of the edit warring on this article has revolved around disputes over the requirements of the WP:BLP. Perhaps it will help us move forward if we come to basic agreement on some of the issues involved. To quote the policy:

From lede: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

From Reliable Sources section: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material (see below)."

Two issues immediately come to mind: 1) Is all criticism "derogatory"? If not, how do we distinguish "fair" criticism from derogation? 2) Is the immediate deletion provision limited to "contentious" material?

I don't have any opinion on the first, except a gut feeling that criticism properly sourced is not by definition derogatory. I would love to hear the opinion of others though.

On the second question though, I think I can shed some light. In the Balyogeshwar section above, Momento accused Francis of changing the structure of that key sentence of the BLP policy quoted above to change its meaning, and argued "The sentence reads 'unsourced' OR 'poorly sourced contentious material'. Not 'contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced'. "

I believe this is not correct. After the initial paragraph, the BLP policy spells the policy out in greater detail. And the section specifically entitled "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" reads as follows:

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."

That seems to settle the issue by making it clear that the immediate deletion policy applies specifically to contentious material. Agreed? Msalt (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all criticism is derogatory, Msalt. NPOV ask us to present significant viewpoints that are published by reputable sources, and BLP asks us to be most cautious in our evaluation of sources and external links. The issue that has been argued, is that linking to a self-published source that contains derogatory material, conjectural interpretation of sources, and hat does not meet WP:V is a violation of Misplaced Pages content policies. There is also the issue of undue weight that needs to be taken into account in this context, as it relates to sources and viewpoints presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Jossi. Very helpful. I guess I'm still unclear what is derogatory vs. what is critical but not derogatory. Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms. How do we distinguish self-published websites (or are all websites self-published by nature? Is it connection to a journal or periodical?) How can we tell if those criticisms are derogatory or verifiable but unpleasant truth?
Also, you mention conjectural interpretation of sources. That seems common, even to verifiable sources. For example, that allegedly "speculative sentence" by Miller. It seems only right to ignore such conjecture and not quote it, but must we throw out the entire source for such a common act? Msalt (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Msalt is talking about two different but complimentary paragraphs here. The first is a paragraph about the importance of references/sources, the second is about contentious material.
The first paragraph begins with "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". High quality references/sources is all about ensuring verifiability and eliminating original research because the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. The "reference/source" paragraph gives two examples of material that should be deleted immediately on references/sources grounds. The first material to be deleted is any "unsourced" material i.e. it has no sources at all and this is fundamental policy and the second material to be deleted is "poorly sourced contentious material" i.e. it has inferior sources and might be OK if the material itself wasn't contentious. Either of those situations should be corrected in any case but since this is a BLP they should "removed immediately and without discussion". Jimbo Wales provides the following comment in the Verifiability policy - "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". There is no suggestion that the material needs to be contentious to be "aggressively removed", only that it is not sourced.
The second paragraph concerns "contentious material" and describes three types of "contentious material" that should be removed. And they are - "unsourced contentious material", contentious material that "relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability" and contentious material that is "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". You'll note that this paragraph instructs editors to remove "contentious material" if it "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". In other words, you can cite all the sources you like but if the editor makes "a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph" is should be removed.
There are two separate but complimentary issues here.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Momento, for a very clear and detailed analysis. That's quite helpful. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion, agreeing or not? I have to say that I read the two sections and just don't see the distinction you do. Not that unsourced items are OK, but it's a matter of application. No one expects a reference every 5 words, yet sometimes the discussion here has been reduced to that level. In many cases, references already used on the article in fact document the "unsourced" points -- in other words, they are actually sourced but just not cited. It doesn't make sense to me that in a case like that, Jimbo Wales would want the uncontentious item aggressively removed without discussion. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A respected expert who writes that "Pavarotti was flat" is a criticism. An unknown who writes that "Pavarotti is fat" is being derogatory. The BBC Music website is published by a respected organization and may be a source for material on Pavarotti, a website created by an anonymous person is not.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And on the subject of "conjectural interpretation of sources", quoting Miller's opinion is fair. Misquoting a source is not. Remember this disgraceful example - Hunt's quote is - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions". Some editor's "conjectural interpretation" was "Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions". That is a conjectural interpretation on a massive scale.Momento (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great to see some serious discussion on this issue. Regarding interpretation of words like "high" in "high quality sources" it seems to me that Misplaced Pages values reputation, and does so on the logical presumption that a source (which can include either a publisher, a writer, or the material they produce) who has worked hard to establish a reputation in a certain field can be expected to deliver neutral, high quality research. This is what makes their opinion valuable. "Self-published sources" are those without a carefully built-up reputation for neutrality, and in the worst cases may even have tried to achieve notability by the strength and consistency of their biases. Members of opposing religious groups and apostates, among others, fall into this category. Not all websites are self-published. Highly reputable sources often have websites, and the subjects of articles sometimes have their own, which are acceptable as sources with certain provisos. OTOH, forums and blogs which contain unknown and changing content are never acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
@Msalt: Your question about Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms. In these cases, rather than using the website as a source, you can explore the reputable sources listed there and assess their suitability for inclusion, as per arguments presented by Rumiton and Momento above, which is based on our content policies pof WP:V#SOurces, WP:BLP, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Good call. I guess in this article, the question arises as to whether a web site such as I describe can be included as an external link. I don't really see anyone advocating the use of web sites like that as sources for contentious material in the article. Where we do use them, it seems to be for unchallenged items such as existence of the satellite broadcasts. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, such websites are not appropriate to be linked to. That is the opinion voiced by several editors here and in other noticeboards, an opinion that is based on WP:BLP and WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I thought you said earlier EL's containing criticism (if well and verifiably documented) were OK. Here you seem to say that the very existence of criticism makes a website inappropriate as an EL. Am I misreading your comments? Msalt (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Was just about to write the same sort of comment as Msalt's (but got ec'd). Msalt, indeed, in the external links section, we wouldn't provide links to dozens of webpages containing each separate aspect of what has already been covered in references. If a website is an acceptable summary of such material, we provide the single link. And we try to keep the external links section balanced too: it shouldn't give a disproportionate image of what's available on the web, in no direction. It is recommended in Misplaced Pages EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article: this also excludes to repeat sources that are used directly in the article again in the EL section (for instance, we wouldn't link to Melton sources, available online, in the external links section when they're already used as sources in the article) - a website that summarizes would be OK, even if it also contains material that are too much minutae compared to what we consider notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is recommended in Misplaced Pages EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article. Not really. Per WP:EL (my highlight): Misplaced Pages articles may include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the third paragraph of the lead section of WP:EL:

The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources.

Note also, WP:EL#Links to be considered, #4:

Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but the EL guideline cannot trump policy. And if a site violates WP:BLP then the fact that it may contain material sourced to reliable sources, is moot. If there is such sourced material in that site, one can make a case for including that source, but we avoid linking to it. An extreme example to illustrate my point, the Stormfront website may have a list of sources or newspaper articles about an orthodox Jew that has committed a crime, but we do not link to it on that orthodox Jew's bio in WIkipedfia, do we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion, thanks all. I think the reason we wouldn't link to the Stormfront would not be whether or not it included valid sources, , but because it is not reliable and is of course hate speech. (I've been on the other end of that exchange, having Stormfront or some page like that link to MY web page with a favorable comment, just because it criticised mainstream politicians. Yikes!)
I'm troubled by the idea that we can't link to a website unless it also meets BLP. Misplaced Pages imposes very strict standards on itself, for good reason, but some of these standards are not required for verifiability. For example, on this talk page Momento argued that we couldn't link to a site because it contained original research. That's a Misplaced Pages standard, but in fact it seems like original research is exactly what we seek from our sources (provided they are reliable.) Similary, we impose extremely strict standards on our BLPs, but I'm not sure it makes a website or book unreliable or unverifiable if it doesn't share those very strict standards. I'm not sure any websites on earth about Prem Rawat would meet a strict reading of BLP, other than one he published himself, and only then because self-published sites are granted exemption from some of these standards. Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your second paragraph, Msalt, this might clarify a bit: (aka the brainfart - no offense taken).
In short, we need secondary sources to establish notability; once notability (with all the connotations attached to it in Misplaced Pages context) is established, a topic can be included in the encyclopedia. Then, and only then, it can also be illustrated by a measured amount of primary sources. Thus, a two step approach. Compare WP:PSTS (policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be troubled, Msalt. It makes sense, it has been agred upon by other editors, as this is standard practice. From WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Questionable sources reads: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Also note that WP:SELFPUB self-published sources are acceptable on articles about themselves, with some caveats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the specifics of the external links discussed. I created this section to try to reach some common ground on the broader policy issues, as a foundation for reaching consensus on specifics. The point that I'm not sure you've addressed, Jossi, is the gulf between the very strict requirements of BLP, and "questionable sources." In my opinion, very few of the acknowledged reliable sources would meet all of the requirements of BLP. But they don't have to, as long as they do NOT have a poor reputation for fact-checking, their views are NOT widely acknowledged as extremist, they are not promotional, and they do not rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

