Misplaced Pages

• Are you suggesting that, by analogy, because the Charles V didn't establish the Holy Roman Empire it's natural for a biographer to avoid mentioning it? When you say Rawat "parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM" - how did that happen? Are you saying he had no involvement with the hirings and firings of DLM executives? Are you denying that he wrote a letter on DLM stationary addressed to all premies? Why would he do so if he had no involvement in it? Are you denying that he attended meetings at the DLM HQ, or that his home in Malibu was the called DLM HQ for a time? Note that the book doesn't mention the EV either. Are you saying he had nothing to do with the change in name or organizational structure? That he was just a bystander to all of the organizational events between his designation as leader of the DLM and some time in the 21st century? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • She does mention the org, that it existed, who ran it, etc., but does not mention the name. So that would be like a book on Charles V, the man, referring to his empire, and to his ministers, but not to the "Holy Roman Empire." If it gives me insight into the man, I would still read it. All the other things that you are wondering whether I am saying them I am not saying, and I frankly marvel why you would think I might, because they are completely absurd suggestions. Just bear in mind that Rawat was obviously unhappy with the DLM, he had no input in how it started, because he was too young, then he tried to take it over and alter it, and then he dismantled it. If you haven't read Cagan, it might help to get hold of a copy. Some of its content may be useful to editors, regardless of POV. Jayen466 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What "org" does she mention? If Rawat dismantled the DLM what was established in its place, and by whom? As for the book, I've read it before and I have a copy in my possession now. Please feel free to quote any pages in which she mentioned the DLM or the EV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Too late over here to go through the book now, but see page references given in the book's index for Mishler, Dettmers, Houston/Millennium etc. Or search for Cagan Frieden in amazon.de and use the Search Inside function to look for the word "organisation". At a quick glance, she mentions several orgs founded by his dad, as well as orgs in the US, UK, Scandinavia, South America and Australia. Jayen466 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Without any entries in the index it's hard to find. The first one I can find is on page 185. It mentions the Paris Peace Accords, which were signed in January 1973. Then it goes on to say:
  • But there were no peace accords within Maharaji's family, and antagonism s were building within the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours, now led by Bob Mishler.
• That's just plain weird. Does anyone think that the proper description of the DLM is an organization set up to finance and manage tours? That all of the scholars who've called it a new religious movement, a sect, a cult, etc, were all wrong - it was really a travel agency? And what does "now led by Bob Mishler" mean? Who was there before Mishler? How and when was it founded? And what of the U.K. DLM? It doesn't even get a backhanded mention as 'the organization' - it's just doesn't even exist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cagan refers generally to "organizations" in many chapters in the book. For example on Page 61 -63 describes an organization set up by Hans Ji Maharaj devotees as being registered in Patna, but she does not mention the name. That may be weird to you, but it seems that Cagan did not see the need to describe its name, maybe as to make a distinction between the message of father and son, and the organizations that were set up on their behalf. The only exception is The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is described along the lines that "he created The Prem Rawat Foundation". Not "weird", actually maybe to make a point. A writer's license. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and how did the DLM manage to go out of business and the EV originate? That just happened with no input from Rawat? Writers of fiction can write whatever they like but we don't use those as sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two very good reasons not to name the organizations that supported Rawat. One is that DLM India and DLM UK were never under Rawat's control and were antagonistic towards him. And two, there were many organizations that supported Rawat, for example in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.Momento (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is reality. Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good for a laugh. Unfortunately, "reality" isn't an acceptable source for Misplaced Pages biographies of living persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to follow the conversation. We're not talking what an amateur Misplaced Pages editor has access to but what a real author has access to. Cagan is not limited to already published material, Cagan can talk to dozens of eye witnesses. She would very quickly establish facts that have never been published. The reality is that there have been numerous organizations that have helped Rawat that were not called DLM. Cagan would know this, even if you don't.Momento (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anyone here who thinks that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about these descriptions from Foss and Larkin that are roundly criticized by Kemeny. They described DLM as "... a highly incongruent, even self-contradictory organization" and "... the ultimate parody of bureaucracy in the wider society" (159) other than to define it as "... a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism .. ." and to argue that the main function of the staff was to monitor its own activities (159)".Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, those don't seem anything like Cagan's description. If you want to discuss Foss & Larkin let's start a separate thread. Again, getting back to Cagan, does anything think that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, this is sounding like a trick question, but uhm,.. could the source be reality? (I know, I know, I know, but I just couldn't resist, I'm already sorry :) ) -- Maelefique 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one think it is a correct and factual description, and I am amazed that it should be contentious. Clearly, Rawat travelled a lot, and still does. He travelled with a large entourage, and from continent to continent. That costs money, especially when private planes are bought and maintained to facilitate that incessant travel, when the organisation buys or rents – sometimes at great expense – venues for speaking engagements in various continents, when it books whole floors of hotels to accommodate the speaker and his entourage, etc. In fact I would think it very strange if anyone asserted that the financing and managing of festivals etc. all over the world wasn't the main business function of organisations such as the DLM, Raj Vidya Kendra etc. We have ample sources – including Cagan, by the way – saying that the DLM was in serious debt after Millennium. They were in debt because they financed and managed that particular event, were they not?

Having said that, I would not advocate that Misplaced Pages should describe DLM as an "organization set up to finance and manage Prem Rawat's speaking tours", period, to the exclusion of any other attested descriptions in reliable sources. But I think it is a valid and factual description of something the DLM did. And btw, even I knew that Rawat's organizations have had different names in different countries, and that neither the DLM nor the EV moniker is or was universal. I am sure sources can be provided, but they won't come from the LA Times. I don't think the U.S. media were or are much interested in what Rawat was or is up to in South America, Africa or East Asia. --Jayen466 09:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, your opinions are always welcome and respected. There's no doubt that one of the many roles the DLM fulfilled was that of arranging his tours. Likwise, the Roman Catholic Church arranged the tours of John Paul II. Would anything think of describing the RCC, in a biography of JPII, only as "an organization that arranged his tours"? It is true but it is so insufficeint as to be essentially false. The topic here is the reliability of Cagan. Cagan chooses to not mention any branch of the Divine Light Mission (Indian, U.S., U.K., Swiss, etc.) and also foregoes any mention of the Elan Vital. To the extent that she refers to the DLM at all she does so in a strange manner that Jayen wouldn't even want to see repeated in Misplaced Pages. I'll mention again the close association between the subject and the DLM/EV described in virtually every source we have except for Cagan. It's anomolous when one source (commissioned and published under dubious circumstances) presents a radically different picture from the sources of unquestioned reliability. Cagan doesn't mention financing festivals. She doesn't mention regulating ashrams. She doesn't mention the WATS lines, the TELEXES, the IBM computer, or the $1 million budget. We all acknowledge that scholars are the best sources, followed by journalists. Cagan, with these bizarre omissions and descriptions, isn't even in the same spectrum. She's an expert on cosmetic application, not Indian spiritual movements or their leaders. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the major defining difference between Rawat and DLM, and the Pope and the RCC is that without Rawat there is no DLM whereas without the RCC there is no Pope. Apart from that "bizarre omission" you almost made an analogy.Momento (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just plain wrong. The DLM predated Rawat. Upon the death of the father it wasn't obvious or automatic that the youngest son would succeed to the role of guru and leader. In fact, the DLM has continued in a more similar form under Prem Rawat's eldest brother who may have the larger following. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, you're preaching to the converted. I didn't say DLM "predated" Rawat, I said " without Rawat there is no DLM". And that, of course, is absolutely true, there hasn't been a DLM without a Rawat. A Rawat started DLM and a Rawat ended it. Popes can't do that and that is why a pope will always be subservient to the RCC, whereas Sant style gurus find organizations a hindrance and happily destroy them.Momento (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And there hasn't been an HRE emperor without a Bourbon or Hohenzollern. They're family businesses. So say many sources, except for Cagan. And that's the core of the problem. Cagan has an ideosyncratic view of the verifiable facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

She is not an expert, but she had journalistic access to various sources close to the subject, which adds value. I've got to do some work now and will come back to this later, but note that her book includes many mentions of the ashrams set up to further Rawat's teachings. I am not arguing that she should be considered more reliable than a quality newspaper where her account and that in the paper contradict each other. Just that she is one more source worth looking at. Jayen466 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

She had access, though not to her subject. I don't know what "journalistic" would mean in this context. She didn't seem to make any effort to interview those with contrasting opinions, as journalists typically do. The book has worth (even toilet paper has worth), only it's so low that it is not worth using much for Misplaced Pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you bother to speak to people with contrasting opinions when you can read their opinions from a safe distance. Cagan's book, Peace is Possible, the life and message of Prem Rawat, is an excellent source. She is a successful biographer and it's clear she talked to people who have been very close to Rawat. It provides a wealth of information not covered by popular media and relgious scholars.Momento (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs provide wealths of viewpoints too but they're not reliable sources either. Cagan's PIP omits any direct discussion about the most important organizations in the subject's life. To the extent it mentions them it does so in a strange and distorted way. Due to those and other weird choices by the author the book is not a reliable source except for itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the U.S. the ashrams were Divine Light Mission ashrams under the control of Prem Rawat, DLM and its agents, including mahatmas, initiators, instructors, or anyone else in a position of authority in DLM/EV. Cagan's neglect to mention the name of the organization DLM/EV is very poor authorship of non-fiction. Cagan's omission of the name of the NRM, DLM/EV is tantamount to someone writing a biography of Sun Myung Moon and omitting the name of the Unification Church, L. Ron Hubbard, and leaving out the Church of Scientology, Maharishi and leaving out TM Organization, and Sathya Sai Baba and leaving out Sathya Sai Organization. The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect. Read the articles of incorporation. It's designated as a church in the U.S first as DLM, now named EV. Besides, AITTA (operated by Joe Anctil, DLM's spokesperson, first located in Denver, and later situated right next door to the Miami Beach, FL DLM headquarters) was the travel agency that facilitated travel for this NRM. Not DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect. About as wrong and incorrect as asserting that that is what I said above. ;-) I believe though that the events where Rawat spoke were very major occasions for premies, and that their preparation and organisation, as well as advance publication, PR and subsequent DLM-internal reporting on them, constituted a major part of what the DLM organisation did. If I'm wrong there, do tell me. Jayen466 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, the DLM organized his tours. But it also organized festivals, ran ashrams, produced movies, published magazines, employed 250 at its HQ (50 of whom were on its public relations team), and so on. Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM this way? I doubt it and that's one reason why I say this is a fringe source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Rawat spoke at the festivals; the festivals were based around his appearances, which were their high point. The magazines reported his speeches, the PR team, again, publicised his speaking and teaching. Yes, they also ran ashrams, which Cagan mentions many times. Jayen466 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Jayen, you're absolutely correct but the events and travel were only a part of it. DLM/EV is the NRM's name of which Prem Rawat has been a leader since he came to the U.S. That's why the omission of its name in a biography of Prem Rawat demonstrates what an incredible hack job was done by Cagan. It's inexcusable to call it a well-researched, exhaustive biography of an NRM leader and then omit the NRM's name. The majority of people don't know who Prem Rawat or "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "Maharaji" is. Most people have never heard of him or or of DLM/EV. Rawat (and his many a/k/a's) is not a household name nor is he a celebrity, that's why the book is so terribly misleading to the casual reader. Sure, as editors of these Wiki articles, we know what orgs. she means, but not so with any casual reader of her book. Btw, if memory serves, the date Cagan gets wrong in the book is the date of the December 19, 1976 Atlantic City, New Jersey program. She cites it as December 20th. That's why I said it was minor, but still, it's factual error. Previous discussion about it is somewhere in the archives, but I don't have time to search for it right now. Cheers. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• You said in your earlier post (12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC), Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_24#Is_Cagan.27s_book_considered_a_reliable_source.3F) that "if Cagan lists the Atlantic City program as December 20, 1976, then she's mistaken. The program occurred on December 19, 1976, according to quotes in The Living Master and other sources. December 20, 1976 is the day Rawat held the Coordinator's Conference in Atlantic City." Cagan on page 216 merely says that on Dec 20 1976, Maharaji reiterated some priorities to his disciples, and added "that he could provide guidance and inspiration to people and that the organization had to leave him free to do so". The nature of his comments is consistent with the occasion having been the coordinator's meeting which you say took place on the date Cagan gives (20 Dec). Jayen466 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• It may be that Cagan read part of one of Geaves' papers on Rawat and got confused. He says of the Elan Vital:
  • There was no membership, but a small number of paid and unpaid volunteers who looked after organisational matters such as Prem Rawat's tours, ftnance, legal affairs, public relations, and communication.
• Confusing the Divine Light Missin with the Elan Vital is a major error, but at least it makes more sense than describing the DLM as a travel agency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• The book does not pretend to be a consummate history of the movements Rawat established. Its focus is more personal, describing much of his family life and origins, intimate episodes of his non-public life, etc. Accordingly, the movements are covered more from the point of view of how they impacted on him personally. For example, while the movement names in the various countries aren't mentioned, in a number of cases the name of the national organisation's main coordinator is given. There is even the occasional self-critical look back at his own youth from Rawat.

• As promised, I've had a look at what references to the various orgs there are in the book. This is, I believe, a pretty complete summary:

• p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
• p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
• p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
• p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
• p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
• p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
• p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
• p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
• p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
• p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
• p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
• p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
• p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
• p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
• p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
• p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
• p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
• p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
• p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
• p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."

• Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.
• So after another "88KB of handwringing", and having looked at the book some more, I suggest we treat Cagan more or less as a self-published source, to be used with circumspection: fine to use where not unduly self-serving, with relevance to notability of any statements cited to the book to be established by mentions in a second source. I think that will still leave us enough to discuss and fight over. :-) --Jayen466 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that research, that's awsesome. Before we draw a conclusion let's take a little time to review what you've compiled. It may be next week before I can sit down and see what Cagan says about the "organization(s)". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I finally looked up the Wiki definition of "self published" and was lead to this - A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense. Do we have any evidence that Cagan paid for the printing? If she didn't, how can the book be "self published"?Momento (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was paid for tbe the followers of the subject. That's essentially self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Essentially self published" isn't good enough. If Cagan didn't pay for it to be published, it isn't self published.Momento (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one opinion. An alternative is that we don't allow it at all becuase it's so erroneous, incomplete and biased. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the opinion of Misplaced Pages. And your other arguments have already been eliminated - no errors have been presented, all other accepted sources are incomplete and numerous biased sources have been accepted. This argument is over.Momento (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No errors? It is incorrect to describe the DLM is "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours". It is incorrect to view the DLM as so unimportant to the life of Prem Rawat that it doesn't merit mentioning by name. We're still finding more mistakes. The author has no reputation for quality writing and the publisher has no reputation whatsoever. At best we might use it in limited ways like we'd use a self-published source, but that's iffy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to end this discussion

Every reason to limit the use of Peace is Possible, the biography of Prem Rawat by Andrea Cagan has been exhausted. According to Wiki it is not self published. Unless anyone can come up with something new and substantial, we should move on. It is no more biased, erroneous or incomplete than the majority of sources use in this article. Momento (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento, if a person or organisation pays a writer to write a biography, and then publishes that biography using a publishing house created for that purpose then the biography is clearly self-published. That is what has happened in this case. I agree it is time to end this discussion - Peace is Possible is without doubt self-published. --John Brauns (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just keep with the Misplaced Pages definition of self published not yours.Momento (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's. - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, ..... are largely not acceptable." --John Brauns (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a website," however, not all websites continuously operate for ten solid years as is the case with Ex-Premie.org. One cannot propose to end a discussion when no concensus has yet been reached on the subject. Therefore, I propose that this discussion continue until such a time as concensus has been reached. The Cagan book is not a reliable source for all the reasons listed in the discussions here. Let's keep on talkin'. That's the whole purpose of this mediation: to argue the issues until they're settled. It would be more civil an polite if Rawat adherents would discontinue their practice of ending discussion thusly.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Momento might be right, it seems on the face of it, that we have arrived at a consensus, which is that we cannot arrive at a consensus that Cagan is an acceptable source. I think we would all agree on that. Therefore, Cagan should not be used, and to quote Momento again, let's move on. -- Maelefique 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Based on what you're saying is that using Cagan for any past, current, or future proposals can't be allowable, except on very basic things, which means material in the existing article using Cagan as a source must be removed and re-argued. That's based on my understanding of what you're saying.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that was horrible writing on my part. I don't think any concensus has been reached, therefore, Cagan cannot be used in the article for any purpose, since there are minor errors and major omissions in her book.  ??? Sylviecyn (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If we regard the book as self-published we might be able to use parts of it. If we don't regard it as self-published then there's little reason to use any of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• The attempt to validate PIP in terms of additional 'publishers' is ridiculous, not only are the works involved mere word for word translations but at least two of the touted entities are linked to Rawat supporting entities. Alles Cultur lists www.soulchill.com , www.woptv.de and www.elanvital.org as partners and the claimed publisher Editorial Dilema is merely a reseller - the publisher of the Portuegese translation is Bajo el Alma . I find it very difficult to believe that Jossi was not aware of these connections and if he wasn't it rather suggests a serious lack of awareness of the subject - either way, and even with assuming good faith, his arguments are seriously undermined by the omission to detail the Rawat links when arguing for validation through additional publisher editions.

I would also add that the Carrie Andrews issue, while revealing yet another link to Prem Rawat (why was the not for profit TPRF paying CA to fact check a privately published book ? And was that not somewhat unfortunate as the 'for profit' publisher operates from a business address shared by a Director of TPRF ?)does not help with the question of fundamental accuracy of Cagan's work. A fact checker does not carry out primary research, but merely assesses the accuracy of the content as provided, partial content will only be partially accurate even after the fact checker has done their work.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

• • Regarding emancipation, the most specific source I can find says:
    • The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune
  • I don't see any that say he was made an "Emancipated Minor", just that he was given permission to marry by a judge in lieu of permission from his parents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Read Cagan. I have provided a quotation from the book in main article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (btw, Emancipated_minor#Emancipation in the United States of America ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that just does more to impeach Cagan as a reliable source. Why would he need permission to marry in May if he'd been made an emancipated minor in April? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion migrated to Talk:Prem Rawat#Emancipated minor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, the failure to mention the DLM or EV in a book-length biography of the subject makes it virtually a fringe source. We have at least a hundred reliable sources about the subject - how many of those choose "not to mention these organizations"? As I said before, it'd be like a biographer of John D. Rockefeller choosing not to mention Standard Oil, or a biographer of Charles V choosing not to mention the Holy Roman Empire. If she had bothered to explain her "choice" it might be explicable, but she didn't and it's inexplicable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I do not understand why you keep making the same argument. Cagan may have had a reason, and we can speculate about it as much as we want, and yet that speculation is just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, she may have had a reason or not. All we can judge is the effect of here "choice", which is a bizarrely-incomplete biography that fails to menion his father's organization or the organizatons that he led and that paid his bills for decades. While Cagan is free to make her coices, we have to make ours. It's impossible to see how a book can be considered an acceptable, 3rd-party source when the author makes weird choices like that. See the critical reception of Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, an authorized biography whose author made a similarly weird choice (though at least he explained it). Do we use that book as a source for the life of Reagan? Nope, even though it was the result of interviews with Reagan and was published by a major publisher. Weird choices have their consequences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weird, maybe for you. You did not write the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And apparently not weird for you, since some of your first edits to this encyclopedia were to delete any mention of the DLM from the Prem Rawat biography. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages is not edited exclusively by people who make such weird decisions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • WP is a learning process. I think knowing what they do now, a fair number of editors would consider their earliest edits here cringeworthy. Jayen466 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. But these particular edits exhibit the same strange bias as Cagan does in her book, which is the discussion here. Jossi says that omission of the DLM isn't weird, but we have to take that personal opinion in the context of his repeated deletions of any mention of the DLM from the Misplaced Pages biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That's Jossi's problem, not mine. And apart from that, it seems Jossi has long overcome it, since I don't recall him arguing in recent or even not-so-recent history that DLM/EV references should be removed. --Jayen466 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I never said it was your problem - I was responding to Jossi's assertion that omitting the DLM from a biography of Prem Rawat isn't weird. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It seems pretty clear Jossi hasn't overcome it, since he is now advocating the use of the same viewpoint, only promoted by someone else to the same end result. -- Maelefique 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Weird" is a very subjective word. I cannot see any reason why the name of the organisation should be deliberately omitted, nor any advantage to be gained from it. I would just call it imperfect editing, which is not an uncommon thing. It is still clear in the text which organisation is being referred to. This example is by no means bad enough to discredit the whole book. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Weird may be subjective to a point, but it applies in this case I think. One obvious reason to omit the name of the DLM/EV is to avoid any stigma that may or may not be attached to it, that's not imperfect editing that's biased POV editing. It is not clear from the text which organisation is being referred to, unless someone already has a previous knowledge of the DLM. Previous to working on these articles, I would not have known what organisation was being referred to. I had never heard of PR, DLM, EV, or the Millenium Event, etc. I think DLM/EV are inextricably wound to the story of PR's history, and there's really no valid reason to keep their names out of his biography, unless you want to skew towards a much more sympathetic viewpoint of PR. I could tell an interesting history of someone named Frank Biller, and how he helped thousands of people buy homes, and helped by lending money to people when others wouldn't, etc, but if I left out the part where he was vice-president of the Eron Mortgage Corporation, it's not really an accurate picture. (Eron Mortgage Corporation was shut down due to massive defrauding of investors, Biller went to jail for 3 years) -- Maelefique 16:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a rather poisonous comparison, Maelefique, and I must object to it. It could be taken as an attempt at guilt by association. The DLM has never, afaik, been convicted of any wrongdoing, and Elan Vital, its successor, certainly has not. If it were otherwise I could understand why this author might wish to conceal the connection with the subject, but as things stand I still must put it down to plain old sloppy editing. A literary offense, to be sure, but not a hanging one. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt be association" in this context, I'm not trying to say that the example and Prem Rawat's story have any details in common, but the omission of DLM/EV from a book that claims to be *the* biography of his life is certainly misleading, as it was in my example. If you'd prefer I'd substituted a different entity that had never been convicted of anything, how about the I.M.F.? Many people have a problem with that organization, and it would be wrong to write a bio about someone who ran it for many years, and never mention the I.M.F., at least imo. -- Maelefique 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I said you seemed to be trying to imply guilt by association because you mentioned an organisation that apparently defrauded people and compared it to DLM/EV, saying that the author might have been trying to "avoid stigma." There is no stigma if there is no wrongdoing. I think we agree that DLM/EV are extensively covered, just never mentioned by their given names. Not "wrong", just sloppy. Bad sub-editing, I would say, but not culpable. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a minor issue. The chief criteria for a reliable, 3rd-party source is that it have a responsible editing process. Even the best sources can still have typos. But the omission of the DLM/EV and of the "GMJ" name go beyond just overlooking something. That requires an active decision to omit the information, and then a decision to omit a discussion of that omission. To the extent that MightRiver had any editing process they didn't notice it or they agreed to or even required it. And since Cagan considers herself an editor as well, she may have handled that job herself aside from the proofreader. As for analogies, closer ones would be to a biography of Michael Jackson failing to name the Jackson 5, or to a biography of Shirley Temple omitting the name of the studio where she worked as a child (her 5 hit movies in 1934 are credited with keeping 20th Century Fox out of bankruptcy in the Great Depression). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• That IS a minor issue. And you are ignoring the arguments put up above and continuing to restate your own case. Please stop doing that if you are at all sincere about reaching a real consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Organization" citations

Let's use this section to investigate the references that Jayen found to "organizations". Copied from above:

• p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
• p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
• p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
• p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
• p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
• p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
• p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
• p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
• p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
• p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
• p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
• p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
• p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
• p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
• p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
• p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
• p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
• p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
• p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
• p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."
• Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.

The first entry is on pp.61-63. As with many other parts of the book, this material has no apparent source. Most of it is not discussed in any other source I'm aware of, except the old copies of DLM publications hoseted on another site. Those that I've read make no mention of any of the tensions discussed in PIP. One aspect that is mentioned in reliable sources is the fight between family members over control of the Indian branch. That conflict is covered further on later pages. However the description here concerns me. It says on p.63:

• Ironically, a little more than ten years after Shri Maharaji's first organizers sued him, the Indian branch of the organization turned against his son. As with his father, the son would be taken to court, but this time, the organizers weren't the only ones trying to sue him--his own family members wanted total control over organizational decisions and assets as they attempted to assert their authority over his work.

There are several problems here. 1) First is the name: Does any other source refer to the subject's father as "Shri Maharaji"? That appears to be an invention of Cagan, though she quotes "Sant Ji" using that name. 2) Second, it isn't clear which organization is being referred to since it is unnamed. We may guess it's the DLM, but that's just our own conjecture so while we can discuss it on talk pages we can't make that assertion in articles. 3) Third, it's my understanding from other sources that it was Prem Rawat who initiated the legal actions and that his brother countersued in response. This passage gives the opposite impression, making it appear that the family started the legal action. 4) Fourth, what "work" is being referred to? We've already established that Prem Rawat had little or no organizational control over the DLM while he was a minor, so whose work are we is Cagan talking about - Prem Rawat's or his father's? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See my earlier post 12:57, 13 July 2008 above. From that at least, it seems to be correct that BBJ sued and Maharaji countersued; witness the Maharaji quote given by the LA Times. "Shri Maharaji" seems fine to me, Indian usage is flowery and flexible.