To take this away from the specifics of the case at hand, I would say that my own website "The Skeleton Closet" is a reliable source that does not meet BLP but would be valid as an external link. And indeed, it IS used as an external link by a number of Misplaced Pages pages. Everything I list comes from a reliable source, generally books or leading newspapers and magazines. I add some POV but the views are certainly not extremist, and they all rely heavily on well-documented facts. Original research is the perfect example-- perfectly acceptable, indeed welcomed in a reliable source but not acceptable in Misplaced Pages under BLP. Don't you think? Msalt (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You make me smile, Msalt. To continue with the good start you have made here, I think you are going to have to separate your Wiki editor self from your other, scandal reporting persona. I think you can do it, others have achieved cleavings like that without becoming terminally schizoid. I just had a look at your Skeleton site and found it to be an immaculate example of the kind of external link that Misplaced Pages must avoid like the Black Death. Case in point, chosen at random (and I never even heard of this chap) Gary Bauer: This righteous little guy took tens of thousands of dollars from the Moonies, dodged the draft and is alleged to be having an affair with a twenty-something woman, despite his marriage of 27 years. I should not even be quoting that in this public talk page, it breaks just about every Misplaced Pages rule there is, not just BLP. I am sure after the discussion so far you can see the problems for yourself. Not that there is not a place for Skeletons, and other websites like it. Misplaced Pages just isn't that place. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be WP:CIVIL in these discussions. Inflammatory language and belittling statements such as "I think you can do it" are not what this article needs at the moment. Content-wise, OK you've found a summary that is probably over-written. Sorry. But it is summarizing a detailed discussion of those criticisms that is supported by reliable sources with hyperlinks to each, on a non-partisan, public, signed and long-running web page, published by an organization and written by an editor who answers nearly every email and often corrects or improves content from those emails.
What exactly are you objecting to? The fact that the page summarizes criticisms? A bit of purple writing you managed to find? I think you continue to make the mistake of imposing Misplaced Pages's standards on every source mentioned on Misplaced Pages. Can you address the example of original research? Do you think we shouldn't link to any web site that contains OR? Msalt (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I appear to belittle, that was not my intention. I was just trying to say that putting some of our other pursuits behind us is crucial to a neutral Misplaced Pages result. eg, I was in the Australian military for a long time in a fairly senior career position, and in private I am a fierce defender of the Australian military record, and for that matter, Australia in general. Yet I hope and believe the Australian and US Navy articles I have edited have not reflected this. I have just tried to improve the focus on the issues at hand. And yes, I DO believe, especially in the case of a living person, that any place we send our readers to becomes a part of the article, and needs to be of just as high a quality as the article itself. If you or I were to become the subjects of a Misplaced Pages article (don't laugh, such things can happen) I believe we would become firmly of the same opinion. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have any difficulty separating the hats I wear as publisher of a website, and as Misplaced Pages editor, nor do I think I am being particularly defensive of your criticism (though I'm sure some would disagree.) The only reason I mention my site is that I think, as it happens, it is almost an ideal-typical example of the kind of website I am curious about -- well-documented and non-partisan yet critical. If it helps the hypothetical, imagine a similar but better website with all snark removed and the most impeccable sources possible, a sort of online encylcopedia of religious figures -- by Melton, if you like -- that summarizes criticisms of them from a meticulously fair witness POV. Say, a Snopes.com for criticism of spiritual teachers. Quality would not be the issue.
Do you think such a site would be permissible, or is the focus on criticism by itself disqualifying? And why would original research on such a site would make it less acceptable? Msalt (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The insurmountable problem is, who decides a website is "well-documented and non-partisan yet critical"? You? Me? Someone's ex? That's why "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.Momento (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, I'm not the least bit impressed by your endless recitation of policies and guidelines. But that troubles me not. What troubles me is your usurpation of consensus, where there is none – aided by dubious quotes of input by others, that did not establish consensus either. For instance you refer to a WP:ANI discussion. Here's the link to it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken. Six people participate. Three defend your stance. Three defend my stance. On each side *one* uninvolved. The arguments of Relata refero and of ThuranX (both on your side in this debate) were copied above to #By website. And rebutted (that is to say, Relata refero's was; ThuranX's is so full of unclear and unfounded depreciating comments that it is still waiting above for a clarification). And then you're building on this "hearsay" to make it sound as if this was some kind of unalterable "consensus" established above our heads. Will not do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus cannot trump policies, Francis, and my point is that linking to these sites breaches established policies and guidelines/ If there is a need to clarify policy and there is no agreement on how to apply it, then will need to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which I proposed a week ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is policy. The only policy that can not be trumped by consensus, and explicitly so, is Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there are ArbCom precedents about this issue, that supports the arguments made by me and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Applies, explicitly, to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Extrapolation of ArbCom rulings beyond their original scope is discouraged (there are some comments by arbitrators about that, could look up the links if you need them). Anyway, from that same ruling: "It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)." So, again, I ask you to clarify what I asked above in #Unsupported claims and Lack of Good Faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom decions are no case law, but they represent best practices and applications of policy. As I am not adding any links myself, your question is unnecessary harassment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You added links to the talk page, still recently. The Sathya Sai Baba ruling you linked to explicitly states "...and talk pages". That the Sathya Sai Baba ruling (which is also a content ruling disfavoured by more recent arbitrators) does not apply was brought forward by me in your defense too. Nonetheless, I'm going to ask about your affiliation to Rawat-related websites whenever I think this pertains to the discussion at hand (I mean when the unclarity about it lingers above the discussion). Of course, you're free to answer or not. The insights you provided in the pages linked from my user talk page give no clear answer to the question I asked. So I feel free to ask too. And will take no anathema, or worse, on the issue. I mean, it would be better for us to learn from yourself what this is all about, than read distorted information about it on other websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Have I added external links to this page? If I had, it was in the context of sources requested by you or others. And I have asked you politely to stop asking questions that you should know better than not to ask. And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. I think you are crossing a line that you should not with that line of questioning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF, I do so on you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
discuss the edits, and not the editor; also from WP:COI: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Re. "discuss the edits, and not the editor", please then, retract the two last sentences of your edit above (23:48, 25 February 2008) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Another arbCom case
I think if the article we were working on were George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, anonymous DomainsByProxy sites reporting hearsay would not even be considered as suitable external links for an encyclopedia, and I can't see why this article should be different. -- Jayen466 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Hearsay"? And where did that OR conclusion come from? See, regarding "hearsay", my comment above to Jossi's use of "hearsay". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Frances, let me give you some hypothetical examples: If someone started an anonymous DomainsbyProxy website and wrote about you that you used to be an 'alcoholic' and that they carried you up the stairs of your home on various occasions, or if they allege that you smoked cannabis every night of the week in November 1983, isn't that Hearsay in United States law? As for anonymous websites making defamatory statements, I believe that GoDaddy.com and DomainsbyProxy will only reveal the identity of an anonymous online defamer if you can prove that the statements made about you are false. Now, how would you go about proving that such statements are false? What redress would you have? -- Jayen466 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you welcome my input I thought I might add that as a reasonably earnest truth-seeking and ethical person I personally wanted to know about the veracity of those statements from Michael Dettmers and so arranged to meet him and ask for myself. I would make my own mind up. He told me personally all of those things and more, and importantly, that he was not afraid to stand by his words. In fact he said he welcomed Maharaji to sue him for defamation. Dettmers subsequently put his name to all the 'hearsay' he published on these websites. He personally told me that he knew Prem Rawat wouldn't sue him because essentially he was telling the truth. Make of it what you will. As far as I know, all those reports were made not on an anonymous website but on ex-premie.org and the ex-premie forum. Those are not anonymous Domainsby Poxy sites are they? And none of the people who made allegations mentioned above chose to be anonymous -quite the opposite. Sure these things have been denied by the organisations and are dismissed as hearsay but did they sue for defamation? Talking of redress, Jayen. Don't you think Rawat who has indeed sued critics who 'slipped up' and actually committed an offence, would not hesitate to sue these people if he had a case? He has had that option for legal redress as would anyone who was slandered publicly by known persons. PatW (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, thanks for making the enquiries. However, please try to see the bigger picture. You say that many of these statements attributed to Dettmers and Mishler on the anonymous, self-published website can be sourced to posts on ex-premie forums. If we accept information derived from such sources here, then it should be according to a principle that could equally find application in any other Misplaced Pages article on any other notable figure. We cannot make special rules specifically for this article. Now, internet forums, blogs and self-published websites are explicitly excluded as reliable sources according to present Misplaced Pages policy, especially so where the allegations made are derogatory or otherwise contentious. The same goes for first-hand personal knowledge – it is inadmissible as a source in Misplaced Pages. The standard is verifiability, not truth. And a forum post or a self-published website explicitly does not meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability criteria. What Dettmers says may very well be the truth. But would this be so in any case where an anonymous website repeats an allegation made by a person in an Internet forum? Most definitely not. I do not see how including such information, even as an External Link, could possibly be compatible with WP policies and guidelines. Try to think of the potential abuses that could and would occur if a principle were established that anonymously hosted renditions of allegations made in Internet forums qualified for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It just doesn't work. Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of repeating unpublished, personal recollections of a person. I know that it is very trying, but I am sure you can see the validity of the principle if you transpose it to the article on any other person than the one we are dealing with here. Best wishes, Jayen466 14:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayen, I perfectly well understand this and have never sought to include this material here. I just don't quite understand the perception that ex-premie.org is anonymous or whether you are aware of the following. There is an interview with Mr Dettmers published on ex-premie.org Ex-premie.org published that interview with his permission. That is a quite separate thing to his forum posts of course. Why do say ex-premie.org is anonymous? Maybe it's a technical thing I'm unaware of but I thought that the people in charge were quite transparent about their identities. I have no idea where all this is going but I personally think that the rules are being wielded so literally and with Jossi's ever-present COI as such a major factor that a fair article simply cannot be achieved. IMHO This constant contesting ad nauseam can only be broken if some higher level Wiki consensus is brought to bear. I have no confidence to do anything other than sit in the wings and hope that this happens. Frankly as long as Jossi's 'clarity' about WP rules is enforced everybody is apparently impotent and wasting their wisdom. I like a debate where consensus can be reached but that is plainly not in Jossi's equation. PatW (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How many warnings need to be issued to you by how many editors, for you to stop making such comments? FYI, there is no "high-level consensus". This is it, and as painful and tedious as it may be, that is the way it works. There are no shortcuts to WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pat, I was referring to the anonymous registration of one of the websites (www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/). If some of the material hosted there, or in the ex-premie forum, is taken from another source, and that source can be considered reliable, then the material could be included. A source doesn't become unreliable by being quoted on a website that is unreliable. It's just that you would look up and quote the source directly then. Jayen466 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The argument was rebutted above, at #By website. Note that you're making statements, that are in no way anonymous, seem like they're anonymous. Distortion of information. And rebutted, while referenced in the source to material published elsewhere (in sources found reliable enough to act as references *until this day* in the Prem Rawat article), with name and everything to it. No, straw man argument, and again, starting the same argument, that was already discussed in another section and rebutted, apparently not according to your liking there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please also inform yourself of OCILLA, material can be taken down much easier than what you "believe". --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. You may have argued against it, but that does not make it a rebuttal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, if you want to contest it, do so above, then we can see whether your doubts match up to the arguments already provided. I really dislike this method of running away from a discussion when you run out of arguments, and start a new one in a new spot, proposing the same arguments as if nothing had been said yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my arguments in that section have already been made. If repeated theme here, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the end it starts to amount to some sort of trolling.
Don't be surprised that I reiterate my argument, again, that you should probably be disqualified from taking part in the decision of which EL's are listed in the Prem Rawat article. You have a professional interest in Rawat-related websites. You don't want to clarify how profound that interest is, but from all we know it is professional. You don't get to decide on the representation of your competitors' websites in Misplaced Pages. No amount of forumshopping, wikilawyering on BLP, NPA and other policies/guidelines, etc can alleviate that situation, unless you're prepared to clarify the situation and we take it from there.
PS: above I asked you to remove a PA. I insist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that DMCA compliance and OCILLA enable a copyright owner or trademark holder to effect removal of infringing information from a website. However, this does not lift the anonymity of the website owner. The owner has to comply, otherwise the ISP takes down their site, but their identity is not revealed to the complainant. As far as I know, DMCA and OCILLA have no application when it comes to taking down defamatory, as opposed to infringing, material. Taking down defamatory material and having the identity of an anonymous defamer revealed is, from what I have read, a fairly complicated process. The first problem is that courts are reluctant to assume jurisdiction, since by definition, the location of the anonymous website owner is unknown. If, for example, it should turn out that they are abroad, the court may find that they started a proceeding that falls outside their competence. The other difficulty, already alluded to earlier, is that the plaintiff must be able to prove conclusively that the information given is factually wrong (the interests of the complainant are balanced against the right to free and anonymous speech on the Internet). Delivering such proof may involve considerable difficulty, especially where the allegations made are of a personal nature and/or concern events which occurred some time ago and were not subject to any public record. In addition, there is the fact that any attempt to take legal measures will also involve publicity, which will ensure that the allegations gain much wider currency than they otherwise would. In such a case, it is possible to win the lawsuit but still lose the battle, since, to put it simply, mud sticks. For example, I can remember several cases where celebrities were accused of sex crimes; even in those cases where it was subsequently found that the accusation was malicious or unfounded, what the public remembers is the association with a sex crime. Jayen466 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, to consider the next step of dispute resolution, if we can find no agreement on the application of WP:BLP and WP:EL to these anonymous sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you Jossi. Unless BLP policy is changed, self-published websites can never be linked to a BLP.Momento (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1974 home purchase edit

There is missing information from that edit, as per the source (my highlight):

The 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, the Indian-born "perfect master" who claims six million devotees worldwide, has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday. Land and buildings purchased there for $400,000 will also serve as the West Coast headquarters for the young guru's movement, known as the Divine Light Mission.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of information in that article that isn't included here. I've added that it was announced to be the WC DLM HQ. The article also says the DLM's monthly income was $300,000, split between donations and investment income, lists the number of U.S. followers as 50,000, and gives a defence of his spiritual message despite his lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What an un-encyclopedic addition! What relevance does it have? BLP policy is clear "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". The short answer is that it has no relevance, it is undue weight, it is poorly sourced contentious material. I'm removing it according to BLP policy.Momento (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Poorly sourced? The Los Angeles Times isn't a reliable source? This is extremely disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of a newspaper.Momento (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A reference from one of the leading newspapers in the United States is "extremely poorly sourced"? That's rdiciculous and your deletion of properly sourced material is disruptive. I call on Jossi, an involved admin, to render his opinion of whether the L.A. Times is an inappropriate source for Misplaced Pages, and if it is then why a non-scholarly biography is considered reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, religious scholars and sociologist are more interested in describing beliefs and practices than describing property transfers. A newspaper is a better source for this kind of information than scholarly sources. Andries (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that the argument should be on the basis of "poorly sourced", Will. The question is, "is the purchase of a house encyclopedic, or not?" What do you think? Are there other BLPs in which a purchase of a house is featured? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The Arnold Schwartzenegger wikipedia article cites the Los Angeles Times in relation to his alleged sexual misconduct. That is presumably encyclopedic because people are interested in reading about it in the encyclopedia, just as they might be interested in a less notorious person's mysterious property portfolio. The reason why this is encyclopedic in this context is that once people become celebrities then such facts become interesting - the more so if accompanied by efforts of some to hide the information. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The David Beckham wikipedia article tells us that his house cost $15M. Scholars wanting to compare the degree of conspicuous consumption practised by celebrities would be deprived if they aren't allowed to see how much the house that Prem Rawat lives in is worth. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you mention it, there is also Bill Gates' house. Jayen466 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Before we get to that question, first let's deal with WP:V and WP:RS. Momento says that the Los Angeles Times is an "extremely poor source". and that material referencing it is "poorly sourced". Is it a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends on context, Will. A source can be reliable in one context and unreliable on another. The usability of sources are to be assessed together with other criteria such as NPOV, undue weight, and BLP policies. Read the lead of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have read the article in question so you know the context. Is it a reliable source for the assertions that reference it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either a source meets WP:RS and WP:V, or it doesn't. Clearly the Los Angeles Times does, and removal of material backed up to this blatantly satisfactory source is obvious disruption, I agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) on that. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What Prem Rawat or anybody else pays for a house is irrelevant to the article. The article is about Prem Rawat, not about what house he bought and how much he paid for it. The article is about Rawat's significance, not his living situation. Armeisen (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Per the Los Angeles Times: "West Coast headquarters for the DLM" were run out of Prem Rawat's home. This is relevant to this article, as it is notable that the Divine Light Mission was run out of his home. Thus the house that he bought and how much he paid for it can be seen as funding for DLM at the same time as his own use, and is relevant, discussed in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, and should be mentioned in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Plus the fact that major news sources such as the Associated Press, Reuters, etc., often report on the purchases of expensive homes by public figures and celebrities. It certainly is relevant to their lifestyle, and, if able to be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, is relevant to articles on notable public figures. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant to this article. What evidence is there that DLM was run out of his home? Did DLM exist when he bought this home? I think not. Where did the author get the information? It's just rubbish that someone wanted to use to sell newspapers. For all your criticism of the "brainwashed" followers of Rawat, you are certainly naive when it comes to what appear in newspapers. I'm a follower of Prem Rawat, and a critic of the "truthfulness" of the media. Some of you people seem to believe that whatever anyone writes in a newspaper must be correct. And I suppose you all fall down and genuflect when George W. Bush talks about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or do you have some other agenda in this debate? Armeisen (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a framework for discussing this question. On the one hand, this is not in any way a violation of BLP. On the other hand, that does not mean it belongs in the article, per Jossi's point. The important comparison, I think, is other speaker/authors of note, whether religious, spiritual, or secular. Can we agree on that?
Let me elaborate. This is not a BLP issue, which means Momento that you are not justified in unilateral provocative deletions exempt from 3RR. There is nothing derogatory; purchase of a major property is a sign of success, though of course it suggests affluence if not wealth (which Rawat has never denied or apologized for, as near as I can tell.) It is clearly notable; the property itself is notable, whoever purchases it. If launching a satellite distribution network is notable, then certainly purchasing a major property as DLM headquarters is too, esp. in a narrative depicting that year as a time of difficulty (the split from his family, loss of some followers, etc.) And the source is impeccable -- the Los Angeles Times does not falsify real estate deals, which are clearly documented in public records. Momento calls this contentious -- does anyone dispute that Rawat purchased this property?
Now, none of that means it belongs in the article necessarily, but it means we should discuss it under normal rules, with proper discussion, consensus, etc. not BLP-based "aggressive deletion."
Jossi's point is the key one, I think. As I've said before, the comparison should be other speaker authors such as Robert Bly, Tom Peters, and Deepak Chopra. (If anyone has better comparisons, please share.) I don't think we would list this deal for any of them. Then again, we don't list all the ups and downs of their careers the way we do with Rawat either.
I suggest that the best course would be trim the article down, paring much of the ups and downs, including this edit. But if we continue to keep all of that type of narration, I think this point belongs among it. I would shorten it, and make it a bit more NPOV, by saying something like "In 1974, the DLM purchased a secluded hilltop property in Malibu, CA for $400,000 as its West Coast headquarters. Prem Rawat and his wife have lived there since." It might make sense to combine this with the statement about him living in America since he became a naturalized citizen around the same time. There is a touch of criticism for wealthy living in it as it stands, which I think should be excised. Msalt (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The material in the L.A. Times article is sourced directly from the DLM. In the text that Jossi has transcribed it clearly says that the purchase was "announced". Many assertions, including the time spent in Pacific Palisades, the income of the DLM, the defense of his lifestyle, and the size of the group, are attributed to DLM officials. So this is not muckraking, it's reporting on an announcement by a notable public figure. Aside from the details of this report, I think it's important for us to establish whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages context, the L.A. Times is a prototypical example of a reliable source. Compare Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Sources, third bullet of SlimVirgin's contribution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A guru buying a house for himself in Malibu for USD 400,000 is quite unusual and relevant for his notability. Remember that Rawat was criticized for his lifestyleAndries (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Secluded, hilltop property?" "Palatial, walled estate?" Check your browser. This is Misplaced Pages not the National Enquirer.Momento (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering how many times an editor can remove this contentious material, I'd like to draw your attention to the BLP policy that states - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". It is clear that in reducing two articles in the LA Times to two sentences Will Beback has made "a conjectural interpretation of a source".Momento (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, sometimes I get the impression that you read the policies and guidelines with the sole purpose of getting rid of statements that you do not like. Your twisting and misinterpretations of guidelines and policies seems to be endless. Andries (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you happy with this tripe?Momento (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The chief article cited is titled "Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area". The source is the L.A. Times which has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper. What is being conjectured or interpreted? That's an unreasonable and unsubstantiated claim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You have reduced a 379 word article to less than 20 words? Are you sure your summary accurately reflects the source? Are you sure it didn't say anything about 6 million devotees or security issues? Or even "Maharaj Ji has made a considerable impact among American youth"? Because if it does, you have deliberately distorted the source by cherry picking 5% of the article and ignoring the rest. And that is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" and we should all know what that means. That's why scholarly articles and papers from experts in their field are the preferred sources for a BLPs and not newspapers articles. And Francis, you have re-inserted it and "Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". Perhaps you might self revert?Momento (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, can you please give us your opinion about whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I already did, above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't find your answer. (The best I can see is "Depends on context...") You've read the specific article in question so you know the context. Momento says that it's "extremely poorly sourced". Is the L.A. Times a reliable source? Or if you prefer to answer more narrowly, is the cited article a reliable source for the assertions drawn from it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the argument of "poorly sourced" does not apply here. What applies here is editorial judgment in relation to the encyclopedic value of such material, as well as what material is chosen to be cited from the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you don't agree or disagree with Momento's assertion that the material must be removed because it's "extremely poorly sourced"? You have no opinion abot whether the L.A. Times is a reliable source? OK, since I can't get a straight answer here I'll take this to the reliable sources noticeboard for an opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I need to make my argument so that you accept it? I am not arguing that the LA Time is an unreliable source. I am not arguing that the material is "poorly sourced". I am arguing that editorial judgment about suitability of material, in the context of all other existing policies' needs top be exercised, in particular in BLPs. That is all. Clear now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking you about your argument. I'm asking you a simple question. Is the L.A. Times a reliable source for this article? Momento has said "no" and has deleted all material sourced from there. Aside from the details being reported and their suitability, do you agree with him that it's an unacceptable source? I'd think you could answer that question sinceyou've ofered your opinions about numerous sources both on this page and on the WP:RS/N. But if you're too conflicted to answer I understand and I won't repeat it. I've posted the question to get an opinion from uninvolved edtors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight) Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You're saying the LAT "can" be a reliable source, which doesn't address the question directly. I'm asking "is" the LAT a reliable source? It's a yes or no question. I won't press you on it any further. But if folks here start arguing that the LAT and NYT are unreliablee sources because they aren't scholarly while at the same time defending a non-scholarly biography then they'll give the appearance of a double standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What I am arguing, Will, is that it is not a yes or no question. There is no such a thing: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. That's all. 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
I said I won't press you in it, so I'll just point out that the specific context in this case is known so we should be able to make a determination. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected for one week.

I have protected this article for one week in the face of the simmering and apparently increasing edit warring going on here. I strongly suggest that you work out the content issues on this talk page, civilly. Nandesuka (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe now editors can take a well deserved break from this article and continue contributing elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, no thanks. All it takes is that one person makes a substantial revision for the article to be locked? Janice Rowe (talk)
If you disagree with the protection, you can always make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} This material should be removed ("An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’. Following an incident in which the young Rawat had a shaving foam ‘pie thrown in his face, the pie thrower, radical journalist Pat Halley was viciously attacked with a hammer by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji.") for the following reasons.
The only source provided is the magazine that employed Pat Halley, who threw the pie.
The source does not say "An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’". It is Nik Wright2's unsourced OR.
It goes against BLP Policy - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability".Thanks Momento (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The incident was reported by the Associated Press. They were careful enough to say that Haley told police that he was beaten by followers, but the AP doesn't make that assertion themselves. It also says that there were no arrests. When the protection is lifted we should make that distinction. I assume that the AP is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
UPI reports that Prem Rawat himself gave the pie-thrower a "forgiveness blessing". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I think that this sentence:
  • An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’.
Is unsupported by sources and shouldn't be in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This happens when an editor bypasses consensus and discussions, makes a massive edit, enters into an edit war, and the page gets protected because of that. The page should not have been protected. If this is not disruption, Will, what is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that making massive changes without discussion is disruptive. Do you agree that removing sourced, NPOV material is also disruptive? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nik did propose his alternative version and it was discussed in approving terms by Francis. Andries (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. If an editor makes a bold edit which is subsequently reverted, then does not revert again and discuss and seeks consensus without further revers, that is the preferred way, as you well know. Of course, if the material is a possible BLP violation, we apply the do no harm principle, and leave the material out while discussing and seeking consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. It appears that the claim of "possible BLP" violations have been extended to the breaking point in this article. Removing the subject's childhood name, despite ample sources and consensus, and without any legitimate claim to a BLP violation, is an example of policy abuse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have told you before Will BeBack, I removed the phrase "less frequently Balyogeshwar". Which was unsourced. I'm sure in time someone will correct the lede to say "and Balyogeshwar in India" because that's were the source comes from.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on, Will. I start doubting your ability to remain impartial here. How can you compare a silly editwar about a name, with the behavior by NikWright? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
At least editors were engaged in discussing the names issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And while BRD is not policy, WP:CONSENSUS is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are too many silly edit wars going on here, including those the violate consensus. I'm not defending NikWright's behavior. I hope you're not defending Momento's. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I, Will? I have asked Momento to engage in discussions, and alerted him in his talk page; I have alerted other edit-warring editors here as well; I have asked people to pursue mediation, but there are no takers. Why do you think is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It may not seem like it to you, Jossi, but I think that to many, including myself, there IS an impression that you are defending Momento, for a couple of reasons. First, on this Talk page you are very quick to caution, chastise or disagree with others, but rarely seem to do so with Momento, even in the fact of very aggressive and unilateral behavior. Second, in the discussion over the Administrator's Noticeboard complaint, on several occasions you explicitly defended Momento , , , argued against sanctions on M. or rebutted the criticisms of M. , , . If you made any comments in that discussion that did not resist the criticism or sanctioning of Momento, I was unable to find them. When you have criticized Momento, like on M's talk page as you note, it has been very effective. I truly think that a few more words from you to Momento now and again would do wonders to calm this page -- more than any article protection could. Msalt (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you are so critical of me Msalt, perhaps we should revisit the first time you reverted me for deleting what you call "NPOV, sourced material". It began on Feb 15th when I added a to an uncited comment by Ellen Barker ]. I waited a further two days for the comment to be cited and when no cite was added I deleted it ] according to Wiki VER - "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". Within an hour you reverted my delete ]. Can you explain your actions. Because I'm getting bored explaining mine.Momento (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote Jossi, not interested, Momento. (I explained this particular edit in detail in the summary and on the Talk page 10 days ago. You must be the only person here who wants me to talk MORE. I feel like the long-winded uncle at a party, here.)
I don't mean to be critical of you at all, but of your recent editing style (as I am of PatW's arguing style, but not him.) Have you noticed that you are in the thick of nearly every edit war on this article? Common sense should tell you there's a message in there. I have a personal rule for myself -- if I meet three assholes in one day, I assume that I am the one being the asshole. If you're getting tired of explaining your actions, perhaps you should act less. No other editor makes nearly as many edits to this article as you do. Msalt (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, if the WP rules are so clear and not open to interpretation as you claim then I can only conclude that you think you are the only one here who's grasped their true meaning, cos no one has agreed with you so far. You seem to be the self-proclaimed Lawman here. I have no idea what 'mediation' really means but if it meant some other higher 'authority' people from Misplaced Pages sort of took over and let us plebs know what what the rules actually were I'd be delighted to accept their wisdom. Frankly I don't think you have many people who trust you and that's the problem. The trouble is even when unbiased people DO actually arrive you don't like their understanding of the rules and start accusing them of 'taking sides' with the dreaded critics, or of simply not knowing the meaning of WP guidelines as well as you. Don't you get it that you have demonstrated that you a) put your understanding way above others (isn't that arrogance?) and b) you are unwilling to move in the direction of consensus and are willing to rule the roost despite mistrust in your authority. Can I ask you a question Jossi? Imagine you were left to finish this article on your own or maybe with help from Momento (with your combined great understanding of the WP rules and with no contest) do you think it would be an unbiased article when you'd finished? Would you care to answer that straight please, without dodging the question?PatW (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not interested, PatW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm sorry if my question was too blunt. I understand that you will only enjoin polite discussion. I will try to keep it that way. Can I respectfully push you for an answer? Do you think you would make a better job of this article if you were left alone? If you simply want more neutral editors to come here and help you uphold and defend WP rules/guidelines would you please invite same to come here. It's slightly exasperating that when other editors do take an interest in this article you quickly disagree with their take on policy. It leaves us less WP savvy mimor editors quite confused. Can you see that? Where are the Wikki-wise people to back you up on all this? We are quite ready to learn.PatW (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi dear, looks as though you view making a response to a request for dialog from a self-confessed ex-premie who claims to be a member of a "hurt-group" as tantamount to fraternising with the enemy. You are very wise not to respond. Better fade away gently than go out with big stinking bang. (Sorry someone found the use of the word 'smelly' abusive in my earler comment that got deleted. But I meant it, and have amplified the point by using the word 'stinking' - probably more apposite in the circumstances. The more jossi wriggles the bigger the stink gets. He is, after all, Prem Rawat's press officer.Matt Stan (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for unprotecting

I wouldn't keep the article protected longer than necessary. Here's a reason: on this talk page we've been working hard on the content of the Prem Rawat article. There has also been some talk quite far from actually working on an improvement of the article text. Since the protection occurred, the balance is certainly shifting much more in the direction of "remotely (un)related talk" (PatW and others, I hope you can take a hint). Also for myself, I feel less incentive to work on article content under the current conditions: I've said I'm somewhat bored by the article's subject, and that writing a good article is enough incentive for me - discussing without being able to implement agreed improvement, or without being able to try out rewordings has just a little too little incentive for me now. So, I'd like unprotection could be considered on such grounds.