Note that "-ji" is just a term of endearment that can be attached to any name; grammatically, it functions much like "mate" in Australian (and some British) English: "Dave mate, will you pass us the hammer?" It is certainly funny when even religious scholars like Bromley in Strange Gods seem to think that "Ji" is some sort of surname, referring to Maharaji as "Ji". ("Ji's movement had a fairly simple structure ..., p. 44). It's like saying, "Mate is a good plumber", because someone has called Dave "Dave mate, ...". If you talk to Indians in online forums, and they get to like you, they will quite readily append -ji to your name when they address you. ("Will-ji, you are completely right.") ;-) See -ji. --Jayen466 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawat has frequently used "Shri Maharaji" as an endearing, affectionate term when referring to his father. He also referred to his father as "Guru Maharaj Ji," but, when telling anecdotes about the father he used the more endearing one. It's odd that Cagan used the term in the book describing the litigation, because unless that's explained, a casual reader won't know that. Just more sloppiness on Cagan's part, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The book is written in an intimate style, so why should she not use Rawat's familiar term. --Jayen466 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an intimate term and certainly Cagan made that editorial choice, but unless Cagan provides a glossary to explain terms and/or Cast of Characters explaining the various names, the casual reader cannot know for sure who she's referring to: Prem Rawat, his brothers, or his father. Premies will certainly understand that the reference to "Shri Maharaji," means "Shri Hans," which leads me to think that the book was written for premies, by premies, for use in Rawat's promotion only, not for wider use. It's supposed to be non-fiction, with sources, references, citations, etc., not to leave the reader confused, which is actually the case here, because Will didn't know and had to bring the question. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As you read through the book and come to that para in context, it's clear enough for the reader who is meant. --Jayen466 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to that discussion, I have just noticed that on page 3 (!), Cagan says, "When Prem was born, his family consisted of his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Shri Maharaji); his mother; his stepmother; and his three older brothers: Sat Pal (Bal Bhagwan Ji), born in 1951; Mahi Pal (Bhole Ji), born in 1953; and Dharam Pal (Raja Ji), born in 1955." If we are assessing the book's reliability, we should first make sure that we have actually read it in its entirety, and give page refs for any demonstrable reliability issues. I'll devote a few evenings' bedtime reading to that, and suggest other editors do the same. --Jayen466 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I'd never seen "Shri Maharaji" in print, but if editors here have heard the subject use that name in speeches by the subject that's good enough for me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The work" refers to Rawat's spiritual work – bringing people "Knowledge". That's okay too. What worried me more was that Cagan's book is unashamedly based on personal recollections, without apparent crosschecking. That adds great colour and flavour in places, but hampers reliability. The paragraph on p. 281 about the Daily Californian articles is a good example. We discussed these at length a few months ago; if you read them, and then read Cagan's summary of the affair, the impression you get from Cagan leads you to expect to find something else in the DC's correction than what the Daily Californian actually said. --Jayen466 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that misrepresentations like that are worrisome. As the book is examined carefully more and more of these worrisome issues show up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding point 1: "Shri Maharaji" as a name for Prem Rawat's father, do we have any other source which uses that name for him? Like other details, it's a writer's choice if they want to make up names for the people in their books. But to put quote marks around it, implying that it is actually what someone said four decades ago, is a fresh interpretation of history (to put it nicely). While I agree with what you about hte use of "-ji", it's still a novel spelling or usage. Regarding point 3: I believe there are sources that give a different chain of events. I'll check, but my recollection is that "BBJ" was supposedly spread photos and stories about his brother, then Prem sued him for libel and BBJ countersued. Let me see if I can find the references I'm thinking of. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic of names, Cagan writes on page 86 that after the death of Prem Rawat's father and after the tilak was applied to his forehead, "never again would the students call him Sant Ji. For them, he was now Guru Maharaji." Is this true? He was never called "Sant Ji" by students after 1966 and he was called "Guru Maharaji" instead? I've seen hundreds of sources and I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji", and few after that since he dropped "guru" at roughly the same time as he changed the spelling. It gives the strong impression that she's reluctant to use the name by which he was best known, "Guru Maharaj Ji", and to also bury the "Sant Ji" name, which we can see he still used occasionally in later years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • All his names – Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaji, Maharaji, Prem Rawat – are listed in the Prologue (p. xx). There's a couple of occurrences of "Guru Maharaji" later on in the book as well. --Jayen466 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji" Many, many papers in the 70s referred to "Guru Maharaj Ji". Jayen466 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Guru Maharaj Ji", the name and spelling by which the subject achieved his greatest prominence, is not listed in the prologue. "Guru Maharaj Ji" and "Guru Maharaji" are not the same thing, obviously. Does Cagan ever use the subject's most famous name? Also, Cagan asserts that students never called him "Sant Ji" again after 1966. Yet we know he signed his name as "Sant Ji" as late as 1974. Early newspaper accounts, when all that reporters knew about the subject was what they were told by followers, use names like "Balyogeshwar Sri Sant Ji Maharaj", or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". It seems like a sweeping statement to say the name was never used again by students. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think we are tilting at windmills here. Indian names and their English spellings are very fluid things, the same way Arab names are. Perhaps that might sincerely seem strange to some people, but let's concentrate on serious issues. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks mates. Or Jis, as the case may be. Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think that's fine too. There is no "right" way of transliterating the -ji syllable. Indian papers, in fact, usually add it directly to the name. In Mahatma Gandhi's case, for example, "Gandhiji" is far more common than "Gandhi Ji". So Cagan's way of writing it actually conforms to standard Indian-English usage. Jayen466 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If she weren't writing about someone who'd already achieved prominence in English-speaking countries under one name it'd be fine to come up with a fresh transliteration. But to ignore the most common name in favor of a spelling that was rarely, if ever, used, is bad history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cagan doesn't use the names of the DLM or the EV, and she doesn't use the best-known version of the subject's name. It's as if her subject is going incognito, wearing sunglasses or a disguise so he won't be recognized. That's a very strange way to write a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, I see, we are trying to discredit Cagan again. You are confusing the Misplaced Pages version of notability (mention in the press and by scholars, however ancient) with the normal person's idea of what it means (the most recent and well-known version.) You can't expect a biographer to conform to Misplaced Pages values. Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We're evaluating Cagan's reliability. Her refusal to use the most common names of her subect and his organizations is problematic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no confusion at all, quite the contrary. And if a person is still alive, nothing is ancient history. You know that. What these editors are trying to do is untangle the confusion and obfuscation that Cagan created in her poorly-written book that has no citations, sources, end-notes, glossary, or a cast of characters. I applaud these editors for doing this and so should you. The issue isn't about "conforming to Misplaced Pages values;" the issue is if Cagan's book is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages values/standards so it can be used in a Wikpedia BLP, which has very strict standards for application of sources as you know. PIP clearly is not because it's supposed to be a biography, a non-fiction, not a jumbled bunch of revisionism and confusing anecdotes about a subject's life events. Btw, I was always told by Indian premies that the use of "Ji" is the same thing as using "Mr." in Hindi/India. It's a polite term, not a term of endearment, but a proper term of respect to be attached to an Indian/Hindu person's name when addressing them. Also, the moniker "Maharaji" is commonly used in India and in the western world. It's not unique to Prem Rawat. Please stop assuming bad faith, Rumiton. People here are trying to make sense of that book, no thanks to the author and her sources who made a muddled mess of the thing. These editors are doing the right thing, writing on a BLP, my hope is you'd agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sylviecyn, -ji is a mark of respect, but I believe it is a bit warmer than Sri/Shree (Mr.). See e.g. (written by an Indian), , , . However, I'll readily confess that I don't speak Hindi. Cheers, Jayen466 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see the point Will is making about the sunglasses. On the other hand, if I extend AGF to Cagan, the following could be said to speak in her favour:
  • She mentions the name "Guru Maharaji" multiple times (once quoting a radio broadcast, p.164), which is but a variant spelling of Guru Maharaj Ji, and gives all his various names in a prominent place in the prologue (the word premie is also mentioned early on).
  • She uses Maharaji – a name the subject has been known by for about thirty years now – very often throughout the book; she could have stuck to "Prem Rawat" if she had wanted to be deliberately obfuscatory.
  • All the facts that made Rawat notable and that people would remember about him – his arrival in the West as a young teenage guru, the Millennium event, the marriage and resulting family rift – are covered.
  • The book includes many photos from Rawat's teenage years, again enabling identification. Granted, she did not include photos of Rawat in his Krishna costume, but then again, I would not necessarily want to show all the fashion statements I was happy to use in the seventies. ;-)
  • The names "Prem Rawat" and "Maharaji" are as easy to find on rickross.com etc. as Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital. As a matter of fact, Rick Ross has him as "Guru Maharaji" (so spelt).
  • Someone who doesn't remember "the teenage guru from the seventies" probably won't remember the name "Divine Light Mission", either (nor Elan Vital, for that matter).
• So I am not sure that she is being deliberately obfuscatory; at any rate, it would not appear to be very effective if she had tried to be. Cagan may simply be writing from a present-day perspective, where the Guru Maharaj Ji era is a story that lasted less than ten years and is now more than a quarter of a century ago. Sure, the subject got more press in those first ten years than in the following thirty years put together, but given that she set out to write his life history and asserts his present-day notability as a keynote speaker, orator on peace invited to speak in universities on all continents and so on, she does not have to be bound by that. Even if she is being obfuscatory, one could also see this in a more charitable way, as enabling people to look at Rawat and his message without pigeonholing him on page 3 and putting the book away at page 4, or refusing to have her subject defined by those high-coverage years in the seventies.
• By the way, the reference to the book being a "full and complete story" of Rawat's life is only present on the back cover blurb, which presumably was not written by Cagan. She herself says in her foreword that she realised early on that she would not be able to "tell his story in its entirety", but instead "fashioned this book to paint a picture of an extraordinary man". There's no false pretenses on her part; it is what she says it is. --Jayen466 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've checked through my electronic resources and the only time anyone uses that spelling is in combination with "Ji", as in "Guru Maharaji Ji". For her to say that after 1966 his students called him "Guru Maharaji" is just plain wrong. See, for example, the book, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?. The change in spelling in the 1980s was intentional and thorough, so the "organizations" and the subject apparently take the matter seriously. By analogy, if I understand correctly, folks didn't refer to "Osho" by that name earlier in his life. So it'd be incorrect for a biographer to quote people addressing him as "Osho" if that wasn't the name they used at the time. As for the statement on the back cover, the book is marketed as a "full and complete" biography. Presumably if the author didn't write that then the publisher did. Is it full and complete? I think we're finding that it isn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In terms of what they called him, it's correct, insofar as there isn't a difference in pronunciation between "Maharaji" and "Maharaj Ji"; they are just two different ways of spelling the same sound in Roman letters. Sure Cagan's bio doesn't cover all angles, but the same applies to the other materials we use as well, and Cagan does cover some things the others don't (family stuff and the like). (You're correct with Osho, the name was only used from '89 onward.) Jayen466 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It'd be more correct to say that his students called him "Goomerajee" or "Goom Rodgie" than to say they called him "Guru Maharaji". Regarding the family stuff, that seems the most biased and therefore least reliable. The only times that Mata Ji or BBJ are mentioned is to blame them for something or point out their flaws. If we're going to treat this as a self-published work we should restrict any use to just the thoughts, feelings, or actions of Prem Rawat because I don't think we can trust its reporting on family matters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I did not mean that family stuff. I just meant things related to his immediate family, i.e. his children. Otherwise, I think we are in agreement. Jayen466 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to make sure we are not talking at cross-purposes: I am not arguing that Cagan is a 100% reliable source. Some of the rosy "spin" she puts on things (probably by dint of quoting interviewed premies) in my mind puts the factual reliability of some passages in doubt, or makes their portrayal somewhat "self-serving" in the sense of WP:SPS. I would affirm the need for cross-checking with other sources whenever something is contentious, or potentially self-serving in that sense; and notability of anything she mentions (like awards etc.) should be attested to by independent sources. I think Cagan is a WP:RS on things such as the birthdays and names of his kids, if we wanted to include those, but even those can and should be cross-checked with the papers that reported his kids being born at the time. Jayen466 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I agree in theory, but in practice it hasn't worked out to limit the use of the book to non-contentious assertions because there has been disagreement over what counts as contentious. Names of kids are one thing, but this book has been offered as a source for far less neutral assertions. I don't think it can be used for anything but the simplest, statements. In almost every case if it is the only source it's insufficient, and if there are corroborating sources it's unnecessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I think a corroborating source is a must. Without that it is not notable. Where Cagan and an WP:RS disagree, we can look for further sources to see if any back her up. Jayen466 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell us what we should do when Cagan claims the first child was born in 1975 whereas a "reliable" newspaper has Rawat with 2 children in 1974? Momento (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• We use the best sources we can find. His first two children were reportein the press, but I don't recall seeing any mentions of the younger two, probably because he had assumed a lower profile by then. What source has the children in 1974? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article, LA Times (12 Jan. 1979). (Also see my post dd. 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) above.) Jayen466 00:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Certainly the longer any source is the more errors are likely to be in it. Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults misspells Mishler's name. Having one or two small errors doesn't invalidate a source but having more begins to do so. On topics like the older children we have many sources and we use what WP:V considers the most reliable: scholarly sources and mainstream media. If it was a situation in which we had only two conflicting sources about a fact, Cagan and a mainstream newspaper, there'd be no comparison between which is considered more reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. Verifiable doesn't mean true. This encyclopedia is just about what's verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so it doesn't matter whether what Cagan wrote is true as long as we can verify that she wrote it.Momento (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case, if we'd started out with just Cagan and that wrong article, looking for other newspaper articles would have yielded a greater number of articles that have the right info. So we get WP:V and truth, which is a bonus. --Jayen466 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And in the absence of any articles, wrong or otherwise, as long as we can verify Cagan says it, we can use it.Momento (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. We've found too many problems with the material where we have independent sources to trust the material for which we don't. As one of the original RfC respondnets noted, if might be given a benefit of the doubt if there were no errors, but now we've found significant errors and omissions. Neither its publisher nor its author have reputations for writing complete, reliable biographies. It just doesn't meet WP:V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already said that verifiability is the determining factor not truth. So errors and omissions don't come into it. Look how hard you fought for James Randi. The only reason to question something from PIP is if it is contradicted by another source. And even then, both opinions can be attributed.Momento (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Randi is a noteworthy individual whose comments we were using as a significant point of view, which NPOV requires we include. Cagan is being used, not for her opinions, but for facts. The two istuations aren't comparable. As far as errors and omissions, their presence menas that sources aren't reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, please follow BLP guidelines: 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. -- Maelefique 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured there's nothing questionable about PIP. And the only living people apart from Rawat and Satpal to get mentioned will be Macgregor and for him we have impeccable sources.Momento (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the preceding discussion about Cagan before making time-wasting statements like this one. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP if you do not understand the problem with PIP as stated above. Rest assured, there are quite a few questions about PIP, it should probably not be used at all. -- Maelefique 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Maelefique, please take care with your edit summaries, such as this one are not exactly what I would class as civil. There's no doubt that the use of the Peace is Possible book is disputed, but there is no reason to resort to edit summaries like that one. Civility, please. And that goes for all of you, I do read individual diffs, so please do not think that I miss the hidden comments in edit summaries. I don't. Steve Crossin (contact) 14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to hide it Steve (unlike some editors who remove parts of discussions from their talk pages to make their arguments look better), many people have believed in a flat earth until ridiculously recently, despite massive evidence to the contrary. See any parallels to that concept here? (Granted, it wasn't my *most* civil summary, but it was directly on point, still looking for WP:Don't waste everyone's time too) -- Maelefique 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please avoid that sort of thing though . If I may ask you: rather attempt to lower tension than encourage it. This is in Steve's userspace you're working here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson

• Moving forward, let's look at pages 180-182 which cover the 1972 customs incident. There are numerous press and other reports that cover this topic. While reports vary, the estimate of the dollar value of the material ranged from US$27,000 to $80,000 (in 2007 dollars that would be $136,812 to $405,371 ). Cagan refers to "some cash and wristwatches" without giving any estimate of the amount. From what we know of DLM members, it's unlikely that any of them were wearing diamond-encrusted Rolexes, so presumably the bulk of that valuation was in cash. She makes light of the concern that the DLM could have been used as a conduit for money laundering by the CIA, despite the intense activity of the CIA in the early 1970s in south Asia. However she entirely ignores the investigation into the DLM's and Rawat's international finances, preferring instead to devote time to complaining about what appears to be an accurate account on another matter by a Washington Post reporter. Her assertion that the wristwatches belonged to followers contradicts DLM statements reported contemporaneously that the wristwatches were gifts for Rawat, his family, and mahatmas. In conclusion, she says nothing useful about the incident that we could use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Cagan does mention that he and his organization were eventually cleared. Did all RS sources that reported the commencement of the investigation report on the outcome, or did at least some feel that the fact that he was accused was more newsworthy than the fact that he was cleared? Jayen466 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I was just reading an email discussion between Wikimedia honchos concerning the general problem of BLP subjects where an indictment or arrest have been reported, but no news source has ever bothered to report the release/exoneration/not guilty verdict/pardon. News sources aren't biographies, though they may include biographical information. Likewise, while scholarly papers are reliable, they aren't necesarily biographies either, even though they may include short biographical summaries. to the best of my knowlede there are only three sources we have that purport to be biographies: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, Current Biography Yearbook 1974, and Cagan. The first of those doesn't cover the incident at all. Here's what Current Biography Yearbook 1974 says:
  • Within a year Guru Maharaj Ji's following had grown so enormously that after his 1972 tour eleven jumbo jets were required to carry a small fraction of the Western devotees back to India with him to celebrate the annual three-day festival in honor of his late father. A hostile Indian religious group asked the government to arrest Guru Maharaj Ji at the airport in New Delhi and force him to submit to a medical examination to determine his true age, which, the group asserted, was twenty-two. The request was denied, but an embarrassing incident occurred nonetheless: customs officials found $80,000 in jewels, watches, and money in the briefcase of Joan Apter, who was then serving as the Guru's secretary. Spokesmen for the Guru explained that the money was to pay the expenses of Western devotees during their stay in India and that the watches and jewelry were gifts for the Guru's mother, brothers, and mahatmas. Smuggling charges were never filed, but the Indian government was at last report still looking into the Guru's taxes.
• Here's what Cagan says:
  • Some of his students in the United States and Britain organized five chartered jets to take a record number of Western students there in late 1972. By the time they all arrived in India, however an innocent customs incident involving two people, some cash, and wristwatches soured the press toward Maharaji. They started writing articles that accused him of being involved in smuggling jewels and cash. Not that they needed any more ammunition, since they were already accusing him of lying about his age and of being a CIA agent. Needless to say, these frivolous assertions were never substantiated, but that never stopped detractors from repeating the stories.
  • When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief¬case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India. So in the beginning of 1973, the fifteen-year-old was facing yet another challenging time in his life, having to stay in India in order to deal with the false allegations, when all he wanted was to return to his work and his friends in the West.
  • Maharaji's students explained that the briefcase in question merely held a pool of petty cash for the journey and safeguarded some personal jewelry. Maharaji and the organization would eventually be cleared on all counts.
• If Cagan were our only source I don't think we could assert that the charges weren't filed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • <off-topic> Just out of interest, did this e-mail exchange come to any useful conclusions about how to deal with this issue? Jayen466 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

THE GURU'S GAME

In September of 1972, I was assigned to cover Maharaj Ji's return to Mother India. The Divine Light people had rented 18 jet planes to ferry some 3,500 Premies to India to be on hand for the Guru's touch-down-a kind of modern replay of the old Ark trick. Maharaj Ji's return was to signal the beginning of a five-day celebration at the Ram Lila grounds, a dusty No-Man's Land that separates "Old" Delhi from "New" Delhi.