With that rationale I don't want in any way to cast a doubt on the protecting admin's decision. It was the right thing to do. And probably also, unprotecting without being sure that Nik (and Janice, etc) won't repeat the trick would not be a good idea either. Just offering my thoughts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to take your hint Francis but I humbly predict that eventually you'll see that what you now consider "remotely (un)related talk" is in fact extremely germane to this article. Please look briefly at my Talk discussion page near the bottom 'Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks' where I explain my behaviour to Jossi and Willbeback (who is also critical of my approach)PatW (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm sure every one agrees that Nik Wright2's addition of 12,000 bytes of undiscussed material is unacceptable. I suggest we demonstrate our commitment to proper editing behavior by asking that this page be un-protected and that Nik agrees not to edit for a week.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This page was protected globally for a reason. I think there are others besides Nik Wright2 editing disruptively. Msalt (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone except one, perhaps. What Nik Wright did was fine by me. I'm sure everyone agrees that not everyone agrees with Momento, who is perhaps making unwaranted assumptions about what everyone agrees about, agreed? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles are always protected on the "wrong version". There've been a lot of "silly edit wars" on this article. Why don't we resolve some of those before we worry about removing the page protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I read Nik's edit in its entirety and only a couple of small passages are problematic. Look, guys, may I remind you that the POV-pushing on this page was so bad that it attracted media attention (the recent Register article). I would have thought that that spotlight would have ended it. But, judging from the comments on this talk page, the blatent POV-pushing is still going on. The fact that Will had to take an LATimes article on how much Rawat paid for his house to the reliable sources noticeboard is ridiculous. Will appears to be on the right track here to help make this article NPOV. Some of you need to follow his lead. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not if the edit by that user is problematic or not. The issue is that the user bypassed discussions by taking an unilateral approach, and on top of that he edit-warred, while other editors had the common sense to work in developing consensus. That is "blatent" (sic) disruption. As for the article your refer to, you from all people should know the anti-Misplaced Pages slant of that journalist, who has attacked Misplaced Pages, its aims, its processes, its editors, and its founder, and to bring this to this page is most disingenuous of you. Or is it that you believe that I belong to "the Misplaced Pages elite", that I belong to the cabal of "uber-admins", and that Misplaced Pages policy is shaped by individuals? Utter nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". This used to be one of the most meticulously sourced articles in Wiki. Every important fact was either undisputed or sourced from academic works. Now we have the LA Times, the Fifth Estate and the Rushton Daily Leader. I guess some editors approach is that the proper response to the Register beat up is to become more like The Register and less like an encyclopedia. Looking forward to the ads Momento (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The L.A. Times article doesn't actually indicate who purchased the residence. A better phrasing would be:
  • In November of 1974 he moved into a secluded home in Malibu, California that was purchased for $400,000.
I'd think that the local paper would be a better source for real estate deals than a book about cults. However I don't see any real dispute between Melton and the L.A. Times on this issue. Just because we use award-winning newspapers for sources doesn't mean the article can't be meticulously sourced. Scholarly books don't necessarily represent all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin correctly pointed out on the noticeboard that if two reliable sources contradict each other, and this may not actually be the case here, you can just include information from both with explanations. So, there's evidently no reason to be arguing anymore here over this information from this particular source. I'm sure that solves the issue here, right? I mean, there's no COI issues going on here that would prevent someone from agreeing with this, right Jossi? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Right jossi? (I feel ought to show my hand here. I contend that if I want jossi not to answer some question then all I have to do is ask it because he has decided that I am not worth answering. This provides me with some leverage that I hope I can use to help rid wikipedia of the unwanted bias provided here by Mr Rawat's marketing professional, namely jossi. A marketing man's silence speaks loads.) 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is correct, IMO. We should include all significant points of view, even if they disagree. Or, as Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Will Beback, please note that previous version contained and abundance of opposing statements between sources. Then Vassyana criticized the article for lack of balance, because of that. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


To Cla68. Please don't "remind" us about ideas we may strongly disagree with. The Register article you refer to used the strong adherence to Misplaced Pages principles previously on this article as an excuse for a paid journalist to earn himself some money and fame by doing a Misplaced Pages-bashing article. ALL the allegations he raised have been debunked. All of them. This article is now about 100 times as biased as it was a month ago, and Nik Wright2's contributions are largely to blame for it. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is the swing of the pendulum between opposing factions. The more unscrupulous faction in reverting etc. seems to win. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's winning here Andries I think. Succeed in producing an unbalanced article certainly has the appearance of failure because this is a public space and people are not so stupid.PatW (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So Ruminto, Jossi has said above he's not interested in answering a straight question. Perhaps you will. You say you disagree with all the criticism aimed at this article. How would you propose to proceed towards fair balance? By having only the team of followers finish the article? (a situation that was approximated as you say a month ago). How fair would that be? Listen, I don't want to see an article full of unsubstantial hearsay etc. any more than you. I really don't! I have school age kids who use WP regularly and they deserve a trustworthy resource. This is about fairness and so, as relatively unbiased people have pointed out, there needs to be some give from followers who seem entrenched in a highly defensive posture, maybe because they are feeling the pressure of existing criticism -whether for right or wrong. I happen to think my report above (that was censored) was actually quite on topic. I reported about how someone who publicly questioned Rawat was quickly censored. Immediately someone called VivK cast this as a typical example of inappropriate violation of Prem Rawat and followers rights by critics. What I object to is that the same predisposition towards censorship (not including critical information or reports that have disrespectful tone etc) is demonstrated here. Where do critics have a right to a voice? Not even here via reputable sources like the LA Times apparently. I think that it would be a disaster if the article was dominated by any opposing factions. That is why I so welcome and will stand aside for non-factional editors here. I strongly feel that your attempts to control and reinterpret information here border heavily on a more sinister attempt to distort truth and throttle freedom of speech. The game Jossi and I are playing is that of 'not editing' to demonstrate some good faith in that direction. I question the sincerity of Jossi in this respect since his comments to Nick above "Guess which will be the first edits to go" etc plainly indicate that he can affect change here quite easily just by backing up edits he approves of (done by Momento etc.) I openly confess that my presence here is more or less to raise objections to this dynamic. Discussing the edits has become an almost futile pursuit because frankly you guys are so intransigent. You are basically saying 'you might as well leave us followers to it because we are the only ones who a) know and follow the WP rules and b) who are capable of fairly representing Prem Rawat. Don't you see how unfair that looks? PatW (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat, it would be great if you could just write down your thoughts in a sincere and simple way. I always get the impression you are trying to impress someone with the high dudgeon of your writing, and it only makes a thoughtful reply more difficult. I think the thrust of your question is What would I like to see this article look like? First, as a practising premie, I have never been happy with it in any of its forms. It has never reflected the reality of my last 36 years as a student of Maharaji's. It does not describe the dimension of heart feeling that the experience of Knowledge gives to my life, nor the role Maharaji has played in making that a reality. It makes no measure of how many others have had a similar experience. It also has not properly acknowledged the turbulence of the early years, when guru-worship, vegetarianism, renunciation, asceticism and the whole suffocating cloud of Indiana were imported and presented to us by a 12 year-old who could not have been expected to know better, aided by a bunch of adults who could have been so expected. I would like it if this article could look at the extraordinary growth that has taken place, from the first culturally doomed western offshoot of Hinduism into the rich resource for inward encouragement that it now is, and if it could find a way to acknowledge that through these changes Prem Rawat has remained a master to his students, but in the friendliest and most benevolent sense. To Misplaced Pages, my views are irrelevant, since we do not yet have sources that tell us about these things. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said; although I find it hard to believe that none of the numerous academic studies available should have found space to represent this point of view, which IMO belongs in this article as much as any criticism. Basically, if I read an article related to a religion or a new religious movement in Misplaced Pages, I would like to be able to gain a rough understanding of its internal logic, of what moves its members, of why the movement and its founder represent such an inspiration to them, what the founder's teachings consist of, and how this teaching is applied by its adherents. Academic studies usually attempt to address this in a (more or less) neutral manner, newspapers don't.
In my view, the present version by Nik has taken us further away from an NPOV article. The narrative is garbled, repetitive (we now have the foot kissing twice!), confusing, goes off at numerous tangents, all the while missing the heart of the phenomenon in multiple ways. Just looking at the time line from "Interegnum" (sic) onwards, we go from 1975 (before/after) to late 1976 back to 1975 (before/after) to early 1976 to late 1976. Even after triple reading it is difficult for the reader to get any sense of the developments and changes that ocurred. In an age of religious diversity, Misplaced Pages can do better than that.
Rawat's teachings should be covered in more detail, based on academic sources, with some relevant quotes from him. Criticism, wealth issues, ridiculing statements etc. should in my view be kept out of the main narrative and reviewed under Reception, along with reception of the teaching among his followers. Jayen466 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, it is perfectly valid to indicate that, for some (though no one will say quite how many, which is suspicious), the 'drug' that Mr Rawat's message provides, is jolly nice, as you have found. A more detached viewpoint might be that the incredibly nice Mr Rawat has hit upon a means of supporting himself that relies upon very strict control of information about the ways in which he operates. The Prem Rawat article surely should be about the man himself and how he operates rather than about how his techniques are perceived by acolytes. The Prem Rawat article need merely mention in passing that there are an unspecified (though it would seem, diminishing) number of people who are passionate supporters, willingly giving up material possessions to help him promulgate his message and, by some mysterious and unspecified means, enabling him to keep on practising flying himself about without having to pay personally for the fuel. It should also mention that there are other people who absolutely hate what he is up to, believing that it can destroy families and lives. The issue seems to be that if any validity is provided to the antis, then the pros feel slighted, and their masters feel threatened because it might put people off 'promising to keep in touch', thereby reducing revenues to Prem Rawat's money collecting apparatuses. Is there any reason why genuine seekers after truth shouldn't be given the opportunity to make up their own minds, heeding, if they want, the global warning of the antis and thereby, some might hope, incidentally reducing the global warming caused by the erstwhile guru? There will always be gullible people, but wikipedia is one place where facts can be presented such that the gullible are reasonably protected if they bother to read what's written.147.114.226.172 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just carefully read what you have written and found nothing worth responding to. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you are playing animal balloons with other people's words again. I cast no such thing you attributed to me, merely presented what actually happened at Alexandra Palace to allow any sane observer to note how laughingly corrupt your version of that woman's offensive interruption of that (otherwise extremely inspiring) event was. Try and get it, what part of the word 'offensive' don't you understand? Your response to Rumi above clearly indicates that you believe PR's entire life is dedicated to keeping his income flow happening. That is corrupt thinking in its saddest form, the lack of understanding about money in your own life experience is frightening to the 'detached' observer, seriously scary. Unless that is, you are drunk, or joking about Prem's reasons for travelling more miles in a year than you do in a decade, just to talk to people, most of whom have none of your precious money to give him. However, I agree with our masked highbrow intellect below, I too fail to see how any self respecting academic would bother to analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages ??? I can only wild guess how profound and deep one must be to come up with such a peircing and penetrating point as that. To those with less anger and self importance clogging up their digestive system Prem Rawat's teachings are about as intellectual as a wild stallion galloping across a prairie. The mainstream media can be a source of meaningful information about a galloping horse? How about being there watching the animal, how about being ON it? And you pompously judge others as brainwashed! You who are so terrified of the agents of the evil Dark One. What a childish, pointless conversation you are having with yourself user number 147 .VivK (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked why on earth any self-respecting academic would bother to consider and analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages, particularly if the few serious commentators who have looked into the matter have declared that the so-called teaching is devoid of intellectual content anyway. I imagine most academics would have better things to do and would find it hard to obtain funding for such fruitless studies. Therefore the mainstream media are effectively the only source from which to glean any meaningful information that might help inform people people of what Mr Rawat is really about. The way the devotees operate to control information here in this 'free' resource in wikipedia shows just how much they are themselves brainwashed and the presence of their marketing professional, jossi, how vulnerable their business model is to the truth.147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's not entirely fair. There is a wealth of academic studies: ; to say that newspapers are the only source available for use here seems far off the mark. Jayen466 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

VivK and Ruminton both talk about the insights and wonderful feelings that come from Rawats teachings. Please remember that I have practised his Knowledge sincerely since age 17 and also spoke in such gushing terms and do not deny any of it. My criticisms are much more down to earth and I think that is also what 147 was driving at. I don't think his reservations or suspicions are about the nature of the experience (visa vi your 'galloping horse' simile). In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics. Should they simply cast these doubts aside or can you help them see why such things are irrelevant or ill-founded? Followers should maybe not expect the uninitiated public to appreciate or necessarily accept the wondrous nature of the experience on your word. Your being cross at people for asking questions that are disrespectful of Rawat (in your view) itself smacks of religious intolerance. There has to be a balance between religion demanding respect from society/Wikipedia, and society/Wikipedia demanding transparency from religion. You want Prem Rawat to be treated with same respect here that you accord him then let the well-documented criticisms be aired here and face them. Provide the answers. Why be afraid? Jayen rightly wants the followers perspective aired here. Yes people want to know what's so great about his teachings. They also want to be aware of the main criticisms of him so as to get a balanced picture. Lets aim for that shall we? PatW (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW, you write as if you speak for "the ordinary person" ("In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics.") But there are many "ordinary people" who do not have those doubts. No-one is asking that people cast doubts aside. Clearly, you have not enjoyed Knowledge (so why didn't you stop practising a long time ago?) so there is no problem. Put it aside and move on. But many people enjoy knowledge, and are not "brainwashed". You claim to have practised knowledge, yet you still believe that such practise has something to do with religion. I suggest to you that many people who practise knowledge would laugh at that claim, and would wonder at your claim of "religion". I've practised knowledge since I was 22, and that was a long time ago. I know that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I'm happy that anyone be made aware of the fact that some people haven't enjoyed knowledge, and have found it unhelpful. But because knowledge was not right for you, doesn't mean that it is not right for others. You want people to disrespect knowledge and Rawat because you do. I want people to respect Rawat if they benefit from his teaching. Armeisen (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to patronisingly tell me to 'put aside' my criticisms of Prem Rawat, No I won't and neither will many other people. I object to your putting down my experience (even though you have absolutely NO idea about my personal experiences) apparently because you simply cannot entertain that other option which is that there could be just a little substance to people's criticisms. If people who practice knowledge or Rawat himself laugh at the suggestion that their practices are religious fine. Scholars of new religions often actually note how one of the very things that characterise new religions and their leaders is their insistence that they are nothing to do with religion. They suggest that the explanation for this phenomena is that the leaders are keen to disassociate from their roots so as to better establish their own autonomy. To me that is exactly what Rawat has done and is doing. The explanation I was given as a new premie in 1974 was that 'Jesus, Buddha, Krishna,Mohammed did not preach religion' their subsequent followers wrongly later turned it into one. And that Rawat, as a similar 'Master' was not preaching religion but revealing a direct experience. We were told that only a living 'Perfect Master' can show you the living religion and that religion without the living Master was dead. That's what we were told and that's what the followers of Rawat's father were also told and what most followers of most Sant Mat tradition adherents were told. 'Religion thus becomes almost a dirty word. However it was subsequently quite clear to me (and obviously many others) that there were many religious aspects to the whole thing (ie beliefs and adherence to tenets that Jossi denies). Rawat may have gradually got rid of the appearance that there are no beliefs or suggestions made to followers about who he is or what he experience of knowledge is but I don't personally think that amounts to it not being a form of religion ie. a new style religion. One category that Rawat currently does not deny is that he is some kind of 'Master' (having gradually dropped the former 'Perfect Master bit). Also there are promissary commitments made to Rawat regarding the practice of knowledge. What this seems to be all about is the reluctance of Rawat or followers to be categorised. I agree that the best balance would be to accurately report the characterisation of Rawat by scholars and also report Rawats denials.PatW (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

References calling DLM or Elan Vital a religious movement are legion. The techniques had their origin in a religious tradition. So the view that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion would seem to be a minority view – fine to mention it in the article – but you cannot reasonably expect EV's description as a religious movement to be banished from the article, much less so the talk page. Jayen466 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to Jayen's comments, Elan Vital, the organisation that has supported Rawat's work for the past 36 years, is registered as a church in the US. --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether references calling those organisations a religion are "legion" or not is irrelevant. The chaplain ("Black Will") at the school I attended had this wonderful saying: "Every since the crucifixion of Christ, the majority have been in the wrong." Not necessarily accurate, of course, but of relevance here. I would suggest to you that the religions had their origins in the techniques; that is, the techniques preceded religion. How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? Do you know how many people practise knowledge? I'm sure that the majority would support the statement that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I don't recall asking for anything to be banned. No evidence for that, Jayen. Would be good not to attribute claims to me that I have not made; it only undermines your credibility as an editor. Armeisen (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? I believe it to be a minority view (at least) in the published sources that we are required to reflect here. Personally, I have no problem understanding that it isn't religious to you, or doesn't feel "religious"; to you it is a practical and empirical part of your life. Jayen466 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
DLM and Elan Vital have been described as New religious movements. Elan Vital in its FAQ, states that it the practice of Knowledge is compatible with all religions (Maharaji's Knowledge is compatible with and independent of any lifestyle, culture, religion, or belief system). Prem Rawat himself says that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. These viewpoints are presented already in the respective articles, as well as their legal status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, there is a process to register as a religion (which brings substantial benefits on taxes and protection from government interference.) If John Braun's statement is true, that would seem to settle the question. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that we would need a reliable source for what is obviously a controversial point.
Otherwise, accepted reliable sources call EV a "new religious movement" as Jossi says. Denials by Rawat or EV could be added to contrast that (if self-published) but I think it would be wrong to remove such a reliably sourced description. Perhaps it should be tied to the narrative of Westernization. EG " Elan Vital is described by Melton and others as a "new religious movement" (cites), though Prem Rawat has said that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. (cite)" Fair compromise? Msalt (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to know how Melton defines "a new religious movement". It sounds good to say it, but someone who has access to the books should be able to tell us how Melton describes a religious movement. I believe too that there is quite a distinction between a "religious movement" and a "religion". Again, it will depend on how it is described/defined. So could someone enlighten us? Armeisen (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To my way of thinking, a religion involves a set of tenets to which adherents subscribe; that is, a belief system. However, if religion is seen to be "the quest for the values of the ideal life", or "the manifestation of such feeling in conduct or life", (Macquarie Dictionary), then I guess Maharaji's work is covered in that kind of general description (as distinct from definition). In my experience, Knowledge is compatible with all religions, without being one. In that respect, I am in agreement with you, Jossi. Armeisen (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but as Jossi once told me it is not our way of thinking that count here. I'm glad you seem to agree then that Maharaji's work falls fairly into the dictionary definition of a 'religion' ie. belief, in, recognition of, or an awakened sense if, a higher unseen controlling powers: rites or .worship (NB. annually held Guru Puja (Puja='worship' yes?). The only possible reason you can object to it being described that way is because you don't like being lumped in with other religions I guess. Your argument about being compatible with other religions without being one is interesting. Have you considered the possibility that maybe, (since we've categorically established that it IS a religion by definition) Knowledge is compatible with all religions and is also one itself? Also please note that your worries maybe unsubstantiated since of course all different religions are in fact different but are still called 'religions'. So Rawat's is just a nice 'different' religion. Is that an acceptable situation or does he deserve a dictionary category all of his own because he's so clearly distinct to all English speaking people? Do you think that an encyclopedia should lean towards broad categories that everyone understands or towards cryptic ones thought up by religious groups who want to be in another category? I mean what category do you guys think Prem Rawat would like to be? Does Humanitarian Leader perhaps work for you? How does that sit with all his past teachings and the way he was perceived? PatW (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to Msalt above. Armeisen (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be enlightened as to the distinction between a religion and a new religious movement in this context I suggest you read 'Radhasoami Reality' by Mark Jurgensmeyer. A religion has connotations of orthodoxy and general acceptance. A 'new religious movement' is essentially almost always an offshoot of an earlier religion as Rawat absolutely undeniably is. Even Jossi will confirm (as author of PR's earlier website) that Rawat himself endorsed the belief that he was the latest of a series of 'living masters' that descend from very particular and named illustrious Sikh Gurus like Guru Nanak etc. The exact lineage that Prem Rawat claimed (possibly wishfully imho) is well documented and I suggest that it could be very helpful to reference it here. Thoughts Msalt, Francis, Jayen et al? Rawat's own wording on his site was 'This is the history thus far' or words to that effect, and there followed a named list of his predecessors including of course his father, Swarupanand and others.. Jossi would you like to provide the exact lineage he claimed on his site? Why was that list removed? That would maybe answer this question once and for all. If you provide this information you may also need to inform readers that there are a number of other Gurus who contest the authenticity of thse claims. However of course we also have Premie scholar of religion Ron Geaves' published list of Rawat's claimed hagiographic family tree to refer to also if need be. Anyone like to see that?] (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Armeisen, do you accept now that Rawat is a master in a line of gurus that stem from the Sikh tradition? If so can you accept that he has religious roots? Third question, would you agree that Sikhism is generally correctly categorised as a a religion? Forth - do you now understand that Rawat has undeniable religious roots? Fifth - how likely or sensible would it be that someone who's entire teachings stem from a religion has 'nothing to do with religion? Can you answer those questions please?PatW (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, in spite of so many polite requests, you are still writing in those same strident, self righteous tones that tell us you believe you are the only honest, wise and clear-thinking editor around here. This style clearly suits the anti-Rawat websites in which it evolved, but it is in no way conducive to arriving at a mature consensus for this article. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation that my writing style has evolved in anti-Rawat websites. I was a self-righteous honest, wise, clear-thinking writer since childhood.PatW (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, Pat W, all you have done is to say that Prem Rawat traced his lineage back to some Sikh person. But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets. You stated that you practised knowledge for many years. Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I don't accept that any of your statements have any veracity. You state that you don't believe he has any links; a bit contradictory. So what are his teachings that you refer to? That God is within each human being? That peace lies within each human being? That having peace is essential to a human being. That human beings love joy, don't enjoy discomfort. I guess if you want to call that religion, then that is fine by me. Armeisen (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with what you say Armeisen. I think the unedifying tussle somewhere above regarding how many of Prem Rawat's names and titles should appear in the lede show how wilfully obtuse single words can be, when applied to this subject. It gets worse with words like religion and religious. I made some enquiries a few months ago and found the following, not official information, but I believe a good description of the situation.
1. Elan Vital is an organisation that facilitates people coming together to celebrate an inner experience. As each country has differing organisational laws, Elan Vital is set up differently in different countries.
2. The Divine Light Mission was registered in 1971 by then student/follower/devotee of Prem Rawat's, Bob Mishler. It later changed its name to Elan Vital. The 501(c)(3) status of Elan Vital in the US is based on its acceptance in the US as a "church", which is defined something like "a coming together of 2 or more people to worship a higher power" (exact wording not found, but can be if needed.)
3. Elan Vital is not a religion.
4. There is no membership in Elan Vital. It is run mainly by a small number of volunteers.
I think this could be fruitfully covered on the Elan Vital page and linked to from this page. Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruminton. In this matter I am self-righteous. Sorry! I also humbly :-) believe that I am honest and reasonably clear-thinking and wise in some respects. I also invite you all to prove me wrong so I question the relative clear-thinking of some people's arguments here including that of Armeisen who, in case you hadn't noticed, has utterly failed to connect the dots as I believe most sensible people will agree. I kind of rest my case. Finally, despite all this bleating about incivility, we've been having this debate for years - it is described above as 'heated' and we're always being rude and then apologising and so on - I'd call that an acceptable equilibrium. So getting back to the article, do you agree that it would may be helpful to inform readers that Prem Rawat claims to be part of the lineage that he does? Or is that now something you also want to hide because you've decided it makes him look too religious?PatW (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if my questions have too much of a cross-examining tone everybody. Please understand that I myself will happily reply to all hard questions in full (You know I am naturally pompous and verbose - any excuse to waffle on). I simply do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Also remember I am trying to win arguments here - I want to get to the point and the traditional way to do that is to have a debate that is formed of clear questions and clear replies. Hence the stark questions. Big hugs all round? :-)PatW (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Armeisen writes: But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets.

What about the ashram rules? Weren't they tenets?

Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me.