The flight was long and uneventful--except for one thing. DLM officers came marching down the aisles collecting all the money and valuables the Premies were carrying. Reasons were given. "It's the Perfect Master's will, man," was the one I heard most often. Nonetheless, a number of noses began sniffing the air. Their faith was getting a test from their common sense.

The Guru's faithful ran into problems as soon as the plane had landed in New Delhi. Joan Apter-a super Premie and one of the five original U.S. converts-had her suitcase opened by Customs inspectors. It contained $28,000 in cash, travelers checks and jewelry. When the officials had finished with the rest of the bags, the figure stood at $65,000. Indira Gandhi's government had a stroke. Bringing that kind of wealth into the country-undeclared-was deemed to be smuggling, and a minor international incident was under way. The Customs people confiscated everything in sight, including Maharaj Ji's passport.

Indira Gandhi flew to New Delhi to hold a special session with her ministers to decide whether or not to clap the Perfect Master in jail. The Holy Family, holding a special session of their own, decided that they had had all they wanted of New Delhi. They loaded all the faithful aboard buses and trucked them the 100 miles to Hardwar.

Final destination turned out to be a group of white-stucco buildings, ringed with barbed-wire-topped fence. It was owned by Maharaj Ji and the Holy Family. But by now the first-aid tents were jammed with people who were suffering from high fevers and a racking dysentery. Forced to eat food that was produced on land fertilized with fresh water-buffalo manure, they fell like flies in a Raid commercial. And, since they had no money to buy food, they were helpless to change their diets. A minimovement began to get some money back so that the sicker people could be moved back to New Delhi for proper medical attention (the Premie doctor's idea of treatment was to tell them they needed "More faith, brother, more faith"). It was at about that time that the DLM officers made an announcement. "According to Divine will, all money and valuables left for safe keeping with DLM personnel, will be donated to the Divine Treasury." At that point, a lot of people saw the "knowledge." To this day, the Indian government is still holding on to the suitcases, and the Guru must post a substantial bond any time he decides to leave the country. -EB

• Issues like this make one wonder just what kind of research Cagan did. When compared to objective sources, this "full and complete" biography doesn't come off so well. Fortunately this topic is well-covered in other sources. The problem comes where Cagan is the only source available for something. Based on what we know so far, I think that would be a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where Cagan appears to be the only source for something, I believe we should (1) look whether there aren't perhaps other sources after all that back her up (2) failing that consider inserting her version of events, with attribution. Given the level of innuendo and stark ad-hominem hostility of many press sources such as the Daily Mail, I believe this is not asking too much in order to discharge our responsibility to NPOV. Jayen466 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Without some bright line rule of when to use Cagan we're going to spend the next ten years arguing over when and how to use the book. If we're trying to balance purported media bias then using Cagan only when there are no media sources is an odd way to do it. Perhaps doing the opposite would be more appropriate - use Cagan only when there are other sources and then only to provide a contrasting view of events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I meant. Where Cagan is the only one giving a view contradicting other sources, first check if there are other sources stating the same as she does, and if none do, consider putting Cagan's version as a contrasting view, with attribution. --Jayen466 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, your analysis is biased! I see some obvious reliability problems with the two sources that you have brought here: one claims there were "18 jets", the other claims there were "eleven jumbo jets". Cagan says it was "five jets". So who is right? Each source is impeached by the others. A jumbo jet takes about 420 to 520 passengers, depending on seat layout; assuming (!) the total of 3,500 premies given in Francis' source is correct, the group would not have needed eleven jumbo jets. On another note, the $28,000 in cash cited in Francis' source (less than $150,000 in today's money) should be seen in relation to the number of people that were being transported, accommodated and fed. Dividing this amount by 3,500, we see that we are talking about a little more than $40 per person (in today's money) to finance each premie's stay in India. I think $40 in today's money qualifies as "pool of petty cash", as indicated by Cagan. It's not for nothing that scholars recommend a triangulation approach, comparing self-published, neutral and hostile sources, to come to an understanding of the true circumstances of such events. And I'd be interested in hearing truthful accounts from any premies or ex-premies who were on those flights, and lived through those events, to see which of these sources comes closest to an WP:NPOV description of these events.

As for Cagan stating that Rawat was cleared, I believe we have an RS stating that the Indian government issued an apology to Rawat later on. That's a plus point for her reliability in my book.

And it's moving the goalposts to say that Cagan being incomplete disqualifies her as an RS, but the media being selective and scholars being incomplete are just the way things are and we have to accept it. We have to be neutral, or at least pretend to be. Jayen466 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan's book is sold as "The first full and complete story if Prem Rawat". We're judging the book on its own terms. Only two other sources purport to be biographies and we can judge them on the same terms. As for the differences between various types of sources, we don't expect journalists to have a deep understanding of spiritual concepts, and we don't expect religious scholars to spend time tracking down news. We do expect biographers to write complete and full accounts of their subjects' lives. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, that calculation of $40 per person being a reasonable petty cash pool implies that the money was somehow associated with individual members. None of the many accounts, even Cagan, ever say that the money found its way back to the members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it? According to your self-published source, premies were fed and accommodated (both in a rather basic way, admittedly) for four weeks and don't appear to have made any other payment towards that. You'd struggle to find a tent camp for $10 a week incl. bad food today, even in India. Jayen466 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so interested in the matter of the money as of what research Cagan did in reporting on this. It appears that she relied on interviews and faulty or selective recollections rather than any real research such as we're doing. If the book had been sold as "sketches of Rawat's" or "recollections by admirers" than we wouldn't necessarily view it as a reliable source. It claims to be a full and complete life story, and it appears that that claim is yet another inaccuracy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that claim is only made in the marketing blurb on the back cover. But yes, it appears she mainly interviewed premies. Jayen466 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we evaluate books based on the publishers' reputations for reliability. The publishers, the people in charge of fact-checking, think this is a full and complete biography. It clearly isn't. That further impeaches the reliability of the publisher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V allows use of self-pubslished sources. Jayen466 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there's two problems with that strategy. There's no agreement that it's self-published, and if it is, by whom was it published? Cagan never even interviewd Rawat, so it's hard to say it was published by him. We have some convincing information that it was published by the foundation, and if we agree on that then we could use it as a source for the foundation article. But even self-published sources that have proven errors and omissions should be avoided. We should be using the best sources, not those that we have to struggle to find a way to allow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the WP policy or guideline that says a source that has omissions can't be mined for what information it contains? Cagan has spin, yes, but its facts at times strike me as more reliable than those given in other sources we use (which also suffer from omissions, based on opposite bias). As for it being an SPS, we shouldn't be arguing both sides against the middle. Jayen466 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The policies in question are WP:V and WP:BLP, which tell us not to use unreliable sources. They don't say that it's appropriate to go through an unreliable source and pick out parts that we think might be more reliable. As for being an SPS, by whom is it published? Who is the "self"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of our work on these articles, I would define the "self" as Rawat and the organizations related to him, based on the fact that the book draws on transcripts of his talks, testimonies of people involved in his organizations, and the fact that the original US publishers are premies. Jayen466 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And by what logic do we say that a book published by MightyRiver is self published by Prem Rawat? What is the clear connection between them? Just because some followers self-publish a book doesn't mean that it comes under the SPS exemeption when writing about Rawat, a 3rd party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>

• Just a common-sense appraisal – it seems close enough for practical purposes and may be a workable compromise. Over the past few months (years), Cagan's book has been characterised as a self-published source by many editors here. John described it as such just the other day. Re-reading Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_29#Status_of_.E2.80.9CPeace_Is_Possible.E2.80.9D –
  • Nik pointed out that Mr Mazo, the business partner of the Mighty River Press CEO, is a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.
  • Momento pointed out that "The press release announcing the publication of Peace is Possible is produced on of The Prem Rawat Foundation's web site".
  • Francis considered it an SPS, noting the difference between the two statements
    • "We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties" (WP:V paraphrased) and
    • "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" (actual WP:V wording)
  • and concluded that "they can be used, not as "third-party sources", but still as "self-published sources" for those living persons, subject to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves".
  • Sylviecyn has argued at various times that the book has been endorsed by TPRF.
• To be fair, I think you always argued against it being treated as an SPS – your reason being that Rawat didn't publish it himself, making it a "third-party source" about Rawat.
• I argued against SPS status too – my reason being that self-published according to WP:SPS means published by the author, or at the author's expense, and it clearly wasn't published or paid for by Cagan herself. I stand by that.
• Cagan is a very successful biographer. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register, that it seems far better researched than Collier, and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine. I don't think it is a sufficient standalone source for exceptional claims in a BLP context. --Jayen466 22:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could we move this SPS discussion down to #Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published?. That'd help keep things more compact and focused. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• No problem with that. Jayen466 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As for "picking and choosing", we do that with all our sources. If a reliable source is directly and credibly contradicted by a host of other reliable sources – say, Melton calling Mishler Mishner – we assume our source is in error and do not cite that passage, while keeping our options open to cite other parts of the source that appear solid. --Jayen466 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, if we wanted to mention the number of Boeings that the premies travelled to India on, I would cite Cagan, your SPS, and perhaps add a footnote that various other sources made it 8, 9, 11, or 18 Boeings. I think Cagan and even your unpublished SPS are more reliable for this particular detail than the other sources, by virtue of being based on first-hand, eye-witness testimony. --Jayen466 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When we have a reliable source that makes an obvious typo or an anomolous assertion we deal with that. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which we take an unreliable source and use parts because we think those parts may be reliable. It's the difference between picking a wilted leaf out of your salad versus digging through a trash can to find enough unspoiled food for dinner. Or to use another example, forums are not considered reliable sources. Does anyone think it's OK to quote the forum postings of Davis, Dettmer, or Donner, on the basis that they appear to be reliable reflections of the writers' comments? No, obviously not. Now there may be circumstances in which we say that a source is reliable in some parts but not in others, but we haven't found the reliable part of Cagan yet. She even changes quoted text, which means she's unreliable as a simple reporter of statements so even the interviews aren't trustworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, I just don't take quite so dim a view of Cagan's reliability as you do. I think she uses spin (or passes it on from her interviewees), but the actual facts she reports seem fairly solid to me, plus she reports on some things that aren't prominent in other sources (like his being cleared of the smuggling charges, his being a keynote speaker at a Rotary Club meeting, his being invited to speak in universities in Oxford or Malaysia, the former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament being interested in him etc.). I haven't researched that stuff, and perhaps I'll change my mind later, but I don't at present think she made all of that up. At the very least, she could give us an idea on how to expand the scope of the article, and what to do further research on to make this a rounded bio. --Jayen466 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• We need to get out of these cycles of original research on sources. OR is *not* OK, per policy, WP:NOR. Sometimes discussions like this one go astray because of "no, we're not doing OR on the subject of the Misplaced Pages article, but we don't mind driving the OR on the sources describing that subject ad infinitum". The principles are fairly simple: did anyone directly and unambiguously involved with the authoring & publication of the book (that are *two* parties, an author and a publisher, not the name of a fact-checker we plucked from an internet site, possibly involved via a fourth party, etc.) have a *reputation* for fact-checking? No, and that's it. Whether it's a SPS (literally) is irrelevant, while it would be a *questionable* source in any case if it's not an SPS, and the rules for how and when to use SPSs and "questionable" sources are exactly the same (check WP:V on that - the only difference regards how such sources are being found either the one or the other by Misplaced Pages's simplistic rules).
• Notability: if no other source but Cagan mentions something, it lacks notability, and won't be included in Misplaced Pages. I have a late 20th century biography of over 500 pages on a UK painter. His Misplaced Pages article is a few paragraphs. Details only found in the published biography are not notable enough, even if it's written by a scholar (like the one I'm talking about here). That's how it works. We're a tertiary source, which summarizes other sources, not a PR platform for a living inspirational speaker.

And, oh, a third thought. Maybe Steve does not so much ask us to keep indenting low for reading on his mobile, as for us to stop endless-repeat discussions after the 2nd step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Francis, I agree it is a questionable source in that it has a distinct promotional tinge. I proposed exactly what you suggest 6 days ago, to wit:

  So after another "88KB of handwringing", and having looked at the book some more, I suggest we treat Cagan more or less as a self-published source, to be used with circumspection: fine to use where not unduly self-serving, with relevance to notability to be established by mentions in a second source. I think that will still leave us enough to discuss and fight over.

  — --Jayen466 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• So can we now agree to do this? Jayen466 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We're still reviewing Cagan. It's too soon to make such a determination. We keep finding new problems. There are a few more sections to go through before we get to the 1980s when 3rd-party sources dry up. Until we have all of the evidence we can't evaluate the book properly. And we're also still evaluating the question of who the publisher of the book is should we decide that it's self-published. Have patience - if we can settle this here it will save us countless hours or weeks of debate later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me add that regarding it as a questionable source is a likely outcome, but we should make sure that our review is thorough enough that there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• To Jayen, as I pointed out earlier, the smuggling incident, including the failure to file charges, is well-covered in the best biography we have, Current Biography Yearbook. As for the rest, even highly unreliable sources can inform editing decisions. There's value in reading forum postings, user pages, self-published sources, etc., in order to understand the background and to learn about topics we may not know of otherwise. I certainly don't object to using any source in that way. To Francis, I agree that we don't have space in this article for every complaint and compliment. Being invited to speak at a university may mean many things. It may mean being the graduation speaker with the entire faculty and student body in attendance and receiving an honorary doctorate, or it may mean that a few students got together, reserved a room, and printed some flyers. Both fall under the phrase "invited to speak at.." but we have to be careful that we don't imply more than we can verify. This gets back to the UN anniversary issue that I've read about in the talk page archives. And yes, I think it's the multiple indents that bother Steve. It's standard practice on WP talk pages, but we can bend a bit to accomodate Steve's 2.5" screen considering how generous he's being with his time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson (part 2)

And I note that Argosy (magazine), quoted above, is described as an "American pulp magazine". Please! Jayen466 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not on the flight, I was back home in the ashram, but several of my friends were there. There were 5 aeroplanes, not 8 or 11. The story of the unwilling confiscation of money is a fabrication. The dialogue is made up, totally at odds with the jargon of the day. The story about buffalo manure is laughably inaccurate, though there were, as always in India, some cases of diarrhoea. These wildly wrong accounts should not be used in any way for this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The account in the Argosy is matched closely by the account in Jos Lammers' self-published memoir Abandoned Roads, available online. In particular, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine. It may be that Rumiton's friend's are the unreliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How so? I note that this self-published author says "I was in one of the five chartered Boeing-747’s", backing Cagan and none of the other presumably more reliable sources. There is no mention of being asked to hand over money in the plane, or have I missed that? Yes, apparently there was lots of diarrhoea, and I can well believe it. --Jayen466 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite possible that different things were done on different planes. I was contrasting Lammer's recollections with those of Rumiton's friends, who apparently couldn't see shit (literally). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At any rate it seems there were 5 Boeings, not 8, 11 or 18, or any other number reported in more reliable sources. (Btw, using bovine dung as manure is not exactly a practice restricted to the Indian subcontinent. Some people should get out in the country more often.) Jayen466 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say 5? Do you have some independent knowledge of the correct figure? In matters like this, I expect it's very rare for reporters to make their own investigation. I'm fairly sure they were reporting what they were told by the DLM rather than calling up the charter companies in the U.S. and U.K. and asking for details of their customers. Based on how widely the DLM's statements about its following vary, adding and omitting a million followers from interview to interview, I think it's safe to say that the spokesmen didn't place a high priority on numerical accuracy or consistency. Further, we're talking about an international movement. Some writers may make statements that are correct regarding their country, but fail to include events going on in other countries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just answered above. Jayen466 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I retract the answer I just gave above. This user page contains the passage, "It was a huge celebration. Five "jumbo jets" (Boeing 747s) were chartered just to carry visitors from the US, and several more for other countries." It seems your instinct was correct, after all. :-) (FWIW, Cagan says the five jets were chartered by his disciples in the US and UK.) --Jayen466 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GURU MAHARAJ JI

Thousands of sunsets had faded behind the Rocky Mountains since a small band of acid dealers brought a pudgy thirteen-year-old Indian holy boy to a teepee on a mountainside in Boulder so he could teach them and their friends how to meditate and get high without drugs.

Since 1971 the young guru has grown into a less rotund but far richer young man. He's moved from the mountainside teepee, first to a large $86,000 house with a pool in Denver, and then to a half-million-dollar Malibu estate complete with pool, tennis court, and ocean view. He's owned Mercedes Benzes and Maseratis and has been stopped for speeding. He's had ulcers and has married and become a father. In his early twenties, he's in control of a multimillion-dollar-a-year religious business, the Divine Light Mission.

He had some trouble hanging onto his religious enterprise in 1975, after he married his tall, blonde, and older secretary, Marolyn Lois Johnson, a former United Airlines stewardess from California. Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage, or the young man's gaudy lifestyle. At sixteen he was not old enough to marry without parental permission in Colorado, so he petitioned the court.

The judge agreed that the boy guru was old enough to marry, saying that he had an income and appeared mature beyond his years, a point confirmed by his most devout followers and disputed by others who tell of water pistol battles and legendary bouts of childish temper. The couple married in 1974 in a posh ceremony at a nondenominational Christian church outside Denver. They now live at the California estate with their two small children when they are not traveling on Mission business. The organization still maintains the Denver home as a place for Maharaj Ji to stay when he is in the city. But most of the time, premies live in the house. When their guru comes to Denver, they move out.

After his marriage, the young guru's mother, Rajeswari Devi (known as Mata Ji to premies) disowned her youngest son, saying she had made a mistake when she named him to succeed his father as head of the religious movement, and named the guru's older brother Bal Bhagwan Ji to direct the Mission. Maharaj Ji's reaction was to fight for his place as spiritual master of the Mission, and he went to India, where he and his brother became entangled in a series of legal suits and countersuits. Ultimately the two young men agreed, in a New Delhi court, to drop all charges. Now it appears that while Maharaj Ji is firmly in control of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, his mother and brother have taken the reins of the movement in India.

The Mission's tax-free annual income, revealed by Mission spokesman Joe Anctil as about $3.78 million in 1976, came from gifts, tithings, and annual business earnings. Robert Mischler, the Mission's executive director, has said the group considers itself a religion only for tax purposes. As a religion it is exempt from taxation. Under the Internal Revenue Service regulation no part of the net earnings of a religion may go to a private individual.

Anctil says that 60 percent of the Mission's $315,000 monthly income goes to support the international headquarters in Denver, the homes around the country where the guru and the 250 member staff live. The Mission makes the mortgage payments on both of Maharaj Ji's homes and spends about $200,000 annually from the Mission coffers to support the Mission's full-time premies, its guru, and its business activities.

Michael Garson, a former premie who worked in the Denver headquarters, has a different idea. In an affidavit presented in a British Columbia court he said, "My analysis of the accounts of the Divine Light Mission indicated that approximately 60 percent of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the lifestyle of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him."

In photostats of Mission financial records submitted with his testimony, Garson pointed out an entry of $139,925 marked "special projects." He said it was money "advanced directly to the Maharaj Ji for purposes related directly to his own maintenance."

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

However, the Divine Light Mission is still feeling a financial squeeze. In selling real estate around the country the Mission has closed ashrams. With the closing of ashrams came a decline in income. Where premies move out of the ashrams they no longer turn over their weekly paychecks to the Mission. It must then rely on their voluntary contributions. In December 1976, Anctil said the monthly income from contributions had dropped from a high of more than $100,000 a month to $80,000.

In response to the declining income the Mission has had to consolidate its operations. In addition to the disposal of real estate in Denver and elsewhere the Mission has sold its printing business. The business was sold to a premie who, operates it in Denver and charges the Mission for printing work. The computer, which the Mission once used to keep track of its membership around the country, is gone. It was dropped when the costly lease expired.

With the printing business gone and some of the other Mission business activities shut down, premies who worked in those enterprises have had to reconsider their life's work. Many are being encouraged to go back into the world, get a job, and contribute to the Mission by tithing.

But the Mission doesn't show any signs of closing. As Joe Anctil says, "We are changing our image." It appears that the Divine Light Mission and its guru will be around as long as they can determine what the public wants and give it to them. And the guru has what looks like a long life ahead of him.

• Thanks for that. Again, it is worth noting that the financial practices of Rawat's organization were investigated and found to be in order (as stated by Cagan, and uncontradicted by any reliable source as far as I am aware). Garson's accusations came to naught. --Jayen466 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And re-investigated and re-cleared of wrongdoing many times since, though somehow that does not deter some from suggesting otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Garson, 35, the guru's former financial analyst testified as a witness in a case seeking to prevent U.S. Heiress Darby McNeal, 31, now a British Columbia resident, from signing over an estimated $400,000 inheritance to the Divine Light Mission. Each week about $35,000 in donations and income flow into the mission's Denver headquarters, said Garson, and "approximately 60% of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the life-style of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him. So far as I could see, the whole function of the organization was to provide an opulent existence for the Maharaj Ji."

A British Columbia Supreme Court order has blocked an American heiress from handing over much of her wealth to guru Maharaj Ji. Darby McNeal, 31 "The evidence before me is that this Maharaj Ji's way of living does not correspond to the ideals of a traditional Indian guru and that 60 per cent of the substantial receipts of the Divine Light Mission are directed to maintain Maharaj Ji and those close to him in grand style," the judge said.

That was not an investigation of the organization's finances and its compliance with charity regulations. (I remember reading that there was such an investigation following Garson's allegations, in Colorado, which did not result in any finding of wrongdoing, but I can't find a ref now. Anyone?) So the judge believed Garson, and another witness stating that Rawat was not a proper Hindu teacher, and refused to allow McNeal to accede to Mishler's request to loan the DLM money. In doing so, the judge essentially robbed 31-year-old McNeal of her right to make independent financial decisions (and ordered that she undergo psychiatric evaluation). In a similar vein, courts in the seventies ruled that kidnapping and deprogramming adults was okay. They no longer do. (Just out of interest, does anyone know whether McNeal came to appreciate the judge's intervention in later years?) Jayen466 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an investigation by state and local tax officials into the use of the DLM's tax-exemption for purchases of personal items. I haven't neen able to find the result. As for the McNeal matter, we're not here to discuss the injustices of the past. This thread is about the reliability of Cagan as a source. Like so many other issues, there's no mention of Garson or McNeal in Cagan, so at most it's another omission. The one thing that is perhaps most relevant here is that finding of the judge that 60% of the DLM's income went to supporting Rawat. That again belies Cagan's description of (what we presume to be) the DLM as an organization that manages his travel. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can bet if the result had been negative, there'd be plenty of sources. ;-) Granted, Rawat and his entourage travelled in ostentatious style -- Rolls-Royces and private jets. --Jayen466 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the press is notorious for failing to follow up on stories unless there's some news. As for Garson, I think his greatest contribution may be his comment, "It does take a lot of money to keep a guru and he does live well, but what he teaches I will believe in for the rest of my life." That sums it up succinctly and perhaps applies to other spiritual leaders as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I’ve seen no references to any special investigation of the US DLM’s tax status. In 1975 the organisation was assessed by the IRS as part of the normal round of assessing the corporation – the only source on this does not seem to meet WP:V however editors might find it helpful as background reading - http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof10302000222548.htm#P_0VBQ the key paragraphs are:

"My other priority was to continue dealing with the audit. To help me with that challenge, Maharaji instructed me to fly to London and meet with a premie named Aubrey West, (Aubrey passed away a few years ago) and to tell him about our problem. He was confident that Aubrey would be very helpful in dealing with the situation. His daughter had introduced Aubrey to knowledge and Maharaji came to know him because he was the principal architect of the strategy that successfully wrested control of DLM in the UK from Maharaji’s mother. Aubrey was one of the most brilliant and interesting people I have ever met. In 1976, he was probably in his late 50’s. He was educated in the law at Cambridge and had established a very exclusive and successful investment banking practice. He was also a published and world-renowned calligrapher.

I met with Aubrey over the course of several days where he interrogated me over every detail of my findings when preparing for the audit. Eventually, he latched onto a single detail that I had never given much thought to. When I first came to Denver, the person who had been handling the finances handed over to me all of his files and records. Included in the transfer was a small endorsement stamp with the facsimile signature Prem Pal Singh Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji. It had been the standard practice at DLM to deposit all checks into a DLM bank account including all of the checks that had been made payable to Guru Maharaji. Those particular checks were recorded on a separate deposit slip and endorsed over to DLM with the endorsement stamp bearing Maharaji’s legal signature. Aubrey made that fact the cornerstone of his strategy to deal with our problem. In Aubrey’s opinion, there was a fundamental and legal difference between gifts of love made out of devotion to one’s guru, and donations made to an organization created to spread the guru’s message. He argued that those two different and distinct sources of funds should never have been co-mingled within DLM donations.

Aubrey, through me, instructed Maharaji’s lawyer and accountant to re-classify all of the checks that had been made out to Maharaji, but deposited into DLM’s bank account, as Maharaji’s personal funds that were simply being held in trust for his personal use by DLM. When the financial records were re-categorized in this manner, the records clearly showed that Maharaji had more than enough funds to personally pay for the Malibu residence, the cars, and his personal expenses with his own money. During the audit, we acknowledged to the IRS that, after consulting with our lawyers, we realized that it was not a good idea to have had DLM act as a trustee in this manner, and that we were in the process of transferring all of the assets that were rightfully Maharaji’s into a separate structure that properly reflected his beneficial interest in them. The IRS was completely satisfied with this explanation, confirmed the principle that Maharaji and DLM were two distinct entities, and that gifts to Maharaji qualified as such under IRS codes. With that issue settled, we sailed through that audit without difficulty or incident." --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 6

:I quite dislike Cagan's prose, which apparently is by its very style inaccurate. Take these three consecutive sentences:

When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief-case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India.

It is obvious that she characterises the content of the claims included in the first of these sentences as "inaccurate" and attributes them to the British Daily Mail. But what about the next two sentences? Impossible to say whether she continues to relate what she perceives as inaccuracy (by the Daily Mail?), or whether somewhere she has switched to telling what she thinks really happened. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Weasely and confusing writing style, which makes unclear what Cagan is trying to tell (or to hide).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the above sentences. If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life – Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle", Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21), they were wrong. I read the other two sentences as separate factual accounts, not as part of the Daily Mail story. It would not have occurred to me to read them thus. Btw, the Daily Mail made it "eight jumbo jet airliners". I'll grant you that Cagan is tendentious, but not more so than the Daily Mail. Jayen466 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...I read the other two sentences as..." – exactly, that was my point, they can be read in different ways.

Re. "not more than the Daily Mail" – quite irrelevant, as we don't need the British Daily Mail (or any other tabloid afaik) as a source. If Daily Mail and Cagan have a comparable level of tendentiousness (as you seem to indicate), let's treat them likewise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Not more tendentious" in fact is a polite and moderate way of saying "Way less tendentious." Which it is. Re the above questions, it is grammatically quite clear that after dealing with the inaccuracies in the first sentence, she is then going on to say what she believed was the truth. She is saying that the false news report was followed by other tribulations, i.e. being called to Delhi, grilled, etc. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen wrote: If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life – Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle", Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21), they were wrong. How so? Back when we wwere drafting the paragraph on this incident we found many sources that refered to jewelry, some even getting into specifics like a pearl necklace. Why would we say here that the Daily Mail is wrong? Are we discounting the reliability of that newspaper just because of its printing format? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When I hear "jewels", I picture gemstones, rather than jewelry (or wristwatches). Jayen466 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We have many sources that say gems or jewelry, as well as watches. One of the definitions of "jewel" is A costly ornament of precious metal or gems. So the term refers to both gems and jewelry. Is there any other reason to think the Daily Mail has reported incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

The Daily Mail seems to have referred, in various articles, to a suitcase or suitcases filled with jewels AND cash, wristwatches etc. – which would appear to be correct. Accepting that jewels can refer to items of jewelry, Cagan is indeed misrepresenting the Daily Mail coverage to score a gratuitous point. As for errors in the Daily Mail, there are some. The Daily Mail article I mentioned earlier refers to the money being used to feed and house "350 American converts-in-the-making, who had flown in with him in the chartered jumbo jet he called his silver steed" – we know the money was used to feed and house ten times as many (and there were five jumbo jets), and the festival attendants are usually described as (already converted) premies, not converts-in-the-making. Looks like a misquote, or an omission. Then, the Daily Mail refers to Rawat as "5ft. tall and a waddling 13st." – I believe most sources say he is 5'5. --Jayen466 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, double-checking on Rawat's height, I came across this letter that Rennie Davis sent to John Brauns relatively recently, and which John then posted in one of the forums. It is quite an interesting letter, and, if I may make a suggestion, I think editors unfamiliar with it would profit from reading it, just to gain some more perspective on what this is all about. Jayen466 11:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to your point of view! This is causing me some upset, Jayen. Btw, if Rawat is over 5'2" or 5'3" then I'll eat my snow boots. I'm 5'6" and I towered over him. He's around 5'2" in sandals. Just about everybody towers over him. He's quite short and petite (and there's nothing wrong with that and he shouldn't be criticized for his height). Also, Jayen, please stop cherry-pickign and linking to isolated posts from the ex-premie forum. The forums have been in existence since 1997, there are tens of thousands of them. Linking them here is inappropriate and they have no place here. Furthermore, if I started doing that (and I will if you continue!) I'd probably be called before a Misplaced Pages tribunal, then drawn and quartered. What Rennie Davis had to say once, on a private discussion forum, is irrelevant and clearly promotes your POV here. You're way out of line mining a forum that is over ten years old for your POV. But, if you insist on doing this, well, then, I'll more than happy to start linking many, many, many, many posts here from that forum and it's archives, about what Michael Dettmers, Michael Donners, and a host of other people, including former instructors, have had to say, who have held positions of power in Prem Rawat's inner circle. That includes many confirmations on matters written about in MacGregor's "Blinded by the Light" article. It's bad enough that Elan Vital has been monitoring that forum for years now and keeping dossiers on us. Please...don't do this! Sheesh!!!~ Sylviecyn (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• (Reaching in my file for the extensive dossier on Sylvie, with the official EV, dark-green binding) ...ah...ohh...yes, I see...well, that is amazing...gosh, did she really say that? Hhmm. OK, just kidding ya along. But I think that letter was interesting for the insight into the mind of one of the most influencial mystique-makers of those days. We even got to hear about him in Australia. Thanks Jayen. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Jayen, I don't think the Daily Mail has it wrong. They're obviously referring to a single planeload of people. We don't "know" that the money was for feeding then times that many- we have one account that says it was simply collected on the plane from followers, seemingly as an offering to Rawat. Various stories about the purpose of the money and jewelry were floated. What's remarkable, and on topic here, is that apparently Cagan read this report and yet still got her account of it wrong. It clearly mentions that the investigation went beyond the mere smuggling charge. As for the height of Rawat when he was 15, I doubt we have any definitive source for that. His physician said he was 5'5", but the same physician also said he had an ulcer and Cagan now disputes that. Apparently Cagan was not interested in what mainstream newspapers wrote about her subject, except to lambaste their coverage. Since I doubt she cared enough or did the research to find those clippings and form an opinion of them, it's more likely that someone handed her the clipping and told her to view it as an example of absurd media statements. Or does anyone here really believe she travelled to London to research news clipping? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we are getting circular now. Posted at the beginning of this discussion, from page xi in Cagan: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. You say, "maybe" the DM talked about a different plane and didn't mention the others – by the standards you apply to Cagan, that would be an "omission" invalidating anything the DM had ever published. "Maybe" Cagan read a different DM article that's not online and which referred to Rawat smuggling diamonds. Short of asking her, we don't know, and will never know. Sorry. Jayen466 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • No, we don't know the full truth of the event, and we never will. The account of the Daily Mail, in which the money was on one plane, concurs with some other accounts. We have no basis for saying that their reporting is "wrong". Nor is the Daily Mail claiming to publish a full and complete life story. Yet their account is far more complete than Cagan's. Cagan is the issue here, not the Daily Mail. Rather than devoting the space to giving the full account, Cagan chooses to devote a paragraph to complaining about the press coverage but she never actually refutes any of the reporting. Nor does it appear, from her own statement that you've kindly quoted, that she did any independent research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• I fail to see in what sense "interviewing a multitude" of eye-witnesses and "reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings" equates to doing no independent research. It seems like a considerable research effort to me. --Jayen466 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Two points: I don't think it was independendent research. My guess is that a file of clippings was handed to her, and a set of current followers was selected to visit her for interviews. It would not surprise me if the interviews were conducted over the phone or even via email. But I don't think that Cagan ever went to the library and sought out other viewpoints, nor do I think she made any effort to interview non-followers. There's certainly no evidence of either. And that brings me to the second point. If she was actaully exposed to an equal or greater range of research materials to what we've seen it is all the more mystifying how she ended up with a final product with so many omissions, inaccuracies, and biases. While it doesn't really matter why the book is that way, it makes it appear less accidental and more intentional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    Cagan may or may not have undertaken a considerable research effort but 'relevance' is everything and there's the problem of 'rubbish in,rubbish out. This is well demonstrated by the question of the number of planes that were chartered - Who is it that would actually know how many? and indeed what was the mechanism of charter ? Who was the charteree and how was the finance raised ? What package was sold to the premies was it 'flight only' or were the sums paid supposed to cover food and travel in India ? After 35 years memory is a poor source and only those directly involved in the management of the project are likely to have had good information, unless of course DLM (Elan Vital) has kept paper records. In the absence of any documents, then the key people that Cagan needed to talk to about 1972 were Mishler and Hand, of course Mishler is no longer alive, but did Cagan seek out Hand ? Dettmers was not centre stage in 1972, but he is a key authorititive source for matters of internal finance and management of Rawat's movement from 1975 onwards, yet all Cagan has to say about him is a two line insult.

• • On the matter of the number of planes - this is not a simple number because although, it probably was the case that only 747s were used on the outward journeys from the US and UK, at least two 707s were used as substitutes on the return journeys. DLM outside of India was barely a year into existence and many of its management level operatives, were naieve, inexperienced and/or plain incompetant, while the Indian organisation was simply unprepared for the 'invasion of 3,000 stupid hippies. In the inevitable chaos any clarity of what was intended or actually happened was lost to most of the particpants rendering recollection particularly dubious. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd recommend stopping the Daily Mail–Cagan comparison. We don't use Daily Mail on Rawat related topics. It wasn't proposed by anyone yet to be included in any of the bibliographies either. We don't treat Cagan's retort of the Daily Mail in main namespace either, nor did I see anyone proposing that yet (I'd think it foolish). The argument is moot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course, Jayen, Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts for involvement with drugs, firearms, theft, contempt of court and perjury. Momento (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF. Impugning the motives of your fellow editors does not breed civility, and is likely to result in similar commetns about your own motives. Better just to avoid such comments and stick to discussing the topic at hand. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I object to the repetition of the terms "anti-Rawat group," "hate-group," calling private people criminals by using guilt by association. This has got to stop and now. This goes beyond not assuming good faith, these are personal attacks. Where do I report this? To the Arbcom? I forgot the process for reporting these things. Enough is enough. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• No, not to the Arbitration Committee, to me. This page, as it's in my userspace, is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as far as I'm aware. It's my userspace, so it's my jurisdiction. Personal attacks and incivility must stop now. If necessary, blocks will be issued in future, if repeated incivility occurs. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms "pro Rawat" and "anti Rawat" have been used frequently by many authors. I am not "impugning the motives of my fellow editors", I deliberately used "people" as opposed to "editors" to avoid that inference. Nor did I refer to any "private people" or "ex-premies" or "ex-premie.org" but simply reported what Cagan and EV say. But in the interest of harmony I have removed that portion of my comment that offended.Momento (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento, there is no such thing as the 'Australian anti-Rawat group', let alone 'leaders' of this ficticious group, yet you have left your reference to such a group in your post. Why is that? Do you think I am a 'leader of the Latvian anti-Rawat group'? Is Will a leader of the 'Misplaced Pages anti-Rawat group'? Can you not see how offensive and POV your posts are? --John Brauns (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Running in circles: topic by topic as an attempt to come out of that

Note that I just started Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India.

This is the reasoning behind it: we can continue to run in circles regarding a general discussion of the use of Cagan as a source ad infinitum. What I see is that when we start to tackle concrete topics (like the emancipated minor issue), solutions are often easily found, and quickly implemented in main namespace. I expect the same will be the case for Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India. Can we agree on taking such separate points, and leave the unending general discussion for what it is at this point in time? I'm thinking of Steve too: I wouldn't want to be the one reading this wallpaper of a discussion on my mobile device (although that's not for me to decide, of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, thanks. It does get rather hard to view this on my phone (or on my internet when we exceed our download limit, slows to dialup speed). As for having such a general discussion on the Cagan source, I do think that there is no likely success in the current discussion, it's rather clear that a general "yes it can be used" or "no it cannot be used", is highly unlikely to have success, and a better approach would be to look at each use of the source on a case-by-case basis. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see the point of Francis' suggestion. --Jayen466 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to start a fund to buy Steve a computer. I'm not willing to limit our discussions to what fits on a 2.5" screen. (I can't imagine how Steve has managed so far.) As far as the above discussion goes, I think it's been productive so far and has resulted in a several discoveries about the quality of the source. Obviously, in the long run all that matters is what goes into articles. But when we get to discussing which sources are suitable for a particular assertion then we need to know the background on those sources to make the decision. As we can see from Talk:Divine Light Mission#Use of Cagan as a source in Divine Light Mission#Founding and early years in India, some editors are still arguing that Cagan is a perfectly reliable source despite the problems already found. I, for one, am not done investigating the source and I object to any premature efforts to end the discussion so long as editors are still insisting it's suitable for all purposes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, thanks Will. Let me clarify here. I have a computer, I use it 90% of the time. I just do ask to keep the page readable for when I can't access a PC, I can keep an eye on the mediation. As for the Cagan source, I have considered personally, er, intervening, on how it should be used, as it seems clearish that it can't be decided amongst you, though I am awaiting discussion with Deskana, someone more experienced than me for a little bit of advice. I'm not perfect, but I think it's best to ask fellow mediators for input when needed. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Halley incident

This isn't included in Jayen's list of referencs to the "organization" that we're reviewing, but it follows the chronology and I think it's important to discuss because it shows a number of problems:

No matter where Maharaji was, however, his message of peace would be met with discontent by certain individuals. In August of 1973, he was in a ceremony, receiving the key to the city of Detroit, when someone in the audience threw a whipped-cream pie in his face. The man hit his mark, but in his usual gracious fashion, Maharaji wiped off his face and continued the ceremony. Afterward, a councilwoman gave him an official salute and a key to the city for his peace efforts all over the world. She ended her talk with a profuse apology for the pie incident.

Maharaji immediately accepted the apology by saying, "Love is the major thing between us all. I want to apologize to the person who threw that pie at me, because he might have been hurt by somebody, or maybe they tried to arrest him. I do not want him arrested, and I do not want him hurt, because if somebody doesn't understand something, you cannot blame him for that." page 190

Where to begin? Halley isn't named or described. He wasn't in the audience. It was a shaving cream pie, not whipped cream. "Usual gracious fashion"? Most importantly, there's no mention of what the subject's mahatma and follower did to the reporter afterwards. I know that some folks here say that the focus is on Rawat, but it's a bit ridiculous to avoid any mention of the attack while instead spending space on praising the subject's "peace efforts" and his graciousness, and specifically quoting him saying he didn't want the guy hurt, leaving readers with the implication that he wasn't hurt. She doesn't even mention that Rawat issued a statement deploring the attack. In this case there are numerous sources that give the full and correct picture, but if there weren't should we just assume that Cagan is correct and use her as a source despite these errors and omissions in cases where we can cross-check her? I don't think so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. We can (and must) supplement detail missing in Cagan with other sources just as we can do that vice versa. Jayen466 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • No, I don't think we can do that. Cagan isn't a reliable source, per WP:V and per our own invcestigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I seem to have misunderstood your earlier comment then. Jayen466 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• If it were merely incomplete that would be possible. But since it's downright inaccurate we can't use it at all. I'd almost be inclined to use it for quotations from the followers she interviewed, but I'm a bit hesitant because of the misuse of the name "Maharaji" long before he used that name. Since she actually changes quotations that pretty much means she's not reliable even for reporting what people have said. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Anyway, does anyone care to defend Cagan's description of the incident as being full and complete? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• So we have another instance in which the coverage is incomplete, inaccurate, and biased. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Seems to me you are using wildly double standards here, trying to disqualify Cagan for writings that are not "full" or "incomplete", while blandly accepting as "neutral" the far worse writings produced by critical sources that suit your POV. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• So you don't dispute that Cagan's reporting of this incident is incomplete, inaccurate, and biased? We have only three biographies of the subject, as noted above. Even the relatively short CBY bio has a more complete, accurate, and neutral account. If this were the only problem with Cagan it'd be forgivable. But as this page shows, there are many such problems. So many that the source, aside from any other qualifications, is questionable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• No article can be "complete," it isn't in the nature of writing, and total accuracy comes into the same category. And I already agreed that I consider Cagan unfortunately biased. The problem is that if the other sources -- the ones you have happily described as "objective" -- are given the same third degree they will fail also, but then you will just say, "Oh no, this is a reputable source. We can cherry-pick here all we (you) want." Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• As Jayen said, we can use what Cagan gives us, and supplement it with what we find from other sources. There is no suggestion that what she writes is seriously in error. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that the argument of "incompleteness" does not seem to be productive. It can be raised against any source whatever, and has no support in policy or guidelines that I am aware of. Jayen466 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• The event wouldn't have even been notable with out the cream pie incident and definitely wouldn't be worth a mention in this article if it weren't for the murder attempt on Pat Halley, who, btw, passed away last November. I strongly oppose using Cagan's version of the event at all because it's inaccurate when placed next to the real version of what happened to Pat Halley. Btw, the last time I spoke with Pat Halley, around five years ago, he told me that DLM had given him $18,000 as a form of settlement. He chuckled about how insignificant that amount was considering he had lived out the rest of his life with a metal plate in his head and had suffered all of his life from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) as a result of the attack. He also told me about the blood-stained books he still possessed that were sitting in his bookcase from the day he was so savagely beaten and left for dead. He also has remarked that his claim to world fame was that he pied Guru Maharaj Ji and was almost killed for it. His death made the news because of the pie throwing incident and the murder attempt. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, Sylvie I agree with most of that, but you are doing what you criticise Cagan for doing -- leaving out important details, such as the well-reported claim that Maharaji said he didn't want the person hurt and that he extended his sympathy to him and his family when he was. I think the way he responded to this incident was very indicative of his manner and views. Rumiton (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Major omissions are errors. Omitting the names of the DLM and EV distort the work so much that they are errors. Incorrectly calling the subject "Maharaji" when he used other names in the past is an error. Mentioning that the subject asked for the pie-thrower not to be hurt but omitting that he was nearly beaten to death by followers is an error. The book purports to be "full and complete", but that claim is another error. If this book claimed to be "random, misquoted recollections from current followers", which would be accurate, then there'd little argument that it should be used as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published?

I've read all the discussions about the accuracy of Cagan compared to other sources but I'm surprised editors aren't addressing the fundamental issue with Peace is Possible and that is that it is self-published. Rawat's followers clearly paid Cagan to write the book, and then set up a publishing company (that still hasn't published anything else) to publish the book. Most of the discussions above would be moot if we could agree the book is self-published, and should only be used for non-contentious content. --John Brauns (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needs evidence that Mighty River Press, the publishers of Peace is Possible, is a vanity publisher, here is a quote from their website:- "Mighty River Press publishes high-quality contemporary books about self-discovery..." - note the plural - they haven't published any other book. --John Brauns (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• We've addressed that point before, though never conclusively. Based on my evaluation of the source, I think it doesn't meet any of the standards for a reliable source unless it's treated as a self-published source, in which case it may be used in a limited fashion per WP:SPS. However there are problems with calling it a self-published source because it wasn't directly published by Rawat. That means it's just a book by an author with a mediocre reputation published by a one-book publisher with no reputation for reliability. If a similar book were published by anyone else, say ex-followers, we wouldn't allow it at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PIP has been conclusively proven to be a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages. It is not self published, the author is independent with several best selling biographies, it has been published by experienced and reputable publishers. So based on Wiki rules it is a reliable source.Momento (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer sells more issues in a month then any of Cagan's books do in a year, but mere sales don't make a publication reliable. MightyRiver is not an experienced or reputable publisher - it's a one-book publisher owned by followers. the book has proven errors and major omissions. By Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:V and WP:BLP, it is not a reliable source and should not be used for any article, much less a BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento, you are seriously calling into question your good faith as an editor by claiming that Mighty River Press is an experienced and reputable publisher. Experienced? - they have only published one book! Reputable? - they have no reputation at all! Was this an attempt at subtle humour?? --John Brauns (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason this discussion goes on and on is because you keep forgetting the previous answers to your questions. PIP has been published by established and reputable publishers in Europe, so that dismisses that reason.Momento (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And you have ignored Nik_Wright2's rebuttal of this argument at --John Brauns (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Translating a book into a foreign language does not improve its reliability. If you see a polcy which says so please share it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register,

• Definitely not. We have Cade Metz' own declarations on how much time (and research) he put in a single article, how he invited all key players (from opposing sides!) to respond, etc. If compared (research per word written) Metz definitely scores higher.

Comparing to Cagan that it seems far better researched than Collier,

• Collier is an autobiography (primary source or very close to it and all that), the matter of "research" doesn't even have to come into the picture. We treat it as a primary source per WP:PSTS

and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine.

• Far from. The Rolling Stone article is an average reliable source, Cagan is a questionable source, per WP:V#Questionable sources, look for the words ...are promotional in nature... (didn't you read what I wrote above?).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I didn't (I started researching the archives before dinner, and finished the post after washing up). :-) Jayen466 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In sum, Cagan's book can only be used as a source about itself: in Misplaced Pages environment, that means: only in an article about the *book* Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat (which wouldn't make it to an article yet per WP:Notability (books) - a few weeks/days/months on the Amazon top 200 just isn't enough). Marginally it could be used in Andrea Cagan's article for parts that are about herself (the intro about her method maybe - currently enclosed here in a collapsible box: so yes there's a third article where the book could be used). But that's about it. Yes, additional support for statements that can be sourced to more reliable sources too would maybe be possible, but not in a "Stoner&Parke say tatata Cagan on the other hand says tututu" style, that would be a fraud of NPOV (and Undue weight) as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a plausible conclusion. However there's still more material from Cagan to review. But the category of "questionable source" that Jayen suggested may be fitting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• PIP does not seem to come within the terms of WP:SPS, as related to the article Prem Rawat, however the issues are different in respect of the articles Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital. DLM is currently treated as both ‘movement’ and organisation and while Elan Vital is treated as purely an organisation, the fact that DLM and EV are one and the same, merely separated into two articles by an arbitrary chronological division, it is irrational to say that if WP:SPS applies to a source for DLM that it wouldn’t apply for Elan Vital. PIP is ‘first’ published by MRP, which has undoubted connections to individuals who were part of DLM, further TPRF contracted editorial support for the PIP author, and all the Directors of TPRF were part of the DLM (and at least one has served as an Officer of Elan Vital). Further still, translations of PIP are published by organisations which share absolute purposes with Elan Vital.

• The judgement of this issue could to some extent be made less difficult were the various proposals to ‘merge’ articles to be pursued, however as things stand the relevance of WP:SPS is established for the DLM, and by reasoned extension to Elan Vital articles, unless that is it is to be argued that Cagan was anything other than a ‘commissioned author’ writing on behalf of Mighty River Press/TPRF. And as there is no ‘expert’ element (sociologist etc) in the PIP work it must therefore fail as a usable source for the DLM and Elan Vital articles by relevance of WP:SPS, if not for the Rawat article.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hospitalization

Another of the incidents that is well-reported in 3rd party sources is the subject's hospitalization in 1973. We reviewed sources on this topic when we were drafting the text for our own biography. Let's compare Cagan to those other sources. (If anyone else has some feel free to add to the list.)

In just a short period of time, the organization had expanded until its international offices filled four stories of an office building in downtown Denver, and national headquarters were cropping up in various countries. Throughout all of this, Maharaji observed how many people got entangled in internal politics instead of focusing on the inspiration and the message, forgetting why they had come to him in the first place. In August he called together a group of students outside of the organization to form a council of people with whom he could discuss his ideas for moving forward, but the first meeting never took place.

Henry Jacobs, a student of Maharaji since he heard him speak at the University of Colorado in Boulder in the summer of 1971, says, "Maharaji was under too much stress. He was feeling strangled by the organization. And he got sick the day the council was supposed to meet. The meeting was cancelled. And he had good reason to feel this way If anything, I believe he displayed amazing patience."
Bal Bhagwan Ji had insisted that Maharaji go to the hospital, and he had been too weak to argue, as he lay nearly unconscious for several days. Although there was never an official diagnosis of his illness, the press had a field day, proclaiming, "The guru has an ulcer." They were suggesting that he was more like a stressed businessman than the holy person he was projected to be. He was stressed, but little did the press or even his own students realize the pressures that the now sixteen-year-old was dealing with. When Maharaji was discharged from the hospital, he left for Europe immediately.

Despite an intestinal ulcer, he is usually jolly and has a lively sense of humor.

• Current Biography Yearbook 1974

After the satsang I have dinner with the Guru's personal physician, Dr. John Horton.

The doctor has an extensive theory concerning the stimulating impact of Divine Light meditation upon the pineal gland, whose increased activity will eliminate all of humanity's aggressive drives. He also explains that the Perfect Master's duodenal ulcer must be understood on three different levels: 1) the habitual physical level—constant jet lag, changes of diet, fatigue, stress; 2) the spiritual level: it is a sign of his compassion for mankind, like the stigmata on Christ's feet; 3) the cosmic level, as a revelation of universal suffering.

• Gray, NYRoB, 1973

Weighing 160 pounds at 5 feel 5, the guru might blame his girth on an obvious sweet tooth. But his personal physician and disciple, Dr. John Morion, attributes the boy's weight to a sedentary life of making decisions. The decision-making has left another mark, says Horton. The reputed master of perfection who promises bliss, harmony, love and inner peace has an ulcer. It was the intestinal ulcer that caused the guru to cancel appearances this summer in Allanla, Denver and Kansas Cily. He passed up Detroit because of "fatigue," but did appear in Boston, Chicago and New York. Horton, a 30-year-old graduate of Duke University Medical School, says the guru's body "obeys physical laws just perfectly. He literally feels responsible, and is, in a real sense, for the peace of mankind." Adds mission president Robert Mishler, 28, "It's not his anxiety — it's the world's anxiety." The day after his release from SI. Luke's Hospital here, where he underwent tests over Labor Day weekend, the guru was back at mission headquarters in a seven-story building in downtown Denver.

• "There are many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji" By MALCOLM N. CARTER Associated Press Writer, Sept. 26, 1973

DENVER (AP) — Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old "Perfect Master" from India, has an ulcer. His doctor says the teen-age guru's body is showing the stresses of a middle-aged executive.

The guru was discharged from a hospital here Sunday after tests showed the presence of an intestinal ulcer. He entered the hospital Thursday, curtailing an extensive nationwide tour which his doctor says hurt his health. Dr. John Horton said the guru may have had the "mild post bulbar" ulcer – just below the duodenum in the digestive track – since he became "Perfect Master" when his father died seven years ago. Horton, a 30-year-old graduate of Duke University Medical School and the guru's traveling physician, said the leader of the Divine Light Mission may also have suffered a gall bladder attack. The guru, who claims six million followers, appeared earlier this summer in Boston, New York and Chicago but canceled appearances in Detroit, Atlanta, Kansas City and Denver. He entered Saint Luke's Hospital for tests, occupying a $70-a-day private room on the fourth floor of the Episcopal institution. "His body has become weakened by the pace," Horton said. The doctor spoke of the strain of leading the movement and of the guru's irregular eating and sleeping schedule because of continual travel. He said there was no contradiction between the concept of the guru's being master of perfection and the vulnerability of his body. "His body obeys physical laws just perfectly," Horton continued. "He's here to show what perfection is, and he's here to show what's human, too. Some people expect physical miracles in him." The guru has said that the perfection to which he guides his followers is a unity with the spirit of God. Knowledge of that experience brings peace and harmony, the guru teaches. Robert Mishler, the mission's executive director, said that in many ways, "this illness is going to make Guru Maharaj Ji more human to people." Horton said the guru's body showed the stresses of a middle-aged executive. Because of a lack of exercise, the guru is now weighted with 160 pounds on a 5-foot, 4 1/2-inch frame, Horton said. Horton said the guru entered the hospital in great pain and was given drugs that sometimes made him delirious. Horton said the pain had subsided by Friday.

• "The 'Perfect Master' from India has an ulcer", Page 6 THE STARS AND STRIPES Tuesday, September 4, 1973

There seem to be several problems here. First, Cagan claims an entirely different context than the AP reports. Carter (who probably wrote both accounts) has him travelling and exhausted, Cagan has him entangled in office politics. Second, Carter reports Horton's diagnosis as well as Mishler's comments on the diagnosis, while Cagan insists no diagnosis was ever made. Third, Cagan implies the press made up the "stressed businessman" angle, while Carter quotes Horton describing his patient as showing the "stresses of a middle-aged executive". Cagan highlights a missed meeting, while Carter says that the patient was back at the HQ right after being released from the hospital. Fourth, the quotation from Henry Jacobs lacks context about his relevant contact with the subject. It's not clear if he worked in the HQ, or if he was a member of the council, or if he just heard about all of this 3rd hand. Finally, Cagan says that the subject was 16 at the time, while we know he didn't turn 16 until December. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd mentioned this issue before on this page (12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)). The earliest press reports I could find then mentioned Dr Horton, his premie physician, saying he had an ulcer. Editors may want to double-check this – if anyone can find earlier press reports stating he had an ulcer, Cagan would be in the clear; otherwise, she is simply wrong (and making a gratuitious point based on misrepresenting the facts). Jayen466 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is the earliest report (Sep. 3rd), also mentioning his doctor: --Jayen466 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also from Sept 3rd

THE DAILY TIMES Salisbury, Md., Mon., Sept. 3, 1973 Fast Pace Hits Teenage Guru By MALCOLM S. CARTER DENVER (AP) - Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old "Perfect Master" from India, has an ulcer. His doctor says the teenage guru's body is showing the stresses of a middle-aged executive. Copy of document http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/1973/18103472.html There's some nutiness from Glen Whitacker reported in the London Times: THE TIMES TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 4 1973 The Times Diary Perfect ulcer I was sorry, and even surprised, to hear that the Guru Maharaj Ji, leader of the Divine Light Mission, has developed an intestinal ulcer. After all, ulcers are not things you associate with 15 year olds - especially not with 15-year-old Perfect Masters. Wasn't there, I wondered, something incompatible between a god incarnate - as the 6,000,000 Divine Light followers regard the Guru - and an ulcer? Not at all, Glen Whittaker, general secretary of the Divine Light Mission in England told me, "His body is mortal. He can get colds and everything else you can get. But being perfect he is detached from the world. Physical illness would not make him suffer". Whittaker denied reports that the Guru ate a lot of ice cream. "His diet is very frugal and healthy", he said. He added that he had not heard about the boy god's ulcer but it did not surprise him. "Nothing about the Guru surprises me", he said. The later (October) Rolling Stone article adds "liver disorder" to its comment on the Hospitalisation story however that I believe derives from a separate ealier incident in India, but I can't find a usable source for it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• UPI/Los Angeles Times says this:
  • The young yogi was not in the camp Sunday. "He hasn't eaten anything for three days," said Arthur Brigham, 22, of Denver. Fasting? "No," said Brigham. "He's sick." "He's having trouble with his liver," Dr. Edward Hanzelik of Brooklyn, one of the camp physicians, said. As for the guru's foliowers, "We've been treating a lot of dysentery and colds," Hanzelik said, "and there have been some emotional problems." He said the problems occurred "mostly in people who want to get closer to the perfect knowledge. When they are not close to the knowledge, they get depressed and unhappy," he said.
  • "YOGI, OTHERS SICK:Bliss lmperfect at Camp of India Guru" Los Angeles Times; Nov 27, 1972; pg. A13
• So there was some kind of liver ailment in 1972, which Cagan doesn't mention, along with the dysentery that Rumiton's friends don't recollect, in a contemporaneous report. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will, Rumiton has never denied that there were cases of dysentery. Or as the other user, uninvolved in these discussions, said, "It was marvelous, despite the poor sanitation at the guru's ashram, which made lots of people sick for a while with dysentery." That's quite different from the picture Argosy magazine paints. Basically, if you travelled to India in those days as a Westerner, you could be certain to get diarrhoea soon after you arrived, and be ill with it for three or four days. Different germs. May not be much different today. Jayen466 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• A gratuitously nasty comment Will, and a fatuous one. I said I heard there was diarrhea, there always is among westerners in India. Dysentery is just way more serious, people die from it. I never heard of it happening at any Prem Rawat event in India. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• The number of dysentery cases is secondary - though there is a diffence between "some dysentery" and "a lot of dysentery". (See also Lammers' account). More to the point, here is another illness of Rawat's, one which Cagan doesn't report at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• For Cagan to choose to comment on the ulcer, but not upon the liver problem is perverse, the two illness events were less than a year apart, and the liver problem was potentially a far more serious health issue. Also given the public statements made by Drs Horton and Hanzelik, and given that both continue in practice at the same health centre, a few miles from Rawat’s Malibu home, and that Horton at least has continued to be associated with Rawat, it would hardly have been a huge investigative leap for Cagan to question them both to get the record straight.

I’m not sure how helpful Jayen's quoted other user is, given the writer gets Rawat’s age wrong. For what it’s worth, my memory is that there were a lot of stomach upsets, but dysentery would have been a major issue, it is a serious illness and anything on a wide scale would have required outside intervention to control its spread.My recollection is that most people were hit with a nasty 'three day' bug which left us drained for a further week or so. The rampant colds were as much to do with sleeping on the ground in old army tents when the temperature hit freezing. Jayen’s observations are not really relevant – the sickness was largely a problem in the later part of the 3-5 week trip, the acclimatisation process having happened in Delhi where only a few people became ill. Sanitation at the Haridwar ashram, although basic was actually quite well managed, however food preparation and the cleaning processes left a lot to be desired, quite simply the systems were inadequate for the task. In any event Horton and Hanzelik managed the medical set up by berating those who were sick for not being devoted enough and from some unexplained medical logic, doled out single doses of antibiotics to those who turned up at the medical tent in various levels of discomfort. But memory is a poor source – almost as bad as PIP.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was right on the "three-day bug" aspect at least. But thanks for the added detail, it's appreciated, and you're right of course about the age. At any rate, the Argosy article seemed to be a bit mean-spirited about the thing, but I am aware we're straying off topic, so I will leave it at that. Jayen466 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Millennium

Moving on, here is the coverage of the Millennium 73 event, on pages 192-193. Recall that a number of writers consider this to be among the two most important events in the subject's life (the other being his marriage).

By November, he was ready for the extensive media interest in his upcoming Millennium event in Houston, Texas, for 200,000 people. The entire family had jumped on the bandwagon, preparing for this grandiose gathering, where Maharaji would sit on a sixty-foot-tall stage, with a full orchestra creating background ambience.

On the evening of the event, the press was out in hordes. They had a tier reserved especially for them, but they ran into some trouble when they tried to get into the venue. The color of the passes had been changed at the last moment, and they were stopped at the door. It took quite a while to get things sorted out, and by the time the press took their seats, they were hopping mad. Not a good omen.

Here as everywhere, Maharaji spoke from his heart, presented his message, and surprised everyone with unexpected answers to people's questions. When asked if he was expecting future opposition, he said, "Well, if it's going to be strong, and if it is really peace, there had better be opposition. Because if there is no opposition, it means we are not actually establishing peace. There has to be a conflicting reaction. First there is night, and when the sun comes up, it's beautiful. If there was no night and the sun was always up, what would be the beauty of it?"

From early on, Maharaji had been keenly aware of his mes­sage's controversial nature and had demonstrated a readiness to face detractors to ensure that the purity of his message was not compromised. He would never waver from this. He trusted that people with a sincere interest in his message would see past any controversy and recognize the diamond that he was offering.

One journalist said that a perfect master could not have got­ten an ulcer. Maharaji quickly set them straight by saying, "If an ulcer were the only sign of imperfection, then whoever doesn't have an ulcer must be perfect. Perfect is perfect. It has nothing to do with the body."

The three-day Millennium event received mixed reports in the press. Three thousand locals and about 20,000 of Maharaji's students made up the audience, but it was clear that the attempts to draw new people from all over the United States had failed miserably. Some said that the show lacked soul, while others called it one of Maharaji's great successes. In any case, the organization began to bleed financially when the "Western Peace Bomb" event was over.

We have already posted so many sources on this topic that I won't post contrasting sources here, though we can if we need to address specific points.

• "...his upcoming Millennium event" - This is a curious possesive. Several editors here say that he had little to do with the planning for the event - how was it "his"?
• "...in Houston, Texas..." - How many sources for this event fail to mention that it was held at the Astrodome?
• "...for 200,000 people" - Some credit should be given for not underplaying the expectations
• "...sixty-foot-tall stage" - Accounts of the height vary, but 60' is at the high end. Thirty-five feet is closer to the most common estimate.
• "...with a full orchestra creating background ambience." - No mention that the bandleader was the subject's brother (as is mentoiend in every other account), or that the orchestra had been touring for weeks to drum up publicity for the vent. "Background ambience" implies that the music was in the background of other events, while detailed accounts make it clear that it had dedicated concerts.
• "On the evening of the event, the press was out in hordes." - A reliable source says that invitations had been sent to hundreds of journalists. While it may have been the best covered event in the subject's life, several sources refer to the disappointment that there weren't any national network television reporters in attendance.
• "They had a tier reserved especially for them... by the time the press took their seats, they were hopping mad. Not a good omen." - This understates the problem. It wasn't just the mix up of the passes - it also was the brutality of the World Peace Corps who shoved female journalists that got the press riled up, not to mention a laundry list of other complaints, such as the subject keeping journalists and followers waiting for hours on the Hobby Airport tarmac for his arrival, the failure to reveal a practical plan for world peace, the failure to give direct answers to questions, etc.
• "Here as everywhere, Maharaji spoke from his heart, presented his message, and surprised everyone with unexpected answers to people's questions." - Does anyone else detect bias?
• "From early on, Maharaji had been keenly aware of his mes­sage's controversial nature and had demonstrated a readiness to face detractors to ensure that the purity of his message was not compromised. " - This overlooks the fact that he walked out of the press conference when asked about the beating of Halley.
• "One journalist said that a perfect master could not have got­ten an ulcer. Maharaji quickly set them straight by saying, "If an ulcer were the only sign of imperfection, then whoever doesn't have an ulcer must be perfect. Perfect is perfect. It has nothing to do with the body."" - "Set him straight"? This is a very selective transcript from what was apparently the last U.S. press conference the subject ever held.
• "Three thousand locals and about 20,000 of Maharaji's students made up the audience, but it was clear that the attempts to draw new people from all over the United States had failed miserably. " - Credit for not sugar-coating it.
• "Some said that the show lacked soul, while others called it one of Maharaji's great successes." If this were Misplaced Pages this sentence would be deleted with a laugh. I've read scores of sources that've written about the event and I don't recall anyone saying that it was one of the subject's great successes. Nor do I recall anyone saying that the problem with it was a lack of "soul". This is a serious mischaracterization of the criticisms of the event.
• "In any case, the organization began to bleed financially when the "Western Peace Bomb" event was over." -Again, some credit for acknowledging the financial problem, but who called it the "Western Peace Bomb"?
• "...the organization..." - Again, an unexplained refusal to name the Divine Light Mission.

In summary, the book gives little space to the event which gave the subject his greatest prominence in the U.S. It neglects to mention that his own failings as a speaker were the main source of the bad reviews. Its depiction of the event is so different from accounts in numerous reliable sources that it virtually qualifies as a fringe source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, great summary. As for Rawat's speaking performance, I'll say that many such things are in the eye of the beholder – witness the sociologist we quote who couldn't believe that his companions "spoke glowingly about the message they'd received", when all he thought he had heard was tripe. Jayen466 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have to re-check Kent and see what he says. But where does Cagan get her information from? Who are the "some" who said it lacked soul? Who are the "others" who called it one of his greatest successes? Listing a mix-up with press passes as being the sole reason for dissatisfaction among journalists with the event is a serious failure to properly characterize the coverage of the event. It's like saying that the peasants revolted in the French Revolution because there was confusion over the price of bread. That would be a fringe viewpoint. The viewpoint expressed in this book is so different from that in reliable sources that it appears to qualify as a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that kind of situation is common across religious divides. For example, outside descriptions of Islam in all but the best RS bear little resemblance to inside descriptions of it. Even more so with smaller groups like this one. I am not sure we can or should simply dismiss the inside view altogether. Jayen466 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the failure to name the DLM, there was a story today that reminded me of this matter:
  • "The agency name that dare not be spoken"
  • The name of the Central Intelligence Agency cannot be spoken in the war crimes trial here. No records of the agency's interrogations of Salim Ahmed Hamdan can be subpoenaed, and no agent can be called to testify about what he or she learned from Osama bin Laden's former driver. ... The tribunal's deputy chief prosecutor, Army Col. Bruce A. Pagel, couldn't say which agency sought the shield or what arguments were made to justify it. "It's a bit absurd to go through an entire trial pretending that the CIA doesn't exist," said Matt Pollard, a legal advisor for Amnesty International here to monitor the proceedings.
• The DLM is like the CIA - an organization that can't be named for unspecified reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• For goodness sake, Will, your obsession with this subject is approaching the proportions of a disorder. The DLM was nothing like the CIA. The DLM was a bunch of unrepentant ex-hippies with delusions of grandeur sitting in an office somewhere. When they became too obstructive to Prem Rawat's purpose he started a new mini-organisation to bypass them. That was how DUO and WWA, among others, and no doubt TPRF and EV all got their starts. They were all "the organisation", as distinct from Prem Rawat's personal efforts. And you have been told before that Indian name spellings are more or less irrelevant. Please stop dragging this red herring over the spelling of Maharaji. And you are still trying to force negative reports onto the editors here as facts, viz the fact that he walked out of the press conference when asked about the beating of Halley. How do you know? Were you there? And do you honestly expect this sort of behaviour to result in a consensus? Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic E: history negligence

This discussion topic pertains to:

• Divine Light Mission#Westernization
• Prem Rawat#Media and User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)

An aspect currently not mentioned in Misplaced Pages's mainspace regards deliberate/indeliberate attempts by Rawat and/or related organisations to wipe traces of its early history.

Like several of other religious movements which were popular in the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s, Elan Vital has moved on from origins. Originally the flamboyant and definitively Eastern-inspired Divine Light Mission, it has matured into something new, changing its name to reflect its current emphasis and approach and, presumably, to distance itself from the past.

(1) Around the mid-80s Rawat ordered all the movement's materials to be destroyed, including magazines and photos - materials where he promoted himself as a divine being.
(2) Rawat prided himself to have gone under the radar of the press: at a speaking engagement in the late 80s he said what a great achievement it was that when newspapers published lists of cults, they no longer included him.

Relevant questions:

1. Can we find more reliable sources on this?
2. Can this, with the use of appropriate sources, be narrowed down to either Rawat or the related movements?

I'd be inclined to call an RFC on this here, but only if Steve doesn't mind the extra "media" attention that brings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be honest here, I don't think an RFC would have much success. The three months I've been mediating this case have proven difficult, and one of the things I've learned is that no one really wants to get involved in the Prem Rawat related area, so I do think that an RFC wouldn't get the kind of input needed to help establish a consensus. I'm happy to give the RFC approach an idea, but I do think it's unlikely to have much success. I need some clarification though, would this RFC be on the use of the Register as a source? If so, please let me know. And in regards to the extra media attention, I've basically expected that it's inevitable, so there's not much I can really do about that now. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Tx for the reaction: well, no an "RFC on the use of the Register as a source" would usually be held at WP:RSN, and would then be some sort of follow-up on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#The_Register. My first attempt would be to see whether people can point to any other sources, hopefully either more outspoken than Barrett and/or of a less difficult to ascertain reliability than Cade Metz. Only if such searches would result in nothing, a third question could be attempted, someting in the vein of, Even if no other sources with some form of reliability can be found, would we mention anything about this in mainspace, either based on the less outspoken Barrett source (which technically could only be used in the Divine Light Mission article while it says nothing worth mentioning in a BLP), either on the less reliable Register which would probably require a reliability assessment for the given context?
  I'm distinctly trying to prevent jumping to a discussion of the reliability of The Register at this point in time, as such discussion might be completely redundant if there are other sources for this content, which we might be unaware of currently.
  The request for comment would primarily be intended for those who have a clear view on available sources for Rawat, which might be still other people than the ones currently involved in the debates here. Note that, for example, a recent related AfD listing, after some initial negative prophesies, of late nonetheless succeeded in attracting comments from what I presume to be "outsiders". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, that could possibly work. I think that something more like a Request for Input or something, as in, if anyone has any sources, then they can suggest their use. However, some discussion on whether the sources should be used or not will obviously occur, and I reserve the right to judge sources for myself, and if I feel really necessary, add my 2 cents on whether a source should be used, if I feel that source clearly violates a policy. Shortly said, if I feel necessary, I won't rule out saying that a certain source shouldn't be used. But I think such a request for input idea could be a good one. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)

1. Reality
2. Baxter, Ernie "The multi-million dollar religion ripoff" in Argosy No. 380. August 1974, pp. 72, 77-81.
3. "Court Halts Heiress' Money Gift To Guru" in Charleston Daily Mail (API). April 18,1975.
4. du Plessix Gray, Francine: "Blissing out in Houston" in The New York Review of Books Vol. 20 No. 20. December 13, 1973, pp. 36-43.
5. Barrett, David V. The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions. Cassell, 2001 – 2003, ISBN 0-304-35592-5 – ISBN 1-84403-040-7, p. 65 & p. 325-329: Part Two: Alternative Religions & Other Groups, Ch. 14: Eastern Movements in the West, Elan Vital.
6. ^ Metz, Cade. "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'" in The Register. February 6, 2008