No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. Here's a list of some similarities between Prem Rawat and Radhasoami/Advait Mat/Sant Mat:
The singing of 'Arti' in front of an altar with guru's picture on
The belief in a line of 'Perfect Masters' or 'Satgurus' who are incarnations of God etc.
The singing of bhajans
Darshan (kissing of the feet etc)
Devotion to the Master
Satsang
Service (Seva)
Meditation (Assayanas) the 4 techniques which are historically the same as his predecessors and other Sant (Light) Gurus.
The DLM motto 'Work is Worship' Same as at Dayalbagh (Sikh city in India founded by Radhasoami guru also reported to have initiated Rawats father)
Here's some quotes from Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)? Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)'
Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own website as follows:

Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand jo Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)
There is no doubt that any scrutiny of the language of Swarupanand Ji, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and the early discourses of his son Maharaji will demonstrate the usage of the (above) four metaphors (The experience of the divine was veiled in various images of light, sound,nectar and finally the Word or Name of God) and other terminology associated with the language of the mediaeval nirguna sants, particularly Nanak and Kabir.(NB. Nanak and Kabir were both famous Sikh Gurus I think)

The rest of Geaves paper is devoted to how Rawat has made something new and brilliant out of all this. Something that evidently perplexes his contemporary scholars somewhat but which you are all very keen to emphasise. So if Elan Vital is not a religion, would you accept that it is an offshoot of a religion? Personally I think it plausibly deceptive to argue otherwise.PatW (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also notice that Jossi is responsible for the Wiki entry on Advait Mat which he is careful to describe only as 'a cluster of movements in northern India which perceive themselves to be ::originating from Totapuri (d.1866)' How informative is that? Or can I be more blunt and say 'uninformative' for his not even using the obviously appropriate adjective 'religious movement'. It must be very exhausting having to tiptoe around this subject so carefully because of Prem Rawat's organisations sensitivities. I'm sure the followers of Advait Mat around the world would be quite proud to be described as a 'religion' or even 'the offshoot of a religion'. Interestingly of course Prem Rawat himself was not even shy about proclaiming this connection either. Why are you?PatW (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No. A tenet is a principle, dogma or doctrine (OED.) Ashram rules were optional Indian renunciate lifestyle rules, which some accepted as personally useful to them and others did not go anywhere near. Probably more of the latter. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved your response. Please don't post stuff in the middle of my text. It's confusing. There was a doctrine or creed and it was sung morning and night in Rawats ashrams as he advocated in the rule book. Also Rawat strongly recommended that people wanted to serve him and who were available should surrender their llves to him in the Ashram. I heard him say that. Maybe you missed that bit. Lucky you. Don't rewrite other people's history though please. It's highly offensive. If this isn't a doctrine I'd like to know what is:

Arti (as sung to Prem Rawat or his picture on an altar whilst waving 'arti tray of burning ghee)

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji
Your glory fills the world
Protector of the weary and the weak
You bring the death of attachment
You bring the mind true detachment
Save us from the ocean deep
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Creator, Preserver, Destroyer
Bow their heads and pray to You
All bow and pray to You
Scriptures sing Your glory
Heaveny hosts sing Your praises
Your virtues are ever true
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity
never bring you knowledge of the soul
will never reveal your soul
without the grace of satguru
without the Knowledge of Satguru
rites and rituals never reach the goal
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya
All are swept out to sea
All are sinking in the depths of the sea
Guru's boat is the holy name
Guru's ship is the holy word
In seconds he has set us free
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya
All are swept out to sea
All are sinking in the depths of the sea
Guru's boat is the holy name
Guru's ship is the holy word
In seconds he has set us free
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Anger, desire, attachments
Rob us of eternal life
Take away our heavenly life
Satguru gives us true Knowledge
Satguru is eternal Knowledge
The sword that kills our problem life
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Religions harp their own glories
Call to follow their own path
Welcome me to follow their own way
The essence of all was revealed
The seed of all was revealed
I walk on the true way today
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Nectar from Satguru's feet is
Holy and it cleans us of our sins
So sacred in cleaning us of sin
When he speaks, darkness flies away
When he speaks, darkness cannot stay
Doubts removed, new life then begins
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Mine, Thine, Wealth, Health
Give them to the lotus feet of love
Give them to the lotus feet of the Lord
Give yourself to Satguru
Sacrifice yourself to Satguru
Be united with the blissful Truth
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Bible, Gita, the Koran
Sing the glory of Your Name
They all sing the glory of Your Name
Angels sing Your great glory
Heavenly hosts sing Your praises
They find no end to Your fame
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Desires have robbed me and left me
Trapped in the darkness of the night
Yes, they've trapped me in the darkness of the night
Guru gives holy Name and Light
Guru gives Holy Name and Sight
Cross the ocean by His Love and Light
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Many past forms you have taken
Now we have come in your control
Again You have come to save the soul
In this time of darkness
To lead Your devotees from darkness
You have come as Hansa the pure soul
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Come to the shelter of Guru's grace
Come with your heart and your soul
Bring Him your heart and your soul
Cross the worldly ocean
Cross it by your devotion
And attain the supreme goal
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji
Your glory fills the world
Protector of the weary and the weak
You bring the death of attachment
You bring the mind true detachment
Save us from the ocean deep
Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

 PatW (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I don't know how much more of this I need to post to jog your memory and to prove a point. But in the Ashram we had to sing this to his picture every morning and night. And at festivals he sat there (wearing the costume of Lord Krishna) while it was sung to him by 1000's. NB. He didn't join as it was plainly addressed to him and he was facing us. Anybody now in ANY doubt WHATSOEVER that this was a religious offshoot with doctrines?? Come on let's have some answers.

Meditation begins in the form of our master,
 Adoration begins at the feet of our lord,
 Concentration begins in the words of our master,
 Liberation begins in the grace of our lord. You are my mother and you are my father
, you are my brother and you are my friend
, you are riches, you are wisdom, 
You are my all, my lord to me.
 You are riches, You are wisdom, 
You are my all, my Lord to me. Guru Maharaj Ji, my life is within You
, From You I was born and to You now I go, 
Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless, 
This heart of mine aches to be one with You, 
Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless, 
This heart of mine aches to be one with You. Wherever I look, Your face is before me
 Your golden Love melts all my troubles away, 
I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow
, Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play
, I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow
, Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play Oh wondrous Lord, my Guru Mahraj Ji
, Your grace is a river which flows on and on, 
You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing, 
Let me come home find my rest at Your feet, 
You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing, 
Let me come home find my rest at Your feet Our Lord is the maker of all things created, 
He keeps them and brings them, 
all home to his word, Our Lord is the superior power in person, 
I bow down before such a wonderful Lord.

(at which point everyone would fall flat on their faces - that 'well-know Indian Greeting' right Ruminton?) PatW (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

Returning to this page after a 48 hour absence is an excellent reminder of all that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. The screeching from Jossi would be embarrassing enough if delivered by a spoilt eight year old, from a fifty year old man it is plain worrying, and from one of Misplaced Pages’s most active administrators it is an outright demonstration that there is one rule for the elect and another for the ‘non belongers’.

This article has been a POV sewer for years, the only thing that will rescue it is the rapid addition of a multiplicity of new references. Cleaning out POV phraseology is the work of moments, it just requires intelligent editing, but getting the references resolved is what is needed and that takes research effort, my edit is a major boost to that end.

It is untrue to say that what I was proposing was undiscussed, and it is absurd to work on the basis that because someone doesn’t respond over the course of a week when intentions have been clearly raised, that the discussion has not included the non respondents. It is even more absurd to propose a process where the existing failed structure of an article has to remain intact while there are endless arguments over every word. The structure of this article is wrong and multiple sections need rewriting as contiguous elements if there is to be any hope that a semblance of chronological integrity is to be achieved.

Momento – who has been throwing his dummy out of the pram ever since the Cade Metz article shone a light on this particular cess pit – suggests I should agree to not edit for a week. I have a different suggestion which is that the editors who oversaw the creation of an article so embarrassing to Misplaced Pages that it has to be wholly reworked, should be banned from this article and its talk page for one month – Jossi, Momento and Rumiton are entirely responsible and should get out of the way so that others can repair the damage. On that basis I’d be more than happy to agree to take a month’s sabbatical.

Finally for anyone who finds my contribution here distasteful, you may find it instructive to note why I am on Misplaced Pages at all. It was entirely down to Jossi including a link in the Rawat article to a site which contained defamatory material about me; I spent months of futile effort attempting to get the Wikiocracy to give me, a private citizen, the same protection as the anointed get under BLP – and in the end it was only down to my vocal participation on this talk page that persuaded a disinterested editor to do the decent thing. Having spent months going through the puerile promotional whitewash that passed for a biography of Rawat I was eventually persuaded I could do a better job than what was here for most of the last three years, and I’ve not yet changed my mind. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to propose such restrictions, use the appropriate methods, go ahead. Whatever your opinion of this article, of me, or Misplaced Pages, or of its processes, you can simply cannot walk in here and do whatever you want to do. You will have to follow process, you will have to discuss your edits. If people do not respond to your proposals, assume they have no traction. You will not edit-war. You will have to seek consensus. You will have to pursue dispute resolution. I am not going anywhere, Nik. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation

In order to promote more careful and considerate editing of this article, I've posted a proposal, suggested by Jossi, to change the limit on reverts to this article from three per day to one per week for one month. WP:AN#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to consider something like this, but only when the Nik version is reverted in its entirety. A compromise of three per week might be better. Armeisen (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If, after seeking consenus, we revert to a differnt version then that's good and ordinary. It'll be up to a consensus of editors. Single edits like Nik's probably wouldn't qualify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Ameisen is saying that no progress can be made, like the 1RR idea, until Nik's version is reverted.Momento (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
With which I vehemently agree. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Two long time editor/administrators of high standing, who have different viewpoints on this page, have suggested 1RR probation for the good of the article. I find it very disturbing that Armeisen, Momento, and Rumiton -- all acknowledged followers of Rawat -- seem to be making their agreement conditional on getting their way over reverting Nik's edit, rather than seeking consensus.
I say that as someone also upset with Nik's edit; I expect it to be either reverted or substantially altered (by consensus) fairly quickly. This isn't about the merits of the edit; it's about "my way or we keep edit-warring", which is kind of the gist of the problem here. Can you three reconsider your statements and think about agreeing to join consensus, whereever it leads us? Msalt (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources - L.A. Times and N.Y. Times

The clear consensus at WP:RS/N#Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat is that the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times are definitively reliable and relevant sources regardless of context. In the 1970s and 1980s the subject received considerable attention from the mainstream media. These sources along with others are important representatives of contemporary jounalistic coverage of a prominent public person. WP:NPOV calls on us to include all significant viewpoints so we must include theirs. To that end, I've searched archives and found some 76 articles from the L.A. Times and 22 in the N.Y. Times that are relevant to this subject's biography. I'd be happy to send copies of these articles to other editors who request them by email, in accord with fair use exemptions of the copyright laws and good scholarly practice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you're not going to insert a sentence from each one, so how about giving us a synopsis of a theme or a year.Momento (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
These are reliable sources with notable points of view. We'll include them as need be. I've often said that the role of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I hope that's what we're all aiming for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though with some caveats. The reliability of newspapers is not high in this area. (I could cite academic sources that say so, quite explicitly.) Much is misreported, misrepresented, or portrayed in a manner likely to elicit maximum reader interest. An example from my recent experience in German Misplaced Pages: numerous German top-quality, national newspapers state, time and again, that Scientology does not have the status of a religious or ideological community in Germany, but is a purely commercial enterprise. (This is indeed the opinion of the German government.) However, the German courts have many times held otherwise, with most decisions either explicitly leaving the question open, or taking a clear stance in favour of according Scientology such status.
A briefing for German members of parliament, available online on the German parliament website and compiled by the parliament's Scientific Services division, reviews the situation in detail, lists court decisions going this way and that, and describes the situation as "contested" and "unresolved". Whereas newspapers often present the situation as a clear-cut case, citing one particular decision that went the other way.
Now, people deriving their knowledge from newspapers alone turn up on the German Scientology talk page at regular intervals. They demand that it be made clearer in the article that Scientology is a purely commercial organisation that has been denied recognition as a religious movement and that the article is not a fair representation of POVs. What to do? I would argue that in such a situation an encyclopedia has to give preference to the more reliable source. It is not just a question of verifiably summarising what various reputable sources have, on average, said. And if readers experience cognitive dissonance because the article does not reflect what they have read in the papers, then IMO that is a good thing, and not an NPOV failing. Jayen466 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How delightfully well put. I seem to agree entirely.PatW (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I entirely agree with PatW.Momento (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And I also. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a clear consensus, Will Be Back. A consensus is when everyone agrees. The context is important. Just because the newspaper has won Pulitzer Prizes (generally they are given to journalists, not newspapers) doesn't mean that everything they report is of substance. Take Rawat's house, for instance. A search should show what was paid for it. Another search should show that it was the registered address of DLM, if indeed it was. If the journalist used some other source, then that needs to be stated.

Then there is the question of relevance. Of what relevance is the price of a house or a piece of land? None. If the article is about Prem Rawat, then it should be about him, if he is notable enough to have an entry in Misplaced Pages. It's what he is doing that is important. Armeisen (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. There are many valid viewpoints. The fact is that this property has been the subject of numerous contemporary news reports. These concern three broad topics: the price and general opulence of the property; the presence of Prem Rawat and his following in the Malibu community; and the helicopter permit. I think that the topic of the subject's tenure in Malibu can be developed in a responsible manner. It's just one aspect of many covered by local and national newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting .If I am correct here you are saying that information about Prem Rawat's family home is one of three broad topics you would like to include in the article. Is there no mention of his work in the LA Times ? Balius (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. I wrote that those are three topic concerning the Prem Rawat living in Malibu that have been covered by the L.A. Times. My point is that there are many dimensions to his residence there. As for the overall coverage of the subject in that newspaper, there are other topics as well. If you like I'd be happy to send you the complete file. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly is the relevance of where Rawat lives? Why isn't the house he lived in as a child included. And the one he stayed in when he first visited England. I know the anti-Rawat crew believe that a guru should live in a cave but isn't living in a house so normal as to be unimportant?Momento (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Asceticism (or at least material modesty) is a honored ideal for a Hindu or Sant Mat guru. The fact that he completetly diverged from this ideal is very relevant for his notability. Andries (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should point out that Prem Rawat has never practised or advocated renunciation, and that in this respect he diverges from traditional Hinduism? Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The L.A. Times covers more that his residence, but his residence has been the topic of considerable coverage. If it's relevant to mention that he has a pilot's license then it's relevant to say he has a heliport in his front yard. If he's promoted asceticism among his followers then it's relevant to note his own living circumstances. If he's using the property as a headquarters for his organization then that's relevant too. If there's a reliable source that has written extensively about the subject childhood home paper then we should consider summarizing that material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that Ruminton? That is just a straight out plain as a pikestaff lie! You know as well as I that Rawat advocated renunciation to the hilt. What do you think his ashrams were? And I get reprimanded for calling this stuff lies?! Are you just trying to bait people here like me who gave their lives in ashrams? That is not at all funny.PatW (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1978 Rawat joked to the 100(0)'s of ashram premies in Kissimmee Florida saying that "the only tie you have with your parents is the one they gave you for Christmas" - doesn't that imply he expect some renunciation? Like : No sex- Being a vegetatrian - no careers -no seeing your parents -and you are SO wrong to weasely insinuate that everyone did this because they wanted to. SO damn wrong. Rawat yelled and yelled at us about obedience and that was a major factor for many young earnest people blinded by their sincerity and devotion. Obedience meant obeying rules whether you liked them or not. Sure we just thought it would be best to do as he said. But I for one bitterly resent the things I was told I should give up - like that girl at Alexander Palace who wanted to know why Rawat had allowed his Instructors to go around passing on his authoritarian dictates (she was told to give up her place at Oxford) and was reprimanded by HIM for wanting a 'pissing contest' ! PatW (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, Pat. At the end of 1976, with his birthday celebration in Atlantic City, NJ, Rawat dressed up in his Krishna costume which signaled to his followers a resurgence of acknowledging his divinity as Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master. I went to that Atlantic City program. Rawat's strong demands for surrender and devotion to him were taught (often yelled and screamed) by himself in large events and also repeated by his own agents, Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas all over the United States, UK, and Europe. This period ushered in an era of renewed commitment and devotion to Rawat by his devotees and many people entered and reentered the ashram as a result. Obedience to Maharaji was in the form of following his agya or his commands to premies. But, we don't have to argue about the blatant whitewashing going on in this talk page about this issue, all one has to do is point to Prem Rawat's own words, because Rawat said himself that he wrote the ashram manual. He wasn’t shy about saying that, either.
The ashrams in the United States were more organized during the time period 1976 through 1982, than ever before in the history of DLM/EV. Ashram residents lived in what were considered "Divine Light Mission" ashrams, a life of renunciation that included poverty, chastity, and obedience. What's more, this issue has been argued on these talk pages many times before and now the subject is being trotted out not by using subtle whitewashing, but baldfaced lies. This revision of the history of Rawat’s life can be maddening because I know exactly what was going on during the late seventies and early 80s in this NRM. I worked closely with Prem Rawat in 1979 and 1980 as one of his secretaries in the Design Department where a Boeing 707 was being reconfigured inside and out to becomehis his first executive jet. The project was called DECA (Design and Engineering Corporation of America) in Miami Beach, and the vast majority of the hundreds of unpaid workers there were ashram residents who were transferred from their communities to Florida. I spoke to Rawat and saw him several times per day at DECA. One of the reasons that his wealth is such an issue is that that jet, which he had total control over, from design to use, was fitted with top of the line everything, from ebony laminated woodworking, custom designed seating, and a gold-plated toilet. I was there for the design of the toilet, saw it being manufactured and saw it after it was installed on the B707. After that I worked part-time at DLM headquarters, then located on Alton Rd., Miami Beach briefly in 1980, which had moved from Denver, CO to Miami Beach because Rawat moved his base of operations there during the jet project. Rawat lived in Miami Beach during that time, had all of his luxury autos shipped to the DECA complex and even his favorite premie band had a recording studio on the DECA premises. He also held his Initiator Development Programs on the premises in the satsang hall on site.
Btw, each and every person seeking to "receive Knowledge, known as “aspirants” were stringently vetted by Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas prior to being selected to receive the techniques, from at elast 1975 through the mid-80s. This requirement applied to all aspirants, not just those who wanted to move into a DLM ashram. In the Knowledge session, this vow was required to be taken by everyone before being shown the meditation techniques. One simply didn't get to into a Knowledge Session to receive Knowledge without the understanding of who Guru Maharaj Ji is, i.e., the Perfect Master, the Lord, etc.
Knowledge Vow
Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your lotus feet.
I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.
Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.
Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledge.
Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the kingdom of heaven within inside of me.
Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.
I will obey you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.
I will keep in contact with you through my devotional love, satsang,meditation and service.
Thank you my Lord for everything.

Sylviecyn (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I sat in on many Knowledge giving sessions where this vow was required from aspirants in the late 70's. For those who want to play down the sterner side of Rawat's demands please note the promise to "obey you implicitly" was required. Hardly an encouragement to take it or leave it!PatW (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel I am being shrieked at again. I think the only way I can approach a dialogue with you is to apply the "PatW factor." This will be a multiplier of about 0.2. Whatever you say I shall assume you meant only one fifth of it. Your "plain as a pikestaff lie" defeats my new system somewhat, as I don't know what a "plain as a pikestaff lie" is, but I shall translate it as "exaggeration." I was in the ashram for about 4 years, and generally it was a positive experience. Certainly no one "yelled at me" wooops, new system, "spoke persuadingly" to me to go there. I wanted to, it felt like the right thing to do. I never made a lifetime commitment, nor was asked to, nor would I have if I had been asked. Most of the people I knew were not in it, and would not have wanted to be. I don't believe they felt discriminated against. If there are sources who claim Prem Rawat applied pressure to some people to live that way, then the article can certainly refer to them. I was not at the Alexander Palace and neither were you. We have 2 witnesses who describe what happened very differently. I will keep an open mind about it. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is already covered with Rawat "left his more ascetic life behind and does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Local and national newspapers have covered many aspects of the subject. His residence has been a recurring issue. Many other topics are as well. Let's just summarize what's in the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Over reliance on newspaper sources is not a good thing, in particular were there are abundant scholarly sources on the subject. If there is a specific aspect that was covered in a newspaper and not covered in scholarly sources, we need to ask ourselves why, and make an assessment in a per case basis about the suitability for inclusion of that material. If there is agreement about adding a source, it needs to be done within the context of the rest of the article's text, and with respect to undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Over-reliance on any source or type of source, including scholarly articles, is not a good thing. Misplaced Pages policy clearly supports representing a broad variety of different viewpoints and reliable sources. Academic articles are not simply superior versions of newspaper and magazine articles; they have different focuses (foci?) and methods and cover different subjects. And scholarly articles have one major disadvantage -- they are far less accessible to Wiki editors and the general public who might want to verify the sources of a Misplaced Pages article, or simply look them up for more information. Msalt (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Msalt, without wishing to open a can of worms as to whether this site is a reliable site, whether it can be used as a convenience link or not etc., there seems to be a collection of related academic studies available here. Jayen466 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree Jossi. I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. The house issue highlights this approach. Dr Melton, a religious scholar, says Rawat moved into a house in Malibu in 1974. The LA Times adds the cost and describes it as a "mansion" and a "palatial walled estate". Melton's approach of supply the facts is suitable for an encyclopedia, the LA Times adds some gossip that is suitable for a tabloid. This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists to describe Rawat's life and work and still reached 60,000 bytes. Are we going to simply add more material from newspapers until we get to 100,000 bytes? Or, worse still, are peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists going to be removed to make way for material from newspapers?Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, Momento. There is no such a thing as a blanket agreement of types of sources, be these scholarly or from newspapers. When new sources are forthcoming editors will assess each one in the context of what is going to be used for, and work towards forming consensus in that regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus at WP:RSN appears to be that these two newspapers are reliable unless a specific case can be made for their unreliability. There's no need to assess them every time we use them unless we have some special information that calls their reliability into question. We had a situation above where I asked if the L.A. Times was reliable in a specific context and was unable to get an answer one way or the other. Rather than spending time arguing over the obvious let's just acknowlege that these are reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was more - why use the LA Times to say Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974 when Melton says it in a neutral, non-tabloid way. Same with Randi, why use a source that describes someone as "an overweight teenage guru"? If someone referred to Aretha Franklin as a "fat old singer" decent people would be outraged. Momento (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for an opinion on the use of the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times on WP:RSN and the overwhelming view there is that those are reliable sources, regardless of context, with a few exceptions (op-eds, etc). The L.A. Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat. There's no legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of the reporting. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and their use is deprecated. I'm sure that for theological issues covered by scholarly source are better, when available. I don't think we should remove sources, but rather add more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"The LA Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat"? It doesn't say that at all, it quotes "Los Angeles information director John Berzner". As for adding more sources, we've been down that route before with predictable results. This article was once 100,000 bytes long. Momento (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article starts, "The 16-year old Guru Maharaj Ji...has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday." Who do you suppose made the announcement? Mother Theresa? It appears to me to to have been made by Prem Rawat's spokespersons. Regardless of who made the announcement, the report on it is published in a reliable source. I'm sure we'll be able to keep this article a reasonable length while still including all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it was made by a spokesperson. As we have additional information from a scholar about that house, we ought to use it and assess if there is additional info provided by the LAT that is suitable/encyclopedic. If the latter, and if there are competing viewpoints (scholar vs newspaper) we ought to note that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What's our definition of "encyclopedic"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A source that is peer reviewed and written by an expert in the field would be a good start. Not written by someone who uses phrases like "juvenile judge".Momento (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you may not have much experience with other articles on Misplaced Pages, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the contents of this encyclopedia are not referenced from peer reviewed works written by experts in their field. I have no idea what the "juvenile judge" reference concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, you may not have much experience with BLP policy but it says - "Be very firm about the use of high quality reference". And WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available".Momento (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, your refusal to consider the two leading newspapers in the U.S. to be reliable sources is unhelpful. Deleting material sourced from the L.A Times calling it "extremely poorly sourced" gives appearance of acting without regard to normal standards in order to push a POV. No one responding at WP:RSN thinks that it is an in adequate source, and no one here agrees with you. You are acting against consensus and that is disruptive. Please get with the program and stop deleting properly sourced information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
All the guidance we need on this is available at WP:SOURCES. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That policy tells us that articles should use "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and includes "mainstream newspapers" among the "most reliable sources". It's a no-brainer that the L.A. Times and New York Times qualify. If Momento keeps insisting that they are not, and keeps deleting material from them as being "poorly sourced", then he is acting disruptively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) The answer to that question (as well as the answer to the question of "what is suitable"), depends on context, overall length of article, and other factors. I would argue that discussion will be needed for specific cases, when these two aspects are not necessarily obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to my discussion with Rumiton and VivK above. I have posted a response from a current follower of Prem Rawat (who was at the Alexander Palace meeting referred to above) called Tim Hain here: Letter from Tim Hain in response to VivK (and Ruminton) I thought it best to put it on my Talk Page rather than in here.PatW (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept all of the versions of whatever happened as sincere personal recollections. For a time in my job in the military I did accident investigations and came upon this stuff almost daily, people astonished and outraged that their sincere description of something they witnessed was being contradicted by a colleague. It is just the way memory works, and it is why we need neutral sources to get things in perspective. There probably are none for this and many other occurrences, so we are going to need a lot of applied effort to push this article into neutral territory. If some editors continue to try to "win" by making emotional ambit claims and vilifying the opposition their efforts are not going to be helpful. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DLM/EV Articles of Incorporation

For anyone interested, I've posted on my talk page the relevant extracts from the DLM/EV Articles of incorporation which prove that DLM/EV has always had, and continues to have, a religious purpose.--John Brauns (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that information is already available at the Elan Vital and the Divine Light Mission articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Jayen466 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Roots and Lineage.

Is there any reason why Prem Rawat's self-proclaimed lineage might not be easily discovered here in an appropriate place? Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat) Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)' states the following interesting information for those who maybe are curious to know what the actual Indian roots of Prem Rawat's teachings are. (So as they can make their own minds up about how far removed he has become from those teachings).

Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:
Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)

The article at present provides no lead as to the roots of his teachings whatsoever. Isn't that a glaring omission? - only a link to this: "In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion. Disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization essential to his future role as teacher." PatW (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not parampura, but Parampara. There are articles about these teachers at Advait Mat. That material was previously in the article, and could be re-added if it editors find that to be necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No true PatW. If you follow the link provided in Teachings section, you'll find what you're looking for.Momento (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere a link to this information. I've looked. Please be clear exactly where I can read that 'Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own' ( I think it's important that on this occasion Prem Rawat's personal claims are reported) and the list I quoted above. I don't even see this information on the Teachings page. Maybe I've missed it.PatW (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It was there last week, editor Armeisen removed it.Momento (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat for someone who as you claim was a dedicated student for many years you surely recall the concept of the importance of a living teacher. Parampara is difficult to establish. Several scholars believe that Prem Rawat is from the Sant Mat or Rhada Soami tradition. Greaves is of the opinion that he is connected to the Advait Mat and Sant tradition.Although both emphasize the necessity of a living teacher. Its interesting that the latter have always appeared to break the conventional mold and create their own path after succession. Personally I have not seen enough evidence from either viewpoint to have a definitive answer to this. One thing I think we can be sure is that a very young Prem received it from his father. Much more of what we can add to this article needs to be verifiable. Have you any scholarly sources regards any of this that could be added?Balius (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ron Geaves is a scholarly source albeit controversial and a follower of Prem Rawat of course. However on the matter of lineage his research is as good as any except he is very keen to associate Rawat with certain forks of the lineage (as is Prem Rawat himself). I don't think that further 'verifiability' is necessary since the subject himself (Prem Rawat) published the above on his own website and Geaves has confirmed that in a publication. It's extremely typical of 'offshoots' of movements to believe and proclaim they are the exclusive 'legitimate' inheritors of the title and favour certain lineage paths. Scholars unanimously agree on this. In fact in the Advait Mat movement there plainly was (if you read their books and look at the birth and death days of the Gurus ) plenty of movement for Satgurus to coexist ie there were sometimes more than one. Also they interestingly don't all stress the importance of one living teacher and some of the Gurus seem to be perceived as sort of lesser or greater 'incarnations' if that makes sense. It's also clear that Gurus are hsitorically fond of associating themselves with past highly respected masters although they might almost as well find association with crooked ones! (since the actual links are so tenuous and wishful thinking). My own reading and investigation (out of personal curiosity) have led me to agree that Shri Hans (clearly Rawat's father and Guru) was initiated most likely by Swarupanand of Advait Mat (not Radhasoami's Swarupanand). However the Param Hans Advait Mat 'history book' disputes that he was the chosen successor suggesting that Swarupanand passed the guru mantle on to one Vairaganand. There are followers of this line active today. I've had correspondence with Mark Jurgensmeyers understudy David Lane who has written extensively on Sant Mat and Radhasaomi and Advait Mat. In his research with Jurgensmeyer (for the book Radhasoami Reality) he apparently met and spoke with various old Indian people who remembered Shri Hans. He is quite clear about the unreliability of information in India but said that he was told that Shi Hans had also been initiated by Sawan Singh of Radhasoami (prior to meeting Swarupanand of Advait mat) and was also booted out of ashrams for some perceived impropriety with women! That was most likely more to do with his more liberal attitude to women compared to the stricter general views that would have prevailed. Another situation that is not really clear in this article is the typical situation repeated in Prem Rawat's 'succession' where there is dispute over who is the rightful inheritor of the Guru title. Is it clear for example that his own brother (Satpal) has started his own 'offshoot' movement essentially claiming he is the rightful successor to the Guru title. Rawat may be the only valid living master in some people's views but there is an interesting pattern that certainly offers some prosaic explanations and food for thought about these beliefs. As such I think an encyclopedia should make such information available so that people can make up their own minds about how plausible the concept of these 'living masters' is.PatW (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also read the Advait Mat book. Rather than the Advait Mat book disputing Hans as the chosen successor there is no mention of him at all. Its interesting to note that Vairaganand soon became incapacitated and had a short tenure as head of the Math. David Lane's story about Shri Hans being kicked out of Rhadasoami cannot be verified. I think you find that David Lane has written extensively on Rhadasoami and Sant Mat. Advait Mat is not his area of expertise. The philosophy surrounding them are very different. This could be a subject for another Wiki article I don't know if it adds greatly to this articleBalius (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No you're right, I also couldn't find any mention of Shri Hans which may be a measure of their desire to dissociate from him. Who knows? It could be because Swarup did only appoint Vairaganand. Unlike followers of both offshoots I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other. David Lane knows quite a bit about Advait Mat but has not written much you're right. My impressions are that there a lot of similarities between all these groups. I've also read enough to conclude that these myriad religious groups and their petty Lords are not something I need to take remotely seriously. However they are worthy of some brief acknowledgement as the movements that spawned Prem Rawat, Ekankar, and a bunch of other Guru movements which bore me to death now frankly. I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article and belongs elsewhere. However I think that Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site are an important indicator to the reader that Rawat does acknowledge very particular roots that he feels possibly stretch back till 1780. that's it really.PatW (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • These lineages are all within Sikh tradition, right? (correct me if I'm wrong). The only mention of a relation to Sikh tradition is currently in footnote 88 (Melton - the Sikh tradition is also at least mentioned in the sources listed in footnote 92 an 96). So, I suppose mentioning the Sikh tradition as Prem Rawat's background is something worth mentioning in the body of the article text, probably in the Prem Rawat#Childhood section. Any thoughts?
  • Re. "Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site": is this still currently on a Prem Rawat website? I mean, I'm in doubt whether this is notable enough to mention in the Prem Rawat article when the self-published source itself would no longer be existing (when it could be included per WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves if not contentious etc - but it appears to be contentious), and if the only still available copies of such self-published content are trivial web-copies published by organisations like webarchive that have no other reliability claims as re-publisher than that they once found that content on the web. Please provide a link if still on a Rawat-related website, and we take it from there.

I've also cut out the unnecessary dramatics of the title of this talk page section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What Rawat said on his site is not controversial. In fact I was not suggesting to use that defunct site or another internet site. Fact is that scholar Ron Geaves, who is used liberally throughout the article already, published an academic paper in 2006 with what I reported above (in italics) written verbatim. I have his paper in my hand. What controversy are you talking about? There is none. And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently. Are you suggesting that because Rawat no longer expresses that belief anywhere that is paramount to a denial or that means he's changed his mind about his roots? And that it is contentious as a result? If so you might as well say that because Rawat has changed his teachings we shouldn't mention his former teachings. PatW (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or do you think that Ron Geaves (being a follower himself) is so controversial that we shouldn't use him? Again if so we have to decide whether all the other entries in the article that refer to his papers are controversial. What's the consensus?PatW (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Pat, you're making a mess, and apparently don't read comments by others:
You write "I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other", well, if it's a matter of "speculation", then it's contentious.
You also write "And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently." - Since Melton says it belongs to Sikh tradition, and you seem to indicate someone else suggests it doesn't (but do you have any source for that?), then, of course, it is "contentious". In such case we don't use the self-published source.
Re. "Are you suggesting that ", well no, I didn't suggest any of the sort. I said: probably the lineage info lacks notability for the Prem Rawat article. And you seemed to agree to that: "I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article". So why create mess and suggest difference of opinion for an aspect where there is none? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but I've absolutely read all the comments. What I think are speculative are the long dead Gurus claims about their lineage. I'm not suggesting we go into my speculations. However Rawat himself apparently believes in this stuff so why shouldn't we report his speculation which is perfectly well supported by Geaves? Rawats belief that he is a Satguru is arguably contentious and arguably speculative but we report that here don't we? Now if you'd read Armeseins comments to me above you would know that he drew into question my natural conclusion (which you apparently share) that the movements were broadly Sikh. He said: Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I wrote back: No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. In short I looked into this a bit further and found that the Sikh thing is a little tenuous. OK? And you also misread me completely about what I actually distinguished as being notable to include on this matter here. That is - not a load of blather about lineage from unreliable, contentious sources, or Sikhs, but a succinct reference to Prem Rawat's uncontested belief about his roots as in that list he gives us. That is palpably interesting to anyone wanting to know what line of illustrious gurus he thinks he descends from. Whether he's right or not, or scholars are arguing about it is immaterial. Yes? Please understand that I am not in the least bit trying to make a mess.PatW (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
More confusion, and mixing of topics. Armeisen didn't refer to lineage, nor background of where Prem Rawat grew up. He referred to practice of the adherents of Prem Rawat (and probably Prem Rawat's own attitude too). Melton (et. al.) say that the related movements were Westernised (e.g. " one Sant Mat group which had separated itself from the tradition in India enjoyed great success in the West in the 1970s as the Divine Light Mission " INTRODUCTION: SIKH/SANT MAT GROUPS, my bolding). No contradiction with Armeisen's comments on the practices in the movements. Melton also says "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji." (which is in the footnote linked to above). This is completely unrelated to whether or not any Sikhism survived in the Western DLM/Elan Vital/... movements many years after Hans Maharaj Ji died.
And *please give the actual reference to where Prem Rawat says what*... if it's no longer available as a reliable source, we're not going to pretend it is. We're not going to say "according to Prem Rawat" unless the source is either verifiably Prem Rawat, or is a reliable source claiming that it is Prem Rawat's opinion (indirect evidence as in "a source under Rawat's control" is not going to push us to OR in claiming "Geaves said it, thus this is what Rawat said"). Even when the source is Prem Rawat himself without intermediary, and the source is still available, Misplaced Pages is not going to publish it if it's contentious, if we're following our own rules. So, please get informed about the rules, in this case WP:V. Even if Geaves said it (whether or not attributing it to Rawat), and he's a reliable source, we'd still need to be sure it's notable: probably not, as reliable source Melton says "... had separated itself from the tradition in India" - in that case mentioning the Sikh/... traditions Rawat's movements had separated from is probably enough, without going in to the details of their presumed, but not so very relevant, lineage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sikh tradition? Francis, you may want to read Sant Mat and Sikhism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I read Melton, see quotes above, thank you. Whether or not Melton is the ultimate source on this (seeing Sant Mat as a tradition related to Sikhism) I don't know, but in general I read Melton as I would read any RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There are historical connections between Sant Mat and Sikhism, Francis. Guru Nanak and others in the Sikh parampara, are shared by Sant Mat, but that is where all connections start and end. Do you think that is needed to have an explanation of Sant Mat and Sikhims in this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sikhism and Sant Mat have been associated with each other for a number of different reasons. These include their common location and period of origin. Melton, Gordon J. (Ed.) Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, p.1129 ISBN 1576077616. (both evolved in the Punjab region of India and in the same period) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

Why is there no mention in this article about these allegations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No allegations of abuse have ever been made about the subject of this article. Beware of guilt by association. Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The accused Indian gent was a prominent and active Mahatma (Great Soul) of Prem Rawat, empowered by him to impart Rawat's knowledge all over the world. This mahatma abused Rawat's trust and allegedly sexually abused some kids at some sort of school for followers children. There is no mention of it here because as Ruminton says Rawat himself was not found responsible or guilty in any way. Rawat has however received criticism from ex-premies and the abused children themselves for the way he dealt with the matter. Ruminton warns that you should be wary that your questioning the matter here is paramount to suggesting Rawat himself is guilty. I beg to disagree.PatW (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW (talk · contribs), has this incident been written about anywhere in WP:RS/WP:V sources? Cirt (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand there were some newspaper (for clarity: might be rather tabloid) stories about this (for clarity: about a presumed *follower* of Prem Rawat, and as Pat said, *not* implicating the subject of the Prem Rawat article). But I agree to both Rumiton and Pat, this has no place in the article on Prem Rawat. We're not reporting on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in the article on Jesus Christ either, and these scandals were far more notable and extended than the news paper reporting on the allegedly offending follower of Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no newspaper stories about this. This section needs to be refactored per WP:BLP, or at least the section tile changed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear..I am not sure a) whether there are legitimate sources b) whether criticisms about the way Rawat handled the matter should be included in a 'criticism' section. I am too uninformed to argue about this- so I won't.PatW (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope my clarifications inserted above helped. If I'm still wrong I'm open to further correction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Schnabel, Tussen stigma en charisma ("Between stigma and charisma"), 1982. Ch. IV, p. 99:
      de intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji.   the intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji.
  2. Cite error: The named reference Kent2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975
  4. ^ Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8"
  5. Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982
    "Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission—Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands. As Jim Jones convincingly demonstrated, the health of a cult group can depend on the stability of the leader.
    Mishler and Hand revealed aspects of life inside the mission that frightened the Deitzes. In addition to his ulcer, the Perfect Master who held the secret to peace and spiritual happiness 'had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol,' Mishler said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979."
  6. Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook pp.144-5 "However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner , the former president of the Mission who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."
  7. Palmer & Keller, Religions of the World, pp.95.
  8. Palmer & Keller, Religions of the World, pp.95.
  9. Annual report TPRF(retrieved Jan 2006)
  10. Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. pp.14. Entry: Divine Light Mission
  11. The "Sant" term is derived from the Sanskrit sat (सद) (truth, reality) has overlapping usages, its root meaning being "one who knows the truth" or "one who has experienced Ultimate Reality". It differs from the false cognate "Saint" as it is often translated. The term Sant has taken on the more general ethical meaning of "good person", but is assigned specifically to the poet-sants of medieval India. Schomer, Karine, The Sant Tradition in Perspective, in Sant Mat: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India in Schomer K. and McLeod W.H. (Eds.), pp.22-3, ISBN 0-9612208-0-5 According to Rigopoulos, (page 404) the word Sant is generally used for the bhakti saint poets of the Marathi and Hindi speaking areas.
  12. Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis
  13. Cite error: The named reference Mangalwadi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. Cagan, A. Peace is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat. Mighty River Press -ISBN -10: 0-9788694-9-4
  15. Hadden, Religions of the World, pp.428"The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher ." 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you...'
Categories: